I'm not disputing that matter seems to exist and that behaving as if it does is a sufficient model for survival. The problem is when matter is referred to as "real" or when people state that science explains "reality." This is an assumption. As you go on to say:Animus wrote:Material reality is a perspective on reality, its not a complete description of reality, but it serves as a sufficient model for our survival.
I would agree with this statement, and this is the position from which I'm approaching this. I don't see how knowledge of reality or absolute truth is possible for humans given our perceptual limitations. All we have to work with is sense data. From that data, we make all kinds of assumptions about what's real, but for all we know, reality might be entirely different from what we could possibly imagine. Perhaps matter is the illusion, and we are simply an immaterial thought sequence in the non-physical mind of a supernatural deity, or maybe time and causation are the illusions and the reality is that existence is static even though we perceive it moving in a linear fashion, or perhaps our existence is of a nature we cannot even begin comprehend.Our perception of reality which constitutes "material" reality is limited to the percepts afforded us by our evolutionary past. It is not conducive to survival to have direct access to reality, nor is it an epistemic possibility.
I think that this is an important point to grasp because it relegates science, reason, and logic to the realm of the experiential rather than the absolute. For me, while science is a very useful, logical method in helping us make sense of our experience of life, it has nothing to do with reality. Religion isn’t all that different in its intent. It’s a way for people to make meaning out of an existence we don’t understand, and to find meaning in it. Claims of absolute truth, whether scientific or religious, are unfounded assumptions.
Nad