Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If by materialism we mean its extremely vulgar form, “there is nothing but material”, then such materialism is incompatible with faith in God, but it is very difficult to be such a materialist consistently and meaningfully, and it is quite simple to recognize the existence of something immaterial and at the same time not believe in God.
Some Buddhists consider themselves idealistic atheists.
If apateism is considered a form of atheism, then it is easily combined with any idealism.
It is not identical, since these are different philosophical doctrines. But, as I judge, related.
Radical materialism, however (the position that everything that exists – if not material, then requires matter for its existence as a substratum), somehow implies naturalism (everything that exists is natural), and thus excludes the possibility of the existence of any supernatural being, god or gods.
At the same time, some variants of idealism allow you to combine it with atheism. But in my opinion, I agree with your doubts – sooner or later, the analysis of such a combination will lead a person to a contradiction, and either he will believe in a supernatural deity, or switch to materialism.
Idealism as a teaching is completely elusive. He can't answer any clarifying questions. Let's say the idea is primary. Let. Then on what media is it recorded? If there is a storage medium, then it is material, isn't it? Idealism rejects all these arguments and draws beautiful analogies about the cave and the shadows on it. A look and something.
There is an excellent analogy – a computer and software. One cannot exist without the other. Even if the program is written on paper, there must be paper.
Atheism is a casual passerby here, in this dispute whether there is any sense in idealism. Atheism is just a constant farce, if you believe, it's your business, and I need physical evidence-is there?
And to say that you can be an atheist and an idealist, then freedom of speech. Bring Emelya, your week.
Real / natural atheism and idealism are harmoniously and usefully compatible.
Militant-political atheism and idealism are quite another matter – here there is an eternal political war based on fixed/zombie/political ideas.
The original SOURCE of atheism is the mistakes of religion, religion itself gave rise to atheism through its mistakes. With the proper conduct of religion, no one would need atheism…and materialists could be the best friends of believers (this has already been partially implemented).
The philosophical senseless far-fetched political game and struggle “materialism-idealism” has already brought a lot of grief and trouble and will bring a lot more…..a game of words that can be defined differently and so solve all the disputes….optimal redefinitions of terms will close the topic of bad disputes forever.
THE STUMBLING BLOCK is not theoretical disputes (a screen and a fig leaf), but an ugly military-political confrontation between the warring parties.
Not identical, of course. (like idealism to theism)
The identification of atheism and materialism is essentially a denial of the existence of pantheistic systems.
From the point of view of the methodology of cognition of the world – YES – atheism is precisely a SCIENTIFIC and MATERIALISTIC WORLDVIEW.
Because it uses the same apparatus of cognition of the world – a scientific method based on scientific skepticism. That is, the REJECTION OF FAITH – as an uncritical way of accepting information.
Therefore, an atheist cannot combine his scientific-materialistic approach to knowledge with idealism, which requires FAITH in the unknown and unknowable.
Once again, atheism is not just a refusal to believe in gods and religious dogmas – it is a SCIENTIFIC and MATERIALISTIC worldview.
The atheist refuses to ACCEPT ON FAITH (uncritically) any information – about aliens, brownies, torsion fields, GMOs… Information about gods, miracles, and demons – JUST TO NAME A FEW!
Therefore, there is an insurmountable contradiction between atheism and idealism in the methodology of accepting information and the way of knowing the world.
Not identical. Atheism is the denial of the existence of a super-being, that is, God, and, accordingly, religion. Materialism, on the other hand, is a worldview in which the matter given to us in sensations( according to Lenin's definition, although if we dig here, then we are talking only about binary matter) is the primary ontological principle. What prevents you from being an atheist, but for example, consider Plato's theory of the world of ideas to be correct? And in fact, this example shows that you can be both an atheist and an idealist.
Hello.
Atheism is not identical with materialism. Theists believe in a personal God who created everything according to His own will. Consciousness is secondary here, the personality of Godhead is primary. And matter is generally created.
But there may well be an idealism headed by a faceless law of being, a universal logos that determines everything that exists. Buddhism belongs to just such a view. All spirits of Buddhism are dependent on logos and karma. Fate is governed by eternal law, not by a personal God. This is the Buddhist view.
Both are fatal to the soul.
No is not identical, atheism is a broader concept, it has a subspecies of materialistic atheism and idealistic atheism.�
Yes, you can. The clearest example of this is subjective idealism and its peak solipsism. There is no God for people with such views, but at the same time they are idealists.
What is the contradiction? These are concepts of varying degrees of breadth that unite different philosophical trends.
Different words, different meanings. It is quite possible, I think, to be a materialist and still be a theist. In the KHUSH century, two enlighteners, G. Reimarus and G. Lessing, proposed a project of natural religion. The project was developed within the framework of Protestant theology by D. Bonhoeffer, P. Tillich, R. Bultman and others. Religion should simply abandon the concept of God as a supranatural, transcendent being. The groundwork for such a discourse was prepared by the pantheists, but pantheism managed to simply identify the universe with God, simply deleting this term from the worldview. And this is despite the fact that no one has canceled the spiritual, and the problem of psychophysical parallelism remains unresolved to this day. And then, as a sin, the information age began, which demonstrated the ontological and even initial significance of information for existence. The concepts of “world semantic field”, “noosphere”, etc.appeared as basic concepts for the worldview. The question is about understanding these realities. For scientists, this is the “collective unconscious”, and for theists – persona, Nus. Now, if we share a systematic approach, please tell us what is so outrageous about the concept of “person” that they ignore and reject it. We are all persons, and therefore ” sons of God “(in the language of archetypes). And what is so supranatural about us, other than an emergent wholeness?
A materialist must be an atheist, otherwise he is not a materialist. But the idealist may be an atheist in that case, if he does not put forward the idea of a certain deity as purposesnot, however, idealist must inevitably have an idea about a certain spirit, which in one form or another was preceded by matter or developed at the same time (i.e., the recognition of the eternal existence of the spirit along with matter) and so idealistic it may be suspended, restricted atheist, but never an absolute atheist.
Some commentators should make it clear that materialism does not deny the ideal (i.e., consciousness, feelings, culture), but only asserts that matter is primary, consciousness (as the highest form of development of matter) is secondary. The only exception is vulgar materialism.
In the same way, idealism does not necessarily deny matter; it postulates the primacy of the ideal, or the simultaneous existence of the ideal with the material. The idealism that denies matter (i.e., objective reality) is called subjective, and the one that recognizes the existence of matter and some external world for man is objective idealism.
No, it's not identical.
Atheism is the denial of the figure of God (s) as a creative, organizing and controlling principle. Theism, accordingly, is the recognition of such.
And the division between materialism and idealism runs along the line of answering the question “Reflects does consciousness create the surrounding reality, or does it create it?”
In other words, the semantic fields are different: atheism and idealism correspond roughly as sweet and green…)
No, it's not identical.
You can even be an atheist, idealist, philatelist, and judoka at the same time.