Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[Sheldon]

It's been a few centuries of modern science and I've not seen these explanations for so-called paranormal and miraculous phenomena beyond non-acceptance of their very existence.

This doesn't validate superstitious beliefs or supernatural claims, not having an explanation is just that, and nothing more. You seem to be using a "god of the gaps polemic".

I haven't really seen this class of phenomena ever really resolved by 'natural' explanations as you are suggesting. This includes miraculous healings seemingly involving certain spiritual figures.

Again this is not evidence for your belief, this is at best, an inexplicable event, being labelled as miraculous, which is just an appeal to mystery, and by definition had no explanatory powers.

I believe the key to perhaps future science's understanding will come with acceptance of planes of nature beyond the physical plane and in dimensions not directly detectable by the three-dimensional physical senses and instruments.

Well no offence, but you are free to believe that Harry Potter is real if you like, but this unevidenced assumption tells us precisely nothing about the validity of the belief.

There is no scientific evidence to support any miraculous event, that is axiomatic, one has only to flip on any news channel to see that this is true. Pause for just a moment, and try and imagine the global reaction to a scientific consensus being reached, accepting such claims had been scientifically verified.

It always makes me smile when I see science used in such hyperbolic or duplicitous claims.

 

[KWED]

Yes, intelligence is required.

So do you think that "intelligent" people will all arrive at the same conclusion?
If not, then how is "intelligence" relevant?

 

[KWED]

I think each case requires an intelligent full consideration.

So, are you claiming that some accounts of these events are fabricated or mistaken?

Decades of consideration of the claims and evidence as well as input from those claiming direct experience with the superphysical realms.

So it's just your opinion on the veracity of hearsay then.

It's been a few centuries of modern science and I've not seen these explanations for so-called paranormal and miraculous phenomena beyond non-acceptance of their very existence.

Well, you need to look a bit harder. We know that the brain can produce hallucinations and delusions that the subject considers to be absolutely real. We also know that people can be mistaken in their recollection of events. These two crucial elements are beyond doubt. There are many studies confirming the phenomena.
If you have a claim that would require either the laws on nature to be temporarily suspended, or for the subject to be mistaken or dishonest - there is only one rational explanation.

I haven't really seen this class of phenomena ever really resolved by 'natural' explanations as you are suggesting. This includes miraculous healings seemingly involving certain spiritual figures.

It does seem that you are willing to accept any claim of supernatural goings-on without anything more substantial than the claim itself. It is all very well attempting to justify this by claiming you haven't heard any convincing natural explanation, but that is just confirmation bias. Your insistence that you only arrive at your conclusions after careful examination and critical analysis seem somewhat overblown.

I believe the key to perhaps future science's understanding will come with acceptance of planes of nature beyond the physical plane and in dimensions not directly detectable by the three-dimensional physical senses and instruments.

This is where you are missing the fundamental point.
Science will never "come to accept" the existence of the supernatural without some means of repeatedly detecting, testing, predicting it, etc. Because that's how science works. It doesn't just take people's word for stuff.
If you are relying on science simply accepting hearsay and assertion as evidence, you will be waiting quite some time, I'm sorry to say.

 

[ppp]

You don't want it to be true.

That is a silly accusation.

 

[Jagella]

That is a silly accusation.

Religious apologists tend to get frustrated with their failing to convince skeptics. The solution to this problem appears to be to attack the skeptic as having a character deficit of some kind.

 

[George-ananda]

This doesn't validate superstitious beliefs or supernatural claims, not having an explanation is just that, and nothing more. You seem to be using a "god of the gaps polemic".



Again this is not evidence for your belief, this is at best, an inexplicable event, being labelled as miraculous, which is just an appeal to mystery, and by definition had no explanatory powers.

Not sure where I brought God into this. I did bring up higher planes of nature and higher beings and I understand this is beyond current materialist science but I have interests beyond materialist science. These higher planes can someday even be part of mainstream science too.

Well no offence, but you are free to believe that Harry Potter is real if you like, but this unevidenced assumption tells us precisely nothing about the validity of the belief.

There is no scientific evidence to support any miraculous event, that is axiomatic, one has only to flip on any news channel to see that this is true. Pause for just a moment, and try and imagine the global reaction to a scientific consensus being reached, accepting such claims had been scientifically verified.

It always makes me smile when I see science used in such hyperbolic or duplicitous claims.

As I just said the stuff I believe in is indeed beyond current materialist science. And I am convinced paranormal events occur that are not satisfactorily explainable by current science. And there are those proposing theories that can make sense out of what current science cannot understand. This calls for a consideration by science.

From my best consideration of the evidence and argumentation, it has become my belief that there are spiritual/clairvoyant masters (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical) that can present a framework for how these seemingly impossible events can occur. These things involve beings and energies outside of our familiar three-dimensional world and in dimensions not directly detectible by our physical instruments and senses.

 

[George-ananda]

So do you think that "intelligent" people will all arrive at the same conclusion?
If not, then how is "intelligence" relevant?

Eventually intelligence will prevail and differences will get smaller and smaller until they even merge.

 

[George-ananda]

So, are you claiming that some accounts of these events are fabricated or mistaken?

That possibility needs to be considered.

So it's just your opinion on the veracity of hearsay then.

Yes but that opinion forms after a consideration of the quality of the report. A clear report from someone I know and respect carries a lot of weight with me.

Well, you need to look a bit harder. We know that the brain can produce hallucinations and delusions that the subject considers to be absolutely real. We also know that people can be mistaken in their recollection of events. These two crucial elements are beyond doubt. There are many studies confirming the phenomena.
If you have a claim that would require either the laws on nature to be temporarily suspended, or for the subject to be mistaken or dishonest - there is only one rational explanation.

It does seem that you are willing to accept any claim of supernatural goings-on without anything more substantial than the claim itself. It is all very well attempting to justify this by claiming you haven't heard any convincing natural explanation, but that is just confirmation bias. Your insistence that you only arrive at your conclusions after careful examination and critical analysis seem somewhat overblown.

I take the full body of paranormal claims and ask: 'All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe'.

My answer is that the from the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence I believe beyond reasonable doubt that things beyond the understanding of current science is occurring.

Next, I'm looking at possible explanatory theories that will by definition be outside the current knowledge of science. Nothing wrong with that.

This is where you are missing the fundamental point.
Science will never "come to accept" the existence of the supernatural without some means of repeatedly detecting, testing, predicting it, etc. Because that's how science works. It doesn't just take people's word for stuff.
If you are relying on science simply accepting hearsay and assertion as evidence, you will be waiting quite some time, I'm sorry to say.

I agree that science has to evolve through stages and not just accept without proof.

That does not mean we cannot consider new paradigms that science of this time can neither confirm nor deny.

If your only interest is science then stay where things are at. I am personally interested in science and also into spiritual speculation (Vedic, Theosophical) led by those claiming perception of planes of nature which science can not yet observe.

 

[Quagmire]

Are you saying I need to want to believe what you say in order to believe it?. . .

I doubt that's what @cOLTER meant.

He said:

You don't want it to be true.

There are two ways to take that:

One would be the way you're taking it, as: "You lack a desire for it to be true".

The other would be the way I think he meant it and the way I think that most people would have taken it, as: "you hold a desire for it not to be true".

Two very different statements.

 

[Heyo]

I doubt that's what @cOLTER meant.

He said:


There are two ways to take that:

One would be the way you're taking it, as: "You lack a desire for it to be true".

The other would be the way I think he meant it and the way I think that most people would have taken it, as: "you hold a desire for it not to be true".

Two very different statements.

Yep, and if @cOLTER meant the second one, he'd have expressed it as:
"You want it not to be true." instead of
"You don't want it to be true." (At least if he is proficient in English.)

 

[Quagmire]

Yep, and if @cOLTER meant the second one, he'd have expressed it as:
"You want it not to be true." instead of
"You don't want it to be true." (At least if he is proficient in English.)

Not likely.

As an American, I can tell you that most Americans would have expressed the idea:"You want it not to be true." as ,"You don't want it to be true".

 

[Heyo]

Not likely.

As an American, I can tell you that most Americans would have expressed the idea:"You want it not to be true." as ,"You don't want it to be true".

So, most Americans are not proficient in English?

 

[Quagmire]

So, most Americans are not proficient in English?

It isn't about being proficient in English. It's about the fact that most people in most places speak a colloquial version of their language rather than a strictly formal one.

 

[Heyo]

It isn't about being proficient in English. It's about the fact that most people in most places speak a colloquial version of their language rather than a strictly formal one.

I know, I was just pulling your leg.
But when you are talking more to computers than to humans, the language centre in your brain starts to function logically. I once answered "Do you like coffee or tea?" with "Yes.". It is not only a cliché. I try do remember that most humans are highly illogical but occasionally I still answer negated questions with negated answers, which leads to confusions.

 

[Quagmire]

I know, I was just pulling your leg.

I think it struck a nerve because the truth is these days very few Americans are proficient in anything that deserves to be called English.

 

[KWED]

Perhaps to say that there is no scientific evidence of reincarnation will be better.

Indeed, but I was quoting their post.

 

[KWED]

I did bring up higher planes of nature and higher beings and I understand this is beyond current materialist science

If something cannot be detected, has no measurable effect on anything that can be detected, and is not required for any known explanation to work - how is that different to "nothing">
Basically, anyone can make any fantastical claim about anything and when challenged simply say "Ah, but it is beyond current materialist science".

These higher planes can someday even be part of mainstream science too.

On what do you base that claim?

And I am convinced paranormal events occur that are not satisfactorily explainable by current science. And there are those proposing theories that can make sense out of what current science cannot understand. This calls for a consideration by science.

Until these people can produce observations that can be independently and repeatably verified, science has nothing to study.

From my best consideration of the evidence and argumentation, it has become my belief that there are spiritual/clairvoyant masters (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical) that can present a framework for how these seemingly impossible events can occur. These things involve beings and energies outside of our familiar three-dimensional world and in dimensions not directly detectible by our physical instruments and senses.

Many people believe is stuff that does not exist, and are just as convinced as you that it is real. You need something more than opinion and wishful thinking.

 

[KWED]

Eventually intelligence will prevail and differences will get smaller and smaller until they even merge.

But the evidence suggest the opposite. Fewer people believe in a spiritual world than they did in the past. What's more, higher levels of education (as good an indicator of "intelligence" as we have) tend to lead to less belief in the supernatural.

Claiming that higher intelligence necessarily leads to belief in the supernatural is obvious nonsense. It seems that the opposite is more likely to be the case.

 

[KWED]

That possibility needs to be considered.

Indeed it does. It is the rational default position, given the lack of any evidence for the supernatural. Burden of proof, and all that.

Yes but that opinion forms after a consideration of the quality of the report. A clear report from someone I know and respect carries a lot of weight with me.

Sounds a bit like confirmation bias. How do people gain your respect? By supporting the cause you feel so strongly about? Do you respect the work of people who have criticised and debunked claims of the supernatural?

I take the full body of paranormal claims and ask: 'All things considered, what is most reasonable for me to believe'.

Don't you also take the full body of material naturalist evidence as well?

My answer is that the from the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence I believe beyond reasonable doubt that things beyond the understanding of current science is occurring.

And yet this "evidence" only seems to convince people already invested in the concept. When examined dispassionately, using critical thinking, the conclusion isn't that these claims are true.

Next, I'm looking at possible explanatory theories that will by definition be outside the current knowledge of science. Nothing wrong with that.

How are you to establish anything id=f the subject is beyond the capacity of science to observe or test?

I agree that science has to evolve through stages and not just accept without proof.

But you do not apply that principle to your belief in the supernatural. Which seems to be quite common.

That does not mean we cannot consider new paradigms that science of this time can neither confirm nor deny.

Of course. But it also means that we can't accept them as valid without a substantial body of proper evidence (not just anecdote and assertion).

If your only interest is science then stay where things are at.

Au contraire! The massive, exponential change in "where things are at" has been driven by science. Nothing practical has been achieved by belief in the supernatural.

I am personally interested in science and also into spiritual speculation (Vedic, Theosophical) led by those claiming perception of planes of nature which science can not yet observe.

That is up to you. There have been ground-breaking scientists who also believed in superstitious nonsense. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
However, what you need to avoid is claiming that your superstitions are based on scientific evidence when there are not.

 

[KWED]

I know, I was just pulling your leg.
But when you are talking more to computers than to humans, the language centre in your brain starts to function logically. I once answered "Do you like coffee or tea?" with "Yes.". It is not only a cliché. I try do remember that most humans are highly illogical but occasionally I still answer negated questions with negated answers, which leads to confusions.