Skepticism and "A message from mom"

You've suspended my ignore status for this thread. Golly gee, aren't you magnanimous. Now if you would place me back on your ignore list.

I'd explain why you are on ignore but it is a waste of time. Actually, that is the explanation as to why you are on ignore.

I'm admittedly curious - do you wonder about skeptical thought processes because you think of them as some kind of gatekeepers, or out of simply curiosity?

Because the gatekeeper role, if it ever really existed, seems to be fast fading along with the movement's base. It's probably best to just to let the skeptical movement die out in peace.

It is something I've struggled to understand ever since I started posting my thoughts in forums such as this (mainly Skeptiko and here). And this is not the first time I've asked about it but I'm never really satisfied with the replies. Part of me is convinced that there is some kind of missionary zeal behind internet skepticism - look at the way skeptics have appropriated Wikipedia. Now that is the gatekeeper role you mentioned. But another part of me thinks, these are surely reasonable people so why is the approach to this subject so dogmatic? 

When I once asked Paul whether he really believes that not a single story or piece of evidence from the paranormal/spiritual/parapsychological canon could be true he confirmed that was his view. Steve001 will happily repeat the "120 years and no evidence" assertion over and over. I don't get why the evidence that is presented here, in thousands of books or in millions of personal anecdotes are rejected so readily and seemingly without consideration. It just smacks of religion to me. A blind reverence for a worldview that cannot allow a hint of the supernatural. That is not skepticism, it is dogma.

I can understand the preference for believing that all this paranormal stuff is pure BS if you have grown into a materialistic worldview since childhood. I can see how easily I could have taken that route. I can also see how and why such people might prefer to ignore what they consider to be BS - it just doesn't figure in their lives and should they be even slightly curious, a quick click on the Wikipedia entry will soon confirm their suspicions - still BS, of course. But the skeptics here are not disinterested, they are very interested otherwise they would not be here, camping out on a forum dedicated to all they hold contemptible. Again, I just don't understand the motivation unless it is missionary. I suspect that the notorious Lewontin rant is actually close to the hearts of many of those who dedicate time and energy to the eradication of the supernatural in all its guises.

I imagine a true skeptic would be someone that questions yet reserves all final judgements.

Not just to question, but to study something from all angles. This was certainly the view promoted by Dr. Raymond Moody, who after all studied and taught philosophy and understood the meaning of the term better than most, it was his home territory as it were.

I think it's fair to say that few self-described sceptics nowadays live up to those ideals. In fact some of the most prominent seem proud to fall short, glad to reject the ideal.

But still, after decades of Dr Moody living his ideal, more recently, and perhaps understandably after years of research, he has mellowed the strict adherence to a rigid system and tempered it with some measure of pragmatism. This is something he has only recently conceded.

Dr. Raymond Moody - I'm Convinced Consciousness Survives

Dr. Raymond Moody, who coined the term "near-death experience," offers an introduction to The University of Heaven with an overview of why after 50 years of skeptical inquiry, he is convinced that consciousness survives.

When I once asked Paul whether he really believes that not a single story or piece of evidence from the paranormal/spiritual/parapsychological canon could be true he confirmed that was his view. Steve001 will happily repeat the "120 years and no evidence" assertion over and over. I don't get why the evidence that is presented here, in thousands of books or in millions of personal anecdotes are rejected so readily and seemingly without consideration. It just smacks of religion to me. A blind reverence for a worldview that cannot allow a hint of the supernatural. That is not skepticism, it is dogma.

I think this can be illuminated by considering again scepticism in its unadulterated form.
A quote from Kenneth Ring:

Near-death experiences interest me for a wide variety of reasons.  One of them, however, is clearly this:  If even a single case of these described experiences is true and is to be taken at essentially face value, the ideology of materialism is plainly and demonstrably false.

source: https://ldsmag.com/astonishing-accounts-...-this-one/
note: above link has accounts of three NDEs from 1849, 1859 and 1889, worth reading.

The consequence of taking this sceptical stance is profound. It implies that materialism too must be placed under the sceptical microscope. It too must be questioned. It is no longer to be taken on trust. I think this is a step too far for most 'sceptics', a step they dare not take.

The consequence of taking this sceptical stance is profound. It implies that materialism too must be placed under the sceptical microscope. It too must be questioned. It is no longer to be taken on trust. I think this is a step too far for most 'sceptics', a step they dare not take.

Who are you talking about? I don't think anyone here is a materialist.

Linda

I think a true skeptic is someone who is willing to examine the data offered in support of a claim/idea, and who reserves judgement as to truth or falsity until the evidence dictates it. 

Please note that when I say "evidence" I'm not referring to it's casual use - data which supports a claim/idea. I'm referring to it's scientific use - data which makes a claim/idea more likely to be true or false.

Not just to question, but to study something from all angles. This was certainly the view promoted by Dr. Raymond Moody, who after all studied and taught philosophy and understood the meaning of the term better than most, it was his home territory as it were.

I think it's fair to say that few self-described sceptics nowadays live up to those ideals. In fact some of the most prominent seem proud to fall short, glad to reject the ideal.

But still, after decades of Dr Moody living his ideal, more recently, and perhaps understandably after years of research, he has mellowed the strict adherence to a rigid system and tempered it with some measure of pragmatism. This is something he has only recently conceded.

Dr. Raymond Moody - I'm Convinced Consciousness Survives

I don't keep up with Moody, so could you summarize or point to where in that long video he states the reason for mellowing?

I tend to think because what has already been presented to the "sceptics" (on these forums) down the decades (evidence wise) hasn't made the slightest bit of difference, their persona as (genuine) sceptics shouldn't be taken too seriously.

If they really wanted to be taken seriously, they would need to demonstrate (As Dave intimated) recognition that many of the case reports are impressive and defy scientific explanation. I think I remember Arouet saying something to his credit along the lines of "Yes, mind may be separate from the brain." I don't remember anything noteworthy from any of the others, though.

Would the forum really be improved if they changed or left altogether? Probably not because there wouldn't be any edge.  So the odds are that we'll just carry forever as we are until we're all dead...

Love that optimistic outlook, Tim.

Love that optimistic outlook, Tim.

Well I did think about adding on ...and gone to heaven, but they wouldn't believe it