, , , , ,

Here I will copy and paste my reply to that last, very long-winded, and unlettered comment. It shows the anger and contempt I feel for these occurrences of self-deception.

It was typed on my mobile phone and in haste – forgive my terrible orthographic projection.   Wherever possible, I have omitted the other person’s name and or any references to their identity.

(Name), everything you’ve written shows that you have no clear understanding of science or its processes. A solid methodology is essential to the pursuit of all truth, absolute or relative. There is no evidence of what you claim – about these “unseen” realms – none whatsoever. I maintain that there is no other way of knowing aside from empirism. Further, you indulge in long-winded, postmodern deconstructionism in order to avoid my challenge; science has dealt with the claims you make and found them false. My thought experiment was about having you think of what true progress has been brought about by magical thinking; instead you make the mistake of moving the scientific goal post… a deplorable logical fallacy in and of itself. Then, you make blanket statements about skeptics: did your effective intuition lead you to those conclusions? Also, you try to separate your beliefs from religiosity by appealing to the meme of scientific fundamentalism. Science doesn’t claim to know everything (strawman argument), in fact, to be effective it demands intellectual honesty, which precludes holding onto absolutes, even when they are evident. Religion is based on supernatural premises like your spiritual ideal; it is entirely faith-based, demanding credence on no or bad evidence.

It’s clear you don’t like Bronwen because she challenges the ideas you hold dear. But your conclusion on her personality is based on a nothing more than evidence-less speculation, and this is all that can come from this “intuition” you behevemently defend.

And by the way, science is incompatible with supernatural belief, which can only be studied from within a psychological framework as a form of psychopathology. You’d do better to say that you believe in these ideas because they feel good to you; because you really want them to be true, or simply because they make good storytelling. Part of growing up is coming to grips with the notion that some things are true regardless of how we feel about them, and likewise, other things are not.

Now, being skeptical, and valuing evidence, logic, and reason doesn’t mean I am negative or sad, on the contrary, I am happier and healthier because I’m free from the constraints of mysticism and superstition. I am free to explore the world and reality in a way that is both, intellectually and morally sound.

There are so many things in your rethoric that trespass into nonsense – your claim that not all scientists are rationalist is true – but the correlation is false. There are religious scientists, but they never bring religion into the lab; they know that it doesn’t belong there. Take a look at some statistics on the percentage of believing scientists.

After all this, you may be inclined to label me a zealot or a fundamentalist, but my challenge remains, what good is this “unseen realms” BS if can’t lead us to any truth? I’ll also have you know that I have studied contemplative practices in Buddhism and Hinduism; I did my years in a cave, and invariably, the deeper one goes into mindfulness, the clearer it becomes that the supernatural is an illusion, a psychological construct humans employ to make sense of a chaotic world.

I’ll be happy to discuss transcendence through meditation with anyone, I teach it as part of several of my programs, but if you or anyone tells me that there is a paranormal basis to these ideas, then you are under a grave misapprehension.

Original Screenshots (2 screenshots)