Mod+ 265. DR. GREGORY SHUSHAN ON CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#62
Man what a dick. Last time I try having an honest discussion with a Sam Harris acolyte douche bag.
Now, here, Bertha, is where you might get in trouble with Alex, posting this on a show thread where he can see it.

Let me be the boring ol' forum rules reminder:
Here are some general guidelines to give you an idea of where we're coming from:

1) Respect each other... remember there's a real person on the other end of that post.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting.4/
 
#63
That's a really interesting way of looking at it. For you, the materialist who lives selfishly and greedily has more integrity than the materialist who inconsistently behaves likes a caring and decent person.

I disagree with you on the two points though. I don't think greed and selfishness follow from materialism, and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with having some inconsistencies and tensions with regard to your metaphysical beliefs and everyday ethical behavior. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world if somebody thinks in the study that libertarian free will is impossible, but then goes on believing in it in their everyday life.
Pffft. Other than being a hypocrite regarding your ethics. Apparently there is nothing wrong with being a hypocrite. Doesn't sound like someone with much ethical integrity to me.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#64
Other than being a hypocrite regarding your ethics. You see nothing wrong with being a hypocrite? Doesn't sound like someone with much ethical integrity to me.

My Best,
Bertha
I think the bigger point that Dominic ignores is not everyone is going to make a separation between their metaphysics and their ethics. You see hints of this already, for example after the gang-rapes in India some people excused the rapists, said it was biological determinism from pent up sexual frustration. Similar arguments can be found with arguments for legalizing "moderate" child pornography.

That's just individual criminals and small groups. When you apply the materialist paradigm to the behavior of large bodies like corporations and governments, that's when the utopian pipe dreams of pseudoskeptics is really threatened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#65
I think the bigger point that Dominic ignores is not everyone is going to make a separation between their metaphysics and their ethics. You see hints of this already, for example after the gang-rapes in India some people excused the rapists, said it was biological determinism from pent up sexual frustration. Similar arguments can be found with arguments for legalizing "moderate" child pornography.

That's just individual criminals and small groups. When you apply the materialist paradigm to the behavior of large bodies like corporations and governments, that's when the utopian pipe dreams of pseudoskeptics is really threatened.
I find Dominic's entire argument absurd. Of course human beings base their ethical actions on their belief systems which are themselves based on human knowledge. Can you imagine, for example, if Dominic's ridiculous idea of ethics applied to the Allied troops landing at Omaha beach? Whereas each of the soldiers, instead of basing their ethical human sacrifice on the knowledge they were fighting the Nazis, and were soldiers in an organized army, decided to what? sacrifice themselves based on the breakfast they ate in the morning, or that the sand happened to not be the right color? Or decided they weren't going to fight because they just didn't have that warm fuzzy feeling at day break? What intellectual hogwash.

Of course human ethics is based on knowledge and people's knowledge and beliefs on what their place in reality is. Jesus. Has this guy ever read Socrates or any of the early greeks? How the frack can you have any ethical determinations if it isn't based on some kind of human knowledge? It's just utter Sam Harris sponsored arrogant philosophical crap here, nothing more.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#66
Agreed.

When you pull away the condescension, word twisting, and shaming tactics most catechisms of the materialist cults fall apart.
 
#69
I don't think greed and selfishness follow from materialism, and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with having some inconsistencies and tensions with regard to your metaphysical beliefs and everyday ethical behavior. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world if somebody thinks in the study that libertarian free will is impossible, but then goes on believing in it in their everyday life.
You are like an Einstein!

That is a perfect description for a Theory of Moral Relativity.
 
#72
"The unconscious, in the narrow meaning in which the word has been etched in our culture, is only a part of the vast amount of processes that remain nonconscious… In fact the list of the “not known” is astounding [and includes] all the hidden wisdom and know-how that nature embodied in innate, homeostatic dispositions."

"The Feeling of What Happens, 1999", Professor Antonio Damasio
 
#73
This all comes back to something I said to Sciborg a long time ago. I suggested that one of the big differences between us is that his philosophy is more in the ancient Greek tradition and mine is more in the modern tradition (i.e. following Hume).

I'm sure there are some exceptions here, but on the ancient view your ethics and your metaphysics should be consistent and in harmony. The modern view says that perhaps it's just the human condition that this harmony is not possible. It's kind of tragic in a way, but that's just the way it is. So for example, we may believe that metaphysically objective values and libertarian free will are unreal, and yet still we find it impossible to live this philosophy, simply because of the kind of animals we are.

Anyway, that's my take on it. And by the way I haven't said whether I myself believe in objective values or libertarian free will. To be honest, I don't have a clue whether they exist or not. Let the philosophers argue about that as they have been doing for thousands of years.
 
#74
This all comes back to something I said to Sciborg a long time ago. I suggested that one of the big differences between us is that his philosophy is more in the ancient Greek tradition and mine is more in the modern tradition (i.e. following Hume).

I'm sure there are some exceptions here, but on the ancient view your ethics and your metaphysics should be consistent and in harmony. The modern view says that perhaps it's just the human condition that this harmony is not possible. It's kind of tragic in a way, but that's just the way it is. So for example, we may believe that metaphysically objective values and libertarian free will are unreal, and yet still we find it impossible to live this philosophy, simply because of the kind of animals we are.

Anyway, that's my take on it. And by the way I haven't said whether I myself believe in objective values or libertarian free will. To be honest, I don't have a clue whether they exist or not. Let the philosophers argue about that as they have been doing for thousands of years.
Should what you say matter or not matter to us? It's all arbitrary right? Any authentic basis for ethics is just up to all those philosopher who've argued for a thousand years. So just go ahead, make up your own, and ignore new discoveries in psychology or physics.

Heck, I guess living by an old proverb is best: Ignorance is bliss! The more ignorance, the more bliss!

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#75
Very good description of what he is engaged in here. Thanks. Yes, you're correct. I don't know how Alex maintains his cool- but damn, these arrogant know-it-all X&*&^% love to play you.

My Best,
Bertha
With pseudoskeptics I find two important aphorisms can guide our actions:

"You cannot awaken a man who only pretends to be asleep"
-Navajo Proverb

"The man who wants to beat a dog will always find his stick."
-Serbian Proverb
 
#76
I think the bigger point that Dominic ignores is not everyone is going to make a separation between their metaphysics and their ethics. You see hints of this already, for example after the gang-rapes in India some people excused the rapists, said it was biological determinism from pent up sexual frustration. Similar arguments can be found with arguments for legalizing "moderate" child pornography.

That's just individual criminals and small groups. When you apply the materialist paradigm to the behavior of large bodies like corporations and governments, that's when the utopian pipe dreams of pseudoskeptics is really threatened.
Yes, we've been over all this before. You think that famous scientists and philosophers are able to separate their metaphysical beliefs from their everyday ethical behavior, whereas the masses are somehow less able to do this. I disagree. I think most people are able to do this. But it's really an empirical question, and I could be wrong.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#77
Yes, we've been over all this before. You think that famous scientists and philosophers are able to separate their metaphysical beliefs from their everyday ethical behavior, whereas the masses are somehow less able to do this. I disagree. I think most people are able to do this. But it's really an empirical question, and I could be wrong.
If people can separate metaphysical beliefs from ethics, then the moral impetus of groups like the New Atheists pushing a materialist paradigm in order to negate religion goes out the window.
 
#79
Well thankfully materialists don't live according to what their ideology ultimately entails. Which is devoid of purpose with the most cherished of things and even reason and logic itself to be nothing more than atoms bumping together. Nothing on which to even assume that their logic is anyway valid. They cut off the thin branch at the base on which the whole thing rests.

They call logic and reason, but by it's own design it refutes any validity for the basis of logic and reason. They want it both ways.

And thank goodness for that.
 
#80
If people can separate metaphysical beliefs from ethics, then the moral impetus of groups like the New Atheists pushing a materialist paradigm in order to negate religion goes out the window.
Yes, good point. But then I can't stand the New Atheism anyway. The whole idea that we can make the world a better place by replacing organized religion with scientific materialism is obviously ridiculous. But unlike you, I also think it's ridiculous to think that Psi and NDEs can make the world a better place.
 
Top