NDE Research From a Christian Perspective (Podcast)

[ktb973]

Originally Posted by Topher Cooper

No false dichotomy. Many people have reported having the experience, and either they have or they haven't. If they have not had the experience (or at least remember having the experience) but say that they have, then they are lying. That's a true dichotomy. There are many things that might have caused the experiences if they are not lying about it, but that is a different issue -- and in fact the issue at hand and one worthy of scientific investigation.

Good point Topher. I stand corrected.

[ktb973]

Originally Posted by ktb973

Topher, I do enjoy reading your posts, although I don't agree with most of your conclusions.

Not everything that purports to be skepticism is skepticism. Closed-minded rejection of any alternatives to conventional beliefs is not skepticism. Skepticism of conventional beliefs is part of skepticism.


What are these conventional beliefs that skeptics reject? What are the alternatives to said conventional beliefs?

Pseudo-skepticism may do people good, of course -- it, like any religion, leads to emotional and social reinforcement from those who share ones beliefs, for example. A sense of certainty about what is true and what is false without the questions raised by real skepticism (i.e., doubt) is emotionally very satisfying. Knowing that you are a member of an Elite fighting for Truth, Justice and the Skeptical way against the forces of People Who Believe Bad Things is very emotionally buoying.


Say again?

I believe that inquiry about the universe is as worthwhile as any carpet. This is a fundamental value of something called science. Apparently, you don't understand science -- just practical engineering. Science believes that knowledge is useful for in its own right, it's not science without that value.

Let's get one thing straight and out of the way. Inquiry about the price of carpet IS more important than the universe. I paid much more for my carpet than I did for my inquiry for the universe last month.


I do understand the method of science. You're probably right about me only caring about the practical side of science. Oh and by the way, science doesn't believe anything.


I believe that trying to understand about the world, especially something of such fundamental personal importance as whether or not we survive bodily death, makes for a richer, fuller life. I believe that that is true even if I consider that the methods used or the conclusions reached by the person in question are ones I disagree with.

If I really believed that you felt that nothing that isn't useful to you for purchasing a carpet is worthwhile then I would pity you. But I don't.

Why do you have to pull the pseudo pity card? You might not agree with me so you might have to pity me??? Please don't talk down to me on this board.

Hopefully you are smart enough to realize that was a stupid sentence.

As for the previous paragraph... I don't really care if we survive past our bodily death or not. I have no problem with fading to black. As a matter of fact, it is a bit comforting to me to think that there is no life after death. Is that scientific? No. But its no less scientific than concluding that the search for life after death leads to a fuller and richer life.

I know I'm not using the quote feature correctly. I'm more of a computer guy than an internet guy. I'll have to figure that one out.

Yeah I know I blundered the first of that reply. I meant to ask what the conventional beliefs of skeptics were, and what were the alternatives. Pretty much the opposite of what I said.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by ktb973

Yeah I know I blundered the first of that reply. I meant to ask what the conventional beliefs of skeptics were, and what were the alternatives. Pretty much the opposite of what I said.

If you want to read about the conventional view of NDE's then check out this thread, poster Dr.B (Dr. Jason Braithwaite) gives a bit more detailed responses:

NDEs - JREF Forum

Also, this general entry:

near-death experiences (NDEs)

----------------------

[pacificwhim]

ktb973, I think you misunderstood what Topher was saying about pity. I believe he was saying that if you only thought scientific exploration was about making better material things that he would pity you, but that he doesn't think you believe that. So what you took as an insult appears to me to actually be a compliment, that you are probably a deeper person with a wider concept of what science should be about than the simple pursuit of a better iPod.

[Topher Cooper]

believe he was saying that if you only thought scientific exploration was about making better material things that he would pity you, but that he doesn't think you believe that.

Actually, I was saying something more extensive than that. I was saying that if he actually believed that only things that are practical are worthwhile -- if he, for example, didn't care at all what his carpet looked like as long as it muffled his footsteps and prevented his feet from getting cold -- then I would pity him. This would represent a pretty severe cognitive deficiency. But such a person would never bother to read, much less post to this forum. What would be the point? And they would never show such passion -- what use is passion? And I've never met anyone with any interest in science (or engineering, for that matter) without at least a fair dose of plain curiosity. So I take his "if it doesn't help me decide what carpet to buy its worthless" as a pose -- perhaps with a grain of truth for him, but clearly an exaggeration.

[daresh]

ktb973 says:

Oh and by the way, science doesn't believe anything.

I think this is rather a hard statement. Science has beliefs:
Most scientists assume that we can understand the world on a rational way and this is the only way to find the truth.
Another one: "fundamental physical laws do exist in the universe and do not change. Our understanding of those laws may be incorrect or incomplete."
Understanding implies again the idea of rationally understanding something...
Another assumption is the idea that you can objectivly observe something. Subject vs object dichotomy. These are all beliefs and there are more which shape the paradigma of science.

There are many assumptions/beliefs with scientists. I think the non emotional scientist who is objective without prior beliefs is pretty rare.
Ofcourse a distinction should be made between science as in following the scientific method, unbiased, only looking at the evidence and scientists. But scientists are human beings with beliefs who can also make mistakes and get very emotional about the things they believe in.
Dogmatism sadly also exists in science although it is against its very nature.

Greets,
Filip

[Topher Cooper]

This is just nit-picking. We use the term "science" to mean various different things. One of those things is an "institution" or an "enterprise". It is a commonplace, very useful convention to personify human institutions. Nobody bats an eye when someone says "GM has decided to emphasize a more fuel efficient vehicles this year" or "Wall Street's mood is expansive." Of course, GM cannot decide anything and Wall Street (neither the institution consisting of a large number of independent individuals and smaller institution nor the physical location where a smaller and smaller number of those individuals and institutions are located) is incapable of having a "mood". But it is useful to invoke our apparently in-born capacity to understand human beings in terms of goals, motives, alliances and, yes decisions, moods and even beliefs in understanding institutions. Science the institution acts like it believes things, even things that not every individual member of that institution (not all of whom are scientists, by the way) believes in.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

If you want to read about the conventional view of NDE's then check out this thread, poster Dr.B (Dr. Jason Braithwaite) gives a bit more detailed responses:

NDEs - JREF Forum

Also, this general entry:

near-death experiences (NDEs)

----------------------

Alex,

Would you consider having Dr. Jason Braithwaite as a guest on Skeptiko?

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Mike

Alex,

Would you consider having Dr. Jason Braithwaite as a guest on Skeptiko?

I second that ...!

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by daresh

ktb973 says:

I think this is rather a hard statement. Science has beliefs:
Most scientists assume that we can understand the world on a rational way and this is the only way to find the truth.
Another one: "fundamental physical laws do exist in the universe and do not change. Our understanding of those laws may be incorrect or incomplete."
Understanding implies again the idea of rationally understanding something...
Another assumption is the idea that you can objectivly observe something. Subject vs object dichotomy. These are all beliefs and there are more which shape the paradigma of science.

There are many assumptions/beliefs with scientists. I think the non emotional scientist who is objective without prior beliefs is pretty rare.
Ofcourse a distinction should be made between science as in following the scientific method, unbiased, only looking at the evidence and scientists. But scientists are human beings with beliefs who can also make mistakes and get very emotional about the things they believe in.
Dogmatism sadly also exists in science although it is against its very nature.

Greets,
Filip

Most of what you say I agree with. I would add that not all biases are bad and you want/need certain ones.