rem...very nice posting. Steven Pinker has written a book entitled, The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature. It discusses the neurobiological obstacles to objective appraisal of realities that counter our evolved mental systems. Scientific thinking is new to the human species and requires application of "unnatural" cultivated logic. Also there's the social resistance to advancments in evolutionary psychology and neuroscience because many unconsciousy fear errosion of values in our society will result from linking biology to our behavior. He's very readable and timley.
Paranormal Experiences
by mattnoel 108 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
hooberus;
I'm interested in your answer to the questioon I poised; you essentially said spirits don't perform on camera because there would be proof they existed if they did.
I countered;
Do you expect angels to perform in front of a camera, so that later athiests may be convinced of the supernatural and may even come to believe in spiritual things?
I gave my answer. How do you respond?
I have seen so many of these discussions on the paranormal... they all end up the same. People who want hard evidence don't believe in 'it'. People who are happy to accept what people say believe in 'it'. Some people are troubled at dismissing 'it' out of hand because of what people say. but cannot accept 'it' as proven as there is no hard evidence.
And there is no hard evidence. There aren't even any good reasons why there isn't hard evidence. If I'm wrong, show the evidence or provide a logical explaination why there is none.
Why do the rules of proof we applied to the WTBTS when we were getting out of it NOT apply to people's claims of the paranormal?
-
funkyderek
"....I don't have to give a logical explanation, nor can I since there is no evidence of the experience. All i'm saying is that an explanation the requires the rewrite of the laws of physics is extremely improbable......"
But not impossible?
For some reason this reminds me of the following exchange from Dumb and Dumber:Lloyd Christmas: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me...ending up together?
Mary Swanson: Not good.
Lloyd Christmas: Not good like one in a hundred?
Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one in a million.
Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance? -
Mary
funky, we're talking about a very interesting and debatable topic, not a line from Hollywood, so please don't compare my questions to something so stupid; and which has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.
Discussions on the paranormal are very similar to discussions on Creation vs. Evolution. Both sides can present convincing arguments for their point of view and that's what we do: we ask questions. Rem's comment about changing the laws of physics as we know them as being "extremely improbable" is fine by me. All I'm saying is that sceptics should at least look at the possibility, no matter how small they think it may be, that there IS something beyond this world, even if at present, we have no scientific data to prove it.
While I do believe in the paranormal, I've openly admitted that there are rational, logical explanations for alot of strange things that go on. However, to me, there are too many people who have had encounters that cannot be explained by science, who I take at their word and believe.
In the end it all comes down to a matter of faith. We don't have 100% proof either way, but hopefully some day we will.
-
funkyderek
funky, we're talking about a very interesting and debatable topic, not a line from Hollywood, so please don't compare my questions to something so stupid; and which has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.
Mary, no offense intended, but I think the comparison is valid. My point is that no, these events are not impossible but are so vanishingly unlikely that it's absurd to say "we don't know either way" and to claim that both the natural and supernatural explanations are equally valid. Your apparent clinging to Rem's use of the terms "extremely improbable" as meaning "not impossible" just reminded me of Jim Carrey's "there's a chance".
All I'm saying is that sceptics should at least look at the possibility, no matter how small they think it may be, that there IS something beyond this world, even if at present, we have no scientific data to prove it.
But that's what they do. They look into the possibilities but will not accept hugely implausible scenarios for which there is no evidence. Nobody should.
While I do believe in the paranormal, I've openly admitted that there are rational, logical explanations for alot of strange things that go on.
Well, even the staunchest believer would admit that the vast majority of events have completely natural, mundane causes.
However, to me, there are too many people who have had encounters that cannot be explained by science, who I take at their word and believe.
"Cannot be explained by science" or cannot be explained by you? And why take them at their word if what they say does not fit in with an established testable view of the world, and there is no evidence for it?
-
Mary
"...Cannot be explained by science" or cannot be explained by you?..."
Cannot be explained by science. If, by the laws of physics as we know them, furniture cannot fly across the room by itself, or forks cannot hover in mid-air by themselves, then logically, it is something beyond science that is causing it.
"....And why take them at their word if what they say does not fit in with an established testable view of the world, and there is no evidence for it?...."
Why take them at their word? Because I don't assume that every single person in history who's had these experiences are nuts or lying, or just imagined it. Lets say someone came to you and said they saw someone almost hit a deer when they were driving down a country road. They blasted their horn and the deer took off, unharmed. No one else was around and there is no physical or scientific evidence that this episode ever happened. Would you say "seeing as there is no physical or scientific evidence that this happened, I conclude that this person is either lying, or is nuts or just imagined it."
-
funkyderek
Cannot be explained by science. If, by the laws of physics as we know them, furniture cannot fly across the room by itself, or forks cannot hover in mid-air by themselves, then logically, it is something beyond science that is causing it.
And it's precisely because such events would be "beyond science" that I dismiss them. When there's no firm evidence either way, and it's a choice between throwing out verifiably accurate laws of physics and constructing an entirely new world view, or believing that somebody may be lying or mistaken, I will always choose the latter. I have trouble understanding why you would not.
Lets say someone came to you and said they saw someone almost hit a deer when they were driving down a country road. They blasted their horn and the deer took off, unharmed. No one else was around and there is no physical or scientific evidence that this episode ever happened. Would you say "seeing as there is no physical or scientific evidence that this happened, I conclude that this person is either lying, or is nuts or just imagined it."
No, no, no. It seems that you really don't understand the issue here. I would normally have no problem believing someone who said they almost hit a deer and it ran away, unless there was a specific reason not to believe them. If, on the other hand, they said the deer flew away, then I would be more sceptical. That would be a reason not to believe them. If you don't understand the difference between the two scenarios, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you do understand why they are fundamentally different, then hopefully you will be able to understand why I treat them differently.
-
rem
I would normally have no problem believing someone who said they almost hit a deer and it ran away, unless there was a specific reason not to believe them. If, on the other hand, they said the deer flew away, then I would be more sceptical. That would be a reason not to believe them.
This is such an important point. One claim is not extraordinary. One claim is. Believers like Mary don't seem to understand the difference.
If I said I ate cheerios this morning for breakfast, that's not an extraordinary claim and normally people don't require much evidence to believe such a thing.
If I said that I have an invisible dragon in my basement, that's an extraordinary claim and people do require more evidence to believe such things. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not sure how many times it has to be repeated.
Another point. Even if the paranormal were proven, you could not just assign the rest of the unsolved mysteries as paranormal. If there is not enough information, the best you can say is that it's inconclusive. You can believe in your heart that the paranormal cause is the correct one, but that won't make it true. Only an exhaustive investigation could prove a paranormal cause by ruling out all other causes and providing evidence for a paranormal cause.
Do you understand what would happen to our justice system if we were to just dump all unsolved cases in the paranormal file? Has anyone ever tried to use the paranormal as a defense in court before? Seems like if it's this common and those demons are so mean, there must be some cases.... besides the witch trials.
rem
-
freedom96
The house that I grew up in had a ghost in it. Saw it many times, as did the rest of my family. We being the good witnesses that we were, never talked about it back then.
It never hurt us, though the house freaked me out.
I sure don't have all the answers to the after life, etc, however this I am certain of. There is some sort of life other than what we know of.
-
Mary
"....Has anyone ever tried to use the paranormal as a defense in court before?...."
Actually, I did see one case a couple of years ago where yes, this did happen; I saw it on Dateline.
Some old hotel in the east (sorry I can't remember the name of it) has been reputed to be haunted for over a hundred years. I don't know if it's because someone died a violent death or what, but whatever was there, was not very friendly and numerous staff and customers had a not-very-nice encounter with this entity, reporting that they had been assaulted by an unseen force, usually in the bathroom. Anyway, one employee who had experienced this, actually sued the owner, claiming that he was not providing a safe environment for employees and he took him to court. The owner, (surprisingly), did not dispute what had happened, (as he had also seen apparitions at the hotel on numerous occassions) but said he was not responsible for any attacks, seeing as it was something beyond his control.
The judge did not say he didn't believe the employee, but he did agree that the owner was not responsible for the attacks and therefore, denied the employee any monies. However, in order to protect himself from any future lawsuits, the owner put a notice outside the hotel stating that many people had had violent encounters with the paranormal in the hotel, and that anyone entering, does so at their own risk.
Now lemme guess what sceptics will say to this: The owner and the employee were in ca-hoots and made this story up in order to get publicity.