James Randi crosses over

Time will tell how future generations evaluate these things too.

The number of young people that look at Tarot cards and Astrology tells me Randi's impact will be largely inconsequential.

That being said I - and I believe most proponents - do want some skepticism applied to paranormal claims. But I think this can be done under the umbrella of something like the SPR as rooting out fraud was one of their self-appointed tasks.

We don't need militant skeptical organizations, which in any case seem to be dying out.

Militant skeptics do in a sense provide the greatest falsification for an idea. If you can gather so much evidence or make things so useful that it makes them and their arguments seem hila3iously stupid to the average person then you've won. If you reduce them to only making moralistic arguments then you've won so hard you can comfortably mock them the rest of the way to oblivion.

I’m inclined to think there are consequences for every decision we make, good and bad. I wouldn’t call it punishment per se.

No one has ever said the Universe being "spiritual", whatever that means, makes the day to day world disappear.

Your position has been criticized numerous times, and I've yet to see you mount a good defense. Of course some things are indefensible, like when you though[t] the fields of physics were something supernatural...

This is what never fails to amaze me about the so-called (and self-described) rationalists: it is black or white, religious or atheist, all material or all spiritual. While I subscribe to an idealist viewpoint I don't believe that the material world does not exist or is just imaginary. The material world, its laws and physics are as real as the mind which perceives them. 

Because physics cannot isolate little solid balls of matter at the sub-atomic level does not destroy the reality of the physical world. My feet don't pass through the floor and my hand does not pass though a wall if I happen to believe sub-atomic physics. I really struggle to understand why materialists find the concept of spirit so difficult to grasp. Substitute the word mind for spirit and it is explained (unless you are an eliminative materialist who believes that mind does not exist but in that case I have to wonder how they explain away what it is that believes such nonsense). 

Mind cannot be measured, has no mass, does not deflect the needle on any energy detection meter. Mind has no substance in material terms yet mind creates marvellous works of art, makes decisions about everything from what to have for lunch to whether to start the next World War. Most materialists will maintain that mind is a by-product of the material brain - an epiphenomenon - but they have yet to explain how that could be so. While idealists will argue that mind is fundamental so that question of how is moot. And if mind is fundamental then the notion of spirit is obvious and the question remains about why a material world is necessary at all. And that is a good question but one for another discussion.

The number of young people that look at Tarot cards and Astrology tells me Randi's impact will be largely inconsequential.

I can indeed verify that   , but there are also a lot of young people who love the cynical, pseudo-intellectual aspect of (pseudo)'skepticism' since it makes them look smart for being so 'logical' and 'rational' and 'scientific'. It was only the other day as I write this someone had commented in a thread on Instagram, on a post that was clearly a light hearted joke, that 'belief in the soul is scientifically ignorant'. Of course most people immediately mocked him or argued against him (including me, but he had already blocked the OP and other comment notifications so it was largely inconsequential), but his justification was based on a very childish understanding of philosophy and science, in that nothing he said actually backed up his argument in any way! 

But still it's very true that folks like Randi aren't going to have as much of an impact as some skeptics might think. Penn and Teller certainly didn't: their debunking show from the 2000s (ironically called Bullshit!) has aged horribly, especially when it came to the episodes on remote viewing, NDEs and even the Bible. You can tell alone from the summaries that they went into these subjects with a blatant bias against it and cherry-picked examples. I'd argue the Four Horsemen of New Atheism had more of an impact, but even now they're not taken that seriously anymore (besides maybe Sam Harris). 

Why can't there be an honest healthy balance between skepticism and belief in the media?

This is what never fails to amaze me about the so-called (and self-described) rationalists: it is black or white, religious or atheist, all material or all spiritual. While I subscribe to an idealist viewpoint I don't believe that the material world does not exist or is just imaginary. The material world, its laws and physics are as real as the mind which perceives them. 

Because physics cannot isolate little solid balls of matter at the sub-atomic level does not destroy the reality of the physical world. My feet don't pass through the floor and my hand does not pass though a wall if I happen to believe sub-atomic physics. I really struggle to understand why materialists find the concept of spirit so difficult to grasp. Substitute the word mind for spirit and it is explained (unless you are an eliminative materialist who believes that mind does not exist but in that case I have to wonder how they explain away what it is that believes such nonsense). 

Mind cannot be measured, has no mass, does not deflect the needle on any energy detection meter. Mind has no substance in material terms yet mind creates marvellous works of art, makes decisions about everything from what to have for lunch to whether to start the next World War. Most materialists will maintain that mind is a by-product of the material brain - an epiphenomenon - but they have yet to explain how that could be so. While idealists will argue that mind is fundamental so that question of how is moot. And if mind is fundamental then the notion of spirit is obvious and the question remains about why a material world is necessary at all. And that is a good question but one for another discussion.

Completely agree, Dave. It's absurd but there you are.

I can indeed verify that   , but there are also a lot of young people who love the cynical, pseudo-intellectual aspect of (pseudo)'skepticism' since it makes them look smart for being so 'logical' and 'rational' and 'scientific'. It was only the other day as I write this someone had commented in a thread on Instagram, on a post that was clearly a light hearted joke, that 'belief in the soul is scientifically ignorant'. Of course most people immediately mocked him or argued against him (including me, but he had already blocked the OP and other comment notifications so it was largely inconsequential), but his justification was based on a very childish understanding of philosophy and science, in that nothing he said actually backed up his argument in any way! 

But still it's very true that folks like Randi aren't going to have as much of an impact as some skeptics might think. Penn and Teller certainly didn't: their debunking show from the 2000s (ironically called Bullshit!) has aged horribly, especially when it came to the episodes on remote viewing, NDEs and even the Bible. You can tell alone from the summaries that they went into these subjects with a blatant bias against it and cherry-picked examples. I'd argue the Four Horsemen of New Atheism had more of an impact, but even now they're not taken that seriously anymore (besides maybe Sam Harris). 

Why can't there be an honest healthy balance between skepticism and belief in the media?

I much prefer the word evidence rather than belief, Omni. And I would also prefer the whole NDE 'bandwagon' to calm down a bit and keep the growing hysteria under control. Many people on internet groups are getting carried away with flamboyant psychobabble and making all kinds of claims as if they are facts. 

I read one woman's post in which she was talking about "earth years" as opposed to in the next world where there's no time (she said, she hadn't even been there, hadn't had an NDE but even if she had ? ). It's not hard to see it all turning into a circus and I don't want that to happen with the investigation of this very important subject. Little bit off topic that, though, pardon me.

I can indeed verify that   , but there are also a lot of young people who love the cynical, pseudo-intellectual aspect of (pseudo)'skepticism' since it makes them look smart for being so 'logical' and 'rational' and 'scientific'.

Most people don't interact with that stuff.

Population-wise it's just not a significant factor.

edit: New Atheism definitely had an impact, but Harris himself ended up as something of a Trojan Horse. He's the one with a Neuroscience PhD who said materialism is nonsensical, whose wife leans toward Panpsychism, and even invites Idealists to talk on his podcast.

I really struggle to understand why materialists find the concept of spirit so difficult to grasp. Substitute the word mind for spirit and it is explained (unless you are an eliminative materialist who believes that mind does not exist but in that case I have to wonder how they explain away what it is that believes such nonsense). 

It's probably off-putting to some since the term is associated with things like ghosts, souls and other supernatural terms that have often been linked to religious belief, which tend to result in harsh reactions. Condemning by association and all that.

It's probably off-putting to some since the term is associated with things like ghosts, souls and other supernatural terms that have often been linked to religious belief, which tend to result in harsh reactions. Condemning by association and all that.

Which is why I explained that by substituting the word "spirit" for "mind" the problem goes away. I get that spirit has either religious or darkened-room séance connotations which are best avoided but the word is also appropriate if we look into the etymology. Spirit - from the Latin for breath in the sense of the animating "breath of life" - that which gives inanimate matter life. While I feel that we should avoid giving the wrong impression, I don't think we should concede ground to those who choose to remain ignorant.