Victor Stenger

[Obiwan]

Proof of the afterlife is not going to possible until either we pass on, or technology of detection improves significantly. All you have available now is faith. By like I've said, the skeptics are mistaken.

Also, some of the smartest most shrude people I know are believers.

With respect your are incorrect. People have experiences which, if true, constitute proof of survival for them. Such experiences, though rare, obviate the need for faith. Such people know survival to be a fact. Therefore it is perfectly possible.

Their experiences may not constitute proof for you or me, because we did not experience them ourselves however I would not deny their experiences and for many of them, I would accept that if I had experienced them, I would consider the matter proved too.

Some of the shrewdest and cleverest people believe some of the most preposterous things. Being smart doesn't make our beliefs any truer. It may however make it easier to assess evidence. Evidence is what gives our beliefs weight. Not how smart or shrewd we are. Faith without evidence is, IMHO, pointless.

 

[ghost]

With respect your are incorrect. People have experiences which, if true, constitute proof of survival for them. Such experiences, though rare, obviate the need for faith. Such people know survival to be a fact. Therefore it is perfectly possible.

Their experiences may not constitute proof for you or me, because we did not experience them ourselves however I would not deny their experiences and for many of them, I would accept that if I had experienced them, I would consider the matter proved too.

Some of the shrewdest and cleverest people believe some of the most preposterous things. Being smart doesn't make our beliefs any truer. It may however make it easier to assess evidence. Evidence is what gives our beliefs weight. Not how smart or shrewd we are. Faith without evidence is, IMHO, pointless.

The reason I believe that consciousness is independent of the material world is the same reason I had when I was 5 years old. Even then, as I know now, consciousness is not a property of matter or of physics.

 

[Iyace]

He was calling ghost the troll, but his taunt was specially directed at me due to my using the word > lot. Never has any reply by he ever been a kind one, there always the subtext of > you really are stupid.

What the hell are you talking about? I was saying that one person seemed to rejoice in the death of Stenger, that hardly qualifies as a ' lot '. Those are your own words. Here, I'll quote it for you.

What a pathetic lot some of you are. Perhaps there should be rejoicing when Sheldrake et al. die. I'm certain some will, but it won't be from me.

Seriously, if you don't want to feel the subtext of ' you are really stupid ' in my posts, stop acting like you really are stupid. Shit flies over your head like you're in a firefight.

If you really want to start with some bullshit pretense about age, then I should probably lighten up on you due to the impending senility. You already seem a season short of a box set, and I'm guessing age is doing you no favors. Do your self some justice and stop trying to discuss issues that require cognitive acuity. Andy Griffith reruns for 8 hours every Sunday on PAX.

See what happens when we begin using age in a discussion that simply called into question your blanket assertion?

 

[Steve]

I would always think of someone's passing as a sad event, no matter who it might be. There are lots of people I don't like very much, but they are ,like me, doing the best that they can. They all have someone who cares in some way about them and their passing should be respected.

Every day I read things on Facebook and on Forums the hateful way people react to others they disagree with, they would like to see this woman arrested, or that guy killed etc? At times I would find it hard to find argument with their view, but we must remember that even though some evil acts seem outrageous and can hardly be conceived in our minds, they were probably seeds that were sown long ago in individuals ? If the collective unconscious is real, we are all to blame, and looking at the evidence, is that so unlikely ?

On the other hand I never felt comfortable watching the Waltons ? :) If everyone in the world was a 'John Boy' , the earth wouldn't be a very exciting place to be - would it ? (Genuine question ?) If heaven was on earth, there'd be no point in having somewhere like earth ?

 

[gabriel]

What is the benefit of simple belief in this situation? In fact I would say it is a danger.

I get that having a simple belief is a comfort. Simple belief is far from universally beneficial.

In fact, as a formerly religious person I would say beliefs which are not properly researched or understood are a positive harm and leave the believer open to all sorts of exploitation.

I agree though that cruel demolition which relies on misuse of information and 'clever argumentation' is wrong.

I disagree. People have all kinds of skills, like woodcarving or mental arithmetic, which they accept, develop, but don't question. How do you begin to question why you're good at art? Evidence is useful but there are situations where intuition is nine parts of the whole. Making people doubt intuition is part of materialisms' grand project. Once people learn to doubt their feelings, you can fill the space with any data you choose and call it fact. Destroying an instinctive approach to the world removes our essential humanity, which is also on the skeptical agenda.

 

[tim]

I've not really been convinced by any definition of a "troll". Ghost has a tendency to rant and repeat himself without really engaging. As far as I can see he is a waste of ectoplasm.

What is the benefit of simple belief in this situation? In fact I would say it is a danger.

I get that having a simple belief is a comfort. Simple belief is far from universally beneficial.

In fact, as a formerly religious person I would say beliefs which are not properly researched or understood are a positive harm and leave the believer open to all sorts of exploitation.

I agree though that cruel demolition which relies on misuse of information and 'clever argumentation' is wrong.

Before the triumph of critical rationalism in the UK (for instance) people lived their lives with faith in the archetype, hope that sustained them to the bitter end of often hard lives. "God" (The Christian version) was very much alive and watching over them and their families and people didn't need valium to get by when there was a death in the family or a tragedy. "God" would sort it out and all would eventually be resolved. With the mass abandonment of "God" in the fifties and sixties based on scientific discoveries of all sorts things came the compensation....more and better food, better homes, fitted carpets, central heating, air travel, space age....we don't need "God" ...why did we ever think we did....what a silly notion...I know because I was there

But where has it taken us to ? Look after number one at all costs, grab what you can (someone else's wife if you fancy) accumulate as much wealth/status as you can because you have one life, one chance and you if you think otherwise you're a dickhead.

Now I'm not saying that everything was great and now it's all terrible but do we feel safer out on the streets, do we have more alcoholics and drug addicts and suicides and divorced lonely miserable old folk wanting to die ?

 

[Obiwan]

I disagree. People have all kinds of skills, like woodcarving or mental arithmetic, which they accept, develop, but don't question. How do you begin to question why you're good at art? Evidence is useful but there are situations where intuition is nine parts of the whole. Making people doubt intuition is part of materialisms' grand project. Once people learn to doubt their feelings, you can fill the space with any data you choose and call it fact. Destroying an instinctive approach to the world removes our essential humanity, which is also on the skeptical agenda.

Intuition is not evidence. Feelings are not evidence. Unless of course they are based on prior experience, which would be 'fact' for the person concerned. If people stop at intuition or feelings that's their choice. Doubting our intuition and feelings is not a bad thing as far as I can see as it may lead to research, questioning and hence support for that intuition or feeling. The key is to understanding why that intuition or feeling is there.

Thinking you're good at art is one thing. Producing work which is acknowledged as good is evidence. Calling 'any data you choose' fact is the act of someone who has already decided what is 'just so', ie seeking to justify or bolster a position which has be predetermined. This is very common indeed, but it isn't prudent - I think we're in agreement on that.

I don't understand the illustration you use regarding skills and belief. Perhaps you could make it clearer for me.

 

[Obiwan]

Before the triumph of critical rationalism in the UK (for instance) people lived their lives with faith in the archetype, hope that sustained them to the bitter end of often hard lives. "God" (The Christian version) was very much alive and watching over them and their families and people didn't need valium to get by when there was a death in the family or a tragedy. "God" would sort it out and all would eventually be resolved. With the mass abandonment of "God" in the fifties and sixties based on scientific discoveries of all sorts things came the compensation....more and better food, better homes, fitted carpets, central heating, air travel, space age....we don't need "God" ...why did we ever think we did....what a silly notion...I know because I was there

But where has it taken us to ? Look after number one at all costs, grab what you can (someone else's wife if you fancy) accumulate as much wealth/status as you can because you have one life, one chance and you if you think otherwise you're a dickhead.

Now I'm not saying that everything was great and now it's all terrible but do we feel safer out on the streets, do we have more alcoholics and drug addicts and suicides and divorced lonely miserable old folk wanting to die ?

Belief has not left us Tim. Look at the Middle East - it is there in abundance. Are you really saying that the centuries of religious domination and the influence of religious belief leading to the present have been more peaceful, kinder and more tolerant than they are now?

 

[Obiwan]

The reason I believe that consciousness is independent of the material world is the same reason I had when I was 5 years old. Even then, as I know now, consciousness is not a property of matter or of physics.

I wouldn't seek to argue with what you know. I would be interested to hear how you know it. I happen to think you're probably right because it seems intrinsically sensible to me. That doesn't mean I am right though and it is a fact.

 

[gabriel]

Intuition is not evidence. Feelings are not evidence. Unless of course they are based on prior experience, which would be 'fact' for the person concerned. If people stop at intuition or feelings that's their choice. Doubting our intuition and feelings is not a bad thing as far as I can see as it may lead to research, questioning and hence support for that intuition or feeling. The key is to understanding why that intuition or feeling is there.

According to Rupert Sheldrake, the sense of being stared at is a real phenomenon. If that is so, intuition of such an event is indeed evidence. Sheldrake's data merely confirms what people have accepted for centuries, that people often know when other people are watching them. Scientific evidence of the phenomenon doesn't change it - it's either true or false - it merely locates it in a palatable format for those who admire their own predisposition for doubt and liking for figures. People who have always been convinced by it won't need third party approval for the evidence of their senses.

"Thinking you're good at art is one thing. Producing work which is acknowledged as good is evidence".

It's my misfortune to disagree with this, too. An artist like Picasso working in his studio before being acknowledged by the wider art world, was still producing great art. The artefact did not change because it had financial value added to its production. Like the approbation of materialists, consent to value by the art market has nothing to do with the object. Intuition and artistic ability do not require external mandate to be real, they are extraneous to fact.

 

[tim]

Belief has not left us Tim. Look at the Middle East - it is there in abundance. Are you really saying that the centuries of religious domination and the influence of religious belief leading to the present have been more peaceful, kinder and more tolerant than they are now?

No, Obiwan, I'm not saying that. Lets leave out the Middle East ..stick to the west. Of course the various churches down the centuries were full of inconsistencies, illogical rituals, hypocrites and rotten eggs as they still are. I'm not religious, I don't attend church and probably never will now but the church is not God, the church is not that man 2000 years ago given the unholy task of trying to set up some rules to live by. The Church(s) is what it is, take it or leave it

My main point is there is no good reason why people shouldn't believe in "God". They are being just as right or just as wrong as people who don't believe
in "God". But...it seems that the people that do believe or have faith or whatever you want to call it, live better lives or at least are happier shall we say. *And that is not to say that some atheists aren't blissfully happy* but if they are, why do they spend so much time trying to rubbish other people's beliefs ?

*denotes I don't really believe that though

 

[ghost]

I wouldn't seek to argue with what you know. I would be interested to hear how you know it. I happen to think you're probably right because it seems intrinsically sensible to me. That doesn't mean I am right though and it is a fact.

I made the distinction that consciousness is something that experiences "information". The academic community is dazzled by the their equations that manage "information". At the present time they believe that "information" is the be all and end all, the big enchilada, the final discovery. But there is a subtly here that can easily go unnoticed by neuroscientists and physicists alike, yet coincidentally was brought to our attention by the Christian savior... Jesus. Basically, there is nothing in the physics equations about information that addresses the experience of PAIN. An informational quality of pain can be directed to some neurons, but the subtlety is that consciousness is something extra, something beyond molecules, beyond physics. Consciousness can experience pain, and many other things. But "pain" is how we know that consciousness is transcendent.

 

[Bart V]

Not really. I don't recall any religious text that specifically claimed to fly a plane into a building. I do however know there are multiple religious texts that support learning. If you want to get really technical, Catholic priests gave us the big bang theory, Muslim Imams gave us algebra, and I can promise you a sizeable chunk of the engineers on the Apollo missions were christians.

Lemaitre proposed the big bang because he was an astronomer and a physics professor, not because he was a priest. Muslim mathematicians layed the base for algebra, not imams. And the Christian engineers who worked on the Apollo program did not use theology to make their calculations.

Science is a method, so it does not judge how people use its' findings. It does not compel people to do bad things.
Religion, on the other hand, is a motivator, it can be the reason people do wrong.

If you want to get even more gritty, you can also change the argument into " science => eugenics, rejligion => charity ". See? I can show each in a good and a bad light.

No, because it is not science that leads to eugenics, it is the interpretation of its findings by some people that leads to eugenics.
Science does not kill people, motivated people kill people. Sadly one of this motivations is religion. There are many others, but science is not one of them.

Of course, understanding this simple fact would require someone to be unblinded from their cognitive bias against anything religious. Maybe you're not at that point yet.

Do you really think these kinds of remarks are helpful in any way?

 

[fls]

When Steve said, "what a pathetic lot some of you are", "lot" is used as a noun and refers to "a collection or group of people". The modifier which indicates amount, in this case, is "some" which means "at least a small amount of".

Hope that helps.

Linda

 

[gabriel]

Lemaitre proposed the big bang because he was an astronomer and a physics professor, not because he was a priest. Muslim mathematicians layed the base for algebra, not imams. And the Christian engineers who worked on the Apollo program did not use theology to make their calculations.

Science is a method, so it does not judge how people use its' findings. It does not compel people to do bad things.
Religion, on the other hand, is a motivator, it can be the reason people do wrong.

No, because it is not science that leads to eugenics, it is the interpretation of its findings by some people that leads to eugenics.
Science does not kill people, motivated people kill people. Sadly one of this motivations is religion. There are many others, but science is not one of them.

That is a completely lopsided argument. Religion no more compels people to acts of evil than it forces them to works of charity. Science does not prefer space exploration to eugenics, both are motivations in search of a method. If I ignore antibiotics and emphasise gas chambers, I can make science appear as inhumane as you want religion to be. The difference is I recognise the difference between belief and politics.

 

[Obiwan]

According to Rupert Sheldrake, the sense of being stared at is a real phenomenon. If that is so, intuition of such an event is indeed evidence. Sheldrake's data merely confirms what people have accepted for centuries, that people often know when other people are watching them. Scientific evidence of the phenomenon doesn't change it - it's either true or false - it merely locates it in a palatable format for those who admire their own predisposition for doubt and liking for figures. People who have always been convinced by it won't need third party approval for the evidence of their senses.

"Thinking you're good at art is one thing. Producing work which is acknowledged as good is evidence".

It's my misfortune to disagree with this, too. An artist like Picasso working in his studio before being acknowledged by the wider art world, was still producing great art. The artefact did not change because it had financial value added to its production. Like the approbation of materialists, consent to value by the art market has nothing to do with the object. Intuition and artistic ability do not require external mandate to be real, they are extraneous to fact.

I think we may be at cross-purposes slightly here. I don't see how intuition is evidence in itself. It may be a pointer to something underlying this which is providing evidence. It sounds to me like saying seeing a ghost is evidence - it isn't, the ghost is the evidence isn't it or the eye-witness testimony, not the mechanism through which is was perceived? We're probably straying from the OP a bit here. I am happy to discuss it. I also have no problem whatsoever with you not agreeing (not that I think you think I have :) ), it's how I learn.

I wouldn't restrict my definition of evidence to 'scientific evidence'. Testimony is good as well, depending on the quality of it. Feelings, and intuition, to me, are not evidence unless there is some reason to accept them as I mentioned earlier. Eg "what made you feel that way" - usually elicits a response that explains what caused the person to feel that way - the causes are evidence, the feeling isn't IMHO.

Art is a tricky one. 'Good Art' seems to me in some senses subjective. Though there appears to be a standard I am not qualified to assess it. I may not think Picasso's art was particularly good but who the hell cares what I think? Picasso might have thought he was excellent from the outset, many people do. Intuition and artistic ability don't seem to me be the same thing.

 

[Obiwan]

No, Obiwan, I'm not saying that. Lets leave out the Middle East ..stick to the west. Of course the various churches down the centuries were full of inconsistencies, illogical rituals, hypocrites and rotten eggs as they still are. I'm not religious, I don't attend church and probably never will now but the church is not God, the church is not that man 2000 years ago given the unholy task of trying to set up some rules to live by. The Church(s) is what it is, take it or leave it

My main point is there is no good reason why people shouldn't believe in "God". They are being just as right or just as wrong as people who don't believe
in "God". But...it seems that the people that do believe or have faith or whatever you want to call it, live better lives or at least are happier shall we say. *And that is not to say that some atheists aren't blissfully happy* but if they are, why do they spend so much time trying to rubbish other people's beliefs ?

*denotes I don't really believe that though

I don't have any problem with anyone believing whatever they like. I don't think religious people live better lives than non-religious people - having been religious myself, and speaking from my own perspective only I would say a lot of religious people pay lip-service to their beliefs, others are trapped by them. As for being happier, sometimes ignorance is bliss I agree. If people have particular beliefs that's fine, when they publicise these beliefs then it seems to me certain that they will encounter others who hold opposing views and challenge them. If this belief is not properly researched it is likely to fall before a better-informed opponent. There are a few ways to deal with this - accept that beliefs can change and learn, demonise the opponent so that they are not heard, don't talk to anyone who doesn't share your own views. I see all these tactics in use all the time by religious people between themselves and from non-believers. It's a funny old world.

 

[gabriel]

I wouldn't restrict my definition of evidence to 'scientific evidence'. Testimony is good as well, depending on the quality of it. Feelings, and intuition, to me, are not evidence unless there is some reason to accept them as I mentioned earlier. Eg "what made you feel that way" - usually elicits a response that explains what caused the person to feel that way - the causes are evidence, the feeling isn't IMHO.

Skeptics don't differentiate between testimony and anecdote - and anecdote is a euphemism for junk data in the materialist lexicon. So we're mostly in the realm of the unscientific because science demands turn-key repeatability and a method. In that paradigm someone saying "I felt the presence of my father" is directly equivalent to "I saw my father and he faded before my eyes". Both are evidence to the percipient and "anecdote" to everyone else. If a medium tells you he has "your brother Ron in the room and Ron says you worry about money too much", it may completely fit your brother's name and the kind of things he would say in life, but your belief in the message would rest entirely on your intuition towards mediumship and feelings toward the medium conveying it.

 

[ghost]

When Steve said, "what a pathetic lot some of you are", "lot" is used as a noun and refers to "a collection or group of people". The modifier which indicates amount, in this case, is "some" which means "at least a small amount of".

Hope that helps.

Linda

I accept whatever criticism I get for my comment(s) earlier; I deserve it. Yes, I admit that I have a very high opinion of religion, but no impressed with atheism. But if you really think about it, you atheists who are so fascinated by evolution will be surprised by something you have never considered. Intelligence alone is not enough to make homo sapiens the dominant species. You can't go a million years of evolution without having to get your hands dirty. Just because you can use your powers of "smartness" to light a fire doesn't mean that you have the aggression necessary to lead the group in a fight with another tribe. There was no technology a hundred thousand years ago. If you were going to survive, you had to fight, you had to get your hands dirty. How would you have defended your tribe against the aggressions of other tribes? By hitting aggressors over the head with your abacus? So while you're are so high and mighty with your technology and cushy homes in the 21st century, don't forget what it took to make it. Don't forget your past.

 

[Obiwan]

Skeptics don't differentiate between testimony and anecdote - and anecdote is a euphemism for junk data in the materialist lexicon. So we're mostly in the realm of the unscientific because science demands turn-key repeatability and a method. In that paradigm someone saying "I felt the presence of my father" is directly equivalent to "I saw my father and he faded before my eyes". Both are evidence to the percipient and "anecdote" to everyone else. If a medium tells you he has "your brother Ron in the room and Ron says you worry about money too much", it may completely fit your brother's name and the kind of things he would say in life, but your belief in the message would rest entirely on your intuition towards mediumship and feelings toward the medium conveying it.

Well I'd agree there. Often determined opponents attempt to reject personal testimony evidence as 'anecdote'. We may be in the realm of the unscientific in terms of repeatability but part of scientific analysis is observation isn't it? People are reporting observations; the fact that they may not be repeatable doesn't mean they didn't happen - at least to the reasonable mind. Personally testimony is, IMHO, very important indeed. My experiences are evidence to me - I agree. They may be evidence to you too depending on lots of different factors. Testimony and anecdote are not the same thing. Anecdotes may have connotations of unreliability or reliance on hearsay. Personal testimony, certainly in legal terms, isn't anecdotal in my experience.

Belief isn't, of itself, evidence though is it? If I am asked why I believe the medium is talking to Ron, I should be able to explain why I believe that. Otherwise the evidential value to a stranger is, as you say, zero. It also seems reasonable to me to ask why the person is confident in the medium, this would explain the belief. Most people know why they believe things, even if it is just "thats what I was always taught".