>>17001792>My mother and myself are handling this much better because we are not materialists and believe in the afterlife.>So are materialists unable to cope with life, and is materialism, whenever it becomes popular like in the 20th century, destined to die out because it is maladaptive to survival?I rarely respond to many threads anymore. But I will take a shot at this, since it falls into my purview of evolutionary mechanics and my belief in God (though I am not convinced there is an "afterlife", at least not in the sense that we recognize our former life).
I suggest that the crux of your arguement hinges on how you define "materialism". If materialism is defined as "only caring about gaining resources", then I would answer in the affirmative. However, some degree of materialism is a neccessity to life.
I would further posit that this evolutionary mechanism is highly dependent on station and function of the individual member of society. So heres the part you wont like. Your father is more inclined to materialism, since it is by this mechanism that he provides for his family. He is an expendable worker drone, and his usefulness in this regard, determines his value, to you and your mother. And so for your father, the act of gaining and valueing resources is extremely important. On the other hand, not so much for you and your mother, who are the beneficiaries of your fathers labour. You are thus enabled to see life through a different lens. Perhaps if you are able to foster a family of your own, and in doing so, become the primary provider of materials for these people, you too will place a higher regard on materialism.
There is a god. Or at least a benevolent force at work in this world, far beyond the control or even the comprehension of humans. We may sense it at times, and over the course of our lives, it will indeed make itself evident.
As for an answer to your question: NO.
Materialism serves it purpose, which is limited.
