'Yes, it's this kind of subjectivity that many sceptics can't accept. It's just not scientific enough, in their view.' / 'Incidentally, psychic abilities come in many different forms, and not all are to do with knowing the future or seeing ghosts. Some have an ineffable awareness – knowledge – of God and the hereafter. Yet this would be too subjective for sceptics to accept.'

Yes, it would - particularly as 'an ineffable awareness - knowledge - of God and the hereafter' could just as easily be produced by any of a number of other phenomena, including (but not limited to) the onset of schizophrenia.

'I can't remember what the program was called to be honest. I caught it one evening and sat and watched it. James Randi was actually on it. He wouldn't give his $1m, because his argument was that the pyschic could have painted lots of paintings, and only picked out ones that were relevant by coincidence. Based on this logic, due to the laws of probability the psychic failed, in Randi's view.'

Which is scientifically sound. All he has to do to win the $1m is submit his paintings to Randi AS HE PAINTS THEM. This also illustrates why claims of precognitive dreaming ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. How many dreams do the claimants have in total, and what percentage of these appear to predict the future? Again, these are 'real world' claims, and ought to be tested against control groups to establish whether there are significant differences. I have had one or two dreams such as this in my time, but I find no argument for regarding them as anything more than quirks of coincidence. Again, not necessarily the more interesting explanation, but certainly the more rational.

'My argument was that belief in the existence of faries at the bottom of the garden is different to belief in heightened pyschic abilities.'
That's a position, not an argument. My argument remains that they are essentially the same, as there is no solid scientific evidence to support either.

--Yet will mr. randi face the task of verifying the (at least plausibility) of the paintings coming from premonition, with an open, and unbiased mind....from what i have read of him, i doubt he could...

' --Yet will mr. randi face the task of verifying the (at least plausibility) of the paintings coming from premonition, with an open, and unbiased mind....from what i have read of him, i doubt he could...'

The nature of science, properly conducted, is that it does just that ... it removes the biases and prejudices of both the experimenter and the test subject. Randi requires those who claim the $1m to submit to scientific scrutiny. The conditions are specified, fixed, and laid out on Randi's website for those with an inclination to look.

As for verifying 'plausibility', this is a concept with very little meaning. (I am tempted to return to my 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' analogy yet again, but I will resist ... LOL)

James Randi has been one of my personal heroes for a long time. Any test for the $1 million challenge is designed and agreed upon by all participants -- nobody goes into a test without having agreed to all conditions. Randi himself has always said that he doesn't like the term "debunker," because a person can't prove a negative. Yes, there are those of us who say "there is no God" but the meaning here is "due to the evidence as it stands it seems improbable that there is a God." Or Loch Ness Monster, whatever. So yeah, we need to pick our words mo' betta' I suppose.

Another note about Randi's challenge -- he isn't the one who decides who gets the money. There aren't "judges." If any test meets the standards for success agreed upon by ALL parties, then success takes care of itself. Indeed, Randi doesn't even require that he be there for the testing.

You should look at http://www.randi.org and check out the application for the prize, it's pretty sound.

But the main point is, yes, when I say "Sylvia Browne isn't psychic," I suppose I should make a few more keystrokes and type "due to all available evidence, it is highly improbable that Sylvia Browne is possessed of any paranormal abilities." It's just shorter to say "She's a fraudulent kook."

The burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim. If you say that there are dancing oysters on the moon, then it's not up to me to disprove that, it's up to you to prove it. The same goes for God, Zeus, Santa Claus, the Chupacabra, and anything else.

In fact, I was reading today in this month's Discover magazine how scientists are really at a crossroads with string theory because despite all the wonderful math they've come up with, they can't find any actual proof. This is an example of what I'm talking about outside of the "paranormal." They've come up with ways to try and find proof, but if, like Randi's challenge subjects, the tests fail, then nobody will "pick" a winner -- the science itself will show success or failure.

Randi can be a curmudgeonly old cuss, but the work he's done to expose fakers like Uri Geller and Peter Popoff have made society, in my opinion, a better place.

Just because we have a gap in knowledge, don't fill it with pixies and miracles. That's the easy way out.

Cheers.

Furthermore, I didn't "conviently forget" all of her correct predictions. My recent article about her 2000 predictions shows you a hit/miss ratio for just one year. There are people who do that sort of thing all the time -- take a psychic's predictions, wait until the time they've predicted is past, and then research them to see how many were hits and how many were misses. It is just that sort of thing that makes me say that it is quite improbable that Ms. Browne is anything other than a petulant blowhard.

As for UFO's, I certainly believe that there are things flying about that are not readily identifiable. But making the leap from "unidentified" to "alien spacecraft" is something that there just isn't any reliable evidence for. Like the "Face on Mars," it's easy for something to look like something else due to blurry vision, distance, a whole host of things. Mathmatically, it seems very likely that there is life in some form somewhere in the universe -- there's a lot of space out there -- but I can't make a leap from "mathmatically probable" to "they're visiting us right now" at all -- physics makes that very improbable.

As for your space craft crash thing, that's anecdotal evidence -- and that doesn't work as scientific proof. Just like LW's dream (and I'm not calling you a liar, I believe you had the dream), it is an interesting thing to hear or read about but doesn't provide the sort of proof needed to pass scientific muster. I read sites like Jeff Rense's and time and again, all that's provided is anecdotal evidence. It's just not good enough.

Cheers.

The same goes for God

God is a similar kettle of fish to psychic phenomenon, because God, like consciousness, eludes scientific weighing or measuring. ("God is Spirit", which is Consciousness).

As was said earlier, science will always fall short when attempting to proof or dis-prove issues such as psychic phenomena, because of their intrinsic subjective or 'wishy washy' nature. God, in particular, will always be a thorn in science's side, because ultimate issues of existence - such as whether the cosmos has deeper purpose - relate to 'the Infinite Existence', which by definition cannot be comprehended by a finite intellect.

Our belief in God, and for most religionists our experience of God, actually depends on our level, or growth, of consciousness. God is not purely an intellectual issue. Those who are completely wrapped up with the intellect of the head, and who ignore deeper principles of the heart, will always be at a loss at religionists’ beliefs.

As i said, believe it or not, it makes little difference to me. But I do know these flashes of precognition are a very real phenomenon, even if only because I myself have experienced them.

As Little Whip said, in some circumstances some of us don't need "faith". Especially with issues relating to God, intuition and knowledge can become rooted in one’s consciousness. But in the meantime, the sceptic stands bewildered, often frustrated, and will continue to argue with religionists - until he gets bored maybe - comparing believe in God with belief in Santa Claus, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. “Where’s the proof?” they ask. And so the argument will go on, and on, and on. The religionist, however, deep down in his heart, will know a little secret. And this deeper form of intuition, (often knowledge), is the gateway to that person's Truth.

'The religionist, however, deep down in his heart, will know a little secret.'
But in what way is this 'little secret' any different from the schizophrenic knowing that other people's eyes contain laser beams, or that TV programmes are sending him secret instructionsto kill his budgie?

'Our belief in God, and for most religionists our experience of God, actually depends on our level, or growth, of consciousness.'
This is what annoys me about this kind of excuse for an argument. On one hand, you argue that 'Those who are completely wrapped up with the intellect of the head' will always fail to understand faith. Then, without ever defining your terms, you throw in a completely unsubstantiated claim that religious people have a more developed 'consciousness'. ie. Elitism relating to the intellect is irrelevant, but elitism relating to the consciousness is significant. Pathetic.

you throw in a completely unsubstantiated claim that religious people have a more developed 'consciousness'. ie. Elitism relating to the intellect is irrelevant, but elitism relating to the consciousness is significant

Some religionists are very undeveloped, as I'm sure you're aware. (Tyrannical fundamentalists, for example.) I was referring more to enlightened, mature religionists. From my point of view, anyone who is enlightened would believe in - or know about - God anyway.

But as I've been saying, this issue is so subjective, (especially my views on it), it couldn't cut any mustard with a scientific minded person in the first place. The fact that you described my views as "pathetic", means that you're on a different wavelength to me. From my point of view, this isn't a question of attacking or judging people's point of view. It's a question of sharing views in a friendly manner. I think your views are excellent and very interesting. (I mean it!)

But in what way is this 'little secret' any different from the schizophrenic knowing that other people's eyes contain laser beams, or that TV programmes are sending him secret instructionsto kill his budgie?

I was talking from within the context of a more mature, grounded spirituality than the things you refered to there.

But making the leap from "unidentified" to "alien spacecraft" is something that there just isn't any reliable evidence for

--I'm not saying that it is necessarily "alien", but my thoughts are, if the man DID see what he saw...then why the cover up...why the secrecy...

physics makes that very improbable

--Physics defined by the earth,etc... When we come to things such as Black holes...everything seems to unravel...and many scientists (i believe carl sagan, and several foreign scientists have "proven", depending on what you view as proven...such things (black holes) exist, they and other regions of space are not definable by physics as we know it...


--(BTW, i did see the hit/miss topic)

--Another thing is, perhaps the psychic "realm" (for lack of a better term)( the "pool" in which psychics get their premonition...)is ever changing based on actions and inactions of us humans...(example; a psychic tells you that you are to be hit by a train and killed...well you would then stay away from trains...right? Nothing happens... or you could dismiss it and, ironically enough... get hit, and die...then what would you think...) This could go along somewhat with the string theory... or in that the future is constantly in motion...different actions, means different futures for each person...its all about choice...

Mathmatically, it seems very likely that there is life in some form somewhere in the universe

--Yet mathematics has been proven wrong in certain cases...and other things...can't be solved mathematically.... science in a way deals with faith...in that the established system is continuous...

'The fact that you described my views as "pathetic", means that you're on a different wavelength to me.'

No, not your views, just this particular argument. And I am perhaps guilty of using too emotive a word here; maybe 'flawed' would have been a better choice. Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that you continue to draw attention to the subjective nature of your argument.

So, my apologies AB. 'It's a question of sharing views in a friendly manner', as you put it.

As to the schizophrenia analogy, my point is this. As faith and belief are, as I think we agree, inherently subjective by nature, whence arises any judgement of spirituality being 'more mature, grounded'? ie. If the schizophrenic believes what he believes as genuinely as you or I believe what WE believe, who makes the judgement as to which is the better developed?

If the schizophrenic believes what he believes as genuinely as you or I believe what WE believe, who makes the judgement as to which is the better developed?

Or, for that matter, a person that has ingested a hallucinogenic substance. Many religions the world 'round have used such substances to "find god."

Not only is there little to no concrete proof for psychic phenomena, most of the tricks of the psychics can be reproduced by normal, human means. For example, I've read tarot cards for about 12 years now, at first as a "true believer" and now as a skeptic who likes to show people how cold reading, hot reading, and shotgunning (that's when you say "oh, I get a "B" or a "D" name") work. I'm good at reading tarot, but it has nothing to do with magic or psychic ability. I could hand you a list of my own hits and it might impress you if you didn't know me as a skeptic. But if I were to be honest, my list of misses would be far longer -- it's just that people tend to remember the hits and ignore the misses.

Believers WANT psychics to be right, therefore they will play games in their minds to give the psychic more hits than were actually there. They also tend to give the reader more information than they realize -- and charlatans use that to sucker a person in. It's disgusting, especially in the case of somebody like Browne or Edward or van Praagh who play on people's grief and fear (although the Pope does this, too, but he's not as good at cold reading as John Edward ).

whence arises any judgement of spirituality being 'more mature, grounded'? … who makes the judgement as to which is the better developed?

Any human judgement, conclusion, or belief etc. must necessarily be drawn from a finite well of subjectivity, (i.e. from a person's consciousness). We are creators of our own experience, and only we as individuals can judge whether our model of the world, and our own points of view, are "enlightened" or not. It can't be any other way. Other people can try to tell you what’s right and what’s wrong, but we all have a choice. Naturally, as we grow and develop, our beliefs and our models of the world will change, and will ultimately lead (I believe) closer to enlightenment.

I appreciate the fact that you continue to draw attention to the subjective nature of your argument.

Yes. And it’s no less subjective than yours. When people have premonition-dreams, or when people have psychically intuitive beliefs about the nature of life, God or the hereafter, they don’t need “proof”, because their inner-convictions are proof enough. As you haven’t come across any form of proof or inner-conviction that would satisfy you personally, you choose not to believe in psychic ability, (or God, or whatever.) Yet your conclusions are still subjective nonetheless.

We can’t escape the fact that any conclusion must be drawn from a person's mind. Therefore, all views and conclusions are necessarily subjective. How much our views are aligned with ‘What Is So’ is another matter, but that’s for us as individuals to decide. Interestingly, this 'subjective ground', from whence all views arise, is entirely consistent with the religious conviction that the Ultimate Dimension of Reality is Spirit, (i.e. Consciousness). Here, I’m talking about the nature of ‘the Infinite Existence’. If God is Spirit, then the Truth is a matter of consciousness, (which it clearly is anyway, regarding all human views.) Religion takes this principle of Spirit to a deeper, broader level, beyond mere human consciousness.

In my view, regarding ultimate issues of existence, religionists have their ladder against the right wall.

'As you haven’t come across any form of proof or inner-conviction that would satisfy you personally, you choose not to believe in psychic ability, (or God, or whatever.) Yet your conclusions are still subjective nonetheless.'

Not exactly. It hinges on the difference between believing / not believing and whether or not observable evidence exists to support a particular argument. There are many phenomena in this world that I would - subjectively - prefer to just disappear, but I accept them because there is scientific evidence to support them. On the other hand, I don't accept the existence of psychic phenomena, and I won't unless and until science supplies some rigorous evidence to support it.

So my position derives more from the external and objective yardstick that science affords us, and less from any subjective preference.

It hinges on the difference between believing / not believing and whether or not observable evidence exists to support a particular argument.

Hi Furry. I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think you’ve grasped the point I’ve been trying to make. I’ll try and clear a few things up, starting with larger aspects of reality and digging down to details.

Firstly, science has revealed that energy cannot be annihilated or newly created. It can only change form. Therefore, ‘Something’ must have existed for ever. It has no beginning and no end. (This is what I refer to as “the Infinite Existence.”) Naturally, “the Infinite” transcends our finite minds, and also transcends science. But what is its ultimate nature? In other words, is everything that exists made purely of materialistic stuff that can be weighed or measured by traditional scientific methods?

As a human example, consider a mother’s love for her child. Is there such thing as “spiritual wealth”? Do you believe in love? If not, then that’s your prerogative. But it might be wise to keep an open mind. Consciousness itself eludes scientific weighing and measuring. (Consciousness, or “spirit”, is the intrinsic ‘is-ness’ of your self-awareness, which experiences life, and which at this moment is reading this blog.)

Imagine living in the time when our scientists believed that the world was flat. This belief was simply due to a limited perspective. (In this case, it was a perspective in the physical sense, as opposed to the psychic sense.) Now imagine a spaceman from another planet landing on earth, and telling us that the world was round. We probably wouldn’t believe him. An open minded person might conclude, “I’ll believe that the world is round when observable evidence exists to support the claim”.

This would be a wise conclusion for the person to make. But my point is that in terms of spiritual awareness, a person with a small degree of psychic awareness is like the human who believed the world was flat. His perspective, in the psychic sense, was limited. A person with a large degree of psychic awareness, however, is like the enlightened spaceman, who had a greater perspective of reality.

Spiritually speaking, the evolution is this: Ignorance, faith, intuition, knowledge. Those whose consciousness has blossomed to deeper degrees of intuition and knowledge don’t need “proof” of their convictions or beliefs. Instead, their heart speaks a different language to the hardened scientific minded. (There is indeed a difference between the cleverness of the head and the wisdom of the heart.)

The wisdom of the ages teaches that “God is Spirit”, and that all is not death and finality. From my point of view, people who are psychically attuned are aware of deeper levels of reality that are equally as real as inanimate matter. These levels of reality are detectable and measurable, but not in the same sense as traditional scientific methods. (We’re all psychic, by the way. It’s just a question of by how much. For example, we can often tell whether a person is loving, warm and open, or whether they’re cold, closed and hostile – regardless of external behaviour. ‘Sensing an atmosphere’ is a basic form of psychic intuition. So is sensing a mother's love, or spiritual wealth.)

People with a strong faith in God or a higher force, possess a degree of psychic intuition. The less psychically attuned our consciousness, the smaller our perspective of reality, and the less we can comprehend deeper levels of reality.

Whatever our views about such issues, they are necessarily subjective, because we’re all catching brief glimpses of the Infinite Reality through the small windows of our consciousness. How deeply our consciousness might have blossomed is another question. Have you ever read about the Buddhist sutra of the Lotus Flower? It’s profound indeed.