"Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion

According to the logic of the so-called “skeptics,” spirituality and religion is craziness.

By that definition, the bulk of humanity is mentally ill, as the bulk of humanity has one or another form of spirituality. This leaves these people thinking that they are the only sane people out there.

If there is such a thing as narcissism, I can think of no more glaring narcissism than that.

Most “skeptics” are not even scientists. Real scientists are curious, and many are as curious about spirituality as they are about everything else. I am good friends with a distinguished scientist who openly talks about having had very real spiritual experiences. He has a vast body of academic knowledge, is very well-reasoned and uses scientific method to excellent standard. That has not prevented him from having a spiritual life.

Spiritual experiences happen all the time, at least they do in my life. I've had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening; and I am nowhere close to being the only one. Many people either forget the experiences that they have or deny them; but if you dig enough you will find in many cases that they have in fact had very real spiritual experiences. The problem is that they do not know how to make them parse with what they know about the world from science and mathematics. This results in many of them denying these experiences; and toward that effect any number of people have come up with any number of tricks.

Some want to say that experience is “anecdotal” and does not count as valid evidence. Others want to ascribe it to being on drugs, or being depressed or anorexic, or being otherwise non compos mentis during the time of the experience. Others still start going into beliefs such as that truth itself is relative. In all cases we find dishonesty. It is dishonesty that comes from dischordance between the logical implications of the experience and the worldview.

Is science wrong? No, it isn't. Materialist fundamentalism however is completely wrong. I seek an explanation that will be consistent with both scientific fact and the facts of my and other people's spiritual experiences; and I am continuing to look for this explanation in any number of paths.

 

It is the intolerant, dogmatic religionists of atheistic naturalism, who behave in the way you describe.

They are, in fact, religious bigots, who proselytize their religion constantly, while ridiculing and demeaning other's beliefs.

It is a common thing, in the history of humanity. We should not be surprised that it still exists.

It is ironic, because they pretend to be logical, scientific, and open minded, but in reality, they are some of the most dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted people out there.

 

You people argue from ignorance. You can't explain something so it must be GOD. Science provides proof for things. Religion provides no proof. You say spiritual experiences happen all the time. LIke what? So what? Delusions happen all the time. If you have delusions you may have a mental disorder.

All of us have dreams every night. These dreams do not align with the natural world as we know it but based on your logic dreams are (so to speak) real.

And to the point. Why all the verbosity? Make your claim and provide PROOF.

AND TRUTH IS NOT RELATIVE. SOMETHING IS EITHER TRUE OR IT IS NOT TRUE.

 

For you:

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

 

When one gets a conclusion that off the wall, one should be more skeptical about how that result was obtained.

The thing is, religion and science don't use the same methods. So, when one starts mixing methods things do go absolutely crazy. Why wouldn't they?

In particular, why would you use scientific method to determine acts or characteristics of God, when the RULES for scientific method say they don't apply to God? And, whoever decided that religion was a method of studying how things in our universe work?

There isn't any conflict here. Your friend isn't using the rules of religion in his science (given that he still has a job in science) and he isn't trying to use the rules of science to answer questions about God.

Numerous famous scientists have been devout in their religion. However, their works of science that persist are the ones where they didn't mix the methods/logic of science and the methods/logic of religion. Darwin was a Christian. Galileo was a Christian. They just limited themselves to rules of science when studying how this universe works. That shouldn't have been considered to make them heretics.

Anecdotal evidence is given low value in science, as it doesn't lend itself to being measurable, testable or repeatable. Also, the anecdotes often have elements that are well outside of science for other reasons.

For example, people have "near death experiences". But, science has no way of accepting or determining if God talked to you. Science DOES know from repeated experimentation that human brains concoct all sorts of strange experiences, somewhat based on an individual's beliefs and experiences, as part of dreams, and that it's quite logical for brains to perform in crazy ways when blood supply is deprived and when dying sensory organs are returning input that just doesn't compute. So, there ARE alternate explanations.

 

Who are you actually talking about there. I assume it isn’t actual contextual sceptics given the quote-marks so you need to explain further. Otherwise it feels very much like a strawman.

That just describes unexplained experiences happening. On what basis are you defining them as specifically spiritual? What even do you mean by spiritual when you use the term (because lots of people use it in very different ways)? Note that we’re talking in a scientific context so your definition needs some formal structure, not just casual hand-waving.

Personal experience alone is poor evidence for the cause of the experience but you’re jumping a couple of steps ahead of yourself anyway. You need a hypothesis describing in detail what you think explains that experience before you think about assessing the evidence for it.

Why are those suggestions any more dishonest than whatever your suggestion is? They need the same detailed work but they’re no better or worse as starting points than yours.

 

Thank you for illustrating my point..

 

I in no way illustrate your point. I tolerate supernatural beliefs of all kinds. I probably tolerate your religion as as I tolerate (for example) astrology. Just don't expect to teach astrology or your religion in the public schools.

 

Most skeptics I've met realize there is a difference between being wrong and being mentally ill. It seems to me that most people think the "bulk of humanity" is wrong about one thing or another.

Plus, everyone is skeptical about something. You are skeptical about materialism, for example.

You don't have to be a practicing scientist to understand the basics of the scientific method and to pursue evidence-based beliefs.

Everyone experiences things that have a minute chance of happening. Every time you shuffle a deck of cards, you end up with results that are astronomically rare. And it is fine for your experiences to be enough for you, just don't expect them to count as "evidence" for anyone else. Part of the problem with the appeal to such experiences is that many of them are mutually exclusive. If I have to accept yours, I have to accept the religious claims of my Wiccan friends and my Muslim friends, etc. etc., all of which call other religions wrong.

Well, we do know for a scientific fact that human memory is pretty unreliable and prone to confabulation.

They are generally correct.

 

Nice strawman there, but I know very few people who think just because someone is wrong that they are mentally ill.

 

I mean the so-called skeptics on the Internet who go around viciously attacking anyone with spiritual beliefs.

I mean this: https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

I get special numbers on the clock - numbers such as 1:11 and 4:44. So one day I set up an experiment. I set four different clocks to four different times around the house and recorded every time I looked at the clock. 1 in 10 were such numbers when by chance it would be 1 in 60.

 

I'm OK with you having experiences like that. I've had phone calls from people after I've thought about them. Etc.

However, don't confuse that with scientific method. Science doesn't work like that. And, I think there are questions that are best answered by science.

 

Once again, I am not against science, I am against materialistic bigotry. Many questions are in fact answered by science; and I hope that science grows up to understand things of that nature so that there be no conflict between science and spirituality.

 

Then you don’t mean “skeptics” then. Misusing labels like that is confusing, just explain who you’re actually talking about.

Again, that’s just describing experiences. I’m asking about the conclusions you’re taking from those experiences. You talk about being scientific yet you’re not following the most basic scientific principles yourself. The question is simple; what is your proposed hypothesis for the cause(s) of your experiences?

 

I have no idea what you mean by "materialistic bigotry".

Of course, I'm certainly aware of bigotry concerning religion.

I think there will ALWAYS be some degree of conflict between spirituality and science.

After all, science isn't constructed in a way that allows it to be applied to the supernatural.

 

It's a matter of actual perspective. Authentic spiritual experience/realization turns into conceptualized religious interpretation to be communicated.

Scientific perspective is only the 3rd-person view, based only on exterior pbservations...and these to collide in the truth's they represent.

 

That there are spiritual powers out there, and they happen to us.

 

The problem with "authentic spiritual experience/realization" is that every religion claims to get them and they are mutually exclusive. Therefore there is no way to evaluate which one's are actually authentic.

 

This is irrefutable.

 

That's a good one! I completely agree.

 

"Only the 3rd-person view"? "Exterior observations"?

Anybody can join the "3rd-person" crowd if they want to. They just have to do the work.

And, NOBODY can be an expert in everything.

Scientific method depends on numerous experts beating on ideas to see which are true and which must be eliminated.

If there are only a few experts, science tends to be skeptical.

It took a decade or two for physicists to believe Einstein after he came out with his theory. In fact, people are still beating on Einstein's ideas; today. The same goes for other fields of endeavor.

So, ABSOLUTELY we depend on 3rd parties, within a well defined framework. It is absolutely the only possibility!

 

Irrefutable that there is a spirit world, a god, or whatever?

OF COURSE that can't be refuted!

The very idea that MAN can TEST a GOD is ridiculous from the very start.


What we need to do is to get better about using science for figuring out how this physical universe works. Then, if you believe there are gods and spirits, fine. Just don't use government to force your religious views on anyone.

 

And I agree with you on that. The problem I've seen is that there are non-government entities out there that are attacking people who have spiritual experiences, and that problem has nothing to do with the government.

 

Incorrect. Skeptics find a lack of evidence for spirituality and religion. A lack of evidence for something doesn't make it inherently crazy. Skeptics don't believe this.

Incorrect. Having a belief that lacks proper evidence does not make one mentally ill. Skeptics don't believe this.

Most Christians, Democrats, Republicans, and people in general aren't even scientists either. Worthless attack here.

Many skeptics are curious about religion and spirituality and love to debate it all the time. Being curious something doesn't justify believing it without evidence.

Many scientists are religious, however they are far less likely to be religious than most people, probably because their fields and academic study requires them to asking for a lot of evidence for claims about the world, and religious claims lack this. Scientists aren't experts on religion because religion doesn't fall in their field of expertise and these aren't mutually exclusive.

I have heard of Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, UFO believers, psychics, and more have their own experiences that are very specific to their beliefs. Unfortunately these experiences cannot be objectively verified and lack proper evidence. If these experiences were happening all the time, why can't they be objectively verified like other daily experiences we have?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I claimed I saw a cat in my yard, you would probably believe me, but if I claimed to see a UFO, you would need some objective evidence. I want that same objective evidence for so-called spiritual experiences.

Religious people will often misinterpret experiences under brain problems and trauma, ravings of the delusional, chance events, good luck, feelings, claims of possibly dishonest people, and the placebo effect as evidence for the supernatural.

Skeptics don't believe in pure materialism. Obviously time, space, and energy aren't matter. If there is a spiritual realm, then maybe it is another variety of "stuff" that we will one day learn more about. Unfortunately there isn't sufficient evidence to believe any of it, so we are going to have to wait.

 

There are people on the Internet who call themselves skeptics, who claim that anyone reporting spiritual experiences is a kook. They are a vicious bunch of jerks.

What I have to offer as evidence is this: https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

Many people have tried. They were met with a wall of obstruction, such as the dishonest claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof. I see nothing at all extraordinary about something that happens all the time.

My experiences fall in none of the above categories.

There is more than enough evidence. The problem is that it is being met with a wall of obstruction.