Starboy

Emotional, do not confuse phenomenon and explanations. If a phenomenon objectively exists then both of us can become aware of it. Once we both agree on a phenomenon, such as ‘at the point close to death people report perceiving of themselves to be out of their bodies or see a light’ or whatever they claim to experience then the next step is to come up with an explanation. The scientific program at this point is to try to use natural explanations. The religious program is to use supernatural explanations. If you take your flame example or your teaching example there are natural explanations. If you want to be religious you can invoke spirits, souls or what ever SN concept you like. Now here is the kicker. It is standard practice in this day and age to seek a scientific remedy over a religious remedy for the vast majority of situations we encounter on a daily basis. There is a reason for this, we no longer find it sufficient to just explain phenomenon we now seek to control it. We have found that scientific explanations work best at doing this. There is an obvious reason why they work best and it has nothing to do with your quaint examples. In order for a scientific explanation to be accepted it must be tested. This testing is a kind of quality assurance stamp that says - 'this explanation works.' For religion it appears to be more like - 'this explanation makes me feel better.'

Starboy

emotional

Fine, but there should also be a readiness to relinquish natural explanations when they don't work.



Fine, but there should also be a readiness to relinquish supernatural explanations when they don't work.



So let me get this straight:

NDE explained as soul getting out of the body -> "this explanation makes me feel better" -> this explanation is religious -> and therefore invalid -> the explanation of NDE as illusion of the dying brain must be true.

So if I get it right, then for an explanation to be true, it MUST NOT make me feel better? I agree the explanation of NDE as life after death makes many people feel better (btw, it also makes other people feel worse - they want death to be truly final); but that automatically makes the explanation of NDE as life after death false? That's a logical fallacy if there ever was one. You can't cure the fallacy of wishful thinking by substituting the fallacy of counterwishful thinking in its place.

Starboy

Emotional, lets get something clear: explanations cannot be shown to "true" or "false". Such concepts come from the "truth" traditions of philosophy, religion and mathematics. The only thing scientists can claim is that 1) they can explain phenomenon naturally and 2) their explanations have been tested and they appear to work. Now if all you were concerned with is coming up with an explanation then choosing between religious vs. scientific explanations would be a subjective choice. It is the second requirement of science that makes the difference. So let’s recap: A) scientific explanations are not claimed to be "true" but they are claimed to be tested and have passed their tests. B) Religious explanations are claimed to be "true" but do not have to be tested, indeed if they are tested and they fail it means nothing because they are claimed to be "true". The two methods of explanation are not comparable at all. However in this day and age for the most part we seek what works. It just so happens that for some uncomplicated people what works at making them feel better is religion.

Starboy

emotional

That sounds like a load of postmodernism. Of course explanations can be "true" or "false"! You can explain life on earth as specially created or as evolved, and you can verify which of these two explanations is true and which is false. When you take the evidence of homologies, vestigial organs, recapitulations and all the rest, you realise that the explanation of special creation is false and that of evolution is true. The explanation of evolution is true because it works best at explaining the facts.



Explanations that work best are true; if they don't work they're false.



How can that be? Scientific explanations are real-world claims; they have to be true or false.



It has so been through all the ages. The explanation of diseases as demon-induced worked for a lot of people in the past, until it was replaced by an explanation that worked better. There is only one truth, but what that truth really is, is a subject of constant updating.



Again: "makes me feel better" -> religion -> untrue? Is this what you're implying? I want to make two points clear:

1. Whether a theory makes me feel better or not is not a pointer to either its truth or its falsehood. Theory of life after death makes me feel better, therefore false? Non sequitur. Theory of evolution makes me feel better because it means there were no two people called Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin, so I won't burn in hell for not accepting Jesus, therefore false? Non sequitur. I therefore rest my belief in life after death, and state that, although I fear death and life after death makes me feel better, that in no way makes my belief true or false.

2. You're arguing that since religion has failed in its multitude of supernatural explanations (such as the aforementioned explanation of disease as demon possession), ALL supernatural explanations are ruled out. Non sequitur. The ubiquity of natural law in the universe does not mean nature is all there is; it means that the universe is governed by natural law. Now, you're free to state this means nature is all there is, and I'm free to state this means there is a supernatural setter of all natural law. Both statements are metaphysical and outside the realm of science. So since one of these statements may be true, there is no ruling out that the supernatural exists, and there is no ruling out that there is a soul that survives bodily death. Conclusion: to say that science has disproved God, souls or the supernatural as a whole is a fallacy.

Starboy

Emotional, you are confused. You confuse "truth" with reality and you erroneously claim that an explanation that has experimental verification is "true" or is implied to be real. The problem with such confusion is that it is the goal of science to explore reality. To make "truth" claims about reality is to assume what it is you are trying to discover. It’s just silly. General Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics posit different constructs to explain gravity. Does that mean that the constructs are real and can be detected? Maybe yes maybe no. That's the point; science is the exploration of reality. It is because we don't know everything about reality that new explanations continue to be concocted and tested. So as for "true" or "false" explanations that's just BS concocted by reality challenged philosophers.

It's definite now. You do confuse "truth" with reality.

Emotional, what I am arguing is that there is a new knowledge tradition in town. It is not one of the "truth" traditions. It concerns itself with something we are all very interested in, reality. In the past when there was a question about reality it was both accepted and common to seek out a priest or philosopher. In this day and age when there is a question about whether or not something is real we go to scientists. Now don't get me wrong. If you want to get your explanations of reality from a priest go right ahead, but you know as well as I that if you want an explanation that works you need to seek out a scientist. It doesn't mean the scientist will have one, but in the here and now it is your best bet. Now if all you want is an explanation that comforts you, then the priest may be a good choice.

Starboy

Spaz

Perhaps I've become too materialistic, but whenever I hear someone talk like in the OP, I always think of a poet in one of those little poetry places saying something random/pointless/stupid, then somebody hits the little drums and everyone's like ooooo, aaahh, wow, or something of the like as if it meant something.

I often wonder why it is I'm in this body and why I have this consciousness, these thoughts, but I'd rather not jump the gun and try to explain it with the unexplainable. I simply hope one day to have the knowledge to explain it.

emotional

I think I'd better rush to the crux of the matter. Sorry about omitting the other points.

I gather, by implication, that the [you say, comforting] hypothesis of life after death is made by priests only, never by scientists. I also see your implication that I necessarily have to decide between an uncomforting truth and a comforting lie. I disagree with you on both points. First, the hypothesis of life after death is made by some scientists (Raymond Moody, Kenneth Ring and Melvin Morse, to name just a few), while the hypothesis of no life after death is nowadays made by some priests as well (for example Don Cupitt and John Haught). Second, I don't think I'm having to choose between an uncomforting truth and a comforting lie; I choose the comforting truth. I've said it more than once and I'll say it again: the fact that life after death makes me feel good does not mean it cannot be true.

It is true, and I admit it, that I started reading the life-after-death literature following great fear and stress; but now that I have read it, I believe it to be literally, really true and not just wishful thinking on my part. On the lines of the inverted witticism "the fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you": wishing something to be true does not make it false.

Starboy

Emotional, I can't help but think that your use of the term "life after death" is just word play. It is nothing more than saying after you die others will still be alive, perhaps some of them might even by related to you or contain some echo or shadow of what you think of as the emotional "me". This is not the usual meaning of this term as one encounters it on this forum. It is usually used to connote some type of existence of a "me" in some sort of intact state after the body is long gone. Sure you can hypothesis it, and yes you can find people that will tell you it is "true", but there is no evidence to support the claim. Perhaps you should make yourself clear by using a term other than "life after death" that is not so loaded with supernatural connotations. When you think about it "life after death" is an oxymoron.

Starboy

emotional

Huh? What's all this obfuscation you're doing? By "life after death" I mean something very simple: survival of the ego ("me") after bodily death. The soul leaving the body after the body has ceased to function.

Starboy

An you consider the soul to be a natural construct?