" In his opinion, most "atheists" were what
his friend Henry More called "practical atheists"), ie unnamed libertines
who lived as if there were no God, not philosophers who genuinely thought
God does not exist (though Thomas Hobbes probably fit this category as
Boyle
realized). "
and Wendee asked:
"Can somebody give a good definition for "philosphical materialism" ? Do
you
just mean the philosophy that evolution (or whatever) disproves the
existence of a Creator? "
Since my reaction to Ted bears on Wendee's question, I'm combining them.
I do not like to see Hobbes classed as an atheist. One reason why this
comes about is that most student versions of _Leviathan_ print only the
first 2 parts. But the last two parts are titled "Of a Christian
Commonwealth" and of the Kingdom of Darkness." See _Great Books_, vol.
23. And in the first parts he consistently admonishes the terrestrial
sovereigns, who have unbridled power in their dominions, to remember that
they answer to a sovereign God, whose subjects they are. The second and
earlier reason why he was classed as an atheist is that he did not go to
the parish church. But that was because he thought most clergy to be
sycophants rather than men of God. When a priest whom he respected
preached at a private chapel, Hobbes was in attendance. I believe that he
was orthodox.
There is another more complicated reason: Hobbes is that strangest of
metaphysicians, a materialistic theist. He held the belief that _all_
being is material, though he insisted on a radical distinction between
spiritual matter, the stuff of spirits and souls, and the gross matter
which we sense. Now Ted may ignore the rest.
Generally, materialism and theism are antipodean. The normal definition
specifies that the materialist holds that only matter exists.
Consequently, all mental activity involves emergent properties, the
result of complexly organized matter. Traditionally, the opposite view is
idealism, which holds that mind is the only existent, so that matter is
the product of mental activity. Between these views is realism, which
holds that both mind and matter exist. It is important to note that no
human sensory experience can falsify any of these views. The idealist,
the realist and the materialist see the same (unless color blind, for
example), touch the same, smell the same, taste the same, hear the same,
only they ascribe it to different ultimate causes in different
fundamental (metaphysical) realities.
Generally related to materialism is scientism, which claims that all
possible knowledge is fundamentally sensory, though it can be logically
manipulated. Since we cannot directly sense spirit or soul, we cannot
know them. This leads to a further step, what we cannot know cannot
exist. There are, of course, nuances and variants within each of these
broader categories. This also includes an admitted theoretical
agnosticism that becomes dogmatism in application. Human beings are not
noted for being logically consistent.
The claim that evolution disproves the existence of a Creator normally
involves a more basic earlier commitment to materialism. It also involves
the assumption that creation involves something like the immediate direct
production of the universe and all its inhabitants, especially in 144
hours not too long ago. The God-of-the-gaps view, whether with YEC or the
usual OEC/ID views, plays into this.
Hope this answers your questions sufficiently for your purposes.
Philosophers write incomprehensible hairsplitting books on these topics,
contradicting each other. You sure don't need that.
With best wishes,
Dave