Philomath
Sadhaka
Not unless Reincarnation/Rebirth counts as an afterlife.
Idk I thought it would be related to the question but I guess not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Logic and the Paranormal
- Thread starter George-ananda
- Start date
Not unless Reincarnation/Rebirth counts as an afterlife.
Idk I thought it would be related to the question but I guess not.
If it's reincarnation as in Hinduism then of course that counts. There is an afterlife experience between incarnations.
We're confusing each other I think.
Philomath
Sadhaka
I think so too lol
Agreed. But the question I've been asking is do you think that ALL phenomena (colloquially referred to as paranormal; ghosts, OBEs and a couple dozen other subjects) can be explained by mainstream science.
Hmm. Here's my brain's current beef with this: the paranormal is being defined similarly to a "god of the gaps." I'm not sure it's a good idea to define the paranormal in that fashion. There are certain phenomena classified as paranormal that are little more than pseudoscientific rubbish or science-denialist nonsense. Viewing the paranormal only as a gap-phenoman misses out on these cases.
Here's another beef my brain has with this: that something can be explained through empirical naturalism does not mean there are not plausible, alternative explanations. For example, that there is a psychological explanation for the efficacy of spellcraft does not necessarily mean there is not a 'paranormal' underpinning to the phenomena. Science is very good at being descriptive of reality, but it does so within strict limitations as established by its methodology. We should not take science to be prescriptive of reality, or as the only valid way of knowing.
Here's another beef my brain has with this: that something can be explained through empirical naturalism does not mean there are not plausible, alternative explanations. For example, that there is a psychological explanation for the efficacy of spellcraft does not necessarily mean there is not a 'paranormal' underpinning to the phenomena. Science is very good at being descriptive of reality, but it does so within strict limitations as established by its methodology. We should not take science to be prescriptive of reality, or as the only valid way of knowing.
I don't think all phenomena need be explained by science, but that's not what you ask. You ask about scientism. No, I don't subscribe to scientism.
I have no beef with your beefs.
This is getting deeper than my intent which was challenging the attitude of the hard-core skeptic that ALL this stuff traditionally called 'paranormal' ultimately has an explanation in phenomena already known to science.
I obviously didn't do a good job of keeping this simple.
Scientism : I learned a new word today. My spell-checker doesn't even know that word.
I think paranormality is rather simpler than much of this discussion suggests: it's the class of macro-phenomena which cannot exist independently of the observer.
The problem then is that since they cannot be replicated by just anyone matching the external circumstances of the last event, they are dismissed by the empiricists automatically.
But there is no reason why such events should not exist, should not form recognizable patterns, and should not be taken on faith.
Note I say on faith still -- exactly because they cannot be replicated at will by their very nature.
The problem then is that since they cannot be replicated by just anyone matching the external circumstances of the last event, they are dismissed by the empiricists automatically.
But there is no reason why such events should not exist, should not form recognizable patterns, and should not be taken on faith.
Note I say on faith still -- exactly because they cannot be replicated at will by their very nature.
Pretty deep. I'd like to understand better as time goes along.
I'm marking you down for my side on the George-Ananda vs. Hard-Core-Skeptic tally.
^Excellent. I think you got exactly what I was trying to say. 
For the record I have no certain knowledge that many reported paranormal effects are real as opposed to delusion. But for two reasons: (1) my own weak hunches and occasional flashes of insight (lucky guesses to the skeptic) and (2) my sense of ethics and necessity to make sense of the problem of evil -- I choose to believe in something we may as well call the holy spirit. Not to be confused, of course, with anything necessarily worshippable as a god or set of gods and indeed in any other meaning of the word "worship".
For the record I have no certain knowledge that many reported paranormal effects are real as opposed to delusion. But for two reasons: (1) my own weak hunches and occasional flashes of insight (lucky guesses to the skeptic) and (2) my sense of ethics and necessity to make sense of the problem of evil -- I choose to believe in something we may as well call the holy spirit. Not to be confused, of course, with anything necessarily worshippable as a god or set of gods and indeed in any other meaning of the word "worship".
Ah, don't blame yourself. We've just got too many big thinkers around on RF. Trying to get them to think inside the box you want them us to is like herding cats, no?
That aside, there are likely always going to be people whose worldview is not accommodating to other perspectives. I have to confess I don't like how the term "skeptic" has become a phrase applied to what appears to be an uncompromising position against certain types of ideas. That's not skepticism, that's dogmatism (or in this case, scientism, which is an ironically non-scientific philosophy).
^^ High five and a frubal for that!
Skepticism means taking a questioning attitude. I am an open-minded skeptic myself.
The word is getting hijacked by people with dogmatic allegiance to materialist-atheism. They don't realize how much they resemble the dogmatic fundamentalist Christians they despise.
(oops, no frubal. I have to spread it around more. But it won't be to one of those *^*#^ skeptics.)
Last edited:
You know you're a bona-fide skeptic when:
1) When posting on a New Age forum, people accuse you of being a closed-minded scientific materialist because you dare to question their mumbo jumbo.
2) When posting on a skeptics forum, people accuse you of being a brains-falling-out New Age nutter because you dare to question their philosophical scientism.
True story. I've had it happen. And it's freaking hilarious to me every time. Sometimes I've had this happen in separate threads in the same forum. For some of them, I swear I can hear their brains explode when I tell them I'm both a trained scientist and *gasp* a religious mystic.
1) When posting on a New Age forum, people accuse you of being a closed-minded scientific materialist because you dare to question their mumbo jumbo.
2) When posting on a skeptics forum, people accuse you of being a brains-falling-out New Age nutter because you dare to question their philosophical scientism.
True story. I've had it happen. And it's freaking hilarious to me every time. Sometimes I've had this happen in separate threads in the same forum. For some of them, I swear I can hear their brains explode when I tell them I'm both a trained scientist and *gasp* a religious mystic.
Even pixies. :yes:
Erebus
Well-Known Member
I thought you were saying something along those lines, but thanks for clarifying.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a bit infuriating though and say I half agree with you. I do think that every so often something crops up that would be impossible to adequately explain with what is currently known. Unfortunately it's also impossible to determine which of the various paranormal stories out there fall into this category.
Odds are if you experience something paranormal/supernatural you're not going to have the time and concentration to video/film it. Therefore what other people have to go on is word of mouth which is unreliable at best. If you do film it/take photos that footage is going to be a drop in an ocean of fakes, camera flares and images of something perfectly normal taking an unexpected form (Jesus in the clouds, an oarfish breaking the water's surface, light reflected from an animal's eyes etc). There are very few photographs of ghosts and so forth that I don't immediately attribute to one of these. Those rare few that might be the genuine article are still highly suspect and still largely unusable as a serious form of empirical evidence.
All of that combined makes me sympathetic towards those who are skeptical. With all the flaws I've mentioned (and plenty more I haven't) I can absolutely understand why people would consider all those thousands of stories to be due to a combination of fakes, wishful thinking, overactive imaginations, misinterpreted natural phenomena, embellished stories and outright lies. Until they see something for themselves why should they believe it?
And that's where I part ways with the nonbelievers (which is a word I hate by the way. Makes me feel like a fundamentalist nutjob) because I have seen it for myself. Now, intellectually I've run through all the possible ways that I might not have experienced what I thought I did. Doesn't change the fact that deep down it made me a believer and it gave me a lot more respect and wonder for the world we live in.
We know very little about the world and its possibilities. I suspect a lot of actual scientists and skeptics acknowledge that and are excited by it. It's the Wikipedia scientists and firm adherents of scientism that seem to think there's no room for anything new.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
So your "argument" works as long as you have really big numbers, but fails when it comes down to specifics?
So you do not have a single specific to support your "argument" because your "argument" only works with really big numbers?
And you claim that your "logic" isn't being grasped?
The old trick of trying to equate the ridiculous with the sublime. :yes: