On this NDE author and the claim of brain death I do not believe at all that I am overtly sceptical. I would call it a healthy scepticism.
I would say it is great to have skepticism about something like NDE. There are many more doctors and PhDs who have studied and written on the subject, but I still think there is much we don't understand. In terms of usefulness, however, NDE seems to be useful. Most people that come back improve their lives. I fail to see how the peace, love, sense of purpose, etc. that they share is harmful, and on the contrary seems rather useful in society, so while skepticism is of course healthy as a scientist, I also respect and honor their experience by not dismissing outright their claims and what they have learned. I am not implying you do, but rather that some do, and this seems to be an imbalance between skepticism and openness.
These fringe markets are lucrative. And a well placed sensational book routinely earns several years worth of normal salary. I think to ignore this angle, whilst there is an assumed corruption in science as a whole, is naive.
I don't ignore it, but it is an overstatement to say that people publish only or primarily for this reason. Such books for the public often alienate oneself from mainstream science, so the potential earnings of a few years of normal salary aren't very appetizing when juxtaposed to losing academic credibility and wasting time on a publication that won't count toward tenure. I am aware of this sort of thing because there are books I'd love to write that would probably cause me academic obstacles and so I have not written them yet. The potential earnings from a book, unless the audience is as wide as a popular novel brings, is not likely to be as great as the problems it creates. Of course, some people could have other motives, such as gaining a following or somesuch that makes the risk worth it. And some people publish this sort of controversial but popular stuff after they retire or obtain tenure so as to have some protection.
But I do believe there is not one question that can be asked where the scientific method is not the best method to get an answer that has 'evidence' to support it.
Yes, it is the question of evidence, in part, that makes science a good mode of inquiry or not. Questions like "why am I here?" and "what is the meaning of life?" and so on just won't do, which is why we have other types of inquiry.
While I hear the claim that I ignore some gnosis held by 'other' cultures and paradigms I never see them spelled out or exampled. It is a broad spectrum label that needs a lot of clarification before it is of any value in this debate.
I thought I'd given you a list of some readings to start with- mostly ethnographies and some theoretical works. Did I post it under Comparative? I think so... it's under one of the "Anthro of Religion" threads. Let me know if you can't find it, because I had compiled a list of some theoretical and ethnographic works that explain the value and knowledge held by other cultures and their religious systems. It is sort of just a beginning point- there are entire fields, such as cultural ecology and ethnobiology, that detail how various cultures encode knowledge about the natural world in useful ways through stories, rituals, etc. Seriously- I think you would find the literature quite interesting.
The reason for starting this thread is because people keep trying to say that my use of science in support of my thinking here amounts to a theology in its own right.
I don't think this, if it helps any. I think sometimes your statements approach theological-ish statements, but I don't think your use of science amounts to theology. I will maintain that atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is a belief, and as such, is more similar to theology than scientific theory. But your use of science itself does not constitute theology.
Because science is ideally suited to test assertions. To say that science cannot be used to make comment on these things is utterly false.
The problem comes in how science is used. All of the "soft" sciences that are forced out of necessity to use human observation and experience as data, do so. And they still operate much as the "hard" sciences do- with theory building on past theory, debate about interpretation and methodology, etc. Somehow, however, many are loathe to use this same type of data (observation and experience) in the area of religion, supernatural, magic, etc. I am not saying that people's interpretations of their own experience is accurate, but rather that dismissing it all outright as if it is some figment of human cognition is not a scientific approach. Rather, we should be doing what we do with other such types of data, which is to gather the observations and experiences- the raw materials and narratives- and then try to figure out what we can do to approach the issue scientifically. Sometimes we find that while the explanatory model is inaccurate, the practical knowledge is both useful and compelling, and the explanatory model is an ingenious way of transmitting complex information and ensuring consistent behavior according to this real information.
Thus, I would argue that science is a great way to approach such issues, but only if it starts without fundamental biases and assumptions that are counterproductive to its goal of understanding and practical use.
