The Good Place

I'll wait for Steve to chime in for himself if you are cool with that.  Who knows, there may be others?

No problem.

That said I'm going based on posting history over a relatively long period of time.  Statements of what metaphysic one subscribes to aside, the community in which you dialogue also considers everything you say when trying to understand your perspective.  Seems fair.

Is that your way of saying that you aren’t going to listen to what we say we do or do not subscribe to?

Linda

No, it's not. I gave you a hypothetical example to explain how something could be scientifically understood but not material (not that I should really have needed to). If you read the whole thing, starting with "For example, suppose ..." I think it should be clearer.

At one time thunder and lightning were considered supernatural mysteries the cause were the workings of god's. Eventually we understood how lightening is created by electrical positive and negative charges becoming separate. Then either of those charges seeking a path to neutral. Thunder is produced by the rapid expansion of super heated air outside and within the bolt. That's an answer why thunder and lightening aren't caused supernaturally. If I were to ask why an orange is orange in color? Would you reply an orange is orange because it's orange? No you wouuld not because that's not an explanation. So too when you say a soul can't be material because a soul isn't material. It's not an answer to why not?

So too when you say a soul can't be material because a soul isn't material. It's not an answer to why not?

I didn't say that at all, and I don't like people putting words I haven't said into my mouth. So I'll leave it at that.

I didn't say that at all, and I don't like people putting words I haven't said into my mouth. So I'll leave it at that.

After reading all you've written to explain why not I'm no closer to understanding why not. Are you saying a soul can't fall under the category of materialism/physicalism even if the soul has been described to such a precise degree that it matches in precise detail how the human eye functions?

What's my strong evidence ? Veridical OBE/NDE's ?? It's never been strong enough to make the blindest bit of difference to your entrenched position, has it !

And when have I ever presented a near death experience specifically to make a case for the existence of God ? Furthermore, why have you right out of the blue, introduced the topic of homophobia (not a term I like) > better to say prejudice against homosexuals ? Do you automatically assume everyone who describes themselves as devout (religious) are paid up bigots ? What a load of nonsense, Malf !

How do you escape entrenchment?

Is that your way of saying that you aren’t going to listen to what we say we do or do not subscribe to?

Well, someone can say they subscribe or don’t subscribe to something all they want, but over a period of (literally) years and hundreds of posts a person probably reveals at least something about what they think.

I think all Silence was saying is that it’s fair to draw on extended experience with someone if you don’t feel that they’re accurately portraying their position. Or, if they are accurately portraying it,  that they at least haven’t backed up that that’s their position via their posts/actions.

How do you escape entrenchment?

Well, speaking for myself
 I've found William James series of lectures on Pragmatism. Quite helpful. 
Also most of the writing  by the polymath Rudolf Stiener. Can be seen as an attempt to bridge science  and spirituality. In my opinion.

"Shut up and calculate"? Sure, but "Keep talking and speculate" hasn't really moved us forward, however fun it might be.

Anyone still listening to Skeptiko? The last couple of episodes (Al Borealis for anyone reading in the future) are masterclasses in "Keep talking and speculate". We also seem to have arrived at Hiroshima denial in the show thread.

We also seem to have arrived at Hiroshima denial in the show thread.

Oof.

"It was just one example of potential confusion."

Confusion or being confused has nothing to do with it.

Not for you maybe, but using the g-word in a non religious context can be confusing.

"I never suggested that all devout adherents are anti-gay"

You did more than suggest, you stated it as though it was a fact  ! See again below

 For example, the devout, reading your strong evidence for (your version of) God, might see it as a justification for their own homophobia.

Ahh, I get the confusion and apologise. "The devout" was meant in a singular form, as in "the devout individual"

And you didn't answer my question. So here it is again.

why have you, right out of the blue, introduced the topic of homophobia (not a term I like) > better to say prejudice against homosexuals ?

Followers of a religious god are more likely to be prejudicial against gay people, this has been studied. But no matter, pick any of the less tolerant, unpleasant aspects of organised god worship that you'd rather not be associated with.

Or not. If you're not going to get troubled by the confusion, carry on.