Also, I’m sure you are aware that there are serious philosophical arguments in favor of materialism and against idealism. None of them is a knockdown, but then again, few philosophical arguments are. The preponderance of arguments clearly goes in favor of materialism. Briefly:

In favor of metaphysical materialism:

Physical systems appear to operate according to consistent natural laws without requiring any non-material explanation. The success of scientific materialism in explaining phenomena previously attributed to non-material causes (like disease, weather, planetary motion) suggests that material explanations may be sufficient for all phenomena.

The close correlation between physical brain states and mental states, and how mental functions can be disrupted by physical changes to the brain, suggests that consciousness may be explained through physical processes rather than requiring a non-material mind or spirit.

Material explanations tend to have greater predictive power than non-material ones. We can reliably predict the behavior of physical systems through material models, while appeals to non-material causes typically don't generate testable predictions.

Against idealism:

If reality is fundamentally mental rather than material, it's difficult to explain why the physical world appears to operate independently of minds observing it. The universe seems to have existed and functioned according to physical laws long before conscious observers emerged.

Idealism struggles to account for the apparent uniformity of physical laws across different observers. If reality were primarily mental, we might expect physical laws to vary more based on different minds' perceptions and beliefs.

The success of materialist science in developing technology and predicting physical phenomena seems to support the existence of an objective material reality rather than reality being fundamentally mental in nature.