Faith in our Lives and the Damage of Ridicule

[Mickdrew]

In this sub-forum, a user named "ether-ore" made a thread entitled "The Nature of Faith"
In his opening post, ether outlined how faith was not reasonless, and did have some foundation. His view can be summed up using the following quote from Paul:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
You can read the rest here: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-nature-of-faith.179132/

I agree with the OP to a surprising degree - or at the very least, I agree with what is being hinted at.

The quote from Paul seems to speak to the hope for currently non-existing evidence; which is what I would associate faith with. In short, it is wishful thinking, it is the hope that future events and evidence will ultimately reveal the truth of what you believe in.

This is one area where I think the New Atheism movement is misguided in how they handle the concept of faith. Don't get me wrong, by any logical standard, faith is of course invalid, and not recommended. It lends undue credence to our wishes and feelings, and prioritizes their continued belief even if it potentially comes into conflict with what is thought to be the truth. A person is permitted to use their own credulity and limited imagination to seek shelter in a familiar belief, rather than coping with an uncomfortable reality. This is especially not recommended when you realize that faith is being used to understand the purpose of life, and our own place in this world. Such a crucial and enlightening argument should not be crippled by our emotionally-based hopes and beliefs.

And yet, and yet! I can't help but think that the current campaign against the idea of faith is only damaging any progress in this discussion. No matter what you may believe, faith is part of all our lives. I simply do not accept it when atheists claim that their lives are entirely reason and evidence-based. How many times have you found your life falling apart, or were the victims of unfortunate events? Did you not persevere under the assumption that things would improve, and that you might reach happiness once more? Many might claim that they thought this way for logical reasons, but it goes beyond rational arguments. We all look forward towards our futures with the unfounded hope that life will go well for us, and we will find happiness. This is not a probability calculation. Apologies, my unbelieving friends, but humans are not calculating automatons. We wish for things irrationally and emotionally whether we want to or not. This instinct can be called many things: but it might be easiest to label it as the "human spirit": our ability to wishfully work towards a positive result.

This is why I think the ridicule that is levelled at people of faith is damaging - because they are related in many way. To attack a person's faith is to attack the root of a person's optimism, their hopes, their ambitions, their drives to do best in life even if the rationale behind such positions are not logically thought out. It is something we all have to greater or lesser degrees because it is in our nature as evolved primates.

I am not trying to argue that this vindicates faith in theological or philosophical debates. As I said earlier, I do not think this impulse should be relied upon when considering such an important issue - whether it is for personal beliefs or public discourse. I am simply saying that much greater caution and delicacy needs to be used when arguing against religious people for this reason. As is so often the case, the confidence of many atheists has ripened into condescending arrogance. It must be remembered that when you show contempt for a person's faith, you are in a very real sense showing contempt for a part of their spirit, and consequently of their lives.

Thoughts?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In this sub-forum, a user named "ether-ore" made a thread entitled "The Nature of Faith"
In his opening post, ether outlined how faith was not reasonless, and did have some foundation. His view can be summed up using the following quote from Paul:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
You can read the rest here: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-nature-of-faith.179132/

I agree with the OP to a surprising degree - or at the very least, I agree with what is being hinted at.

The quote from Paul seems to speak to the hope for currently non-existing evidence; which is what I would associate faith with. In short, it is wishful thinking, it is the hope that future events and evidence will ultimately reveal the truth of what you believe in.

This is one area where I think the New Atheism movement is misguided in how they handle the concept of faith. Don't get me wrong, by any logical standard, faith is of course invalid, and not recommended. It lends undue credence to our wishes and feelings, and prioritizes their continued belief even if it potentially comes into conflict with what is thought to be the truth. A person is permitted to use their own credulity and limited imagination to seek shelter in a familiar belief, rather than coping with an uncomfortable reality. This is especially not recommended when you realize that faith is being used to understand the purpose of life, and our own place in this world. Such a crucial and enlightening argument should not be crippled by our emotionally-based hopes and beliefs.

And yet, and yet! I can't help but think that the current campaign against the idea of faith is only damaging any progress in this discussion. No matter what you may believe, faith is part of all our lives. I simply do not accept it when atheists claim that their lives are entirely reason and evidence-based. How many times have you found your life falling apart, or were the victims of unfortunate events? Did you not persevere under the assumption that things would improve, and that you might reach happiness once more? Many might claim that they thought this way for logical reasons, but it goes beyond rational arguments. We all look forward towards our futures with the unfounded hope that life will go well for us, and we will find happiness. This is not a probability calculation. Apologies, my unbelieving friends, but humans are not calculating automatons. We wish for things irrationally and emotionally whether we want to or not. This instinct can be called many things: but it might be easiest to label it as the "human spirit": our ability to wishfully work towards a positive result.

This is why I think the ridicule that is levelled at people of faith is damaging - because they are related in many way. To attack a person's faith is to attack the root of a person's optimism, their hopes, their ambitions, their drives to do best in life even if the rationale behind such positions are not logically thought out. It is something we all have to greater or lesser degrees because it is in our nature as evolved primates.

I am not trying to argue that this vindicates faith in theological or philosophical debates. As I said earlier, I do not think this impulse should be relied upon when considering such an important issue - whether it is for personal beliefs or public discourse. I am simply saying that much greater caution and delicacy needs to be used when arguing against religious people for this reason. As is so often the case, the confidence of many atheists has ripened into condescending arrogance. It must be remembered that when you show contempt for a person's faith, you are in a very real sense showing contempt for a part of their spirit, and consequently of their lives.

Thoughts?

We all believe in something. Condescending arrogance comes from denying one's own faith.

Blind faith.. faith which does not acknowledge itself.

 

[Laika]

This is why I think the ridicule that is levelled at people of faith is damaging - because they are related in many way. To attack a person's faith is to attack the root of a person's optimism, their hopes, their ambitions, their drives to do best in life even if the rationale behind such positions are not logically thought out. It is something we all have to greater or lesser degrees because it is in our nature as evolved primates

I actually agree with this, even as an atheist. We tend to forget the "emotional" pull of an idea is what makes it attractive. By discounting that, we discount an element of who we are as people. This is not a question of "spirit" however, but one of psychology. the better we understand the way people can achieve fulfillment, the better able we are to find ideas that can take us in this direction. the error in faith is not in feeling, but in investing our emotions into something with either is not true or cannot be demonstrated as such.
it is however an art form to navigate the emotional and rational boundaries, and this is something which atheists have often failed to take into account if they sincerely want to deconvert people. assulting people with "facts" does not help atheism, but finding ways to help people release they do not need to be saved but can save themselves can be a liberation from religion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Blind faith.. faith which does not acknowledge itself.

No, blind faith is based on wishful thinking rather than evidence and experience. Self-delusion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It must be remembered that when you show contempt for a person's faith, you are in a very real sense showing contempt for a part of their spirit, and consequently of their lives.

This sounds rather over-sensitive to me. Are people really so emotionally fragile that they can't cope with their beliefs being challenged? And why do people get so precious about their religious beliefs, we don't act like a victim when people challenge our political beliefs or whatever.

Maybe the real problem is that the beliefs themselves are too fragile.

 

[Sunstone]

I am intrigued by Sam Harris' argument that thinking faith is respectable, even in reasonable contexts, helps to make possible the sort of reasoning by which an atrocity is justified as required by or necessary to ones faith.

 

[George-ananda]

I have to question the assumption in the OP that there is no evidence for faith/belief. Let's take Christianity for example. There is considerable evidence (not proof) that we do live in a mysterious universe far beyond our understanding. Early Christians were eyewitnesses or heard from eyewitnesses directly. Since then, many (myself included) have been persuaded that something interesting is indeed going on through scores of miracles and probably millions of paranormal events. And many of these have religious contexts with Christian saints and even Mary involved. These things do provide rational fortification for faith.

 

[Mickdrew]

First off, soooooo sorry for not being here for a year xD
I seriously never checked here until now - even though I intended to this whole time haha

This sounds rather over-sensitive to me. Are people really so emotionally fragile that they can't cope with their beliefs being challenged? And why do people get so precious about their religious beliefs, we don't act like a victim when people challenge our political beliefs or whatever.

Maybe the real problem is that the beliefs themselves are too fragile.

This varies from person to person, but it is true for many depending on how much they identify their lives with their religion. Islam, for example, expects you to frame your entire life around its religion - so those people certainly exist.
It would be interesting to discuss whether this sensitivity to criticism is a sign of a religions weakness (I think I'd at least agree it may be a sign of their insecurity).

Even if what you say is true, my point is that those stronger believers should be treated more delicately if you wish to help them see a new perspective.

I have to question the assumption in the OP that there is no evidence for faith/belief. Let's take Christianity for example. There is considerable evidence (not proof) that we do live in a mysterious universe far beyond our understanding. Early Christians were eyewitnesses or heard from eyewitnesses directly. Since then, many (myself included) have been persuaded that something interesting is indeed going on through scores of miracles and probably millions of paranormal events. And many of these have religious contexts with Christian saints and even Mary involved. These things do provide rational fortification for faith.

I wouldn't take that as reliable justification. The problem is that there has never been evidence for supernatural phenomena that can be demonstrated. Many times, these experiences are witnessed by individuals with no way to verify the claims.

As Hume has said (and Hitchens often repeats): "Which is more likely; that the laws of nature have been suspended, and in a manner of your choosing, or that you quite simply made a mistake?"
This alone leads me to assume that there is no paranormal realm which regularly interacts with us. If I ever come to change my mind on that, I will need very convincing evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

I wouldn't take that as reliable justification. The problem is that there has never been evidence for supernatural phenomena that can be demonstrated. Many times, these experiences are witnessed by individuals with no way to verify the claims.

Nobody has ever really had an encounter with what we call 'the supernatural'??? No sane modern person has truly seen a ghost or some contact with something real and beyond the reach of current science? And then I can get into 15 other types of phenomena too; including serious studies by western scientists and even controlled experiments showing something not understood (beyond the normal) is occurring.

As Hume has said (and Hitchens often repeats): "Which is more likely; that the laws of nature have been suspended, and in a manner of your choosing, or that you quite simply made a mistake?"
This alone leads me to assume that there is no paranormal realm which regularly interacts with us. If I ever come to change my mind on that, I will need very convincing evidence.

The laws of nature do not need to be suspended for the supernatural to occur. There are other forces not understood by current science also at play in these occurrences. The 'supernatural' is really still the 'natural' in an expanded understanding of the universe.

 

[Mickdrew]

Nobody has ever really had an encounter with what we call 'the supernatural'??? No sane modern person has truly seen a ghost or some contact with something real and beyond the reach of current science? And then I can get into 15 other types of phenomena too; including serious studies by western scientists and even controlled experiments showing something not understood (beyond the normal) is occurring.

I would say that no convincing evidence of a supernatural encounter has ever been presented. All evidence I've come across has been circumstantial and/or anecdotal.
If you have serious scientific studies that do show more credible evidence, I would love to see them.
However, saying something is not yet understood in a study is not the same as saying it is "beyond the normal" - that's just syntactic ambiguity. There have been many cases where something was not yet understood at the time, but a naturalistic explanation was found sometime later. Following your logic, disease would have been something "beyond the normal" prior to the discovery of bacteria and the Germ Theory.

The simple fact is that no reputable scientific organization in the world has acknowledged the existence of the paranormal or the spiritual. That is not because scientists "are too close minded or ignorant", but because no compelling evidence exists. Believe it or not, the smartest people in the world whose entire lives are dedicated towards understanding the universe would not ignore evidence of the supernatural because they want to pretend it doesn't exist.

The laws of nature do not need to be suspended for the supernatural to occur. There are other forces not understood by current science also at play in these occurrences. The 'supernatural' is really still the 'natural' in an expanded understanding of the universe.

The word "supernatural" literally means "above the natural", so of course it goes beyond the natural world.
Claiming that supernatural is any knowledge of the universe that isn't scientifically known is changing the definition - because as I mentioned before, previous unknowns like disease had a perfectly valid and naturalistic explanations.

Concepts you've named would break the laws of nature. Let's take the existence of spirits or ghosts.
These are non-corporeal beings in a non-physical plain of existence. If they are non-corporeal, then are they bound by gravity or the laws of motion?
Supernaturalists would say that they are not, but that means they are not connected to the Earth by gravity or inertia as it rotates 1600 km/hr at the equator, or 100,000 km/hr as it orbits the sun. This means that any spirit would need to be travelling counter to both of these just to stay in one spot relative to us on Earth watching them - otherwise they would be left behind in barren space.

 

[George-ananda]

I would say that no convincing evidence of a supernatural encounter has ever been presented. All evidence I've come across has been circumstantial and/or anecdotal.

And my considered opinion is that the evidence does support the existence of the so-called paranormal beyond reasonable doubt.

If you have serious scientific studies that do show more credible evidence, I would love to see them.

I hear that from non-believers all the time, but too often they are really only interested in attacking claims and defending their worldview (as opposed to open-minded consideration). I hope you are one of the fair-minded types.

Well, here's a list of some things I have found convincing; Paranormal Phenomena . The cumulative weight of all this leads me to believe in an afterlife beyond all reasonable doubt. I could go on with Dr. Gary Schwartz's triple-blind testing of alleged gifted mediums.

However, saying something is not yet understood in a study is not the same as saying it is "beyond the normal" - that's just syntactic ambiguity. There have been many cases where something was not yet understood at the time, but a naturalistic explanation was found sometime later. Following your logic, disease would have been something "beyond the normal" prior to the discovery of bacteria and the Germ Theory.

The simple fact is that no reputable scientific organization in the world has acknowledged the existence of the paranormal or the spiritual. That is not because scientists "are too close minded or ignorant", but because no compelling evidence exists. Believe it or not, the smartest people in the world whose entire lives are dedicated towards understanding the universe would not ignore evidence of the supernatural because they want to pretend it doesn't exist.


The word "supernatural" literally means "above the natural", so of course it goes beyond the natural world.
Claiming that supernatural is any knowledge of the universe that isn't scientifically known is changing the definition - because as I mentioned before, previous unknowns like disease had a perfectly valid and naturalistic explanations.

What is colloquially called paranormal is really just the normal in an expanded view of reality as contained for example in eastern/Indian religions.

Concepts you've named would break the laws of nature. Let's take the existence of spirits or ghosts.
These are non-corporeal beings in a non-physical plain of existence. If they are non-corporeal, then are they bound by gravity or the laws of motion?
Supernaturalists would say that they are not, but that means they are not connected to the Earth by gravity or inertia as it rotates 1600 km/hr at the equator, or 100,000 km/hr as it orbits the sun. This means that any spirit would need to be travelling counter to both of these just to stay in one spot relative to us on Earth watching them - otherwise they would be left behind in barren space.

Spirits are from a plane of nature beyond our familiar three-dimensions. With effort on their part they can semi or fully materialize into our plane of nature.

 

[Mickdrew]

And my considered opinion is that the evidence does support the existence of the so-called paranormal beyond reasonable doubt.

Finding stuff to confirm your position is very easy. The internet is ready to convince you anything you want to hear. Go Google for testimony that Hitler survived WW2 - I'm sure you will find very convincing evidence that people have pieced together.
What's harder is finding credible sources of information. It's difficult to find any reliable and accurate information on the internet these days because of how much nonsense there is.

I hear that from non-believers all the time, but too often they are really only interested in attacking claims and defending their worldview (as opposed to open-minded consideration). I hope you are one of the fair-minded types.

Well, here's a list of some things I have found convincing; Paranormal Phenomena . The cumulative weight of all this leads me to believe in an afterlife beyond all reasonable doubt. I could go on with Dr. Gary Schwartz's triple-blind testing of alleged gifted mediums.

Well, there might be a reason why some people have trouble accepting this beyond their own stubbornness. When I ask for "credible evidence", I am expecting to receive scientific studies published in respected peer-reviewed journals. What one person's views or ideas are on how something works or what has happened is meaningless - all that matters is what scientific evidence has been published on the paranormal in respected peer-reviewed journals.
The link you've given me is to a website written by a lawyer - not a scientific study, and not even a scientist.
Yes, I know he quotes scientists that support his views on the paranormal, but again, what a person's views happens to be is not important. Scientists, lawyers, cooks, teachers, astronauts are all free to believe whatever they want - all that matters is what scientific literature says, and what the peer-review process says about its methodology and whether it can be replicated.

And Dr. Gary Schwartz's contribution does little on this as well because his studies and experiments on this were published in a book - which isn't peer-reviewed and isn't a respected journal.
This same trick done by Dr. Schwartz has been done numerous times by countless psuedo-experts wishing to present evidence for something, but not willing to have their findings be challenged.
Here is a link to a "study" done by Dr. John C. Willke showing that women do not get pregnant if they are legitimately raped. Now, of course this statement is absolute nonsense and not endorsed by any respectable body of medical expert in the entire world, but all Dr. Willke has to do is publish these "findings" in a book titled 'Why Can't We Love them Both?', and he doesn't have to worry about any of his results being fact-checked.
Similarly, Dr. Schwartz's book has been heavily criticized as not measuring up to scientific standards.

 

[sun rise]

A few notes:

Faith is a tricky word. I may have faith that a peer-reviewed, respected journal article is correct but we've seen over and over that in many cases it's been faked so my faith was wrong. I may have faith that a doctor with a degree from a respected school and many years of successful practice correctly diagnoses my condition, but the doctor might be wrong. So faith can be misplaced no matter what the object of faith happens to be.

Also, because something is the logical does not necessarily mean that it's true http://www.psychologicalscience.org...nline/what-is-logical-is-not-always-true.html discuss this

Also what is proven in a high quality journal could be wrong as we've seen over and over especially in medicine but also physics. A title I find fun illustrates this (substitute faith for hope here): NASA’s EM Drive Passes Peer Review, But Don’t Get Your Hopes Up

I deliberately did not mention "Faith" above because I wanted to note that "faith" itself is indeed limited but so is our scientific knowledge.

 

[Mickdrew]

A few notes:

Faith is a tricky word. I may have faith that a peer-reviewed, respected journal article is correct but we've seen over and over that in many cases it's been faked so my faith was wrong. I may have faith that a doctor with a degree from a respected school and many years of successful practice correctly diagnoses my condition, but the doctor might be wrong. So faith can be misplaced no matter what the object of faith happens to be.

Also, because something is the logical does not necessarily mean that it's true http://www.psychologicalscience.org...nline/what-is-logical-is-not-always-true.html discuss this

Also what is proven in a high quality journal could be wrong as we've seen over and over especially in medicine but also physics. A title I find fun illustrates this (substitute faith for hope here): NASA’s EM Drive Passes Peer Review, But Don’t Get Your Hopes Up

I deliberately did not mention "Faith" above because I wanted to note that "faith" itself is indeed limited but so is our scientific knowledge.

I don't think anyone should operate under the assumption that the scientific method is infallible. It's a process done by humans, and humans are flawed - so of course there will be flaws with the method.
The best that can be done is to develop a system that ensure mistakes will be corrected, or errors will become obvious over time. This is what the scientific method is designed to do.

6:49 on in this video explains it well.

 

[sun rise]

I don't think anyone should operate under the assumption that the scientific method is infallible. It's a process done by humans, and humans are flawed - so of course there will be flaws with the method.
The best that can be done is to develop a system that ensure mistakes will be corrected, or errors will become obvious over time. This is what the scientific method is designed to do.

6:49 on in this video explains it well.

Yes, I'm familiar with falsification. It's part of the argument I've read about whether string theory is scientific or not.

And it was part of a discussion I've been involved with about reincarnation http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...e-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/ being a good discussion of the research of Ian Stevenson.

 

[George-ananda]

Finding stuff to confirm your position is very easy. The internet is ready to convince you anything you want to hear. Go Google for testimony that Hitler survived WW2 - I'm sure you will find very convincing evidence that people have pieced together.
What's harder is finding credible sources of information. It's difficult to find any reliable and accurate information on the internet these days because of how much nonsense there is.

I think there are skeptics too on the internet who are just out to defend a position. Certainly all of us need to consider the quality of the source. I know I do.

Well, there might be a reason why some people have trouble accepting this beyond their own stubbornness. When I ask for "credible evidence", I am expecting to receive scientific studies published in respected peer-reviewed journals. What one person's views or ideas are on how something works or what has happened is meaningless - all that matters is what scientific evidence has been published on the paranormal in respected peer-reviewed journals.
The link you've given me is to a website written by a lawyer - not a scientific study, and not even a scientist.
Yes, I know he quotes scientists that support his views on the paranormal, but again, what a person's views happens to be is not important. Scientists, lawyers, cooks, teachers, astronauts are all free to believe whatever they want - all that matters is what scientific literature says, and what the peer-review process says about its methodology and whether it can be replicated.
And Dr. Gary Schwartz's contribution does little on this as well because his studies and experiments on this were published in a book - which isn't peer-reviewed and isn't a respected journal.
This same trick done by Dr. Schwartz has been done numerous times by countless psuedo-experts wishing to present evidence for something, but not willing to have their findings be challenged

Do you know there are many peer-reviewed articles on parapsychology. Here's a selected list. A peer-reviewed paper does not prove or disprove anything about the nature of the universe. I don't know about you, but again and again the materialist/skeptics on here talk about peer reviewed papers as if that is what they read all the time.

Here is a link to a "study" done by Dr. John C. Willke showing that women do not get pregnant if they are legitimately raped. Now, of course this statement is absolute nonsense and not endorsed by any respectable body of medical expert in the entire world, but all Dr. Willke has to do is publish these "findings" in a book titled 'Why Can't We Love them Both?', and he doesn't have to worry about any of his results being fact-checked.

That is why we shouldn't believe everything we read but consider everything.

Similarly, Dr. Schwartz's book has been heavily criticized as not measuring up to scientific standards.

Do you scrutinize the opinions of his critics or take them as what you want to hear? There are numerous skeptical societies out there that are not really skeptics (which is an honorable approach) but really no-holds barred defenders of atheistic-materialism masquerading under the label 'skeptics'. That is my considered opinion after decades of study. I have seen Schwartz's response to his critics and they are very intelligent. The experiments he does are very simple for a layman to understand (in the case of the gifted psychics tested in triple-blind conditions)

 

[sun rise]

Also a bit of looking found a good discussion about the limits of falsification without denying that it has value http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/falsification-and-its-discontents/

 

[sun rise]

I think there are skeptics too on the internet who are just out to defend a position. Certainly all of us need to consider the quality of the source. I know I do...

... There are numerous skeptical societies out there that are not really skeptics (which is an honorable approach) but really no-holds barred defenders of atheistic-materialism masquerading under the label 'skeptics'.

The history of science if full of such examples which leads to the true "joke" that for an idea to be accepted a generation of experts has to die.

 

[Mickdrew]

And it was part of a discussion I've been involved with about reincarnation http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...e-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/ being a good discussion of the research of Ian Stevenson.

I had not heard of Ian Stevenson and his work before today, and am busy reading up on his story as I type this.
He's a very fascinating case, and the controversy surrounding his work is interesting. The idea that his work has not been looked into seems to be false, however. A few investigations have analyzed his findings, and they seem to say more about the psychological bias of living rather than anything else.

Do you know there are many peer-reviewed articles on parapsychology. Here's a selected list. A peer-reviewed paper does not prove or disprove anything about the nature of the universe. I don't know about you, but again and again the materialist/skeptics on here talk about peer reviewed papers as if that is what they read all the time.

I've seen that link. It's one of the first links you get when you google peer reviewed papers for the paranormal. But no one could claim the studies in that list could support the paranormal. I've looked through several of them.
And once again, composing a list of vague studies is another favorite trope by psuedoscientists.
Examples for homeopathy and vaccines causing autism.

Go to any scientific database and search for papers relating to the paranormal - the great majority of them deal with studying the confirmation bias that leads to their continued belief or the errors done when studies show a tentative link.

Do you scrutinize the opinions of his critics or take them as what you want to hear? There are numerous skeptical societies out there that are not really skeptics (which is an honorable approach) but really no-holds barred defenders of atheistic-materialism masquerading under the label 'skeptics'. That is my considered opinion after decades of study. I have seen Schwartz's response to his critics and they are very intelligent. The experiments he does are very simple for a layman to understand (in the case of the gifted psychics tested in triple-blind conditions)

I will only say as I did before: no reputable scientific organization in the world supports the existence of the paranormal.
It is not their bias or ignorance that leads to that, but the lack of compelling evidence. I'd be more willing to accept that it's your bias in not accepting that, or thinking there is something wrong with every reputable scientific institution in the world

 

[George-ananda]

I had not heard of Ian Stevenson and his work before today, and am busy reading up on his story as I type this.
He's a very fascinating case, and the controversy surrounding his work is interesting. The idea that his work has not been looked into seems to be false, however. A few investigations have analyzed his findings, and they seem to say more about the psychological bias of living rather than anything else.


I've seen that link. It's one of the first links you get when you google peer reviewed papers for the paranormal. But no one could claim the studies in that list could support the paranormal. I've looked through several of them.
And once again, composing a list of vague studies is another favorite trope by psuedoscientists.
Examples for homeopathy and vaccines causing autism.

Go to any scientific database and search for papers relating to the paranormal - the great majority of them deal with studying the confirmation bias that leads to their continued belief or the errors done when studies show a tentative link.


I will only say as I did before: no reputable scientific organization in the world supports the existence of the paranormal.
It is not their bias or ignorance that leads to that, but the lack of compelling evidence. I'd be more willing to accept that it's your bias in not accepting that, or thinking there is something wrong with every reputable scientific institution in the world

We then both believe the other has serious bias issues. We are not going to change that here.