Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on March 22, 2024, 07:10:43 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A
I like this guy! A true man of science.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A
I like this guy! A true man of science.
Cheers.
Sriram
Well, as someone who has said on here a few times thar I worship the great god Dunno, I'm not really going to object that. The problem you have though Sriram is that you have exactly claimed the sort of knowledge that he disparage at around 20.20 in the talk.
I should note that I think he effectively misrepresents 'neo atheists', in particular Dawkins for espousing certainty and 'strict atheism' by which he means as far as I can see 'There.is no god'. When he talks about others making a false dichotomy, I think he is himself doing that.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A
I like this guy! A true man of science.
Cheers.
Sriram
That was good. I think you would do well to heed his message.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A
I like this guy! A true man of science.
Cheers.
Sriram
Excellent and entertaining. My position is very similar. How often do people make assertions without any evidence, and the best you can say is that they are possibilities?
-
Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end. He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.
What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. ::)
-
Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end. He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.
What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. ::)
What is a 'neo atheist'?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
I could discuss whether it's a valid term but since based on the description I am not a neo atheist, it's incorrect for you to describe me as such, but then that's one if the problems of lazy generalisations.
You haven't, as stated, just been pointing out possibilities. You have been making categorical statements. Again, go and listen to what he says at around 20.20, and perhaps reflect a little.
-
Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end. He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.
What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. ::)
What you have been arguing for is that we accept unsubstantiated claims. What others have asked for is proof of these claims. This isn't difficult. Whilst ever you offer opinions without facts to back them up it will remain the same.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens razor, apparently.
That doesn't make me a neo-atheist, btw.
It makes me a realist.
-
Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end. He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.
What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. ::)
I have been an atheist since at least the early sixties, long before the attitudes of the 'new atheists' were formed. From that time to the present day I have never suggested that there is no god nor any overriding intelligence, only that I have no belief in such things because of the complete lack of evidence that such things exist. Furthermore I have no ideology that I know of. To link me in as a 'neo atheist' smacks of ignorance, a blinkered approach and prejudice on your part. It is also incorrect.
I have long liked David Eagleman's approach. He dislikes the idea that one should assert things in absolute terms, and suggests we should keep an open mind as much as possible with due attention to evidence, especially scientific evidence. Science, it seems to me, should always be open to new ideas and new evidence, and its methodology is the most objective way we have of finding things out about our natural world.
On the other hand, you have this tendency to make assertions in an absolute form which are not even backed by evidence at all. Recent examples, for instance, are:
"Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment. Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans. A miracle indeed....obviously directed by a common consciousness from within."
"In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it. "
"Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind. That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected. The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness. "
"The only way the hard problem of consciousness can be explained is by realizing that consciousness is a basic property of the soul that exists independent of the body/brain. The body and brain are only platforms....like a computer hardware being used by a human."
So, perhaps it should be me who questions you on why you are happy with this video when Eagleman criticises in his entertaining way such blind assertions as you tend to produce? :)
-
Sriram,
Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end. He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.
What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. ::)
I do. Much as I admire and like Eagleman, if by "neo-atheists" he means someone who says "there certainly are no gods" that's not what Dawkins et al say, and nor is it a position anyone here that I've seen holds, notwithstanding your straw manning about that. You seem to have become caught again in your basic misunderstanding of the burden of proof - ie, that "I have no good reasons to think that gods exists" and "gods don't exist" are the same statement. They're not the same statement at all though, and the only atheists I'm aware of subscribe to the former position but not the latter.
You on the other hand precisely fall foul of the tendency Eagleman warns about, namely that you are certain – really, really certain it seems – that your various claims and assertions are true, even though they rest on very bad reasoning and no evidence at all. He's admonishing people like you, not actual atheists.
-
Eagleman is clearly placing atheists (neo) at one extreme end and religious myths at the other end. He does not accept both the positions....with which I agree.
He is however not saying anything explicitly about non material phenomena that could indicate an after life or anything about the true nature of the mind or consciousness. He is 'open' in other words....unless proven wrong. I agree with this too.
He clearly doesn't want to 'cowboy up' and commit himself to any thing that might become controversial.
The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years.... and second because of phenomena such as RED's and the documented cases of reincarnation by Jim Tucker, besides other phenomena. And third because of the open position that many scientists take on the nature of consciousness and the subtle power of the unconscious mind. All these things match up as far as I am concerned.
-
Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end. He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open.
Didn't you listen to the bit where deliberately denied the "anything goes" mentality that you seem so keen on?
-
Eagleman is clearly placing atheists (neo) at one extreme end and religious myths at the other end. He does not accept both the positions....with which I agree.
Leaving aside as to whether he is misrepresenting the position on the 'new atheist' I also agree with his point that "that we know too little to commit to a position of strict atheism" (4.48 mins) where strict atheism involves the idea that God is non existent is held as a truth and that "we know way too much to commit to a particular religious position" (5.00 mins)
He is however not saying anything explicitly about non material phenomena that could indicate an after life or anything about the true nature of the mind or consciousness. He is 'open' in other words....unless proven wrong. I agree with this too.
I also agree. Remember though he makes the point that "It's not anything goes. it's anything goes at first. And then what we do is import the tools of science, right?" (he then gives the example of ESP and the fact that we cannot find any evidence in favour of it. So he rules it out.) (14.29 mins)
He clearly doesn't want to 'cowboy up' and commit himself to any thing that might become controversial.
It's nothing about being 'controversial' but everything to do with being appropriate and looking at the evidence. "And there's other domains where it's appropriate to not commit to a particular idea in the complete absence of evidence to do so." (20.12 mins)
The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years.... and second because of phenomena such as RED's and the documented cases of reincarnation by Jim Tucker, besides other phenomena. And third because of the open position that many scientists take on the nature of consciousness and the subtle power of the unconscious mind. All these things match up as far as I am concerned.
And a Catholic, such as Alan Burns, might say "The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years.... and second because of the phenomena of miracles, besides other phenomena. And third because of the historical evidence for the resurrection. All these things match up as far as I am concerned.
Quite honestly I see no important differences between your approach and that of any hardened religionist, both of which, incidentally, I reject.
-
You are interpreting 'anything goes' as RED's and such phenomena. I see it as referring to religious myths.
-
You are interpreting 'anything goes' as RED's and such phenomena. I see it as referring to religious myths.
I'm simply following what he is saying. He suggests that it's 'anything goes' at first but that we bring the tools of science to bear and follow the evidence. You can think it is simply about religious myths, but he clearly doesn't limit it to that because he gives the example of ESPs. So, I see this as your own interpretation.
-
Eagleman clearly talks of (at 15 minutes) when we are beyond the tool box of science which is the interesting part of the possibility space. We need to have tolerance for multiple ideas because there is so much that we are missing. Words to that effect.
-
Sriram,
Eagleman is clearly placing atheists (neo) at one extreme end and religious myths at the other end. He does not accept both the positions....with which I agree.
Except there’s no particular evidence that “neo-atheists” of this type – ie people who assert that gods definitively do not exist – are actually real. If instead he (and you) are thinking of the so-called “new” atheists (Dawkins, Harris et al) then none of them say this.
He is however not saying anything explicitly about non material phenomena that could indicate an after life or anything about the true nature of the mind or consciousness. He is 'open' in other words....unless proven wrong. I agree with this too.
Pretty much everyone is “open” to the possibility of anything that’s logically coherent. Richard Feynman famously said that all scientific theories begin with guesses for example. You think you’re making a point with significance here, but you’re not.
He clearly doesn't want to 'cowboy up' and commit himself to any thing that might become controversial.
The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years....
Your “spiritual experiences” are just explanatory narratives handed to you by the culture into which you happened to be born. Had you been born a remote Amazonian tribesman instead your “spiritual experiences” would have been that tree spirits guided you home after a hunt. This is a point Eagleman makes, and it’s a point against you not for you.
…and second because of phenomena such as RED's and the documented cases of reincarnation by Jim Tucker, besides other phenomena.
All of which have been falsified without difficulty and without rebuttal.
And third because of the open position that many scientists take on the nature of consciousness and the subtle power of the unconscious mind.
An “open position” tells you nothing at all about whether something is likely rather than just possible. I have an “open position” about leprechauns. That tells me nothing at all though about whether or not they actually exist.
All these things match up as far as I am concerned.
All these things are very, very bad reasons for thinking your various truth claims and assertions are justified. The reasons they are very, very bad reasons for thinking that have been explained to you many times, and yet you refuse point blank to engage with the falsifications you’re given.
What does this tell us? It tells that that in addition to the various logical fallacies on which your claims rest, you’re also a victims of the sunk cost fallacy (ie, you’re so personally invested in your beliefs that you cannot allow yourself even to consider that they’re all wrong) and the theory stickiness fallacy (ie that no matter how unarguable the reasoning that undoes you, you’re determined to cling to your beliefs as a man clings to a cement lifebelt nonetheless).
It's all a bit sad really.
-
I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.
-
I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.
I think you need to re-examine your attitude. Everybody here is trying to engage in good faith. Your insults are unbecoming.
-
Oh really?! Look who is talking!! ::)
-
Oh really?! Look who is talking!! ::)
Yes, really.
-
I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.
I understand how it must feel when you are faced with arguments you are unable to answer. It can lead to a sense of utter frustration which can then come out in the form of insults. I always find my own sense of spirituality helps me to keep on an even keel most of the time. Perhaps your adherence to your own spiritual leanings might do the same.
-
Sriram,
I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.
You believe things for very bad reasons. Why they're very bad reasons is set out for you here calmly and clearly, but you cannot or will not engage with those arguments - presumably because you're either so logically illiterate (ie, you can't) or so invested in the edifice of beliefs that nothing can be allowed to challenge them (ie, you won't). Or both.
Here for example you've just ignored the arguments again and tried instead yet another fallacy - the Courtier's reply:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
What do you hope to achieve by behaving this way in front of people who are capable of rational thinking?
-
Maybe it is partly a spill over from the Empire days and partly your impressions of impeccable scientific knowledge or whatever .... but many of you do seem to think that you can insult me and others in every other post and then if I am a bit harsh in one post ...oh...you are so insulted!! ::) ::) Its a joke really!
The number of times many of you have been down right insulting to me I have lost count...and on top of that you people tend to gang up and rush to each others support on a relay basis ....which in fact shows how weak you people really are!
Be that as it may, I have no intention to insult anyone and I am sorry if Blue or anyone else has felt hurt. I will be more careful in the future.
-
Maybe it is partly a spill over from the Empire days and partly your impressions of impeccable scientific knowledge or whatever .... but many of you do seem to think that you can insult me and others in every other post and then if I am a bit harsh in one post ...oh...you are so insulted!! ::) ::) Its a joke really!
The number of times many of you have been down right insulting to me I have lost count...and on top of that you people tend to gang up and rush to each others support on a relay basis ....which in fact shows how weak you people really are!
Be that as it may, I have no intention to insult anyone and I am sorry if Blue or anyone else has felt hurt. I will be more careful in the future.
Tell you what, we'll stop playing the empire card if you stop playing the Mystic Meg one.
Not that I think for one instant the Empire has any bearing on this but you do the victim status you want to do.
-
Tell you what, we'll stop playing the empire card if you stop playing the Mystic Meg one.
Isn't that what Rishi Sunak said to Prince Harry?
-
Sriram,
Maybe it is partly a spill over from the Empire days…
That’s a pretty outrageous thing to say. I have no interest in whether you’re from India, from ten minutes away from my house or from the moon and nor have I ever suggested otherwise.
…and partly your impressions of impeccable scientific knowledge or whatever ....
No-one here has ever suggested that they have impeccable scientific knowledge, and even if someone had done so that would have nothing to do with the mistakes in logic you routinely make and then rely on.
… but many of you do seem to think that you can insult me and others in every other post and then if I am a bit harsh in one post ...oh...you are so insulted!! Its a joke really!
You’re not being insulted – rather at most you’re witnessing sheer bloody exasperation at your refusal ever to address the arguments that undo you.
The number of times many of you have been down right insulting to me I have lost count...and on top of that you people tend to gang up and rush to each others support on a relay basis ....which in fact shows how weak you people really are!
Stop playing the victim. No-one is ganging up on you – when you post the logical equivalent of 2+2=5 and several people take the time to explain to you why 2+2≠5, that’s not ganging up – it’s just evidence that various people have a better grasp of logical argument than you do.
Be that as it may, I have no intention to insult anyone and I am sorry if Blue or anyone else has felt hurt. I will be more careful in the future.
I don’t feel hurt at all and, even if I did, so what? Playing the “I’m offended” card would be avoidance of the argument, not engagement with it. A exchange with you on the other hand typically goes as follows:
Sriram: “Statement X is true and here’s why statement X is true...”
Me: Your “here’s why X is true” is logically false, and here’s why it’s logically false…"
Sriram: “You people need to…” etc.
Do you notice here that by behaving this way you never engage with the actual argument that’s put to you - ie, the “and here’s why it’s logically false” part?
I believe you’ve told us that you’re a Hindu. One of the ironies here is that, as I understand it, Hindus renounce ego in favour of a (supposedly) higher “spiritual” way of being. And yet your contributions here are all about your (subjective) ego and never about the (objective) arguments. When you open with “statement X is true and here’s why statement X is true” it’s an attempt to justify the truth claim with reason and logic, and so you’re playing on argument’s turf. You must therefore expect your attempt at it to be examined and, when it’s wrong, to be told why it’s wrong. If you have any interest at all in understanding why others think your justifying arguments are wrong then, finally, you need to try at least to address the arguments and to abandon your “you people” victimhood.
What’s stopping you?
-
Maybe it is partly a spill over from the Empire days and partly your impressions of impeccable scientific knowledge or whatever .... but many of you do seem to think that you can insult me and others in every other post and then if I am a bit harsh in one post ...oh...you are so insulted!! ::) ::) Its a joke really!
The number of times many of you have been down right insulting to me I have lost count...and on top of that you people tend to gang up and rush to each others support on a relay basis ....which in fact shows how weak you people really are!
Be that as it may, I have no intention to insult anyone and I am sorry if Blue or anyone else has felt hurt. I will be more careful in the future.
So let's see where we're at so far.
First of all we're accused of being 'neo atheists'. Unfortunately for you, that didn't work.
So then you try to convince by listing things like NDEs etc. and your own 'spiritual' experiences. And, because of the total lack of evidence, that didn't work either.
So then, presumably because you find it impossible to respond to reasoned arguments, you decide to play the courtier's reply. But that didn't work either.
So then you lose it completely and decide your best plan of attack is to accuse us of insulting you because we have an old fashioned(superior?) 'Empire' mindset(presumably because we live in the UK) and we use some sort of (dodgy?) impeccable scientific knowledge. Moreover, you also try to use the victim card by suggesting that we are all ganging up on you in an organised manner(I believe you used the term 'relay'). As I see it, all that looks like a dead duck in the water as well.
So where do you go from here?
Here are some choices:
1) Sulk and leave the conversation completely. Then start another one on the same basic topic sometime in the future.
2) Try more of the same, even though it's failed so far.
3) Engage with the discussion and the arguments put forward in an open and constructive manner.
It's up to you. :-\
-
We are all fairly thick skinned here. When I ask you to quit with the insults, it's not because I am hurt, but because it means you are deflecting away from the arguments.
-
There you guys go again! The same old.... And advise on top of that! ::) :D
-
Sriram,
There you guys go again! The same old.... And advise on top of that! ::) :D
Pathetic. You were given clear and simple arguments, and yet again you've just ignored them as if nothing had been said.
Why do you behave this way?
-
There you guys go again! The same old.... And advise on top of that! ::) :D
"The same old" is called science. It has been incredibly successful in helping us to understand the world and make it a better place for humans to live in. Throw it away at your peril.
-
You guys don't get it at all...
1. There is a big difference between religious beliefs and spirituality.
2. I have no problems with science or any of its established theories.
3. The scientific method should not degenerate into scientism.
4. There are many phenomena I have mentioned above which point to realities beyond the known physical world.
5. Scientists should not reject such phenomena merely based on prejudices (the two boxes syndrome).
6. Many scientists are indeed now becoming open to serious investigation of such phenomena.
That is all it is about.
-
You guys don't get it at all...
Apparently not.
1. There is a big difference between religious beliefs and spirituality.
You can keep suggesting that, but you need to explain what the difference is. So far as I can see, a religion is just a big enough collection of people with the same (or at least similar) 'spiritual' stance. What's the difference, to your mind?
2. I have no problems with science or any of its established theories.
Everything you post seems to suggest that's not the case.
3. The scientific method should not degenerate into scientism.
Suggesting that you don't have any evidence FOR your alternative is not 'degenerating into scientism'. If you want something other than science to be considered, explain your methodology.
4. There are many phenomena I have mentioned above which point to realities beyond the known physical world.
Phenomena don't 'point' anywhere - phenomena are. Your investigations may or may not lead you somewhere, but you need to justify your premises for those investigations. If you bring 'realities beyond the known physical world' as a premise you need to establish a justification for that premise, it's not an inevitable consequence of phenomena which are, by definition, part of the known physical world.
5. Scientists should not reject such phenomena merely based on prejudices (the two boxes syndrome).
They don't. They reject them on the basis that you've not provided anything like enough justification to accept the claim. All of science is, at best, provisional. Some of it is so massively supported by so many different threads of evidence that it's difficult to see it being completely overturned, although there's almost always the scope for some degree of refinement. Consciousness, at the moment, is not tremendously well-supported, which leaves a bigger gap for you to freestyle your preferred notions in, but they'll never be anything more than unsubstantiated assertions if you never do anything more than assert them. You need something to validate these claims, you need explanatory mechanisms, you need a methodology to your investigation, you need some sort of reason to consider that methodology valid. Instead you have 'but science can't explain it, therefore magic'.
6. Many scientists are indeed now becoming open to serious investigation of such phenomena.
Scientists, in general, are always open to investigating phenomena. Or, as they call it 'doing science'. Exactly how many 'scientists' are investigating these fringe theories is questionable, but not zero. And they might find something. They might genuinely come with a demonstration of these phenomena that's verifiable and robust and supported and demonstrable and makes predictions that can be tested in order to validate or refute the claims. That's not what you're doing, though.
That is all it is about.
Yep.
O.
-
You guys don't get it at all...
1. There is a big difference between religious beliefs and spirituality.
I think that depends on how you define "spirituality". Some people think of it as more of a frame of mind than anything supernatural. On that definition, I would agree with your statement.
2. I have no problems with science or any of its established theories.
Yes you do. You specifically argue against the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. You also try to extend consciousness to things like electrons. That's anti-science too.
3. The scientific method should not degenerate into scientism.
Science is the only tool we have for successfully understanding the real World. That's just a fact. Forget about scientism.
4. There are many phenomena I have mentioned above which point to realities beyond the known physical world.
And yet the evidence for them just melts away as soon as you examine it critically.
5. Scientists should not reject such phenomena merely based on prejudices (the two boxes syndrome).
They don't. They reject phenomena because they can't be observed and studied with the tools of science. Come up with an objective way to study souls and scientists will be all over them.
6. Many scientists are indeed now becoming open to serious investigation of such phenomena.
The problem is that when they study a phenomenon and come up with the answer "it doesn't seem to exist" you don't listen.
-
Sriram,
You guys don't get it at all...
As "we guys" have reason on our side and you haven’t that seems unlikely, but let’s see whether you can substantiate this assertion…
1. There is a big difference between religious beliefs and spirituality.
As both entail believing things for bad reasons, in this respect no there isn’t. The actual difference is that the former tend to be more organised and codified than the latter – which is a second order matter.
2. I have no problems with science or any of its established theories.
That’s a lie. For example you think the unlikeliness of your existence implies that the ToE must be subject to some kind of consciousness purpose, when the science says no such thing. Actually not even the science - just simple logic that’s been explained to you multiple times here and that you don’t have the basic decency even to try to address.
3. The scientific method should not degenerate into scientism.
Straw man – it doesn’t.
4. There are many phenomena I have mentioned above which point to realities beyond the known physical world.
They do no such thing for the reasons that have been explained to you here many times and that you always run away from. Why won’t you even try at least to address those reasons?
5. Scientists should not reject such phenomena merely based on prejudices (the two boxes syndrome).
“Scientists” don’t. What scientists actually do is to falsify your unqualified claims and assertions that these are “phenomena” at all – for example your claim that events that typically occur before death somehow also tell us something about what it’s like actually to be dead is not a phenomenon, it's just lousy thinking.
6. Many scientists are indeed now becoming open to serious investigation of such phenomena.
“Many scientists” (or some scientists at least) have always been willing to investigate anything that’s logically coherent and investigable.
That is all it is about.
So fuck all then. Oh well.
Here’s a thought experiment for you to ignore as you ignore everything else that undoes you. Imagine for a moment that every product of logical reasoning and the scientific method achieved over the last 2,000 years or so did not exist. Now imagine that there are two countries with no means of communication between them – one that relies entirely on your subjective, introspective way to understand the world, the other that that relies on the reason and evidence-based methods that gave us science. Now wind the clock forward 2,000 years and consider what you’d find...
…that’s right, the reason and evidence-based country would likely have re-invented all the stuff you see around you now – rockets and medicines and the internet and the rest.
How about that “Sriram method” country then – what would you find there? I’ll tell you – nothing. No ‘planes, no medicines, no iphones, no anything – just a bunch of people dying early of cold or hunger or germs or anything else that afflicted our ancestors.
And yet you still have the brass neck to turn up here to ignore every argument that falsifies you and to spout the utter bullshit of your endless navel gazing somehow being a better method of understanding reality than reasoned argument.
Oh well…
-
You guys don't get it at all...
According to you. I don't agree.
1. There is a big difference between religious beliefs and spirituality.
Indeed there can be. My own sort of spirituality I would call secular spirituality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality
2. I have no problems with science or any of its established theories.
Yet you seem to have real problems with areas such as evolution or homeopathy, where the established theories and scientific viewpoints are a world away from your own. Sorry, but that statement of yours doesn't seem to ring quite true to me.
3. The scientific method should not degenerate into scientism.
I couldn't agree with you more. But, as no one here espouses scientism as far as I know, I am not sure why you are bringing this up.
4. There are many phenomena I have mentioned above which point to realities beyond the known physical world.
All science can then do is to apply its methodology to gather as much evidence as is possible whilst being on its guard against such areas as anecdote and unevidenced conjecture. Unfortunately it finds most of these 'phenomena' to be dead ends and not applicable to its methodology. Therefore it has nothing of substance to say about them.
5. Scientists should not reject such phenomena merely based on prejudices (the two boxes syndrome).
Something which science is extremely well aware of(not necessarily individual scientists). That is why such things as peer review, experiment repetition, double blind testing are part of the scientific methodology. You'd be far better to aim your 'two boxes syndrome' at people who simply use pure conjecture without any real evidence to back up their conclusions.
6. Many scientists are indeed now becoming open to serious investigation of such phenomena.
No scientific conclusions are regarded as absolutes. Science is always open to alternative explanations. However, for an explanation to gain traction in the scientific community, it is paramount that it gathers enough evidence to support it. Remember that the motto of th Royal Society(arguably the most important scientific body in the UK) is Nullius in verba”, which is Latin for “take nobody’s word for it”.[/quote]
That is all it is about.
Likewise.
-
I think that depends on how you define "spirituality". Some people think of it as more of a frame of mind than anything supernatural. On that definition, I would agree with your statement.
This has cropped up many times in past posts. Part of the problem is that 'spirit' is a Latin based word used in religious doctrine and so is difficult to detach it from religious beliefs. If I recall correctly, 'Spiritus' is a symbolic word and means 'breath' and is intended to represent that which is believed to be within life forms and which has neither physical nor mental form and is perhaps changeless and therefor ineffable. 'Engaged in spirituality' could be seen as following an inner path, way or method said to facilitate the realisation of that belief as the truth or otherwise. In this context, to know it is by consciously being it rather than thinking about it or conceptualising it. For the sake of discussion, 'the spiritual' could be thought of as those who follow such an 'inner path' as opposed to 'the religious' who follow a set doctrine. This probably puts any discussion of 'spirit' beyond the realms of scientific method and psychology.
-
This has cropped up many times in past posts. Part of the problem is that 'spirit' is a Latin based word used in religious doctrine and so is difficult to detach it from religious beliefs. If I recall correctly, 'Spiritus' is a symbolic word and means 'breath' and is intended to represent that which is believed to be within life forms and which has neither physical nor mental form and is perhaps changeless and therefor ineffable. 'Engaged in spirituality' could be seen as following an inner path, way or method said to facilitate the realisation of that belief as the truth or otherwise. In this context, to know it is by consciously being it rather than thinking about it or conceptualising it. For the sake of discussion, 'the spiritual' could be thought of as those who follow such an 'inner path' as opposed to 'the religious' who follow a set doctrine. This probably puts any discussion of 'spirit' beyond the realms of scientific method and psychology.
"This probably puts any discussion of 'spirit' beyond the realms of scientific method and psychology."
I fear it puts any discussion of 'spirit' beyond practically any human investigation. Many religions have their 'inner paths', with recommended methods of achieving some mystic goal. Sufism, at the heart of Islam, renunciation and Raja Yoga at the heart of Hinduism, and San Juan de la Cruz from the mystical tradition of Catholic Christianity, for instance. There are many more. There have been attempts to find some common factor between all these, in order to illustrate that all great religions derive from the same divine source (Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy is the obvious example for English speakers). However, other attempts at some kind of comparative phenomenology do anything but confirm that there is any kind of common ground (and here the obvious example is William James, classic The Varieties of Religious Experience)
I have to say that when you read the reported experience of shamans of the American Lakota tribe, or various others of the Spanish American traditions, there seems to be a bewildering and contradictory repertoire, though some of these said shamans report visions that outdo the dramas of Shakespeare*.
I almost forgot that other classic of 'spiritual' literature, The Hero With a Thousand Faces. by Joseph Campbell. I must say, I was never much convinced with this thesis (and judging by recent comments, Nearly Sane isn't either). The connections don't exist, and the comparisons seem specious.
The 'gurus' of all these traditions, seem to insist that "once you experience it, you will know". However, what appears to be unequivocally 'known' can be seen to be unequivocally different, not just in different religious traditions, but within the same religious tradition. Perhaps something can be done with a rigorous phenomenology to try and sort out a common ground of experience, but at the moment, I'm highly sceptical.
* Even having excluded the lies of Carlos Castaneda, who did his best to muddy the well, and got very rich on it.
-
Yes, I agree. The difficulty for those who claim such an inner 'experience' is there is probably no satisfactory way of communicating it to those who have not had the 'experience' which is why the language of' mythos' is used. It was probably worse for those mystics who had to contend with the power of organised religion because of the threat of punishment for heresy. It is much easier to talk about 'earthly' experiences... e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/3jx8mbk3