How can a materialist do such?

Scientistic materialism is a philosophical stance which posits a limited definition of consciousness to that which is observable and subject to the scientific method.

that is what I take issue with, fundamentally

how did we discover that the sun does not revolve around the sun, that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, that our galaxy is not a singular entity, that gravity is not an infallible law?

Observation

through discovery, scientific knowledge and dogged perseverance

yes, and you claim that some things are beyond observation, and can never be observable - you call this spiritual, I call it "as of yet unknown"

You can observe such. And again. Religion always adjusts. They are more symbiotic then you allow mentally for.

@meratrix you already provided enough autism bby

🙏 @galesteppes

religion adjusts because it has to adjust or perish

And again, without religion stating the why, no onr would have questioned the how.

I see no evidence of this

Well science adjusts to pressure of politics and society. So nothing is infallable

Wouldn't that make religion just one conduit for natural human curiosity?

the scientific method doesn't care about politics, the scientist does

In ancient times people thiught rains came from a god. Which caused people to be sated with the fear, but then ask how.

Scientists put out the studies. Some aspects of science are heavily influenced while others, not so much.

Anything made by flawed man, is bound to have flaws.

the scientific method doesn't care about politics, it isn't heavily influenced

the scientist is human, flawed and corruptible

there is good science, there is poor science

Scientific method can be flawed by those applying it.

that is not a criticism of the method

that is again a criticism of the person

Putting in flawed data, adapting the results.

The scientific method is only as good as the one using it.

there is a reason we try to review science and see if results can be reproduced

I'm not disagreeing with you

Though what good is that if another flawwed person with the same influences does it? Or uses the same flawed data?

but you are not really countering my argument that there is knowledge and there is ignorance - that you want to call one spiritualism does not magically make it outside of future observation technology

then you produce poor science, and someone else will come along and produce something better

not really a criticism of the method

Lol. Your failing to see the point but whatever. Stand on that hill.

As for future tech to observe things like post death conciousness, that is severe whataboutism. Especially since modern materialist scientists have no interest. Its doubtful future ones will.

your point did not address my criticism of your notion that some things cannot be observed

how is it whataboutism?!

science does not claim to know everything at this instant

religion often does

Your assuming the future will change where material will care.

Actually a good part of religion is that no one has all the answers

why should I not assume the future will change?

science brings progress, it is ludicrous to assume stagnation

Why should you assume something that massive would?