ps418

That sounds so familiar. The other day I was reading through diaires, and was so embarassed by the crap I had written back when I was a true believer. Particularly the rants about the "mechanistic, reductionistic, Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm" being replaced by a "holistic, interconnected, quantum mystical, yada yada." Its really embarassing. I can't believe I thunked thataway.

About Dawkins, the funny thing is that he's only doing what the "holistic, interconnected, quantum, mystical, yada, yadas" have been doing for many years. You know, the astrophysicist who says crap like "Look at all those stars, there must be a purpose to the universe," and so on. The difference is that the religious seize upon those statements as evidence that science somehow supports their beliefs, whereas when someone like Dawkins does it, he is a Priest of Naturalism. The truth of course is that both are speaking as philosophers rather than scientists when they speculate about purpose. So long as such statements are not presented as science, they are not a problem.

Patrick

Oolon Colluphid

I don’t get it. Science is, sadly, tied to the material world, to what’s observable, so has no choice but to be materialistic .

As for philosophical naturalism, I neither know nor care what that is. Science has to be about plain naturalism, because again, that’s all it can get hold of to investigate. And yet, so successful has that been, that there seems little point in looking into the supernatural -- meaning, taking the supernatural, where the normal running of things is temporarily overthrown, as particularly worth bothering about.

Let me be clear. Science is about working out how the world works. Whatever that includes. If it were to turn out that how-the-world-works includes short-term reversals of normality, if it seemed that there were ‘supernatural’ forces and entities at work, then science would still investigate it in order to fully understand the way the universe is. This is, in fact, what has happened.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard we look for the supernatural, it just doesn’t seem to be there. In fact, the harder you look, the less and less of it there turns out to be. God, you could say, is sublime... and that’s just what he does when science turns the heat of its gaze on him.

So after rather a long time of investigation, with supernatural bastions ubiquitously falling and being replaced by testable ‘materialism’, the burden of proof has well and truly shifted. ‘Okay’, says science, ‘the supernatural has turned out to be bunk up till now. I’m inclined to think there isn’t any. Our theories are very well established, on the basis of the supernatural being very-rare-to-nonexistant. So if there actually is some supernaturality out there, stuff that would mean throwing out all this well established stuff, you’ll have to come up with some pretty good evidence for it.’

And as for Dawkins, the high priest of materialism... well, show him -- show us -- that there is anything other than the material world, and I’m sure he’ll happily change! It’s quite simple. If there’s more to the universe than materialism, show us! Cos in all the looking that’s been done, there sure as shit doesn’t seem to be!

Thus Dawkins can promote materialism: in practice, in the real world (ie what we can tell is real), it is vastly superior to the woolly-headed mumbo-jumbo, navel-gazing and pinhead-dancing-angel counting that seeks to regain its lost ground.

TTFN, Oolon

Feather

Oh come now, emotional; you can't be serious.

Science as a philosophy has only one "presupposition;" namely that observation and analysis of observations yield accurate models reality. That's it. It is certainly a presupposition and I doubt any serious scientist would deny it. But it's also remarkably trivial. Every philosophical system has some presupposition or set of them; the axioms by which the rest of the system is developed. Logically all that is necessary for a "valid" philosophy is that the presuppositions are not self-contradictory. Whether the philosophy is a good model of reality, or whether the philosophy describes "truth" is entirely another matter.

If science "vindicates" or "validates" naturalism it is more likely because naturalism is the most accurate model of reality than because there is some nebulous agenda amongst scientists.

emotional

Science tied to the material world?! Says who?



So I gather anthropology, criminology, psychology and comparative religion aren't sciences then? Brilliant.



You say that NOW. Let's see where the land lies 200 years from now!



Ah, at last we agree.



We'll see, we'll see.



Oh no, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way: every time materialists are shown something that might be contradictory to materialism, they construe it to be affirmative to materialism. No, definitely the theories don't follow the facts, but that the other way round; so with creationists, and so with materialists. NDEs a proof of a soul that survives death? Ahem ... paging Susan Blackmore, who immediately shows how it is nothing of the sort, and materialism stands as strong as ever.

Naturalism is successful because all in the universe is subject to the immutable natural law that God has set; but to claim that this means natural is all there is is a fallacy.

Wounded King

Have you read Susan Blackmore's autobighraphical work 'In search of the light', Emotional? If you had you would know that she entered the field of psychical research as a firm believer in the paranormal. It was only subsequent repreated lack of success to establish any experimental evidence whatsoever, combined with exposure to apparent misconduct by some of her fellow researchers, that made her a skeptic.

How do you propose scientists investigate the basis of a phenomenon as specific as NDEs, whether that basis is organic or not, before the phenomenon has even been described. Or are you suggesting that no skeptic would bother to research the phenomenon if people didnt believe it indicated the existence of life after death?

If you agree that the natural laws are immutable then there should be no problem. No one claims that an organic basis for NDEs proves ther is no afterlife, simply that it is not evidence showing that there is one.

emotional

I don't know about here biography, I just read some of her NDE explanations, such as this one. They didn't sound convincing to me, but then again I may be biased.



Look, there's a lot at stake with the NDE claims. If it's true that there is life after death, then your whole worldview is coloured anew. First, the axiom that "nature is all there is" will have been broken; second, practically speaking, the philosophy of "this world is all there is, enjoy your short life" will have to be revised to. We aren't talking about claims in a vacuum here.

I'm sorry, but that sounds quite naïve. It's obvious that if there is an organic basis for NDEs -- if it's all in the workings of the brain -- then there is no afterlife. And if NDEs do not have an organic basis, and are really the result of the soul leaving the body, then that's quite a real-world claim that there exists an afterlife. It's an either/or question: either the NDE is in the brain and there is no afterlife, or the NDE is in the soul and there is.

Alludium Fozdex

So, emotional, have dead people ever spoken to you, in the ways that Victor Zammit claims they're supposed to?

emotional

No.

RBH

dbporter wroteUm, that's "Feyerabend." And yes, I read it. And heard him lecture back when he was known as "Wild Man Feyerabend." I suggest Lakatos as an antidote. (Or do I mean "soporific"?)

RBH

Jesse

emotional:
It's obvious that if there is an organic basis for NDEs -- if it's all in the workings of the brain -- then there is no afterlife.

That doesn't follow at all. There are plenty of people who believe in an afterlife who don't think NDEs have anything to do with it.