K9!
New
He did admit he thought it was OK to misrepresent van Lommel's work. So he doesn't feel guilty about it. But he did do it.Where do you see the "admission"? I honestly don't think he sees anything "guilt" worthy.
He did admit he thought it was OK to misrepresent van Lommel's work. So he doesn't feel guilty about it. But he did do it.Where do you see the "admission"? I honestly don't think he sees anything "guilt" worthy.
More and more just on the basis of who controls the purse strings for research, who"officially" decides what will be allowed for academic research, and who will be banished if they dare think outside the box (intelligent design anyone?) And who controls the mainstream propaganda outlets (Wikipedia, science rags, corporate news media, Ted Talks).Why do these people get away with it?
Agreed. People are privileging their attachment to whichever definitive cultural narrative they have adopted over truth.More and more just on the basis of who controls the purse strings for research, who"officially" decides what will be allowed for academic research, and who will be banished if they dare think outside the box (intelligent design anyone?) And who controls the mainstream propaganda outlets (Wikipedia, science rags, corporate news media, academic publications).
The actual objective truth, some open-ended questioning based on intelligent reasoning, or good old fashion science - well, that seems to count for less and less these days. We seem to be on the verge of a new kind of medievalism, trading one cultish faith (christianity) for another (materialistic atheism). We're not quite there yet, but lately the materialists have become less and less tolerant of those outside their faith.
My Best,
Bertha
I have to say, I'm listening to the podcast and Shermer is driving me nuts. He just keeps coming back to the same thing: The only way to know the totality of reality now and for all of time is via this method that humans invented 400 years ago that is restricted to measuring material matter called reductionist scientific materialism. Just bypasses the fact that this belief itself is not 'scientifically' verifiable.
And every time he is confronted with an argument that suggests aspects of reality that may not yield to this method, Shermer's answer is: well, that may or may not be true but I don't care.
This is the kind of reasoning that get's him celebrated as a leading expert on these subjects? Essentially, we restrict our thinking to the parameters of the framework that appeals to me or I'm taking my ball and going home?
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html
Belief in religion and spirituality is beneficial.
The positive contribution to civilization by Christianity has been enormous.
Atheism has been responsible for enormous harm.
is the glass half empty or half-full?
Despite the title this is mostly about the politicization of science in society. It is not all about the current era or the current administration, or even entirely about the government. This video is not anti-science. It is about how science can be abused for ideological or political purposes.
Subjects include:
Appointmentt of Scientific Ideologues
"Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two Children?" John Holdren Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Stretching The Scientific Data
Global warming alarmist claims (such as an increase of wild fires) that are not supported by science.Coercive Utopianism
School lunch program that doesn't consider the needs of student atheletes or expectant mothers.
Secret Science
EPA refusal to release data to .. people they don't like.
Enlisting Science in the Culture War
President taped a introduction to a TV series that likened those who disagree with climate change to Nazis.The Rise of Totalarian Science
Ecology
Coercive measures to control population. "The life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee." Peter SingerMedicine and Biotethics
NBC (tv network): "It's pro-science to abort children with genetic defects" when such abortions are a question of ethics not science.Faith & Science
Professors use science to promote their anti-religious views. One researcher who thought design in nature is such an obvious inference that "Young children can be taught basic natural selection using a picture-storybook intervention.Free Speech
Use of of terms like "heretics" and "anti-science" for anyone who disagrees with the mainstream scientific view. NY Times refusing to print letters to the editor disputing climate change when the tradition of printing letters to the editor exists to provide views that differ from the editorial policy of the paper. Calls for the prosecution of global warming skeptics. Canceling of an interdisciplinary class on the "boundaries of science" that included a week on cosmology and physics data that supported intelligent design. Campus speech code banning science and humanities professors from discussing intelligent design.This is in contrast to the previous point where atheists are free to use science to argue for their opinions such as the need to ban religion. A NASA scientists was fired for sharing information about intelligent design with colleagues. A "Free thinker" mob threatened to disrupt a non credit adult education course at Amarillo College on intelligent design causing the course to be canceled.
http://nypost.com/2009/10/06/white-houses-botched-op/
OOPS! A crowd of 150 doctors gathers in the Rose Garden to support the health-care overhaul -- as White House staffers scramble to hand out camera-ready white coats to those who forgot their own.
In my opinion, if science can be abused for political purposes that doesn't mean that science is inherently evil and should be abolished. The same argument applies to religion. Religion can be abused but that doesn't mean religion is inherently bad or that it should be abolished.
compared to what... the Conquistadors? is the glass half empty or half-full?
I have to say, I'm listening to the podcast and Shermer is driving me nuts. He just keeps coming back to the same thing: The only way to know the totality of reality now and for all of time is via this method that humans invented 400 years ago that is restricted to measuring material matter called reductionist scientific materialism. Just bypasses the fact that this belief itself is not 'scientifically' verifiable.
And every time he is confronted with an argument that suggests aspects of reality that may not yield to this method, Shermer's answer is: well, that may or may not be true but I don't care.
This is the kind of reasoning that get's him celebrated as a leading expert on these subjects? Essentially, we restrict our thinking to the parameters of the framework that appeals to me or I'm taking my ball and going home?
See, Alex, I don't quite see religion the way you do. Religion isn't the source of morality, but rather, consciousness is, and religion is the filter through which that is apprehended. Morality is absolute, but religion is relative to the mindset of people of given times and places.
sure but is that the kind of spirituality you want... not me.
compared to what... the Conquistadors? is the glass half empty or half-full?
of course
but perhaps we'll do better the next round. maybe we can see past the manipulative social engineering tool religion always winds up becoming and find a better path to spiritual truth.
I have to say, I'm listening to the podcast and Shermer is driving me nuts. He just keeps coming back to the same thing: The only way to know the totality of reality now and for all of time is via this method that humans invented 400 years ago that is restricted to measuring material matter called reductionist scientific materialism.
Exactly.I have to say, I'm listening to the podcast and Shermer is driving me nuts. He just keeps coming back to the same thing: The only way to know the totality of reality now and for all of time is via this method that humans invented 400 years ago that is restricted to measuring material matter called reductionist scientific materialism. Just bypasses the fact that this belief itself is not 'scientifically' verifiable.
And every time he is confronted with an argument that suggests aspects of reality that may not yield to this method, Shermer's answer is: well, that may or may not be true but I don't care.
This is the kind of reasoning that get's him celebrated as a leading expert on these subjects? Essentially, we restrict our thinking to the parameters of the framework that appeals to me or I'm taking my ball and going home?
The scientific method works.He just keeps coming back to the same thing: The only way to know the totality of reality now and for all of time is via this method that humans invented 400 years ago that is restricted to measuring material matter called reductionist scientific materialism. Just bypasses the fact that this belief itself is not 'scientifically' verifiable.
Because the thing asserted had no credible evidence.And every time he is confronted with an argument that suggests aspects of reality that may not yield to this method, Shermer's answer is: well, that may or may not be true but I don't care.
What exactly does Shermer mean when he talks about moral progress being due to science?
The scientific method works.
Providing evidence for and looking for evidence against your hypothesis works. (working includes things like: modern agriculture, sanitation, the computer you are looking at, etc.)
The last 400 years of innovation and human flourishing show that this method works.
Believing in things for which there is no evidence does not work.
Human vulnerability to faith (believing things for which there is no evidence) gives any eloquent psychopath the ability to do immense harm.
Because the thing asserted had no credible evidence.
"Credibility" might be our point of contention.
What you find credible, I might see as subjective and non-reproducible self-deception. You might see my demand for things like 'objectivie' and 'reproducible' as being narrow-minded and just being mean because it would take away any foundation for your tenuous, but cherished, beliefs.
OR, I might be misreading your assertion? Do you have another method for arriving at truth that does not rely on evidence, facts, and objective analysis?
Because I don't think I'll believe it.
The paradigm shift is not going to occur because the skeptics were made to change their minds. The source of the problem is the elite people behind the scenes who control government funding of scientific research. They don't want competition from a higher power. Plentiful funding for research on non-materialist subjects would change society instantly simply because the many scientists who don't believe in materialism would then be free to say so. The problem is censorship enforced by control over research grants and employment. It isn't the skeptics who are controlling this, it is the elite people who control the money. And this censorship is just one aspect of the much bigger problem of scientism:
http://www.thebestschools.org/features/rupert-sheldrake-interview/
...
In the nineteenth century, many of the most creative scientists were not professionals. For example, Charles Darwin was an amateur naturalist living on a private income, with no academic post or government grant. He was much freer as a result.
...
Now, the vast majority of scientists rely on salaries and are far more aware of peer-group pressure. In fact, the peer-review system for jobs, grant applications, and publication of papers in journals means that peer pressure dominates their lives.
...
From the book, "The Moral Arc", moral progress is defined as “increase in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings.” As a very simple example, science has greatly expanded our definition of what a sentient being is.
It has uncovered, through an understanding of evolutionary biology, the connections between humans (the whole concept of 'race' is a fallacy based on very minor genetic mutations) and other life on the planet.
In a broader frame, science increases our understanding of the world and replaces untrue beliefs with real information. It is harder to make morally correct judgments if you are basing those judgments on incomplete or erroneous information.
For example, if you believe that witches cause disease in your community and that witchcraft is a real thing, then you are morally justified in killing witches. We now know, through science, that disease has many possible vectors (bacteria, viruses, environmental contamination, nutrition, etc) but that 'witches' is not one of them.
If you believe that there is life after death and that not doing what the man in the funny hat tells you to do will lead to an eternity of pain and torture, you will do what the man in the funny hat tells you to do, up to and including genocide.
Science has shown that the man in the funny hat is just a man in a funny hat and delusional.
Your evolved mechanism for being able to tell right from wrong might be working correctly i.e. you are not a sociopath or a psychopath.
But if that mechanism does not have good information to work with, you will end up doing things that we will see, in the future, as immoral.
And that's the point of the book, morality is improving over time and the driving force behind that improvement is a growth in our understanding of the world, through science.
Trying to teach your grannie to suck eggs, I see. Let me see now: what evidence is there that consciousness is produced by the brain? None. Evidence that there is correlation between brain activity and consciousness, sure. What evidence is there that consciousness is not in the brain? Quite a lot, but of course...
Nobody finds your demands for objectivity and reproducibility as being narrow-minded. What they find narrow-minded is your assertion that there is no evidence for mind being separate from brain: there's bloody tons of it that you choose to ignore or aren't actually aware of.
Where's the objective evidence for multiple universes to account for the fine-tuning of universal constants? Could we ever obtain it? And yet many materialists accept that multiple universes exist. On what basis? All I can see is faith. Materialism is as much a matter of faith as you claim non-materialism is.
I tend to think that when people do not feel threatened, are not hungry and have an education not based on bronze-age religions, they are kinder, less selfish, and less violent.Science allows us to understand how the world works, and a person can use this understanding to do a lot of good in the world. But equally a person can use this understanding to do a lot of bad in the world. So really science just makes people more EFFECTIVE at whatever it is that they're doing. There's no particular reason to think that it will make people kinder, less selfish, less violent, etc.
Science shows that racial prejudices are just nonsense, at a genetic level, we are all very similar to each other. I assert that the rising tide of morality and moral acuity (being able to see what is moral because you are less dumb) did have something to do with the rise of education and scientific progress.As for racism, I'm betting that socializing and making friends with people from other racial/ethnic groups has had a much bigger impact than some current scientific theory suggesting that the concept of race is unscientific.
Nope. If that was true, the God crowd would still have a much stronger hold on us. Many faith traditions make claims about reality that science has shown to be false. There are still people who say that reality is wrong because it does not conform to what their religion says, but the cognitive dissonance for these people is incredible. To try to hold two mutually exclusive concepts in your head (reality v. 'god') must be exhausting and probably manifests itself in other anti-social behaviors.The best arguments against God are philosophical, not scientific. See the problem of evil, for example.