E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Nearly Sane....your 'other' perception of reality (whenever it surfaces) is commendable! Problem is that you tend to see-saw quite a bit and one cannot be sure which hat you are wearing at any point of time. Like the guy in your thread with his birds (mind of other animals...)....we cannot keep turning a blind eye to experiential reality just because we are doing science. We could develop a split personality. If anything, science has to accommodate or at least acknowledge the 'other' reality. And that in essence, is what I am talking about in this thread (and in most other threads I think).
re the link you provided ,apart from the fact Delingpole is not qualified to make judgment on any scientific findings the article just highlights that Ipso doesn't have a clue about such matters either and that is a danger in somuch that the general public become misinformed.As you and I know science is not based on opinion but the general public don't know this . And so the confusion continues . Especially if the BBC has anything to do with it .
You seem to be getting yourself confused by reading stuff into my posts that I haven't written, like stuff about some 'other' reality. Talking about subjective issues such as morality is not talking about other realities.
Spirituality, life, death, happiness, morality are all about subjective experiences. Even the Self is about the ultimate 'subject' remember?!
And? This does not cover the idea of other realities. Again read what is written.
Read my post no 5. I am talking about the same subjective experiences.
It seems to me that all you are talking about is having a different approach to whatever reality is, rather than the existence of other realities...which of course is fine, just as it is for those who have a different approach to yours.
Science cannot be fully devolved from opinion because it has to be interpreted. The issue with ocean acidification here is the interpreting of something as disastrous or important are not scientific judgements, they are value judgements.
David Nutt and Anne Glover come to mind .When politicians get involved in making those judgments I despair . What with their PPE degrees they obviously know best, don't they? I mean what would a scientist know about evidence, Mr Gove?
This relates back to the use of science to achieve aims, what the actual outcome you should aim for though is not a scientific one. And in the area of large scale public policy not something that easily lends itself to if we do x, then y will happen. Though I will point out that much of the reaction to fracking as something that is just 'bad' annoys me.
I don't see what fashion has to do with it.A scientific understanding of the nature of life is not remotely consistent with ideas of spirits or reincarnation. Science reveals life to be a process of replicating metabolism in line with the principles of energy and thermodynamics. Science reveals mind and consciousness to be rare emergent products of these biochemical processes not the founding causes of them. That ancient ideas persist into the modern age is more down to the nature of human culture and the psychological dispositions of their adherents rather than their viability as alternate science ideas. A 'supreme intelligence' defies logic, rather than mere science.
It's unavoidable that a thread like this should become to scientism what the Broad Street pump was to cholera.As for quoting a bit of sanctimony from JBS Haldane, I don't know if Haldane was the first man to confuse what he did as a day job for the way the world is but i'm sure he wasn't the last.
No it hasn't, it is still an iffy hypothesis. Nothing has been revealed. It's this disingenuous, hubristic assertions which are wholly annoying and sound like those pushy theists.
eh?
The way the world is was his day job.
What I said!
you make no sense, try again.
Hardly iffy, it is what the evidence suggests; science doesn't do proof, remember, but that does not justify us in not following the evidence.
But how one follows the evidence is governed by a person's biases and ideological assumptions. In this case materialism. We see these types of things in all walks of life past and present. Someone's mind set at the start guides how they perceive things that follow on from that position. Most scientists are atheists and monists and so they see this before the evidence and data truly shows it. As I said on another thread correlation is not necessarily causation and in this case it is not clear which one is the "horse" and which one is the "cart" at the moment.
This is mostly nonsense. Clearly scientists are human and as individuals subject to the range of human biases but I don't think we can extrapolate to a sort of racism-like group bias for the scientific community as a whole. 'Materialism' is largely a strawman hurled by theists at non theists for not believing in the supernatural. What scientists would admit to is 'naturalism', that being what science is all about, the study of what is natural, clearly anything supernatural would not be amenable to investigation by definition. When we follow what the evidence suggests we are following the evidence not some 'ideology', that is just conspiratorial thinking.
