Why do I feel threatened?

In the Greyson webcast that I mentioned in my previous post, he is asked about how to answer sceptics who would dismiss NDE evidence. Ever the scientist, he says to point them to the data.

and then they set about trying to rubbish it; criticising/smearing research (ers) all the while trilling, "Where's the evidence, show me the evidence...that's not evidence !"

and then they set about trying to rubbish it; criticising/smearing research (ers) all the while trilling, "Where's the evidence, show me the evidence...that's not evidence !"

Yeah, they do that. They claim that the researcher is biased or incompetent or religious. They accuse the researchers of cherry picking and poor experiment design. We know all this - we have been exposed to it over the years from the sceptics here and Skeptiko. Much as I think sceptical input is necessary, it does get tiresome to read the same criticisms over and over. Also the same explanations. I'm still seeing Hypoxia being put forward as the accepted explanation for NDEs. 

However, I have to remind myself at times that there is a wealth of evidence from many different experiences and anomalies and the challenge for sceptics, in my view, is that each and every one of them - documented and verified thousands of times over - has to be discredited in order for the sceptical viewpoint to be justified. It is just mind-boggling to me to be expected to believe that every single account is either a fabrication or the result of delusion. Not one can be genuine or the whole house of cards comes down.

Greyson is confident of his data. He is confident of his experimental and data gathering procedures. For me, he is a little too cautious, a little too hesitant to say that what waddles and quacks is a duck.

The more I think about this hesitation to [accept or at least fully push for] Survival, whether it was from Greyson's NDE research or Braude's decades of reading the historical cases, the more it feels like something that goes beyond a fear of giving support to religion.

After all, it's not like parapsychology is explicitly in favor of any particular religion. In fact one can argue it actually challenges both ideas of Hell and karmic reincarnation.

I mentioned this before but I wonder if it is like a Supreme Court Justice unsure of how to rule on a landmark case because it could change a nation's course. Nothing specific, just a sense that whatever happens could change how people live their lives if they knew there's an afterlife.

edit: Or maybe it is something simpler, not wanting to be completely hounded out of academia like Sheldrake was for much less "offensive" arguments.

The more I think about this hesitation to [accept or at least fully push for] Survival, whether it was from Greyson's NDE research or Braude's decades of reading the historical cases, the more it feels like something that goes beyond a fear of giving support to religion.

After all, it's not like parapsychology is explicitly in favor of any particular religion. In fact one can argue it actually challenges both ideas of Hell and karmic reincarnation.

I mentioned this before but I wonder if it is like a Supreme Court Justice unsure of how to rule on a landmark case because it could change a nation's course. Nothing specific, just a sense that whatever happens could change how people live their lives if they knew there's an afterlife.

edit: Or maybe it is something simpler, not wanting to be completely hounded out of academia like Sheldrake was for much less "offensive" arguments.

Yep, I think I mentioned the example of Sheldrake in relation to this type of thing in an earlier post too. I think Greyson really wants to hang on to his scientific credibility but it sometimes shows how much he is convinced by the evidence he has uncovered.

edit: Or maybe it is something simpler, not wanting to be completely hounded out of academia like Sheldrake was for much less "offensive" arguments.

Speaking of Sheldrake and academia, I mentioned elsewhere that I'd watched a talk given by Sheldrake about 2 years ago. what I didn't fully appreciate at first was that he was addressing a class of students, studying parapsychology at the University of Northampton. I saw elsewhere that Chris Coe of that university was describing the successful results they'd been getting in such things as Ganzfeld experiments. It is encouraging to see some actual work other than 'debunking' is taking place in academia.

Yep, I think I mentioned the example of Sheldrake in relation to this type of thing in an earlier post too. I think Greyson really wants to hang on to his scientific credibility but it sometimes shows how much he is convinced by the evidence he has uncovered.

I remember there was a story of what I guess we'd call a "professional" skeptic who was actually capable of amicable friendship with a proponent. At some point he'd accepted enough examples of Psi to the point his friend asked him why he didn't just "switch sides" and the skeptic said he could do more good as a proponent-leaning skeptic than as a skeptical proponent.

This might be what Greyson and Braude are thinking as well, though Braude is so far down the rabbit-hole with Psi it makes me wonder what it is about the afterlife that is quite so unnerving to at least Western Academia.

Speaking of Sheldrake and academia, I mentioned elsewhere that I'd watched a talk given by Sheldrake about 2 years ago. what I didn't fully appreciate at first was that he was addressing a class of students, studying parapsychology at the University of Northampton. I saw elsewhere that Chris Coe of that university was describing the successful results they'd been getting in such things as Ganzfeld experiments. It is encouraging to see some actual work other than 'debunking' is taking place in academia.

Good to hear - I kinda suspect a lot of people even within the media and academia have soured on the Utopian promise of a secularized/Physicalist/atheist world. It's pretty clear this pipe-dream isn't going to happen, that the only course correction possible [from a decline is] through a different set of paths that include the spiritual, the paranormal, even the religious.

The more I think about this hesitation to [accept or at least fully push for] Survival, whether it was from Greyson's NDE research or Braude's decades of reading the historical cases, the more it feels like something that goes beyond a fear of giving support to religion.

I don’t feel that it’s particularly about religion, I’m quite sure that those people that are quick to rubbish things they have made their mind up about would be more than happy to fully do so with religion too. However Religion still has something over other esoteric topics, the Church still has some power in the establishment, with the Pope and other figures still able to influence many. So I think the haters might like to lump ‘religion’ in with ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘cranks’ etc, but are hesitant to do so. Take for example Royalists, how many are both atheists and support the Queen? They may be pulled in both directions. It might be interesting to know how many supporters are also atheists. 

More to the point, I believe, is that an interest in both ‘Science’ and ‘Religion’ is not acceptable, for the majority of current scientists I think that their religion is Science. And they are conditioned by many years of schooling and university to believe that ‘Science’ is the only true God. For example my daughter has a deep interest in Astrology, while studying Psychology at Uni at the same time. There is no doubt in her mind that if her lecturers were aware of this that they would think less of her. There may be the odd exception, but if so, they’re not telling anyone. 

Even her friends tend to think that Astrology is ‘a joke’, and isn’t looked at with an open mind. They have in their head ideas that Psychology is ‘lesser’ that Physics or Maths, a type of pseudo science. All that strong opinion has somehow been formed without knowing the least thing about it! As I wrote on a different thread recently, Scientists are now like Reporters, they are forced into a way of thinking, rather than forced into keeping an open mind. Even if budding reporters might feel that reporting what they think might be ‘closer to truth’ or young scientists might have somehow not totally have been press ganged into a way of thinking, the chances are that they both will end up conforming to what is acceptable to the mainstream. They are human, they want to keep the peace and be loved, make a decent living, be one of the team, not be outsiders. That is often what we take on when we make known our open minded attitudes.

I am now retired, any semblance of ‘caring what other people thought’ basically ended when I had the stroke. In a way I was lucky that my real interest in these type of topics started after I’d been forced to give up my job, as there’s little doubt that I would have been described by my pilot colleagues as ‘having some strange ideas’ had I asked them the type of questions I now freely ask others. That’s not a good look for an airline pilot to have imo. Would I still have been invited to become an examiner for example? Who knows?

I don’t feel that it’s particularly about religion, I’m quite sure that those people that are quick to rubbish things they have made their mind up about would be more than happy to fully do so with religion too. However Religion still has something over other esoteric topics, the Church still has some power in the establishment, with the Pope and other figures still able to influence many. So I think the haters might like to lump ‘religion’ in with ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘cranks’ etc, but are hesitant to do so. Take for example Royalists, how many are both atheists and support the Queen? They may be pulled in both directions. It might be interesting to know how many supporters are also atheists. 

More to the point, I believe, is that an interest in ‘Science’ and ‘Religion’ is not acceptable, for the majority of current scientists I think that their religion is Science. And they are conditioned by many years of schooling and university to believe that ‘Science’ is the only true God. For example my daughter has a deep interest in Astrology, while studying Psychology at Uni at the same time. There is no doubt in her mind that if her lecturers were aware of this that they would think less of her. There may be the odd exception, but if so, they’re not telling anyone. 

Even her friends tend to think that Astrology is ‘a joke’, and isn’t looked at with an open mind. They have in their head ideas that Psychology is ‘lesser’ that Physics or Maths, a type of pseudo science. All that strong opinion has somehow been formed without knowing the least thing about it! As I wrote on a different thread recently, Scientists are now like Reporters, they are forced into a way of thinking, rather than forced into keeping an open mind. Even if budding reporters might feel that reporting what they think might be ‘closer to truth’ or young scientists might have somehow not totally have been press ganged into a way of thinking, the chances are that they both will end up conforming to what is acceptable to the mainstream. They are human, they want to keep the peace and be loved, make a decent living, be one of the team, not be outsiders. That is often what we take on when we make known our open minded attitudes.

I am now retired, any semblance of ‘caring what other people thought’ basically ended when I had the stroke. In a way I was lucky that my real interest in these type of topics started after I’d been forced to give up my job, as there’s little doubt that I would have been described by my pilot colleagues as ‘having some strange ideas’ had I asked them the type of questions I now freely ask others. That’s not a good look for an airline pilot to have imo. Would I still have been invited to become an examiner for example? Who knows?

I agree with a lot of this, and I think the way vested interests in academia/media have varied forces funneling people toward opinions suggests you can have individuals with all sorts of life experiences but eventually they are towing the "company line".

However, I think this company line has softened largely because there is no technocratic promised land on the horizon, heck the villains in many people's minds is called "Big Tech". So I think the heirs to these corporate/academic "empires" are now realizing we might have to open our selves up to new possibilities. I mean look at the varied articles about taking extraterrestrial life and UFOs seriously, the slow inching away from Physicalism, even the grudging acknowledgement that while religions have their varied issues they also are an avenue toward progress in human rights and human happiness.

I hope Psychology gets over its physics envy as part of this progress, as you just cannot measure humans the way you measure particles. But I think this won't happen yet, perhaps in a generation or so when Psi gets more accepted.

In general I don't think this is a cultural change we'll see overnight, but I think there is this increased feeling that we're all on a raft heading toward a waterfall and the New Atheist types are not going to stop our fall...if anything their "humans are just machines, just chemical scum" mantras are only hastening us being sold down the river...

it makes me wonder what it is about the afterlife that is quite so unnerving to at least Western Academia.

The door was slammed shut and bolted on 'God', souls, psi hundreds of years ago. As Peter Fenwick said, they are afraid of the return of magic and superstition.

More to the point, I believe, is that an interest in both ‘Science’ and ‘Religion’ is not acceptable, for the majority of current scientists I think that their religion is Science. And they are conditioned by many years of schooling and university to believe that ‘Science’ is the only true God.

I wonder if this is really the case.  Mind you, I don't have any data behind my questioning, but here's my thinking:

First and foremost, I do accept that many (most?) scientists/academia are negatively inclined towards religion and especially the Abrahamic variants.  I think this likely stems from the long struggle they have had (and somewhat continue to have) when scientific advancements challenge religious dogma.  (e.g., creationism)  I understand how this would condition the scientist/academic negatively towards such religions.

This is what spawned the New Atheists in my view.  Sure, I think Lawrence Krauss is a twit but that's because of his arrogance more than anything else.  Sam Harris, by comparison, is someone I can listen to and often learn from or "get me to thinking".  He's a pretty thoughtful guy.

This leads to my core thought: Are the majority of scientists/academics truly "atheists" in the generalized sense most folks think of?  Do they truly believe that there's nothing but the material world and the associated laws of nature?  Perhaps they "believe" this but do they go so far as to truly feel intellectually justified in calling this a brute force fact?

I would suggest the honest ones do not and are not truly atheist but are agnostic.  Further, I would wager that many (some publicly as we know; and perhaps many privately) do have views/thoughts/questions/fears that are more metaphysical/spiritual in nature.  I would wager many have the same fear that Kam and I (and countless others!) have.

The handful of ardent atheists I have met really present their atheism as a belief not a fact.  Again, its the only intellectually honest ground they can stand upon.  I won't pretend to understand how they are at peace with such a belief, but a belief is all it is.

The surveys we've seen of scientists/academics always feels incomplete to me.  Questions like "Do you belief there is a God(s)?" or "Do you believe in life after death?" are too surface level.  A better survey would be one we could write on this community.  One that gets into parsing what they actually feel they "know" versus what they "believe".  Its the same banter I've used with Steve and other skeptics in the past:  Physicalism/Materialism is an "ism" whether you like it or not.  Instead of God (or whatever metaphysical construct) as the promissory note to what remains as yet "unknowable", Science is substituted.  It remains a system of belief and I'm not sure they all subscribe to it.

My two cents.