Religious/Science Debate Cont.

[chasman62]

Couple of points to start with:

1. I don't think Rosie needs anyone to hold her coat HR. If you have something to contribute please chime in.

Chas, I've noticed quite a few argumentative fallacies in your posts, and it doesn't bode well for you..

Really.....was that psychic intuition on your part. Oh sorry that might have looked a teensy weensy bit like ridicule.

2. As I have said many times in this particular thread and elsewhere, I dont personally care about any given individuals personal beliefs, and I believe I am careful to respect that. It matters not one jot to me whether you believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, The Purple Spaghetti Monster, alien abductions, astrology, palm reading, dolphin psy on and on and on. The only point of this was to discuss the conflict between scientific reason on one hand and certain religious beliefs on the other. Somehow that got lost in here. My scorn is reserved for those who want to teach supernaturality in a science class. We have enough ignorance in this country without adding fuel to that fire. Frankly, religious zealots frighten me and I think with good cause.

The evidence for the existence of human psychic abilities is so flimsy that it does indeed resemble a straw man, although in the literal rather than metaphorical sense. I will ask a few simple questions to start with:

a. Do you think that the proposition that if in a series of trials of probabilistic events (eg dice rolling, card guessing) the observed results deviate from the expected results that the only explanation for that is psy? If so, why?

b. Do you think that failing to frame your hypothesis in a way that is predictive, ie that ahead of time you can analyze all potential sources of variance and then predict what needs to be observed for the only explanation to be psy, to be true to the scientific method? If so, why?

c. Do you think that the use of arbitrary post hoc statistical metrics that simply demonstrate that the observed results could not have occurred by random chance with a given probability is evidence that they MUST therefore have occurred by psy? Why? (This is pretty much a restatement of number 1 but it is the most important one). It is also the essence of the 'god fallacy' ie if something occurs and we cannot immediately explain it then god must have done it.

d. Do you think that by agreeing that most claimants of psychic powers are cheats or frauds this somehow bolsters the argument in favor of 'scientific psy'? Why? Most people that 'believe' in the paranormal don't think it is some minor statistical blip in the guessing accuracy of a bunch of college students do they. This is a similar argument to the one made by 'scientific creationists' or 'intelligent design' advocates to differentiate themselves from biblical creationists. Many of them have higher degrees and positions in impressive sounding institutes of learning, and then use quasi scientific language to make people believe that they have something to say other than the tired old creationist arguments (which they don't).

e. Do you think that taking the results of 12 or 13 unrelated, largely uncontrolled studies, the vast majority of which failed to demonstrate any deviation from expected results, bundling them all together in a 'meta-analysis' (lovely impressive sounding word) and then burping out some statistical number which you deem to be 'evidence' of your hypothesis is really how science works? Don't you think that if this phenomenon really existed then some rather more impressive evidence than that could have been obtained after well over 100 years of trying?

f. Finally, don't you think that investigative research into the neurophysiological basis for many of the 'something going on' experiences is really the answer to determining what causes the human brain to 'experience' these things?


Randi's $1 million dollar challenge is clearly aimed at the litany of individuals in the world who claim to have paranormal abilities. Many of these people make large sums of money defrauding vulnerable people (spiritualists, mediums, psychic healers, homeopaths) and they need to be exposed as frauds. Again, is an experiment demonstrating a statistical anomaly really evidence for the paranormal? Seriously?

Guys, I am not looking for a fight and certainly not on this site. I come here for therapy and support and not for debate. I will admit that I can be a little cantankerous at times, and that to me is all part and parcel in my book of the give and take of debate. Not sure this is really the place to engage in that though is it.

[Charly22]

I don't buy into any of those folks who claim to be able to read your mind, predict your future, bla bla bla all at their own will, in order to turn a profit. It is a scam. It is all bs.

BUT.....there is something to be said for the those unsung folks, who aren't asking for money, who are just kind people, the cashier at the grocery store, the homeless man on the corner, your nephew, your classmate, your coworker, the ones who have an "intuition", ones who are able to sense and feel what others are sensing and feeling. One has to be in tune with one's own "spirit" in order to be perceptive of others spirit. So, there is nothing "magical" or different about these people. They have exactly what all of us have. I believe it is their life, their upbringing, their circumstances, that have allowed them to be in touch with that part of themselves. They have been able to "ignite" that part of themselves, where some have not ever had that ignited.

I believe these types of things argue the extremes, one extreme this way is the frauds who take it too far and are deceiving folks, the other extreme the other way is someone who does not believe in "spirit", or "paranormal" stuff, shoot, some of the stuff that gets presented and used as an example of the paranormal, or religion, who would want to believe it.

But somewhere in the middle lies the real people, the real truth.

There are somethings that cannot be seen as black and white.

There are some people who only see in black and white.

And cannot perceive anything that might exist within the "gray".

[chasman62]

BUT.....there is something to be said for the those unsung folks, who aren't asking for money, who are just kind people, the cashier at the grocery store, the homeless man on the corner, your nephew, your classmate, your coworker, the ones who have an "intuition", ones who are able to sense and feel what others are sensing and feeling.

I think this is a very interesting statement. I would say that there certainly are people who have the ability to essentially 'read' other people's state of mind from both verbal and non-verbal cues and that these people often make excellent advisors, counsellors etc. Oh and excellent poker players as well!

I would also say that many people with addiction or compulsion problems either are very poor at this, or they dont care what cues they are getting from other people because that doesnt matter to them. Viewing the world from other peoples points-of-view is threatening to your view of self.

[rosie]

Chas, i love cantankerous ;) No hard feelings here. Your last post was very interesting... just having my morning coffee but will post later.

I reckon we all need a break from the doom and gloom of PA/SA...what better way than a religious debate =))

As an aside, HR has never held my coat and has a very interesting perspective on these topics Chas, would love to see you two hash it out because he used to think a lot like you (and still does in ways).

[Charly22]

I would also say that many people with addiction or compulsion problems either are very poor at this, or they dont care what cues they are getting from other people because that doesnt matter to them. Viewing the world from other peoples points-of-view is threatening to your view of self.

Ego, in the way of what lies "within"

[veevee]

I do this..I read people very well. I can walk into a room and feel the energy of just about everyone. Funny thing is that my pa was one of the one's I could not read, before we got married. Nothing zip!
I believe I picked this up through the abuse I had as a child and the murder I witnessed as a baby. It is like a protection mechanism I picked up and as a child I would use it and I would hide when i needed to. I think it saved me a lot and I was able to fine tune it over the years. Living with my pa was unbearable for the last 8 years because I was feeling that I needed to run from what he was hiding and then I thought I was just mistaking the negativity. I have know learned that I was spot on.

[astander]

This thread fell off my radar a little...

Rosie, to answer your question, the reason I think Jesus was a prophet is because he made some amazing predictions that came true (the destruction of the temple in AD70 for example). Not to mention of course that I believe him to be the Christ, the Messiah.

The reason I do not believe that there are modern day prophets is because that's what the Bible tells me. For example, Ephesians 2:20 says that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. To me that means apostles and prophets during the time of Jesus, those whose authority was not questioned and who received doctrinal revelation directly from God.

[2frustrated]

Mind if I join in?

I found Charly's post to be the most insightful thus far, as far as encapsulating the crux of the running argument. The fact that certain people have a strong intuitive sense cannot be denied. Carl Jung wrote about intuition quite a bit as one of the four psychological functions. It would also be useful, in this context, to consider those who experience synesthesia. In that sense, as Charly said, everything is not black and white. The universe is not some empirical concoction of "things" which we ascertain with our five senses. Physical objects, rather, are very concentrated singularities of cosmic radiation. Our senses are not direct perceivers of such phenomena; our senses are instruments which aid us in making certain valid hypotheses about the universe. The more we hone our reason in the use of data received from our instrumentation, the greater our ability to function within the universe. All valid scientific discoveries attest to this.

Note: Don't think that because I'm using the word "cosmic" and touting "intuition" means that I am siding with the paranormalists. I am not. What I am doing (in the tradition of Plato, Augustine, Kepler, Leibniz, and Einstein) is going against the empiricists (Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume, Russell).

[Charly22]

The reason I do not believe that there are modern day prophets is because that's what the Bible tells me. For example, Ephesians 2:20 says that the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. To me that means apostles and prophets during the time of Jesus, those whose authority was not questioned and who received doctrinal revelation directly from God.

Astander......after reading your post....I am reminded of what Jesus said when he said:

John 14:12
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

My interpretation of Ephesians 2:20 is: A foundation is just that, the start, the beginning, the church is still being built, and I believe I myself am able to receive doctrinal revelation directly from God, through the Holy Spirit.

[Charly22]

Physical objects, rather, are very concentrated singularities of cosmic radiation.

This is what makes us all "one", connected, not seperate from God, or one another, but all connected.