After years reflecting upon the controversy between "skeptics" and psi researchers, and given the insights of people like Chris Carter, I've concluded that the debate is ultimately philosophical and even (implicitly) theological: "Skeptics" are explicitly defending a materialistic-atheistic-impersonal worldview and "psi researchers" are defending (consciously or unconsciously) scientific evidence which entails a worldview centered in persons (spirits).
In atheistic materialism, "persons" are the pure by product of blind matter (which has evolved without purpose or direction), and questions like consciousness, psi phenomena, the afterlife, spirituality, intelligent design, objective purposes or values, souls, spirits and whatever other person-relative phenomenon is seen with hostility or at least with skepticism, since the fabric the reality (the ultimate elements of the universe) are impersonal or non-personal (i.e. purely mechanical).
In spiritualistic wordlviews (e.g. in theism), the fabric of reality is ultimately person-relative, namely, the material world is secondary to persons (e.g. to God's creation). The fabric of reality is a person or a bunch of persons (e.g. spirits, a spiritual realm, etc.) and the physical world is, at most, a place to learn and evolve spiritually.
It's essential to understand the above key features, because they explain the posture of "skeptics" and critics of "skeptics".
The "dogmatism in science" shown by skeptics is NOT dogmatism about science itself, but about the materialistic understanding of science which in turns support naturalism (which "skeptics" conflate with science itself). Skeptics see "science" as validating metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism, and this is why they hold firmly and agressively to "science". But when science is at variance with atheism, then "skeptics" reject science and adopt dogmatic anti-scientific positions (for example, when the evidence for the beginning of the universe points out to a cause external to the universe, "skeptics" become critics of the big bang model and argue that "science can change in the future", a position that they never would defend in biology regarding Neo-Darwinism, for example).
The ultimate motivation of contemporary "skeptics" is theological: they want to avoid a theistic worldview, and the evidence for person-relative properties (consciousness, causal efficacy of the mind, NDEs, afterlife evidence, intelligent design, spiritual phenomena, etc.) in this universe are too much like theism as to be accepted or countenanced by a metaphysical naturalistic (purely mechanistic and non-personal) understanding of the world.
It's the fear and hostility to theism which motive "skeptics" to attack the evidence provided by parapsychology and other disciplines at variance with atheistic naturalism.
First-rate atheist-naturalistic philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his book The Last Word, has noted this problem and he calls it the Cosmic Authority Problem: " I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world"
Note carefully that Nagel is not referring to organized religion (religions doctrines, practiques, etc.), but to THEISM (the worldview based on God's existence).
Most parapsychologists and psi researchers have not fully understood the point made by Nagel, because they're not trained philosophers. They believe (naively) that the scientific evidence for psi alone will destroy the skeptical case and will make the scholarly community convinced that psi is real. As seen in contemporary academy, it is not the case. Most scholars and intellectuals are skeptics of psi, despite the evidence. The reason is that most scholars are metaphysical naturalists, and this worldview (if true) makes antecedently very improbable the existence of person-relative phenomena as part of the fabric of reality (or, as Nagel says, the existence of "purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world").
Most naturalist scholars would agree with Richard Wiseman when he said that the parapsychologist's claims for the existence of ESP "meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim".
Since naturalism makes claims about the existence of psi and the afterlife "extraordinary", the positive evidence in favor of these phenomena is considered insufficient by the naturalist and he will stick to his skeptical position. Failing to understand this is failing to understand the atheistic-naturalistic mindset and Jime's Iron Law.
The key to destroy organized skepticism is to attack, with evidence and sound arguments, the metaphysical naturalistic and materialistic worldview.
In atheistic materialism, "persons" are the pure by product of blind matter (which has evolved without purpose or direction), and questions like consciousness, psi phenomena, the afterlife, spirituality, intelligent design, objective purposes or values, souls, spirits and whatever other person-relative phenomenon is seen with hostility or at least with skepticism, since the fabric the reality (the ultimate elements of the universe) are impersonal or non-personal (i.e. purely mechanical).
In spiritualistic wordlviews (e.g. in theism), the fabric of reality is ultimately person-relative, namely, the material world is secondary to persons (e.g. to God's creation). The fabric of reality is a person or a bunch of persons (e.g. spirits, a spiritual realm, etc.) and the physical world is, at most, a place to learn and evolve spiritually.
It's essential to understand the above key features, because they explain the posture of "skeptics" and critics of "skeptics".
The "dogmatism in science" shown by skeptics is NOT dogmatism about science itself, but about the materialistic understanding of science which in turns support naturalism (which "skeptics" conflate with science itself). Skeptics see "science" as validating metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism, and this is why they hold firmly and agressively to "science". But when science is at variance with atheism, then "skeptics" reject science and adopt dogmatic anti-scientific positions (for example, when the evidence for the beginning of the universe points out to a cause external to the universe, "skeptics" become critics of the big bang model and argue that "science can change in the future", a position that they never would defend in biology regarding Neo-Darwinism, for example).
The ultimate motivation of contemporary "skeptics" is theological: they want to avoid a theistic worldview, and the evidence for person-relative properties (consciousness, causal efficacy of the mind, NDEs, afterlife evidence, intelligent design, spiritual phenomena, etc.) in this universe are too much like theism as to be accepted or countenanced by a metaphysical naturalistic (purely mechanistic and non-personal) understanding of the world.
It's the fear and hostility to theism which motive "skeptics" to attack the evidence provided by parapsychology and other disciplines at variance with atheistic naturalism.
First-rate atheist-naturalistic philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his book The Last Word, has noted this problem and he calls it the Cosmic Authority Problem: " I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world"
Note carefully that Nagel is not referring to organized religion (religions doctrines, practiques, etc.), but to THEISM (the worldview based on God's existence).
Most parapsychologists and psi researchers have not fully understood the point made by Nagel, because they're not trained philosophers. They believe (naively) that the scientific evidence for psi alone will destroy the skeptical case and will make the scholarly community convinced that psi is real. As seen in contemporary academy, it is not the case. Most scholars and intellectuals are skeptics of psi, despite the evidence. The reason is that most scholars are metaphysical naturalists, and this worldview (if true) makes antecedently very improbable the existence of person-relative phenomena as part of the fabric of reality (or, as Nagel says, the existence of "purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world").
Most naturalist scholars would agree with Richard Wiseman when he said that the parapsychologist's claims for the existence of ESP "meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim".
Since naturalism makes claims about the existence of psi and the afterlife "extraordinary", the positive evidence in favor of these phenomena is considered insufficient by the naturalist and he will stick to his skeptical position. Failing to understand this is failing to understand the atheistic-naturalistic mindset and Jime's Iron Law.
The key to destroy organized skepticism is to attack, with evidence and sound arguments, the metaphysical naturalistic and materialistic worldview.
0 comments:
Post a Comment