Near Death experiences to atheist

[1137]

hahaha

Differences aside you know that was funny

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you please explain that logic you're using above a little more slowly please. I can't really make sense of it, sorry.

All right - back to step one: what "science" means. As I said earlier, science is just the rigorous use of logic to derive conclusions about reality from evidence.

Science has nothing to do with "physicalism"; it can be applied to any source of real evidence.

This means that you have a choice: are your beliefs about near-death experiences subject to science as I've defined it or not?

- If they are, then let's look at the evidence for your position according to the principles of science and see how they stand up.

- If they're not, then you have to explain how your conclusions are reliable despite missing some part of science (i.e. rigor, logic, or evidence), since if they have all three, they're subject to science.

Does that help?

 

[George-ananda]

Enaidealukal,

Welcome to our discussion. Your coming in after months of our merry-go-rounding on this and other threads so a lot of what you say has been addressed already. But let's start fresh.

Examples?
What evidence? Anecdotal evidence? Argumentum ad ignorantium?

The only other time we talked I recall you throwing the word 'ignorantium' around a lot.

Yes, Anecdotal evidence (intelligently considered) and experimental evidence can be used in forming our personal view of the universe.

The problem is not that it "does not make sense", its that there is a dearth of any real evidence for any of the purported supernatural occurences we hear tell of;

I've noticed in RF that most people get basically all there knowledge about psychic phenomenon from the so-called (and well known) skeptics. What they know about real para-normal research comes from the criticisms they hear from the skeptic community.

what psychic has ever predicated the lottery? Or can reliable predict elections, Super Bowl scores, or anything of the kind? Why are psychics not filthy rich?

You seem to be of the naive notion that receiving psychic impressions makes you omniscient.

Why can't people who claim to speak to the dead ever find out anything other than the same vague details that anybody can discern from hot/cold reading techniques, and/or videotaping a studio audience for hints?

They do all the time (find out more than vague details). But you wouldn't know that if your information comes from the so-called Skeptic community. In another thread I discussed Dr. Gary Schwartz who studied mediums scientifically and takes a quite different view from yours and the skeptics.

 

[ArtieE]

IMO and in the views of the more intelligent thinkers, the universe is non-sectarian; it is not specifically Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc.. Only fundamentalists or the more conservative types take the thinking you are implying above.

On the astral plane, life begins as a continuation of the life just lived. Hence, people still experience a 'cultural context' to their experience. Even talking about things like clothes, beards, etc. show a human context. At the still higher planes none of these archetypal human forms exist.

I repeat: "Yamraj is the Hindu god of the dead. So if we are to believe this the Christian God is not alone and who knows how many other gods are out there. Since a Hindu god meets Hindus we can only assume that every person will be met by the god he or she believes in."

Please just answer the questions.

1. Does Yamraj the Hindu god of the dead exist?
2. If he does, how many other gods, Hindu or otherwise, exist?
3. If he doesn't, is there any reason to assume that any god exists?
4. if these gods exist, where do they live between receptions?
5. If he didn't see Yamraj the Hindu god of the dead what or who did he see?

 

[johnhanks]

Isn't 'authority' a matter of opinion?

Not really. Before I credit someone with authority I like to see some evidence that their explanations have real-world validity.

You will perhaps respond that what counts as 'evidence' boils down to opinion: again, not really. I expect evidence to be empirical and subject to repeatability. If not, it is anecdote, which even if "intelligently considered" (how do you judge this?) serves merely as confirmation bias - a crutch for credulity.

 

[George-ananda]

I repeat: "Yamraj is the Hindu god of the dead. So if we are to believe this the Christian God is not alone and who knows how many other gods are out there. Since a Hindu god meets Hindus we can only assume that every person will be met by the god he or she believes in."

Please just answer the questions.

1. Does Yamraj the Hindu god of the dead exist?
2. If he does, how many other gods, Hindu or otherwise, exist?
3. If he doesn't, is there any reason to assume that any god exists?
4. if these gods exist, where do they live between receptions?
5. If he didn't see Yamraj the Hindu god of the dead what or who did he see?

The best answer I can give you is a quote from the Hindu scriptures:

'The thousand gods are just my thousand faces'

 

[George-ananda]

Not really. Before I credit someone with authority I like to see some evidence that their explanations have real-world validity.

You will perhaps respond that what counts as 'evidence' boils down to opinion: again, not really. I expect evidence to be empirical and subject to repeatability. If not, it is anecdote, which even if "intelligently considered" (how do you judge this?) serves merely as confirmation bias - a crutch for credulity.

So, then what do you do with information from people resuscitated from a near-death state. We certainly can't ask them to show us repeatability .

Your approach seems to be to then discard the data with the 'anecdotal' label. My answer is we have to make the most of all information we have and 'intelligently consider' what we have. The world of human experience is very different from a chemistry lab.

 

[ArtieE]

The best answer I can give you is a quote from the Hindu scriptures:

'The thousand gods are just my thousand faces'

If that is the best explanation Hindu scriptures can come up with why study them? It is a contradiction in terms. If the thousand gods are just thousand faces of one god they can't per definition be separate "gods" (plural) to begin with. Either they must be parts of one god, or separate gods. A god with a thousand faces can't claim that each face is a separate god you see, and if they aren't separate gods then the sentence is meaningless.

 

[George-ananda]

If that is the best explanation Hindu scriptures can come up with why study them? It is a contradiction in terms. If the thousand gods are just thousand faces of one god they can't per definition be separate "gods" (plural) to begin with. Either they must be parts of one god, or separate gods. A god with a thousand faces can't claim that each face is a separate god you see, and if they aren't separate gods then the sentence is meaningless.

Basically in that statement God\Brahman\Oneness is saying that all is One and he may present himself to people in cultural contexts (various gods) because their minds can't grasp the infinite Oneness. As one develops along the spiritual path the individual religions and name/forms of deities becomes more and more trivial until they merge into One. These individual names/religions are just a starting crutch for the limited mind.

The point is nothing is really separate; all is One. Man creates names\forms\separateness because his finite mind cannot grasp the infinite One. The more advanced souls see the separation as illusion.

 

[johnhanks]

So, then what do you do with information from people resuscitated from a near-death state. We certainly can't ask them to show us repeatability .

Must be tempting, though, if you've got an anaesthetist handy.

Your approach seems to be to then discard the data with the 'anecdotal' label.

If it's an anecdote, it's not data.

My answer is we have to make the most of all information we have and 'intelligently consider' what we have.

I'd still like to know the criteria by which you distinguish 'intelligent consideration' from wide-eyed credulity.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The only other time we talked I recall you throwing the word 'ignorantium' around a lot.

That's probably a bad sign then- you must be in the habit of advancing arguments from incredulity/ignorance. But you should probably look up "argumentum ad ignorantium" before you get offended- it doesn't mean what you likely think it means- and I was asking you whether this was what you had in mind, after all.

What I'm wondering is if you're not thinking something along the lines of-

"So-and-so had an experience of such-and-such, and science can't explain it, therefore it must be evidence of ghosts/angels/ESP/God/the afterlife/the paranormal/whatever"

Which is a classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy, aka "argumentum ad ignorantium".

Yes, Anecdotal evidence (intelligently considered)

K.. Gotcha.

experimental evidence can be used in forming our personal view of the universe.

What specific experimental evidence supports a "personal view of the universe" which includes the paranormal/supernatural/occult/whatever?

What they know about real para-normal research comes from the criticisms they hear from the skeptic community.

Actually, I don't know a whole lot about it from either side of the aisle, which is why I'm asking. And I've probably seen as many TV shows or articles by so-called "paranormal experts" or specialists (i.e. people who are friendly towards belief in the paranormal or supernatural) as I have by their critics or skeptics. Although, I suppose I should mention, if you haven't inferred it by now, that I'm sort of a skeptic by nature myself.

You seem to be of the naive notion that receiving psychic impressions makes you omniscient.

I never said any such thing. I asked why psychics never predict anything other than the vague stuff that normal people can demonstrably replicate using nothing more than hold/cold reading techniques and whatnot- I listed a few examples, and obviously there was a slight tone of sarcasm to it... But I never said anything about omniscience. Just some testable predictions would suffice.

They do all the time (find out more than vague details).

Ok, do you have any details? Can you give some examples?

But you wouldn't know that if your information comes from the so-called Skeptic community.

Then provide some information, or better yet evidence, to inform us woefully ignorant skeptics...

In another thread I discussed Dr. Gary Schwartz who studied mediums scientifically and takes a quite different view from yours and the skeptics.

You mean the guy who tried to scam some dead kids father out of a bunch of money? The guy who backed out of the million dollar paranormal challenge? Seriously?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your approach seems to be to then discard the data with the 'anecdotal' label. My answer is we have to make the most of all information we have and 'intelligently consider' what we have. The world of human experience is very different from a chemistry lab.

If it's an anecdote, it's not data.

johnhanks' objection aside, I think that we can learn things from anecdotes, but they should be approached with caution and given weight according to their reliability (or lack thereof), because anecdotes have many problems:

- you often have no way to confirm that the important details of the anecdote actually happened.
- they have no controls for preventing the observer from influencing the results or using bias in interpreting them.
- you're dealing with a sample size of one... IOW, in statistical terms, it's so unreliable that you can't even measure its reliability.
- they're subject to extreme publication bias: people only tend to tell anecdotes when they think they're remarkable. An anecdote doesn't spread if it's about something mundane. This means that anecdotes can create a false impression of a thing, especially in terms of likelihood.
- interpretation of anecdotes often involves the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

johnhanks' objection aside, I think that we can learn things from anecdotes, but they should be approached with caution and given weight according to their reliability (or lack thereof), because anecdotes have many problems:

- you often have no way to confirm that the important details of the anecdote actually happened.
- they have no controls for preventing the observer from influencing the results or using bias in interpreting them.
- you're dealing with a sample size of one... IOW, in statistical terms, it's so unreliable that you can't even measure its reliability.
- they're subject to extreme publication bias: people only tend to tell anecdotes when they think they're remarkable. An anecdote doesn't spread if it's about something mundane. This means that anecdotes can create a false impression of a thing, especially in terms of likelihood.
- interpretation of anecdotes often involves the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Exactly. It isn't that anecdotes don't count as evidence- they do (and thus "johnhank's" objection is simply mistaken, at least on a Beyesian view of evidence)- the problem is that they are highly fallible and thus fairly unreliable. Confirmation bias and other issues, as mentioned above, plague even the accounts of reliable reporters. What we have to do is examine the anecdotes, weigh them according to the reliability of the witness, how extraordinary or implausible the report is, how consistent the reports are with each other, how consistent they are with other available data, and so on.

And in light of such considerations, the anecdotal evidence for paranormal events tends to appear about as as weak as anecdotal evidence can be- the reports widely vary, conflict with one another, conflict with external evidence, often come from unreliable sources and report extraordinary and implausible events, etc

 

[George-ananda]

I'd still like to know the criteria by which you distinguish 'intelligent consideration' from wide-eyed credulity.

You consider as much information as you can from all sides of the issue and then use objective rational reasoning free of prejudice.

 

[George-ananda]

What I'm wondering is if you're not thinking something along the lines of-

"So-and-so had an experience of such-and-such, and science can't explain it, therefore it must be evidence of ghosts/angels/ESP/God/the afterlife/the paranormal/whatever"

OMG, seriously, what type of simpleton do you take me for to think like that. (and I know I'm setting you up for a zinger if that's your style; but I'm serious).

What specific experimental evidence supports a "personal view of the universe" which includes the paranormal/supernatural/occult/whatever?

Parapsychologists have a whole body of experimental data and scientific research supporting the above.

And I know if you get your information from skeptical sources you'll say there's no evidence whatsoever.

It'll take some prodding for me to get into that debate for the fiftieth time with a new person. From the below I suspect you're set in your mindset. The one thing about merry-go-rounds is that they are certain to end where they started.

You mean the guy who tried to scam some dead kids father out of a bunch of money? The guy who backed out of the million dollar paranormal challenge? Seriously?

Seriously. The one name I mentioned you go out and cherry-pick whatever bad you can quickly find about him. Do you at least possibly suspect his version of the same incidents might be quite different than his professional enemies?

 

[ArtieE]

Parapsychologists have a whole body of experimental data and scientific research supporting the above.

How is that possible? If it can be measured with natural scientific tools it can't be supernatural but natural...

 

[George-ananda]

johnhanks' objection aside, I think that we can learn things from anecdotes, but they should be approached with caution and given weight according to their reliability (or lack thereof), because anecdotes have many problems:

- you often have no way to confirm that the important details of the anecdote actually happened.
- they have no controls for preventing the observer from influencing the results or using bias in interpreting them.
- you're dealing with a sample size of one... IOW, in statistical terms, it's so unreliable that you can't even measure its reliability.
- they're subject to extreme publication bias: people only tend to tell anecdotes when they think they're remarkable. An anecdote doesn't spread if it's about something mundane. This means that anecdotes can create a false impression of a thing, especially in terms of likelihood.
- interpretation of anecdotes often involves the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

What you say above is basically true and common sense. (I will point out that in the NDE case there is not '1' story but a huge body as we all know).

A few posts up I was asked:

'I'd still like to know the criteria by which you distinguish 'intelligent consideration' from wide-eyed credulity.'

My answer was:

You consider as much information as you can from all sides of the issue and then use objective rational reasoning free of prejudice.


Are you getting to the point of saying 'anecdotal evidence' can't be considered in forming our view of the universe. Or are you saying we can consider anecdotal evidence but that we need to exercise intelligent analysis when doing so. If it's the latter, we're in agreement.

 

[George-ananda]

How is that possible? If it can be measured with natural scientific tools it can't be supernatural but natural...

You seem to under a misunderstanding. The experiments I was talking about do not use physical scientific tools. They for example can use statistical analysis. In a typical card guessing experiment with many trials, if someone gets a 'hit'rate of millions to one against chance it becomes reasonable to believe chance is not the cause of the results.

 

[1137]

You consider as much information as you can from all sides of the issue and then use objective rational reasoning free of prejudice.

But if you did this you would not believe what you do. All unbiased evidence from both sides points to all NDEs and such being caused by the brain. So stop telling us we're biased and irrational while at the same time saying you have no tangible evidence and preaching beliefs logically contradictory to what is likely to be true.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

OMG, seriously, what type of simpleton do you take me for to think like that. (and I know I'm setting you up for a zinger if that's your style; but I'm serious).

Given that that is an extremely common line of argument, particularly in the case of NDE's, I was simply asking- a simple "no" would have sufficed.

Parapsychologists have a whole body of experimental data and scientific research supporting the above.

And I know if you get your information from skeptical sources you'll say there's no evidence whatsoever.

Ok, so provide some... Quit hinting at it, and give us a link, or a quote, or something!

It'll take some prodding for me to get into that debate for the fiftieth time with a new person. From the below I suspect you're set in your mindset. The one thing about merry-go-rounds is that they are certain to end where they started.

There isn't much to debate, either you can pony up some of this evidence you keep mentioning, or there's nothing to say here.

Seriously. The one name I mentioned you go out and cherry-pick whatever bad you can quickly find about him. Do you at least possibly suspect his version of the same incidents might be quite different than his professional enemies?

I don't doubt it. But for one, it was a bad sign that I remembered having heard about the guy before with the whole fraud thing, and I'm also familiar with the million dollar challenge, and find it to be reasonably fair (and the fact that nobody has even gotten close to it is evidence against the existence of supernatural abilities).

But you just told us a name of some guy, nevermind the fact that it was a guy who is surrounded by a great deal of controversy and criticism- alot from his scientific peers- and is therefore a somewhat suspect source, without a summary of his work or his position, no links to his papers or website, no nothing.

Name-dropping isn't the same as showing us some evidence.