the complete debate with materialists see this
responds to Meeker 1
notes the contrast between this and religious and political doctrines
that are held to be beyond criticism and revision. But he presents a
false dichotomy between dogmatism and rationalism - as though one can be
rational simply by not being dogmatic.”
Yes I actually do think that
dogmatism and rationalism are mutually excluding. You seem to disagree,
however you did not provide any further explanation. Are you saying it
is possible to be dogmatic and rationalist on one particular issue at
the same time?
You also gave me your scientific
explanation of the globe of light that I saw. I do not believe what I
saw was ball lightning. The light that I saw was very dim, it was three
feet in diameter; it seemed to act with intelligence. It was first
hovering over my sister’s bed. As soon as I entered the room it moved
rapidly to the center of the room and stayed there as if indecisive for
a couple of seconds. Then it zoomed out of the window. Why through the
window? How this globe knew there was the opening? This thing was not
sizzling and contrary to the reports of those who say have seen ball
lightning, it had no odors. My impression is that it was a thinking
It was also a serene summer night and the skies were clear. No sign of
thunder or lightning. The ball lightning is often associated to stormy
weather and lightning. See this
Now, I admit that my theory that
this thing was actually an intelligent being might not be true. I could
have just imagined so. Despite the discrepancies, let us assume that
what I saw was a variety of ball lighting. Would that make it any more
obvious phenomenon? Ball lightnings are just as unexplained as UFOs and
other mysteries. There are tens of theories about them but none of them
“So is this the correct explanation of his
experience? I don't know. It could have been something else - like
little green men in a kind of space craft. But the point is that Sina
doesn't have any reason to jump to the conclusion that it was
Let me again quote the
dictionary definition of paranormal.
“Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific
explanation.” If the
globe I saw and what many other people see as ghosts cannot be explained
by science what other names you have for them? Your best explanation is
that we are all hallucinating. This is more plausible than any other
explanation such as lighting ball or “little green men in a kind of
spacecraft”. However, I am not prone to hallucinations and that thing
did not seem to be hallucination at all. It was as real as any other
object I have seen in my awaken life. We also have cases of several
people reporting to have seen the same ghost at the same time. How can
you scientifically prove that several people hallucinate together and
see the same thing? We are not talking about guided imagery or induced
hypnosis. So what is your explanation? Dogmatism is inability to accept
anything that defies one’s preconceived notion of reality. I am not
using this in derogatory way.
As for Van Praagh's performance
you said it is vague and often wrong, and “Nothing in the least
impressive.” I think that statement is subjective. I had not seen or
heard of Van Praagh before that show and since I know there are more
charlatans out there claiming to be psychic than the real ones I am
naturally suspicious of anyone making such claim. However, after I saw
that show I was impressed.
You have a very valid theory
about Van Praagh having done some homework on how Larry kings father had
died prior to coming to his show. That is absolutely possible. You may
also claim that Van Praagh has a group of friends across North America
who call the shows where he appears and agree with whatever he says.
That is also a possibility. However, I want to ask you what is the
probability of that?
I also have one challenge for
you. Looks like issuing challenges is fun. So let me make one challenge.
Please present yourself as a psychic in a radio or an assembly of people
and convince as many people as Van Praagh
does, that you are bringing messages from their dead relatives.
This should not be difficult to
do. You seem to have found the trick that Van Praagh and other so called
psychics play. Why don’t you replicate that trick for us? If I
discover the tricks of any magician, with a little practice I can do
exactly what they do. So what do you say? You will manage to prove without the shadow of doubt that
this is all a hoax and psychic power does not exist.
You also said that Van Praagh
does not get any useful information from the other side. Okay, who said
the other side has any useful information to give us? That is an
assumption that people make but there is no evidence that this
assumption it true. Van Praagh said that in the other world people keep
their religions, i.e. the Christians remain Christians, the Muslims
remain Muslims, and so on. Of course not all the religions can be true.
So why the dead people do not follow the true religion assuming one of
them is the true one. In the case of Islam there is ample proof that
Muhammad was an evil monster and not a messenger of any god. So how come
when people die keep their religions? If what he said is true, and this
is what others have said as well, then there is no doubt that everything
does not become clear to you after you die. If you die ignorant you will
remain ignorant even in the other world.
We do not have to bundle
everything together. Is it possible that there is a life after this
life? My response is that yes it is possible. I have not seen it myself
but that is the most plausible explanation I have heard of the out of
the body experiences and mediums. I have also heard the explanation of
the pseudo skeptics. I did not find their explanation logical. So I am
more inclined to believe there is life after life and consciousness
survives our physical demise. I do not believe this to be absolutely
true dogmatically. However this is the more plausible explanation I
heard so far.
The next question is if we
survive our death, does everything become clear to us? I do not know,
but there is no reason to believe that it will. If the stories of dead
people maintaining their religions after death is true then it is clear
that ignorance survives our death too.
How about God, should we assume
that if spirits are real then God also must be real? I see no relation
between the two. Some of those who have had near death experience report
having been engulfed in love and a beautiful sensation of oneness. Let
us assume this is not a biological response of the brain but an actual
experience of the dying person. Why should we assume that this love is
the same sadistic deity that told Muhammad to massacre innocent people
and rape their wives, or played pranks with Pharaoh, killing the
I cannot prove whether there is
life after death or whether God exists. But I can prove that Allah and
Jehovah are false deities and their messengers were either charlatans or
I have no problem embracing my
spiritual reality. I know I am a spiritual being foremost. I experience
the universe through immense love. I sense that there is a reality that
transcends what is tangible and visible. I feel my oneness with all my
fellow human beings and beyond. I feel that oneness even with my cat,
with the cypress tree growing in front of my window, with the blue ocean
and the creatures there in. I feel this oneness with the whole universe.
I am at awe and in love with everyone and everything. I do not believe
in the selfish genes. I see cooperation and coordination in the
molecules. I see love, in every being and in every atom of the universe.
This universe is filled with God. This it is indeed a reflection of God.
We are all reflections of God.
I am hesitant to talk about God
because it has been defiled by charlatans and impostors. These
self-proclaimed prophets were liars. They had no knowledge of God. They
had no understanding of God. God is not a he or a she. It is “IT”,
because God is not a being but a non-being. It is the non-being that is
the mother of all beings. God is the single principle underlying the
creation. God does not send messengers, it does not talk to people, it
is not aware of us; it is not good and it is not bad. God is the beauty
of existence; it is the principle of creation.
Ruefully, since the so called
rationalists have kept their heads deep under the sand, denying that we
are spiritual beings despite the fact that time and again it is shown
that there is more to this universe than what meets the eyes the arena
is left empty for the cons to misguide people who sense deep in their
soul what the pseudo rationalists are unable to define and hence deny
it. People just know they are spiritual beings, just as they know when
they are hot and when they are cold. The denial of our spiritual
dimension will only make the stocks of the religious brokers to soar.
ended your response by stating:
“The opposite of dogmatic denial isn't
rationality; it's uncritical credulity.”
Uncritical credulity is
irrationality. I see no difference between the two. But that is beside
he point. Do you really think uncritical credulity is opposite to
dogmatic denial? I must be missing something here. My experience says
that dogmatic people are often credulous people who accept things
without critical skepticism. For example a religious person who claims
his prophet has split the moon is credulous and when he strongly
believes in such nonsense and does not question it, he is dogmatic. You
seem to believe that these are opposite things. I assume you mistyped
something, because your statement makes no sense. I know you are a
rational person and I don’t think you actually wanted to say dogmatism
is opposite to uncritical thinking or uncritical thinking is something
different than irrationality. That sentence must be phrased wrongly. I
am sure you meant something different.
Now that you mentioned
“uncritical credulity”, let us talk about it. Don’t you think the
belief that everything can be explained by our limited science and if it
is not then it should be dismissed is uncritical credulity? We have
people who are adamant to deny “out of body experience” even though
some of these cases are amazing, like for example when a patient lying
in the operation room and completely unconscious not only hears the
conversation of the doctors operating on him but also can tell what his
anxious relatives in the adjacent room did and said while he was
unconscious. The credulous pseudo rationalists tell us this, one day
will be explained by science and they insist that extra sensory
perception does not exist. Isn’t this uncritical credulity? I think it
is. See this link
for further talk on NDE.
The problem is not of course
science. The problem is uncritical credulity. You also say that
uncritical credulity is opposite to dogmatism. I absolutely disagree.
Excessive credulity is dogmatism.