Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 6) (Humans)

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 09, 2011, 02:03 (4651 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Next, you discuss an instance (page 148) where you attempt to explain a "psychic" event. 
> 
> Do you have any metal fillings? -Only two gold inlays. -> Once, when I was... about 14 or 15, I wrote the lyrics to the song "Closer," from "Nine Inch Nails," a full two years before I ever heard the song... when I first heard the song and felt the amazing "deja vu," I attributed it to grabbing radio waves that morning when the song first played. The song was first released May 1994, and I recall hearing it (without listening to the radio) for the first time sometime that summer. I hated the band when it first appeared... it wasn't until I heard THIS song for the first time that I realized there was a connection here... Maybe the youth of the country had an unconscious event then...?-Yours is a great example of a psychic event. Believe it. I know it when I hear about it. My wife has had several that I have observed
> 
> The only other negative from this chapter involves your idea of the collective unconscious...-Rupert Sheldrake has done some interesting stuff, you can't deny that. Just keep your mind open. One day we may know a great deal about such phenomena. I don't really 'know'. I wonder, however.
> 
> At what point can you deride dualism and advocate its existence as you do on pages 160, 167, 170, 172, and 173? -I don't know that these examples support dualism. They are just psychic events.
> 
> If you claim that mind and body are separate as you seem to do in all but in one portion where you attribute the entire body as conscience--as I subscribe to--how do you defeat the arguments against Cartesian dualism?-My view of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon from a brain, the most complex item in the universe, and is related to the UI indirectly or directly.
> 
> Finally, on page 173 you argue that "science is silent theologically..." How can you you possibly argue this without a discussion of what science is, what it does, and its implicit assumption of methodological materialism? 
> 
> Before I print one word to the positive of this chapter, I require you to respond to at least THAT QUESTION...-I thought I covered the methodological materialism in chapter one. Should I have repeated it?