246 thoughts on “Sean Carroll and Steven Novella debate life after death with Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Talk about an epic fail – Alexander and Moody were pitiful.
I agree. All their arguments amounted to “we don’t know – therefore…” and “But, it’s still concievable that…”.
William,
I don’t know what you think about the afterlife, but my impression is that you believe in some kind of immaterial soul. You believe that you have libertarian free will, and you also believe that matter is insufficient to account for that, so there must be some immaterial component, correct?
If so, how do you defend it against the kinds of objections that Carroll and Novella raised during the debate and that I have raised in several threads here at TSZ?
Keiths,
Why would I defend them? I get to believe whatever I want to believe. There’s no need for me to defend anything I choose to believe.
Comment moved to guano. Please remember the rules
The comment in question is here.
I posted my response here, but Alan moved it to ‘Moderation Issues’: here.
To quote Captain Reynolds, “my days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.”
Keiths,
I guess that all depends on what intellectual “standard” you are referring to. Intellectual standards and scientific standards are not the same thing.
William,
Scientific standards are a subset of intellectual standards, because science is an intellectual enterprise.
So we agree that they are not the same thing. I might have very high intellectual standards, just not very high scientific standards.
It doesn’t seem to be limited to science, because you’ve also told us that you don’t care whether your beliefs about God and morality are true.
I think William “feels” things more than he “thinks” things. This of course removes the epistemic burden of big boy pants but sadly renders one inseparable from a third rate troll. Maybe if he had Greg’s HPSS?
🙂
Not caring about whether or not such beliefs are true could also be indicative of, or help produce, a higher intellectual standard. Investment in beliefs as true, and the search for a narrative of “truth” one is predisposed to find agreeable and in sync with other beliefs held as being “true”, is the root of many cognitive biases; I find myself capable of a much higher standard of intellectual honesty since I have divested myself of caring whether or not a proposition is “true” (in the “factually exists in reality” sense) or not.
Which is one of the reasons I’m able to spot and admit the epic fail of the pro-afterlifers in the debate in the O.P., even though they were arguing for something that’s part of my worldview, and spotted and admitted the flaw in W.L.Craig’s command authority morality, even though Craig argues other things pretty well.
Needle and thread, please? Its for my sides.
When you take the definition of “intellect”:
I set a very high standard for what I “know”, as opposed to belief and opinion, when I started constructing my worldview. Throwing everything else that I could away, I established that which I personally, empirically experienced as the only stuff I knew, and I only knew it in a very primordial way. Everything else was interpretation, belief, and opinion. Everything. All religious thought, all philosophy, all science, all claimed experiences and experiments, all points on a globe I’d never been to or planets taught in school to exist – all of that was belief and opinion. I rejected anything as knowledge unless I personally, empirically experienced it.
I’d say that my standard of acquiring knowledge is far, far higher (meaning, more strict and demanding) than that of most people who will accept virtually anything that a consensus group of authority figures proclaim as “knowledge”.
Are your intellectual standards that high?
I lost a few brain cells when Eben Alexander claimed that Carl Sagan “admitted” that the evidence for past lives in children is overwhelming in The Demon Haunted World.
What they need is a Watson standing by in these debates to fact-check claims in real time.
Yes, they were. I’m about 70% through watching, and it is becoming more pitiful as the debate proceeds. Of course, that is because their “evidence” is so weak.
socle,
For those who haven’t watched the debate, socle is referring to this statement by Eben Alexander:
That is utterly false, of course. Here’s what Sagan actually wrote:
Whatever shreds of credibility Alexander retained after the Esquire exposé are now obliterated.
What a fraud.
William, today:
William, on April 16th:
I rest my case.
Check out VOICES FROM THE AFTERLIFE, on the website that William recommends above.
High intellectual standards, indeed.
Keiths,
Please don’t bring the immaterial soul in this discussion. I want to talk to you with the conclusion that there is no immaterial soul.
(1)Why do you bother to know whether there is after life?
There is life. There is death. We are aware of the both. But we are not aware of what happens after we die. Unless we understand what is life and what is death there is no meaning in debating the subject after life. If we understand what life is, then perhaps we come to know what happens after we die.
One thing is obvious that there is no life without a physical body. But there may be a possibility of taking another body which is continuity of life through physical bodies. Please do not bring any religious beliefs here. It may happen naturally. So there may be an explanation rationally or scientifically to the continuity of life. In simple word I say “Coming again”.
It is not necessary to have an immaterial soul to continue from one body to another.
What is life? We want to enjoy life by receiving good feelings. Unfortunately we face many painful feelings also. In life we struggle to overcome painful feelings. When we are physically ill we approach a doctor to overcome the pain of illness. Sorrow of death is a painful feeling. So to overcome that problem we want to know what happens after we die. I don’t need to describe about good feelings. There are many things for enjoyments.
Enjoyments and sufferings are not permanent. They come and disappear. They are really sensations. They are not the living things. So there should be a thing to live the life. Materialists only accept anything material. So don’t bring anything immaterial. The answers should be based on material compound or material structure.
There should be an existence to live. Otherwise we can’t say there is life. (2) What is it that lives or what is the living thing that exists now?
(3)What is it that dies or come to an end? What is it that dies? The same thing which lives now coming to end is death. Stopping of heart, death of brain are all superficial.
We are aware of only sense of experiences and a material base to exist. So it is not necessary to bring even consciousness or mind in this discussion.
In our life we feel depressed and sad when we lose anything to which we are so attached. If we lose money we may be worried. If we lose a good job we may be worried. If we lose our legs we feel very sad. If we lose our loved ones we feel very sad. So losing of something which existed is death. (4) So what we lose when death take place?
There are four questions.
A.Sriskandarajah
Calculated much FSCO/I lately? That consensus group of authority figures at UD sure have the measure of you.
Keiths,
I think you are once again conflating “consensus scientific credibility” and “intellectual standards”.
If people wish to investigate what I was talking about in that thread (parapsychological research and manifestation techniques), those are good places to start, as I said. I never claimed any of that material was or should be held as scientifically convincing, but rather only said that it can be the basis of the same kind of personal, empirical exploration and experimentation I conducted in the development of my own views.
As I’ve said, one of the personal standards I set for myself was to dismiss all “knowledge” that was not based on first-hand, empirical experience. As I explained in that thread,
Unless you actually try the techniques out or conduct your own parapsychology research, what is your dismissive opinion on them based on? Mainstream scientific consensus/credibility? Ideological biases?
Once again, mainstream scientific credibility/consensus is **not the same thing** as intellectual standards.
There were points that could have been made – for example, when one of the anti-afterlife guys said that there has never been a single case of a patient coming back with information they had no access to otherwise, there are indeed such cases, such as Pam Reynolds, as well as many such instances in mediumship studies (such as The Afterlife Experiments) and in reincarnation research – which Alexander fumbled his way through towards the end.
I think that what they really needed was perhaps someone very familiar with mediumship research and a “mystical” (as Alexander referred to them) quantum physicist, and they should have organized their position to stay strictly on the science and to include the materialist bias of mainstream science as part of the opening statements.
Almost all such events, when examined closely enough, have mundane explanations. Those that do not resolve to such explanations are insufficiently detailed to come to a conclusion either way.
Did you know somebody killed themselves with the explicit purpose of coming back during a seance? Guess what, they failed!
Why do you think that nobody has even won Randi’s million dollar challenge?
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Any idea why that is the case William? If it works, why does it stopped working when the ability to cheat (use non-Psi techniques) is removed?
You appear to be using a computer. On what basis are you using that and trusting that it will continue to work?
Oh, that’s right, you are trusting in the expertise of others.
I have just read a book on Uri Geller. Without exception his “Psi” abilities are standard sleight of hand wrapped up in a mystical bow. Even after video evidence is produced to show how he does it, he still retains the belief of his hardcore fans. *Nothing* he does cannot be replicated by a stage magician.
The “parapsychology research” conducted at the time, by respectable scientists, showed strong results in favour of Psi as they were scientists, not magicians, and so were taken in by Uri completely. Reproducing the experiments under real scientific conditions shows an absolute failure for Psi.
The simple fact is the research has been done, been shown to be conclusive that claimed Psi events are nothing of the sort and yet here you are saying that we should reject decades of solid work on the basis of what?
Sometimes consensus is just that – consensus. Every serious researcher comes to the same conclusion – Psi is not real.
But of course, your “position” is that Psi can and should be researched, not that it is “real”. A convenient get out for any/all claim you might like to make.
Some simple clarifying questions then:
Do *you* think PSI is real?
Do *you* think that the dead can be contacted?
Do *you* think that the soul can leave the body and observe that which it otherwise could not from it’s body?
If “yes” to any of these, why?
For example? Can you give a few examples that are personally convincing to you and explain what it is they have convinced you of? That you can talk to the dead? What?
It’s not my job to support your claim, William, that Psi/Mediumship represent real phenomena.
As Psi/Mediums have been thoroughly debunked in the last century what new data are your presenting that requires a re-evaluation of this?
Or is your argument simply “are you going to believe what others say?”
If that’s the case, I look forwards to your re-formulation of the laws of motion – why listen to what a nobody like Newton has to say? And I understand there are people out there that reject those laws (they might not be right, but all that’s important is their rejection right? ) so therefore it’s not a closed case yet!
If you read a little about the tricks that “mediums” use you’d soon stop believing in even the possibility they are right. But you won’t do that, will you?
Why don’t you make the argument in your own words?
What “information” was it that was brought back?
Why was the only possible avenue for that information “Psi”?
What other explanations are there for the event?
Are those alternative explanations more or less likely then life after death being real? Why?
I know you are not a scientist, but you can think like one!
You’ve never dealt with a chronic illness I see…
The Pam Reynolds case has been debunked, so I can’t imagine why anyone would use it as an example of anything at this point. I am not aware of any cases of mediumship that have not been debunked, so I don’t see what Alexander could have used as credible evidence.
William has made the point before that it’s not that Psi is real, rather it’s a “non-material” phenomena that can be investigated scientifically. So when we say non-material stuff cannot be investigated by science, he points to Psi.
What he won’t accept is that the investigation is done, and the results are in.
There is no such thing as Psi, mediums, fairies at the bottom of the garden etc.
Omagain said:
I’ve experienced all those things.
Robin said:
I’d say that that’s largely a matter of ideological position.
Omagain said:
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
The test is not scientifically rigorous. If the claimant and JREF don’t come to an agreement on what those parameters should be, the application is revoked. Sincere applicants are turn away or ignored if Randi thinks he might have to pay out:
http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor%27s-Data-v-Barrett/milliondollarsuit1.htm
http://rense.com/general50/james.htm
Also, there’s the fact that his partner of 20 years was arrested for identity theft:
http://www.dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2011/9/Randis-Partner-Arrested-Identity-Theft
Also, can you tell me why Randi and/or no other psi skeptic has taken Victor Zammit’s million dollar challenge?
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html
I would suggest that most sincere mediums and others would rather involve themselves in sincere testing, such as that which Dr Gary Schwartz and others conduct, rather than submit themselves to a non-scientific spectacle hosted by a notorious anti-psi skeptic “magician” who has a vested interest in “debunking” all applicants.
No, actually you have not. While it may have seemed that was the case, in fact it was all happening inside your head, nowhere else.
Actually that’s not true. And the case you reference has progressed since that link was updated.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/13-10849/13-10849-2013-09-25.html
You might want to check your facts next time. Unlikely I know, but still….
What this?
Yeah, first I’d have to buy the book! Talk about a gish-gallop! It’s not a sincere challenge, it’s just an excuse to promote his book! If you claim to have had an out of body experience, then I can’t disprove that! If, while having that experience you can read a letter in a sealed box (under scientific conditions) then I’d believe that.
How can what psychics and mediums claim be debunked if they don’t do what they do under scientific conditions?
Yes, they would rather do that because they know they can get away with much more (i.e. cheat) then with people like Randi.
So you’d rather have “sincere” testing then scientific testing? I wonder why….
And the whole out of body during operations has been nicely disconfirmed already:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4261
Explain that!
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/gsandsv.html
.
As Randi explains in detail, scientists are not the best placed people to test the claims of tricksters.
Do you think it’s a coincidence when such people submit themselves to a scientific spectacle hosted by a notorious anti-psi skeptic “magician” who has a vested interest in “debunking” all applicants their powers, without exception, fail?
It takes a magician to catch a magician.
You have made a specific claim, that the test procedure Randi asks people claiming Psi skills to undergo is not scientific.
As the entire point of the setup is to place Psi claimants into a scientific setting where “tricks” can be ruled out, could you explain why you believe it’s non-scientific?
What is your dismissive opinion on them based on? Ideological biases?
You made a claim, please support or withdraw it. What specifically about the test procedure is not scientific?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge#Rules_and_judging
Seems reasonable to me, but not to the mediums I guess.
What’s your complaint William?
No, it’s simply a matter of acknowledging the factual timeline of events.
Robin,
I said that enjoyments and sufferings are not permanent. They are really sensations and they are not the living things. My important point is that sensations are not living existence. I know that people may suffer from a permanent chronic illness. They do not suffer at all the time. However they want to relieve sufferings. Pain killers may eliminate their pains. If medical Scientists find a treatment for chronic illness their sufferings will come to an end. That is why I said that enjoyments and sufferings are not permanent. Living thing is an existence which like the enjoyments and dislike the sufferings. There may be exceptions under abnormal situations. There also living thing is different from sensations.
Please try to understand the important point and avoid posting such irrelevant comments.
Oh, your high intellectual standards are showing, William!
You could ask her now.
This reminds me when I asked KF about any cases of miraculous limb re-growth. I mentioned the only case I could find, IIRC ~1600 or thereabouts. His response was “well, you see, it *does* happen”.
I suppose what always amuses me is that if everybody was like KF, William, Joe “How do you even know a random mutation is random”G, then I doubt we’d have made it out of the dark ages – no potential cause could ever be ruled out no matter how strong (or indeed weak) the evidence.
William:
William, 20 minutes later:
Do share your “first-hand, empirical evidence” of the Pam Reynolds case, William.
He probably has first hand empirical evidence of hearing about it on a talk show. We must remember that William has high intellectual standards.
I suspect it’ll be the same type of evidence as to why William doubts non-Intelligent Design evolution.
Unarticulated.
Sriskandarajah,
Well, I have to at least mention that there is an unanswered question waiting for you on the other thread. Specifically, how can you say that you and I are separate persons while denying that the hemispheres of a split-brain patient are also separate persons? What criterion do you use to make that judgment?
Okay, now on to your questions.
a) I’m curious;
b) it would potentially change the way I live my life;
c) if it is actually possible to reunite with dead loved ones, that would be nice to know;
d) it has important religious implications;
e) it would open up a new realm for investigation.
Something we agree on!
Sure, that’s possible. The problem is that there’s no good evidence that it actually happens.
Then where is the continuity? A dies; B is born. If there is no immaterial soul, then what is it that “continues from one body to another”?
The living body.
The living body.
(4) So what we lose when death take place?
Life, and all the things that go along with it.
keiths said:
The Pam Reynolds case didn’t – and doesn’t – figure into the development of my worldview system because it’s just a claim about what someone else supposedly experienced.
I think the our amusement is now centered on your, ahem, “very high intellectual standards” which are so high that they prohibit self-contradiction for over a quarter of an hour, William.
Richard,
All scientific articles are, to me, nothing more than testimonal claims (at best) made by people I don’t know, about things I have little or no experience of. The Pam Reynolds case – like any case or experiment in scientific literature – is to me nothing more than someone I don’t know testifying or claiming to have experienced something,
I offer the Reynolds case in specific arguments as a case that apparently contradicts certain claims others make about mind and body, not as “proof” of my worldview or in defense thereof. I have no idea what actually happened to Pam Reynolds; for all I know she and her doctors never even existed. It doesn’t make me any difference one way or another; my worldviews don’t depend on and are not based on or derived from the Pam Reynolds case, the Victor Zammit site, The Secret, Dr Gary Schartz’s research, Wiliam Crookes research, The Afterlife Experiments, etc.
I developed my worldview before I heard of any of those things and before some of them even existed. That I have since found those things and they correspond to a large degree to my experience and worldview is of interest to me, but none of my beliefs depend on them or are extracted from them.