First of all the word God has so much baggage it is difficult to respond to a post that mentions belief or disbelief or denial of a god. I prefer other terms than god but here goes.

These comments are my views and should not be taken as truths. They are my beliefs today that could change tomorrow. Don’t think they will, but we never know what   will come into our lives to change our views. After all atheists have been known to change their system of beliefs just as the religious have become atheists.

“Evidence would make me believe in some god”

This has not been my observation. I see little evidence of most atheists doing research outside their established beliefs. In fact I no longer give recommendations as to what book or what research to read for evidence of the paranormal. It is usually almost always discounted by the atheist or skeptics before any investigation. A religious person does the same thing. Fascinating to watch this occur with both the religious and the atheists. eerie.

“These arguments fail because atheism isn’t a philosophy that compels any particular behavior.”

Atheism is very much a philosophy grounded in materialism and scientism as much as the religions folks are grounded in a personal god made in their image. Again eerie. To deny that atheism is not a philosophy denies the very foundation of being human. We live through our beliefs; we literally see the world through our paradigms, values, viewpoints, and beliefs.

“I frequently hear the claim that atheists choose atheism, usually for some morally blameworthy reason like a desire to avoid taking responsibility for their sins”

I find no indication of this in my research or while talking to others. The way religions works and the fear it tries to put into the minds of the young and indeed everyone I am surprised we don’t have more atheists. From my point of view Christianity died on the cross. We are anything but a Christian nation. By making this statement in no way do I want anyone to think I think I am a Christian. I belong to no religious, atheist, business or political organizations.

“It’s arguable, in fact, that no beliefs are choices that people can simply change their minds about.”

I cannot think of someone having no beliefs. How is this possible? If we don’t believe there is a god or gods we still have a belief. Our belief is there is no god or gods. If someone asked an atheist how did life start the atheist may answer I don’t know but that is still a belief. The belief is I don’t know. If the atheist answered it happened by chance or UFO’s or whatever that is still a belief. If the atheist answered there is no evidence for a god that is still a belief. If you are a conscious Being you have beliefs.

We may say I have not formulated a belief yet in my life but that is not what an atheist is saying; an atheist is stating I do not believe there is a god. Believing there is no god is a belief. If I have misread please respond. Thanks.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Evidence would make me believe in some god”

researcher, you respond with:

“This has not been my observation. I see little evidence of most atheists doing research outside their established beliefs.”

How much observing have you done and how many atheists have you polled? I can’t put much value in your statement without numbers, a study or data you’ve collected. And when you say you “see little evidence,” what do you mean? “See” and “little” are not the words of choice of a scientific researcher. Hell, that sentence wouldn’t meet journalistic standards.

I also took issue with this sentence:

“Atheism is very much a philosophy grounded in materialism and scientism as much as the religions folks are grounded in a personal god made in their image. Again eerie.”

There are several problems with that sentence, besides your use of ‘eerie’ and ‘very.’ You’re assuming everyone has a common interpretation of atheism—and religion for that matter. To some folks, atheism is as simple as it sounds: The rejection of something without evidence. I suppose you could say rejecting the idea of a personal god on grounds of no evidence is a belief. But certain beliefs—as Sam Harris says—are dangerous and should be rejected.

How you came to this conclusion: “I cannot think of someone having no beliefs” from the about.com sentence “it’s arguable that no beliefs are choices that people can change their minds about” is strange. I don’t think you understand what that sentence means. It should’ve been worded better, but I think the sentence means you can’t arbitrarily change your mind about a belief. Rather, you have to be convinced after the weighing of evidence.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“This has not been my observation. I see little evidence of most atheists doing research outside their established beliefs.”

I don’t lose much time researching whether astrology can accurately predict my future either.  That doesn’t make me particularly closed-minded or stuck inside inside a set of narrow beliefs about it, I believe.
I simply have already looked at the scant evidence for it, concluded that it doesn’t hold, and moved on.

Nowadays, when someone tries to convince me that I’m wrong and that I should consult with their favorite astrologer, yes, it can certainly appear to them as if there is « little evidence of [me] doing research outside [my] established beliefs » concerning astrology…  (Even if they argue that their astrologer predicted their divorce, or something.)

But you bet that the day The Lancet comes up with substantiated research indicating that astrology does indeed accurately predicts the future, I’ll have a second look.

...
“Atheism is very much a philosophy grounded in materialism and scientism as much as the religions folks are grounded in a personal god made in their image. Again eerie.”

Right about materialism.
Wrong about scientism.

-Materialism- postulates that the mechanisms which explain material phenomenon will themselves be material.  In other words, explanations for things that happen in nature are to be found in nature (as opposed to looking for supernatural or paranormal causes).
That “philosophy” has allowed all of the scientific developments that Humanity has known, and keeps proving itself the only avenue for scientific evolution.  Proof is in the pudding.

-Scientism- is an outdated philosophy which holds that science can provide the answers to all of human aspirations.
Maybe some people still hold that.  But I’ve yet to encounter an atheist who says science helps them love their spouse, helps them act in a just manner towards others, or that science tells them which party to vote for during elections.

They may argue that science will give us better explanations for the occurrence of love, morals or politics in the Human species, as they are all natural phenomenon, than believing that those are all gifts from a supernatural god.  But they won’t try to make the case that science will tell them how to conduct their life.

The aims of science stop at finding causes for natural phenomenon.  And its challenge to religions is to stop claiming illegitimately that it can do the same, as it does, without the proper methods.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

researcher: “Atheism is very much a philosophy grounded in materialism and scientism as much as the religions folks are grounded in a personal god made in their image”

Atheism is NOT a philosophy.  It doesn’t have rules, suggestions or paths to truth or happiness.  It is simply a view that there are probably no gods.  You can come to this view through science, through apathy, through rebelling against scoiety or parents or any number of ways.

Atheism, in as much as it can be considered the opposite of anything, is the opposite of deism.
Deists and atheists are in agreement that theists are wrong.  They agree that the chances of a creator of the universe speaking to insignificant creatures like humans, let alone taking an interest in how, what or who they sleep with is laughably unlikely.
They disagree on whether there likely to have been a creator in the first place, that is all.

Your attempt to place beliefs and world views with atheism simply shows that you are incapable of viewing the world without religion as some form of moral guide.  Atheists have very different morals and politics from each other, some for good reasons and some bad but the athism does not, in any way, shape their actions in any situation.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The comments were predictable. When we are standing in the middle of the forest it is almost impossible to see beyond our own cherished beliefs. One must stand away from religion and atheism to see that both can be very restrictive in our view of reality.

This quote below pretty much sums it up about the mentality of an atheist and interesting to me the mentality of the fundamentalist religious folks. Rather than get defensive go deep and ask yourselves does this person see something we don’t. Maybe he does maybe he does not. Most will just reach the conclusion quickly he does not. That is the power of paradigms.

“I simply have already looked at the scant evidence for it, concluded that it doesn’t hold, and moved on.”

The word simply is revealing here, as research into the paranormal is anything but simple. It is exponentially more difficult then research into the material world. I am 18 years into research into the mysteries of life and have I suspect just touched the surface into these mysteries.

Once we have “moved on” paradigm paralysis has sit in. Is this not evident? The flat earth people moved on also. As did the folks that were sure the sun rotated around the earth. The list of those that “moved on” with the best of intentions is almost endless. You say we cannot make those mistakes again. Oh yes we can we do everyday of our lives. We all do including myself.

Oh most who read this will think to themselves “yes we know you can researcher” and I suspect worst about my comments and of course fail to look into that mirror and see how our own cherished beliefs affect our view of the world.

I have to ask myself why write such things I know the responses I will get before I write my views on atheism or religion. Working on that one and I don’t think I will be fond of what I find.

Now no one is immune from the paradigm effect, no one or even paradigm paralysis. But there is hope amazing hope; there is also something called the paradigm shift and it can occur in a moment and it can change the way we view the world and I suspect our cherished beliefs and ourselves.

Believing we don’t have beliefs is a paradigm all unto itself. Thanks for the dialog much appreciated.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

researcher: “The word simply is revealing here, as research into the paranormal is anything but simple. It is exponentially more difficult then research into the material world.”

This is highly debatable, but ultimately irrelevant.  If meaningful research into the paranormal is possible (however difficult it may be) then it should yield solid conclusions. If, as a previous poster suggested, such conclusions, whether positive or negative, make it through a respectable process of peer review and publication, then any skeptic would be compelled to reconsider his/her views on the topic.

However, the fact of the matter is that, after decades of paranormal research, no positive conclusions have arisen, suggesting that no one should wait with baited breath. If someone has sufficient funding to pursue such an unpromising field of research, let them go ahead, but there are more promising (and indeed more emergent) issues in need of study.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher, I have read a number of your posts on different topics on this site, and although there are some points you have raised in the past that I agree with you on, I have to disagree with you on this occasion. 

You seem to persist with this notion that atheism is a belief system, a philosophy, a way of being, something that determines how a person behaves.  I can state, with a large degree of confidence that my atheism doesn’t perform any of those functions.  I don’t believe in a god or gods (note, this is different to saying “I believe there is no god/gods”) and this happens to make me an atheist, as opposed to me being an atheist, therefore I don’t believe in gods (hope that made sense).

I received a Roman Catholic education.  I didn’t really believe what was being told to me regarding the god/heaven/hell idea, but went along with it, as I thought I should as ‘adults’ are telling me, so it must be true.  As I got older, I became more and more sceptical of the whole thing, until it became meaningless to me.  I lived and still live my life in what I consider to be a good way, being kind to others, treating them as I would wish to be treated back.  I never once consider it an atheist way of living, or a Christian way, or a humanist way, it’s just my way, and it works for me, my family and those who know me.  When my dad died of cancer 13 years ago, as they put the coffin lid on before the funeral, I was upset as I knew I would never see him again.  It didn’t cross my mind that there might be a heaven where we would meet again.  Do I have evidence of this, of course not.  Am I 100% sure of this, again of course not.  But, it’s not something I lose sleep about.  It just seems normal and logical to me that when we die, that’s it, no heaven, no hell, no immortal soul. 

As to whether atheists have beliefs or not, of course they do, just not about god etc.  I believe my daughter will grow up to be intelligent, beautiful and able to think for herself.  Do I have any evidence of this?  Apart from signs that this is happening now, I have absolutely no idea what will happen in the future.  I could mention many other examples.  I think the word ‘belief’ has the potential to be misused, and we must differentiate between unsubstantiated beliefs and weighing up the evidence and making an ‘educated guess’.  I took an umbrella to work today.  Did I need to use it?  No.  Did I believe it was going to rain?  I would say ‘believe’ is the wrong word to use.  My decision to carry an umbrella was due to the weather forecast I watched last night, the cloudy skies this morning and the fact it has rained the past couple of days.  I weighed up the evidence, and came to the conclusion there was a good chance it would rain.  If there was no such evidence, the sky was blue, and the forecast predicted bright, unbroken sunshine, and we were in the middle of a heatwave, then thinking it would rain would be an act of belief.  The word ‘belief’ always suggests a lack of evidence to me.

Finally, I can also state that if there was conclusive evidence that a god existed, or if he/she/it paid me a visit, and proved it’s omnipotence with a suitable display of powers, I would accept that gods’ existence.  I wouldn’t believe it existed, as I wouldn’t need to, I would have the evidence to prove it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher, since you quoted me :

You conveniently omitted the part where I add that, whenever credible research indicates that there is some truth to astrology, I’ll have a second look at it.

Any open-minded scientific person would say the same about the existence of god or any paranormal phenomena.
-Give us some reason to look into it, and we’ll do.

What you seem to assume is that everybody should constantly keep researching every possible hypothesis for everything, observed or imagined…  lest we become narrow-minded!!!

Sorry, but in real life we have to get serious and concentrate on credible hypotheses.

As for astrology, or as for the existence of God, nothing whatsoever suggests that they are credible hypotheses at the moment.
So yes, I’ll remain close-minded to them, until someone convinces me otherwise.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“So yes, I’ll remain close-minded to them, until someone convinces me otherwise.”

It is the closed minded part that has no place in the scientific method. It was the closed minded people that stated heavier than air flight was impossible. But we think we cannot make those same kinds of mistakes. Are we that naïve to think we are beyond that in the 21st century.

“As for astrology, or as for the existence of God, nothing whatsoever suggests that they are credible hypotheses at the moment.”

It is the “nothing whatsoever suggests” that is revealing here.

As I have been doing research into the paranormal for 18 years and I know better than to state nothing whatsoever suggests there are no credible evidence. And you did not even say evidence you even went so far as to state hypotheses. Think about what you just stated there is no credible hypotheses for do research into the paranormal. This has to be against everything science is intended to be.

Science to be science must not decide what is credible and not credible. That ends up being based on beliefs not science. What is more credible then looking into the mysteries of life.

Unbelievable from my point of view this statement about nothing whatsoever suggests is the very definition of a materialistic paradigm. At least you ended with the words at the moment. That can be a crack in the door of a closed mind or a materialistic paradigm.

As far as astrology I have not done any research on it so I cannot speak to it. I always thought it was fluff. My bias.

“Sorry, but in real life we have to get serious and concentrate on credible hypotheses.”

You can bet from your point of view those credible hypotheses are based on the physical aspects of reality.

Nice to know that you consider your research real life and anyone that does research into the paranormal is not participating in real life. Kind of like the Christians only read the bible and those other books have no value. Or Darwin’s book is of no real value.

Can you not see the similarity with fundamentalism religion when making such statements? What is it about the human mind that can prevent us from seeing outside our paradigms? That is worth some research much research from my point of view.

“It just seems normal and logical to me that when we die, that’s it, no heaven, no hell, no immortal soul.”

What is normal? Average? Who is average? Average is a mathematical calculation and it is only a very small probability that anyone ends up average. Using average to evaluate human performance is one of the most destructive management philosophies even conceived. Every performance appraisal I have ever seen has at its core a profound ignorance of variation and systemic thinking.

Deming went to his grave trying to teach this aspect of variation to organizations and few listened very few. Now we bail some of those organizations out. Go figure.

Are atheists normal, they are a very small percent age of the population? Does that make them not normal? Normal is based in beliefs not the reality of the world. That word normal can be a very dangerous word.

“make it through a respectable process of peer review and publication”

Much has been published in journals that specialized in the paranormal what you meant to say was in journals that you believe are respectable. Kind of like a Christian reads an article in journals from a respectable Christian based publication. Now you are going to say I meant by scientists, well some scientists have published articles on the paranormal at great cost from their peers. Some have been fired from universities for writing such articles.

Kind of like Christianity died on the cross the scientific method died on the paradigm cross of universities. Did that make any sense? I taught at three universities please don’t lecture me on the open mindedness of universities. I actually felt there was more open mindedness at community colleges than universities. My bias.

most atheists worship at the altar of scientism and materialism and don’t have a clue they do. The Christians have made god in their image and don’t have a clue they do. Study Wallace the other guy that wrote about the origin of species before Darwin and see what he came to believe when he did research into the paranormal. You will believe Darwin but not Wallace why is that? Hint Darwin agrees with your paradigm.

“Finally, I can also state that if there was conclusive evidence that a god existed, or if he/she/it paid me a visit, and proved it’s omnipotence with a suitable display of powers, I would accept that gods’ existence.”

If you are waiting for a big daddy in the sky to pay you a visit you will have a long wait. Don’t hold your breath. At one time I was naïve enough to think that is what it took for me to believe in anything beyond this life. The word or concept of God has so much baggage it only confuses rational dialog.

What I have discovered in my research and it came as     quite a surprise because when I started my research in the early nineties I thought that the that atheists would be the lest bias because they did not have these condition religious beliefs to deal with. What a surprise it was that atheism could be as strong of a system of beliefs as a fundamentalist Christian. And here is the interesting part the Christians and the atheists don’t have a clue they hold such strong beliefs that prevent them from seeing outside their cherished beliefs or simply their paradigms.

Once we say we are an atheist or a Christian it must somehow create some kind of paradigm that filters incoming information to stop that information from challenging our hidden from our conscious paradigm. Or not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Maybe this will clarify my thoughts to you. I think it is ok to say I have no interest in doing research into the paranormal. That is fair I have no interest at this time in doing research into astrology. I think it is all fluff but that is my beliefs and bias. Not based on research but beliefs due to my bias.

If I took the time there is the possibility I may find there is something to astrology beneficial to human kind therefore worth the research but at this time I have no interest in pursuing such research.

But to state there is no evidence for the paranormal or there is no credible hypotheses for even doing research into the paranormal then those statements are based in beliefs not investigation. By making those statements I know this person has not done their study or research and if they did; they went into it with a massive materialistic paradigm.

This does not mean one has to agree with my findings far from it but one cannot state there are no credible hypotheses. Simply not true.

I know this how? I have been doing just such research for 18 years so I know better from my research and study into findings from some of the greatest scientists that ever lived on this planet. This is a not proof it only raises the probabilities of being valid and worthwhile research.

Those that know the least about the paranormal have the strongest opinions about the         paranormal. Fascinating to watch it play out.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher, you really do know how to cherry pick to suit your argument.  I posted several paragraphs in my post, picking you up on some of the points you made, and all you can reply on are 2 lines that you took out of context and proceeded to make assumptions about.  Does this mean you agree with the rest of my points?

“It just seems normal and logical to me that when we die, that’s it, no heaven, no hell, no immortal soul.”

You took one word from that, ‘normal’ and proceeded to ramble about the concept of ‘average’.  Where this was derived from, I know not.  By ‘normal’ I meant normal to me, not out of the ordinary, not requiring any particularly outlandish thought process to come to terms with.  That’s it, simple as that.

As for the ‘big daddy in the sky’ that you mention, I did not state that this is what would be required to make me believe in god/heaven etc.  That was merely an example, and any evidence that is conclusive would suffice.  What I was trying to illustrate is the fact that I am not as closed minded to be able to state, 100%, that there is no god.  Nobody can truthfully make that claim.

If my opinions on these matters go against your research, I apologise, but I know I’m not the only atheist with these points of view.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

hihi

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher - I have to take issue with your point about the “flat-earth” and “sun-revolves-around-earth” people in comment #5.  This point actually seems to support what most of the other, presumably “opposing”, posters here seem to be saying.  That is, when the majority of the world population believed those things, there was no reason or evidence for them to believe otherwise.  Now that there is conclusive evidence to the contrary, the vast majority of the population has examined their previously held belief and made the correction where necessary.  This is precisely the situation we find ourselves in now - there is no reason (via conclusive evidence) to believe in the existence of a god.  If (and a large “if” at that) in the future we discover such indisputable evidence for the existence of a god as we currently have for the examples you provided, it is a reasonable assumption that the population will similarly take another look at their beliefs and make the requisite adjustments.  Until that time, many people will (justifiably) find no reason to invest energy in the research of such a ludicris idea - for the atheist it is tantamount to researching the likliness of coming home one evening and finding a slime monster in your bathroom who gives birth to a UFO that subsequently beams you into the center of the earth.  Is it possible that could happen?  I suppose, but I have no reason to believe it will and I certainly have no reason to invest any sort of energy thinking about it…this is the essence of atheism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“there is no reason (via conclusive evidence) to believe in the existence of a god”

I don’t believe I have been claiming there is a god. My research indicates that there is more to this world than meets the five senses. It appears from my point of view and study that there is more to this universe than materialism. The word God has too much baggage to dialog on a blog such as this.

I am not trying to prove to anyone on this blog that the paranormal exists or does not exist; my point has been that materialism can be as powerful of belief as fundamentalism religion. That is a powerful and threatening statement and it comes, as not a surprise that it will be rejected.

On must stand outside of materialism and scientism and religious beliefs to see these phenomena in action. That has been my point; now because I believe this to be so does not make it so. It is my view and many others that are not religious or materialists. One could say we have come to share the same beliefs. Don’t trust our research or our beliefs about the paranormal but also it is improper and not scientific to state something based on logic or reasoning without doing the research.

It is ok to say we don’t know or we don’t care and we don’t want to do the research we have other interests.

“By ‘normal’ I meant normal to me, not out of the ordinary, not requiring any particularly outlandish thought process to come to terms with”

We are still not on the same page what appears as outlandish to one person is significant evidence to another. What makes this so? Paradigms are often the difference. When the Wright brothers flew their plane it was outlandish and illogical to many scientists. The problem becomes we don’t think we are dumb enough to make those same mistakes. After all we are logical rational reasoning Beings. We have only touched the surface into the mysteries of life.

Dark matter and dark energy was pretty outlandish to a lot of scientists but is not so outlandish now. What was outlandish 100 years ago may be accepted fact today. Don’t be so fast to dismiss the paranormal saying I don’t know or I have not done the research shows a more open mind.

The human species is still profoundly ignorant or unaware. If our intellect has become our god this previous sentence becomes very threatening.

If the research has been done and it does not appear to be a valid reality then state that but I see little evidence of this research being done with anything that approaches an open mind. My point, paradigms can shut our minds down and we only see what we think we should see.

When I started my research into the mysteries of life and I knew that cherished beliefs, paradigms, the paradigm effect, and wishful thinking were real and can hijack any research methodology. This does not mean I overcame them one has to only give it their best to not let any of them hinder the mind.

What I see from most atheists are anti religious feelings more than concentrated research or study into the paranormal and that is ok but it is not the scientific method to pronounce something invalid if you have not done you own study and research. Those types of remarks are based in opinion not research and study.

“It just seems normal and logical to me that when we die, that’s it, no heaven, no hell, no immortal soul.”

This is a statement based on opinion not on research. Logical and normal is not of the scientific method, but comes from beliefs almost entirely.

Almost to a person those that have done the research have moved from disbelievers to skeptics to believers to a knowing about the paranormal.

The atheists believe Darwin but not Wallace why is that? Search deep and you will find the answer lies deep into cherished beliefs, anti religious beliefs, and materialistic paradigms. The paranormal search for an atheist and materialist is a painful search with a very slippery slope because one indication of evidence that may be valid for the paranormal and the whole cherished belief structure comes tumbling down.

It could be liken to a Christian coming to realize that Jesus did not have to die for their sins and they no longer get a free pass to their heaven. Ouch that hurts if one has staked their future on that belief.

The materialists and the Christians have a lot in common and don’t have a clue they are so much alike. Hope I did not cherry pick too much this post is way too long. Retirement thing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I really don’t want to get into an internet discussion on the meaning of words, which you are still picking me up on, so hopefully this will be my last post, unless you say something I really don’t agree with.  Granted, my opinion about the existence or not of heaven is just that, an opinion.  Is it a belief, again maybe, but I don’t really think about it enough to have to believe or not.  If it is a belief, though, it is not a belief I have formulated due to my atheism, or any supposed philosophy that comes from that, and that was the point I was trying to get across.  I didn’t believe in the concept of heaven when I was younger, when I was in Catholic education and I hadn’t received the atheist label yet.

Have I carried out research to come to the above conclusions.  Depends on what you consider research.  I haven’t interviewed a cross-section of the public, or trawled through reams of reports, studies and opinion pieces before coming to that conclusion.  I don’t have the time to do that.  People formulate a lot of beliefs and opinions without doing research to validate them.  I wouldn’t walk in front of a speeding train as I know it would kill me (probably).  Have I researched this?  No.  Have I walked out in front of several trains?  No.  I used common sense, as well as the knowledge of the frailty of the human body and the weight and speed of a train and came to that conclusion.  I also listened to my parents and public information ads and decided it’s not a good idea to walk in front of a train.  I could go on, but I hope you get what I’m trying to say.

On the flip side, I was told at school that god created all, Jesus was his son and died for us and rose again on the third day, we go to heaven when we die (and hell if we’re bad people).  My parents were also Catholic, and told me the same.  This I didn’t believe.  Did I do research?  Again no.  A lot of religious truth claims are difficult to research due to there being a scarcity of evidence and a reliance on faith.  I didn’t have it, and still don’t.

You may chose to reply to this and postulate on the meaning of words and phrases, without actually commenting on the overall picture I’m trying to paint.  If so, I won’t be replying to that, as I’ve done enough of that and feel I’m going in circles.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

How many more off-topic discussions from Researcher can we bear until these threads are moved by a moderator to an appropriate area of the discussion forum?

Personally, I’m becoming quite nauseated with the way in which every thread from the homepage is turning into a very long and tedious discussion over the merits of paranormal research.

Researcher, please stop hogging these threads and have some consideration for those of us who would like to hear some on-topic discussion about the particular stories featured on the homepage.

Some of what you say is moderately interesting and I agree with you in parts, particularly on the need to challenge our own assumptions. But you don’t need to go on and on and on about it in every thread.

For the record, I *have* studied a lot of the parapsychological literature from some of the best writers and researchers in the field - Beloff, Richet, Alvarado, Gauld, Radin, Rhine, etc. Yes, some of it is very interesting and deserves close scrutiny. But speaking for myself, I don’t find it particularly compelling or convincing.

And that’s not because I’m biased against it. At one time I was actually convinced that psi phenomena occurs. But that was in the days when I wasn’t so aware of all the experimental errors that can creep in, the difficulties of preventing fraud, the difficulties of guarding against psychological biases and deception, the uncertainties over the credibility of the witnesses, the experimenters and the subjects… I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea.

The truth is, most of it doesn’t come up to the evidential standards that we would demand in most other areas of science. Yes, *some* of it is actually very impressive and suggests that something interesting might be going on, whether it’s psi, experimental error or psychological phenomena. (Even if it was all deception and error, it would still be very interesting from a psychological point of view.)

But is it the most important and fruitful area of research that one can devotes one‘s time to? No. Is it an area of research that most people should be acquainted with and spend their time studying at the expense of other more established scientific disciplines? No. Is it so important that you have to keep repeating the same points over and over in every thread and respond incessantly to those who disagree with you? Definitely not.

Say your piece, point people to the best sources of evidence, and then let them decide for themselves. That’s the art of rational debate and conversation.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

this person has some interesting articles on skeptics not sure it fits here. maybe.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Granted, my opinion about the existence or not of heaven is just that, an opinion.  Is it a belief, again maybe, but I don’t really think about it enough to have to believe or not.”

Actually living in the now and not thinking about it may be a very beneficial way to live one’s life. But that is not the case for most people most people want to know what is the meaning of their life, from whence did it originate and if any part of their person hood exists after this life is over.

But admitting one has just opinion or a belief is very profound. We often call our opinions and beliefs facts. I applaud you for you honestly.

“How many more off-topic discussions from Researcher can we bear until these threads are moved by a moderator to an appropriate area of the discussion forum?”

You folks have put up with my posts a lot longer than the Christians would have and most atheist and skeptical blogs but I expect to be removed soon. That is the power of paradigms. When someone challenges our cherished beliefs we just remove them from the blog. Like attracts like it brings us mental comfort to be around those that share our beliefs.

“But is it the most important and fruitful area of research that one can devotes one‘s time to? No. Is it an area of research that most people should be acquainted with and spend their time studying at the expense of other more established scientific disciplines? No”

What is more important than studying the meaning and purpose of life or even if there exist a meaning and purpose of life. You scientific disciplines assume only a study into materialism is a scientific discipline. That is the power of beliefs and paradigms.

That is the power and deceptiveness of the mind and what many call the ego. The Christians believe that an only son of god had to die for them to get to heaven. I have found no evidence for that as a reality in my 18 years of research. Not even a spark of evidence for that. I studied the history of religions like paganism to find out why such beliefs could have come about. The Christians without realizing it are a cult and have elements of paganism in their most cherished religious beliefs. That is the power of conditioned beliefs, paradigms, like attracts like for support of like beliefs, etc.

Now what I have also discovered is that atheism can be as deceptive in their beliefs as fundamentalist religious beliefs and that deception is based in what most call materialism and scientism. But also it is based in an anti religious paradigm. Kind of like I was fooled once, never again mentality.

The way to eliminate that person that has challenged our cherished belief is just remove him from the blog and call them off topic. Now I have to go deep and find out why I post on an atheist blog. I don’t think I am going to be all that fond of what I discover about myself. But I have this deep interest in the human mind and how it can deceive itself into thinking it is logical and reasoning where other minds are not logical and reasoning.

I find the human mind especially paradigms a fascinating study. I think much more research needs to be done as to the origin and the ability of our minds to maintain our cherished beliefs and paradigms in spite of the evidence.

My words have been harsh and not written in a format that is easy to digest. That is my failure, hopefully not by design but lack of knowledge on my part. A billion Christians believe God’s only son had to die so they could get to heaven and then turn around and worship that God as if that is a god to fear and love at the same time. That staggers the mind and many of these people are smart people when they take an IQ test.

Hundreds of millions of people believe that matter creates consciousness and that matter is responsible for what we refer to as intelligence and life exists due to a chance occurrence and there is no underlying meaning of phenomena. That staggers my mind that such a belief can be maintained in spite of the evidence.

Loved the dialog it was interesting to me hopefully not for the wrong reasons. I guarantee you that your research will reveal to you that matter creates consciousness and you will find a place in the brain where faith and beliefs exists. That is the power of paradigms.

I deeply apologize for my style of writing and my rudeness. Working on that one and it appears I have a long road ahead. Thanks for the dialog.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,
  Some of the things you say are correct and some i would take issue with. I’m sure most people here enjoy having their views challenged. It is how we improve them after all.
  With regard to belief i think you are right and wrong. Belief is something we should all be wary of. We should be cautious of it as an emotional event in the brain and we should be aware of how it is tied to the limbic system, not a part of the mind we should be encouraging in science. It does anchor us to ideas and it makes us behave defensively and even aggressively.
  Of course disbelief is a type of belief. I think you could win this argument much more easily if you were willing to relax it slightly and accept that there are mental and emotional differences in both the expression and context of disbelief and belief. I dont think it is enough to point out that in some way not believing in Gods or any idea is a statement of belief in the brain, the action of positive emotional reinforcement in the brain, so therefore it is the same as all types of belief. Your argument falls apart on many philosophical as well as physical levels if you use it like this.
  Once we accept that there is a type of belief occurring (and though we should be careful of common neurological features/traits in the limbic system that can drive belief into the category we do not wish it to be) we can look for differences in how we arrive at what we think, and how we allow belief to occur - how we frame it in our minds.
  So long as the belief is able to change freely, preferably without emotional content then we are in about as good a place as we can be with it, i think.

  On to open/closed mindedness. Naturally we should all be wary of falling into these traps ourself. We should accept that we can do, all of us. From here we just need a guide to where to draw the line between the two. Obviously again the ability to freely change your mind based on some external event is going to be useful/necessary.
  Personally i draw my own line at the evidence and an understanding of what makes good evidence. High standards of evidence are very very important, they are perhaps the most crucial aspect. Many people kid themselves into thinking they are being rational about their own beliefs because they do not understand the difference between open, randomised, placebo controlled experiments etc. This can be dismissed as my own paradigm of course, which i dont mind, though i would obviously disagree with dismissing high quality evidence.
  The paranormal is worthy of high quality research. Sometimes people hide behind the idea that this research is not occurring, which is not true. I personally have experienced ghosts, deja-vu, mind reading, psychic attacks- lots of stuff. The problem with believing paranormal explanations to what are common features of life is that high quality experiments tend to rule them out.
  Therefore i tend to belief the psychological and neurological explanations for most of my strange experiences, i doubt my senses are the only ones that perfectly illuminate reality to my intuition and consciousness.
  When deciding on beliefs i tend to favour the idea of graphing every idea. For each strong piece of data specifically supporting that idea give it a bit more on your bar graph. Then tally up who wins. Most theological arguments avoid this, as do most paranormal ones. They prefer to use philosophy to ask for fair treatment or in someway imply that because we cant philosophically/logically or even scientifically disprove their idea that it in someway should increase its height on my graph. God by the way isnt sitting at zero, nor is the paranormal - though they hover at pretty/drastically poor specific evidence. Obviously some things cannot be explained yet, or perhaps ever, though using holes in evidence to explain any particular idea is not good philosophy or science.

  Oh, you also use the word paradigm alot, often outside of apparent context. When you say the power of paradigms your sentence reads the power of groups/sets. It isnt always clear what your getting at in anything other than an assumed way.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There seems to be so much talent on this blog…although I truly wish that one day soon it might be directed at uncovering truth or directed at providing additional insights into who and why we are, or where we are heading. At this point in our evolution, we as humans may not have the science to prove everything, but that does not mean that we are powerless to expand our views about ourselves or how we fit in this continuum called life.
At the moment, we seem to be spending an enormous amount of time dissecting every word or phrase that is uttered by other bloggers and although it is important to be accurate, we have to be careful that we don’t appear to be overly fastidious simply because we don’t have a meaningful contribution of our own.
The religious fundamentalist have given us a lot to raw material to work with, so far, and through a process of elimination, we have determined that their conclusions are flawed and irrational. Ok… now what?...
The truth is out there… so let us pursue it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“The problem with believing paranormal explanations to what are common features of life is that high quality experiments tend to rule them out.”

First of all the words high quality is open to interpretation. One person’s high quality experiment is another person’s low quality experiment. The so call high quality experiment performed on the Russian girl by the ultra skeptics was very poorly designed. In fact her results suggested that more experiments needed to be done.

These are people doing research on the paranormal that designed an experiment that asked a Russian girl to do something that she did not claim she could do. They changed the experiment at the last minute, which showed they knew nothing about the paranormal as it applied to her claims.

Some very famous scientists have conducted what I would refer to as high quality experiments. The paranormal does not give up her secrets as easily as the material world. And if one looks deeply into the material world it does no give up its mysteries all that easy. The ultra skeptics call consciousness the hard problem rightly so. If     consciousness is the hard problem just think what awareness is.

“Many people kid themselves into thinking they are being rational about their own beliefs because they do not understand the difference between open, randomised, placebo controlled experiments etc”

How many people can explain why the placebo effect works the way it does? Again if you think the same approach to a design of experiments for the physical world can be used for the paranormal you have traveled down a long lonely road of beliefs. We as yet know very little about the mysteries of the paranormal to use the same methodology as we use with the material world.

Centuries from now school children will walk through a museum of sorts and be told what people believed in the 20th century about consciousness; god, awareness, evolution, Darwinism, materialism, and they will smile and think how could they have believed such a thing. Kind of like we do now as we look back and wonder how people could have every believed the earth was flat or heavier than air flight was impossible.

One must stand between materialism and religion to see the fallacy of both. Even the person standing between materialism and religion has their own fallacies to deal with on a daily basis. We have only touched the surface of discovering the mysteries of life and the universe. I doubt if we even know the real reason a single cell does what it does.

“When you say the power of paradigms your sentence reads the power of groups/sets”

We view the world though our paradigms without paradigms we have no world to view.
A materialistic paradigm has all kinds of variation within it, as does a religions paradigm. Everything has variation as we live in a relative phenomenal world. All matter has variation as does phenomena. Measuring that variation in phenomena is not for the faint of heart.

“I personally have experienced ghosts, deja-vu, mind reading, psychic attacks- lots of stuff.”

I personally have experienced all of these phenomena you have mentioned and I consider them very poor evidence, extremely weak; they do support other evidence but taken alone by themselves they at least to me prove almost nothing. I think they do suggest that research needs to be done to find if these mysteries have any validity.

From my point of view much more research needs to be done into trying to discover these mysteries than money spent on research how to make a more powerful bomb.

This materialistic paradigm came as a shock to me after a few years of my research, I was naïve enough to think that the atheists would be the least bias after all they are not bogged downed with religions beliefs. Well many materialists are as entrenched in their materialistic paradigm because their disbelief can be as a great of hindrance as belief in a personal deity. I say paradigm because paradigms are hidden from our view indeed our consciousness. We don’t have a clue we have them even if we know a lot about them.

The person that made the video the business of paradigms and sold over 10 million copies of that video has a Christian paradigm. Wow how is that for hidden. This person actually believes his god had an only son tortured to death so he could get to heaven and worship this deity. Walk up to a Christian and tell them they are not only a cult but they are practicing paganism every time they drink symbolic blood and eat symbolic flesh. See that that works out for ya.

Now I am convinced you can see the fallacy of his Christian paradigm and beliefs but when I suggest that materialism can be just as rigid of a paradigm you say no way and state many things to prove that is not so. Like high quality evidence etc. We cannot see our paradigms we only experience them. Others can see them in us so we might want to listen carefully but then whom do we listen to? A Christian? A Muslim? An atheist? A materialist, a politician, a preacher, a mystic, etc. Isn’t life grand?

Then as I did research over the years it became evident to me that science can become scientism as much as religion can become religious dogma. Do you have any idea how few religious people have ever taken the time to study the history of their religion? Do you have any idea how few materialists have ever taken the time to study deeply the history of the research into the paranormal? I have not met one materialist that has taken the time and effort to do the research yet they state opinion as if they know.

Religion is needed at this stage of the human evolutionary process of consciousness or the masses would not support it. Most from both sides speak from opinion not research And here is the interesting part those with the greatest and most rigid opinions have done the least research. Thanks for the honest dialog. Many atheists see a need to attack. My writing style lends itself to be attacked. My weakness.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The paranormal ceases to be the ‘para’normal and becomes the normal once it has been investigated and proved.

Quantum physics was once paranormal - twin slit experiment anyone? - yet it is now mainstream science.

The problem you appear to have, forgive me if I am falsely attributing this to you, is that you seek to have everything that is not proven or disproven held to a similar standard and that is patently impossible.  Some things are inherently less likely than others and so the limited research funds get put where it is generally agreed they have the greatest chance of making some progress.  Does this mean valid areas are ignored?  Sure, but if any advances are made in that area the funds are redirected eventually.

A good reason for the general public to ignore some of the ‘alternative’ science is that there is no sensible explanation of how it is supposed to work.  How do crystals re-align your chakra and encourage the flow of positive energy?  They may very well do but if you cannot explain how then you rely on second hand data that is self-selective and notoriously unreliable.  A reasonable person would not spend a lot of time on any given paranormal topic with no evidence and no explaination for how it works.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

I’m afraid I don’t have the patience of some of the other commenters.

“The paranormal doesn’t give up her secrets as easily as the material world”. What does that mean in plain, stripped down words? Supposing for a moment that the phenomena you seem to hanker after are real, why should they not be an extension to, or an aspect of the existing “material world”? On what basis do you postulate a separate world of paranormal “stuff”?

Instead of referring to “...some of the greatest scientists that ever lived on this planet. “, just tell us who they are and what their research was.

Without that, so what? With your deep wisdom you should have spotted the elementary logical fallacy that just because they are “some of the greatest etc” doesn’t mean that they’re right. Einstein wasn’t right about eveything. All that counts is systematic exploration using the scientific method.

Suggestion: instead of referring at some point in every post about the 18 years of research you have conducted into the paranormal, why not just show us some of it?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I have spent 18 years not collecting stamps!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s perfectly alright to explore alternative fields of knowledge.  As long as the ultimate goal is to bring whatever results into demonstrable science.
The problem is when there is an apparent refusal to do the latter; or when one claims that to expect such demonstration is “closed-minded”.

I’m reminded of the James Randi challenge here.  Especially of people who take the challenge on paranormal claims they make and, when unable to meet it, end up rationalizing at great lengths on how it is science that fails to be opened-minded enough.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I’m reminded of the James Randi challenge here.”

Anyone that thinks the Randi challenge is legitimate has not done their research and has not read the fine print of the paperwork involved in that challenge. I thought the people on this blog would be beyond such references as proof that the paranormal does not exist. The Randi million dollar challenge was a PR stunt and I might add a brilliant PR stunt. That challenge has gotten Randi a lot of publicity and TV time. The mass media is not interested in presenting research findings but in entertainment at the expense of reality.

I could write much on Randi how he has tried to imitate psychics and failed miserably with his idea that all results of psychic abilities are due to cold reading techniques. Key word is all; as there is much fraud in this profession; if they charge money run for the door and get out fast. The greatest mediums that have ever lived did not charge money but did it for knowledge and the advancement of knowledge into the unknown or mysteries of life.

“Instead of referring to “...some of the greatest scientists that ever lived on this planet. “, just tell us who they are and what their research was.”

We are still not communicating. One must show interest in doing the research, as any evidence shown will be dismissed without doing even the reading of the evidence. Let me try a different approach suppose I was on a Christian blog and I point out to them where the idea came from that Jesus had to die for their sins and this came from paganism to appease an angry God and I pointed out the evidence for the belief in original sin did not come into Christian teachings until 200 years after Jesus had died.

What would be the response from these Christians? It would be like this person that posted this or worst. “I have spent 18 years not collecting stamps!” Those are called attacks and they are at the very heart of paradigm paralysis based in doubt not certainty.

My interest is not presenting evidence for the paranormal, been there done that; but my interest is how the human mind including mine can allow cherished beliefs and most important how paradigms can influence incoming information to effect our view of reality. We see the world through our paradigms and beliefs. Materialism and scientism can be as demanding as religious beliefs and paradigms. One must be outside of both to see this with clarity.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-im-not-skeptic.html

“Sure, but if any advances are made in that area the funds are redirected eventually.”

The word eventually is important here as the funds get redirected when the scientists and the editors of journals that have the materialistic paradigms are no longer with us. Remember not only do the materialists reject paranormal research but also the religious because much of what has been discovered by this research does not support these cherished beliefs most religious institutions teach to their followers, as their followers have not done their own study or research. Much like the person that thinks the Randi’s challenge is legit.

Paranormal research, some done by scientists even the most famous scientists of their day have been rejected by both the religious and the materialists. That should suggest something to both sides but it does not as both sides think they have found truths. The truth is elusive it hides its secrets in a very secret place. I.e. some state within us.

“Suggestion: instead of referring at some point in every post about the 18 years of research you have conducted into the paranormal, why not just show us some of it?”

I agree with you on the idea of sharing my 18 years of research that may be coming from the ego and needs not to be stated. My idea was I did not want someone to think I read one book or went to one psychic and then decided it was valid. But it comes off egoistical.

Now one must show interest in doing the research not be presented with the research data. You can present research data until you are blue in the face to a Christian that drinking symbolic blood and eating symbolic flesh has its roots in paganism and your words and research data will be rejected. Many of these Christians are very smart some doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. Don’t think only the atheists have a rational mind. The personal mind can be the greatest deceiver of all. A so-called rational mind and being smart can be due to intellectualism, not intelligence. Intelligence is a rare phenomenon kind of like a funnel consciousness that leads to awareness.

The scientific method has no room for beliefs and paradigms but they come along with the package, as that is the human condition at this time in our evolutionary journey. The day will come when the human species will look back on its beliefs, prejudices, and paradigms and smile in disbelief, like we do now with the flat earth beliefs, heavier than air flight impossible, and the pagans that sacrificed humans to appease an angry God.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,
 
  I’ve been thinking about how to reply to your comments, but there is alot to say. Please bare with me.

  I appreciate your point about belief, about how it can make people behave poorly and defensively. About how it can relate to scepticism and result in scepticism not because the data is bad or the ideas poor, but simple because the persons belief makes them respond that way. I also see how scepticism can either appear to be, or be used as, a wall or weapon, blocking debate or attacking. The links you posted that link to a Sheldrake interview where he quotes the scepticism of creationists as a type of functional scepticism just used to attack something they don’t believe in is a good example.
  All i would say is always go back to the data. The philosophy of science and the philosophy of scepticism have been well dealt with now. I think we should discuss data instead. Philosophy is too easy to twist, in either direction.

  I really don’t see a major problem with just saying that i am not enamoured with the evidence for something so i will hold back in believing in it until someone produces something stronger. That i am sceptical of it. I reserve the right to criticise poor data, or poor methodology. Fine, this is my paradigm, but until someone can suggest why i should accept something based on poor data i will state this case.

  I will pre-empt a retort here. My standard of evidence is based on my own paradigm. A slight difference between myself and others though is that my paradigm is not based on supporting my belief in various theories (tectonics, evolution, mantle differentiation, biological selection - i am a geologist), but instead based around a standard for what i will accept.

  Everything can be researched, if people want to research human invisibility, teleportation, ESP, astral planing, telekinesis, prophecy then i am all in favour, but i will not just accept the outcome of experiments willy-nilly. The definitive proof of something like ESP, gravitons, string theory will all require very high standards before they are incorporated into the world view.

  Here is a big difference. Some people will say that they believe in any number of strange things. I would say i believe in the importance of researching strange things. If someone says that they believe in ESP then i think that is where the problem lies. That is certainly a better example of belief affecting a personal paradigm than just saying that in truth no-one has reliably, in a peer reviewed and replicated experiment, shown that the affect even exists.

  Where we each personally set out acceptance points is a personal thing, so it is no wonder there is such diversity, but the important thing to realise about scientists is that we are trained to set our bars to certain standards and while this doesnt affect our ability to imagine different circumstances, in a strict manner it should affect where we are willing to ascribe to belief in certain ideas. It also means we must be willing to change our beliefs tomorrow if new data comes in, something that 90% of the world seem unable to even think about doing.

  When Einstein created his theories of relativity he had confidence in them, but he couldnt know they were right until they were proven. Anybody would have had a right to be sceptical of them. People who believe in the paranormal will surely be rubbing it in our faces if they are ever proven correct. They will say that they ‘knew’ and that we were stupid. That our scepticism was ill placed and pointless. The point is though that they will only be right in hindsight. At the moment they cannot know. Ghosts could be manifestations of errors in perception and consciousness, they could be our dead ancestors, or they could be aliens from another dimension. No-one has determined this yet, though we know that many instances of paranormal are errors in perception or memory. I dont think there is anything wrong with admitting that it is ok to be sceptical about things that turn out to be right when the evidence wasnt convincing. If you were to go back in time 2000 years and suggest plate tectonics no-one would be stupid or incorrect in their philosophy for disagreeing with you - you would have to prove it.

  A few of your statements reveal your own paradigm, naturally. For one there are positive and negative ways of viewing the increase in understanding, and the validity of ideas over time. One attack common among sceptics of science is the idea of changing knowledge. You have used it yourself in your last couple of comments. As a philosophical statement it is fine, within its own merits, but you are facing an uphill climb when faced with the data. There are ways to evaluate the data that reveal the persons stance more than the data itself. You have picked some pretty big things to label as temporally unstable, such as evolution. It is important to realise that scientific understanding is actually quite young, and so far, once proven, it has survived quite well.

  Unproven hypothesis come and go with ease, these are the borderlands or frontiers of science. The battlegrounds. They exist in each subject, but as the subject progresses they become more refined and specialised. Once proven though and something becomes a ‘core’ principle it is actually very unlikely to disappear.

  One example often given is the change in perspective between Newton and Einstein. Though conceptually important and very important in its additions Newtons maths is not ‘wrong’ just like Einstein’s will not be deemed wrong when we unify relativity and QM. Again we are back to the data.

  When using that argument i wouldn’t recommend picking things like evolution. Though the precise rolls of natural/sexual selection per species or per adaptation will change evolution itself is very unlikely to. We cannot bet it will be around in 10,000 years because we will not be here, but i will bet you it is as strong as ever at the end of our lives. Any argument against this is philosophical rather than data driven and so reveals your own paradigm.
 
  To sum, i think that the only thing that is revealing is when people accept poor evidence, not necessarily initially, but when it is pointed out to them. Scepticism for scepticisms sake, or for beliefs sake is not great, but it depends on whether the strongest evidence is on your side. There is evidence that strange things happen or that coincidences happen. We are prevented from proving things that do not exist do not exist so the responsibility lies with positive evidence being provided by researchers. Research is always a good thing. So far the paranormal is more philosophy and speculation and so will not convince people.

  You have 18 years of research whereas i have say 25 years of interest and 20 years of reading with maybe 3-4 years of not very deep research. The reason that it is not very deep is that i find it hard to find actual good peer reviewed experiments. Most researchers are still arguing with each other over basic ideas. So i call it not very deep research because i feel like i am missing something. When i research scientific ideas i actually learn something and come away with a feeling of understanding. I have never achieved this researching the paranormal.

  With 18 years research you should be in a position to help me by pointing me to where the really good stuff is that i feel like i am missing. This is not a challenge, but 18 years would be enough to do several PHD’s.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“That I am skeptical of it. I reserve the right to criticize poor data, or poor methodology. Fine, this is my paradigm, but until someone can suggest why i should accept something based on poor data I will state this case.”

Ben this is your belief not your paradigm. Beliefs can be observed by the person having the belief; paradigms are hidden from our view and from the view of those that share our paradigm. I.e. like attracts like. I.e. Christians stick together as do atheists.

In other words most of the people that blog on here would very seldom be able to expose your paradigms just like the paranormal blogs I blog on would have a slim chance of exposing my paradigms.

“So far the paranormal is more philosophy and speculation and so will not convince people”.

Now that is your paradigm speaking not your beliefs. Without realizing it you have revealed one of your paradigms. How do I know this, because at one time I thought these very same things as I was and still I am to a degree a materialist with a PhD and retired professor in a science field? It took years of in depth research and much mental pain to move beyond that materialist paradigm so I have traveled the road less traveled and I am rejected by both the religious and the materialists.

You have made a statement based on a paradigm that the paranormal is more philosophy and speculation. This also reveals you have not done your research and you will not until your level of interest needed to move beyond that paradigm occurs in your life: a significant emotional event occurs in your life. A paradigm will not allow us to show that interest. It would be like a waste of time even stupid after all it is just philosophy or antidotal evidence. Sound familiar?

“I have never achieved this researching the paranormal”.

Welcome to the club research into the paranormal will send you down so many roads that feel like a dead end. They are not a dead end because now you know what road not to go down. The interest must be there because if not one will get frustrated and just say I don’t need this in my life. The material world is so much more concrete in nature until we go into the micro sub particle world but that’s another story.

The paranormal is a new field and has been rejected by most before investigation and receives little funding. But it will occur and increase, as the human mind cannot be stopped from asking why. Some of the most important questions yet to be answered must come through paranormal and consciousness research. And if consciousness research eludes us can you imagine research into awareness.

We see a very small per cent of reality when we look out into the universe i.e. dark matter dark energy. I suspect that some type of research is needed that uses a different method than our standard scientific method that may help to reveal these secrets that are meant to be discovered. What would life be with these mysteries?

I love doing research into all kinds of things. Been that way all of my life. Don’t recommend it; there is much rejection especially with my writing style.

But I enjoyed your response it showed much thought and kindness. Much appreciated.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

  Thanks for the reply.

    “So far the paranormal is more philosophy and speculation and so will not convince people”.

  I knew when i wrote this that i shouldnt My post was getting a little long so i didnt explain it. All i mean is that debates very often slip into philosophy. Why sceptics are pseudosceptics. Debates about open/closed mindedness. In fact i dont think i have really seen one just about the data. I think what i meant is that they often just become debates about differing styles of evidence, the affect of belief on closed minds. Both sides are verging on stereotypes.

  For the last few hours i have been reading links from your links. Dean Radins comments, the antangles minds site, comment after comment. Why i am closed minded, irrational, material, etc. Much mud slinging going on. Now i dont really want to be these things, but as a hard rock geologist it is sort of hard not to be. If you approach the paranormal after studying a degree in fashion or english and just begin with what is consciousness then your opinion will be different to coming from a natural science with an education in geophysics, geochemistry, palaeontology; your standards will be different.

  Obviously the universe is not material. This we already know. I’d personally have no problem accepting the paranormal if someone could just show me some data that could be reliably repeated by people sceptical of it. Perhaps it is the case that if you dont believe in it your experiments wont work (as is often claimed) or that these affects are so temporary that they cannot be repeated, but to end on some philosophy - if you cannot prove something you cannot claim that it is true.

  We seem so far away from definitively and repetitively showing an unexplainable affect that is definitely not noise in an experiment, then using this data to construct hypothesis, then testing them that i find a statement of belief to be going too far for anyone seriously interested in the universe. I’m not too fussed about disbelief, though i would draw a line if something was proven.

  Alot of the criticisms of sceptics by non-sceptics are funny as they are the same arguments in reverse, which surely shows either one side is using them poorly, or they never worked in the first place.

  The evolution of the nervous system is now well documented. It can be seen to increase in complexity as well as go through some important changes on the way up the tree of life. We can see the affect of different scales of nervous system in animals today as well as judge competing evolutionary pressures in the development of behaviours, instincts and to a reasonable degree what we call emotions. Attempts at programming AI’s did not go well, but attempts at so called bottom-up approaches to neural networks have been truly amazing. Next to this we have a near philosophical argument to inject something special called consciousness, then it is claimed that because no-one knows what it is we cannot say anything about what powers it might have, quantum or not. This is just one thing that would need to be tied into biological and geological understanding (for me), as well as physics. I wouldnt be too surprised if if consciousness has quantum aspects non locality or some other things was having weird affects. The paranormal at the moment seems so tied into spirituality, religious movements, life after death desires, what do you think would happen if science did figure it out and it isnt what people have hoped for?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“The paranormal at the moment seems so tied into spirituality, religious movements, life after death desires, what do you think would happen if science did figure it out and it isnt what people have hoped for?”

Spiritually can have many different faces. If science did figure it out and it isn’t what people had hoped for I suspect they would not believe it or kill all the scientists. Just kidding. Well most of the religious especially the fundamentalists don’t like the paranormal anymore than the materialists.

As far as after death desires or wishful thinking that is real very real. When I started my research I felt my two biggest obstacles would be wishful thinking and my PhD. A PhD may be helpful for doing research but it also can be very deep into tunnel vision. I worked with PhD’s and taught PhD’s in my seminars. I taught something called six-sigma a statistical approach to improvement and I had seen enough tunnel vision to last a lifetime.

I was pretty much anti religious but I did research on what many call the enlightened ones. Lo and behold even the enlightened ones have carried their religious training as a child into their teachings. The journey was long and tedious but it was/is the most challenging research I had ever done. My PhD dissertation was interesting and prepared me to work for an international consulting firm but nothing like this. Just when you think you are on to something the road often ends in frustration.

I never dreamt what I would discover. It has never been written about in the history of humankind that I can find and I have looked hard. My writing sucks so I had to find a co-author but she is having a hard time with the complexity of the discovery and it is really simple once seen with clarity.

If you listen to dean radin tapes he talks about wanting more challenge in this research so he started doing research into the paranormal which he admits is a challenge. I communicated with him but my research and my beliefs he was not ready to hear. The communication ended so even dean randin has his own paradigms to deal with as we all do.

If you want to know more about the power of paradigms do research on the Swiss watch and how a whole industry was lost including 75,000 high paying manufacturing jobs because of the paradigm effect, paradigm paralysis, and then a paradigm shift the Swiss were unable to make. Japan made it for them and reaped the rewards of being able to look beyond mechanical watches to electronic watches that are1000 times more accurate. Guess who invented the electronic watch: the Swiss.

I think it has always been a childhood dream to seek into the mysteries of life. I always felt things were not as they seemed or appeared but religion for me at least did not even pass the simplest of logic tests. Yet so many adults believed it to be so. That was confusing to me as child. Living on a small farm I was not exposed to anything like new age, spiritually, and very little religion. Thank goodness my parents were not religious. If I had been exposed to a lot of religious training then conditioned beliefs may have overwhelmed my rational mind like I see in others.

The rewards are there but they come slow very slow. I have lived with Buddhist monks, Hindu monks, catholic priests, been to new age churches I don’t think I missed a one. But they were about religion not research. They tended to follow a spiritual guru or a master. If the master told them to stand on their head one hour a day in a corner I swear they would have done it.

What I have learned one must follow their own path to discovery and the main thrust must be interest and join no organizations. Once a member of an organization the filtering begins. It is interesting to me that both the materialist and the religious reject my findings. Even Buddhism is more about religion than research and at one time I thought I would be a Buddhist. Join no religion but study their teachings. Buddhism and Hinduism has much to offer into having insights into consciousness. Christianity is still in the kindergarten stage but getting there, maybe. One thing Christianity is good at doing and that is producing atheists. Enjoyed the dialog and your interest.  So far this blog is not your typical atheist blog.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I learned about this blog a little over a week ago and decided to join so I could learn, share and generally deepen my understanding on the mysteries of life.
Needless to say, I am unconvinced by some of the conclusions of both religious and materialist’s , and was hoping to discover a group of persons who were similarly dissatisfied and who wanted to continue to expand the conversation on life and its mysteries.
So far, Researcher has demonstrated both a curiosity about life and an open mindedness that are refreshing,  and I have learned much from him.  Keep it up Researcher do not get discouraged despite the occasional blow below the belt from those who clearly do not see, that unlike Archimedes, their shouts of “Eureka” are pre-mature.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

I guess that, as far as skeptics like me are concerned, it boils down to this:
I’ll start opening my mind to your proposals when you can produce something more concrete than words. (Even lots and lots of words…)

For the time being, your arguments ring very much like those of a pastor :
«You’ll know that Jesus really is the son of God if you start by believing it.  I used to be closed-minded myself but I opened up my heart and now Jesus visits me.  And just look at Bob: He started believing and now he sees too!»...
...And hoping that will be convincing.

Nothing but air.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

JohnS thank you for your kind words. I set out many years ago to try and discover some of these mysteries of life for myself. I had worked with scientists and had been exposed to religious views and quite frankly did not trust either group to give me the answers I sought. I had seen tremendous tunnel vision in the scientific field and peer reviews often meant you get published if your beliefs matched their beliefs. Religious views even as a child I did not trust.

Well about one year before I started that research I had had something akin to a revelation on something I called understanding variation only because I was teaching that presentation called understanding variation as it applies to quality improvement and successful leadership. This revelation allowed me to see with clarity that variation was not the enemy as the rest of the world taught but variation is our best friend as it is always giving us much needed data to analyze to help make quality products or provide quality service.

Now this revelation or realization is the only one of it kind that I have experienced in my life and it came in an instant and then a smile came on my face. And as weird as it sounds I knew that I knew there was no doubt. I went home that night and typed a letter to a man whose name was W Edwards Deming and said I now see what you see. I used to tell all of my participants in my seminars that Deming was a quality guru that taught the Japanese statistical quality control but after that realization I realized the depth of his understanding.

As a side note Deming taught until he was 93 years old but few understood his teachings. Toyota appeared to understand his teachings the best. The big three of course has struggled with his teachings. Any organization that performs performance appraisals based on average, which I think they all are to some degree, has failed to understand Deming’s teachings.

Now my eureka moment occurred many years later when I discovered something I had been working on for many years. This was not a realization but different. It was emotional and exciting. After years of seeking it came to me one morning not in one instant with a smile but as a flow of thoughts. So far I have not been able to share that eureka moment with one person. How frustrating to the ego.

The Buddhist monks told me there is no answer to my question; I refused to accept that. Too many people in this world with their scientism or religious paradigm will tell you there is no answer to your question or your question is an invalid question. Don’t believe them they know not what they speak. Well anyhow John I have noticed there is a difference between a discovery and a realization. Again thanks for the kind words and best wishes with your search.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“You’ll know that Jesus really is the Son of God if you start by believing it”

I am not sure I have ever mentioned Jesus or that Jesus was the Son of God. When they accused Jesus of being the son of god he stated something to the effect that it is your book meaning the old testament that states we are sons of god. Jesus always refers to himself as a son of man.

As far as concrete evidence all the so called concrete evidence in the world will not convince anyone of anything until they show interest. Any example would be if this were a Christian blog and you presented concrete evidence that the idea there had to be a sacrifice to appease an angry god for these Christians to get to heaven has its home in paganism. Your concrete evidence would be rejected without investigation even without serious consideration.

Of course you would think to yourself yes but I am rational but they are not rational. I can reason but they cannot reason. Really many of those people on that blog make their living by their reasoning abilities. It is foolhardy to claim that only materialists can be rational or reasoning.

That is the power of the personal mind. It can reject information before investigation. Stated another way that is the power of the paradigm effect on the personal mind and even on a society.

Another thing to keep in mind with paranormal research is that many people set out to debunk the paranormal and ended up being its biggest advocate. Some very famous scientists come to mind.

“Nothing but air.”

One of the best movies I ever saw was the original planet of the apes. In that movie three apes the scholars and politicians when told that this human could talk, as they knew that no human could talk, they all put their fingers in their ears and refused to listen or hear the human talking. This comment nothing but air reminds me of that scene in the movie. That movie had a lot of hidden reflections of the human condition played out by apes and chimpanzees. Loved it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The problem with much of the article (or set of articles) is it can only lead to (using technical logic) nonsense. He defines atheism as disbelief in God or Gods, and then tries to walk the tightrope of logic. By trying to define Atheism as a negative and then playing with the word disbelief, he can pull some nice rhetorical tricks, but can rat hole of (non)sense. Defining atheism as a not (disbelief) in God as he does leads to nonsense in the Wittgensteinian manner. To say I disbelieve in God as a claim that is nonsense, since “God” is within the proposition. The proposition “God is a projection of man.” “God is a myth to explain the unexplainable” are propositions which may or may not be true, but are logically consistent. Even “I disbelieve in a Christian God.” is consistent since the Christian God has definition. “God” exists as an English word, with a whole complex set of meanings.  Once understood, the articles fails as it abuses and misuses language. To better illustrate this, in a debate with an atheist, he said that God exists then why not Zeus existing? I through him off by saying Zeus does indeed exists as does the flying spaghetti monster in the sky. Zeus is the head God of Greek mythology. The flying spaghetti monster in the sky exists as a cheap sarcastic attack on theism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

  One question, just to start: Do you believe in reality? Are the rocks under our feet there? Is it sandstone, or shale, granite etc Is there a real substance beneath our feet that exists without us?

  Regarding materialism:

  This word has become something of a slander. Compared to how it is used I dont think I have ever really met a materialist. Certainly not someone who thinks everything is material.

  There is no doubt that in the past there was a huge amount that was not known. This has been reduced today, but there are still big questions. Over the past few hundred years the material description has grown to encompass much that is not material - it now features probability functions, force fields, the topology of spacetime, wave particle duality, non locality, entanglement. We have quantum loop gravity, string theory and M Theory. The two slits experiment can be adjusted to show that our intuitive grasp of past, present and future is wrong. This is the material universe as it is being described by modern science.

  I see the word materialist brandished on anti/un-science forums like a razor edged sword, unblockable by any argument. But what does it mean? That i believe only in the existence of atoms? I do not. That i believe only in these dimensions, or only in this universe? I do not. What is a materialist? Or a naturalist?

  The reason i think that the terms are gasseous is that i think they are temporal insults based more around the presumption of small mindedness than any actual philosophical argument or evidence that what is currently unknown will definitely not fit into an expanded model of the material universe.

  If one day we discover other dimensions where, because on a quantum or other level, there are particles/waves, or something else entirely that can transfer to this dimension - i think that the material and natural descriptions will just expand to feature that, just as they have done for all the amazing things they now encompass.

  In this sense the terms materialist and naturalist become ways of labelling people who only believe in/accept what has currently been shown to be true. I personally dont think that is too bad an intellectual position to be in.

  The fact that we are not arguing over the role of radiometric dating/hereditary in evolution or any other well confirmed principle and that materialist and naturalist have become philosophical points rather than factual ones shows something of interest.

  We can never role these terms out to the unknown, just to what is understood, so i understand why it bothers people who would like certain things to be true. I dont think it hurts to speculate that strange phenomena are likely to have material explanations, but it is silly really since material will grow to whatever is understood - making it a circular reference to itself.
 
  Rational is another term that tends to adjust itself to whatever the evidence is.

  Does this make any sense?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I see the word materialist brandished on anti/un-science forums like a razor edged sword,”

Science has it place and the scientific method really has its place, but often science has become scientism. Scientism is based in having opinions and beliefs prior to investigation. I never had a clue as to the information and data out here that never makes its way to the general population. Scientism often teaches probabilities as facts when in reality these facts would better be called theory or given a probability of occurring.

With the scientific method most often one must deal with probabilities rather than facts there are always what appears to be exceptions. Even those exceptions can become false positives. Although a fact is not a truth the general population perceives it as a truth.

“Over the past few hundred years the material description has grown to encompass much that is not material - it now features probability functions, force fields, the topology of spacetime, wave particle duality, non locality, entanglement. We have quantum loop gravity, string theory and M Theory. The two slits experiment can be adjusted to show that our intuitive grasp of past, present and future is wrong. This is the material universe as it is being described by modern science.”

Maybe as long as they keep referring to this universe as a material universe this will hinder their progress. Make no mistake science will discover more and more of these big questions. I believe many of the discoveries will sound more mystical than concrete evidence.

To give you an idea of how scientism avoids the big questions many scientists have decided that we have multiple maybe infinite universes that continually create new universes. It is like the more turtles idea. A person was asked what held up the earth and this person stated a large turtle and the instructor said well what holds up that big turtle holding up the earth. This person stated, “more turtles”. I.e. more universes

A materialist from my point of view believes that what we can measure with our five senses and our present measuring devices is reality. A person interested in researching the paranormal suspects or believes there is more to this universe than appearances. I.e. concrete may not be all that   solid.

Instead of attacking paranormal research and name calling and making such statements it is all air one should become like a child and try to be open to all aspects of those seeking into the deeper aspects of life. We know so little about the big questions in life. Like awareness, consciousness, dark matter and energy. Maybe, just maybe, paranormal research will help to aid or discover these great mysteries of life.

Several scientists that worked with mediums were not interested in what aunt Helen had to say or if there is life after death they were interested in discovering first if the phenomena was real and if it was can that vitality or phenomena be harnessed to benefit humankind in improved technology.

My research indicates that string theory and M theory may have paranormal implications.

The Scientific method should be a method or a process not a belief or a position. When it comes to these big questions in life nothing should be off limits. The amount of money spent for drugs and the anxiety created from the fears of no after life and that our life has no meaning has to be huge.

Look at the fear and anxieties created by religious dogma that shows up in creating a drug culture. I would think atheists would support such research. Instead most atheists have already decided there is not such thing as the paranormal so research is a waste of time. Kind of like the flat earth people or the heavier than air flight is impossible.

Materialists tell you there is no meaning to life and the religious tell you if you don’t believe a certain set of beliefs hell fire is waiting for you. Oh and by the way you were born a sinner will always be a sinner and this personal god that loves you and you have defined as a god of unconditional love may just send you to hell for eternity. Nice old chap isn’t he. Ok here comes my anti religious rant this personal god knows past present and future so he decided to create you and give you free will knowing you would screw up and spend eternity in hell. Even as a child I rejected those beliefs.

Put that into a child’s mind and see what results you get when they become teens and adults. Why not look for reality with paranormal research and materialistic research instead of just thinking you already know when we do not know. The human species knows so little but acts like it has a knowing beyond knowing.

Research into the paranormal is not about religious beliefs it is interested into research into those mysteries in life the scientists have yet to uncover.

From my point of view money spent for this type of research is better spent than making bombs or doing nation building. The problem is most people associate religion with research into the paranormal. They are different things altogether. Atheists spend so much time attacking religious dogma. Why? It backfires like putting the words there is no god on buses. This only made people think about god more.

“In this sense the terms materialist and naturalist become ways of labelling people who only believe in/accept what has currently been shown to be true”

This statement is an example of a paradigm not a belief. When anyone starts to tell me what is true all kinds of red flags come up. Better to state probabilities than truths.

I did fine your response very well stated. Thank you for that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Atheism = rejection of life led by faith in the unknown and embracing reason and free thought based upon evidence.
I don’t “Believe” in gravity, mathematically and physically i know it exists, based upon evidence.

to sum it up imo.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Atheism = rejection of life led by faith in the unknown and embracing reason and free thought based upon evidence”

Faith can be one of the most powerful aspects of living a human life. Not faith in atheist or religious beliefs but faith in self and the faith that we will continue to discover these mysteries in the universe. The problem with faith is it can be blind faith and lead to very destructive outcomes. But it can also be the engine that can leads to profound discoveries and accomplishments.

That is the great mystery and challenge of life; we can make choices that have profound outcomes and consequences not only for ourselves as individuals but also for the entire planet.

Don’t reject a life based on faith in the unknown but embrace faith as a devotion to reach new heights one never thought possible for oneself. I am reminded of all the great inventions of humankind and how many of those inventions would have not been possible without the inner faith of the inventor. Reason without faith is like a vehicle without an engine.

From my point of view the term “free thought” is an oxymoron. Nothing is free including thoughts. All thoughts have consequences. They appear to be free but appearances can be deceiving.

Faith and reason are the engine and wheels of creativity. Atheism like scientism like materialism like religion’ism like intellectualism like so many ism’s can be barriers to having great insights and making great discoveries.

As I watched a show tonight a person sang and astounded the audience and one only has to wonder how much faith this person had to have to believe in herself and her singing to continue to practice until she got her big break and chance to prove herself.  I suspect faith brought her through many self-doubts and failures.

And as far as gravity all the data is not in on gravity   I suspect there is much more to be discovered about the phenomenon we call gravity. Stated another way all the evidence is not in; there is much more to come in future generations and centuries that I suspect will have profound implications for humans on earth and into space explorations.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

A story about faith, perseverance, and possible paranormal phenomenon.

I had a client that designed equipment and devices for NASA. I became acquainted with their head design engineer. One day while visiting their organization our families had dinner. It was at this dinner that this engineer told me an interesting story about an invention of his he had while working at another organization. He had been working on an automatic pilot guidance system for airplanes.

He was having all kinds of design problems and nothing seem to work. One night while at home asleep he woke up and the design of this automatic guidance system was in blue well lit on his ceiling. He quickly ran into his home office and got a pen and paper and wrote down what was on the ceiling.

The next day he put this design into motion and as it turned out the design worked perfectly. He kept saying to me it worked perfectly even he was surprised that it worked perfectly. They even named the design after him. At one time I think he told me every plane manufactured in the United States has his patented design in it as their autopilot. He had tears in his eyes when he told me this story.

His wife stated that when they met the owners of this new organization they had a special outing for him and his wife to convince him to come and join their organization as their chief engineer. One of the owners stated to her that she must be proud of her husband for designing such a perfect design used in airplanes in the   US and the design named after her husband. The wife told me she did not have the heart to tell him the story of the   design that was on the bedroom-ceiling wall.

Those are the kind of stories that make many wonder deeply about the mysteries of life and if we are not being deceived deeply about physical appearances. My point, my research indicates there is more to this world than meets the eye and often-accepted rational and reasoning thinking.

It is an antidotal story to most but to this engineer it is more than antidotal it is something that changed the way he views the world. At my 50-year class reunion the stories that had paranormal implications abounded. Materialistic explanations just do not explain these phenomena but my research into the paranormal highly suggests there is more to this world than we ever imagined.

These types of stories should encourage more scientists to seek deeply into these mysteries but instead they are just called antidotal and viewed as worthless evidence. The power of paradigms again. This design engineer had no need to tell me this personal story; he could have just talked about his invention that is named after him.

He had nothing to gain by telling me this story he knew nothing about my research into the mysteries of life.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Anecdotal and worthless, yes!

Evidence, no!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Perhaps many things are at the root of one’s decision to rigidly hold unto a belief or to try and invalidate other forms of life experiences, simply on the basis that scientific evidence does not support the claim. I am an Engineer, and value the contributions of science. On the other hand, I am conscious that at the stage in our evolution, our understanding of science and the technologies available to us now may be considered as laughable when we look back many years from now. The fact that I can’t measure, or explain some phenomena in the moment of now, does not mean that a measuring device or an explanation will not become available in the future. What we call say paranormal today, may well be quite normal tomorrow or as soon as our science rises to the challenge to help us better understand the things around us.

During our final year at the university, a group of about 10 guys were playing cards on a fairly solid wooden table approximately 5ft x 4ft.  It was about 6.30pm and the dusk was slowly approaching. One of the guys around the table told us that if we concentrated hard enough 4 of us could lift the table with just the edge of one index finger. Eventually,  4 of us including me, decided to try. We went to the four sides of the table, placed the edge of an index finger of one hand under the table, and then, we each held each others hand over the centre of the table. We were all told to close our eyes while the leader chanted something, we all then took a deep breath and then attempted to lift the table while we inhaled. I felt my hand rise as if there was no weight on it. I opened my eyes to observe the table more than a foot off the ground. I was speechless. This was the most incredible experience I had to date.  About ten minutes later another friend came along, and heard us talking about the event. He did not see the original event and did not believe a word we said. He wanted and demanded proof. He also decided to increase the stakes by placing a chair in the middle of the table and sitting on it. We repeated the event and lifted table chair and occupant, the same distance off the ground. Also, just like before, I felt virtually no pressure on the edge of my index finger. If only you could have seen the look and color of my friends face as he was hovering more than a foot above ground. To this day I don’t really understand why we were able to do this, but that does not mean I can ignore that it happened.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Anecdotal and worthless, yes!”

Anecdotal yes worthless to you yes.

Now to the person that experienced this phenomenon it was a significant emotional event. This is the power of experience it can change the way a person views the world. This is what most atheists cannot understand. This is why they have such difficulty understanding what the religious call the spiritual aspects of human life. That life may indeed may have a deeper meaning than just physical phenomena.

It was not worthless to the thousands of pilots that fly airplanes. Bet most did not know the story about their auto pilot guidance system.

This is why atheism is such a small per cent age of the population. Comments like this that takes this man’s profound personal experience and calling it worthless shows a mind that worships at the altar of scientism and I suspect intellectualism. These types of comments are cold and calculating and show a lack of anything close to compassionate thinking or a mind that wonders about these mysteries of life. This is the great danger of atheism as a world system of beliefs from my point of view. Nothing is worthless all experiences have meaning.

Now this person will not understand a word I have just stated. But this person may someday. One has to have such experiences to understand others that have similar experiences that challenge the existing materialistic paradigm.

This is why JohnS’s comments has been more open to such phenomena.  He has experienced what was popular in the late 1800’s and that was table lifting to see which person or persons had paranormal abilities. Some used fraud for money or fame then radio and TV were invented and then home circles became obsolete entertainment.

“What we call say paranormal today, may well be quite normal tomorrow or as soon as our science rises to the challenge to help us better understand the things around us.”

Well stated. This is why Crookes investigated such phenomena he knew there may be some hidden energy or aspect of these phenomena that may have profound implications for science.

“To this day I don’t really understand why we were able to do this, but that does not mean I can ignore that it happened.”

I have not personally experienced table lifting or even tried to but I have talked to many people that have been successful at doing table lifting. There are many theories as to why this is possible but it certainty puts a stake in the heart of materialism. The religious folks are a little more open to such phenomena than the materialists but not much. Some believe it is the devil doing playing tricks on them. The devil and God scenario playing out.

I bet someone would have a hard time convincing you this experience was worthless. Look how it has opened your mind to the possibilities of other phenomena in life other than just look at the world with a materialistic paradigm. I had a similar experience happen to me when I was 18 years old and I did not tell anyone for 27 years, I knew people would just think I was making it up and call it a worthless.

One person I talked to saw a round coffee table rise off the floor while the top unscrewed off the base and then rose all the way to the ceiling; it scared her so bad she refused to participate in anything like that again.

We have much to learn about such phenomena, as it does not exhibit the same characteristics as physical phenomena. We as a human species are very early in our evolution of consciousness. Note the ultra skeptics that debunk such phenomena write books but spend very little time writing about consciousness. It is considered the hard problem.

The myth busters on TV tried to debunk table lifting and did a really poor job of proving it was fake. They could not prove it was fake, so they walked out of the room and stated that is the oldest bar trick in the world. Paradigm paralysis in action. JohnS knows it may very well have been a real case of table lifting because he has experienced it in his life. I.e. the value of experience.

One must always keep in mind experiences and appearances can be very misleading. This is why sage’s often state do not judge by appearances. Many consider all physical appearances illusions but I do not because they can exhibit repeatability. Repeatability is at the very core of the scientific method.

Some scientists have been able to have repeatability for several years with paranormal phenomena and still their peers refuse to even witness these phenomena. Combine materialism, intellectualism, and scientism and you have a very closed mind. A person with many Ism’s appears to be in a very restrictive mode of being in the world.

JohnS thanks for sharing that story. On a blog like this one that took some personal risks of being called worthless or worst. But it is experiences like these that open our minds to possibilities we could never have dreamed of.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,
  I would like to put forward a few ideas.

  The first is what i would term Emotional Absolutism. Its my own take on things, though its bound to have been dealt with elsewhere.

  By emotional absolutism i mean that our emotions, yours and mine, are closely related through evolution and our biological kinship. It is after all not difficult to show (mathematically if not historically) that you and i are related at some points across our family tree; somewhere.

  So your feeling of love for your loved ones is likely to be very very similar to mine, albeit it as complicated as mine. Certainly your potential for feelings is likely to be very similar to mine. This goes for love, anger, pain, passion, lust, everything you can name. Thoughts and such are likely to be different, though we probably share many common experiences along our lives as well, loves lost, loves found, relatives lost, siblings in danger, similar experiences of enjoyment and hope, though possibly with different things.

  My point here is that meaning is probably very similar. When i have talked to Christians, Muslims, agnostics, pagans, atheists etc all i see is that, though the causes of meaning are different, the expression and experience of meaning is much the same.

  I think there is a real inability for some people to see that there is no gateway to meaning, there is only the experience of meaning. So long as you have the experience then you have the meaning. Just like there is no gateway to love, heterosexual love is no different to homosexual love, or love of anything. We know human beings are able to love some very strange things. I saw a program once about men who had a sexual love of cars - and all that normally follows in a relationship with them. The brain is very plastic indeed.

  This is the key. We have the same brains, the same hearts. If you say you have meaning in the mysteries of the paranormal and a Muslim says he has it in Allah, and i say i have it in a materialistic universe then we have to accept that. We have meaning literally in the meaning we have within ourselves. We all have the ability to derive meaning, probably from a vast spectrum of possibilities.

  To explain peoples reactions to other ideas i would like to put forward the idea that it is not certain ideas that provide meaning, such that it is not having certain ideas that provides meaning, rather the sensation or emotion of meaning will occur no matter what you believe. This admittedly makes meaning a natural part of our psychology instead of something implanted by external ideas, with some ideas containing more meaning, it is instead like love or hate - a part of us, and something that naturally happens once an idea has become embedded.

  The tension and stress therefore occur when looking across the divide between ideas. Of course (in this model) we perceive other ideas to have less or no meaning as we are applying a subconscious test to them relative to our own emotional state. Our minds, holding one meaning position struggle to ‘experience’ meaning across the divide and in the other idea. This is completely expected under this model as the mind already has its own ‘meaning complex’ or its own ‘context for meaning’. It says very little about whether the other person is experiencing ‘meaning’.

  To this end i have never met an atheist how says there is no meaning in life. Rather then context of the meaning is likely to be in family and friends rather than immortal pleasure.

  Lets just say that after we die we live on. We have another 1000 years in the next life, but then die. A two life model. It would be nice to have another 1000 years, but i dont see why it would have more meaning than we should be able to sum up at the thought of another 50 years. What about living another million? Or an infinity, what would you fancy doing after a trillion trillion years and still staring down the barrel of an infinite amount of time?

  We can play with these concepts all day long and agree with which bits would have meaning over which bits wont in any given metaphysical construct, but ultimately it is all highly subjective, just like meaning. There is no reason to think that every entity will be happy all the time over on the other side, if we were then we would arguably be missing something important. If we are allowed not to be then is it not possible that there could be people on the other side right now saying ‘whats the point, where’s the meaning’. It is all highly subjective and personal.

  As for atheism itself i dont think it has much to do with meaning in anything outside of a personal context. It is literally a state of failure to be convinced of the current ideas of Gods.

  I see a tendancy to group ideas though. The paranormal is something outside of understanding. That is the point of it. We can debate to what extent current understanding might affect the bounds of the unknown as far as ‘claim of the unknown’ go, just like we would do with dark matter or anything unknown. We can also admit that we ‘dont know everything’ and remind people not to insert mythology or hopes and dreams into the unknown and think that they are doing anything more than this, but this is about all we can do.

  Why is it assumed that disagreeing with various God concepts means that we are not open to research into the unknown, though this is not the same as not pointing out peoples assumptions, over-estimations of data, over-stretching hypothesis based on limited data, or just poor data gathering. Atheists also wade into philosophical debates about the nature of creating hypothesis and believing in them without substantiating them as well as the importance of gathering good data.

  The general complaint would be that we over-assert our confidence in atheism into the unknown. There are two ways you can look at this. Placing limitations on the unknown based on current knowledge is a pretty normal thing to do in anything from geology to electronics to knitwear. I haven’t seen any specific reason why we shouldnt do it with regard to overarching universal possibilities. Doesnt mean we are right though, just that this is our perspective based on our understanding of the evidence.

  I as a materialist atheist am going to do a bit more research into the published claims of repeated paranormal experiments, one day - and when i have my broadband connection back - not this dial up. Maybe a website that compiles and links to the actual papers would be useful.

  I think the terms materialist and atheist are being abused a little though. They are not block descriptions, immobile to new thought. Though these stereotypes certainly helps those who would wish to characterise them that way.

  As a last comment: regarding the bus campaign. You have a quote somewhere up there that ‘thats why so few people are atheists’. Bare in mind that this is not the same all around the world. In the UK there are many many atheists.  In my generation i would say we are predominant. Though this is not the same as saying everyone thinks that there is nothing else. Just that we all think the religions and ideas of God are bunkum. Some European countries seem almost 60-70% atheist.

  My only point with the bus campaign would be with regard to politics and appearance. I look at religions as above all political parties. They certainly perform all the functions of political parties, and in the past they acted almost completely as them. Around the world they are still often indistinguishable (at least in some major ways) from a countries political ambitions, aspirations and actions.

  For those who do not like the politics of the churches a more visible and politically assertive disbelief (whatever form it may take) is the natural, and possibly only, alternative. Getting children on chairs and convincing them of your political beliefs (human rights, sexual rights etc) seems unfair to say the least. Though one the other side the faith schools here in Europe are very good at churning out non-believers.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

It has become clear in your previous two posts where the essential difference lies between your position and the position of many people on this website. Your standard of evidence is much lower. (That’s not intended as a derogatory statement, it’s simply a fact. After all, we all have different ideas on what constitutes ‘evidence‘ and some people’s standards are lower than others).

The second-hand stories that caused you to “wonder deeply about the mysteries of life” simply would not make much impression on most critically minded people. That’s not because critically minded people demand impossibly high standards of evidence or because they are closed-minded. It’s simply that second-hand personal stories could never constitute solid evidence. Even most parapsychologists who regard psi phenomena as real would agree with that. I shouldn’t need to point out why if you’ve done 18 years of research in the subject.

As someone who HAS studied some of the best evidence for psi phenomena for the past 8 years (I’ve since given up) and as someone who HAS experienced ‘psi’ phenomena for myself, I can see many pitfalls in your arguments. You repeat many of the usual non-scientific counter-arguments offered by paranormal believers. For instance, you give too much credence to second-hand personal stories. Even most parapsychologists wouldn’t do this. I’m really surprised that you haven’t quoted some of the research on telepathy and PK as evidence for psi phenomena. Why is that? Have you actually read any of it? My guess is that you find personal experiences more persuasive than ‘hard facts’ in journals? And that scientific facts inform your opinions less than personal experiences (either your own experiences or those of others)?

“At my 50-year class reunion the stories that had paranormal implications abounded. Materialistic explanations just do not explain these phenomena but my research into the paranormal highly suggests there is more to this world than we ever imagined.”

This is a very telling statement. How can you be sure that there is anything to explain here? How are you sure that these second-hand personal experiences - that were given at a class reunion no less! - actually had any ’paranormal implications’? It seems that you had already concluded that these stories offered some sort of evidence for something paranormal? That’s a hugely naive leap to make. Forgive me for saying this but you seem very reluctant to look for explanations than don’t involve paranormal phenomena.

I used to think like you do. I really thought that psi phenomena was real, that I had experienced genuine psi phenomena for myself and that people who thought otherwise were either ignorant or simply close-minded. Some people were (are) of course, no doubt about that.

Actually, I still have a whole library of on parapsychology - about 80 editions of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, about 60 editions of the Journal for Parapsychology, about 10 editions of the Journal for the American Society for Psychical Research, a signed copy of Phantasms of the Living (signed by Frank Podmore), most of the work on Eusapia Palladino, lots of literature on D. D. Home, lots of literature of Leonora Piper, two copies (one in German) of Baron von Schrenck Notzing’s experiments with Eva C and others, Crookes’s book on Florence Cook‘s materialisations of Katie King, Charles Richet’s work on ectoplam, plus lots of more recent books by John Beloff, Stephen Braude, Dean Radin, and Alan Gauld, to name a few…

But after reviewing all of this in the most open-minded manner, by being as objective and critically minded as I possibly could and being genuinely open to the possibility of psi phenomena, I still think the evidence falls short of what normally constitutes ‘proof‘ or ‘conclusive evidence‘ - i.e., the level of evidence that we demand in other areas of science.

At one time, I did indeed regard psi phenomena as real. But that was before the days when I knew much about the potential pitfalls and errors in the experimental methods used by psychical researchers and parapsychologists and the unreliability of second-hand testimonies. Hell, I even tried psi phenomena for myself and had ‘successful’ results. For instance, I was able to score pretty high on remote viewing tests, I had some telepathic experiences, I had lots of deja-vu experiences, I had several OBEs… I was fully convinced that it was as real as it appeared and I used to repeat the usual counter-arguments whenever other people disagreed. (Not that I’m implying that my critics were wiser than me. Most of them didn’t know what they were talking about (not that I did either of course!). But that’s not the point. The point is, most of my ‘evidence’ was very shaky at best and was much better explained by ‘normal‘ means, just as much of the literature on parapsychology is).

I actually think psi IS worth studying. It’s a fascinating topic. But the way you talk about it, you would think that there was lots of evidence in your favour. There isn’t. I’ve looked harder than most, quite probably harder than you, but the conclusive evidence and proof just isn’t there. You should at least be honest about that and stop name calling people who disagree with you as followers of ‘scientism’ and ‘materialism‘. Also, please stop distorting the definition of atheism by associating it with things that have nothing to do with atheism. What are you trying to achieve by constantly doing that?

The fact is, the evidence for paranormal phenomena thus far just isn’t impressive enough to warrant the conclusion that it actually occurs. Sure, there’s a good case to be made for it. But that has little to do with second-hand personal stories. If psi phenomena is ever proven to be real, it will take real science to do it, not antidotes. Even your own subjective, personal experience are very much open to distortion, selective memory, bias, etc. There is just too much room for error and misrepresentation. That’s why we have scientific experiments, to rule out these factors.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I also wish we could edit these posts for spelling and grammatical mistakes. Reading them in this little window is a pain. Forgive me for the several additions of unnecessary words or words that are incorrect in their position. I would edit them if i could.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ben,
You can edit in word , then copy and Paste

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“That’s not intended as a derogatory statement, it’s simply a fact”

Here is what I see as the difference. How many times have I used the word fact to explain paranormal phenomena? Once a person gets in their head they know facts the rest is pretty much downhill from there. When someone starts telling me what is fact and what is truth, which most people consider a fact a truth, all sorts of red flags come into my consciousness. Can you not see this is exactly the point I have been trying to make between materialism and religions? They both talk in facts and believe they have facts. It appears this occurs because of paradigms, religious or materialistic.

With science we need to deal with probabilities not truths.

Never have I stated that stories were facts. Please quote me if you can find at anytime where I used the word fact to define paranormal evidence or lack of evidence. Also there are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you about the evidence for psi phenomena.

I did not come to this website to prove psi phenomena or convince anyone of paranormal phenomena. I have stated over and over that has to be a personal journey based on interest and cannot be done by someone claiming this is a fact or conclusive evidence. That road is well traveled and endless.

Spend your time trying to convince a Christian that Jesus did not have to die for their sins for them to get to heaven. The same applies to the materialists try and spend your time that the paranormal exists to the materialists. Endless road for both and not one I wish to take.

So I will state it again the materialistic paradigm is as powerful as the religious paradigm. One must stand between religion and materialism to see this. All the paranormal research in the world will not altar a person’s system of beliefs if they have a materialistic or religious paradigm as they are doing the research.

Paradigms are so powerful it is impossible to see how these paradigms influence our view of reality. They are hidden from our view. That is one of the great mysteries of life how something we call a paradigm can overwhelm our view of reality in spite of the empirical evidence.

“But after reviewing all of this in the most open-minded manner, by being as objective and critically minded as I possibly could and being genuinely open to the possibility of psi phenomena, I still think the evidence falls short of what normally constitutes ‘proof‘ or ‘conclusive evidence‘ - i.e., the level of evidence that we demand in other areas of science.”

This is a telling statement. You have just expressed an opinion about what constitutes conclusive evidence. Now whether it falls short or does not fall short is not the point; you have discovered much evidence that you admit is evidence but only falls short of what you or other scientists consider conclusive evidence. Actually that statement is a powerful statement on your part. Most atheists and materialists won’t even admit to any evidence.

Wow if you are looking for proof what is proof. At one time most thought the earth was flat and it was considered proof that is was. At one time most scientists thought that heavier than air flight was proof. At one time most thought the sun revolved around the earth. Need I go on. This is scientism at its best thinking because most scientist believe something is proof than it is proof. Scientists have as much of a herd mentality as any other human.

This is were scientism comes in; when we believe that most scientists would not consider that evidence you discovered is conclusive evidence. Most is not always valid. There are more Christians than atheists in America and that does not prove that Christianity is more valid than atheism. With the human species there is a herd effect and it exists with scientists and Christians. It is a human condition.

There is a term called qualitative evidence and it appears you could do well to study just how qualitative evidence is obtained and that empirical research can obtain evidence by observation. I.e. one synonym for empirical is observation. Ouch that hits at the heart of scientism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“If psi phenomena is ever proven to be real, it will take real science to do it, not antidotes.”

Real science not antidotes that is the most popular phase used by materialists to explain away something they cannot explain. Real science according to whom? I wondered how long it would take to have that sentence pop up in these dialogs.

And if you think the atheists that call themselves debunkers of the paranormal called CSI then do some research into their two “scientific” experiments and see how well they designed and performed these experiments. One experiment they falsified the data and the other they had results that suggested that further research should have been done and they measured the Russian girl on something she did not claim she could to. There is your example of real science in action to debunk the paranormal. She trusted these people who called themselves scientists. That was a mistake on her part.

“The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses”

You have decided to define science to fit you idea of what science and the scientific method is to have conclusive evidence.

“There isn’t. I’ve looked harder than most, quite probably harder than you,”

You have no evidence to support this statement you just made. Yet you state how important conclusive evidence is to you as a scientist. Your words do not support your statements about evidence. You are stating something you have no evidence for and you want me to believe you have done all this research with an open mind. Come on do you believe I am that naïve.

My evidence I have obtained in my observations at the seminars I taught has suggested to me that any person that states they have an open mind does not. Now at least you stated you tried to have an open mind. That is the best we can do but we all claim to do that.  Have you ever met a person that stated I don’t try to have an open mind? Maybe a few have but it would be very few.

You have misread my point but that is common many do. I will try and do much better in my writing communication skills. Thanks for the dialog.

The wonderment of life is dialog. What if we all thought alike and had identical beliefs and opinions. There would be no dialog, just what the Buddhists call emptiness, which most think means nothingness but emptiness is everything. How is that for a paradoxical statement?

Our imperfections define us actually without our imperfections there is no us.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Real science not antidotes that is the most popular phase used by materialists to explain away something they cannot explain. Real science according to whom? I wondered how long it would take to have that sentence pop up in these dialogs.”

researcher, the problem with anecdotes is that there is no way to repeat something that is happened.  One integral part of the scientific method is to use experiments, especially repeatable experiments.  JohnS’s anecdote about lifting a table is nice, however we are missing key information: How much did the table weight? How much did the skeptical friend weight? Was there someone under the table helping to lift it, unbeknownenst to those using their index fingers?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi Researcher, did you see my comment - number 44?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Vango
Your quote: ” JohnS’s anecdote about lifting a table is nice, however we are missing key information: How much did the table weight? How much did the skeptical friend weight? Was there someone under the table helping to lift it, unbeknownenst to those using their index fingers?”

I did not weigh the table, but we had to move the table many times to make room for other events. The location was the recreational area of the campus male dormitory. Suffice it to say that the persons at the scene including me were engineering students, who resided at that dormitory, and we were all flushed with disbelief (fear mixed with excitement) , at what we did. Surely you would expect that we would have eliminated such simple explanations, as someone hiding under the table in plain sight ( unless he was invisible). My skeptical friend was a typical healthy adult male ( no anorexia apparent).
I myself was not sure if we would be able to lift the table with my friend on it , but then I did not expect to lift the table by itself, and that had already happened

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with ReasonNotFaith’s comment 16.  I don’t want this website to become researchers personal soapbox for his wacky obsessions! 

As it is now I just skip researcher’s comments and read the follow ups because once you’ve read 2 or 3 of his posts you get the drill and they all sound the same.  But there have been several threads now that literally have been hijacked by his personal agenda.  researcher is a fanatic.  Several people have attempted to engage in serious discourse with him - on his issues!.  But no discussion is possible with him.  There is only lecturing.

Is there a moderator for this forum?

What is the definition of “inappropriate?”  Can posts be deleted for being chronically off-topic and irrelevant?

If this trend continues, I fear that people will just abandon this site.  That would be a pity.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“As a last comment: regarding the bus campaign. You have a quote somewhere up there that ‘thats why so few people are atheists”

The bus campaign has nothing to do with why there are so few atheists. But all and in all I found your comments on #44 interesting and well thought out. The quotes below in my view will give you insights into atheism and scientism and how this person makes my point without even realizing it.

“What is the definition of “inappropriate?”  Can posts be deleted for being chronically off-topic and irrelevant? If this trend continues, I fear that people will just abandon this site.  That would be a pity”
These comments are very revealing because like attracts like and anyone that challenges existing beliefs and paradigms will soon find themselves banned from the blog. This occurs whether that website be religious, paranormal, political, atheists, materialist, science, or whatever. This is how the human mind works at least at this stage of development.
Now the good news there appears to be an evolution consciousness occurring and this may mean that the human mind will become more open to new information that challenges its existing beliefs.
This has been my point since I entered this blog how atheism can be as much of a religion as what the atheist say religion is. Now we cannot see our own paradigms. They are hidden from our view. Anyone that challenges our paradigms we just ban from the site as off topic and chronically irrelevant. Without realizing it people that make such statements have proved my point.
JohnS your table lifting story will not fly here. Even the person that was considered the greatest scientist in England at the time was completely naive when he thought his statements on the paranormal would be accepted by the materialist and the religious. Now he held his ground but was removed for a time from being the president of a scientific organization, which they later gave back to him. But to his credit he never recanted and held his beliefs that there was more to this world than what the materialists believe is reality.
Table lifting was actually a common practice in those days of home circles. Yet still few in the world understand the scientific method and what is often referred to as qualitative evidence. They will use what is referred to as experiments that require repeatability; which Crookes provided and even invited the most famous journalist at that time to witness these phenomena and a famous doctor to sit in on and witness paranormal phenomena. Still there was an outcry of fraud from the materialists even through they refused to attend the séances. That is the power of paradigms. Whether religious or materialists.
As a side note repeatability can also be achieve with qualitative evidence. I was fortunate enough to teach and participate in design of experiments in my career with both qualitative and quantitative data.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

researcher,

Could you post some of the findings you’ve had from your paranormal research?  Just a couple of sentences on each finding is fine.

Thanks

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

researcher,

Here is some evidence that you might like for the existence of fairies, ha ha:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211845/Croydon-Tinker-Bell—fairies-the-garden.html

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

It saddens me that you have misunderstood and ignored so many of the points I raised in my previous post (#45).  Normally, I would shrug my shoulders and move on. However, it seems to happen to almost everybody you talk to. I’m beginning to wonder whether it is actually possible to have an honest and direct conversation with you. You simply do not address the points that people put to you. Instead, you just repeat the same statements about how we cannot see our own paradigms, which does nothing to address the specific points that have been raised. Sorry, not good enough.

There isn’t enough time to unpick every statement, so I will just answer a few.

“Here is what I see as the difference. How many times have I used the word fact to explain paranormal phenomena?”

You have completely misunderstood my point, so I will repeat it again in a different way: if you regard second-hand stories of subjective experiences as evidence for paranormal phenomena (i.e., the types of stories that caused you to “wonder deeply about the mysteries of life”), then your standard of evidence *is* lower than most critically minded people. There is no avoiding this.

I’m not implying that every paranormal story is false or that everyone who has claimed to have experienced paranormal phenomena is a liar. Far from it, many of them are very honest people who genuinely believe they have experienced something ‘paranormal.‘ (So did I in the past and I still do occasionally experience what less critically minded people would regard as ‘paranormal‘ phenomena). But the problem is that there is no way of knowing whether the stories are actually true. There are so many uncontrolled variables, so many sources of possible (and serious) error, no controls against memory error, no way of repeating the phenomena, no way of analysing the phenomena, etc. For those reasons, second-hand personal stories simply cannot be regarded as evidence by anybody but those who have very low evidential standards or a propensity to believe in paranormal claims. I fear that you fall into both categories.

Perhaps it is part of your ‘paradigm’ to be so willing to believe such stories but you should not be surprised when other people, quite sensibly, do not embrace them with the same level of enthusiasm.

“Once a person gets in their head they know facts the rest is pretty much downhill from there.”

A very strange statement indeed. *Of course* there are things which we can label as facts. To cite two examples that you repeatedly use yourself: it is a fact that the earth is spherical and it is a fact that heavier-than-air flight occurs daily. These are facts. Of course, we should be honest when we do not know something. However, we should also be honest when we *do* know something.

“Can you not see this is exactly the point I have been trying to make between materialism and religions? They both talk in facts and believe they have facts.”

Of course they both believe they have facts(!). But the point is this: which ‘side’ or person can provide evidence to support their claims? If you cannot see a difference between ‘materialism’ (science) and religion, then it is obvious that you have a very deep misconception of what science actually is and what religion actually is. They are fundamentally different, both in their methods and their conclusions. And the only way we can determine which side is correct (or more likely to be correct) is on the basis of *evidence*. Just because both sides claim to have facts does not mean they are both equal. On side happens to put evidence at the heart of its method. The other does not.

“So I will state it again the materialistic paradigm is as powerful as the religious paradigm.”

See above.

“Please quote me if you can find at anytime where I used the word fact to define paranormal evidence or lack of evidence.”

Again, you’ve missed my point that your standard of evidence is low, even by the standards of most parapsychologists.

“You have just expressed an opinion about what constitutes conclusive evidence. Now whether it falls short or does not fall short is not the point; you have discovered much evidence that you admit is evidence but only falls short of what you or other scientists consider conclusive evidence.”

I didn’t say it was evidence for paranormal phenomena though. Again, you’ve missed the point. Perhaps I should have said the ‘data’ for paranormal phenomena. In any case, it *is* possible to have evidence for opposing sides of a debate. But the point is, if one side has a very small amount of evidence and the other side has lots of better evidence, then the side with the better evidence will have a much stronger case.

“This is scientism at its best thinking because most scientist believe something is proof than it is proof. Scientists have as much of a herd mentality as any other human.”

Nonsense. Scientists work with empirical data and openly criticise their peers. Scientists also change their minds on the basis of evidence and better explanations for the evidence. Obviously, this doesn’t often happen overnight but, generally, the best ideas will usually be widely accepted because they are proven to be correct time and time again. Take quantum physics as an example.

“You have no evidence to support this statement you just made. Yet you state how important conclusive evidence is to you as a scientist. Your words do not support your statements about evidence. You are stating something you have no evidence for and you want me to believe you have done all this research with an open mind. Come on do you believe I am that naïve.”

I knew that statement was slightly provocative. But the reason why I mentioned it was because I had not seen (or have yet to see) *any* sign that you actually know anything about the field of parapsychology, despite your many, many posts on the topic. The only person you really mention is William Crookes. But his experiments in 1874 were not particularly impressive by today’s standards. Most parapsychologists would say the same thing. The fact that the materialisation (Katie King) looked so similar to the medium should cause anyone to be highly sceptical. Also, the style in which the tests were recorded would not pass modern scientific standards. (They may well have been considered inadequate even in Crookes’s day but since he was the editor of the journal in which the experiments were published, that obviously increased his chances of being published!) For instance, Crookes naively thought that his readers would (and should) assume that certain controls and measures had been carried out, given his eminent scientific background. Consequently, he did not give a thorough and detailed account of how the experiments proceeded and how he had implemented controls to guard against fraud and error. What we are left with is a series of inadequate reports. Of course, no professional scientist or parapsychologist today would do such a thing, no matter how trustworthy or eminent they were.

And yes, I do indeed have an open mind about the possibility of psi but only if the evidence is there. Like I said, I used to wholeheartedly believe that psi *does* indeed occur. But that was in the days when my standards of evidence were much lower and I was naïve about the difficulties of implementing experimental conditions that are sufficiently rigorous to rule out all sources of ’normal’ phenomena. Despite that, I’m still open to the possibility that psi is real if the evidence is actually there. The trouble is, I’ve already studied much of it and I’m still unconvinced. Today, I now spend most of my time studying more productive areas of science.

“Paradigms are so powerful it is impossible to see how these paradigms influence our view of reality… That is one of the great mysteries of life how something we call a paradigm can overwhelm our view of reality in spite of the empirical evidence.“

Exactly. Go figure.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

(So did I in the past and I still do occasionally experience what less critically minded people would regard as ‘paranormal‘ phenomena).

You have set yourself up as only you and I suspect those like you that don’t believe in the paranormal as being critically minded. That is very common for atheists to do that. I have heard atheists say they are the only critically minded people in the world. This kind of thinking has its home in intellectualism. The ego likes to think it is special.

”it is a fact that heavier-than-air flight occurs daily”

You have missed my point on this one. Those that attempted heavier than air flight before it was proven possible had to step outside the scientism paradigm and try heavier than air flight to show that it was indeed possible; if they had waited for science to tell them it was possible, we probably would still all be riding on donkeys. Sorry my idea of humor about the donkey idea.

The scientific method is a process not an ideology. If some people did not break out of the accepted scientific paradigms of their time little would be discovered. Materialists treat science like the Christians treat the bible or the politicians treat the constitution. I for one have never trusted so called authority or those that tell me that this idea or that idea is impossible or should not be investigated.

I have worked with scientists and taught scientists and they are very smart people but most have great levels of tunnel vision. They know how to focus and this is needed but with that focus can come tunnel vision.

“But the point is, if one side has a very small amount of evidence and the other side has lots of better evidence, then the side with the better evidence will have a much stronger case.”

If we find one white crow then we know that all crows are not black.

The greatest discoveries for the benefit of human kind in the future will come from what many call super natural phenomena. Dark matter and dark energy may hold some of keys to these discoveries.

“The only person you really mention is William Crookes”

Did I not say that Crookes was naïve to believe because he was such a famous and respected scientist that the materialists would automatically believe him? And again you still missed my point about materialism. I am not here to defend Crookes or his evidence; my point was that he invited several of his peers to witness the phenomena for themselves and they refused to attend. A couple did attend including a famous medical doctor and a famous journalist that did not want to attend but wrote a whole book on her experiences at these séances.

If you are going to use Crookes as an example of small amount of evidence for the paranormal then don’t cherry pick tell the whole story about how many did support Crookes in his statements.

Now if you want my opinion on Crookes I think he did a horrible job of explaining who was in the room and where Florence’s mother and sister were at doing the séances. But lets be honest all the documentation in the world is not going to convince anyone of anything. Paradigms looms larger than documentation.

Many of his peers already “knew” these paranormal phenomena were fraud before investigation. They were scientists that knew little about the scientific method. Their materialistic paradigms overwhelmed their rational minds. That is my point that just about everyone on here misses so I will repeat it again.

The point was that the scientists with the materialistic paradigm refused to travel to the séance a few short miles to validate or invalidate the evidence. And if you believe this same mentality does not apply today with most scientists I have this bridge in Alaska that will sell cheap. Ok the bridge was never built; it is just a road to nowhere but cheap.  But is now a toll road but no one uses it.

“Here is some evidence that you might like for the existence of fairies, ha ha:”

This is a common approach from the materialists when they lack an ability to dialog they will come up with something like this. And the ha ha at the end that is a sign of ignorance not intelligence. But then ignorance is mandatory in a relative phenomenal world. It is based in doubt not certainty. Certainty comes with realization not study or research.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“And the ha ha at the end that is a sign of ignorance not intelligence.”

Actually the ha ha and indeed my whole statement is a mockery of your openmindedness, researcher.

Throughout your numerous and longwinded posts, the only point you made is that in your opinion nothing can be proven or disproven.

I’ve never seen a real life unicorn or fairy.  And neither has anyone else.  However, you expect that they could still exist.

Have fun chasing Bigfoot.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I’ve never seen a real life unicorn or fairy.  And neither has anyone else.  However, you expect that they could still exist.”

Your have no proof they do not exist you stated an opinion without any evidence. That is the power of paradigms and beliefs when we think our opinions are facts. Kind of like the scientists that claimed that heavier than air flight was impossible before anyone actually flew a heavier than air airplane.

It took brave people to go against the accepted scientific beliefs of that time and go forward in spite of what intellectuals stated. Likewise it takes brave people even today to go against the accepted beliefs of the day.

I never even mentioned they could or could not exist or even mentioned fairies or unicorn by name.  I have absolutely no evidence that they do or do not exist; anything I state would be an opinion. These kinds of remarks are emotional attacks when someone steps on our cherished beliefs.

We see this in politics and religion all the time. People used to be burnt at the stake for challenging cherished beliefs. That has been my point this defensive behavior also exists in atheism and materialism. It’s everywhere. We can get very defensive when someone challenges or cherished beliefs.

Now watch someone will accuse me of saying atheists burn people at the stake.

None of us are completely immune from these emotions. Some more than others. That is called variation and this variation is responsible for appearances in our relative phenomenal world.

Also we see such attacks with patriotism and nationalism beliefs; it is a human condition where emotions can overwhelm our rational and reasoning abilities.

I have never visited an atheist sight that a few did not resort to such foolish attacks from my point of view. But then my words have not been soft. This does not mean all atheists resort to such activities.

“Actually the ha ha and indeed my whole statement is a mockery of your openmindedness, researcher.”

I know it hurts deeply to have anyone that is vocal in       their opinions if their opinions differ from ours. I hope I did not come on this website to mock anyone if I did I have some serous issues to deal with. That is not my intent but one of my interests is the human mind and how it can deceive itself into thinking it knows but others do not.

I saw a person from this website on Bill’s show and liked what he said because he appeared to leave the door open for something more in consciousness than a purely material world. I mainly watch bill’s show for new rules. Many are very funny but yet tell a story about the human species.

there are 60 comments on this one topic. hot topic?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,
I consider myself to be at the lowest rung on the ladder of enlightenment, and so I continue to keep hope alive that I will move up the ladder however long it takes. I believe also that science and its ability to improve our understanding is a function of our ability to use that science. At this stage in our evolution, our application and use of science is not allowing us to even scratch the surface. This of course is not the fault of science, and more reflects the fact that the universe is a lot older than our attempts to understand her. Our present use of science therefore has a lot of catching up to do. If this point is accepted, then it follows, that much of our life experiences will remain mysteries to us simply because we are not able to validate them with our present application of science. This if course will means that we have every right to be skeptical of all mysteries, and should attempt to rule out those which are the work of charlatans. But we must also be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water, solely on the basis that our present level of science is unable to validate the presence of a baby. This is the classic ostrich syndrome, where we bury our heads, and then conclude that nothing is happening simply because we can’t see it.
Vangro,  is either missing the point or he does not care to leave what is for him a comfortable bubble. Nothing is wrong with that approach because, a lot of persons are scared of opening new doors lest they find something uncomfortable behind them.
What is however totally within his control is the choice he has made to introduce acrimony into the conversation.  That of course is always regrettable, but not altogether unexpected. I sometimes choose to consider this as youthful exuberance or more simply the triumph of IQ over EQ.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Your have no proof they do not exist you stated an opinion without any evidence.”

Researcher, this is exactly what I am talking about.  You expect people have such an open mind that they are open to the possibility of fairies even though there is no evidence for them.  The same goes for God, as mentioned in the article:  “Disbelief is not the same as denial, it’s either the absence of belief or the presence of skepticism.”

The point here is that those that claim the existence of God, fairies, unicorns, or anything para- or supernatural are required to provide the burden of proof for their existence.  It is not the skeptic who needs to disprove something, it is the proponent who needs to prove everything.  Unless you actually believe in the possible existence Russell’s teapot (doubtful, I hope).

While I actually agree with you that openmindedness is a good thing, it can easily be taken to far.  Considering that fairies or unicorns, or santa exists is a folly as there is not evidence for them.

On a side note, you seem to like using the example of heavier than air flight.  To be fair, people knew that heavier than air flight was possible because, shockingly, birds did it!!

“Kind of like the scientists that claimed that heavier than air flight was impossible before anyone actually flew a heavier than air airplane.”  I notice that you continue to use this example, which is not entirely true.  To be fair, people knew that heavier than air flight was possible because, shockingly, birds did it!  It was the flight of birds that influenced early flight pioneers and even continues to inspire people today.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

ReasonNotFaith,
Thank you for your reasoned and knowledgeable interaction with Researcher.

Researcher,
You would do well in the eyes of those impartially viewing this discussion to meet ReasonNotFaith’s challenges. If your only point was to say we must all guard against confirmation bias, than your point is taken and no rationalist worth his or her salt would argue it. If you mean, however, that there are those of us who are blind to the realities of the paranormal, I for one would appreciate illumination.

However if, as you say, you truly have no interest in discussing the evidence (or lack) in the field of the paranormal or in defending your claims that those of us who consider it a pseudoscience are mistaken, then there is no debate.

Also, you seem to rail against atheists in general. Why? Are you NOT an atheist? You seem decry religion in general and Christianity in particular, so your lack of belief in a deity would seem to me to place you in the general atheist category. A-theists are just that: not theists. They are fully able to be superstitious in nonreligious ways. I have a friend who identifies as atheist only because he thinks the world’s religions are part of the Reptilian/illuminati conspiracy that caused 9/11. On the other hand, if you are not an atheist, please explain how your attachment to paranormal claims is theistic or deistic and justify them with evidence in light of your dismissal of equally passionate Christian spiritual claims.

Let’s not create a debate where none exists; alternatively, “put up, or shut up.” I promise my paradigm will not get in the way of your evidence, if you share it. You could start by pointing me in the direction of what Wallace’s paranormal claims were since you reference them without being specific.

(I realize my attempt at brevity may come across harshly. I do not intend it that way, nor would I ever bemoan such merely to dodge an unpleasant challenge to my paradigm.)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Vangro,  is either missing the point or he does not care to leave what is for him a comfortable bubble. Nothing is wrong with that approach because, a lot of persons are scared of opening new doors lest they find something uncomfortable behind them.”

The door analogy is a good one. Now experience has shown you that phenomena can occur that we have no materialistic explanation for. The materialist has to discount your experience as the slope is too steep and slippery to do otherwise.

It is very uncomfortable to leave that bubble or worst have the bubble burst. The religious live on a very slippery slope but it is a slope they have learned in some ways to adjust to. The earth has been proven with lots of evidence to be more that 6000 years old, they decided that God’s day is longer than 24 hours. At all costs they must keep their book of truths truth in spite of what science discovers.

In the past they tortured people to death to make sure no one else challenges their cherished beliefs. What am I saying some religions still do that today? Today often they just ban you from their website. It is always due to doubt not certainty.

Now the materialist has a much more slippery slope because one unexplained phenomena cannot be allowed to exist in the mind. Because if one paranormal phenomena cannot be explained away the whole of the paradigm comes tumbling down that steep and slippery slope.

JohnS you noticed no one challenged my discussion about the scientific method which also includes qualitative data or data obtained by observation. I thought that would be a topic of discussion. Some will now and call it not as good of evidence even though qualitative evidence can be repeatable and has been repeated with paranormal phenomena. Saying evidence is better or worst evidence is kind of like saying my teen daughter is not as pregnant as my neighbor’s daughter’s pregnancy. Where did that analogy come from????? Palin? I suspect that analogy will fall flat on its face.

William James who spent much of his life doing research stated something to the effect if we find one white crow then we know that all crows are not black. The scientific method is a process but often is used as an ideology that has it home in scientism.

The human mind is a fascinating phenomena including my own. I often laugh at my own mind and how it can deceive it’s self to protect its cherished beliefs. Some have stated that the beginning of wisdom is the recognition of our ignorance or unawareness. I think there is something to that axiom. The problem becomes we always think the other person is ignorant but we are rational and have superior reasoning abilities.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Why? Are you NOT an atheist?”

I do not consider myself an atheist. I am not sure what I consider myself. From my point of view atheism is grounded in materialism and I believe there is more to this universe than just what our five senses and our instruments can measure at this time. Dark energy and dark matter may open the door to other dimensions. Or not.

“However if, as you say, you truly have no interest in discussing the evidence (or lack) in the field of the paranormal or in defending your claims that those of us who consider it a pseudoscience are mistaken, then there is no debate”

Guess I have still not made my point. I am not here to present evidence or debate evidence that is a long and lonely road. It would be like me traveling to Scientific American after the Wright brother’s flight and stating that heavier than air flight is possible. Waste of my time and theirs even through I had witnessed the flight.

My point has been the materialists live on a steeper and more slippery slope than the religious because one unexplained phenomenon can cause those materialistic system of beliefs to go sliding down the slope.

That belief system must be defended at all cost in spite of the evidence even to the point of name calling by some but not all. JohnS has the advantage that he has had experiences with something that defies materialistic explanations. Experience can be a profound teacher. Maybe phenomena in the universe are perfectly imperfect and not chaos like we now believe.

“It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the flying machine problem have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere”. Thomas Edison 1895.

“Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous failure.  Henry Morton president of the Stevens institute of technology on Edison’s light bulb”. 1880

“The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers’ flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that ‘heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible’, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later.”

”Further, as late as January 1905—more than a year after the Wright Brothers’ historic first flight—Scientific American magazine expressed skepticism about whether they had flown. An article titled “The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance” states: “If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face—even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so—would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?” See http://invention.psychology.msstate….ightSiAm1.html

Read the responses to many of my comments does any of these statements above sound familiar? And many worship at the altar of peer-reviewed articles. Teaching at three universities in a publish or perish environment I understand that peer reviews often means belief reviews but not always, science may stubble but it is at the very heart of the human quest for knowledge. The stumbling block is often beliefs are mistaken for facts.

Of course we could fill a book with quotes like this but for some reason we do not think that these kinds of comments could happen to us today. From my point of view we have only scratched the surface of understanding consciousness, awareness, and our universe.

This is a very hot topic as we now have 63 posts or could it be I have stepped on a very sensitive nerve. Don’t worry I am going to be going to a bible study group with a friend and the topic will be about the guy that God asked him to kill his son to prove his love to God. My waterloo is coming. Life is a fascinating phenomenon and not always what we think it “should” be.

But I learn much about my often-judgmental self and others beliefs and paradigms in such settings.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

Having reread some of your earlier posts, I had overlooked where you said you were not an atheist. I think, then, you’re enjoying a carefree agnosticism. The sensitive nerve, then, is that you are on a site called ReasonProject, but are insistent on promoting irrationality. Here is where I think you are being irrational with your assessments:

Mysteries and unknowns abound in the universe. Science thrives on that mystery. Likewise, there have been and will be many initially-unexplained phenomena. The discovery of pulsars, incidental to the search for extraterrestrial life, comes immediately to my mind. However, the scientific materialism that you seem to disdain as a “slippery slope” is actually, overwhelmingly, the best way to test, categorize, and comprehend such unknowns. Eclipses and comets were once unexplained phenomena, but they are a natural part of physical reality. I have read no physicists who suggest that dark matter or dark energy, once found and defined, will not be considered another part of our material universe. They are strange and inexplicable parts, currently, but nothing outside nature.

Someone above mentioned that if paranormal claims were found to be true, they would cease to be paranormal. This is why your Wright brothers analogy, I feel, is a false one. Scientists can be wrong and often are, however, heavier-than-air flight is not a paranormal or supernatural phenomenon. There are no scientific materialists insisting the air travel all around us is not happening. It is based on an understanding and application of the natural laws of physics. It may have been counter-intuitive to many scientists in the Wright brothers’ day, but that was their own blindness. I like your term paradigm paralysis.

As such, if your point all along was simply, “The stumbling block is often beliefs are mistaken for facts,” I do not see any rationalists disagreeing with you. I feel you should consider whether your proclivity for paranormal activity is not one of those beliefs easily mistaken for facts. However, you seem content to keep your personal certainty comfortably far down “a long and lonely road.” That is certainly your right, but it is unreasonable to expect unquestioning acceptance from those of the skeptical persuasion.

I hope at your waterloo, as romantic as Napoleon’s defeat was, you will be found with Wellington.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi Researcher,

  Just a few quick points as i dont have too much time. Keep up your interesting points.

‘the materialists live on a steeper and more slippery slope than the religious because one unexplained phenomenon can cause those materialistic system of beliefs to go sliding down the slope’

  When i think about science, or what i might term my scientism (my belief in science/my belief in the applied philosophy of science relative to other systems) this is one of the greatest strengths to me. I am quite aware that what i believe right now could be shattered tomorrow. The history of science is in these shatterings. I appreciate that to many this is a reason not to claim certainty, and i agree with this With it comes instead a responsibility to investigate to our best degree’s before saying something is so probable that we will, for the moment, use the word ‘correct’. The fact that religion is not on this slope to this degree is one of the reasons i dont like it. I would also say that the paranormal is not on this slope (for how would you disprove it?).

‘Now the materialist has a much more slippery slope because one unexplained phenomena cannot be allowed to exist in the mind’

  I appreciate the stereotype that you are trying to set up here, though i think it is a little self serving in being designed to support your argument rather than being descriptive of materialism. As i’ve said i think this is because materialism isnt a fixed concept and grows to absorb whatever is discovered. It might be better to link it to naturalism instead (everything discovered in the future will be part of the natural world, whatever that is, etc- since we have already discovered things which are not material), which i think is closer to what you mean, except that our concept of natural also grows to absorb what is discovered.

  As for no unexplained phenomena being allowed to exist this is clearly either not well written, or just lignuistically flamboyant. It does not take long to create a list of things that are not understood in science or atheism.

‘From my point of view atheism is grounded in materialism and I believe there is more to this universe than just what our five senses and our instruments can measure at this time’

  Every educated person knows that there is more than our 5 senses or instruments can measure. Given this is the case i am forced to read your sentence as ‘i believe there is more to the universe than it will ever be possible to measure (the senses are already known to be limited as per the previous).

  I dont really know whether i accept that. I guess if something didnt interact with anything, ever, then it might be impossible to measure it. If it interacts with something we can measure though then we can measure it even if it is just by proxy. We will still be gaining information about it, so the term ‘measure’ becomes confused between direct and indirect. As per your previous comment regarding the difference between qualitative and quantitative evidence.

  Either way i think you are trying to define a version of materialism which is too strict to be realistic. Have you asked yourself why you are trying to define it this way? (please read that as an intellectual question rather than a personal dig)

Thanks

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

ben your       comments are very well thought out. and much appreciated as dialog.

you make some very good points.

when we listen to others it can often reveal our paradigms. we cannot see them ourselves they must be brought to our attention by others.

will comment later must run and do some errands.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Cha Cha,

I particularly enjoyed your response to researcher.

“However, the scientific materialism that you seem to disdain as a “slippery slope” is actually, overwhelmingly, the best way to test, categorize, and comprehend such unknowns. Eclipses and comets were once unexplained phenomena, but they are a natural part of physical reality. I have read no physicists who suggest that dark matter or dark energy, once found and defined, will not be considered another part of our material universe. They are strange and inexplicable parts, currently, but nothing outside nature.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith” - Since belief in a deity *requires* faith, simply a lack of faith sounds a lot like atheism.

“Atheists Choose to Disbelieve in God” - Freewill is a religious concept and an illusion.

And I predict Mr. Paradigm couldn’t pass the Turing test (thanks Alan).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“If it interacts with something we can measure though then we can measure it even if it is just by proxy”

This is my point if one has a materialistic paradigm then any measurement by proxy will not be accepted. The materialist will not even accept well-documented even by well respected scientists qualitative evidence as scientific evidence. They confuse qualitative evidence with antidotal evidence. They have to it is too painful to do otherwise.

It has come to my attention since dialoging on this site that materialists do not accept qualitative data, which is included as valid evidence by the very standards of the scientific method. While working on my PhD we as a group did many studies using observation to obtain qualitative evidence.

Many reputable scientists have collected much evidence using the scientific method collecting qualitative data on paranormal phenomena only to be shunned by their peers and yes also those peer reviewed journals. One professor lost his job with a major university for doing research on the paranormal.

Now why is this evidence rejected by mainstream science? It has to be rejected or the whole of the very heart of their beliefs comes tumbling down. The mind is no dummy it will do whatever it can to protect itself from the mental pain and embarrassment of being wrong. Actually some say embarrassment is a great learning opportunity but it is painful.

Again one must stand between materialism and religion to see this in action. Just look at some responses I have been getting on this blog that are really crude personal attacks rather than dialog. I realize my writing style is harsh so this did not come into my life uninvited.

Actually so far the responses I have been getting on this blog are minor compared to some atheist blogs. Why do some show such hostility? I think it is doubt not comfort with ones beliefs that cause someone to write such personal attacks. The very foundation of their beliefs appears to them as being under attack so they respond.

“Eclipses and comets were once unexplained phenomena, but they are a natural part of physical reality”

Yes they are and what kind of data was collected to verify they are a part of physical reality. Observation with verification is considered scientific.

“And I predict Mr. Paradigm couldn’t pass the Turing test (thanks Alan).”

These types of remarks are childish and what they reveal is not certainty in one’s beliefs but doubt. With certainty there is not need for emotional attacks. The Buddhists call this certainty a knowing beyond knowing. Intellectualism is a very fragile mode of being in the world.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“These types of remarks are childish and what they reveal is not certainty in one’s beliefs but doubt.”

I agree a prediction is not a certain belief, nor would it be a doubt.  But a childish mind, blessed with ignorance, is open to many ideas, including assuming your pattern of pull-quote / tangential philosophical musings are the result of a simple algorithm.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

I could spend several days responding to all of your comments but I have neither the time or inclination (or patience). However, I think it would be useful for me to highlight one of the main reasons why you find yourself in such opposition to most people on this website. Let me state from the outset that this opposition has less to do with challenging peoples’ paradigms and more to do with finding genuine weaknesses in your arguments. Here’s just one example…

“Now experience has shown you [JohnS] that phenomena can occur that we have no materialistic explanation for. The materialist has to discount your experience as the slope is too steep and slippery to do otherwise.”

One of the most disturbing aspects in your dialogue is your apparent willingness to accept such stories at face value, or at least give them far more credence than they deserve. This is what I mean when I claim that you have very low evidential standards, even by the standards of most parapsychologists and paranormal believers.

Now, I’m not saying that JohnS has lied or that he was grossly deceived. For all I know, he may be a very trustworthy person with infallible powers of observation. But even if that was true, we (those of us who were not present during the ‘séance‘) would still have no actual evidence that these events occurred as they were described. Not only that, there are several reasons why we should be highly sceptical of claims of this nature.

For instance, we know, with absolute certainty, that our recollections of past events are often very incomplete and distorted. People typically give different accounts of the same event, particularly when the event is emotionally-charged or personally significant. We also know that cases of fraud have occurred over and over again in the history of table-lifting, even under apparently well-controlled séance conditions. The fact that phenomena of this sort very often occur in homes, without any controls, without any instrumentation to record the phenomena, without any records of the proceedings, without any photography, without any infra-red video, etc, plus the fact that paranormal phenomena of this magnitude rarely if ever occur under controlled conditions in parapsychology labs, should give us further reason for doubt (note: I said doubt, not rejection). For these reasons, mere claims of paranormal phenomena under unscientific and uncontrolled conditions are not evidence.

And yet you seem so ready to accept such claims without demanding any further verification, any further analysis, or any further study. No parapsychologist with an ounce of credibility (real or imagined) would do this. This, I put it to you, largely accounts for your propensity to find paranormal explanations where paranormal phenomena may not even exist. The problem is that you have set your evidential bar too low, and consequently you are too eager to jump to paranormal conclusions that are unwarranted by the ‘evidence‘. Perhaps you have a need to believe in paranormal phenomena? Perhaps this is a paradigm deficit on your part?

This is actually a very common psychological trait amongst paranormal believers. (I’m not saying this directly applies to you researcher, although I would be surprised if it doesn‘t). Often, people will experience a strange event for which they can find no rational or normal explanation. This will quickly lead them to think that something paranormal has happened, or at least something that science cannot explain. They may even meet other people in the same situation.

Now, the problem is this. Once they have accepted that paranormal phenomena occur, all manner of phenomena become open to paranormal interpretations. Evidently, it is only a small step from believing *one* paranormal claim, to believing a whole series of paranormal claims, even in the absence of any evidence. (Someone who believes in telepathy is also likely to believe in clairvoyance, precognition, PK, OBEs, NDEs, and mediumship, despite having never experienced them). Once a belief in the paranormal has been reached, many people will typically drop their standards of evidence to the point where any strange event - or even perfectly normal events like chance coincidences, random results, etc - can immediately find a paranormal explanation.

This is most obvious with people who believe in spirits and life after death. It seems that many of these people (I used to count myself as a firm spirit believer) have a strong tendency to point to spirits as the cause of very ordinary events. Almost every mildly significant event is caused by the influence of spirit people or ‘psychic energies‘. Spirits, we are told, can engineer events and situations for our benefit (or harm). Apparently, spirits guide us to experiences. We even have invisible spirit guides that constantly watch over us during our entire lives. When things go wrong, spirits were teaching us a valuable lesson. Everything has a reason, even random chance events. If we avoided a car crash, it was spirits that guided us. If we have a car crash, it was spirits that prevented us from dying. If we die, it was time for the spirit world to take us. It’s an unfalsifiable theory.

It seems to me that most of these problems hinge on the central question of what constitutes evidence for something. How do we determine whether a claim is true or not and how can we be sure either way? What standards have to be met before we believe something to be true? What is our criteria for truth?

Like I said researcher, I’m not suggesting that all of these comments apply to you. However, it seems that many of your comments just do not stand up to critical scrutiny and there are many pitfalls in the way you approach these subjects. That’s why people disagree with you so often.

I did have a whole series of other comments prepared for you that dealt with the superiority of quantitative studies over qualitative research, the evidential criteria that any paranormal claim must meet and your misuse of the often-used William James quote, but I fear that that type of debate would quickly become very tendious and would lead us too far astray into off-topic territory. So I will leave it at that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Like I said researcher, I’m not suggesting that all of these comments apply to you. However, it seems that many of your comments just do not stand up to critical scrutiny and there are many pitfalls in the way you approach these subjects. That’s why people disagree with you so often.”

It depends on what blog I am commenting on. Now a paranormal blog would not find most of my comments that disagreeable. A materialist has to find my comments full of pitfalls it is too painful to do otherwise. A lot of research has been done by some to try and find why a person can be so skeptical in spite of the evidence.

One of the findings was that a skeptic has often felt taken in by religious or others beliefs and they are not about to have that happen again. They have learned a harsh lesson in life as we all have on many fronts. Of course this is not always the case just one example

It is interesting to note that a Christian blog would also disagree with many of my comments. This is why I make such statements that there is a similarity that one can be as rigid as the other in beliefs. This is very very upsetting to the materialists and this is why I get such pushback comments. I will say so far this atheist blog has been more open than most.  Of course I still get childish comments and personal attacks from a few but that is due to the insecurities of their cherished beliefs.

A materialist has every right to be a materialist that is the power of choice not free will but choices within boundaries. Those boundaries for everyone being Christian, materialist, or the paranormal folks is ignorance or unawareness. Now here is the interesting part without that ignorance there is no unique us. Our ignorance or lack of perfect awareness combined with our levels of intelligence make us all unique.

We love our intelligence and hate to admit to our ignorance and of course we love to point out others ignorance without realizing we would not exist as a separate person without our certain levels of ignorance and intelligence. We condemn the very aspects about us that make us unique.

This is a very difficult concept to understand. The Christians don’t have a clue what I am talking about as they prefer the paradigm or system of beliefs of a human fallen from grace reality so they can have a savoir die for their sins and all they have to do is believe and they are off to their heaven. Good gig if you can get it. None of my research supports this system of beliefs; it has its home in paganism, which was based on the fear of an angry deity. I.e. when things got tough: human sacrifice.

Belief is exponentially easier than understanding. Understanding is a rare phenomenon whereas knowledge can be obtained by doing, like obtaining a PhD. A PhD is a knowing it can be done through effort. Understanding comes to us in a different light so to speak.

JohnS has been given some understanding by an experience he had. He knew full well his experience would be rejected by the materialists. It has to be as one unexplained phenomena and the whole of the materialistic paradigm comes tumbling down. It would be like telling a Christian Jesus did not die for your sins. Devastating to the ego.

Now we can gain understanding through effort but only when the mind is in a not knowing mode, which is very rare. Very rare indeed.  This is why the Buddhists teach a not knowing mode. Few are able to achieve that of course.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I did have a whole series of other comments prepared for you that dealt with the superiority of quantitative studies over qualitative research,”

Because one form of research may be superior to the other does not make the other always invalid. I predicted this statement above with 100% accuracy.

“Now, I’m not saying that JohnS has lied or that he was grossly deceived. For all I know, he may be a very trustworthy person with infallible powers of observation.”

First there is no such thing as infallible qualitative or quantitative research. JohnS would never claim infallible observation. Now even if every engineer in the room that night came to this blog and stated the same thing even the guy on the chair on the table that John stated; their comments would still be rejected for a variety of reasons.

They have to be rejected to do other wise would be too mentality painful. Paradigm shifts can be very mentality painful. Look at the people that write books on materialistic theories; a paradigm shift would be devastating.

“But even if that was true, we (those of us who were not present during the ‘séance‘) would still have no actual evidence that these events occurred as they were described”

Well if John and those that participated in that table lifting had taken notes and maybe even videos then you would have qualitative evidence with multiple witnesses. But when something like that occurs that last thing you are thinking about is taking videos. Often it is very unexpected, scary and upsetting.

This is why experience is so crucial for a paradigm shift to occur. But experiences can be misleading but not always. I have had some paranormal events happen in my life but I keep them to myself because I know they would be rejected by most.

Now the myth busters had an opportunity to debunk a table lifting séance but blew it. They were unable to find the fraud instead they just walked out of the room and stated that this was an example of the oldest bar trick in the world without exposing the fraud. That is the power of paradigms.

But even if that was one example of fraud does not mean all are fraud unless of course we examine 27 separate cases of table lifting and all 27 are fraud then we have a good indicator that all table lifting is fraud but not proof just a high probability of fraud.

Now if one example of table lifting is proven to be valid with a whole host of measuring devices and witnesses then we have found our white crow. Table lifting was considered common phenomena during the heyday of home circles. Then fraud sit in for money and the rest is history. One fraud meant all were fraud. Like one politician that lies, they all lie. Sorry bad analogy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It is obvious that I am not getting through to you researcher.  All you have done so far is repeat the same old tired phrases over and over again. Even when you do respond to certain comments, you completely miss the point. Having a direct and honest conversation with you has become impossible. You spend most of your time talking to yourself and sermonising to others about how you are challenging their paradigms and yet you constantly evade answering specific points that are put to you that address your own paradigm. I wish you luck in the future but there are only so many hours that I can spend wasting my time trying to communicate with you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I doubt I am alone in seconding ReasonNotFaith.

This line of conversation has been useful. I never realized the impetus of faith could be so strong in those who do not appear to be “faithful.” At least Christians are honest about “eyes of faith” being required to see Jesus, for instance.

Researcher seems, to me, to have turned a kind of pervasive “the jury’s still out” sentiment into a virtue that fills a similar use as faith, namely, building castles on the sand of wishful thinking/presupposition.

Whereas faith works on the front end, it seems Researcher’s views on awareness work by plugging leaks on the back end. It reminds me of the “mind so open one’s brain falls out” sentiment I have often heard expressed, I think most recently by Michael Shermer.

Contrary to what Researcher continues to assert, that is not my paradigm talking. My paradigm is simply to weigh evidence in an impartial, scientific way. Without Researcher backing his claims up with positive evidence, the rational position is skepticism. I have a hunch his claims are closer to irrational religious claims than he is able to realize. This hunch is because:

He won’t even attempt to prove us wrong.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“My paradigm is simply to weigh evidence in an impartial, scientific way.”

Wow you are either not reading my posts or don’t have a clue what I am talking about. To state what you paradigm is or is not fails to understand the paradigm effect. There is a video you need to view it is called the business of paradigms. Until anyone attempts to do any research this is a must view video.

Paradigms are hidden from our view. Now to state that you are going to weigh evidence in an impartial scientific way. What planet do you live on? A synonym for impartial is unbiased. Do you really believe you or anyone is completely unbiased?

Unbiased is not the condition of consciousness of the human species, atheist, religious, or anyone.  They say the beginning of wisdom is the recognition of our ignorance. I have seen little evidence of recognizing that axiom on atheist or religious blogs. Somehow they think they are immune from such ignorance. I.e. unawareness.

But then without some ignorance we would all be identical and there would be no unique us. Kind of a catch 22 thing.

This may help but I doubt it I had to watch the video over 80 times during my seminars to awaken to its reality.

“What is paradigm paralysis?  Or more basically, what is a paradigm?  As you probably know, a paradigm is a model or a pattern.  It’s a shared set of assumptions that have to do with how we perceive the world.  Paradigms are very helpful because they allow us to develop expectations about what will probably occur based on these assumptions.  But when data falls outside our paradigm, we find it hard to see and accept.  This is called the Paradigm Effect.  And when the paradigm effect is so strong that we are prevented from actually seeing what is under our very noses, we are said to be suffering from Paradigm Paralysis”  Excerpt from speech by John C. Harrison (1994)”

Pay particular attention to the word data and change that word data to others beliefs or ideas; this may make more sense as to why there is such resistance to my comments. Or not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I too am skeptical of many claims of supernatural events.  This of course means that I remain open to the possibility of it being true, or false.  If I reject them outright solely on the basis that they cannot be validated with today’s science, then my view of the universe would be bounded by the limits of the science of today. Some persons on this blog are skeptical of paranormal claims, and I have no problem with that approach. There are however other views which amount to a complete rejection of anything paranormal unless it can be validated. This is a fairly closed minded approach which if followed rigidly, would cause us to ignore many experiences that are beyond our present capabilities to measure or validate.
The real show stopper comes when you yourself have a personal experience that you know is outside of the norm. Your brain goes into overdrive and the first thing you want to do is explain it away, so you begin to eliminate all the extraneous variables. If you are by yourself when it happens, then you conclude that you must have been hallucinating.  But,  if you are with a group of other people who all witness the same thing, then it is not so easy to discount. In any event you choose not to share this with people who were not there because, understandably, they will have no way to prove or disprove what you experienced, and may even conclude unkind things about you.
For the skeptics among us, “the jury is still out”. The closed minded may however call you names, and totally reject your experience as the aberrations of a diminished or childish mind.
In the end, each person has a reason for responding the way he does, so its really pointless to get overly emotional and hurl personal attacks, simply because we are different.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“There are however other views which amount to a complete rejection of anything paranormal unless it can be validated.”

Oh but it can be and has been validated using qualitative data but it is too threatening to the masses to believe this type of phenomena and our existing level of understanding of reality. But it will be and the quantum physicists may just be the people to do it on a national scale. That dark matter and dark energy which needs to be called unknown matter and energy may hold the key to some profound discoveries into these other dimensions of reality.

“In the end, each person has a reason for responding the way he does, so its really pointless to get overly emotional and hurl personal attacks, simply because we are different.”

If 20 years ago someone had made statements like I am making now I have no idea how I would have responded. Maybe thinking those remarks came from some type new age religious person. I don’t know because no one ever did make those kinds of remarks to me. My life was my career not religious mumbo jumbo.

Now those emotional attacks from my point of view are based in doubt not certainty. The Catholics used to burn people at the stake for those people that made any remarks that did not support their teachings. Today those that are unsure of their beliefs with lingering inner doubts just make unkind remarks towards those that do not agree with them. It is a defense mechanism of a fragile ego.

Hey even today the Muslims still kill people for changing their beliefs from Islam to Christian. We have a long way to go as a species. An atheist making unkind remarks is a far cry from getting my head chopped off.

Whether I go to an atheist or religious blog the remarks are similar. Once a Buddhist made some unkind remarks but with Buddhists that is rare. The Advaita folks can make some really unkind remarks as they think they are the only ones that know reality. The human species is an interesting species.

Almost everyone or those like him or her believe that they alone have a rational mind and the others that do not adhere to their paradigms or beliefs are irrational. If one can stand back and observe it is an interesting phenomenon. To stand back one must not be religious or an atheist or materialists or advaita or Buddhists or new age etc.

I find this blog interesting as there appear to be people on here that are open to other views of reality. Usually by now I would have been banned.  Politics and religion can become very emotional.

“The real show stopper comes when you yourself have a personal experience that you know is outside of the norm”

Well stated one must have that experience or experiences to understand how such an experience can change one’s view of the world we thought we knew well.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi Researcher,

    I like your perspective, the idea of mindsets is correct and the fact that people get stuck in them is correct of course. I don’t think it is too groundbreaking, though your appeal for people to apply critical thinking not just to ideas but to their own belief complexes is worthwhile. We should all do this and it should be part of how we hold our minds open to new possibilities.

  There is an idea that you have not yet talked about though, what might be called a principle of paradigm change. So far you have only been referring to the importance of personal experience in changing ones own paradigms. This may be fine for people who’s beliefs are founded on experience in the first place, but for many there are other streams of input. I guess for us scientists the main one is through peer reviews journals and the data and experimentation they contain. It is one thing to state that our internal paradigms [can] define our experience of data, but if there is a rule that states ‘change your principles and ideas based on this input’ then at the least it affects how the paradigms change. This is the reason that I have not said ‘there is no evidence for the paranormal. Some research has been done and been printed in places I respect. This is what opens my minds, not second hand stories and primarily not even personal experience (I don’t trust my own senses). I think the systems and ways that paradigms change in different belief systems is probably as important as the fact they exist.

  Now my next thought. So far this idea doesn’t contain any data of its own (to tell if any specific ideas are correct), it is just an observation about why we can behave like we do, as well as a general principle of how we can be responsible to other ideas as well as ourselves.

  To this extent you can call anything a paradigm. As a geologist I have a 4.65Ga old world paradigm and young earth creationists have a 6000yr old paradigm, but the idea can go no further in saying which is correct. Others may disagree with you for their own reasons, but my only one is if you refer to all the scientific effort as ‘simply’ a paradigm. Calling it a paradigm is not in itself incorrect of course, but there is so much more to it that cannot be considered without stepping out of what would be too limiting a debate.

  All I can do with you regarding paradigms is agree, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that it is true and that we should respect that we can fall into it.

  As far as thinking that we are more rational than other people I can well believe it, but it is playing with terms. I’m not sure what rational is really supposed to mean though. A quick check of the dictionary reveals only a link to logical. The problem is though that the (material) universe is not really logical. Or at least if it is then the word logic must be defined as including action at a distance, causal explanations that defy intuition, temporal interpretations that make little intuitive sense. If reason is taken to mean common sense or good judgement then the intuition that is the basis of these on a normal human everyday level is of little help. If it taken to mean formal logic or mathematical logic then it is useful, but the real world is far too complex, evidence is far too complex with many missing parts to form stories that are entirely cohesive. The problem is that if magic (for want of a better word) was real then I think it would become part of the rational complex/paradigm.

  In short I think the idea of paradigms and personal mindsets is good, but it is also good to tackle the often conflicting data and try to ascribe confidences (do we have a 4.65Ga earth or a 6000yr old one). The paranormal is a good point for debate as it is a little murkier than the geology required to debate the examples in the last example. When murkiness increases we perhaps get to way ideas differently, is it coincidences, normal physics and psychology plus a few coincidences, normal physics and psychology plus a few coincidences plus a lack of intuitive ability concerning normal material human abilities, or is it something that is truly magical and will remain magical even if it understood. The idea of paradigm evolution and how they change, is an interesting one. As well as why some do not seem to.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“In short I think the idea of paradigms and personal mindsets is good, but it is also good to tackle the often conflicting data and try to ascribe confidences (do we have a 4.65Ga earth or a 6000yr old one).”

Good points both are good. But we also can ascribe confidences to qualitative data. A materialist’s mindset must reject all data that suggests anything paranormal or that mindset or paradigm comes tumbling down a very slippery slope and it is painful, very mentally painful going down that steep slippery slope. Been there and it is not a pleasant experience.

As James so beautifully stated if we find one white crow we now suspect or even know that all crows are not black. JohnS had an experience with something called table lifting, which was pretty common in the time of home circles. This allowed him and I suspect those other engineers to crack the door just a bit to that room that all is materialism.

This experience may have profound implications for future research that John does in his lifetime. Twenty years ago I had no idea that I would be making such statements as I have on this blog. Not a clue. Life or fate can change our direction much more than we would like to believe. Free will thing and all.

Now how has that experience affected John’s view of reality? Look at his comments following my posts on this blog. Can you see the difference in how he responds compared to some others responses? Maybe JohnS has not gone through a complete paradigm shift, maybe he has, but it has changed the way he views the world. The rigidity of materialism does not control his beliefs.

I showed the business of paradigm video in my seminars that were designed to take participants though a paradigm shift from a push to a pull system of how to manufacture a product. Now with one viewing everyone including myself thought we got it. It made its point very well. But I taught over 200 of those seminars and after viewing that video about 80 times there was some kind of awaking that took place I saw that I did not see the profound impact the paradigm effect has on our view of the world.

Now some will respond and state yes researcher does not see reality. Why would they make such a statement because I don’t see their reality and they think they do see reality. In other words my paradigm is thee paradigm and that mode of thinking is alive and well in the world. If someone does not see our reality like we do we say their mind is so open their brain is falling out. That is the paradigm effect doing its thing.

Or stated another way we don’t really see all of reality; we see what we think is reality. About 6%. We see through our beliefs and paradigms more than we ever realized. Now a materialist and interesting to me even a religious person will reject this statement. The religious person’s reality is what their bible tells them is reality as the materialists reality is what scientism tells them is reality or judging by appearances or whatever. Not sure any of that made sense but thanks for the well thought out response to my comments.

Just because we have read the definition of paradigms does not mean we completely understand the profound affect paradigms have on our view of reality.  They are so hidden from our view; that can altar incoming data beyond our wildest imaginations as we experience them as our reality. There is knowledge of something and understanding of something and we confuse to two often, very often. Some people still think the earth is 6000 years old. That alone should warn us of the power of paradigms but it does not as we think we are rational and reasoning but they are not.

Off to the mountains for a couple of day looking for more white crows. My idea of humor. We now have over 80 comments on this post. That alone is interesting data.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I haven’t read all the comments but one thing I had to add, even if I might get ripped to shreds for it-
“You may not believe me, but I didn’t choose any such thing, and I can’t just ‘choose’ to start believing. Maybe you can, but I can’t.”

I was 102% sure of my lack of faith. I was confident that there was no way any of us could have the answers and that religion was just a crutch to lean on to fill that void. I didn’t need religion to be happy, nor to be a good person. I was perfectly fine.

But then somebody suggested I read the Bible. I rolled my eyes and blew it off. I knew what it said. I’d learned enough of it to know it wasn’t for me.

The thing is, you can and do choose. If you choose not to learn a religion the way it has to be learned, just like everything else we learn (i.e. you don’t learn genetics the same way you learn art), that is a choice you’re making. You’re choosing not to become vulnerable to believing. What’s the harm in reading a book cover to cover? What’s the harm in studying it and working through it the way you’ve worked through so many texts in your lifetime? What’s the harm in opening it and expecting it to prove to you that it’s actually true?

I know you probably think you’re content with the answers you already have, but don’t some things just not make any sense?  Don’t some things just not fit?

Like beauty. And awe. And joy. And laughter.

Not everything we fall in love with in this lifetime is rationally based.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi P,

  You might well get ripped a little, though i don’t find your comment that odd.

  It is worth remembering that these books are not written/edited without a purpose in mind. They are actually designed to appeal to certain traits common to us all. Perhaps the misconception occurs in the thought that as a dis-believer you would be immune to them. Certain parts you would no doubt disagree with strongly, while others would be closer to your personality. The books are diverse enough to cater for most tastes; it appears.

  The heart of this lies in what it means to be responsible to yourself and what it means inside our minds when we internally accept the appeal to be open-minded about other ideas. I don’t have the answers to those questions, but i think they are important.

  In a cultural sense it doesnt seem to matter if you accept any of the diverse and often conflicting ideas. There are enough followers of each for it not to matter much. Could a case for looking after one’s own mind be made though?

  And what is open-mindedness? How does it differ to the process of weighing evidence and reaching fair conclusions? It seems to me that when the type of people used to using the open-minded request do so they are often asking not for evidence to be fairly weighed, but are instead asking for us to promote what i can only describe as that sensation or feeling that occurs within us when we enter a more suggestible state. I wish i could describe it better, but i dont really know how. Certainly within me there is a difference between the two. Weighing of data is a purely mental process, and being convinced by data doesnt require open-mindedness - so long as the weight of quality evidence is high enough. Open-mindedness however feels more like a state of mind. If this is true then it occurs (is entered into) before the data is even assessed, this would surely show a major and problematical issue with it.

  If this is the case then it might be possible that the sensation of open-mindiedness (the feeling that tells us we are being open-minded) corresponds to increased brain plasticity. If this was the case then it would be easy to see why open-mindedness was prised by contradictory belief systems and charlatans alike. It would be the state we enter in which our minds can change their beliefs - becuase of increased plasticity.

  Now, the responsibility comes from this point. This neural plasticity is unrelated to whatever the truth is because evolution had no idea about what the truth would be, especially about these subjects. Therefore the neural plasticity is not a guide to reality, and nor would open-mindedness be. They become personal responsibilities. Are you going to enter a state of neural plasticity because someone asked you to and prior to seeing the evidence (such that the brain’s neural structure is slightly more plastic and likely to take on the new claims irrespective of their validity), or should you weigh the evidence outside of the state of increased plasticity and then once the evidence is in ‘open your mind’.

  Obviously this is my own take on it, though it wouldn’t surprise me if aspects of it are true. It is more of a lense to judge mental responsibility through.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

P,

  Sorry missed a comment on #84 on the last bit of your comment in #83.

‘I know you probably think you’re content with the answers you already have, but don’t some things just not make any sense?  Don’t some things just not fit?
Like beauty. And awe. And joy. And laughter.
Not everything we fall in love with in this lifetime is rationally based.’

  Agreed. I’m not sure what that would show though. Perhaps if someone was trying to say that everything that was true was 100% rational, but i have never met anyone fitting that occasional stereotype.

  Love, joy, awe etc all have components that are rational, especially in light of their emotional context and especially if you examine them as emotions and actions/events occuring in a cause/effect relationship with emotions. I would call this level 1 in an explanation. Level 2 would be looking at emotions in the context of their biology; their specific relationship with hormonal and anatomical relationships. Level 3 could perhaps be evolutionary relationships between those structures and related structures in other animals both along our evolutionary line and others, maybe also relating them to the behaviours, mating behaviour, social behaviours found in other animals etc.

  Really is depends what people mean by rational. We draw the lines in different places.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways.  Well, at Level I, there is . . .

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Yeah indeed. I wouldnt recommend using those words to your partners!

Seriously though it a pretty similar analogy to describing the mechanisms through which we evolved our arms and feet alongside the developmental embryology and genetics compared to what it feels like to walk over wet grass.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I know you probably think you’re content with the answers you already have, but don’t some things just not make any sense?  Don’t some things just not fit?”

It depends on how we view reality. If our reality is materialism then it has to find that   consciousness, love, and intelligence has evolved from matter due to some, ok many chance occurrences and a lot of mutations. If one’s view of reality is that of a personal perfect deity, that we were created with free will and then judged as screwed up with our created free will so problems arise.

Of course that second choice does not pass the simplest of logic tests, but with religion logic has never been a inherit necessity for beliefs.

Seek deeper there may well be other choices for reality. This may not be an either/or religious or materialism reality.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Original Article: “Evidence would make me believe in some god”

Researcher: “I see little evidence of most atheists doing research outside their established beliefs.”

While I don’t necessarily agree with the evidence = belief (I think I would be more inclined to suspect a Goa’uld than a true god—See <http://www.sinasohn.net/notebooks/200908022300.html>), it has been my experience that atheists are more likely to know the bible better than christians.  Many atheists (like my wife and in-laws) simply don’t believe—they rarely bother to think about it.  They get together for a passover seder and for Christmas, but neither is religious in nature.

There are, however, quite a few atheists who can quote the bible extensively, offering passage after passage of horrific doctrine or anecdote wherein god sanctions, rewards, or even directly causes death, rape, suffering, injustice, and so on.  I’m not that knowledgeable, but I do have biblegateway.com on speed-dial to verify quotations and to do research.

The vast majority of christians, on the other hand, seem only to know the few verses cherry-picked by the preacher they make their checks out to.

Case in point: a woman I know asked me where the name Ezra—my younger son—came from.  I told her it was from an old book no one reads anymore: the bible.  She was surprised and suggested that Ezra must be a minor character.  Minor enough to have his own book.  And this is a church-goer who used the bible as justification for denying rights to others via Prop 8.  Interestingly, the book of Ezra is the justification of the condemnation of my parents’ marriage.  (Note: my wife & MIL picked the name; had it been up to me he would have been named Tuolumne or Granite.)

Original Article: “These arguments fail because atheism isn’t a philosophy that compels any particular behavior.”

Researcher: “Atheism is very much a philosophy grounded in materialism and scientism as much as the religions folks are grounded in a personal god made in their image. Again eerie.”

You miss the point here.  Whether or not atheism is a philosophy is irrelevant.  The fact is that being an atheist doesn’t compel (or even encourage) one to give praise/thanks to anyone (except perhaps for specific acts, but that’s more a case of general politeness—even theists do that on occasion), to contribute a portion of your income to support atheist organizations, hate your neighbor, wage war, deny others rights, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Sadly, theism does many of these things.  As a christian, for example, you have to live your life a certain way, donate to your church, continually praise and thank god, etc.  Same (perhaps even more so) for muslims.  Even Jews, who, for the most part, leave everyone else alone (Yeah, I know there are some wacko jews too) are told how to dress and what to eat (no yummy shrimp!).

Researcher: “If someone asked an atheist how did life start the atheist may answer I don’t know but that is still a belief.”

This, I feel, is a matter of semantics.  To me, “belief” requires action on the part of the believer.  The way you use the word, each of us has an infinite number of beliefs.  I believe I don’t know what color the house at #1 Main St., Ogalalla NE is.  I also believe I don’t know the color of the house at #2 Main St., etc.  There are an infinite number of things I don’t know and an equally infinite number of things I don’t believe in.  I don’t believe in white unicorns, red unicorns, blue unicorns, etc.

There are also a limited (far more limited, sadly) number of things I do know that require no belief, other than faith in my own sensory input (and if you want to doubt that, that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax).  I know that I am using a Dell monitor.  I know that I am using a Datadesk keyboard and logitech trackball.  I know that I am wearing pants.

Of course, there are things that I believe based on evidence other than direct experience.  I believe that the Statue of Liberty is in New York (or thereabouts).  I believe my house is painted almond with chocolate trim (it was when I left this morning; can’t say for sure right now).  I believe my computer runs on electricity rather than gerbil power.

As for god (be it Jesus, yahweh, allah, vishnu, ganesh, zeus, thor, loki, anansi, anubis, ra, etc.), I simply don’t believe in them.  Any of them.  (Well, I kinda wish Ganesh was real; he’s pretty cool.)

Researcher: “We may say I have not formulated a belief yet in my life but that is not what an atheist is saying; an atheist is stating I do not believe there is a god. Believing there is no god is a belief.”

So if I go to the racetrack and am sitting in the stands when the race starts, you would say that I am actually in the race, I just haven’t started running yet?  As an atheist, I have no interest nor any plans to begin believing in god.  I have no reason to nor any such desire.  Whether I actively disbelieve in god or simply don’t believe doesn’t really matter—the point is I don’t spend my life worrying about or kissing up to some magic man in the sky.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher: “When we are standing in the middle of the forest it is almost impossible to see beyond our own cherished beliefs.”

You are assuming that each of us have spent our entire lives standing in the same forest.  Many atheists, however, have come to be so after having been raised in (and even believed in) a theistic world view.

Researcher: “This quote below pretty much sums it up about the mentality of an atheist…”

Suppose your five-year-old came to you late at night and told you they saw a dinosaur in their closet.  Would you immediately get on the phone and wake up all the paleontologists over at the local university?  Would you get out your camera to catch a photo of the creature?  Would you call Oprah?  Or would you take the child back to their room, open up their closet to show them that there’s nothing there, and put them back to bed?

I can tell you what I do on a regular basis.  In evaluating evidence, each of us looks at the source of that evidence to determine its credibility.  It’s why defense lawyers try to paint rape victims as sluts and why where a scientist got their degree can be as important as whether or not they got a degree.

So while the quote you may have seemed superficial and dismissing, you overlooked the logic the author assumed were common knowledge.  Unfortunately, logic is not common amongst those who argue for the existence of the paranormal.

Researcher: “I am 18 years into research into the mysteries of life and have I suspect just touched the surface into these mysteries.”

Probably because you’re looking for something that simply (and yes, I mean simply) isn’t there.

Researcher: “The flat earth people moved on also. As did the folks that were sure the sun rotated around the earth.”

The difference, however, between the curvature of the earth and heliocentricity is a simple thing called evidence.  When it comes to the paranormal, I will simply (there’s that word again, because it really is this simple) wait until someone collects Randi’s million dollars.  When that happens, I’ll start to take notice.  Until then, feel free to use your psychadelic powers to beat me in poker or whatever else you feel like.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher: “As I have been doing research into the paranormal for 18 years and I know better than to state nothing whatsoever suggests there are no credible evidence. And you did not even say evidence you even went so far as to state hypotheses. Think about what you just stated there is no credible hypotheses for do research into the paranormal. This has to be against everything science is intended to be.”

I’d love to get a grant to research into the invisible pink unicorn in my garage.  (I think it would take about 18 years just to clear it out so I could get started.)  So tell me, what government agency is funding your research?  Or is it the Department of Mom and Dad?

Researcher: “My research indicates that there is more to this world than meets the five senses.”

Okay, so after 18 years, surely you have some testable, repeatable experiments that support your claim?  Please, feel free to share them so that we can be enlightened!  I, for one, would really like the power of telekinesis or, failing that, teleportation.  Even a little mind-reading or prognostication would help out.

Pete UK: “Instead of referring to “...some of the greatest scientists that ever lived on this planet. “, just tell us who they are and what their research was.”

Researcher: “We are still not communicating. One must show interest in doing the research…”

So still not even one name.  Here—I’ll give you one: James Randi He’s a credible scientist that has done a lot of research into the paranormal.  I don’t think, however, that his findings support your arguments.  So basically, it comes to put up or shut up.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Probably because you’re looking for something that simply (and yes, I mean simply) isn’t there.”

And you are so sure of that. Isn’t that nice you can be so sure of something. Good for you I am sure it brings you much comfort. And most atheists don’t believe atheism can be a religion. That quote above was a religious statement par excellence. When we are standing in the middle of the materialism or religious forest our view is limited. One must stand between the two to be able to see beyond these very rigid cherished beliefs and paradigms. Maybe the Buddha was on to something with his middle path idea.

“When it comes to the paranormal, I will simply (there’s that word again, because it really is this simple) wait until someone collects Randi’s million dollars”

You are in for a long wait it is a PR stunt. These kinds of comments remind me of religious folks that resort to some authority like the pope for validation of their beliefs. Again materialism can become a religion. YOUR POPE OF ALL PEOPLE: RANDI.

“So still not even one name.  Here—I’ll give you one: James Randi He’s a credible scientist that has done a lot of research into the paranormal.  I don’t think, however, that his findings support your arguments.  So basically, it comes to put up or shut up.”

I thought this website was above using Randi as an example as a credible scientist. Again his million-dollar challenge was and is a brilliant PR stunt and it has given him much fame and he has indeed found much fraud in people who claim to be gifted in the paranormal.

There is much fraud with paranormal claims. I just heard a “guru” from India tell his followers that the origin of our ignorance was we only use 10% of our brain. Guess what he was selling?  Special type of breathing exercise to open the cells of the brain up. As far as I could tell most people in the   room believed him but that is religion from a person that likes being a guru.

I trust no self-proclaimed guru. Some people just want it handed to them from another person like a guru or a preacher. Maybe it is easier that way or more comfortable.

Ignorance and fraud know no boundaries. The paranormal is fascinating research and much more will be learned. Someday in the future children will visit a museum and be shown what the cherished beliefs were in the 20th century and smile like children smile now at the flat earth people.

Of course they could visit a museum and see a saddle on a dinosaur as something very destructive to the world could happen and send us back to the middle ages.

Randi is a debunker and ultra skeptic to rely on him as an unbiased researcher is like asking the fox to watch over the chickens. Read his challenge very carefully; the small print he always has an out. Always.

Randi is a magician not a scientist.  Anyone using Randi as an unbiased scientist has drank the materialism and ultra skeptic kool aid.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Uncle Roger,
I started reading your comments, and you seemed to have moved from a mild mannered bruce banner all the way to the incredible hulk. I am not saying that I found your comments offensive, in fact I value a good debate. It s just that during your later comments, you started coming across like one of the familiar voices on this blog. ( No ESP claims being expressed here)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher,

You’d do well to watch the QualiaSoup vidéo the this site posted today.
It targets you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

«You’d do well to watch the QualiaSoup vidéo the this site posted today.
It targets you.»

Just to be a bit more specific, because my last comment to you seems to have confused you:
I do not imply that you made specific comments about the existence of a particular deity.  (You may have, I don’t know.)

But that video targets the fallacious reasoning you have been using in your comments.
To illustrate using the same metaphor as QualiaSoup’s, you claim that we should open ourselves up to baseless suppositions about what’s in the hidden box.  And all I and many others are saying, is that you should present us valid reasons to do so.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi Researcher,

  I guess you are being asked quite a bit at the moment. I would like to throw you a couple of questions.

  Your position of claiming a type of positionally framed perspective from outside of materialism and religion (though perhaps just from outside of your own definitions of them) is worthy of further questioning.

  So far you have given very little information about what you see though. Your perspective has tended to be your personal opinion on your view of materialism, but you haven’t actually given much information about how both material and non-material entities are translated into your perspective.

  It would be quite easy to say, for example, that a materialist must accept that the earth is 4.65 billion years old and has undergone chemical and physical changes consistent with the known laws of physics whereas a biblical literalist must accept that the earth is 4000 years old and has had a primary supernatural influence in its history. From here we can set up a third dimension to the argument and claim it is where we lie, sitting outside both points of view and able to see the human foibles of belief acting on the psychologies of both sides.

  Where is the wisdom in this? Does it achieve any positive insight outside of the already accepted human frailties? Does it interact in any way with the various arguments for and against different hypothesis? It becomes irrelevant in at least a few of its own propositions, positional strategies, consequences, etc I am suspicious that all that is happening is that a feeling of open mindedness is creating a sensation of apparent wisdom where non really exists. Could it be a house built on sand? Philosophically it appears to be - no philosophy can be constructed from what is essentially a destructive argument. This type of ultimate uncertainty must be applied fairly across the board.

  To remedy this i think you need to firm up your footings a little and provide a little information outside of the request for respect of possibility. To provide information from your ‘external position’ that will allow an evaluation of that position.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Atheism is not a philosophy. Rationalism is my philosophy; atheism is just a consequence, the same as my a-unicornism or my a-leprechaunism.

At least leprechauns and unicorns don’t have a problem of evil to contend with. Because of this I actually give God-belief far less credit than leprechaun-belief. An all-loving, all-powerful God is not on the level of belief in leprechauns, it is more on the level of belief in ten-pointed triangles (which cannot exist by definition). Researcher, imagine people approaching you who really do claim to believe in ten-pointed triangles. Imagine those people saying, ‘What are you doing to research the existence of ten-pointed triangles? Oh, nothing? How closed-minded! You’re just refusing to think outside your cherished belief in the non-existence of ten-pointed triangles!’

Absurd.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sam,

  I tend to agree. Though studying the natural world obviously doesnt give you an immediate right to say you understand it fully there is a difference between this and not studying it, then claiming you know it.

  This is one of the biggest things i see when i have normal mystery-type conversations with friends and family members. Many of my friends have done science degree’s (non would argue like this), but although some who i might debate with have also done degree’s they are all in subjects outside of the science of the natural world - in subjects in the arts for example.

  Obviously i do not discredit these subjects, but i do stand against people not knowing what the are talking about. I noticed this first when i was told of one event when a few of them had spent hours talking about the history of the earth and religious meanings etc. They had spent these hours talking factual nonsense, with my christian friend sounding like he had won by making some points the others had no answer to, that are well answered by some knowledge of geology and non-christian history. In the end i heard about this because my friend wanted to know the answer to a point that he had not been able to counter, but knew to be false.

  I think much of this happens because, to use your analogy, people are going to schools that teach that there are 10 pointed triangles - in fact culture teaches that there are as well. These same schools teach that you do not need to learn that there are only 3 pointed triangles and that people that think so are simply a bit close minded, though still ‘loved’.

  I know nothing about art so if i start saying that this artist was born here, at this time, and took this as his motivation and building schools to it then i would expect artists to be ruffled. There is not much difference here. People tend to get confused in the philosophy, forgetting that there are many philosophies and many philosophers and that by choosing anti-science positions they are already showing their hand. This argument raises many heckles, including my own. I dont like people just claiming they are right and that they have the ‘facts’, this is why all we can do is wait until the evidence is very strong, but we should at least be honest to it when it is.

  Most of the arguments used here against knowledge are philosophical, how could they be anything else. People try and avoid getting into actually geology or physics, that would be too hard. If you want to talk competently about the natural world and the universe, just like any other subject, you will have to study it - really study it, not just accept simple and nice answers from guru’s selling you what you want to hear.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What do we do about all the illiterate’s that dont right good?  Raise more heckles?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sam:

“Atheism is not a philosophy. Rationalism is my philosophy; atheism is just a consequence, the same as my a-unicornism or my a-leprechaunism”.

This is pretty much what I stated in post 7, which now seems so very, very, very long ago.  I don’t believe in a god or gods, and as a result I receive the ‘atheist’ label.  I didn’t become an atheist, and then realise I have to live my life in a certain way because of that choice.  It’s not as if I woke up one morning thinking, “Hmm, I’m now an atheist, best stop believing in god then”.  Huge difference.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.