Saw this video today and thought I'd put it out there for everyone. Some interesting thoughts
Sorry, Joe, but I have to disagree. I find the video very one sided and full of prejudices itself. It portrays "believers" in the paranormal, "supernatural," as blithering idiots who attribute every moving lampshade or cold breeze to "ghosts" and immediately believe any "supernatural" story by anyone. While showing the "science minded" person as in possession of the "true reality" and always right. (And it's obviously the "materialist" paradigm science that is referred to, not the New Science, and the "New Scientists" as has been discussed at length here in other forums)
There's no balance here. It could just as well be shown that the science minded guy is too tied to rigid, limited models of reality while the paranormal "believer" is an intelligent investigator, as most parapsychologists are, exploring new territory and finding plenty of evidence.
Much more could be critiqued about the slanted view expressed, but I'm sure our astute members here have already spotted them.
I'm with you, Joe, on cause and effect, and I'm in the school of thought that says all first causes originate in the metaphysical and then into the physical. Certainly, Newtonian, materialist laws will not explain the paranorma, quantum physics can. Of course, the materialists will never accept this.
I still say the video is slanted and prejudiced in it's own right. It implies a bashing of the paranormal. Why didn't it explicitly say that only "some" people involved with the paranormal, not all, are such idiots that they'll not look and spot a fan blowing a lampshade and immediately say it's caused by "ghosts."
If I were to do over the video, I'd show some "closed minded" scientists vs "true, openminded scientists(who do "embrace, compare and explore"), and also show some intelligent people involved with the paranormal vs the naive idiot types.
I'm only calling for a sense of balance here.
A few views...
I write the following so to if possible be of service to us all so that altruism might blossom in the universe.
I will say that I agree mostly with Joe in his latest remark in the above.
But, on the other hand.
The movie, does not as I see it cover the whole picture. But all right it is a short movie.
One factor is this: There is the factor that the individuals seeing the movie might already have been conditioned or have phobias etc., when they are receiving the movie. Their reaction will of course be according to this. Some of them might therefore find it to be too scientific or even flawed scientifically. - But often they will have difficulties in telling others why science is an unhealthy approach when dealing with the promotion of altruism and because of that knowledge about the science of psychology and psychological factors like phobia and fear involved with it. And some of those seeing it, might not detect that their reaction is due to either conditioning factors, phobia and other psychological blockages. Not even when the movie very shortly touches upon this as I see it very complex psychological subject. Too shortly to my taste. - Criticism of ones own point of view might be perceived in the above video by seeing it, and this might spark a reaction, because some spiritual leaders or religious believers do not like criticism. Some even think (or rather believe) that belief as a kind of religious doctrine is higher than scientific research and philosophical comparative exchanges. This might even operate as a phobia in their mind-set. And there are according to the science of psychology also religious phobias, and not only phobias for snakes and spiders etc.
2. Another is also what is science? There are many approaches to what it is.
One could say, that: What is scientifically proven to the individual is proven to it, no matter if another person says that it is not scientifically proven.
What I am saying is that the message in the movie is received differently depending on who is seeing it.
Belief is not knowledge. Belief masked as Knowledge is not Knowledge. Assumed Knowledge is not Knowledge. And Knowledge might only be limited Knowledge. And this is not really covered very well in the movie either. I think this is also what you Michael are referring a bit to.
My view is that if any of you readers seek to promote altruism on this planet, it cannot be done without any psychological change occurs. I find this to be very important. And I am happily not the only one saying this these days.
And because of that, there seems to be a need for psychological knowledge if altruism is to be promoted - wholeheartedly. And since psychology is a science based on various elements and subjects which can be proven more or less, it baffles me to see so many religious organizations and sects and even cults in operation on our planet - most of them often saying that their teachings is better than others. And this while they do not emphasize this science called psychology with regard to phobias and fear and how they might operate within religious organizations and New Age related organizations and groups. Even very many spiritual forums and their organizational structure needs more scrutiny in this regard as I see it. Maybe even this one. (Sorry Joe, I do hope you take it with compassion. Smile).
These are just my views. And they do as I see it not cover the whole picture, but they might lead in a useful direction.
I don't have time for a lengthy reply or extensive interchange here, but you're right. M., I was basically pointing out how limited the view was that the video took. If anyone rereads my response, I only called for a balanced approach, and illustrated one way this could have been done in a short video.
I think to ascribe to much psychological baggage to one side is on a slippery slope. True, there is paranoia and defensiveness in the metaphysical/spiritual field, but so too among the skeptical community. Scientists and the scientific community is not immune to psychological troubles and subconscious pressures.
A short example is the famous materialist, Richard Dawkins, who is widely known for his arrogance and rudeness in dealing with critics of his, both in print and sometimes in person.
Being respectful and fairminded with critics of one's views is the simple and fruitful approach, in my view. Spending too much time in "psychological therapy" usually devolves into a waste of time.
My views are:
I agree very much with your views.
"Being respectful and fairminded with critics of one's views is the simple and fruitful approach, in my view. Spending too much time in "psychological therapy" usually devolves into a waste of time."
M. Sufilight says:
Yes, "psychological therapy". But that is your view. Others might have a different one. And what is "too much time"?
My view is that if any of you readers seek to promote altruism on this planet, it cannot be done without any psychological change occurs. I find this to be very important.
Do you not agree?
In what manner one deal with psychology as a science is something which should be given to the individual to decide - well if altruism is sought to be promoted. But, again there might be exceptions there too, but I would like to hear about if they are there.
There are non-religious psychology and philosophical-religious psychology etc. etc.
By "Psychological Therapy" I meant the various schools of psychoanalysis, which take years and it seems to me not to have improved much in the world. Of course, there are individual exceptions. Plus, there are the various alternative "psycho-therapies" that are of value, but even they seem limited. But, every school in this area, spiritual or non-spiritual, can march out some adherents that claim to be completely free of all psychological troubles, conscious and subconscious. Who knows, probably some are right.
I'm with you, M., in that it is individual. What path and psychological approach works for everyone? None, I think.
The individual has to search and find what is right for them.
I'm with Gandhi, let's transform ourselves first: "Be the change you want to see in the world."
I am agree with you Joe. This is great video. A good advise at the end "Feed Your Head Wisely"
I remember growing up with my younger brother in Soviet Union, atheism enforced country.
Both of us being into science. But since I remember always saying while look at the starry sky. I know there is a Universe above and beyond and we are just a a tiny planet in Absolute Space, geometrical Astronomy chart.
My brother's science went strictly atheistic. His wife and 2 children (10 & 17 )as well.
He saw a lots of people grief, being doing MD services in army, then long nights working and studied at ICU, finished the Medical Academy, become a great surgeon. He disbelieve in any God's Existence. He said that he saved many people and people died too right in his hands. When he couldn't do.The God didn't do it, because there is no such existed He said, never had any other dimension ever approaches. While fluently in Latin "the dead" language of Medicine and an archaic Math. With 0 Spiritual Growth. He with debate: "spiritual" out of his questions. Even I try more Astronomy - Astrology approach. There is when all stopped. He is 36 years old. Strange and intelligence for him is in suffusion. For me is all the opposite. Living and believing with unexplainable and hard to prove . Seen many, lived through. But mostly I kept privately.
A lot of generalisations and un-outspoken requirements and assumptions in this video. What is meant by 'supernatural' to begin with? And then there are a number of incomplete logical conclusions.
All in all it sums up a rather outdated positivistic-materialistic view on the world which presents itself as realistic and everything else as speculation. Too easy.
A suggestion: Try the video again near 6:00 minutes. There the speaker is telling something about being skeptical about science. There is a head with one half white and one half black.
There are a two lines that are saying something like: "Guilty the same skeptical attitude they criticize in others."...and being ..."Skeptical of skepticism."
Good to know, M. Sufilight. I turned it off after 3 minutes but maybe it gets better after that. Still there are a lot of assumptions till then.