There is a scientist who (in a moment of rare honesty, if somewhat irrational) said to Noetic Sciences founder Willis Harman, in regard to parapsychological phenomena, "I wouldn't believe it even if it was true!"
I think it's helpful to look at academics with careful discernment:
1. The implacable dogmatic fundamaterialists. There's no point in trying to have a discussion with folks like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins (who declared there to be no evidence for telepathy, then when asked by Rupert Sheldrake what evidence he had looked it, said, "None. I don't need to look at the evidence because I know it's not true." I think one of my favorites is Arthur Reber. He was hired by the American Psychological Association to review a major 2018 APA journal article highly favorable to psi (which simply means, reporting well constructed, methodologically sound experiments which have been well replicated and reach statistical significance). He has the tightest response I've ever heard. He doesn't care if you have 1000 well replicated experiments which are so "black and white" obvious that you don't even need statistics to analyze them (ie - guess what whole number I'm GOING to be thinking of in 1 hour, from 1 to a trillion).
He simply says, "Psi violates the laws of nature, therefore it is impossible and no matter what the evidence, if it is interpreted in terms of parapsychology, the interpretation is wrong."
Wow. Just wow!! And people get upset when I refer to this thinking as fundamaterialism.
2. Those who are skeptical but genuinely interested. These are hard to find because they are afraid to acknowledge their interest. But as well written articles like this one get more and more attention, perhaps such people will become more courageous. I remember Larry Dossey talking about his experience traveling around the US giving talks about teaching spirituality in medical school (which often included discussion of paranormal experiences).
He said without exception, after EVERY talk, a doctor would come up and say, "You know, I love what you're saying. I so dearly wish I had someone to talk to about this, but I'm afraid I"ll be seen as crazy."
Dossey would simply respond, "You know, 2 of your colleagues - people who work directly with you - just came up and said the same thing. Why don't I get you folks together and see what happens?"
This was so well-written, so clear. No obfuscation and no arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Very, very logical and descriptive to take the reader right into the topic. I agree that there appear to be many indications that we survive death--our spirits do. There is a LOT of evidence for reincarnation for starters. THANK YOU <3
There is a scientist who (in a moment of rare honesty, if somewhat irrational) said to Noetic Sciences founder Willis Harman, in regard to parapsychological phenomena, "I wouldn't believe it even if it was true!"
I think it's helpful to look at academics with careful discernment:
1. The implacable dogmatic fundamaterialists. There's no point in trying to have a discussion with folks like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins (who declared there to be no evidence for telepathy, then when asked by Rupert Sheldrake what evidence he had looked it, said, "None. I don't need to look at the evidence because I know it's not true." I think one of my favorites is Arthur Reber. He was hired by the American Psychological Association to review a major 2018 APA journal article highly favorable to psi (which simply means, reporting well constructed, methodologically sound experiments which have been well replicated and reach statistical significance). He has the tightest response I've ever heard. He doesn't care if you have 1000 well replicated experiments which are so "black and white" obvious that you don't even need statistics to analyze them (ie - guess what whole number I'm GOING to be thinking of in 1 hour, from 1 to a trillion).
He simply says, "Psi violates the laws of nature, therefore it is impossible and no matter what the evidence, if it is interpreted in terms of parapsychology, the interpretation is wrong."
Wow. Just wow!! And people get upset when I refer to this thinking as fundamaterialism.
2. Those who are skeptical but genuinely interested. These are hard to find because they are afraid to acknowledge their interest. But as well written articles like this one get more and more attention, perhaps such people will become more courageous. I remember Larry Dossey talking about his experience traveling around the US giving talks about teaching spirituality in medical school (which often included discussion of paranormal experiences).
He said without exception, after EVERY talk, a doctor would come up and say, "You know, I love what you're saying. I so dearly wish I had someone to talk to about this, but I'm afraid I"ll be seen as crazy."
Dossey would simply respond, "You know, 2 of your colleagues - people who work directly with you - just came up and said the same thing. Why don't I get you folks together and see what happens?"
This was so well-written, so clear. No obfuscation and no arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Very, very logical and descriptive to take the reader right into the topic. I agree that there appear to be many indications that we survive death--our spirits do. There is a LOT of evidence for reincarnation for starters. THANK YOU <3