Atheists are you monist or dualist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheists....Are you a monist or a dualist?

[Maeght]

Atheists....Are you a monist or a dualist?

Why do you ask?

[Stranger]

There really doesn't seem much point in taking part.

The problem is Vlad Speak. Our Vlad doesn't seem to speak the same language as the rest of us.

For a start, he thinks that monism equates to his favourite straw man: "ontological materialism" or sometimes "ontological naturalism".

...
How many atheists on here have admitted though that everything is just material though?......well those who argue that consciousness is a property of matter. For starters and that's evidence of ontological materialism.

He also equates not knowing with "dogmatic agnosticism" (and intellectual wanking) and being interested by the unknown equates to being an ignoramus.

Ah, dogmatic agnosticism and if you will, intellectual wanking.

Feynman is asking us to believe that a man of knowledge like himself is at base a simple ignoramus. Self indulgent bollocks.

[edit for typos]

[Sebastian Toe]

We need options for;

Reformed dualist 1975 existentialist ( not forgetting also the 1989 schism split. )
Dualist ontological materialist.
Dualist anti turd polishist.
Monist post-millennialist.
Monist Dudeist (weed chapter).

 

[splashscuba]

As always on these boards, id depends on your definition. I believe that the mind is simply an emergent property of the brain and body.

Label me as you wish.

[wigginhall]

As a kind of curiosity, I think that there are monist non-materialist atheists.   In fact, I think Bertrand Russell for a period was like this, and was described as a neutral monist, meaning that there is one substance in reality, which can appear as mind or matter.   I don't know if it has carried on as a philosophical standpoint.

And there have been idealist monists, or mentalist monists, who argue that there is only consciousness in reality.  I suppose it became very unfashionable in the 20th century, but for a while was common, but usually such people would be also theists. 

And in some Eastern thought there are ideas like this, that there is only mind, well, Mind.  But some of these people are not theists.

Another version of this is panpsychism, again, meaning that there is only mind.   Surprisingly, it has come back into fashion in philosophy, e.g. Galen Strawson.   

[Udayana]

Everyone at least agrees there is something, even if not what it is or if there are one or more other things too.  This is good going.

It probably doesn't matter what anyone believes, but which is the simplest most practical model to use in getting through life?

[wigginhall]

Keep your head down,  and be careful about buying blondes drinks in pubs.   

[Udayana]

Thanks. Will try and keep it in mind next time

[wigginhall]

Thanks. Will try and keep it in mind next time

I was thinking about your previous question, which model gets us through life best?   The odd thing is that you don't need a model.  When you get up, and you want a scratch and a pee, then breakfast, I don't think most people sit there wondering if their corn-flakes or grits are made up of a mental substance, do they?  They just get them down.

This connects with science actually, since one interesting view is that science has utility, rather than truth.   

[Udayana]

Yes, that's what I think ... we only have models not the "truth".

And there's not much point having models that are not useful for anything - except as abstract items to work on and keep handy - eg such as mathematical systems that can be fascinating in themselves but of no use - until someone finds a scientific problem to which they can be applied.

[jeremyp]

As always on these boards, id depends on your definition. I believe that the mind is simply an emergent property of the brain and body.

Actually, it depends on Vlad's definition.