The Good Place

I don't think its about changing my mind.  It may be my perception of you is inaccurate.  Being honest, I do not want to try and go through your posting history to draw out my point.  I thought it would be rather self evident.  You seem to be dismissive/closed/choose-your-favorite-descriptor of any idea that would fall outside the scientific materialist worldview.  I see that as dogmatic.


I wasn't speaking so much to any single statement but, again, to a sort of worldview perspective.  Presupposing that science will answer something it does not answer at present is not a evidence-based statement.  Its a faith based statement since you can't connect science's wonderful track record with so many things to those it has not yet tackled.  Otherwise you retract into the "there's nothing science can't ultimately explain" dogma.

Semantics aside of course.  Hopefully the point is evident.

You've complained skeptics use dogmatic perjoratively too much and by God both you and Dante used it in this thread. 

So Silence when you want answers what method do you use?

If I were a troll I'd put my 2 cents everywhere here. You don't see Dante that you never were privey to our private conversations. I bet not once have you ever thought to yourself why I'm rather firm in position. I'll put it this way. The only thing you know about my paranormal history is what I allow you to see.

Completely vague and nebulous allusions to you having some special access to the truth are no different than someone else claiming that they had an NDE and therefore know there’s an afterlife

Interesting the threads that get the juices flowing...

For some years I have deliberately made an effort not to preclude any philosophical position in any of my posts. Firstly, it makes sense to me to leave them all on the table (that's the most open-minded position, right?). Secondly, and more importantly it's just boring; eventually some wag will retreat to a (pseudo-profound ;) ) unanswerable question like, "Oh yeah? Well why is there something instead of nothing then?" At that point, depending on our bias, we might say well that's just "the nature of things", or that's how the "mind-at-large" arranges things and, despite the associated baggage,  we might even invoke "god". None of these answers is satisfactory to everyone, and none of them are particularly revelatory either. As Linda might say, none of them are "useful".

Pragmatically science works, no matter the nature of reality, just ask dean Radin or Rupert Sheldrake. I'd wager that the vast majority of scientists are not expending time and energy agonising over the metaphysical underpinnings of their reality whilst simply trying to get useful results (except, funnily enough, Radin and Sheldrake). "Shut up and calculate"? Sure, but "Keep talking and speculate" hasn't really moved us forward, however fun it might be.

Interesting the threads that get the juices flowing...

For some years I have deliberately made an effort not to preclude any philosophical position in any of my posts. Firstly, it makes sense to me to leave them all on the table (that's the most open-minded position, right?). Secondly, and more importantly it's just boring; eventually some wag will retreat to a (pseudo-profound ) unanswerable question like, "Oh yeah? Well why is there something instead of nothing then?" At that point, depending on our bias, we might say well that's just "the nature of things", or that's how the "mind-at-large" arranges things and, despite the associated baggage,  we might even invoke "god". None of these answers is satisfactory to everyone, and none of them are particularly revelatory either. As Linda might say, none of them are "useful".

Pragmatically science works, no matter the nature of reality, just ask dean Radin or Rupert Sheldrake. I'd wager that the vast majority of scientists are not expending time and energy agonising over the metaphysical underpinnings of their reality whilst simply trying to get useful results (except, funnily enough, Radin and Sheldrake). "Shut up and calculate"? Sure, but "Keep talking and speculate" hasn't really moved us forward, however fun it might be.

"Useful", "boring", "pseudo-profound", "agonising", "speculate" ... all your own words and all point to a kind of weary, uninterested approach. So if all this bores you so much, why comment at all? Why keep coming back? I'm quite happy that you choose to stay, by the way - please don't leave us with just Steve and Linda!

I don't dispute that science produces useful, practical results - I'm warm, well fed and probably alive because of those results so science is important to me. Yet the nature of reality is also important to me because, in my worldview, my life has a point. In my worldview, my life is not the result of some freakish combination of flukes. I want to think about what it means and discuss that with others. I can't just shrug and say "that's just the nature of things" any more than I can kneel and thank some old testament "god" for creating it all in seven days.

Why does this false dichotomy keep getting repeated, over and over again? To hold to a metaphysical position which is not materialism is not anti-science. We here, and others like us, are not science haters. Prominent atheists like Dawkins, Krauss and Tyson would love that to be the case - an easy target such as they have with evangelicals - but it is a lie. Moving us forward surely means more than how many transistors we can fit on a slice of silicon, doesn't it? Surely, if scientists started dropping their faithful adherence to materialism - as some appear to be doing with the acknowledgement among some that consciousness may, after all, be fundamental - then we might start to put the so-called paranormal into a category worthy of scientific investigation and the likes of Radin and Sheldrake might not be routinely ridiculed as cranks or pseudo-scientists.

By the way, I agree about the "juices" observation ... who would have thought a thread about a TV comedy would go this way? Should I start one on "Life on Mars"?

Why does this false dichotomy keep getting repeated, over and over again? To hold to a metaphysical position which is not materialism is not anti-science. We here, and others like us, are not science haters. Prominent atheists like Dawkins, Krauss and Tyson would love that to be the case - an easy target such as they have with evangelicals - but it is a lie. Moving us forward surely means more than how many transistors we can fit on a slice of silicon, doesn't it? Surely, if scientists started dropping their faithful adherence to materialism - as some appear to be doing with the acknowledgement among some that consciousness may, after all, be fundamental - then we might start to put the so-called paranormal into a category worthy of scientific investigation and the likes of Radin and Sheldrake might not be routinely ridiculed as cranks or pseudo-scientists.

In this instance I think we got on to the dichotomy because Silence characterised as faith-based "an appeal ... to the future findings of science to explain something currently beyond its grasp" and Steve001 responded by pointing to the track record of science. I'm guessing that was essentially a misunderstanding of what Silence meant. I assume he meant the faith of materialists that science would explain anomalous phenomena in materialistic terms.

In this instance I think we got on to the dichotomy because Silence characterised as faith-based "an appeal ... to the future findings of science to explain something currently beyond its grasp" and Steve001 responded by pointing to the track record of science. I'm guessing that was essentially a misunderstanding of what Silence meant. I assume he meant the faith of materialists that science would explain anomalous phenomena in materialistic terms.

Yes. What Chris said.

Why does this false dichotomy keep getting repeated, over and over again? To hold to a metaphysical position which is not materialism is not anti-science. We here, and others like us, are not science haters.

That and the mantra of the highly-specific nature of god which is regularly wheeled out, only to be refuted, then brought out again ... and is refuted again ...

That and the mantra of the highly-specific nature of god which is regularly wheeled out, only to be refuted, then brought out again ... and is refuted again ...

Yes. The g-word carries a lot of historical baggage. To avoid that, and further confusion, my advice would be to find an alternative. When someone who claims to be non-religious clings onto that word, it can look a bit slippery.

It doesn’t bother me, it might bother a Christian though. This is just PR advice; don’t be surprised at the response it might trigger.

Alternatively, if someone is deconstructing a god that isn’t yours, that post probably isn’t addressed to you, and can be ignored.

I have no idea what you mean.

Cast your mind back to the days when scientists believed things that we now know to not be true.  Can you really see scientists' conclusions being the same in years to come as they are now?   I don't understand why my post didn't make sense to you.

As Linda might say, none of them are "useful".

Just to clarify...

When I say "useful" I don't mean "gives us iPhones". It means it gives us knowledge which is progressive (as in "increasing", "ongoing", not "social reform"), distinguishes between ideas which are true or false, allows us to make predictions which are tightly constrained, generates novel information and observations...

Linda