If Science Can't Answer it...

[Sheldon]

Let me go on to add that Vedic (Hindu) and Theosophical wisdom traditions do indeed provide models with explanatory powers.

I am dubious, especially since all you have offered is a bare claim.

For one example, lets take a Near Death Experience where an experiencer describes verifiable events and conversations in say a hospital hallway.

Well there you go, an appeal to mystery straight away. That's assuming this unevidenced anecdote is accurate and true of course.

Concepts like a separated astral/mental body with astral senses does indeed provide a potential explanatory model.

Again I am dubious, since again all you have offered is a bare assertion.

 

[George-ananda]

I think that has to a record for self-contradiction. "Non-physical entities that are also physical", seriously?

Then why did you ask the question that triggered this entire sub-conversation?;

You're either making this up as you go along, don't have the capability to clearly and consistently explain your position or are being deliberately evasive because you don't want to admit your beliefs can't be supported.

Apparently you're not or willingly not following. English language can cause confusion here.

Usually the words 'physical and material' refer to observable matter.

An expanded use of the words 'physical and material' includes also the majority of matter in the universe which is not observable.

So the use of the words can cause confusion and seeming contradictions.

The paranormal/spiritual does involve matter that is not directly observable so to call it material is correct in the expanded use of the word 'matter'.

Now, what is not clear?

Me too, but I also recognise them for what they are. You were still reference to concepts that are essentially blind faith declared to be only understandable or accessible by some limited group of people. I'm all for learning about them but that doesn't mean they should automatically be used as any basis for actually understanding anything.

I employ not faith but reason. After 'all things considered' I follow the understanding that makes best sense of things. That's reason, not faith.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that what you linked is pseudoscience. It doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny, let alone scientific scrutiny. If it did then it's not hard to imagine the kind of global story even one piece of such evidence would represent.

I clearly believe these wisdom traditions are not part of what you call 'science' because they cannot be reproduced and verified through the physical senses and instruments.

However, not being a follower of Scientism, I consider (not blindly accept) all wisdom tradition claims. I accept what seems to make best sense of this reality in regards to paranormal/spiritual subjects. It is clear to me that materialism as a philosophy must be lacking in some dramatic ways when I give consideration to all the evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

I am dubious, especially since all you have offered is a bare claim.



Well there you go, an appeal to mystery straight away. That's assuming this unevidenced anecdote is accurate and true of course.



Again I am dubious, since again all you have offered is a bare assertion.

Fine, then you may be one that requires scientific proof before acceptance (Scientism). (Scientific proof of things held to not be directly observable by the physical senses and instruments is probably an oxymoron anyway)

When I review the evidence for dramatic things outside the explanatory powers of the materialism philosophy and the quality of alternative understandings out there, I find your approach to be impoverishing to the intellect.

 

[Truth in love]

Then the question has no value. According to Richard Dawkins.

Science does answer some "why" questions, including questions about the purposes of things. Those it does not answer may simply be unanswerable. The questions "what is the purpose of a light bulb?," "what is the purpose of a firefly's light,?" and "what is the purpose of the sun?" all look like the same sort of question superficially, but are importantly different. The first invites an answer in terms of the intentions of those who make and use light bulbs. The second is a question in evolutionary biology. The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

Following on this, Dawkins wondered whether there were any deep, important questions that science was incapable of answering. He supposed that there might be, citing as an example the question of what determined the fundamental constants of physics. But, he claimed, such gaps in scientific explanation should provide no comfort to theologians who wished to claim a distinctive sphere of competence for religion. For if any area of study were to deliver answers to these questions – questions Dawkins labeled "the deep questions of existence" – it would be science, not religion.
Lecture II: The Religion of Science

Do you agree?
Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

Science does a good job of answering a lot of how’s and some why’s.

However in terms of meaning of life like questions it does little to nothing.

 

[Nakosis]

Science does a good job of answering a lot of how’s and some why’s.

However in terms of meaning of life like questions it does little to nothing.

Ok, so what is the meaning to life?

 

[Nakosis]

Therefore Dawkins admits scientists would do anything to undermine religion, such as developing theories that are strictly contradictory to religion.

Some would. But their actions would be questioned by other scientists. In science no one's bias goes unquestioned.

 

[joelr]

If your hypothetical Hindu, Christian and Moslem all have faith, then they are likely to have one thing in common which is more powerful than any differences between them.

Yes actually they do have one thing in common. They are all mythologies that use fictional deities to frame man-made wisdom, philosophy, knowledge, laws, traditions and customs.
All of those things are the point. Several different fictions don't add up to something real.

I agree that science and philosophy overlap - to the Greeks and the Renaissance Europeans, the separation of disciplines would have been absurd. But if you try to understand the universe using only logic and reason, you will imo only ever perceive it in limited dimensions. Logic and reason are wonderful tools, but they are not the only tools we have; you have been given intuition and imagination for a reason. And every human being has, I believe, a capacity for insight and inspiration that transcends pure reason.

We are creatures of mind, body, and spirit, and when we neglect one side of the triangle, we cannot but be unbalanced; that, at least, is my experience- and we learn by experience, do we not?

Intuition and imagination are great. Sometimes they lead to something than can then be tested and confirmed to be real. intuition and imagination also lead to incorrect things so we do not always base truths on them. For example intuition and imagination can just as easy suggest a God is not real, or souls are not real. Further evidence is needed.

 

[joelr]

Here's a paper by Professor Jessica Utts of Applied Statistics
University of California, Irvine

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING

Excerpt:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud

Ok, that was 1995. She found an 8% difference in what was expected. There would need to be several follow ups by different teams to see if mistakes were made at at any level, which does happen with these tests. There are some unanswered questions with funders standing to gain something and other things. You need repeat testing. Why this never took off also suggests there wasn't a lot of confidence in it. There is some info on her Wiki page, as you can see there are some suspect issues. Much more studies are needed. I think people have tried and simply not gotten the results they were looking for. As I said Lynn McTaggart wrote about all sorts of testings but then the studies were debunked on a skeptic website and shown to be not as impressive as claimed. I think we cannot get solid evidence. The military tried and stopped.

"
In 1995, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) appointed a panel consisting primarily of Utts and Ray Hyman to evaluate a project investigating remote viewing for espionage applications, the Stargate Project,[6] which was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, and carried out initially by Stanford Research Institute and subsequently by SAIC.[7]

A report by Utts[8] claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated.[9] According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."[10] Funding for the project was stopped after these reports were issued. Jessica Utts also co-authored papers with the parapsychologist Edwin May, who took over Stargate in 1985.[2] The psychologist David Marks noted that as Utts has published papers with May "she was not independent of the research team. Her appointment to the review panel is puzzling; an evaluation is likely to be less than partial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation."[7]

Utts is on the executive board of the International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA).[11]"



These are the sort of dead ends I would find as well when trying to find solid results.

Even drugs can just be another way of opening people up to the real non-physical realms as many claim.
I think there is a lot of empirical evidence for things not explainable in a materialist paradigm. And I think the level of fraud by serious researchers and serious experiencers is very low.

Evidence isn't supporting a supernatural explanation. Men doing G-force testing reported similar to NDE experiences before they pass out -
"The range of phenomena these men recount may amount to “NDE lite”—tunnel vision and bright lights; a feeling of awakening from sleep, including partial or complete paralysis; a sense of peaceful floating; out-of-body experiences; sensations of pleasure and even euphoria; and short but intense dreams, often involving conversations with family members, that remain vivid to them many years afterward. These intensely felt experiences, triggered by a specific physical insult, typically do not have any religious character (perhaps because participants knew ahead of time that they would be stressed until they fainted)."
What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about the Brain

 

[joelr]

I remember a similar thing when a friend of a friend on facebook was arguing that cannabis oil "kills cancer" and cited a case with "scientific evidence" supporting it, where a woman was cured of a terminal cancer by oils and gave me a dozen references on alt-health websites. After less than 10 minutes of Googling I found that the woman had also undergone surgery and chemotherapy. Even after showing this, they still claimed that it was the oils that worked and conventional medicine is unnecessary and only for profit.

Yes they always blame the alternative treatment but forget to mention the surgery, medication and medical staff as possibly contributing to the healing?

 

[KWED]

I clearly believe these wisdom traditions are not part of what you call 'science' because they cannot be reproduced and verified through the physical senses and instruments.

However, not being a follower of Scientism, I consider (not blindly accept) all wisdom tradition claims. I accept what seems to make best sense of this reality in regards to paranormal/spiritual subjects. It is clear to me that materialism as a philosophy must be lacking in some dramatic ways when I give consideration to all the evidence.

More question begging. By calling these claims and anecdotes "wisdom traditions" you are presuposing an unwarranted sense of validity. You then insist that materialism "must be lacking" if it does not allow for the conclusion that you have already formed.

If an extraordinary claim cannot be repeated or verified or supported, it can be dismissed - as you did with my claim about sleeping with your mother, despite it not requiring the laws of nature to be suspended and relying only on a repetition of the kind or event that we know happens daily. Why so sceptical in that respect but so credulous when it comes to stuff that has never been demonstrated or verified? The answer? You like the idea of one claim but not the other. You want one to have happened but not the other.

 

[KWED]

Fine, then you may be one that requires scientific proof before acceptance (Scientism).

Why would anyone accept extraordinary claims that fly in the face of what we know without any evidence? Seriously. That is a pretty important issue that needs addressing. Why are you prepared to accept extraordinary claims that cannot be supported or verified?

(Scientific proof of things held to not be directly observable by the physical senses and instruments is probably an oxymoron anyway)

Not quite. We can demonstrate the existence of things indirectly.
But the question is - if something is undetectable by any means, does not have any effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known explanation to work, how is it any different to "nothing"?

When I review the evidence for dramatic things outside the explanatory powers of the materialism philosophy and the quality of alternative understandings out there, I find your approach to be impoverishing to the intellect.

When you say "evidence" here, you actually mean "unverifiable claims".
What is actually "impoverishing to the intellect" is accepting any extraordinary claims as fact simply because you want them to be true.

This video might help (although I suspect not)...

 

[KWED]

Therefore Dawkins admits scientists would do anything to undermine religion, such as developing theories that are strictly contradictory to religion.

Don't think you understand how science works.

 

[KWED]

Science does a good job of answering a lot of how’s and some why’s.

However in terms of meaning of life like questions it does little to nothing.

That's like saying that the NHS does little to nothing in terms of unicorn health.

 

[KWED]

If your hypothetical Hindu, Christian and Moslem all have faith, then they are likely to have one thing in common which is more powerful than any differences between them.

Which is why history shows us that different religions have been a unifying influence on different civilisations and societies.
Oh...

 

[Truth in love]

Ok, so what is the meaning to life?

Learn, grow, and become like the Creator.

 

[Truth in love]

That's like saying that the NHS does little to nothing in terms of unicorn health.

Far from it. the NHS is too busy conspiring with big pharma to do their actual job, but I digress.

Science has a domain and within that domain it does a good job, but it does not do well in other areas.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"
"

on what standard, please?

It simply and loudly tells that

1. it is beyond the limits of Science,
2. the narrow limits of Scientific Method,
3. and it tells reality is not a function of Science
4. or the Scientists, please. Right?

It means the question asked has no intrinsic value.
Of course it may have some sentimental value for the individual.

" intrinsic "
I don't agree with one , please:
" The natural " word"
intrinsic (adj.)

late 15c., "interior, inward, internal," from Old French intrinsèque "inner" (14c.), from Medieval Latin intrinsecus "interior, internal," from Latin intrinsecus (adv.) "inwardly, on the inside," from intra "within" (see intra-) + secus "along, alongside," from PIE *sekw-os- "following," suffixed form of root *sekw- (1) "to follow."

The form in English was conformed to words in -ic by 18c. Meaning "belonging to the nature of a thing" is from 1640s. Related: Intrinsical; intrinsically.
intrinsic | Etymology, origin and meaning of intrinsic by etymonline

It is Science that follows nature, it is not nature that follows Science, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"
"

on what standard, please?

It simply and loudly tells that

1. it is beyond the limits of Science,
2. the narrow limits of Scientific Method,
3. and it tells reality is not a function of Science
4. or the Scientists, please. Right?

" intrinsic "
I don't agree with one , please:
" The natural " word"
intrinsic (adj.)

late 15c., "interior, inward, internal," from Old French intrinsèque "inner" (14c.), from Medieval Latin intrinsecus "interior, internal," from Latin intrinsecus (adv.) "inwardly, on the inside," from intra "within" (see intra-) + secus "along, alongside," from PIE *sekw-os- "following," suffixed form of root *sekw- (1) "to follow."

The form in English was conformed to words in -ic by 18c. Meaning "belonging to the nature of a thing" is from 1640s. Related: Intrinsical; intrinsically.
intrinsic | Etymology, origin and meaning of intrinsic by etymonline

It is Science that follows nature, it is not nature that follows Science, please. Right?

Regards

Sure if it is natural, not supernatural.