The Postulation of a Designer (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by John Clinch , London, Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 14:59 (6113 days ago) @ John Clinch

Of course! It has just occurred to me that the common element in your thinking appears to be that you are sceptical of science itself. - You are, for no coherent reason that I can understand, sceptical of the ability of science ever to explain life. Fair enough. But you are also, for no good reason, sceptical of the psychological, neurological, ethological and anthroplogical claims that together form a coherent complex of reasons that account for the pseudo-scientific so-called phenomena you refer to ("out of body, ESP etc"). - I'm not saying that you are a creationist, or a new ager, or a UFO conspiracy theorist, or someone who believes in astrology or the healing power of crystals, but it is striking that all those categories of nonsense exhibit a baseless contempt for the scientific method. They are all utterly credulous or willfully doubtful in the teeth of all the evidence - and often both simultaneously! - The way I read it, you, like they, doubt the effectiveness and reach of evidence-based science - albeit in a milder, more reasoned, way. It's like being sceptical of scepticism itself. It's like doubting rationality. If you are sceptical of scepticism, you have no good reason to believe or disbelieve anything. Go down that road and you end up with nihilism, or solipsism, or radical relativism. You won't be alone exactly - there's a lot of anti-science about - but I daresay the company ain't great.