What's the best way to talk with a scientific materialist?

One of my problems with the kind of discussions you're talking about is that I get caught up in trying to win the argument for the sake of winning, rather than being in the intention of helping people grow. It takes a long time and lots of mental energy to go through a worldview change. It's also usually painful, kind of like the birthing process.

That said, if you want to take on being a worldview midwife for your fellows the ideas that really helped dislodge me from flatland were things I learned in History and Philosophy of Science classes. In those classes we explored the unprovable foundational assumptions of science and the current boundaries of science.

Foundational assumptions like:

- everything is a result of physical cause and effect

- our senses (and their extensions) provide accurate information corresponding to a real physical universe out there.

- The universe has an order to it that we can discover and model.

Current Boundaries like

- What was before the Big Bang?

- How did life begin?

- What is the relationship between the brain and the mind?

If I can get people thinking about one of these things, maybe they will come back later to talk some more.

Cheers,

Lincoln

Justin,

I too would welcome insight on this question! I'm in a committed life relationship with someone who would happily put himself in this category and whose favorite books include those by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. He is thoughtful and dedicated to inquiry. At the Integral Theory conference I gave a paper that seems relevant—exploring the role of the Integral devil's advocate, which I wrote as much for myself as for others. I think problems between my partner and myself when we discuss certain topics (spirituality, etc.) have to do with the "game" we each think we're playing. For him it's the "finding the truth" game, often played via doubting everything. Facts are of highest value, and many things that I would not think of as "facts," he does. For me, finding "the truth" is closing inquiry rather than opening it, which tends to be of more interest. My game (and maybe there's a male/female dynamic here too) is "making our perspectives richer" and knowing each other better. Gaining more possibilities by hearing other perspectives. I proceed by asking questions to help me enter into his position, determine consequences of holding it, and integrate it with other things I/we know. My thought process is therefore slower. Also, I often feel put into a position where I am defending something as though it were I truth I hold, when things always seem more provisional and nuanced—and I wasn't playing that game anyway!  

So, for me it's not just understanding and respecting the assumptions about what's real or valuable that need to be shared in order to reach each other—it's being interested in playing the same game. Otherwise you've got a recipe for frustration. I look forward to hearing what others have to say about this topic.

I agree with the above post that if the person you're speaking with doesn't want to be open, that there is very little that you can do.  But...  If you are very determined to try to try and impart some sort of integral inkling to someone who is in flatland, I think that your best bet might be bringing up Hegel's use of Spirit.  His "The Philosophy of Right" is a very good book for ultra rationalists to take their first step into subjectivity.  Attempting to show that consciousness as abstract (Spirit) contrasted to as particular in its manifestations (brains) really helped me climb out of flatland myself.  If you want to get really radical, Kierkegaard might be an option too as he's sort of the modern father of scientific subjectivity in some respects.  Wilber references Hegel A LOT, and uses his dialectal methods a great deal so he's probably your first choice as far as material to reference from.

Hope that helps!

-Carl

Well, if the scientific materialist enjoys competition and debate, make a game of it! Propose that you will read the scientific materialist's favorite book that best exemplifies their perspective, and that they have to read your favorite Integral book.

Then you get a jury of your friends (hopefully balanced from each perspective) to listen to a debate between you two and judge the winner. The catch is that you each argue for the other's position, i.e., you argue the scientific materialist's position and your partner argues for the Integral philosophy etc.

Of course, you should win--you've transcended and included, right?! ;-)

No matter what, your partner will be more familiar with your perspective and, if you win, you demonstrate the transcend and include concept. If he turns down the offer, you could always tease him with, "Well, I realize it's rational to avoid the risk of losing to irrationality" or "Well, I guess if I had a limited perspective, I might also be afraid of that fact being experimentally proven" or "Maybe you're afraid of hurting my feelings if you win, but that wouldn't be very rational."

Anyway, perhaps Ken's book on the mysticism of the great scientists, "Quantum Questions," might help, as well.

Good luck!

Hi Justin,

I am have been a qualified physician for 10 years and a follower of Integral ideas since medical school myself. In my experience the best way to talk to a person with a scientific materialist worldview, is as a "person" - a feeling sensing intuiting loving being equally in need of affection, recognition and security (including the ideas that form their identity) . Try to separate the person from the worldview in your mind, as it is very easy to respond to the objectifying worldview by objectifying the person in response ... when this happens you slip out of Dialogue, or what Buber would refer to as the I-Thou relationship and into a Monological power struggle or what he would refer to as an I-It relationship. Nobody enjoys being objectified regardless of their worldview and so this will illicit defensiveness, a shutting down of true collaborative thought and a pattern of interaction characterised by "listening in order to talk" i.e. selective listening to the others arguements for points that either support your arguement or need to be defended against. Try to notice when this is happening ... for when it does, it is very powerful and a difficult cycle to step out of without gaining a meta-perspective on what is happening, and commenting on it from this meta-position (either to yourself mentally - or if the relationship can bear it, saying it out loud and asking the "person" in front of you if they want something different). Such noticing can be transformative, kind of like bringing witness consciousness into a relationship exchange. If possible, avoiding this scenario in the first place might be the best solution. As I said before, maintaining a more fulfilling Dialogue with others requires that you hold on to the I-Thou relationship, be curious i.e "talk in order to listen", ask Socratic questions, and remember my favourite KW quote "Nobody is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time".

Finally, remember that 1st year Medical school is all about Basic Sciences and doesn't offer much stimulus outside of Upper Right quadrant perspectives ... wait a few years and the uncertainty of clinical experience, illness and suffering at 3am and how we gather around a shared understanding of this will offer far more of the conversation pieces I imagine you are after.

Good Luck

All of the questions and answers here are quite good. And the basic arguments given seem to be formed around the objectives of conversation. The objectives being something like making a pathway toward integral consciousness for whom ever speaks to you. Either by inquiry and Loving kindness and an openness on your part (our our) part to those "non-integrals."

This is all fine. I mean what integral person wouldn't love having more integral conversations with people who are exploring the same territory of integral? And yet part of being an integral person at least for now is being comfortable (at least to some degree) relating with people regardless of their altitude. Assuming their altitude is integral or lower.

This isn't to say we should be avoiding planting seeds of higher consciousness in ourselves and those around us. 

But rather as integral folks we need to ask ourselves what are motivations are for having integral theory and practice and awareness conversations are. And/or what what we are really doing in these conversations.

I know, I've spent years of making an ass of myself and integral philosophy in public. And now actually feel as though there are some really great ways to talk about it and make sense to people at many levels of development and in different states and types of perspective and so forth. And yet even though it seems as though I can comfortably talk about integral in ways that make sense now what seems more valuable to me is relating to people where they are. Not having the need to evangelize for integral awareness in people who, for all intents and purposes are not ready to take that journey. Instead when I feel the need to engage folks and this goes for engaging integral folks as well I start from meeting them where we are right now. (when i'm on my game) And failing that I start from trying to meet them where are. Then I aim for where we seem to be headed and try to make the experience wise skillful and compassionate. This leads to lots of surface and depth. lots of fun and trust!

Hope you are well:)

I thank you all for your insightful posts!

I do apologize for my delayed response on some of your posts, but as my status says on my profile, "Medical school is hard."

I really do appreciate all that you have shared, but I have very limited time when my studies start to add up. I'm going to try and maintain a commitment to stay involved in these forums and grow in other areas besides upper right!

--

Live, Love, and Grow.