I love this.
-
Subscribe
4,500 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Recent Comments
Jabster: “I see a lot of things science has produced for our benefit. Religion hasn’t given us anything to compare.”... Fooling Ourselves
Brian: the first time I see a monk levitate up to the moon I’ll start giving religion a little more respect. Theologians... Fooling Ourselves
-
67 Comments
the truth is always humorous.
So if we take the intellectually lazy and dishonest route and lump all religious/theological considerations together we can use ridicule to reject them all and then we don’t have to do any mature or critical thinking. Ironic to say the least coming from those who claim to favor rational thinking as the path to enlightenment.
When people dismiss criticism of religion made those who are unversed in its history and philosophy, I always think of PZ Myers’ Courtier’s Reply:
“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”
*made by those who…
Sorry
“So if we take the intellectually lazy and dishonest route”
No, that would be called ‘being religious.’
@ alex
“So if we take the intellectually lazy and dishonest route and lump all religious/theological considerations”
mark: Why shouldn’t we lump all of them together, they all make extraordinary claims then offer zero evidence for those claims.
How intellectually lazy is it to claim you have the “truth” when you haven’t even began to study all of the words religions claiming to be the truth.
Extradinory claims should come with extradinory explanations. Please grace us with one.
fantastic and very true
I reject out of hand any religion which demands a suspension of reason in order to believe in its precepts. Since all religions require this, I reject all religions out of hand. The rest is details.
I totally agree. Any religion that you have to drop all the facts and logical reasoning to believe in is bull. There is, however, one faith that follows logical reasoning and goes along with the facts without contradicting them.
I reject out of hand any religion which demands a suspension of reason in order to believe in its precepts. Since all religions require this, I reject all religions out of hand. The rest is details.
““Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – Siddhartha Gautama
a.k.a. The Buddha.
You were saying?
@elemenope
… but Buddhism can be thought not to be a religion by classic western standards. In case that you do define it a religion even though it does not require worshipping of a god or gods the phrase can be simply put as follows:
“I reject out of hand any religion which demands a suspension of reason in order to believe in its precepts or is practised by Richard Gere or Jason Lee.”
Even putting hamsters in your butt?!?
Anyone here know Jiddu Krishnamurti? He was head of the religious Order of The Star. His most controversial move in the pursuit of truth?
He dissolved his organization.
@elemenope
Someone gave me this quote from the Vasishtha Yoga, a popular Indian book on spirituality which emphasizes rational thought written by Sri Swami Venkatesananda.
His quote is similar to your Buddha quote:
@Alex:
So what is the rational reason to accept the correctness of Christianity rather than Islam or Hinduism? How can I tell if the creative deity is Jehovah or Ameratsu? Is there an objective bit of proof that would allow me to determine that?
The problem with using your own reason as the measuring stick is that people’s sense of true and false are often wildly wrong.
That’s why I prefer the scientific method. It doesn’t care how you feel about something, or whether it strikes you as true or not, it only cares if it can be demonstrated through repeated testing and falsification.
I mean, the entire ‘argument from incredulity’ that most of ID is based on boils down to “I don’t see how that can be true, therefore it isn’t.”
@Elemenope
That is a great philosophy indeed. Then Buddhism as a religion violates that very principle by asking that the follower accept Buddha the deity….
@shamelesslyatheist
I am not a Buddhist, so I’m speaking from a quick browse in Wikipedia …
Buddhists reverence Buddha, but don’t regard him as a deity – though Hindus and Sikhs regard Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu.
Buddhists do, however, believe in karma and the rebirth of the soul.
So there’s woo, but of a different sort.
I think the question is moot whether buddha is technically a deity or not. He is certainly treated like one.
Siddhartha Gautama may be an atheist and humanist thinker himself. But by making godlike buddha out of him, he was definitely deified by his followers.
@Mark T. Market
I have heard about J krishnamurthy.
i was associated with theosophical society for long time and then he dissociated himself.
the quote you mentioned is very interesting.
typo in above comment:
read ‘he’ in place of ‘i’ in second sentence :)
Well, I consider myself a Buddhist, but I do not believe in supernatural explanations of reality. I firmly adhere to the scientific method and reject Buddhist ideals when they are in conflict with evidence, or when the only evidence is faith. I don’t even meditate that much. To me Buddhism is about 1) acknowledging that we suffer.. 2) finding the tools to minimize suffering whenever possible. I also like zen asthetical principles, but just because they look cool. I find that science enrriches my life more than pseudoscience. I don’t even know if the Buddha existed. I don’t actually care. I do know that science has shown that, as far as we can tell, some Buddhist ideas work. Things like work, dedication, and living in the now tend to help people to be happy. Religion does too, though I think talking to imaginary beings is wasteful unless you are aware that you are using your imagination. In any case, I’m just reacting to the knee jerk reaction some of us have to the idea of religion. There are good ideas out there.
@hector
It’s a good point. One can certainly lead the kind of religious life you described.
But for most, religion is about passionate following of rituals and firm dogmatic beliefs. And in my opinion, this isn’t any less true about majority followers of buddhism as well.
Evolution, the blind watchmaker, is the cruelest god of all, the kosmokrator, Sakla, “the god of this world,” the demiurge. It is that which Marcionism opposes by the grace of the ultra transcendent alien God.
Kosmo Krator was my favorite Seinfeld character.
Evolution, the blind watchmaker, is the cruelest god of all, the kosmokrator, Sakla, “the god of this world,” the demiurge. It is that which Marcionism opposes by the grace of the ultra transcendent alien God.
Omigosh, a Gnostic spam-bot. Somehow I expect Samael and the still-living ghost of Elaine Pagels to make a guest appearance.
Hi There,
Pure Logic, or reasoning, does not give us any information about the world, all infomation about the world starts from or originates from experience, and ends with experience.
Now I am sceptical about a lot of organised religions, which are frequently about power and controle over others.
I am also sceptical about fundimentalist mindsets, what ever guise they come in. My view is that Richard Dawkins, along with others such as Dr Gish, ( the 6 day creataionsit), and Prof Andrews ( creationsist) all have a fundimentalist mindset, that will not brook any reasonable discussion or assessment. They all want certainty, ( a fundementalist trait) when what we really have is uncertainanty, and tenetative hypothisis.
I am not certain at all. On the other hand, I have had frequent experiences, that point towards a spiritual ‘meta’ physical world, and that in this universe there is a greater intellegance at work, than that of the human mind.
As a scientist in my own life, i test out my experiences, I make tentative propositions, and of course I am open to being wrong, and allowing ongoing experience to interact and modify my beleifs.
This is the only genuinly scintific way of apporaching this incredible world that we live in.
John T
@ John T,
As a scientist, would you be willing to consider the idea that ’spiritual’ experiences are merely a part of the functioning of your mind? I’m not a scientist (yet, let alone a neuroscientist), but I’ve never had any spiritual experiences – and I’m begging to give credence to the idea that it’s all in the minds of believers.
There is also the possibility that such experiences are merely minor recognition/processing errors (like seeing something out of the corner of your eye, when there’s nothing there) followed by the individual mentally reinforcing the experience (out of hope/desire/etc) into something much more tangible than a sensory error.
*begining
Efogoto,
So what is the rational reason to accept the correctness of Christianity rather than Islam or Hinduism? How can I tell if the creative deity is Jehovah or Ameratsu? Is there an objective bit of proof that would allow me to determine that?
Exactly. Alex made the comic’s point.
cello
Efogoto,
So what is the rational reason to accept the correctness of Christianity rather than Islam or Hinduism? How can I tell if the creative deity is Jehovah or Ameratsu? Is there an objective bit of proof that would allow me to determine that?
Exactly. Alex made the comic’s point.
____________________________________
The point of the comic is that he cannot, and obviously does not, recognize or appreciate the distinction of different theologies and his only recourse is to set up a straw man in a comic strip to support his claims.
But this is the world of many an atheist. They most often point to the absurd or create straw men and ignore the body of theological development that is weighty and substantive. In this way they can, as I said, take the intellectually dishonest and lazy method of lumping them all together and using the adolescent tool of ridicule to dismiss them all without ever having to discover and consider any of their genuine merits.
So no, the comic strip ends up an ironic display of irrationality by its author, a person who no doubt makes broad claims of admiration of rationality while engaging in irrationality to try and establish a point. Amusing actually.
@aniket
I haven’t looked at any research showing me that “the majority of Buddhists” behave that way, but that may be the case. As far as I understand it, there are many schools of Buddhism, and some are really in to the supernatural. The one I like to read about is Zen, which is not based on ritual but on practice, for the most part, but there are a lot of pointless ritualists out there. Even then, I don’t buy anything they say without finding matching research. Zen is about practice I see practice as exercise. You do something to get better at it, not because Mr. Buddha would be happy if you did, for all I know the guy is a fairy tale.
I chose to call myself spiritual in this way because in my brand of Buddhism you don’t need to go around telling people that they have to follow you. In fact, I don’t follow any buddhist leaders. I never will. I think cults are scary and stupid. I can learn from other buddhists, but in the same way I can learn from scientists, and well informed people. To me, it doesn’t mean anything at all if some one is a buddhist or not. I happen to like my metaphorical “T shirt,” but not everyone has to wear it. The reward of my practice is not in some airy fairy afterlife, but in the way I live my life every moment, and in the way I look at my mistakes and qualities. I don’t buy the idea of a cosmic reset button of forgiveness. Beliefs do not mean a thing without evidence. I just happen to have found out that some Buddhist ideas coincide with the findings of neurologists and psychologists, so they make sense.
In any case, those are my opinions. I’m sure a lot of Buddhists would disagree. As we all know, only the Spaghetti Monster knows who is right.
My view is that Richard Dawkins, along with others such as Dr Gish, ( the 6 day creataionsit), and Prof Andrews ( creationsist) all have a fundimentalist mindset, that will not brook any reasonable discussion or assessment.
If you’d bothered to read Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, you’d know that he has explicitly stated that he’s not as far along the atheist scale as one can get. He acknowledges the possibility – however remote – that there may be a god of some sort, but points out that because there is no evidence of one existing, his conclusion is that there is almost certainly no god. He does allow that if evidence of the existence of a god or gods could be shown, he’d probably have to change his tune.
In other words, he’s considerably more open minded than pretty much every single religious fundamentalist I’ve ever talked to.
All this text, and you don’t bother to answer the question you were asked?
Is there a reason to privilege Christianity over Hinduism? What are the “distinctions of different theologies” that need to be considered? What is it about the theology of Hinduism that makes you dismiss it?
” ““Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – Siddhartha Gautama
a.k.a. The Buddha.
You were saying?”
Not for nothing, but my Buddhist friends absolutely insist that Budhism is not a religion.
@ Alex
“The point of the comic is that he cannot, and obviously does not, recognize or appreciate the distinction of different theologies and his only recourse is to set up a straw man in a comic strip to support his claims.”
Ok – fair enough – please explain to us why any given theology is right. (I assume yours is some form of Christianity, but I may be wrong in that.)
Why should I believe in any God?
Why should I believe in your version of God?
I have looked at many Dawkins Video’s and I can see and feel and sense a fundimentalist when I see one ! Whatever ‘let out’clauses they may have, they are just linguistic, you get the same weasle words from the Fundimentalist creationsists.
Proto wrote
‘As a scientist, would you be willing to consider the idea that ’spiritual’ experiences are merely a part of the functioning of your mind? I’m not a scientist (yet, let alone a neuroscientist), but I’ve never had any spiritual experiences – and I’m begging to give credence to the idea that it’s all in the minds of believers.’
This is the problem, it is not a problem of evidence, since there is pleny of evidence that points to the spiritual world or dimention, , it is a problem of how that evidence is interpreted ! And a person who accepts materialistic philosopy, must of course interpret that evidence in a way that is consistant witht that philosophy. If you are at least open to the possibility, of a spiritual world, then you at least have a chise about what to believe, and are more open to the evidence.
I am a ’scientist in my own life’, in that I allow the evidence to interact with and shape my beliefs, so they change and are not fixed !
Let us not fear, but be open to possibilities, and learn to live with uncertainty, which ever way we are inclined to think !
And of course my interpretation, could be wrong !
But equally, what is the fear involved of there being more to life than just this life ? Why fear that a greater intellegance than the human mind is at work ?
‘There is also the possibility that such experiences are merely minor recognition/processing errors (like seeing something out of the corner of your eye, when there’s nothing there) followed by the individual mentally reinforcing the experience (out of hope/desire/etc) into something much more tangible than a sensory error.’
The above could be true, but maybe there is also an impulse to deny the evidence, maybe there is also a pay off in not believing what the evidence points to ?
Lets be open rather than dogmatic, whatever that dogmatism may be !
John T
@John
“Lets be open rather than dogmatic, whatever that dogmatism may be !”
no one is being dogmatic in asking for evidence. You seem to be claiming that you have evidence of a spiritual world so I would suggest you show some of this evidence as so far all you you have done is posted some touchy, feely, woolly stuff which really doesn’t sound anything like science — and no you don’t get to redefine what science is before you ask.
…and no you don’t get to redefine what science is before you ask.
I get where you’re coming from (i.e. hey, jerk, you can’t change the terms of the argument midstream!), but the definition of what science is and how it operates is not one of those things that is mostly settled. There are some pretty entrenched and widespread secular disagreements about what science is, what can be called a science, what the object of science is, and so forth.
Dear Jabster,
I am dyslexic, so there may be spelling mistakes, however here goes !
you said
‘and no you don’t get to redefine what science is before you ask.’
So how controling is that, when YOU alone determine the scope of the debate and what science is or is not ! ! WELL WELL, that is dogamatic is it not ?
Perhaps you are not aware that the whole dynamic of a debate is carried froward by discovering things that we do not know, rather than what is already known ! You are not the arbitor of that !
You said
You seem to be claiming that you have evidence of a spiritual world so I would suggest you show some of this evidence as so far all you you have done is posted some touchy, feely, woolly stuff which really doesn’t sound anything like science —
Now I would point out to you that you seem to have a 19th Centuary view of science that assumes that ‘reality’ is ‘out there’ and we experience it in some form of ‘objective’ way.
Such a view is only partially correct. Our senses do give us a take on what is out there, and we would be foollish to ignore that evidence, There really is a Bus, and if I step out infront of it when it is moving I could get run over !
But it is also true that we live in an interpreted world, and that even the structures of our brain affect how we interpret that world. Also our interpretations can be tested against our experience, and altered or changed in accordance with that new experience and new information,
The subect is more complex than you make out.
Re the nature of evidence, all evidence is experiential by nature. All evidence starts from experience, and ends with experience. That proposition is I hope self evidenent. Logic on its own gets us no information about the world in which we live, and indeed the world in which we are interconnected with.
Even so called ‘hard evidence’ starts off as something wooley something that is felt and sensed.
For example, your body ‘knows’ before you are concious of it that you are hungary, or you need to go to the LOO, or you are sexually attracted to someone, your body knows far more than you are conciou of.
This felt knowedge can be demonstrated in babys, who cry because they have a ‘fetl knowedge’ of hunger, know without beaing taught how to suck a breast for milk, and ‘know’ when to stop sucking because they are full.
Now lets look at the relationship between experiencel and meaning in language.
When we explore how language is meaningful, we realise that when we think, this inner process combines
1) Pre articulate experience that we have through the body. We have an ability to be aware of that experience,
2) The ability for us to synthasise meaning through the interaction of that experience with language, by which we symbolise and conceptualise that experience
3) Experience and language also interacts with Logic. so that thorugh this interaction we also produce propositions, about the external worlld which we experience, as will as our inter-related inner world.
4) If you strip out experience from Language, then Language become empty, meaningless symbols, strriped of meaning.
The key to a scientific appraoch, is that of not holdong dogma, but instead allowing our ongoing experiential process to interact with our beliefs,
Scientific methodology also involves being able to test out a hypothisis against that experience. we also formulate paradigms ( or logical -analytical structures) within which to interpret evicence. As evidence accumulates, that paradigms are altered, and then eventually replaced. The history of Science is not about linier progress, but about having new paradigms that are able to fit and explain more of the evidence that is accumulated.
re the evidence. David Hay, has collected a vast range of evidence, that people experinece ’spiritual’ experiences, such as preminitions, visions, sudden insights, out of body experiences, trascendant experiences of a transformed world, indeed the vast majoriy of people, in private at least, will admit to such experiences. The culture of secular materialsim, the orthodoxy of the elite that we are just machines, flys in the face of majority experiences that indicate the exact opposite.
Only if you hold to a a prori materialist philosophy, which is neither scientific, or necessary for science, do you dismess this evidence. The key here is not that evidence is missing, but how that evidence is interpreted.
Let me give some examples. A therapist reports that often just before exploring bereavement with a client, he senses a third invosable presence in the room, and this is often experienced by his client as well.
My own experience. I use to visit my Mother in the nursing home, she was very ill indeed, I would hold her and look into her eyes, and we would be both aware of a benevelant presence in the room, my mothers eyes would change, it felt to her and me as if we were being held by a loving presence.
At my Mother’s funeral as I was giving the talk, there was a sense of a presence as if my Mother had visited, and was looling down with pleasure at what what was happeneing.
I had an experience where I sudenly ‘knew’ what was going to happen just before it did, I am keeping this private.
Now you are going to call this wooley. but I would remind you that automatically interpreting the evidence from a materialistic framework, is just as dogmatic as me saying
‘this is proof’. I am not saying this is proof, all I am saying is that this evidence is consistant with the belief in a spiritual world. I can not prove that I am right, but equally you can not prove that I am wrong.
In adition lets also apply the verification and falsification principles to this.
If conciouness can survive the death of our body, then this would be experienced and verifiable, and the materialist assertion would be falsified. If it does not, the materialistic proposition although true, can not be veriefied, as there is no one to verify it !
SO I am hoping this is food for thought, and that you think again before trying to controle the peramiters of the debate again ! JOhn
@elemenope
I think the term science is understood enough so that we can for the most part separate what is and what isn’t but I do agree that there is a grey area. The reason I mentioned it was because as soon as I see “As a scientist in my own life, ..” my alert mechanisms take over especially when it’s followed by largely unscientific language. What type of scientist would be a good start.
I may be wrong but I don’t expect this evidence to be anything expect some personal anecdotes of experiences — could be wrong but we shall see.
may be wrong but I don’t expect this evidence to be anything expect some personal anecdotes of experiences — could be wrong but we shall see.
Sorry if my above post is rather an over-reaction to that point !
Now you talk about the evidence is only personal anicdotes. Hold own, all evedice is anicdotal, ( ie experienced my someone). the difference detween anicdotal evidence and ’scientific’ evidence, is that someone has collected and researceh the anicdotal evidence, and turned it into statistics, or a report, or a repeatable experiment !
BUT everything starts and ends with experience !
Also as said, ’spiritual’ experiences, as evidenced by William Hay, and Peter West, ( the therpist who did research into ’spiritual’ type experiences in therapy) are a near universal experience, it is the a priori philosophy, that often leads to a rejection or wholehearted acceptance ! of that evidence.
JT
Being a ;scientist in my own life’.
I use a scientific methodology, I experience, I formulate a theory, I test out that theray, the theory is modified by further evidence. why does this create warning bells ? We can all be scientists in that way, even Darwin in Origin of the Species, made this point ! You do not need scientific degree to be a scientist !
John
John –
Jabster has a decent point though that the type of experiences we’re talking about here are insufficiently intersubjective. Everything, it is true, begins with experience, but while some types of experience (e.g. sensory experiences) lead us to postulate an object that some other person can also experience in a similar fashion, propositions about experiences of interior states can never be shared experientially. The best we can do is attempt to report about them, and argue that the person we are reporting them to must *assume* that the object of the experience, though they can never access it, nevertheless exists.
It’s problematic to argue that a person should take something on faith when faith itself is the object of the argument.
Hi Elemenope,
OK you make an interesting point about the differnce between our experiencing ‘of’ the ‘external world’ of objects, and also our ‘inner’ experiences.
However I would argue that what seems most personal, is often the most unisversal. There is sufficient comminality of inner or transcendent experiences, for us to successfuly communicate with one another about these experiences.
The key point here is that we can collect eividence of these experiences, and compare that evidence, so that we can have an investigation and exploration of such ‘evidence
The point of dispute, is whether such experiences are ‘really’ totally inner experiences, or whether they ‘point’ to something else happneing.
So for example, in an example that I gave, a therapist and the client both have a sense at the same time, of a presence, when discussing a bereavment. Or in my instance, my ( now deceased) mother, and myself, both felt we were being held and there was a prsence in the room.
Evidence abounds, it is the nature of that evidence, and what that evidence means, that is the point of dispute. And often out interpretation of that evidence, is dependant upon a priori philosohical assumptions
Now the investigation of these ‘inner’ experiences, is not unscientific, just because they are ‘ inner’.
I was thrilled to hear of an experiement, into out of body experiences, where by the very common experience of a person being ‘ out of their body’ during an operation, and watching the operation take place. The scientist had selected certain operating theratres, and placed certain signs that could only be seen from a certain angle, as a way of tesing out whether people who had these out of body experiences would also see these signs as well
The commentaer misunderstanding science, said that an out of body experience where the person got information about what was happeneing, in the operation, was ’scientifically impossable’, because we ‘know’ that a person can not leave their body.
The commentator was confusing his own materialistic philosohy with that of science.
The scientist responded rightly by saying that this was not the case, that the evidence of people who had these experiences was very detailed, and could not be exaplined other than either it really happened, or that it was a hallucination. His expweriement was designed to further test out the evidence in a scientific way.
Clearly this scientist was not bound by unscientific materialist assumptions ! He was willing to go wherever the evidence lead !
I do not know what the reulsts will be, they may prove it, or the evidence may be mixed, and I will be fascinated by the results !
JT
JT-
If the out of body experiment is so scientific, then why is it not published in the scientific literature as anything but explainable by natural means?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
( Type in “out of body experience” and surgery)
JT – I’m starting to wonder if you’re a scientist like Kent Hovind is a scientist. Rather, not at all and merely claiming as such in a flawed attempt to gain some degree of authority. That or, you’re sincere and your field simply does not involve physics to any extent.
Oddly enough, I remember an experiment where out-of-body experiences were chemically induced, and where each test subject managed to recall something entirely different about what their environment looked like. But, since, like yourself, I’m not providing a link to the study you’re going to have to take my word for it. I could have very well made it up, or misremembered it.
Regardless, out-of-body experiences aren’t in any way spiritual, and there is a growing body of theory and knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience#Studies_of_OBEs
@John
“So how controling is that, when YOU alone determine the scope of the debate and what science is or is not ! ! WELL WELL, that is dogamatic is it not ?”
“… and that you think again before trying to controle the peramiters of the debate again !”
You claim that you are a scientist, and from the evidence you put forward you don’t display the traits of a scientist as commonly held, so I asked you to use the term scientific as it is defined — this is not my definition. How on earth you translate “using a term as it is defined” to being dogmatic I don’t know. Yes I do believe that parameters such as the definition of terms need to be controlled in a debate. Do you think it’s helpful if people can just change the meaning of terms as they see fit?
“re the evidence. David Hay, has collected a vast range of evidence, that people experinece ’spiritual’ experiences, such as preminitions, visions, sudden insights, out of body experiences, trascendant experiences of a transformed world,”
Can you point me to the peer reviewed papers published in a creditability scientific journal for these trials or studies?
“.. indeed the vast majoriy of people, in private at least, will admit to such experiences.”
So you would know this exactly how — they will only say it in private yet you somehow magically know. Please do not make claims that you can’t substantiate and if they are based on personal experience please state as such?
“Let me give some examples. A therapist reports that often just before exploring bereavement with a client, he senses a third invosable presence in the room, and this is often experienced by his client as well.”
Presumable as a scientist you have looked into setting up trials and experiments to verify this. Can you give details of how you would try and perform a trial like this?
“At my Mother’s funeral as I was giving the talk, there was a sense of a presence as if my Mother had visited, and was looling down with pleasure at what what was happeneing.”
At my Father’s funeral I had no such feeling which leaves us exactly where? Do you see the limits of what you are currently asserting as evidence.
“I had an experience where I sudenly ‘knew’ what was going to happen just before it did, I am keeping this private.”
And you’ve had loads my experiences where you didn’t know what was going to happen — so this leads you to conclude what exactly? I also happened to know (I made my post before your’s had appeared) that the ‘evidence’ that you posted would not be scientific even though you claimed you where a scientist. Does that mean I can also see into or maybe even control the future?
“I am not saying this is proof, all I am saying is that this evidence is consistant with the belief in a spiritual world. I can not prove that I am right, but equally you can not prove that I am wrong.”
I don’t have to prove you wrong I’m not making the assertion you are — again you claim to be a scientist but lack understanding of how science works in particular your definition of evidence is severely lacking.
“In adition lets also apply the verification and falsification principles to this.”
Yes let’s do that. You have claimed this ’sprit’ world can interact with our world so they are veriafable yet I’ve never seen the evidence – have you? While we act it please can you direct me to you theories that are predictive in nature or is that so 19th century science?
“the difference detween anicdotal evidence and ’scientific’ evidence, is that someone has collected and researceh the anicdotal evidence, and turned it into statistics, or a report, or a repeatable experiment !”
… are you as a scientist claiming that there really isn’t any difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence, that one is as useful as the other?
“I use a scientific methodology, I experience, I formulate a theory, I test out that theray, the theory is modified by further evidence.”
No I’m sorry everything you have so far says you are not a scientist, as you claim to be, and I would go as far to say you don’t actually understand what the term means or you’ve decided to redefine what the term actually means in an attempt to provide authority to your views.
I would like to add that I don’t have any real problems with your particular world view — I’m go to call it spiritualism and if you say that’s not what it is then I’m just going to claim that you’re being dogmatic — but what you have described is not scientific so please don’t think that it is and just as importantly please don’t claim that it is.
Science has a definition — what I believe you are describing is the supernatural this is not part of science.
Dear Jabster,
The literature you ask for is best begun by reading the two published volumes of Alister Hardy ’s Gifford Lectures given at Aberdeen University in the sessions of 1963-64 and 1964-65, entitled “The Living Stream” and “The Divine Flame”. Hardy was Head of the Zoology Department in Oxford University, a Fellow of the Royal Society and was knighted for his services to science. He founded the Religious Experience Research Unit in Manchester College, Oxford and was admired for his studies of religion by Karl Popper, probably the most eminent philosopher of science in his day. Hardy’s research and work done by others, subsequent to his death in 1985, is summarised in David Hay’s book “Something There: the Biology of the Human Spirit” published in the UK in 2006 and in the USA in 2007 [see Amazon on the net for details]. The bibliography at the end will lead you to a very extensive list of papers from refereed journals and other relevant data
David Hay’s book as in your book?
Yes my book is by me. It is currently fashionable to claim that the scientific method and religious methods of exploring reality are irreconcilable. But claiming that something is the case does not make it so. My entire career has been in empirical science, but it would be unwarranted arrogance on my part to assert that there is only one way of investigating the reality in which we find ourselves. It is worth trying to keep an open mind about religion, if only because it has been held to intuitively at all times and in all ages, as far as we can judge.
“It is worth trying to keep an open mind about religion, if only because it has been held to intuitively at all times and in all ages, as far as we can judge.”
Tribalism has been held to instinctively at all times and in all ages, and it’s one of the greatest causes of human suffering.
The instinctiveness and longevity of an idea are terrible arguments in support of an idea. In our evolution as a species we will abandon many many things that we’ve long held to instinctively, and we will be better for it.
So you’re just plugging your book then. Not really an agrument is it, more an advertisment?
@elemenope
One little nugget that was contained within John’s post was the claim:
“Let me give some examples. A therapist reports that often just before exploring bereavement with a client, he senses a third invosable presence in the room, and this is often experienced by his client as well.”
Now that is testable and verifiable. It’s not overly easy to do though because as you pointed out, it’s based on someone’s own experience to a stimulus, and that means structuring an experiment to see if someone can detect spirits is difficult.
Will someone ever do this — I doubt it? If it was done and showed that no you can’t detect ’spirits’ in the room do I think this would be accepted as true — I doubt that even more. You’re talking about a belief that is based on zero reliable evidence but does that make a difference of course not.
I did try to state to John that I don’t really have a problem with his world view and even find it interesting to hear what people can feel/experience but on no account should he claim that what he is doing is science as it’s most definitely not. Not sure he’ll take it like that though.
Whether or not anyone is a scientist is irrelevant – this is the ‘internets’, personal authority is meaningless here if not authority itself.
None the less, it’s important to reiterate the importance of evidence and proper methodology. As Jabster has mentioned, anecdotal evidence is worthless. The ability to tell stories is not in short supply, and we don’t really need to hear emotional tales of presences you may have convinced yourself you felt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context
If you can’t tell, anything that does not reference 3rd party sources is probably anecdotal evidence.
@Proto
“I’m starting to wonder if you’re a scientist …”
As far as I can see he’s not a scientist in a recognisable form however much he claims to be. So far everything he’s described is just what I like to term religion with the deities and holy texts.
Oh and don’t hold your breath on the evidence for the study as these areas have a habit of dismissing anything that says no but heartily embracing any study, however flawed, that says yes.
… oops
“*without* the deities and holy texts.”
@Proto
“Whether or not anyone is a scientist is irrelevant”
I agree with you to a certain extent but we all have to make judgements on the reliability of information presented to us and part of that is how much do you trust someone in the first place to be correct. The main problem I have with John is a) he’s seems to think that being a scientist is some sort of catch all — it would help to know what type of scientist, b) he thinks he can re-define scientist to what he does; by this logic anyone can be a scientist and I’m a ‘A’ list Hollywood star for the matter and c) most importantly he’s tarnishing the name of what science is. This goes back to my first point — people need to be able to trust science and those that work in it. If people start to feel that John’s ‘evidence’ carries equal weight to real scientific evidence then we have a problem. My gran smoked heavily and drink gin like it was going out of fashion (which strangely enough it probably was) for much of her life. She’s now 89 — so using John’s model we should all start drinking and smoking heavily as it’s good for us.
John seems well meaning enough but well meaning is not good enough.
A scientist would be able to spell “anecdotal.”
@Aor
Well he did say he was dyslexic — use a spell checker then I say.
I think the real problem is he doesn’t see the flaws in anecdotal evidence and just doesn’t understand what science is and more importantly what it isn’t. Could be worse I suppose he could be offering ‘alternative’ medicine to the masses paid for by the NHS i.e. my taxes. Yep thanks for that Cherie Blair.
Jabster,
I agree, though I think that whether or not someone is a scientist is besides the point. The claims of an anonymous individual should be taken on their weight, rather than unverifiable claims of authority. It’s a valid question when it comes to an individual’s credibility, but this has no bearing on the value of anecdotes in science – they’re simply not evidence.
(Any information given by anonymous participants in a comment thread should be considered unreliable. Arguments and sources can be evaluated, but raw information cannot be verified)
Mind you, I’m not impartial. If someone repeatedly spouts nonsense, fails to discuss/rebut counter-arguments or does something that makes me strongly doubt their competence I will eventually stop listening. There is too much garbage to dig through it all in the hope of finding some tiny spark of truth.
@Proto
“It’s a valid question when it comes to an individual’s credibility, but this has no bearing on the value of anecdotes in science – they’re simply not evidence.”
When it comes to anecdotes then I agree. I still remember a newspaper comment article denying climate change (The Daily Telegraph?) and the writer was holding up a professor who believed ‘it was all nonsense’ as an authority figure — fair point he’s entitled to his opinion but what extra weight does that fact that he’s a professor in theology actually add? Of course this little fact wasn’t in the article it was just ‘a professor says …’. Other things that annoy me, people who put the titles in the letters page when it’s a no relevance to the field you are in. Did that teach you about economics in medical school — I think not!
Last but not least … the current trend in British TV (Breakfast TV we know who you are!) that when you have a debate about an important issue you get the presenters, an expert and some minor celebrity who probably knows one of the production staff. Nope sorry having written a novel that struggled to sell 2,000 copies and being a mother of one does not make you an expert on child psychology.
Well that’s enough of a rant for Sunday morning … time to start breakfast. Sausages, bacon, egg, tomatoes, mushrooms, baked beans and a fried slice .. all washed down with a mug of tea.
Why does no one use the exsistence of the English Breakfast as a clear indication that god exists. Tastes lovely but shouldn’t (a designer at work me thinks) and the more you eat the more likely you are to get to heaven in double quick time!
Thanks for your contribition and feedback. Re spell check, I am not sure how to do that on this thread, it does not seem to be available !
Re my claim to be a scientist, i said quite specifically I was a ’scientist in my own life’, by which I meant that I use a scientific methodology as defined. A sicentist observes, ( observations are experienced), makes a tenantative hypothisis, tests out that hypothisis, etc modifies it according to further eividence etc, I thought I was being very clear about that !
Re anicdotal experience. ALL scientific endevor relys on observation and experience. Tests on drugs for example, rely both on recording peoples experiences of the effects of those drugs, (anicdotal) as well as observations and testing of the interaction of those drugs on our physiology, . This evidence is then systematised and presented in scientific papers. This evendence can be peer reviewed, although this does not guarantee that it is corect, since there are all sorts of social and other pressures, ( including who is funding the research, and what results the funders want,) and issues around promotion if a sceintist dears express a contuary opinion ! Scientits are no imune to these pressures !
However peer review is one way of checking evidence and can show up flaws in the methodology and conclusions.
Note however that once the evidence is written, it often takes on the status of ’sacred text’ and there can be a tendancy to mistake the indicator, ( the paper) for the thing that is being indicated, ( the expeerientiual base of that paper).
I can illustrate this a real example, of a psychiatrists coment to one of his clients. The psychiatrist had presecbed a drug to the cliet. The client experienced some side effects, that he had never experienced before, on taking the drug. The psychiatrist, on being told this, informed the client that ‘ yor experience cant be the result of the drug because it is not on the list of side effects of that drug’.
Here we have ‘anicdotal evidence’ being dismissed, because the Psychiatrist has mistaken the indicator, ( the list derived from experience) for the thing being idicated, ( the experience itself). His argument is dealy flawed indeed ! If other psychiatrists also take this view, then the evidence is never explored. This is probably how the thalidimide scandle happened, ie because the evidence was not accepted, until it became overwhealming !
The reason for giving this example, is to point out that a Psychiatirst using a sceintific methodolgy, as I outlined, would have noted this experience of thr patient, would have notifed other pschiatrists, and the medical company, and this could hae been investigated in a scientific way, to assess whether the side effect was linked to the drug, or just a coincidence.
one the nature of evidence.
I welcome the fact that no one challages my assertion that all evidence of the world starts from and ends with experience, all be it that there is a distinction between ‘inner’ experiences, and our experience of the environemnt in which we live and are a part of.
On the nature of experiential evidence, ( and this point has been admited)
if you remove ‘anicdotal’ experience, then you also remove the very foundation of the scientific papers that you set so much store by. The evidence gathered by Hay, is done in through confidential interviews, with identy being protected. This creates a safe environemnt for people to be able to offer their experiences without fear of judgement, or being labled as ‘mentally ill’ etc. It is therefor a safe way to gather evidence, and alowes people to to be real and genuine.
As with my example earlier concerning the Psychiatrist, an openness to experience without prior judgement, ( in other words a phenominological approach) is an excellent sceintific way of apporaching evidence.
Also. I Noticed that no one has questioed the scientific methodology that I outlined, and I noticed that no one has challanged my exploration how Language is meadningful ie that we as human beings synthasise meaning through the interation of experience with Language and Logic ! So I guess that this explanation is not controversial on this discussion.
Scientists have of course taken on the status of a ‘preisthood’, I was not claiming extra credability by saying I was a scientist, I was simply democratising the concept, by pointing out that anybody could adopt a scientific methodology as outlined, and therefore be a scientist. Darwin made the same point !
Re trsuting sciencists, well they are fallable like anyone else, make mistakes, have predjudices, like anyone else, and of course contradict each other, like anyone else !
They are not a special preisthood to be reverenced, and indeed I have heard scientists manipulate language in order to make a point !
I heard a scientist on newsnight, state for ewxample about GM foods ‘there is no evidence that it is harmed anybody’, implying therefor that it was safe !
the same could have been said ot tabacco when it was first discovered ! Theevicence, ( anicdotally) had to accumilate for a 100 or so years before it was accepted !
SO scientists are not imune to logical falacy !
Just food for thought !
John T
@John
Well done you failed to answer any of the questions put to you at all. You don’t actually understand what science is at and you are categorically not a scientist in your own life so stop claiming that you are.
“However peer review is one way of checking evidence and can show up flaws in the methodology and conclusions.
Note however that once the evidence is written, it often takes on the status of ’sacred text’ and there can be a tendancy to mistake the indicator, ( the paper) for the thing that is being indicated, ( the expeerientiual base of that paper).”
So much better not to actually have it peer reviewed then but in you opinion but just rely on anecdotal evidence. Again I’ll re-state it you are not a scientist and you don’t understand science. Oh and can you demonstrate the above assertion as personally I don’t see any reason why you would be familiar with scientific papers at all. It sounds like just another baseless statement to me.
“I can illustrate this a real example, of a psychiatrists coment to one of his clients. The psychiatrist had presecbed a drug to the cliet. The client experienced some side effects, that he had never experienced before, on taking the drug. The psychiatrist, on being told this, informed the client that ‘ yor experience cant be the result of the drug because it is not on the list of side effects of that drug’.”
So you think that because of this exception to the rule you’re correct. Again I’ll re-state it you are not a scientist and you don’t understand science.
“The reason for giving this example, is to point out that a Psychiatirst using a sceintific methodolgy, …”
Which you have clearly not understood so I don’t think your opinion on it is really relevant do you?
“I welcome the fact that no one challages my assertion …”
So if it wasn’t challenged then it must be true — what a quaint little world you live in. What about all the issues you were challenged on and have conveniently ignored. Does this mean you admit that you’re wrong in those cases?
“if you remove ‘anicdotal’ experience, then you also remove the very foundation of the scientific papers that you set so much store by.”
You don’t even understand what anecdotal evidence is do you? I rephrase the second part for you “unscientific papers for which you have none.” Honestly you’d have been better off just asking some bloke down the pub what he thought.
“Also. I Noticed that no one has questioed the scientific methodology that I outlined, and I noticed that no one has challanged my exploration how Language is meadningful …”
Maybe people where getting bored by then. I know I certainly was.
“… by pointing out that anybody could adopt a scientific methodology … ”
If you really understood what it was yes I’m sure you could but you don’t. Where do you learn this complete and utter gumph from?
“I heard a scientist on newsnight, state for ewxample about GM foods ‘there is no evidence that it is harmed anybody’, implying therefor that it was safe !”
Yet someone down the pub said he heard about a friend of friend growing an extra ear and presumable you’re go with that instead of all this scientific nonsense.
“the same could have been said ot tabacco when it was first discovered ! Theevicence, ( anicdotally) had to accumilate for a 100 or so years before it was accepted !”
Great let’s use the John’s rule of science … do you not even understand how stupid the above statement is?
“SO scientists are not imune to logical falacy !”
Yes but they’re the best methods that we have and are clearly far superior to you make it as you go along approach. I mean really can you outline some of the theories that you tested with you ’scientific method’ or as I like to think of it — confirming your own biases with whatever ‘evidence’ happens to be at hand. Seriously go out of read up on what science is — try Bad Science by Ben Goldacre as it’s an easy read and clearly explains many of the issues that don’t understand or is “You Are What You Eat” it more your style?
Oh and would you mind awfully actually answering some of the questions posted towards you or do they not count?
@ John,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context
Here’s an excerpt:
“In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:
* information that is not based on facts or careful study
* reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
* information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically”
You are correct that science is built upon observation and experience. However an anecdote, short tale or anything that cannot be verified and requires us to rely entirely upon hearsay is not scientific evidence.