What Materialism Isn't

A Cat, 2024

Robert, I am most grateful for all I have learned from you. I am especially grateful for your exposing the harm caused by spiritual searches that create perpetual confusion and anxiety rather than fulfillment.

Yet, based on a comment you made this past week, I now wonder if I have misunderstood you. To obtain clarification, it seems best to ask about this issue driectly.

Robert, I had thought that your position was this: Maybe we live on after the death of our bodies. Maybe we do not. In either case, we cannot know the truth about this while we are alive in our bodies. So it is best not to concern ourselves with this rather than drive ourselves crazy trying to find something that cannot be found.

Your position struck me as being neither materialist nor anti-materialist, but rather a position of agnostic humility and practicality.

I became confused by a statement you made this past week: “Most of what I see in so-called “spirituality” is a desperate, idealistic denial of our animal nature. The awake people I know embrace their humanity and do not imagine that they are “souls” living in a “meat suit.””

Yet isn’t it possible to embrace our humanity while also being open to the possibility that we may indeed be souls living in a meat suit?

In particular, are you saying that there are no souls, and that we do not live on after the deaths of our bodies? If so, then how can you possibly know this? And is this not a materialist position rather than an agnostic one?

Have I misunderstood your position? If so, can you correct my misimpression of you?

Thank you for any insights into this.

All good wishes to you and your work.

Jon

Thank you, Jon.

I am not saying that there are no souls. I am saying that I see no reason beyond hearsay to imagine an entity called a “soul” that lives on when an animal dies. I see no basis for even discussing this, as such discussions lead nowhere. Those who need to believe in such things will continue to believe in them, and the rest of us who do not need that belief will just be wasting time if we engage with them.

No one can know for sure that physical death is the end of “myself,”--perhaps you recall the story of the Zen master that I shared in The Ten Thousand Things--and I am not claiming any special knowledge. So in that sense, I am agnostic on the issue. Agnostic means literally “I don’t know.”

But being agnostic does not mean being open to whatever speculations or beliefs one encounters. Some people believe that fairies and elves exist, not as literary characters but in fact. Other people believe that Jesus awaits them in Heaven. I am agnostic on those beliefs in the sense that I cannot know for certain that fairies and elves are only fictional, or that Jesus in Heaven is only fictional, but I assume they are fictional. I assume it because in my 79 years, I have seen no evidence for either of those beliefs.

Agnosticism, which literally means “not-knowing,” is not materialism. You should not assume that anyone who doubts the claims of religion is a “materialist.” That is an incorrect use of the word. A materialist, in the proper sense, is one who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its natural movements and modifications. I am not saying that. I just don’t know.

If you want to get anywhere with this kind of inquiry, it is important to understand that those making the claims for such beliefs as souls or “God” have the burden of proof, not those who are skeptical of such unsupported claims. To doubt such claims is not materialism--not in any sense.

The statement you quoted (“Most of what I see in so-called “spirituality” is a desperate, idealistic denial of our animal nature. The awake people I know embrace their humanity and do not imagine that they are “souls” living in a “meat suit.”) is not materialism, but skepticism, which is something else entirely. For me, skepticism is the default position until and unless compelling evidence is offered. My statement does not claim to know that souls do not exist. It simply says that there is no good reason to imagine that they do. On the other hand, our place in the animal kingdom is beyond doubt, and those who claim it isn’t are sweeping overwhelming evidence under the rug.

The popular belief that some entity that is a “myself” survives death is embraced widely because it is an attractive fantasy--attractive because it assuages the anxiety that many people feel when they consider death and dying as a canceling out of “myself.” However, since that fantasy is not supported with compelling evidence, I do not believe in it and do not waste my time thinking about it. If someone presents me with evidence--not claims, scripture, tradition, or any of that verbiage, but actual evidence--then I will consider it.

Part of being “awake” in the way I use that term means that one does not cling to ideas, or even entertain them just because embracing those ideas may reduce anxiety.

To be clear, by my epistemological standards, traditions that arose in pre-scientific times and have been passed down through the ages provide no kind of evidence. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

If this is not clear, please feel free to continue the conversation.


Robert, thank you for your reply. That was most helpful.

Yes, I understand that you are a skeptic and an agnostic regarding all ideas that are not scientifically demonstrable. You are not a materialist.

I agree with everything in your last comment. Yet I also think that there is a caveat worth considering:

Life is often difficult. It is often painful. Depending on circumstances, it can be difficult to bear. Hence anything that can make life a bit more bearable or enjoyable strikes me as a good thing.

You wrote << Part of being “awake” in the way I use that term means that one does not cling to ideas, or even entertain them just because embracing those ideas may reduce anxiety. >>

If a scientifically undemonstrable idea reduces anxiety, thus making this difficult life somewhat more tolerable or more enjoyable, is not this a sufficiently good reason to entertain that idea, especially if one is willing to acknowledge that this idea could turn out to be false?

Thank you again for your thoughts. I would most appreciate any further insights you have.

Robert Saltzman: In my world, Jon, that is not a good reason, but I am not saying that everyone should be like me. I take my coffee black, but if sugar and cream make someone happy, fine by me.