Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on July 24, 2021, 06:24:44 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Theists usually think that God created the world and governs it entirely in his wisdom. However, we find lots of things in the world that are evil and which draw us away from godly behavior. Nothing 'divine' about many earthly features.
According to Hindu Samkhya philosophy which is probably one of the oldest philosophies in the world.....the Spirit is trapped in Nature and tries to extricate itself from it. There is no God Almighty in this philosophy. Our attempts at spiritual growth (through religious or secular means) are our attempts to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws. This is the theory behind the practice of Yoga....though many schools of Yoga are theistic.
According to some schools of gnosticism...the universe is created not by God the Almighty but by a Demiurge (a lesser god) who tries to trap our spirits in unholy things. (Though, how God Almighty can allow any lesser god such liberties....is not clear).
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Theists usually think that God created the world and governs it entirely in his wisdom. However, we find lots of things in the world that are evil and which draw us away from godly behavior. Nothing 'divine' about many earthly features.
According to Hindu Samkhya philosophy which is probably one of the oldest philosophies in the world.....the Spirit is trapped in Nature and tries to extricate itself from it. There is no God Almighty in this philosophy. Our attempts at spiritual growth (through religious or secular means) are our attempts to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws. This is the theory behind the practice of Yoga....though many schools of Yoga are theistic.
According to some schools of gnosticism...the universe is created not by God the Almighty but by a Demiurge (a lesser god) who tries to trap our spirits in unholy things. (Though, how God Almighty can allow any lesser god such liberties....is not clear).
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
An interesting way of describing this philosophy.
However, I would have thought that rather than trying to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws we should be trying to live in harmony with nature and its laws. Our current challenges on climate change suggest that when we try to see ourselves as being outside of nature then things don't go well for the planet and ultimately for us.
-
Sriram,
Theists usually think that God created the world and governs it entirely in his wisdom. However, we find lots of things in the world that are evil and which draw us away from godly behavior. Nothing 'divine' about many earthly features.
According to Hindu Samkhya philosophy which is probably one of the oldest philosophies in the world.....the Spirit is trapped in Nature and tries to extricate itself from it. There is no God Almighty in this philosophy. Our attempts at spiritual growth (through religious or secular means) are our attempts to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws. This is the theory behind the practice of Yoga....though many schools of Yoga are theistic.
According to some schools of gnosticism...the universe is created not by God the Almighty but by a Demiurge (a lesser god) who tries to trap our spirits in unholy things. (Though, how God Almighty can allow any lesser god such liberties....is not clear).
Just some thoughts.
The African Bushongo tribe believe that one god of their gods, Bumba, had a terrible stomach ache. At that time the world was only darkness and emptiness. Eventually unable to bear the pain any longer Bumba vomited up the sun. Then came the moon, the stars, animals, plants, and finally humans. Thus, but for indigestion the Boshongo believe we wouldn't be here.
Just some thoughts.
PS Your use of “philosophy” is pushing it a bit. You’d be better advised sticking to “creation myths” or similar.
-
Hi everyone,
Theists usually think that God created the world and governs it entirely in his wisdom. However, we find lots of things in the world that are evil and which draw us away from godly behavior. Nothing 'divine' about many earthly features.
Perhaps, but this posits the problem of what the word evil means in this context and also assumes that godly behaviour is necessarily good, whatever that may mean. There is also an interesting assumption that there are some earthly 'divine' features, again without any clarity as to what these features are.
According to Hindu Samkhya philosophy which is probably one of the oldest philosophies in the world.....the Spirit is trapped in Nature and tries to extricate itself from it. There is no God Almighty in this philosophy. Our attempts at spiritual growth (through religious or secular means) are our attempts to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws. This is the theory behind the practice of Yoga....though many schools of Yoga are theistic.
An interesting philosophy, but not one which I personally find any evidence for and therefore not one which I would support. Generally, in the west, many of the techniques of yoga have been successfully assimilated and embellished without any particular adherence to this philosophy.
According to some schools of gnosticism...the universe is created not by God the Almighty but by a Demiurge (a lesser god) who tries to trap our spirits in unholy things. (Though, how God Almighty can allow any lesser god such liberties....is not clear).
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
Yes, but let's not forget that the gnostic view of the demiurge had its origins in the Platonic view as expressed in Timaeus where the demiurge was like a benevolent divine craftsman, rather than a malevolent entity.
-
Sriram,
The African Bushongo tribe believe that one god of their gods, Bumba, had a terrible stomach ache. At that time the world was only darkness and emptiness. Eventually unable to bear the pain any longer Bumba vomited up the sun. Then came the moon, the stars, animals, plants, and finally humans.
That explains the number of sick bastards.
-
An interesting way of describing this philosophy.
However, I would have thought that rather than trying to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws we should be trying to live in harmony with nature and its laws. Our current challenges on climate change suggest that when we try to see ourselves as being outside of nature then things don't go well for the planet and ultimately for us.
Both Samkhya and Yoga not only offer an explanation for life and its motivations....they also try to promote harmony with nature and teach a non-violent and simple lifestyle. It is modern lifestyle, materialism and greed that have created the present situation of destruction of our eco system.
-
Hi everyone,
Theists usually think that God created the world and governs it entirely in his wisdom. However, we find lots of things in the world that are evil and which draw us away from godly behavior. Nothing 'divine' about many earthly features.
According to Hindu Samkhya philosophy which is probably one of the oldest philosophies in the world.....the Spirit is trapped in Nature and tries to extricate itself from it. There is no God Almighty in this philosophy. Our attempts at spiritual growth (through religious or secular means) are our attempts to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws. This is the theory behind the practice of Yoga....though many schools of Yoga are theistic.
According to some schools of gnosticism...the universe is created not by God the Almighty but by a Demiurge (a lesser god) who tries to trap our spirits in unholy things. (Though, how God Almighty can allow any lesser god such liberties....is not clear).
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
Such 'philosophies' are presumably expressions of a feeling of alienation from the world, a denial of our animal nature, and an attempt to make sense of this loss of belonging by embedding it in a story. The stories themselves are perhaps less interesting than the underlying alienation. Did humans always feel like this and, if not, when and why did the alienation begin? And are the beliefs and practices designed to facilitate corporeal escapology ultimately part of a solution or just another instance of the problem?
-
An interesting way of describing this philosophy.
However, I would have thought that rather than trying to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws we should be trying to live in harmony with nature and its laws. Our current challenges on climate change suggest that when we try to see ourselves as being outside of nature then things don't go well for the planet and ultimately for us.
It might have been better to have described the philosophies as providing methods to be free from the excesses of human nature with its egotistical drives that result in air pollution, water pollution, land pollution and mind pollution. Transcending that nature is possibly seen as the means of living in harmony with the world rather than attempting to make the world fit the human requirement, a bit like a wind surfer doesn't seek to alter the wind and water but learns a harmonious balancing within those forces.
-
Such 'philosophies' are presumably expressions of a feeling of alienation from the world, a denial of our animal nature, and an attempt to make sense of this loss of belonging by embedding it in a story. The stories themselves are perhaps less interesting than the underlying alienation. Did humans always feel like this and, if not, when and why did the alienation begin? And are the beliefs and practices designed to facilitate corporeal escapology ultimately part of a solution or just another instance of the problem?
It is our identification with the animal world that encourages selfish tendencies and a mad desire to seek never ending comforts and self gratification.
Samkhya, Yoga and other such philosophies on the other hand, teach us to overcome our animal nature and to develop self control and mental equanimity.
-
It might have been better to have described the philosophies as providing methods to be free from the excesses of human nature with its egotistical drives that result in air pollution, water pollution, land pollution and mind pollution.
Which is pretty well the opposite of what Sriram claimed in the OP.
Transcending that nature is possibly seen as the means of living in harmony with the world rather than attempting to make the world fit the human requirement, a bit like a wind surfer doesn't seek to alter the wind and water but learns a harmonious balancing within those forces.
Wouldn't disagree with that, but none of this requires a god - indeed I'd argue that is is easier for humans to focus on their relationship with the natural world if they are not distracted by their relationship with a purported 'god', which let's face it is merely another manifestation of the human ego.
-
Which is pretty well the opposite of what you claimed in the OP.
ekim isn't Sriram
-
NS,
ekim isn't Sriram
No, but he is Sriram with GCSEs...
-
NS,
No, but he is Sriram with GCSEs...
That seems unfair on both, especially given one can be a professor and not be able to read to whom you are replying
-
NS,
That seems unfair on both, especially given one can be a professor and not be able to read to whom you are replying
Perhaps – I was merely suggesting that ekim's reasoning is more sophisticated than Sriram's, rather than criticising a level of academic attainment.
-
ekim isn't Sriram
Whoops - guilty as charged.
I've amended my post to make it clear that the person I responded to isn't the author of the OP.
-
It is our identification with the animal world that encourages selfish tendencies and a mad desire to seek never ending comforts and self gratification.
In case you hadn't noticed, Sriram, we are animals. What would you suggest we identified with? Tulips, perhaps?
Do animals have a mad desire to seek never ending comforts and self gratification? I can't say I'd noticed. That sounds more like a description of people who haven't found peace with themselves, perhaps because they're suffering from the kind of internal conflict I imagine would arise from warring with ones own (animal) nature.
-
Whoops - guilty as charged.
I've amended my post to make it clear that the person I responded to isn't the author of the OP.
Can happen to us all
-
Which is pretty well the opposite of what Sriram claimed in the OP.
Wouldn't disagree with that, but none of this requires a god - indeed I'd argue that is is easier for humans to focus on their relationship with the natural world if they are not distracted by their relationship with a purported 'god', which let's face it is merely another manifestation of the human ego.
Quite some time ago I suggested to Sriram that he might be better off using Hindu philosophy terms with their explanation rather than Biblical terms like God and Spirit as it is likely to add more confusion, but he didn't want to. The Biblical God certainly seems to be presented as an anthropic projection. Focusing on the natural world may help, if it's not too late, but giving up worshipping the great God Consumerism and his wife the Goddess Costa Brava might be too much of a challenge.
-
Quite some time ago I suggested to Sriram that he might be better off using Hindu philosophy terms with their explanation rather than Biblical terms like God and Spirit as it is likely to add more confusion, but he didn't want to. The Biblical God certainly seems to be presented as an anthropic projection. Focusing on the natural world may help, if it's not too late, but giving up worshipping the great God Consumerism and his wife the Goddess Costa Brava might be too much of a challenge.
Hi ekim,
I don't mind discussing Hindu philosophies in themselves. But I don't want to focus on Hindu philosophies in general discussions about spirituality here. Most people here have no idea of these theories and will be either scornful or completely alienated. The 'religion vs science' mindset is still strong among people here and they are unable to view such matters in a secular and unbiased manner.
My point is to find fringe areas in science that are generally glossed over by mainstream scientists....and see if they offer clues and meeting points for spirituality.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/
-
Hi ekim,
I don't mind discussing Hindu philosophies in themselves. But I don't want to focus on Hindu philosophies in general discussions about spirituality here. Most people here have no idea of these theories and will be either scornful or completely alienated. The 'religion vs science' mindset is still strong among people here and they are unable to view such matters in a secular and unbiased manner.
My point is to find fringe areas in science that are generally glossed over by mainstream scientists....and see if they offer clues and meeting points for spirituality.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/
Hi Sriram
OK. Bear in mind, though, that there are many religions and forms of spirituality and basically one tried and tested scientific method. I'm not sure how you would get them to meet without more clarity of what forms you are investigating. Best of luck anyway.
-
Hi Sriram
OK. Bear in mind, though, that there are many religions and forms of spirituality and basically one tried and tested scientific method. I'm not sure how you would get them to meet without more clarity of what forms you are investigating. Best of luck anyway.
There are many cultures and each of them has its own individual way of perceiving spirituality.....but the essence is the same. The way people grow spiritually and the inner mechanisms are also the same.
Its like there are many different types of cuisine in the world but the basic ingredients are the same and the process of digestion and assimilation are also the same.
-
Sriram,
There are many cultures and each of them has its own individual way of perceiving spirituality.....but the essence is the same. The way people grow spiritually and the inner mechanisms are also the same.
Its like there are many different types of cuisine in the world but the basic ingredients are the same and the process of digestion and assimilation are also the same.
That only works of the foods involved are ambrosia, peaches of immortality and manna.
If you want to claim “spirituality” as a phenomenon then you need to tell us what you mean by it and then explain how you’d verify it. For what it’s worth, my experience of people who try the “I’m spiritual I am” line is that what they actually mean is that they have a head full of mindless platitudes (“everything happens for a reason” etc).
-
There are many cultures and each of them has its own individual way of perceiving spirituality.....but the essence is the same. The way people grow spiritually and the inner mechanisms are also the same.
Its like there are many different types of cuisine in the world but the basic ingredients are the same and the process of digestion and assimilation are also the same.
If you look at the many varieties of ‘spirituality’ from the point of view of their sameness then this is what you will find. If you look at them from the perspective of their clear differences then you’ll get a very different picture. We tend to see what we want to see, and appealing to some alleged universality has obvious merit for those seeking to validate their own beliefs.
It isn’t difficult to find family resemblances among the major religions but belief by its very nature suggests a certain fixity of mind that reifies difference and privileges its own view. When it comes to ‘spirituality’ things get much more complicated because it’s almost impossible to say what it is. I tried looking up definitions of the word and soon got lost. The first one I came to defined it as ‘the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.’ The next described it as the ‘recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself.’ Other definitions focussed more on values, meaning and connection. We probably all have a sense of the limits within which the term normally operates but that’s likely as far as we would agree.
Identifying some unifying ‘essence’ to spirituality is much harder. Some approaches explicitly refute the very notion that things even have an essence. So if you want to argue that your understanding of spirituality is common to all its forms you might find you need to trim the unruly spiritual shrub rather hard until it conforms to the contours of your own beliefs, by which time it will no longer be able to lay claim to any universal shape.
It seems to me you can argue that spirituality is relevant and applicable to everyone - and I think people who take the word seriously do generally believe this - only if you don’t put your own limits on what it means, which I think would exclude any attempt to locate an essence. For example, approaches that involve dualism or marginalise sensory experience or the so-called material world simply make spirituality irrelevant and meaningless to many people. If those approaches are essential to spirituality then the whole idea simply collapses and it becomes a peculiar preoccupation relevant only to a certain kind of person. I’m afraid the kind of discussions that typically occur here take us down that particular route.
-
...
According to Hindu Samkhya philosophy which is probably one of the oldest philosophies in the world.....the Spirit is trapped in Nature and tries to extricate itself from it. There is no God Almighty in this philosophy. Our attempts at spiritual growth (through religious or secular means) are our attempts to liberate ourselves from Nature and its laws. This is the theory behind the practice of Yoga....though many schools of Yoga are theistic.
...
Are you sure that "nature" is not our way of freeing ourselves from being trapped by tedious and pointless "spirituality"? If so, how would you show this? And, yoga could be a joining with nature, not a rejection of it.
We can play at metaphysics all day or night with such terms since they have no shared meaning.
-
...
The African Bushongo tribe believe that one god of their gods, Bumba, had a terrible stomach ache. At that time the world was only darkness and emptiness. Eventually unable to bear the pain any longer Bumba vomited up the sun. Then came the moon, the stars, animals, plants, and finally humans. Thus, but for indigestion the Boshongo believe we wouldn't be here.
Just some thoughts.
...
That is more like it ... of-course Bumba is the name, in Bushongo, for the white hole at the origin of this universe.
-
An interesting video by University of Virginia...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AtTM9hgCDw&t=303s
-
Sriram,
An interesting video by University of Virginia...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AtTM9hgCDw&t=303s
You do know I hope that Ian Stevenson’s work in this area has been widely debunked – there’s enough confirmation bias in it to sink a battleship.
Try Wiki to get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
-
Sriram,
You do know I hope that Ian Stevenson’s work in this area has been widely debunked – there’s enough confirmation bias in it to sink a battleship.
Try Wiki to get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
Standard straw clutching....! 'He has been discredited....that is not a well known journal....even well known journals nowadays have started printing rubbish...that is not science....merely anecdote....he is not a well known scientist....he is talking rubbish'....etc.etc.
-
Standard straw clutching....! 'He has been discredited....that is not a well known journal....even well known journals nowadays have started printing rubbish...that is not science....merely anecdote....he is not a well known scientist....he is talking rubbish'....etc.etc.
It's those pesky interfering scientists, would be philosophers and assistants with an axe to grind, isn't it? Why even the fact that no one has cracked Stevenson's combination lock only shows that he actually forgot the combination after he died. After all, with the trauma of passing on to a new life, it isn't surprising that his soul wouldn't be able to remember something so trivial, isn't it?
-
Sriram,
Standard straw clutching....! 'He has been discredited....that is not a well known journal....even well known journals nowadays have started printing rubbish...that is not science....merely anecdote....he is not a well known scientist....he is talking rubbish'....etc.etc.
You accusing someone else of “clutching as straws” about this is beyond ironic. In any case though, if you can try to see through the fog of confirmation bias that bedevils you here’s why you shouldn’t rake this drivel seriously:
"In sum, Stevenson does not skillfully record, present, or analyze his own data. If a case regarded by Stevenson to be among the strongest of his cases — the only case of 20 that had its purported verifications conducted by Stevenson himself — falls apart under scrutiny as badly as the Imad Elawar case does, it is reasonable to conclude that the other cases, in which data were first gathered by untrained observers, are even less reliable than this one."
"The major problem with Stevenson’s work is that the methods he used to investigate alleged cases of reincarnation are inadequate to rule out simple, imaginative storytelling on the part of the children claiming to be reincarnations of dead individuals. In the seemingly most impressive cases Stevenson (1975, 1977) has reported, the children claiming to be reincarnated knew friends and relatives of the dead individual. The children’s knowledge of facts about these individuals is, then, somewhat less than conclusive evidence for reincarnation."]
“The philosopher Paul Edwards, editor-in-chief of Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, became Stevenson's chief critic.[37] From 1986 onwards, he devoted several articles to Stevenson's work, and discussed Stevenson in his Reincarnation: A Critical Examination (1996).[38] He argued that Stevenson's views were "absurd nonsense" and that when examined in detail his case studies had "big holes" and "do not even begin to add up to a significant counterweight to the initial presumption against reincarnation."[39] Stevenson, Edwards wrote, "evidently lives in a cloud-cuckoo-land."
“According to Ransom, Edwards wrote, Stevenson asked the children leading questions, filled in gaps in the narrative, did not spend enough time interviewing them, and left too long a period between the claimed recall and the interview; it was often years after the first mention of a recall that Stevenson learned about it. In only eleven of the 1,111 cases Ransom looked at had there been no contact between the families of the deceased and of the child before the interview; in addition, according to Ransom, seven of those eleven cases were seriously flawed. He also wrote that there were problems with the way Stevenson presented the cases, in that he would report his witnesses' conclusions, rather than the data upon which the conclusions rested. Weaknesses in cases would be reported in a separate part of his books, rather than during the discussion of the cases themselves. Ransom concluded that it all amounted to anecdotal evidence of the weakest kind.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Criticism
You are of course entitled to your own opinions about this stuff, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Sorry.
-
In support of Stevenson, Almeder argued in Death and Personal Survival that Edwards had begged the question by stating in advance that the idea of consciousness existing without the brain in the interval between lives was incredible, and that Edwards's "dogmatic materialism" had forced him to the view that Stevenson's case studies must be examples of fraud or delusional thinking. According to Almeder, the possibility of fraud was indeed investigated in the cases Edwards mentioned.[42]
In an article published on the website of Scientific American in 2013, in which Stevenson's work was reviewed favorably, Jesse Bering, a professor of science communication, wrote: "Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that 'the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.' "
Ian Wilson, one of Stevenson’s critics, acknowledged that Stevenson had brought “a new professionalism to a hitherto crank-prone field.”[50] Paul Edwards wrote that Stevenson “has written more fully and more intelligibly in defense of reincarnation than anybody else.”[51] Though faulting Stevenson’s judgment,[52] Edwards wrote: “I have the highest regard for his honesty. All of his case reports contain items that can be made the basis of criticism. Stevenson could easily have suppressed this information. The fact that he did not speaks well for his integrity.”[53]
Carl Sagan referred to what were apparently Stevenson's investigations in his book The Demon-Haunted World as an example of carefully collected empirical data, and though he rejected reincarnation as a parsimonious explanation for the stories, he wrote that the phenomenon of alleged past-life memories should be further researched.[54][55] Sam Harris cited Stevenson's works in his book The End of Faith as part of a body of data that seems to attest to the reality of psychic phenomena, but that only relies on subjective personal experience.
Even one of your 'patron saints' Sam Harris, has acknowledged that Ian's work attests to the reality of psychic phenomena....
-
Sriram,
In support of Stevenson, Almeder argued in Death and Personal Survival that Edwards had begged the question by stating in advance that the idea of consciousness existing without the brain in the interval between lives was incredible, and that Edwards's "dogmatic materialism" had forced him to the view that Stevenson's case studies must be examples of fraud or delusional thinking. According to Almeder, the possibility of fraud was indeed investigated in the cases Edwards mentioned.[42]
In an article published on the website of Scientific American in 2013, in which Stevenson's work was reviewed favorably, Jesse Bering, a professor of science communication, wrote: "Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that 'the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.' "
Ian Wilson, one of Stevenson’s critics, acknowledged that Stevenson had brought “a new professionalism to a hitherto crank-prone field.”[50] Paul Edwards wrote that Stevenson “has written more fully and more intelligibly in defense of reincarnation than anybody else.”[51] Though faulting Stevenson’s judgment,[52] Edwards wrote: “I have the highest regard for his honesty. All of his case reports contain items that can be made the basis of criticism. Stevenson could easily have suppressed this information. The fact that he did not speaks well for his integrity.”[53]
Carl Sagan referred to what were apparently Stevenson's investigations in his book The Demon-Haunted World as an example of carefully collected empirical data, and though he rejected reincarnation as a parsimonious explanation for the stories, he wrote that the phenomenon of alleged past-life memories should be further researched.[54][55] Sam Harris cited Stevenson's works in his book The End of Faith as part of a body of data that seems to attest to the reality of psychic phenomena, but that only relies on subjective personal experience.
Even one of your 'patron saints' Sam Harris, has acknowledged that Ian's work attests to the reality of psychic phenomena....
Doesn't work. Either he applied proper scientific rigour to his research or he didn't. He didn't. Anything else is woo.
It gets worse: there's an old maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone want to make claims that would fundamentally re-write all we know about how the universe actually worse then he needs an awful lot more than childrens' anecdotes to do the job (regardless of whether he led the witnesses etc).
I once met an Irishman who swore he'd met a leprechaun when he was a child. Pretty convincing stuff eh?
-
I once met an Irishman who swore he'd met a leprechaun when he was a child. Pretty convincing stuff eh?
I think it is worse that that - from the article it appears he disproportionately talked to children from cultures with a embedded cultural belief in reincarnation, and asked leading questions.
So it is the equivalently of asking an Irishman 'You know that small person you saw once, do you think that might have been a leprechaun?'
-
In support of Stevenson, Almeder argued in Death and Personal Survival that Edwards had begged the question by stating in advance that the idea of consciousness existing without the brain in the interval between lives was incredible, and that Edwards's "dogmatic materialism" had forced him to the view that Stevenson's case studies must be examples of fraud or delusional thinking. According to Almeder, the possibility of fraud was indeed investigated in the cases Edwards mentioned.[42]
In an article published on the website of Scientific American in 2013, in which Stevenson's work was reviewed favorably, Jesse Bering, a professor of science communication, wrote: "Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that 'the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.' "
Ian Wilson, one of Stevenson’s critics, acknowledged that Stevenson had brought “a new professionalism to a hitherto crank-prone field.”[50] Paul Edwards wrote that Stevenson “has written more fully and more intelligibly in defense of reincarnation than anybody else.”[51] Though faulting Stevenson’s judgment,[52] Edwards wrote: “I have the highest regard for his honesty. All of his case reports contain items that can be made the basis of criticism. Stevenson could easily have suppressed this information. The fact that he did not speaks well for his integrity.”[53]
Carl Sagan referred to what were apparently Stevenson's investigations in his book The Demon-Haunted World as an example of carefully collected empirical data, and though he rejected reincarnation as a parsimonious explanation for the stories, he wrote that the phenomenon of alleged past-life memories should be further researched.[54][55] Sam Harris cited Stevenson's works in his book The End of Faith as part of a body of data that seems to attest to the reality of psychic phenomena, but that only relies on subjective personal experience.
Even one of your 'patron saints' Sam Harris, has acknowledged that Ian's work attests to the reality of psychic phenomena....
Not one of my 'patron saints'(I don't have any) but even Harris, in 2019, in response to controversy about his views which included his views on the paranormal: ESP, reincarnation, etc. produced a clarification Here:
https://samharris.org/response-to-controversy/
which included:
If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleged), I would like to know about it. However, I have not attempted to authenticate the data put forward in books such as Dean Radin’s The Conscious Universe and Ian Stevenson’s 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists.
and this:
While I remain open to evidence of psi phenomena—clairvoyance, telepathy, and so forth—the fact that they haven’t been conclusively demonstrated in the lab is a very strong indication that they do not exist.
Both attitudes of which I find no problem with at all.
-
As I said earlier...you guys are clutching at straws.
Its not true that Ian Stevenson has done research only in cultures that believe in reincarnation. He has done significant research in Lebanon and Turkey which are Islamic countries.
Jim Tucker has investigated some American cases in more recent years...
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
-
Its not true that Ian Stevenson has done research only in cultures that believe in reincarnation.
I didn't say he had conducted only in cultures that believe in reincarnation I said he disproportionately talked to children from cultures with a embedded cultural belief in reincarnation.
There is an important difference and I suggest you should refrain from misinterpreting what I actually said.
-
I didn't say he had conducted only in cultures that believe in reincarnation I said he disproportionately talked to children from cultures with a embedded cultural belief in reincarnation.
There is an important difference and I suggest you should refrain from misinterpreting what I actually said.
Alright! I agree. So...what about those cases that are in cultures that do not believe in reincarnation? How about the American case?
Now you see...you really are clutching at straws.
-
Sriram,
As I said earlier...you guys are clutching at straws.
Repeating a mistake you’ve already had corrected doesn’t change the fact that it is a mistake.
Its not true that Ian Stevenson has done research only in cultures that believe in reincarnation. He has done significant research in Lebanon and Turkey which are Islamic countries.
Jim Tucker has investigated some American cases in more recent years...
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
No-one has said "only" (that's just your straw man) – what has been said is that carrying out his work predominantly in cultures that do believe in reincarnation immediately raises serious concerns about confirmation bias.
Look, in science (and supposed reincarnation is a scientific claim) there are various methods to establish whether claims of fact should be treated as nonsense, provisionally true, likely true etc. The most famous of these is called 5 Sigma. Here’s a link to an article in Scientific American that will explain it to you:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that/
Guess where Stevenson’s work in this area falls when you to it apply methods of this kind?
Yes, that’s right: he’s what’s known in science as “not even wrong”.
Rather than just vanish when you run out of road as you so often do, could you at least do me the courtesy of reading the article and understanding the issues it addresses please (it’s well- and clearly-written)?
Thanks.
-
I am not interested in more information of scientific rigor. I am interested in reality and reality cannot be confined to your ideas of scientific investigation.
-
How did you get from
Sam Harris cited Stevenson's works in his book The End of Faith as part of a body of data that seems to attest to the reality of psychic phenomena, but that only relies on subjective personal experience.
to
Even one of your 'patron saints' Sam Harris, has acknowledged that Ian's work attests to the reality of psychic phenomena....
Your quote says the opposite of what you say it does.
-
Sriram,
Alright! I agree. So...what about those cases that are in cultures that do not believe in reincarnation? How about the American case?
Now you see...you really are clutching at straws.
Stop digging!
First, you’ll notice that the US cases for example typically begin “A Christian family in Texas”. You do know I hope that Christians believe in arguably the biggest reincarnation story of all?
Second, all that was said here was doing case studies in cultures that believe in reincarnation introduces a strong risk of confirmation bias. Even if he’d confined himself to other cultures, and even if he’d found some way to eliminate subjects who believe in it for other reasons, still you’d face epic problems with the basic rules of evaluation and verification (see previous post re 5 Sigma for example).
-
Sriram,
I am not interested in more information of scientific rigor. I am interested in reality and reality cannot be confined to your ideas of scientific investigation.
Then you should be. You really should if you have any interest at all in knowing what "reality" actually is. If you don't like the scientific method, then find another one - until you do find a method of some sort though you're basing your whole view of reality on anecdote, hearsay, folk myths etc.
Now if you want to set your evidence bar so low that a snake would struggle to wriggle under it that's up to you - but be careful: when you do that, you have no basis to deny any other crackpot claim no matter how bonkers it is when it's also justified with the same arguments (see the Irishman who though he met a Leprechaun as a child for example).
Short version: by throwing away your critical faculties you're doing yourself a huge disservice here.
On the other hand, can I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?
-
Alright! I agree. So...what about those cases that are in cultures that do not believe in reincarnation? How about the American case?
Now you see...you really are clutching at straws.
Sorry it isn't me clutching at straws.
Actually Tucker accepts that there are far fewer examples in places without a reincarnation cultural expectation.
And I read the article about the American case - classic confirmation bias, right from the very notion that in most cases families come to him and therefore there is already an expectation that the phenomenon is something to do with a past life, rather than just a young child's imagination doing, well, what young children's imaginations do. It seems closely related to the 'imaginary friend' phenomenon with is very well known with young children.
And some of it is right out of the confirmation bias playbook used by psychics. So there are so many elements that are picked up as being remarkable and others that are conveniently forgotten. A good example is a big deal being made of the 'three sons' (well how many people have three sons - loads) yet the article conveniently fails to focus on the fact that the person they later spoke to was ... err ... the man's daughter - if he was remembering this guy's life, seems a bit strange to fail to remember you had a daughter. Also a brief google confirms that Martin Martyn (Marty) actually had five sons, well actually step sons. And here hangs an inconvenient truth - it is pretty easy to find some basic information about a relatively obscure person - enough to prime yourself for questions.
Also the bit about the photos - how many people have worked in Hollywood - how many books would you have to find to have even a fleeting chance of finding a picture of a single obscure actor. The chances are vanishingly small. Yet, hey presto, that's what happens. And the response isn't the more plausible explanation of a child with the equivalent of their invisible friend just plucking someone out of the book and going - look it's him. Weird too that he seemed to know his friend's name but not his own! Or might that have something to do with 'George' being named in the photo, but the person he claimed to have been was not identified.
And of course we are only ever told the things that (with confirmation bias) seem to be true, however vaguely articulated. Never the, presumably, loads of things that the child would likely have said about his claimed past life that weren't true - e.g. the implication that he died of a heart attack, which isn't true.
-
Sorry it isn't me clutching at straws.
Actually Tucker accepts that there are far fewer examples in places without a reincarnation cultural expectation.
And I read the article about the American case - classic confirmation bias, right from the very notion that in most cases families come to him and therefore there is already an expectation that the phenomenon is something to do with a past life, rather than just a young child's imagination doing, well, what young children's imaginations do. It seems closely related to the 'imaginary friend' phenomenon with is very well known with young children.
And some of it is right out of the confirmation bias playbook used by psychics. So there are so many elements that are picked up as being remarkable and others that are conveniently forgotten. A good example is a big deal being made of the 'three sons' (well how many people have three sons - loads) yet the article conveniently fails to focus on the fact that the person they later spoke to was ... err ... the man's daughter - if he was remembering this guy's life, seems a bit strange to fail to remember you had a daughter. Also a brief google confirms that Martin Martyn (Marty) actually had five sons, well actually step sons. And here hangs an inconvenient truth - it is pretty easy to find some basic information about a relatively obscure person - enough to prime yourself for questions.
Also the bit about the photos - how many people have worked in Hollywood - how many books would you have to find to have even a fleeting chance of finding a picture of a single obscure actor. The chances are vanishingly small. Yet, hey presto, that's what happens. And the response isn't the more plausible explanation of a child with the equivalent of their invisible friend just plucking someone out of the book and going - look it's him. Weird too that he seemed to know his friend's name but not his own! Or might that have something to do with 'George' being named in the photo, but the person he claimed to have been was not identified.
And of course we are only ever told the things that (with confirmation bias) seem to be true, however vaguely articulated. Never the, presumably, loads of things that the child would likely have said about his claimed past life that weren't true - e.g. the implication that he died of a heart attack, which isn't true.
Yeah...yeah....we can keep nitpicking this and that but there is significant evidence and there are professionals handling these cases. The 'experts' on here can take a rest....IMO.
-
Yeah...yeah....we can keep nitpicking this and that but there is significant evidence and there are professionals handling these cases. The 'experts' on here can take a rest....IMO.
Considering claims in an objective and dispassionate manner is not 'nitpicking' - it is what researchers do, both in the performance of their studies and as part of that critical element of research, namely peer review.
And ye I am a professional researcher, so I do understand the process.
What is provided in the article does not amount to 'significant evidence' (if you mean evidence of reincarnation) - indeed it provides no credible evidence for reincarnation as the claims of knowledge of this particular person (many of those claims being false) is far more easily explained through other, less prosaic, routes. The most obvious being fraud - you will note in both this, and one of the very few other US cases, a TV crew were involved at an earlier stage than Tucker. So this was already a newsworthy case and of course, many people crave the attention of the media and also pander to their desire for a sensational story.
The key question you should ask yourself if you are being objective and dispassionate is 'could this family have found details of the claimed dead person through another route?' and the clear answer is 'yes' of course they could. Details of the biography including pretty well all the details claimed to have been transmitted via reincarnation are publicly available as a quick google search will attest, including his obituary from 1962.
-
Considering claims in an objective and dispassionate manner is not 'nitpicking' - it is what researchers do, both in the performance of their studies and as part of that critical element of research, namely peer review.
And ye I am a professional researcher, so I do understand the process.
What is provided in the article does not amount to 'significant evidence' (if you mean evidence of reincarnation) - indeed it provides no credible evidence for reincarnation as the claims of knowledge of this particular person (many of those claims being false) is far more easily explained through other, less prosaic, routes. The most obvious being fraud - you will note in both this, and one of the very few other US cases, a TV crew were involved at an earlier stage than Tucker. So this was already a newsworthy case and of course, many people crave the attention of the media and also pander to their desire for a sensational story.
The key question you should ask yourself if you are being objective and dispassionate is 'could this family have found details of the claimed dead person through another route?' and the clear answer is 'yes' of course they could. Details of the biography including pretty well all the details claimed to have been transmitted via reincarnation are publicly available as a quick google search will attest, including his obituary from 1962.
Research methodologies cannot be the same for all types of phenomena. Everything is not physics or chemistry or biology. Professionals in certain areas know what is a significant piece of evidence in that area.
-
Research methodologies cannot be the same for all types of phenomena. Everything is not physics or chemistry or biology. Professionals in certain areas know what is a significant piece of evidence in that area.
Indeed it is - and this kind of research uses the tools and techniques of psychology research. Now I'm not a psychologist, but I do understand the methods pretty well as I used to be in overall change of research for a faculty that included our psychology department. In addition I've been on research ethics assessment panels for years and seen countless psychology research proposals. What I can say is that the research here is very poor methodologically - and indeed Tucker even admits this in his book on the topic - for example the approach to showing pictures to the child. You just don't do it the way he did. You need someone completely independent and 'blinded' (i.e. has no knowledge themselves of which person, or any people are relevant). If you do it as he did - researcher who knows who the key person is showing sets of four pictures each of which include a key person, you will get subliminal cues that are picked up by the research subject which biases the outcome. Also you will always have a one in four hit. You also need some 'control' groups of photos, in which there is no relevant person - this unpicks whether the child (in this case) is simply always picking a person as they think this is the 'game' - if they continually say they know a person from a group of four completely random people it shows that they aren't actually basing their choices on real knowledge.
And there are all sorts of elements of this kind.
Now if you read the book one thing is striking - virtually all the questions are answered by the mother, not the child - the information is being filtered through the prism of the mother. There is also a Netflix piece on this case in which Ryan is deeply embarrassed about the whole thing and all the information comes from the mother. I'd defy anyone to watch this and conclude anything other than the mother has a huge amount of involvement in the claimed reincarnation.
There is an excoriating bit in the Neflix piece where Martyn's neice (pretty well the only person to have known Martyn as an adult as he died when his daughter was just eight). She asks him a couple of quite specific questions which clearly relates to important things in Martyn's life - e.g. Lindburgh landing in Paris when he was there. Ryan is completely flummoxed - he simply has nothing to say.
Finally it is claimed that of 200 statements Ryan gets about 50 correct on Martyn's life. Well firstly this isn't particularly impressive. But also many of those claims he is right about were available as public knowledge at the time (e.g. he was a dancer, he lived in a house with Rox in the name, his children etc, etc), but many of the others are so anodyne to almost certainly be the case, for example:
He was very rich - no shit Sherlock - it was common knowledge that his wife was the daughter of a movie company executive.
He smoked - no shit Sherlock - pretty well everyone smoked in those days
He wore a hat - no shit Sherlock - pretty well everyone did in those days
His house was big and had a pool - well a quick internet search brings up the house (common knowledge) and its details
His house had a brick wall - really, I mean really!!
He drove a green car - well if you asked me (or probably you) whether you drove a green car the answer is yes, but then it is also yes if you asked about a blue, red, silver etc car. And of course in those days the colours of cars were more limited so it is hardly earth shattering that between him and his wife they drove green and black cars (the most common colours).
-
Sriram,
Research methodologies cannot be the same for all types of phenomena. Everything is not physics or chemistry or biology. Professionals in certain areas know what is a significant piece of evidence in that area.
So what research method do you propose instead for the supposed phenomenon of reincarnation so you can distinguish the claim from nonsense?
-
Indeed it is - and this kind of research uses the tools and techniques of psychology research. Now I'm not a psychologist, but I do understand the methods pretty well as I used to be in overall change of research for a faculty that included our psychology department. In addition I've been on research ethics assessment panels for years and seen countless psychology research proposals. What I can say is that the research here is very poor methodologically - and indeed Tucker even admits this in his book on the topic - for example the approach to showing pictures to the child. You just don't do it the way he did. You need someone completely independent and 'blinded' (i.e. has no knowledge themselves of which person, or any people are relevant). If you do it as he did - researcher who knows who the key person is showing sets of four pictures each of which include a key person, you will get subliminal cues that are picked up by the research subject which biases the outcome. Also you will always have a one in four hit. You also need some 'control' groups of photos, in which there is no relevant person - this unpicks whether the child (in this case) is simply always picking a person as they think this is the 'game' - if they continually say they know a person from a group of four completely random people it shows that they aren't actually basing their choices on real knowledge.
And there are all sorts of elements of this kind.
Now if you read the book one thing is striking - virtually all the questions are answered by the mother, not the child - the information is being filtered through the prism of the mother. There is also a Netflix piece on this case in which Ryan is deeply embarrassed about the whole thing and all the information comes from the mother. I'd defy anyone to watch this and conclude anything other than the mother has a huge amount of involvement in the claimed reincarnation.
There is an excoriating bit in the Neflix piece where Martyn's neice (pretty well the only person to have known Martyn as an adult as he died when his daughter was just eight). She asks him a couple of quite specific questions which clearly relates to important things in Martyn's life - e.g. Lindburgh landing in Paris when he was there. Ryan is completely flummoxed - he simply has nothing to say.
Finally it is claimed that of 200 statements Ryan gets about 50 correct on Martyn's life. Well firstly this isn't particularly impressive. But also many of those claims he is right about were available as public knowledge at the time (e.g. he was a dancer, he lived in a house with Rox in the name, his children etc, etc), but many of the others are so anodyne to almost certainly be the case, for example:
He was very rich - no shit Sherlock - it was common knowledge that his wife was the daughter of a movie company executive.
He smoked - no shit Sherlock - pretty well everyone smoked in those days
He wore a hat - no shit Sherlock - pretty well everyone did in those days
His house was big and had a pool - well a quick internet search brings up the house (common knowledge) and its details
His house had a brick wall - really, I mean really!!
He drove a green car - well if you asked me (or probably you) whether you drove a green car the answer is yes, but then it is also yes if you asked about a blue, red, silver etc car. And of course in those days the colours of cars were more limited so it is hardly earth shattering that between him and his wife they drove green and black cars (the most common colours).
Why don't you write to Jim Tucker and offer your views? I am sure many people already have...but I am sure he nevertheless knows what he is doing.
-
...but I am sure he nevertheless knows what he is doing.
Yes, isn't it strange that everybody who agrees with Sriram must know what they're doing, even when people point out obvious problems with it, whereas people who are saying things Sriram doesn't like, must be missing something, have "two box syndrome", "microscopic thinking", or being "old school", no matter how much actual evidence and reasoning they supply.....
-
The simple fact you are unable to understand is that I am not disputing any of the mechanisms and scientific findings that you are talking about all the time. I am talking beyond that, which you have a problem with.
-
The simple fact you are unable to understand is that I am not disputing any of the mechanisms and scientific findings that you are talking about all the time.
This is simply untrue, you often do just that, here is an example: "I am saying that....phenotypic plasticity is the natural mechanism by which evolution happens in every instance. That is what happens in the real world. There is no randomness and NS is just a metaphor...", from here (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18664.msg833836#msg833836).
I am talking beyond that, which you have a problem with.
And trying to do so by simply ignoring all the problems people point out with your sources. You apply a totally different standard to things you like than to things you don't like. Solid, evidence based conclusions, and complete and simple explanations can all be dismissed if you don't like them, but if you like something, no amount of sloppy work, confused nonsense, contradiction, and baseless claims can be allowed to undermine it.
-
Sriram,
The simple fact you are unable to understand is that I am not disputing any of the mechanisms and scientific findings that you are talking about all the time.
That's a straw man - no-one has said that you are doing that.
I am talking beyond that, which you have a problem with.
Yes, because "beyond that" is just your opinion without any method to justify it.
Try to understand something: all beliefs are just opinions until they can be justified. What you do is to take your opinions and call them "reality" with no justification at all. When people point out that the standard method of enquiry for scientific claims doesn't produce the outcome you want it to produce, you then complain that that's a problem with the method rather than with the validity of your claim.
Well, that's up to you - what you can't do though is to claim "reality" when you have no means of any kind to validate that claim. That something makes sense in your head doesn't make it objectively true - i just means that it makes sense in your head.
That's your problem here.
-
I am talking beyond that, which you have a problem with.
What does 'beyond' the mechanisms and scientific findings even mean? Implicitly, if something has a demonstrable effect then it can be investigated using the scientific method; if it can't be investigated by science then that implies that it either doesn't have any effects or it has effects that we can't demonstrate or detect.
If we can't detect it, what makes us think it's there?
You aren't talking 'beyond' science, you're trying to talk around science because it comes up with better explanations for the phenomena than the woo you want to be true.
O.
-
There is plenty of evidence for all the things I am talking of, just not in the physically measurable way that you want. Scientism should be avoided.
-
There is plenty of evidence for all the things I am talking of...
As I've pointed out before, you're not even talking about a self-consistent set of things, if IIT (for example) is true, you cane wave bye-bye to an afterlife and reincarnation.
...just not in the physically measurable way that you want.
Anecdotes, dodgy studies, subjective experiences, and a desperate desire that something must be true, are not any sort of evidence.
Scientism should be avoided.
Scientism is irrelevant.
-
There is plenty of evidence for all the things I am talking of, just not in the physically measurable way that you want.
If something cannot be assessed objectively then it merely becomes belief, anecdote, opinion, assertion etc and none of those things are evidence, except that people have subjective beliefs.
You can belief all you like that the sun orbits around the earth (just as many, many people did in the past) - but that believe provided not one jot of evidence for the how the sun and the earth orbit in relation to each other. Objective and rational study provided the evidence that the earth orbited around the sun.
-
If something cannot be assessed objectively then it merely becomes belief, anecdote, opinion, assertion etc and none of those things are evidence, except that people have subjective beliefs.
You can belief all you like that the sun orbits around the earth (just as many, many people did in the past) - but that believe provided not one jot of evidence for the how the sun and the earth orbit in relation to each other. Objective and rational study provided the evidence that the earth orbited around the sun.
You are not getting the point at all.... There are different levels and types of reality. Reality is not one.
Each of them could mean different types of experiences and could need different types of interactions and investigations. Evidence will not be the same and would not involve the same methods and instruments that are used at certain levels.
Evidence is tricky. Everything is not physics.
-
Sriram,
There is plenty of evidence for all the things I am talking of, just not in the physically measurable way that you want. Scientism should be avoided.
You’re hopelessly lost still. Evidence is tool of science; what you’re doing is taking one of science’s tools in name only, applying it incompetently and incompletely, and then telling us that the result demonstrates your claim.
It’s exactly the same as me telling you that there’s plenty of evidence for unicorns (all those records!), but you cannot dismiss the evidence because it fails the rules of evidence.
Again, if you don’t like science as the means to verify your claims then find another method. Very bad science though doesn’t do that.
-
Sriram,
You are not getting the point at all.... There are different levels and types of reality. Reality is not one.
It probably is, but I agree that there are different abstractions of reality within the overall paradigm.
Each of them could mean different types of experiences and could need different types of interactions and investigations. Evidence will not be the same and would not involve the same methods and instruments that are used at certain levels.
OK.
Evidence is tricky. Everything is not physics.
That’s debatable, but you’ve missed the point in any case.
If you want to posit different realities all well and good – you still though need to find a way to investigate and verify the claims you make about these realities. So far though all you have is incompetent attempts at the scientific method.
-
Sriram,
It probably is, but I agree that there are different abstractions of reality within the overall paradigm.
OK.
That’s debatable, but you’ve missed the point in any case.
If you want to posit different realities all well and good – you still though need to find a way to investigate and verify the claims you make about these realities. So far though all you have is incompetent attempts at the scientific method.
You are actually seeing my point...??!! ??? What happened to you..? The virus must have had some dramatic effect... Better take some rest Blue...
But more seriously....No one can offer such methodologies on a platter. They have to evolve as and when people start encountering any exotic phenomena and come up with their hypotheses. That takes an acknowledgement of such possibilities to begin with. You can't keep dismissing them and then expect methodologies to be developed.
-
Sriram,
You are actually seeing my point...??!! What happened to you..? The virus must have had some dramatic effect... Better take some rest Blue...
As the only point you were making was essentially “anything’s possible” there’s nothing much with which to disagree. Where we do disagree though is when you take one such possibility and go straight to calling it “reality” with nothing to bridge the gap from possible to probable.
But more seriously....No one can offer such methodologies on a platter.
But they do have to offer something. Absent any method of investigation and verification, all you have is guessing.
They have to evolve as and when people start encountering any exotic phenomena and come up with their hypotheses.
You’re reifying again here. There’s no reason to think that supposed reincarnation is an “exotic phenomenon” that’s been encountered. Some poorly assembled anecdotes do not constitute an encounter with an exotic phenomenon.
That takes an acknowledgement of such possibilities to begin with. You can't keep dismissing them and then expect methodologies to be developed.
Now you're straw manning. As Richard Feynman famously noted, science itself begins with guesses. What it does next though is to investigate them. What you do on the other hand is to start and end with the guess (“reincarnation = reality”).
You can have all the possibilities you like – reincarnation, unicorns, tap dancing aliens on Betelgeuse, whatever. Your mistake though is to pick just the ones that take you fancy, and to call them “reality” with no justification at all.
-
There is plenty of evidence for all the things I am talking of, just not in the physically measurable way that you want.
If it can't be validated, it's at best questionable whether it's evidence, and certain that it's not good quality evidence.
Scientism should be avoided.
Applying scientific method isn't scientism; denying any possibility of an alternative is scientism. What's your alternative methodology?
O.
[/quote]
-
Alternative methodologies cannot be offered on a platter. They have to develop through the contributions of all concerned as more and more people start taking exotic phenomena seriously.....and stop associating them with religious beliefs.
This is a mindset problem and will take at least another generation.
-
Alternative methodologies cannot be offered on a platter.
But there needs to be at least some kind of basic systematic approach: a means to detect and measure 'x' so that 'x' can be confirmed independently of the personal convictions of people.
They have to develop through the contributions of all concerned as more and more people start taking exotic phenomena "seriously"
Which is why an appropriate methodology is essential since it is important to exclude the risks of bias and wishful thinking among those who take 'x' seriously: enthusiasm and personal convictions are never enough.
.....and stop associating them with religious beliefs.
Woo isn't just confined to religion,
This is a mindset problem and will take at least another generation.
It isn't a 'mindset problem' at all: it's a methodological problem (as in the lack of one).
-
But there needs to be at least some kind of basic systematic approach: a means to detect and measure 'x' so that 'x' can be confirmed independently of the personal convictions of people.
Which is why an appropriate methodology is essential since it is important to exclude the risks of bias and wishful thinking among those who take 'x' seriously: enthusiasm and personal convictions are never enough.
Woo isn't just confined to religion,
It isn't a 'mindset problem' at all: it's a methodological problem (as in the lack of one).
One of the simple checks is that many people have the same experience. Take NDE's for example. Thousands of people of all cultures and age groups have the experience. That is a simple enough methodology of checking.
Additionally, the activities seen and heard by the patients have been checked and corroborated by medical staff. Nothing much else can be done to check on NDE's. That is the nature of the phenomenon.
As more and more experiences are encountered, people might come up with other methods of checking. That is an ongoing process.
But dismissing the experiences as hallucination or imagination is certainly not the way forward.
-
One of the simple checks is that many people have the same experience. Take NDE's for example. Thousands of people of all cultures and age groups have the experience. That is a simple enough methodology of checking.
People make mistakes though, especially where they are predisposed to believing 'x': in 1917 in Portugal thousands claimed to see the Sun 'dance' in the sky (the so-called 'Miracle of the Sun') which is, of course, nonsense.
Additionally, the activities seen and heard by the patients have been checked and corroborated by medical staff.
Where are the credible citations then? The pseudoscience of the likes of Tucker is just woo dressed up as science.
Nothing much else can be done to check on NDE's. That is the nature of the phenomenon.
Quite a lot is known about the biological changes as people approach death and are resuscitated and, of course, these people didn't die and stay dead.
As more and more experiences are encountered, people might come up with other methods of checking. That is an ongoing process.
They may - but methods they propose will need to be shown to stand scrutiny before they can have any practical use.
But dismissing the experiences as hallucination or imagination is certainly not the way forward.
Why not?
-
People make mistakes though, especially where they are predisposed to believing 'x': in 1917 in Portugal thousands claimed to see the Sun 'dance' in the sky (the so-called 'Miracle of the Sun') which is, of course, nonsense.
Where are the credible citations then? The pseudoscience of the likes of Tucker is just woo dressed up as science.
Quite a lot is known about the biological changes as people approach death and are resuscitated and, of course, these people didn't die and stay dead.
They may - but methods they propose will need to be shown to stand scrutiny before they can have any practical use.
Why not?
When lots of people across the world experience a similar phenomenon....it needs to be taken seriously. Maybe the people in Portugal really did see some atmospheric effect.
There are many cases with corroborative evidence. One needs to go into the details of individual cases and maybe talk to people like Sam Parnia and others.
Jim Tucker cannot be trusted.....nor Sam Parnia nor Raymond Moody nor Donald Hoffman....nor many of the others who have written about Consciousness in scientific journals. Great! Who do you trust? Only people who keep repeating the old science stuff...?!
Why not....keep dismissing NDE's as imagination or hallucination?! Not very 'scientific' even by the standards of his board, I must say!
-
Sriram,
When lots of people across the world experience a similar phenomenon....it needs to be taken seriously. Maybe the people in Portugal really did see some atmospheric effect.
There are many cases with corroborative evidence. One needs to go into the details of individual cases and maybe talk to people like Sam Parnia and others.
Jim Tucker cannot be trusted.....nor Sam Parnia nor Raymond Moody nor Donald Hoffman....nor many of the others who have written about Consciousness in scientific journals. Great! Who do you trust? Only people who keep repeating the old science stuff...?!
Why not....keep dismissing NDE's as imagination or hallucination?! Not very 'scientific' even by the standards of his board, I must say!
You’re still making no sense about this. These people aren’t dead – they just stop breathing and cease blood flow for a bit, then recover. We’re all physiologically the same so it’s hardly surprising that those who recover report the same physiological phenomena (the sensation of bright lights etc), presumably triggered by temporary oxygen deprivation to the brain.
So what?
-
Sriram,
You’re still making no sense about this. These people aren’t dead – they just stop breathing and cease blood flow for a bit, then recover. We’re all physiologically the same so it’s hardly surprising that those who recover report the same physiological phenomena (the sensation of bright lights etc), presumably triggered by temporary oxygen deprivation to the brain.
So what?
Critical care doctors and specialists have confirmed that they were dead. Activities they have witnessed (when dead) have been confirmed by others.
People moving into another world, meeting beings of light, having a life review, having conversations with dead relatives, seeing people waiting for reincarnation, seeing their own body from above, witnessing activities at the accident site or hospital.....etc. etc. All these cogent and systematic events are triggered by oxygen deprivation...? Really?! :D
You people are just unable to accept the possibility that there could be a life after death. It goes against all your fondly held atheist and materialistic beliefs. That is why you people are clutching at straws and trying very hard to explain away such phenomena through mundane reasons.
-
Sriram,
Critical care doctors and specialists have confirmed that they were dead. Activities they have witnessed (when dead) have been confirmed by others.
Stop right there. No they haven’t. What they have confirmed is that two physiological processes usually necessary for life – breathing and blood flow – ceased temporarily. That’s the “N” of “NDE”. What you’re doing is removing that N and hoping that no-one will notice.
People moving into another world, meeting beings of light, having a life review, having conversations with dead relatives, seeing people waiting for reincarnation, seeing their own body from above, witnessing activities at the accident site or hospital.....etc. etc. All these cogent and systematic events are triggered by oxygen deprivation...? Really?!
Funny isn’t it how these supposed events are always completely information free. A “conversation with a dead relative” for example is always just a memory of Auntie Doris’s known life, or maybe “Doris says she’s fine and sends here love”. It’s never, “here’s where the will you’ve all been looking for is hidden”.
It’s almost as though it’s just the brain closing down as it approaches (but, critically, never actually reaches) death and is pulling up memories, hallucinating etc. You know, just as you might expect it to when deprived of oxygen for a bit.
Why do you suppose that is?
You people…
“You people”? What, rationalists? Non-woo merchants? Non-fantasists?
…are just unable to accept the possibility that there could be a life after death.
I know this is one of your favourite lies, but just repeating it is doing you no favours here. However fantastically unlikely, your problem isn’t that people reject the possibility. Rather it’s that you can never make an argument that takes you from that possibility to a probability.
It goes against all your fondly held atheist and materialistic beliefs.
Yes it does, but that’s not the point. Make an argument for it that isn’t hopeless, and your claim will be accepted.
That is why you people are clutching at straws…
You have it backwards again. The only person clutching at straws here is you – you take the vaguest, most incoherent, unverifiable stories and immediately elevate them to “reality” when it suits you without ever bothering to find some reasoning or evidence to justify them.
…and trying very hard to explain away such phenomena through mundane reasons.
What’s “mundane” about reason? The reason that undoes you is sound. You can try to address it or not as you wish, but calling it “mundane” doesn’t change the facts of the matter.
-
Sriram,
Stop right there. No they haven’t. What they have confirmed is that two physiological processes usually necessary for life – breathing and blood flow – ceased temporarily. That’s the “N” of “NDE”. What you’re doing is removing that N and hoping that no-one will notice.
Funny isn’t it how these supposed events are always completely information free. A “conversation with a dead relative” for example is always just a memory of Auntie Doris’s known life, or maybe “Doris says she’s fine and sends here love”. It’s never, “here’s where the will you’ve all been looking for is hidden”.
It’s almost as though it’s just the brain closing down as it approaches (but, critically, never actually reaches) death and is pulling up memories, hallucinating etc. You know, just as you might expect it to when deprived of oxygen for a bit.
Why do you suppose that is?
“You people”? What, rationalists? Non-woo merchants? Non-fantasists?
I know this is one of your favourite lies, but just repeating it is doing you no favours here. However fantastically unlikely, your problem isn’t that people reject the possibility. Rather it’s that you can never make an argument that takes you from that possibility to a probability.
Yes it does, but that’s not the point. Make an argument for it that isn’t hopeless, and your claim will be accepted.
You have it backwards again. The only person clutching at straws here is you – you take the vaguest, most incoherent, unverifiable stories and immediately elevate them to “reality” when it suits you without ever bothering to find some reasoning or evidence to justify them.
What’s “mundane” about reason? The reason that undoes you is sound. You can try to address it or not as you wish, but calling it “mundane” doesn’t change the facts of the matter.
All these are just your assumptions and beliefs based on a rigid materialistic stand. You don't actually KNOW all this. ::)
The rigid materialistic view is being rejected by many professionals now....professional researchers who you would choose to dub as 'woo' merchants or whatever....just because these ideas don't fit into your old science world view...!
-
All these are just your assumptions and beliefs based on a rigid materialistic stand. You don't actually KNOW all this. ::)
It's based on lack of proper evidence (and, no, it isn't a matter of opinion). You have you're own "two boxes syndrome" going on here. Things that you like require no proper evidence at all to back them up before everybody should take them seriously, and things you don't like can be rejected as inadequate or incomplete, no matter how well established or complete they actually are.
-
Alternative methodologies cannot be offered on a platter.
But established, reliable methodologies cannot be discounted on the possibility of future other methodologies. If you don't have the methodology now then you can't go claiming a basis for your belief in defiance of the established, reliable methodology on the basis that you hope something else will turn up in the future.
[quote[They have to develop through the contributions of all concerned as more and more people start taking exotic phenomena seriously.....and stop associating them with religious beliefs.[/quote]
And if and when that happens people will listen, but until it does your beliefs go in the same hokey basket as the Nicene Creed.
This is a mindset problem and will take at least another generation.
It absolutely is a mindset problem. You have a mindset that your superstition is somehow functionally different from 'Western' superstitions because it's divorced from a religious organisation; functionally it's exactly as baseless.
One of the simple checks is that many people have the same experience. Take NDE's for example. Thousands of people of all cultures and age groups have the experience. That is a simple enough methodology of checking.
And there are a number of reasons those experiences might be similar; one of them is fundamental biology.
Additionally, the activities seen and heard by the patients have been checked and corroborated by medical staff. Nothing much else can be done to check on NDE's. That is the nature of the phenomenon.
People having sensory experiences of things around them make sense given their sensory organs are present. People have common sensory experiences of things that aren't in their vicinity under the same internal conditions is explicable by the biological activity of the brain under that stress. No need to introduce unevidenced notions of 'spirit' to explain what is fundamentally chemistry.
As more and more experiences are encountered, people might come up with other methods of checking. That is an ongoing process.
Great. When they do, come back with your methodology.
But dismissing the experiences as hallucination or imagination is certainly not the way forward.
Why? You have nothing to suggest that it's anything more than that, by your own implicit admission. You're waiting for a methodology that might validate your claims, so you currently have nothing but a desire for it to be true. In the absence of any reason to agree with you, there is no 'forward' to get to. We are where we are, with a reliable system's best explanation for a phenomenon that you happen not to like. It might be wrong, you might be absolutely right, but we have no reason to think that this is the case, and you can't give us one.
O.
-
Sriram,
All these are just your assumptions and beliefs based on a rigid materialistic stand. You don't actually KNOW all this. ::)
No, all these things are facts. Clinical death and brain death are not the same thing (and there's no evidence of anyone ever suffering the latter and then returning). There really is an "N" in "NDE" (and for good reason), no matter how much you pretend otherwise. There is no evidence at all of any accounts post NDE that could not be just memories of known events or hallucinations. The phenomena that are reported (bright lights etc) are exactly those the brain initiates when oxygen-starved and so on.
The rigid materialistic view is being rejected by many professionals now....professional researchers who you would choose to dub as 'woo' merchants or whatever....just because these ideas don't fit into your old science world view...!
An anonymous argument from authority (who are these supposed "professionals", and what disciplines are they professional in? What methods do they use to verify their results, and where have they been published?) won't help you here. If you seriously think the evidence for your claims about NDEs is any more credible than my evidence for leprechauns then, finally, tell us what it is.
If you actually had any such evidence, why on earth wouldn't you do that?