Carrol, Novella vs Alexander, Moody

EthanT

Member
This should be interesting:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...o-debate-the-woomeisters-on-life-after-death/

Make a note on your calendar: on May 7, one week from today, physicist Sean Carroll and doctor/podcaster Steve Novella will be debating Eben Alexander (author of Proof of Heaven) and doctor Raymond Moody (author of Life after Life) on the issue “Death is not final.” It’s an Intelligence-Squared debate that will be live-streamed at this site starting at 6:45 Eastern U.S. time. The moderator is John Donvan from ABC News.

These debates take a poll on the issue before and after the debate, and you can cast your vote here. At this moment, the results are mostly “against the motion,” meaning “against the notion that Death is not final”—the materialist stand:
 
Sean seems to be getting more into the debate game these days, and after his sterling performance against William Lane Craig, I have no problems with him doing one. Certainly he and Novella will be having a look at Esquire’s recent article that largely debunked Alexander’s claims of a near-death experience (and a visit to heaven), making Mr. Proof of Heaven look pretty much like a charlatan.

Looks like they forgot to notice the guy who wrote the article acted like a bit of a charlatan himself. If the debate focuses on that, maybe this won't be so interesting ...
 
Honestly I was a bit disappointed to see Eben Alexander being part of the debate. Moody should've been partnered up with someone else known for their research, not a questionable one off experience.

That said, I'm sure Coyne will bemoan the plague of "woo" infecting the "sheeple" if Moody/Alexander win. I still recall his terrible article in which he pretended decoherence had settled the role of the consciousness in QM. The role of the observer, and thus of consciousness, may be irrelevant but the matter isn't settled at all from what I've read.
 
Honestly I was a bit disappointed to see Eben Alexander being part of the debate. Moody should've been partnered up with someone else known for their research, not a questionable one off experience.

That said, I'm sure Coyne will bemoan the plague of "woo" infecting the "sheeple" if Moody/Alexander win. I still recall his terrible article in which he pretended decoherence had settled the role of the consciousness in QM. The role of the observer, and thus of consciousness, may be irrelevant but the matter isn't settled at all from what I've read.
Moody is a tricky guy; I think he could handle Novella and Carroll on his own. Though I would have liked to see someone like Greyson there instead of Alexander.
 
Hm, scientists/realists vs. believers/wishful thinkers.. such a tough decision.

It's called a NEAR-death experience for a reason.

This will be a curbstomp for Carroll/Novella.
 
Hm, scientists/realists vs. believers/wishful thinkers.. such a tough decision.

Optimism isn't the same thing as delusion though, and let's not pretend skeptics aren't also wishfully thinking the universe fits into comprehensible mechanistic laws.

Unless you've gone through the research aren't you just treating your favorites in this debate as high priests passing along a convenient truth?

eta:

This will be a curbstomp for Carroll/Novella.

This violent imagery also suggests you're part of a materialist evangelical movement fighting infidels. This internet tough guy mentality strikes me as childish and silly, and makes me wary/weary of the materialist faith.

You do realize there is no actual combat, or really any athleticism, involved here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Optimism isn't the same thing as delusion though, and let's not pretend skeptics aren't also wishfully thinking the universe fits into comprehensible mechanistic laws.

Unless you've gone through the research aren't you just treating your favorites in this debate as high priests passing along a convenient truth?

You're right, it isn't always the case, but in this one it is. It's not surprising that Moody/Alexander are believers. Carroll and Novella (and skeptics in general) aren't wishfully thinking anything. They're simply following the evidence. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't gone through the research (although respectable research that establishes that there is life after death is unsurprisingly minimal).

eta:



This violent imagery also suggests you're part of a materialist evangelical movement fighting infidels. This internet tough guy mentality strikes me as childish and silly, and makes me wary/weary of the materialist faith.

You do realize there is no actual combat, or really any athleticism, involved here?

... you cannot be serious. It's simply my own way of saying they will handedly win the debate. Cry me a river.

And there is no materialist faith. First, stop trying to equate science with materialism, and second stop trying to equate materialism with religion.
 
Honestly I was a bit disappointed to see Eben Alexander being part of the debate. Moody should've been partnered up with someone else known for their research, not a questionable one off experience.

Only a charlatan who claims to be doing scientific research would name his institute after himself.

$195 for six DVDs? Count me in!
 
... you cannot be serious. It's simply my own way of saying they will handedly win the debate. Cry me a river.

Hello master chief, and welcome to the forums! :) Hope you enjoy your stay!

And there is no materialist faith. First, stop trying to equate science with materialism, and second stop trying to equate materialism with religion.

There is a materialist faith, see this. He also goes on to explain how fundamaterialists are erroneously equating science with materialism (so it's not we who are doing it, it's them), and how fundamaterialists are just like fundamentalists in how they approach the issue of the possibility of empirical evidence existing in favor of an afterlife.
 
This will be a curbstomp for Carroll/Novella.
They won't be in a position to curbstomp anyone when they will be unable to even lift their boots from the bullshit coming out of their mouths. Tough talk is fun!

And sorry brother but materialism has become a religion. You're blind if you can't see that. However, you are right about one thing: science should not be equated with materialism.
 
I've never been a fan of these type of debates. It seems the only people that ever tune in to watch them are people that have already picked a side - like a sports fan, they are watching to watch their 'team' score a victory. In my experience, both sides will claim that they 'won' after the debate.

Ultimately, the debates themselves change nothing. The phenomena is whatever it is, and will remain unchanged by our arguments. No matter how many types of maps we draw, we will not change the territory. I do find the topic of NDEs interesting, but I am increasingly content to just wait until my time comes and see what (if anything) happens.
 
I've never been a fan of these type of debates. It seems the only people that ever tune in to watch them are people that have already picked a side - like a sports fan, they are watching to watch their 'team' score a victory. In my experience, both sides will claim that they 'won' after the debate.

While I too believe that this is the case for many people, I do think there are lot of open-minded fence-sitters as well who are just curious and who aren't in a rush to make a judgment one way or another. :)

Ultimately, the debates themselves change nothing. The phenomena is whatever it is, and will remain unchanged by our arguments. No matter how many types of maps we draw, we will not change the territory.

While true for debates of this kind at a public place like this where no side is eager to change their mind, it's not true for constructive discussions. We do make progress and learn more about subjects by discussing them at length. In order to draw a perfect map, we have to work at it.
 
... you cannot be serious. It's simply my own way of saying they will handedly win the debate. Cry me a river.

And there is no materialist faith. First, stop trying to equate science with materialism, and second stop trying to equate materialism with religion.

I just think your language indicates a certain kind of derisive proselytizing, and is why at least some younger atheists reject the New Atheist movement, while other nonbelievers wonder how it turned into a religion that smells like its own kind of fundamentalism and possibly has a priesthood. I suspect one of the draws of skeptical evangelism is it provides a moral dimension to internet trolling, and from my own experience trolling is a way to displace aggression due to real life physical weakness. Trust me, it's better to take up martial arts and do some push ups. :)

Anyway, I would agree science is not to be equated with materialism, which is why I asked if you'd actually gone throug the NDE research yourself, but materialism definitely requires faith. Even Sam Harris notes this when he admits consciousness arising from nonconscious matter is nothing less than a miracle.

The Multiverse is also pretty much a faith based proposition, as noted by Margaret Wertheim - without its proliferation of variant universes one is left with the mystery of fine tuning.

In fact there's more evidence suggestive of consciousness being as - if not more - fundamental to our existence as matter & energy, given the IQOQI results mentioned here and a series of experiments noted here + here.
 
Hello master chief, and welcome to the forums! :) Hope you enjoy your stay!



There is a materialist faith, see this. He also goes on to explain how fundamaterialists are erroneously equating science with materialism (so it's not we who are doing it, it's them), and how fundamaterialists are just like fundamentalists in how they approach the issue of the possibility of empirical evidence existing in favor of an afterlife.

Hello and thank you Hjortron.

Materialism is an outdated term. Nobody calls him/herself a materialist anymore. Physicalist is more apt. You are misusing the word faith. Scientists don't believe in phsyicalism, they accept it because that's what the evidence tells them. To equate physicalists to religious fundamentalist is erroneous and laughable.
 
Hello and thank you Hjortron.

Materialism is an outdated term. Nobody calls him/herself a materialist anymore. Physicalist is more apt. You are misusing the word faith. Scientists don't believe in phsyicalism, they accept it because that's what the evidence tells them. To equate physicalists to religious fundamentalist is erroneous and laughable.

What evidence?
 
Hello and thank you Hjortron.

Materialism is an outdated term. Nobody calls him/herself a materialist anymore. Physicalist is more apt.

You're welcome! :)

They are essentially the same thing. Also, most people who are materialists are so implicitly; they don't really realize that they're materialists/physicalists until it is pointed out to them.

You are misusing the word faith. Scientists don't believe in phsyicalism, they accept it because that's what the evidence tells them. To equate physicalists to religious fundamentalist is erroneous and laughable.

You obviously didn't read the essay. If you think it's erroneous and laughable, then first you need to explicitly refute the central point of the arguments that Neal Grossman is making with regards to those claims.
 
You obviously didn't read the essay. If you think it's erroneous and laughable, then first you need to explicitly refute the central point of the arguments that Neal Grossman is making with regards to those claims.

Master Chief reminds me of the creationists who dismiss evolution without even looking at the facts.

It's kinda sad how materialist evangelicals claim to have the intellectual high ground, but scratching beneath the surface often yields reveals a lack of knowledge about the subjects they are mocking and an unwillingness to learn. Ideally he'll prove me wrong by reading the links we put up, but I sadly suspect he's one of the New Atheist adherents the regular contributor to the Skeptical Inquirer Massimo Pigluicci complains about:

I would actually go so far as to charge many of the leaders of the New Atheism movement (and, by implication, a good number of their followers) with anti-intellectualism, one mark of which is a lack of respect for the proper significance, value, and methods of another field of intellectual endeavor.
 
While I too believe that this is the case for many people, I do think there are lot of open-minded fence-sitters as well who are just curious and who aren't in a rush to make a judgment one way or another. :)

While true for debates of this kind at a public place like this where no side is eager to change their mind, it's not true for constructive discussions. We do make progress and learn more about subjects by discussing them at length. In order to draw a perfect map, we have to work at it.
I do see value in discussing the subjects in depth (like we do here on this forum, for example), I just feel that these public debates are typically set up in too much of an antagonistic way to make a lot of progress. Debates are often won by good debaters, rather than by sound arguments. I am open to the possibility that I have misjudged it though - I'll watch this one and see :)
 
Back
Top