Matt: So, I started myself as close to zero as I possibly could, and to date, anytime that I say/write something that displays some kind of subconscious thinking, I try to deconstruct the subconscious bias as far as it will go. 
> 
> In a sense, we could say that I don't trust being me. My Buddhist training has been invaluable in identifying what comes from a subconscious source. So yes, in a sense, it might be safe to say that I can compartmentalize my thinking--when I concentrate on doing so. 
> 
> Keep in mind, I'm a born skeptic.-Thank you for being so revealing about yourself.

Romansh: Philosophers have questioned the validity of assuming that cause and effect are true and quite accurately point out there is no deductive method validating cause and effect. Having said that the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.-Quite correct, but reducing a cell to all of its operating parts and reactions doesn't tell us why it is alive. Put all the lab-reproduced parts in a lab-produced membrane and all you have is a sack of parts. There must be something beyond reductionism.

dhw: I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism... 
ROMANSH: If you mean can we apply reductionist methods to things that are immaterial and I suspect don't exist, I think you are right.
dhw: ...and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. 
ROMANSH: With the possible exception of quantum phenomena, yes.
dhw: ...We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. -ROMANSH: This of course is an assumption, but I would argue a very useful and I suspect accurate one. While the form of solipsism you are (seem to be) advocating is useful only in the sense that we should not be overly certain.-I don't suppose anyone would dispute the usefulness of scientific research into the material world, but I don't think material “usefulness” is the only value we should be considering. Our mysterious consciousness is linked to all kinds of subjective experiences (categories listed above) that are every bit as real and important to us in our daily lives as the material benefits from scientific research. The assumption that they are explicable in material terms may be accurate, but I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis that there are phenomena beyond the scope of the material world as we know it.
 
ROMANSH: Having said that I don't have assume that pandimensional white mice are directing our evolution.-You constantly talk of assuming and assumptions. I prefer to talk of hypotheses, one of which is David's hypothesis of a universal intelligence directing evolution. I don't share it, but I don't dismiss it and I don't sneer at it, because I don't share your declared leanings towards materialism any more than I share his theism. -ROMANSH: And one more time ... science does not prove things. You should know better!
Agreed. I should have written: We would simply conclude that science will eventually convince everyone that life, consciousness etc. etc. My next comment still stands:-dhw: That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).
ROMANSH: Philosophers have questioned the validity of assuming that cause and effect are true and quite accurately point out there is no deductive method validating cause and effect. Having said that the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.
What advances has assuming the reality of the immaterial brought forward dhw?
-Re usefulness, the response is the same as above, but I will be more precise: my love for my family and my friends, my delight in a Beethoven symphony, my acute awareness of the beauty and ugliness of the world around me, my fascination with the utter mystery of life and consciousness - these are all immaterial experiences which I share with a lot of other people and which are actually more real to me than quantum phenomena. For many people, God is also real. “Advances?” “Usefulness”? The subject of this thread is values, and I would suggest that the immaterial values of empathy, tolerance, patience, open-mindedness, and above all love for our fellow creatures are pretty useful, and if they were more widely practised our human society would ”advance” beyond all recognition. But if you want to confine the discussion to materialism as the key to knowledge, please explain how chemicals can produce consciousness, love and empathy.

Dhw: In everyday life, we tend for practical reasons not to think in absolute terms, but if I remember rightly, we agreed that the nearest we can get to “actual” knowledge is a general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question. For instance, there is general consensus that the Earth goes round the sun, but not that God exists.
MATT: This ties into to ideas further down the road from this regarding assumptions. I know you jumped on romansh for using this word, but we use assumptions daily and in the things we discuss here. Even the statement "I don't believe we can have knowledge about God," makes assumptions, even if you don't think about them. An implied assumption here is that even if the supernatural exists, we can't access it. But this is an assumption, not a fact. -No disagreement here. I merely objected to Romansh's use of ”assumption” where I felt “hypothesis” was a more suitable term. As an agnostic I regard David's explanations of a God-directed evolution as a hypothesis and not an assumption, and I defined the difference. You go on to list various types of necessary assumptions, and I agree with most of those too, but as regards materialism, I think we need to be careful. You say: “I assume materialism, because I am required to in order to accept scientific theories and data.” There are many fields in which I think it is perfectly correct, not to mention practical, to assume materialism, and the result is indeed that we reach consensus. But there are others where materialism becomes a hypothesis, by which I mean an idea that has been suggested as an explanation, as opposed to an idea we believe to be true. These are areas that include the origin of life, the nature and products of consciousness (such as emotional, aesthetic, and psychic experiences), and the values which both David and I have called “immaterial”. There is no consensus here, and the assumption of a materialistic explanation seems to me (of course I can only make a subjective judgement) just as blinkered as the assumption of a supernatural explanation.-Dhw: I'm not sure how one can test any claims relating to the divine versus chance origin of the universe, life and consciousness, but in any case I would put it the other way round. It seems right to me that human beings are allowed to adopt whatever view they like, so long as it does not harm other people. Society consists of individuals and should not adopt any single ”encompassing view” of origins - that is the route to oppression and persecution.
MATT: I've often said that I find the "divine vs. chance" a false dichotomy. The ancients provide some insights here: Everything that the Gods do to us is a product of fortune. Read Diogenes of Sinope, and the Stoics to see this line of thought in action. We'll have to revisit this, clearly, but my direct question to you: How would you tell the difference between something created divinely or created by chance? I've probably asked this in the past, but we seem to be stirring up lots of basic conversations since my return. -I can't. That is why we have a never-ending discussion on the subject! One person sees divine purpose, and another sees chance. I do not see it as a false dichotomy, regardless of what the ancients say, but we are not talking here about what the gods “do to us”. Our context is “the origin of the universe, life and consciousness”.-Dhw: My own and every other generation I have known has always been deeply divided on matters pertaining to religion and origins. What you call ”baggage” may still be valid for millions of people, and since there is no general consensus on any of the theories, ultimately we fall back on subjective values. We draw comfort from intersubjectivity, but that is not the same as truth.
MATT: In my experience, growing up here in the midwest, supposedly the epitome of work ethic and Christian values, is that atheism and materialism in my generation are more or less assumed. I'm 36 now, and I've met three adults in my age cohort or younger that believe in God in the way my family does back where I grew up. The current generation doesn't have much of a split in their minds at all: Religion and all of its trappings are hogwash, end of story.-I expect David will also distance himself from the established religions and their trappings, so it might be better to stick to theism versus atheistic materialism. I suspect you're right about your own generation in the predominantly Christian West, though there is certainly no general consensus, and there are other regions where I'd advise you not to repeat such antireligious views out loud, even (especially?)among 36-year-old men! I trust, however, that you are not claiming your generation in the Christian West knows that materialist atheism is the “truth”, while any other belief is hogwash.

Dhw (to Romansh): I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism, and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. If this were so, there would be very little to discuss. We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).
MATT: Reductionism is usually used as an epithet by Intelligent Design proponents to be synonymous with materialism. Yet for the few things of faith we would be required to take by assuming materialism, we drop many, many, many more. To me, materialism represents epistemological conservatism at its best.-I agree, but with the reservation I expressed earlier, concerning those matters which so far science has been unable to explain. I do not accept the “assumption” that all things can be explained by materialism. That is a hypothesis.-MATT: Epistemology's goal is to provide the foundation to force us to justify how we know what we know. To me it is a directed study. Otherwise we could just assume Agrippan Skepticism and deny knowledge is possible. "Actual knowledge" is knowledge independently verifiable and free from cultural bias. (It must be true no matter the culture involved.) Materialism does require some speculation, but I will ask you the question, does it make us speculate more or less compared to other alternatives?
-The nearest we can get to “actual knowledge”, we agreed, is a “general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question.” This of course must be independent of culture. I agree that generally materialistic science involves less speculation than, say, philosophy, but there are some subjects as listed earlier that even materialists can only speculate about, possibly because with our current means of access to “knowledge”, we are too limited to get to the bottom of the mysteries. That does not mean materialists should give up the search to justify their faith, but currently their speculations are far from achieving a general consensus and therefore have no more objective validity than those of the “immaterialists”.