Sums up my feelings perfectly. Thanks Alanzo

Due to a quirk of nature this appeared beneath Miraldi rather than Alanzo. It was in response to Alanzos comment recommending Plato.

Science is limited to what can be tested.

But human experience encompasses much more than what can be tested.

Therefore, science can not possibly address most of what a human being experiences.

Anyone who looks to science – from the quantum-“woo” spiritualists to the Dawkins radical atheists – to provide a meaningful philosophy of life as a human being is waddling in a stagnant pond.

Since science is limited to what can be tested, then there is no conflict between science and belief, and never has been. It is our tribal nature which causes us to fight endlessly with the other side over this bullshit.

My heartfelt suggestion is to read Plato. He addressed all this fully 2500 years ago, better than anyone since.

You can create a meaningful life for yourself which fully embraces belief and science, and which stays healthy and productive and never fanatical, and which never threatens you with bankruptcy from too much credit card debt.

I swear.

Alanzo

“Nobody’s mind is being changed on either side of this argument.”

Right you are, Mike. However, I don’t know if anyone was really trying to change someone else’s mind – rather, we each wanted to express our views. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to do so.

See comment to Marildi

Further back and forth on this topic is a waste of time. Nobody’s mind is being changed on either side of this argument. Just in case the participants hadn’t noticed.

Eclipse-girl, I appreciate your open-mindedness in reading the article I quoted.

You commented: “My definition of faith is the belief in something that can never be proved.”

I think you’d agree that it would also be mere faith to believe that what is considered (at least thus far) to be “paranormal” can never be proved. And it seems to me that this belief exemplifies the faith of many of Sheldrake’s critics. Their minds are made up about anything that has not been proven – which itself is in violation of the scientific method since it demands open-mindedness. Such critics are forwarding dogma, regardless of the fact that it is a dogma widely held by many “scientists”. The very least we could say for Sheldrake is that he is trying to explain phemonema that science largely ignores.

You also wrote: “I stand by my statements, that Sheldrake’s hypotheses have not withstood scientific testing.”

In answer to the question “Do you have evidence for your hypotheses?” Sheldrake stated the following:

“Yes. For the hypothesis for morphic resonance, several other scientists and I have tested it in the realms of human and animal behaviour over the last 30 years. This evidence is summarised in the third edition of my book *A New Science of Life* (2009), called *Morphic Resonance* in the US, and I propose 10 new tests in the Appendix to this book….

“For my hypotheses about the extended mind and telepathy, much evidence is summarized in my papers on these subjects, and in my books *Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home* and *The Sense of Being Stared At.” http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/frequently-asked-questions

For you or anyone interested in reading Sheldrake’s papers on these subjects, there are links to them at the above site.

Eclipse-girl, From a scientific standpoint, a theist and an atheist both have unscientific positions. Both are making position statements about something that cannot be as of yet tested, therefore neither position can be held with ANY scientific conviction. But only … faith.

There isn’t any need to take such an unfriendly tone with me. When you talk about proof, you are referring to “empirical” proof. Empirical proof is for empirical objects of perception or empirical objects of inference. It is empirical because it exists in the shared reality we call “the outside world”.

Thoughts are not empirical objects. They are subjective objects and only the thinker of the thought can know the thought. I can’t prove to you what I’m thinking and I can’t prove to you that I feel tranquility.

The proof that specific knowledge will liberate a person from suffering, can only be known by the person who has been set free from suffering by that knowledge. How can I prove to you that there is a truth that when understood will liberate a person from unhappiness? I can’t, obviously, and the beauty of it is that I don’t have to in order to enjoy the benefits of it. Same goes for the Dalai Lama.

dankoon wrote:

“As for there being 57 perceptics you must have missed LRH saying on a lecture (I think the Human Evaluation series) that he simply stopped at 57. He figured he had made up–er, discovered, enough at 57.”

Alanzo

“I recall the Dalai Lama saying that if science were to disprove his beliefs he would have to side with science. The last time I checked he was still devoted to his religion.”

If the Dali Lama could ever prove his beliefs, scientists would be on his side. Last time I checked, he can not.