The battle between materialism, dualism and empiricism is a serious matter. Both Dualism and Materialism stem from deep seated beliefs, in the case of Materialism* the belief is that nineteenth century cosmology holds all the answers.
Empiricism differs from Dualism and Materialism because it asks each person to take a look at what is actually occurring and asks how these events might be explained without using preconceived theories to dismiss our observations. New Empiricism continues the liberal approach of the Enlightenment by insisting on the scientific method of observing then theorising.
I hope that I have demonstrated in this Blog (see "Contents" on the left) that there are plentiful grounds for doubting materialism and no definite evidence for dualism. I interpret my observations as suggestive of the existence of spirituality but given our current state of knowledge Empiricists may believe in a God, reject a God or be agnostic. Although the ideas behind New Empiricism are too technical for the philosophical journals and too philosophical for technical journals the Internet has provided another path for publication so if you largely agree with the idea of New Empiricism you can help by mentioning it and linking to it wherever possible on the net.
Please comment freely if you wish.
*Note: there is a difference between materialism and physicalism. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for physicalism it states: "Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism. Historically, materialists held that everything was matter -- where matter was conceived as "an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist" (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). The reason for speaking of physicalism rather than materialism is to abstract away from this historical notion, which is usually thought of as too restrictive -- for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983)."