Originally Posted by LBrain

oh boy, am the only one here that doesn't identify with anything? Call it existentialism if you want, but I understand there is some sort of definition for that too - so I can't be that. I fall into the 'none of the above' category. Basic human goodness cannot be learned or taught - what the turtle guy points out.

Originally Posted by SparkyMcSparky

This is taught, not innate, and I see this everyday in kids who have been raised to believe the sun rises and sets out of their asses every day. Zero empathy.

Originally Posted by LBrain

If I took Hitler away for a few months for therapy would he have come away with a different outlook on life? Maybe? Maybe not.

Originally Posted by awuh1

Fair questions. Let me just say that I sincerely respect your skepticism. Believe me, I've been there and done that for a vast majority of my life. My beliefs were firmly grounded in empirical evidence. I did not wish to be bothered with "dogma and belief" (as you put it in your OP). Nothing short of the brief experience which I had one morning could have changed that. I've described it in detail here if anyone is interested. http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...xperience.html It was not my intention to inject of this experience into a discussion on this forum out of respect for the rules here. I'll let what I wrote there answer your questions. My interest in physics came only after this remarkable experience. You see, I don't believe in the "supernatural". I believe things can be explained. I just don't think that we are presently able to do this with our limited understandings. David Bohm, John Bell, Michael Talbot and several others are theoretically framing things that very strongly resonate with me. Empirical data is accumulating that's backing up this view. They are on to something. I know it. I don't have to believe it. I know it because I have experienced it. Perhaps when you initially asked for a discussion of "Science and scientific methods, critical thinking and healthy skepticism" you did not anticipate an interest that sprang from a personal experience. I guess that's quite understandable. I suspect my interest in physics and about how we have come to know and understand our physical world is coming from a very different place than most people who post here. My intention was not to make anyone uncomfortable, nor was it to impose my beliefs on anyone else. If you are currently like I was several years ago, nothing short of an experience like mine could change your mind anyway. I think I've said much more than I intended to initially. My apologies if I have offended anyone.

Originally Posted by SparkyMcSparky

Very interesting thread all, though I admit the science part of it is a bit dry for me. I took physics and astrophysics in University, and although I found it interesting, knowing the amount that "x" gravitational force bends a beam of light wasn't all that personally relevant to myself. However, I did enjoy philosophy, where an intro class was the first time I found out that "Whoah?! You mean that I'm not supposed to blindly accept everything I've been taught, and actually exercise free will, empiricism, and logic in looking at the world?" Although these thoughts were unsettling, and I never managed to reconcile the free-will vs. determininsm argument with Christianity, I had still lived a fairly "Christian" life in the subsequent years. Kids were baptised, oldest was confirmed, fell back on faith when a child was lost, and hung the appropriate iconography around the house. Sought help from God with suspected mental illness and a drinking problem, and in all cases, received the same response. Nada. Now the definition of faith is that it is something you believe in the absence of empirical evidence. In science, these are called theories. In matters of the spirit, these are called religious belief. I have always had belief during my life, but have found this challenged somewhat as I go through the recovery process. Not to say one turns their back on "God" due to a lack of response. However, without a response, one does have a justification in becoming skeptical. And when one is sober, they have both the time and the clarity to contemplate spiritualism. Because, if belief and faith are not sufficient to sustain a path of soberness, how do they make an adequate foundation upon which one can live their life? I do work with some very intelligent people, many of them Christian, and one who has spent time in Bible School. Although not raised to be a skeptic, he does enjoy discussion of these matters, and the last few weeks, we have had some very in-depth discussion regarding Christianity and skepticism. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your belief system), the more research I do, the more I read, and the more I debate, the more I am becoming more secular in thought. For example, when we debate how empirical Christianity is, our discussions always go circular. Although I am given examples of "evidence" and "proof" to support Christianity, these "proofs" are sadly lacking. Why? Because all of the proofs themselves also require faith, as their authenticity is only valid through a lens of belief, not fact. The Bible supports Christianity: The oldest living fragment of a New Testament Bible verse dates to approximately 160 years after Jesus' death. To believe this is the inspired word of God requires a leap of faith. Read a German textbook from 1938 and you'll understand what I mean. Jesus fulfilled thousands of Old Testament prophesies: This tenet is based on the record of a book who's authorship is of question, which itself also requires acts of faith to believe. Adam and Eve, the Great Flood, etc. - the Old Testament itself is completely unverifiable. Any Talmudic scholar could set themselves up to fulfill Old Testament Prophesy. And the New Testament itself is also not independently verified. In other words, the "proof" also requires faith. Regardless, having this discussion with others now means I have a Gideon app on my iPhone, as I still can be saved. And the Christians who are in my life are having difficulty providing me with proof of their belief, exposing it for what it is, well, uh, belief. But they do want me to figure it out before I die and go to Hell. This is not to say that I am now secular or renouncing Christianity. I am also not going to start signing people up for the Deists or Atheists club. Instead, I have forced myself to look critically at my life (which includes the drinking), and am starting to think that if I choose to be a Christian, it is an act of faith, and can be justified in no other way. I have also found more comfort in the concept that this is it, one life, and then nada, versus the torn and conflicted person I had been. Between Biblical parables and the concepts of Heaven and Hell, the "afterlife" is a potentially scary and unknown place. When one already suffers from temporal crises, this can be a source of great stress. Plenty more to say, but this is probably enough for today.

Originally Posted by samseb5351

The last thing I want to do AWUH is upset you and change your experience.

Originally Posted by caboblanco

...what about those who have had spiritual experiences? For them it's not blind...there are more of those people with these experiences then you might think..it's not something that comes up in everyday conversation..and if you want to refute such second hand experiences its just really denying something you have no experience with

Originally Posted by LBrain

perhaps I misspoke (typed). Yes, character can be taught and innate human goodness is a given - assuming normal brain function.
There are people born evil - just as the MJ reference for ability - who will never change.
If I took Hitler away for a few months for therapy would he have come away with a different outlook on life? Maybe? Maybe not.

Originally Posted by desypete

there was a hell of a lot more people than just hitler who committed some of the worst crimes in hitlers army
were they just following orders ? where was the human decency ?
still today the german nation has to carry this shame of what there country did so its easy to single out hitler but what about the normal soldier who turns on the gas ?

was he evil ?

Originally Posted by NightsWatch

I'm not going to defend the people who carried out Hitler's orders, but have you heard of the Milgram experiment?

Edit: Or the Stanford prison experiment?

Originally Posted by awuh1

No worries. My experience cannot be changed. Contempt prior to investigation does irritate me, but probably because it reminds me of my prior self. I look forward to reading your story.

Originally Posted by awuh1

I will try to answer your questions and stay within the guidelines of the secular forum. At the same time I will try to keep the discussion relevant to your initial post concerning scientific method, scientism and critical thinking. I would suggest that as you read my response, you pay very close attention to your own thinking. It may be instructive. Can the meaning behind your experience change? I'm not sure I understand the question precisely, but yes, I think that it can. The only way I can imagine that it would change, would be if I were to have another similar experience. You have to understand that the nature of the experience was so profound that I cannot now imagine how other "explanations" involving brain chemistry, psychological states etc. could even come close providing an "explanation". The psychological/neurological side of things is part of my formal training. I cannot imagine a satisfactory explanation using these methods... but I'm all ears. "When you contemplate the experience what emotions are at play, would I be right if I said it was an experience where you kind of feel a low level connectedness, or perhaps even a feeling like a background very subtle vibration"? No. The experience was more of an IN YOUR FACE type of experience. There was nothing subtle about it. It was intense, and it was overwhelming. It left me with a sense of awe. It is something that is so very difficult to express. Our everyday experience provides no references. One of the elements was direct information transfer but without words. This is the reason I have been drawn to the topic of near death experiences (NDEs). One of the elements that is commonly reported (by people who have temporarily entered a state of clinical death and returned) is communication which is direct and completely nonverbal. I can relate. "I to get irritated by contempt prior to investigation". So let me ask. Have you made a judgment about the cause of my experience? (This is a rhetorical question by the way ) If not, I would say you are keeping an open mind. But what does that investigation entail?? This is the best question of all IMO. I'm not sure if there is a one size fits all answer but I do have an opinion. I think that knowing the true nature of reality is probably the most profound question we can ask. We should approach it in that light, and with the diligence and open mindedness that it deservers. No less. The degree of that diligence and open mindedness will depend on the individual. The problem for science, with experiences such as mine, is that conditions cannot be set up to replicate the experience. That does not mean that they do not exist, or that they are other than what they seem. Least of all does it mean that a materialistic explanation for them will always be sufficient. By the same token I think people should subject their experiences to examination by whatever means possible. They should examine their beliefs and motivations for holding those beliefs, for there is quite possibly much more to learn by doing so. Hell, I got a definitive answer and it seems like it was only the beginning of a learning curve.