there are but two sets of people

[Peter Kropotkin]

human beings are basically set apart into two distinct groups....

one group is a metaphysical group.. they seek to find what is behind
the material.. they are the ones who believe in a reality behind
the material world... they hold to god and heaven and hell,
anything that suggests there is a reality behind the reality we see...
around here Age seems to best show this viewpoint... but others
hold to this belief system...

and there is a second group, this group believes in the material world,
that existence is about material things.. Darwin is a material world
belief, as is Marxism, and capitalism, but Catholicism is metaphysical...
as is Buddhism... Atheist believe in a material world, as does science...

now think of this in terms of a line... we have at the far end of the line
the strict materialist.. Marxism for example, and at the other end of the
line we have the strict Metaphysicians for example... there is no such thing
as the material world.. everything is god and god is clearly a metaphysical
idea....

this line extends a rather far ways.. as usual, with most people around the
center area of the line... where you get a mix group who believe in
some aspects of the metaphysical and of the material... mixed up
in some ratio or other...the interesting thing becomes the notion
of change in each group...the metaphysical group has no change
within it or very little change within it... god in heaven is not
a concept with a lot of change within it.. there is no movement/change
within the metaphysical understanding of the world..

whereas in the materialistic understanding of the world, change is a
primary belief...for example, as a liberal, I believe in one of the
primary duties of a human being is to make the world a better place...
I see that politically, socially, historically, economically, and philosophically...
and to me, the world can always be made better.. it doesn't take a massive
change to make a better world, we can make small changes and improve the
world...one step at a time...one small deed at a time...

whereas the metaphysical crowd, they don't see change in the same
way as I do... the believe as Plato did, in the eternal world being
unchangeable... that what was, is what is and will always be...
to help create a better world as a liberal does, is basically unthinkable
in the mind of a metaphysician.... for there cannot be change in
the metaphysical world...

a human is born evil and then will live evil and die evil...
there is no change in that understanding of the world...
whereas the liberal believes in a person changing,
going from good to ''evil'' and back again....

we live in a ever changing, flexible world that isn't set in stone...
and we must change and adapt to the ever changing environment....
and therein lies the materialist position...that changing, movement
is not only desirable but necessary....

here is why materialists believe in Darwin and science and reason....
we can with reason, understand the world because it is about
movement and reactions and time and space... all materialistic
notions... science is about motion and change... we can view
science and philosophy in history in terms of the movement allowed
in both...modern science has been about bringing motion into the world...
that was the primary result of people like Galileo and Kepler.. they
brought motion into the world... but looking at philosophy,
it was behind science... Descartes and Spinoza and Leibniz,
they didn't hold to motion, their world was very static..
it wasn't until Hegel, that motion entered the philosophical world....
read Kant, it is a very static, motionless world he lives in...
but read Nietzsche, his world has motion, actions, directions...
his world isn't a static one... and every philosopher of the 20th
century with one exception also believed in motion..
and that exception was Heidegger.. his idea of ''being'' prevented
motion... but recall that Heidegger was a very religious writer...
in fact, he was referred to as a ''Catholic philosopher'' until
1921/22....and at one point, contemplated becoming a priest...

so, what happened between Kant and say, Nietzsche that
brought motion into the philosophical world?

the theory of Evolution...of Darwin... now, historically,
the idea of evolution had been around since 1800, Darwin's
grandfather played around with idea around 1800...
if motion could occur to us biologically, then it could occur to
us outside of biological or evolution...

in strict fairness, we could call the 18th century, as the century of the
discovery of motion...things moved and how do we account for
that motion?

and the world of motion is not the world of metaphysics...
and as noted, people's believes go on some line between
absolute metaphysics and absolute motion... everyone
lives somewhere in the middle, between metaphysics and materialism...

but Kropotkin, what does this all mean?

no more time, have to go to work, but hopefully, tomorrow
I will get back to this....

Kropotkin

[Walker]

Don't forget the ugly.
They need lovin' too.

The Good
The Bad
The Ugly

[Age]

Once again some of what "peter kropotkin" says and claims here could not be more False, more Wrong, more Inaccurate, and more Incorrect.

[Iwannaplato]

There are many sets of people, though it is very popular these days to see the world in terms of two teams and nothing else and to posit one as good and the other as bad.

Materialism itself is a metaphysical position on the nature of reality:

The word materialism has been used in modern times to refer to a family of metaphysical theories (i.e., theories of the nature of reality) that can best be defined by saying that a theory tends to be called materialist if it is felt sufficiently to resemble a paradigmatic theory that will here be called mechanical materialism.

- Encyclopedia Brittanica

Materialism is a set of related theories which hold that all entities and processes are composed of – or are reducible to – matter, material forces or physical processes. All events and facts are explainable, actually or in principle, in terms of body, material objects or dynamic material changes or movements. In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.

-The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online

OK, that confusion pointed out let's look at what materialism is.

A first question: What is material?

Over time this category has not only had all sorts of new members added to it, it has also seen a slowly changing set of criteria that something needs to be included. Nowadays material things include neutrinos, passing in the trillions through the earth and rarely bumping into anything, massless particles, fields, things jumping in an out of existence, particles in superposition. We're not talking about stones and chairs or even the radically palpable things like wind. Radically palpable is wind compared to things that are now considered material or physical. A medieval theologian, hearing about some of these phenomena might well have said, Oh, well, if that stuff is material that Angels may be well be material.

But more importantly is the mere fact that the criteria shift over time. What will they be or which criteria that we have now will no longer be required in, say, 100 years.

anything that suggests there is a reality behind the reality we see...

Unless they are radical antirealists of VA's stripe, pretty much every -ism asserts that there is a reality behind the reality we certain. Certainly many fields in science do.

Atheist believe in a material world

Well, yes, most do, though there are philosophers who are atheists are critical of materialism and do not limit reality to just the material. For example,Thomas Nagel, Schopenhauer, John M. E. McTaggart, Ernst Mach, Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer probably others. One could be dualist or idealist and atheist.

the metaphysical group has no change
within it or very little change within it... god in heaven is not
a concept with a lot of change within it.. there is no movement/change
within the metaphysical understanding of the world.

There have been all sorts of changes in conceptions of God and other religions and spiritual traditions and individuals. And of course people can change their metaphysical understand of the world, including materalists.

a human is born evil and then will live evil and die evil...
there is no change in that understanding of the world...

1) many people who get labelled metaphysical or who are not materialists, including theists do not believe this, and these people can change their minds over time.

whereas the liberal believes in a person changing,
going from good to ''evil'' and back again....

2) there are many liberal theists and otherwise believers in the category that gets called spiritual. For some reason you are suddenly conflating liberalism with materialism and non-materialism of all kinds with conservativism. It's also a terrible read of many versions of Christianity, where clearly people can move from being evil to being good and vice versa. Let alone other parts of the vast array of spiritual and religious traditions, let alone non-materialist people who are not theists of any kind. Your categories, for example, would be surprising to many pagans and animists (in indigenous belief systems) for example. Or many facets of Hinduism and Buddhism which do not fit this strange set of generalizations and category confusions.

The as to Plato

whereas the metaphysical crowd, they don't see change in the same
way as I do... the believe as Plato did, in the eternal world being
unchangeable... that what was, is what is and will always be...
to help create a better world as a liberal does, is basically unthinkable
in the mind of a metaphysician.... for there cannot be change in
the metaphysical world...

While there was a realm of perfect forms, Plato not only believed in change, it was central to his philosophy. The whole point of questioning one's assumptions was to achieve excellence (in a number of areas, including achieving virtue). The whole Allegory of the Cave was used as a symbol for moving from ignorance to knowledge. He was a constant advocate for education, precisely because he felt it could lead to changes that were good for both individuals and society.

Pretty much every single religion has practices that are supposed to help lead to positive changes (in individuals, but also in more general ways). This is true in both historical religions (like many of the Christianities) or cyclical ones (like most versions of Hinduism).

And, of course, again, one can be liberal, progressive, Leftist and Marxist and be a non-materialist and follower of various religions and spiritualities.

Take the Liberation Theologists in Latin American, a number of whom put their lives on the line for what they consider both spiritual and political duties to ease the suffering and oppression of the poor and indigenous groups.

Perhaps the OP is meant as mere polemics, but I think this whole, let's divide the world up into two groups (and if you are not in one you must be in the other) and blame one for the problems and the other for the good stuff has a nasty history and doesn't really help much.