Relda: "Materialism would have it that consciousness is merely an insignificant by-product of different mental processes. Removed here is the idea that the entirety is greater than the parts as this inevitably leads to the paradoxical (non-rational) conclusion that there must be an other entirety which is even greater than the entirety. Despite our rationale, the word "nature" no longer represents something unquestionably reasonable – evolutionary biology renders such a notion impossible. Perhaps there remains a residue in the ‘natural’ suggestion of ‘human rights’ – but rationale alone cannot in the long run guarantee that either rights or duties are defended."

I would argue that materialism doesn't have to be reductionist. I don't dogmatically think, for instance, that materiality is all there is, but it is fundamentally "our" reality, and we're alienated from it, even repulsed by it, via religion, philosophical contingency, and even technology. I would posit consciousness as a singularity--though strictly we know, surely, that it is emergent as carnate phenomena or epiphenomena, just as the universe is epiphenomenal--preceded by the big bang. Is the unfolding universe any less marvellous in its attainments if it is not God-created? Is consciousness? I merely argue that it is materially unhealthy for humanity to be preoccupied with some unknowable first cause when patently we draw our orientation and succour from the biological sphere. Investing our energy in pursuit of faith or nihilism, or even "techne" as as diversion, is tantamount to creating an idealised reality, pie in the sky, as a substitute for this one which, ergo, we are free to despise.
On the question of religious ethics; history shows that they have no force, are observed mainly in the breach, and are anthropocentric and detrimental in the context of the biosphere; in a word, Christian ethics are "unsustainable".

I guess , Mitchell, if one is to subscribe to 'hard materialism', which claims that the only substances are material objects, and persons are such substances, you reach a dogmatic conclusion. The ‘soft materialism’, which you appear to ascribe to, is often also called 'property dualism'. This Cartesian mind/ body dualism, as defended by Descartes, however, ends up with its own set of problems. Materialism has inherent limitations. The root problem is that the Cartesian notion of the “mental” is totally opposed to the “physical.” All of which proves, not that materialism is necessarily totally wrong, only that, as in the insightful parable of the blind men and the elephant, it pertains to one aspect of Reality, not the Totality.

The Intelligent Design movement appears to incorrectly assume God is the only way to account for the complexity and variation one encounters in the biological sciences and in the universe as a whole from the perspective of cosmology. So I essentially agree with you in your, “that it is emergent as carnate phenomena or epiphenomena” statement.

There are many adherents of Christianity who make it a despicable religion, but essentially, far from being ‘pie in the sky’ or an ‘idealised’ reality, it contains an indispensable truth. I like the way T. S Elliot puts it:
The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to GOD...

But I’ll give Albert Camus his final say: “I wonder what the future will say of modern man. A single sentence will suffice: ‘he fornicated and read the papers’.”

Relda,
you betray a slippery grip, as was Elliot's and the whole Arnold-Leavisite tradition he was a part of. Of course I alluded to Camus above when I mentioned the "absurd", and thus his Sisyphusian condemnation of materialism--and of spiritualism; the absurd being existentialism. What interests me is, is existentialism a by-product of materialism or religionism? I would say the latter, indeed that it is a dialectical response to the death of God. Existentialism seems such a visceral part of the human condition that it's tempting to cite it as evidence of the fundamental reality of humanity's fall from grace. But in fact existentialism came in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, arguably in response to it, rather than as a spontaneous human discourse.
Materialism definitely isn't easy, especially in the light of what's gone before--religious thought that continues to sing its siren song. Is it any wonder that Odysseus had to be lashed to the mast? I guess that answers that question; the ancient Greeks were well versed in existential thought long before modern disillusionment. Does that then signify that the absurdity of the human condition is a perennial human discourse? Or does it signify, as Deleuse would have it, that we just haven't moved on since the Greeks?
I think that we have to find something in the materiality of our existence that motivates us. The alternative is dismal indeed--waiting around for paradise while the planet goes to hell, all the while scoring browny points with God, and telling ourselves that it's somehow deeper that that.
If there is a God, surely she would have greater respect for us if we made the most of what we've got?
(Descartes' a bit old hat btw)

Mitchell,
I think Elliot was very much of the tradition where an ‘Enlightenment’ flaw replaced mythological (non-rational) thinking with reason which then became dominant as rationalisation – so dominant that it became a new kind of myth. The rational mastery of nature was eventually extended to human beings who became objects for the most terrible exploitation. I would certainly side with Elliot who saw that reason, far from realising the humanitarian dreams of Enlightenment thinking, actually works in favour of totalitarianism. So I would agree, existentialism was a reaction to certain Enlightenment thinking, but a healthy one at that.

Old Indian sages, who tell us that the pain of endings, of separation, of old age,sickness and death force us to take a step back and examine our condition; it is the experience of such pain that motivates us to look more closely at our perception and experience of ourselves, we look at how we actively participate in creating the suffering we claim we want to be free of. So, it is not the materiality of this world which will really motivate us.

Samsara, where a loose translation could be ‘going in circles’, is chasing one’s tail in the cycle of experiencing happiness along with sadness. One solution is to simply give up having and desiring a tail. However, as you rightly suggest, this alternative is rather dismal. One of the meanings given to yoga is ‘union,’ it is one way of overcoming the predicament of dualism. Yoga suggests a return to a state of wholeness, an effort to make whole what has been split asunder – something perhaps at the heart of Christianity but a little corrupted.

Our Indian sages recognise the experience of alienation but reject the idea that this is really how things are. We suffer because of our own mistaken or limited perception, or our own forgetfulness and inability to recognize the presence of the Divine. A misconception, often held within Christianity, is that we are merely sojourners in a foreign, alien land. The idea of ‘waiting around for paradise’ really is a misnomer.