the complete debate with materialists see this
More Holes in the Materialist's
This is Ali Sina's
response to Aparthib
Zaman's 2nd rebuttal.
In your defense of the Brent Meeker’s argument you stated:
“Brent was simply pointing out the false
dichotomy between dogma and rationality. Pointing out the False
dichotomy does not imply that dogmatism and rationalism are NOT mutually
excluding, as Ali Sina is alleging it did. What Brent meant that one can
be irrational but still NOT dogmatic. So there are 3 possibilities: (1)
Dogmatic (2) Irrational (e.g non-dogmatic credulity) (3) Rational
Not being (1) does not guarantee being (3), one
can be (2).”
Mr. Brent Meeker stated clearly that the dichotomy
between dogmatism and rationalism is false.
He also said: “The
opposite of dogmatic denial isn't rationality; it's uncritical
He is very mistaken. Rational people cannot be
dogmatic and dogmatic people cannot be rational. “Uncritical
credulity” is irrational.
Let us assume I believe in the fantastic and
demagogical tale of Muhammad ascending the seventh heaven. This would be
uncritical credulity. Now let’s say you come and tell me all what I
believe is fairytale and is contrary to science and logic. What would be
my natural reaction? Typically, if I am a believer, I would deny science
and logic dogmatically and stick to my belief. So how can you say
dogmatic denial is opposite to uncritical credulity?
You say “Brent meant one can be irrational but
still NOT dogmatic”. Although it is difficult for me to figure out,
how one can be irrational if he is not dogmatic, but for the sake
of argument let us agree on this hypothesis. Here we are talking about
rational and irrational beliefs. We are not talking about irrational
behavior which is entirely different animal. It is not clear to me how
you can be irrational in your beliefs if you are not dogmatic.
Meeker’s statement implies two things:
Dogmatism and rationality are not
opposite, which entails one can be rational and dogmatic at the same
time over the same belief system.
Dogmatism is opposite to uncritical
Both these statements are wrong.
In your second point you tried to clarify this
controversy and wrote:
“By "dogmatic denial" (he was really
quoting Sina using such _expression) he meant the denial of paranormal
of so-called "pseudo-rationalists".
If that was what Meeker intended to say, he worded
it wrongly. He should have stated “denial of dogmatism” and not
“dogmatic denial” which means entirely a different thing.
“Opposing violence” is not the same thing as “violently
opposing”. When I used
“dogmatic denial” I meant denying the facts and the evidence
So let us rephrase what Meeker said with the right
syntax and see what we get.
The opposite of “denial of dogmatism” isn't
rationality; it's uncritical credulity.
Now it makes more sense. If you reject dogmas you
can’t be called a credulous person. I said this might be a typo.
However the denial of dogma is also rationality.
It is rational to reject the dogma. So with the corrections to the
sentence, still that sentence is partially true.
Your point 3 is the claim that all the reports of
paranormal are anecdotal. I already talked about this in my
response to Avijit Please refer to it.
You also said:
"The last part of the above is an example
of the fallacy of complex question, there is a built in assumption
that paranormal event HAS occurred, and since there is no scientific
explanation, then why not call it as paranormal, right?. But before
something is declared as paranormal due to lack of scientific
explanation, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have
actually occurred. Again anecdotes do not qualify as proof beyond
reasonable doubt to a rationalist.
In your previous message you however wrote:
“For example, the case of Hindu Lord Ganesh
oozing milk was a real occurrence. Here the occurrence was
Of course the story was that Ganesh was drinking
milk not oozing it. But I had not paid much attention to this story
until I read your statement that this phenomenon was “scientifically
measurable”. If that
was scientifically measurable, is it still anecdotal? How
can something be scientifically measurable and anecdotal at the same
Do you realize that all human history is also
anecdotal? The fact that the Earth is round for Sheik
Abdel-Azi Ibn Baaz,
’s top cleric and the Flat Earth Society
is also anecdotal? In fact
since you and I have not gone to the space personally, it is also
anecdotal for us. Are you going to deny this too?
Once you decide not to
accept something, any excuse will do and everything becomes
“anecdotal”. If I have a pain and I go to a doctor, I can’t show
my pain. There is no proof of it. All I have is my words. Is that
hallucination? Is that anecdotal?
Anecdotes do not prove
the existence of something beyond doubt. I am not also advocating we
should accept the immaterial world uncritically either. It would be
unwarranted to believe in anything without evidence.
However it is equally irrational to deny all those claims and
dismiss them as "anecdotes" because they cannot be proven.
Sometimes examples can
explain things better.
Say Sheriff Joe Dandi
is a police officer. Several people report to him that a woman is
missing. Several of them say they saw the husband beating or may be
stabbing her. They also say they saw him wrapping something that looked
like a body in a blanket putting it in his car and drove away. Since that day they did not see
the woman. According to other rumors the husband had told others that he
wanted his wife dead, etc. etc. However
no “body” is found and the husband denies any foul play.
His story is that he and his wife had a fight and she fled to
live with her secret lover in
What do you think
officer Dandi should do? Should he charge the man or should he let him
go? That is a hard decision. If you said he should not charge him I
understand and do not blame you even though my gut feeling say he is
guilty. After all no body has been found and eye witnesses could be
mistaken. Those who say he planned to kill his wife also could be lying
or he could have said this when he was angry and did not mean it. All
these numerous eyewitnesses, although compelling are “anecdotal”
However, what if this
police officer starts attacking the credibility of the witnesses,
mocking them, accusing them of hallucinating things and saying they are
liars? What if Officer Dandy claim categorically that all the witnesses are
anecdotal and he is not going to believe in anyone unless they can
produce the body?
Wouldn’t that make
you raise an eyebrow? Something must be fishy here. A police officer
should not take side. Don’t
Not only he is not searching for the body, which is his duty, he
is actually denying that the body exist.
This is what is
happening with our case. We have no proof that an immaterial world
exists. However we have millions of witnesses who come forth and tell us
their stories that point to the fact that such a world MAY exist. We
know many of those stories are fake and many of them are hallucinations.
But are all of them fake and hallucinations?
In any police
investigation, when public is asked to cooperate, thousands of tips pour
in. Of course not all of them are related to the case. Should the police
attack the program and say it is a waste of time to ask for tips because
we verified that most of them are not related and discredit those who
call? Should they say all those who call to give tips are hallucinating
and their stories are anecdotal?
I am not saying we
should accept that an immaterial world definitely exists. No “body”
has been found after all. But should we attack and ridicule the people who
come forth to witness?
The idea seems to be silencing those who make such reports and making
them ashamed. The materialists immediately attack this person and
question his sanity.
Now why the
materialists are so adamant to deny and dismiss all those reports? It is
because they are not impartial. They
actually deny any crime has ever taken place. They do not want you to find any
"body" that might destroy their credibility. Asking
the materialists to verify the existence or inexistence of a world
beyond the Matter is like asking the Vatican
to research the claim of the virginity of Mary.
the conclusion is foregone.
My point is not that we
should believe that an immaterial world exists. Personally I believe it is a
possibility that something exist. The “anecdotal” evidences are too
many to ignore and my own experiences make me believe this is the most
likely scenario. However, if solid evidence is provided against this
belief, I will stand corrected.
After all a theory is a theory. It does not have to be proven to
be believed. If a theory is proven, it is no more a theory it is a fact.
As long as a theory is not irrational and unscientific, like those
attributed to Muhammad, Jesus and Moses for example, as long as they are
possible, there is no harm in believing them. After all the theory of
evolution was just a theory until it was proven and became a fact. When
a theory is proven, then we do not have to believe in it anymore. Facts
are things that we KNOW they are not things that we doubt and hence
What I want to
establish is that the materialists and the pseudo rationalists are not
objective or impartial. They are not the people who can tell us the
truth about the other worlds. These people are believers in materialism.
Their god is Mater. It is not that they lie or they are insincere all
the time. They are most of the time genuine.
Nevertheless, they are believers and like other believers they
are the last people who can tell us the truth.
We need objective
people, rational people, impartial people and skeptics to find the
truth. When it comes to the question of the immaterial world, the
materialists are not the people we should rely upon. They are not to be
trusted because they are not impartial. They have already made their
mind that all those millions of people who report paranormal are liars
or are hallucinating. Materialism should
be treated like any other religion.
"million-dollar-challenge", not only underlies the fact that these people
have no understanding of the nature of the spiritual world, it also
proves that they have already made their minds. Imagine a judge claiming
impartiality and at the same time offering a million dollar to the
witnesses CHALLENGING them to prove their case? Would you say this judge is
impartial? Mr. Randi might be a mentalist but as Abraham Lincoln said,
you can’t fool all the people all the time.
The materialists are not investigating the paranormal phenomena, they
are helping in the cover-up and the reason is obvious. Any notion of an
immaterial world, shatters their belief in materialism.