# The Immaterial



## T.A.G. (Mar 15, 2010)

I am in dialogue right now with an atheist who is studying to be a philosophy teacher, he is a very smart guy.

He wants me to define the immaterial with out describing what it is not i.e. material.

Any help with this?

I might also ask a couple of follow up questions as well, this guy is a very nice guy and it seems as he is really searching for truth. Please pray for him as well.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 15, 2010)

It is perfectly legitimate for a definition to involve a negative. How would he define injustice without saying what it is not? He can give examples of injustice, but not a definition that is not based on a negative of justice in some way.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 15, 2010)

It seems kind of strange to try, considering that the word "immaterial" means exactly "not material." In other words, the term is specifically designed to be a negative reference.

I suppose one could come up with a completely different word, but the problem remains. Everybody knows intuitively that there are things we experience and sense that are not material. Because this experience is common, obvious, and shared, we should be able to come up with a name for it. Immaterial seems like a sensible term, but I suppose we could call it a "grock" or something. 

Even so, if someone wanted to know what a grock was, you'd almost certainly have to begin with what it was not. 

For example, suppose I had an insight on some problem I'd been mulling over. The insight occurred precisely at 9:54 AM today. That is an event I experienced. It is identifiable and recordable, but unweighable and without any characteristics of matter. If someone forced me to define it, I'd have to include notions of experience, identifiability, temporality, but I would also have to exclude weight, mass, momentum, etc. Otherwise, my definition of the grock (or insight) would necessarily include things like the experience of lifting and drinking a hot cup of coffee. Being unable to distinguish between the two classes of experience would make for a poor framework of discussion.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 15, 2010)

Immaterial is the essence of metaphysical or spirtual force. Ok, it's double speak but he is putting an unreasonable limit on your definition.


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2010)

The Immaterial is that which has no mass and does not take up space and cannot be measured using physical means.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 15, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> The Immaterial is that which has no mass and does not take up space and cannot be measured using physical means.


 
Well, now he has three negatives for the price of one.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 15, 2010)

The odd place that we are at in the history of metaphysics may be a problem here. He seems to be refering to a kind of dualism, material vs. immaterial, that will always be problematic. Strict materialism is just as problamatic. I think that P. F. Pugh's definition is probably about as good as you can get. Ask him why you must make a definition that has no reference to the material? 

I don't hold to strict dualistic view of metaphysics that he seems to be refering to, so I would have said that I see no problem in closlely linking the two ideas together, material and immaterial. In fact I am a little suspicous of that sharp distinction, for me the two words have there uses but they have definant limits on how much of a distinction you can make.


----------



## Philip (Mar 15, 2010)

> I don't hold to strict dualistic view of metaphysics that he seems to be refering to, so I would have said that I see no problem in closlely linking the two ideas together, material and immaterial. In fact I am a little suspicous of that sharp distinction, for me the two words have there uses but they have definant limits on how much of a distinction you can make.



Seeing as I was simply negating the standard definition of the material, the definition I gave is analytic. Whether or no the material and the immaterial are closely linked has no bearing on the definitions. I too see a close interaction between the two, but that doesn't change the definitions.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 15, 2010)

"Immaterial" refers to the existence of the substance/entity being independent of space. In contrast, "material" substances/entities are dependent on space for existence.


----------



## T.A.G. (Mar 19, 2010)

So he liked my answer (thanks guys)
Now he wants to know how do we know its there.


----------



## JennyG (Mar 19, 2010)

fascinating thread, thanks to everyone contributing.
In my experience atheists (maybe those less smart than your friend, at least) taught by such gurus as Dawkins, latch onto the idea that what we cannot prove scientifically cannot exist. Then when they are brought up against such concepts as the immaterial (which doesn't even need to refer to the spiritual) they find themselves in a dilemma. I had a discussion with one once who painted himself into such a corner that he had to deny the existence of everything to which _any abstract noun whatever_ refers - such as intelligence, stupidity, length, memory, time, beauty, paradox.........


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 20, 2010)

JennyG said:


> fascinating thread, thanks to everyone contributing.
> In my experience atheists (maybe those less smart than your friend, at least) taught by such gurus as Dawkins, latch onto the idea that what we cannot prove scientifically cannot exist. Then when they are brought up against such concepts as the immaterial (which doesn't even need to refer to the spiritual) they find themselves in a dilemma. I had a discussion with one once who painted himself into such a corner that he had to deny the existence of everything to which _any abstract noun whatever_ refers - such as intelligence, stupidity, length, memory, time, beauty, paradox.........


 Wow JennyG great post!


----------



## T.A.G. (Mar 20, 2010)

I responded to him saying 

And I would say that we know of the immaterial such as laws of logic, judeo christian God etc. we know these to be true bc of the possible of the contrary. For example, having this very conversation we are using laws of logic, thus we are presupposing the immaterial. 

I know this wasnt the greatest response but we shall see what he says next


----------



## Philip (Mar 20, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> I responded to him saying
> 
> And I would say that we know of the immaterial such as laws of logic, judeo christian God etc. we know these to be true bc of the possible of the contrary. For example, having this very conversation we are using laws of logic, thus we are presupposing the immaterial.
> 
> I know this wasnt the greatest response but we shall see what he says next


 
Judeo-Christian God: as I have stated before, finding a good reason to think that our conversation has meaning because God exists is a hard one.

The other question we need to ask is this: are the laws of logic immaterial, or do they simply describe that which applies in a certain sphere of existence (human thought). Saying that the laws of logic are necessarily true may prove problematic if your atheist friend has any knowledge of subatomic physics.

In other words, while I agree in principle, using these arguments this way ends up amounting to assertion unless you have backup reasons (yes James, we've been through all this).


----------



## T.A.G. (Mar 20, 2010)

I would like to think I am very prepared in defending that the laws of logic are immaterial so we shall see where he takes it


----------



## Philip (Mar 20, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> I would like to think I am very prepared in defending that the laws of logic are immaterial so we shall see where he takes it


 
You'll do better with ethics, in my opinion, because there's an argument to be made that logic is merely descriptive, whereas ethics, being necessarily prescriptive, cannot be material. You'll probably do fine, though.


----------



## T.A.G. (Mar 20, 2010)

the argument that it is merely descriptive fails at several levels, but regardless how you look at it, it usually ends with logic being subject to change and or relative etc.
Rather you think it came through the evolutionary process, or how the universe is set up etc.


----------

