egafd.com

Scientists are, generally, the most narrow-minded people on earth.
Anything that they do not presently understand is deemed 'bollocks' - until they understand it.

It is the way of things.

Although official religion did rather cramp the style of the early modern scientists, the Church was never as thoroughly intolerant of scientific materialists as modern day scientists now are of anything that fails to fit their world view.

The supernatural is a catch-all for stuff that cannot be completely explained in scientific materialist terms. So to decry the existence of ANY phenomena that science can't account for seems to me absurd.

Do we want to settle for "selfish gene" explanations for all human behaviour? No matter how much people like Dawkins pretend that they are enlightened, the fact is that the highest state of consciousness transcends their materialist outlook.

This is not to argue that every psychic is genuine, or that there can be "proof" of the existence of ghosts. Rather, I would suggest an open mind.

Seems to me that we humans are psycho-physical beings. In other words, we exist in more than just the four dimensions (space and time), and that the bit we are often least aware of is the grandest part of ourself - the spirit.

Most people, if being honest, would consider love to be something more than just a matter of chemicals. So perhaps love - and no doubt hate - can persist in the psyche of those we leave behind after the mortal body has turned to dust?

The question then posed is whether the psychic realm can influence material phenomena - make a room cold, or move something.

Materialist scientists don't even recognise the existence of non-material other dimensions (worlds) - unless they've done a bit of acid.

Carl Sagan was a little more open-minded.

Its all psychological. Beer and mind tricks. That's all. Each person winding up each other.

Yeah, it states that they're prone to credulity.

[quote]The first one is a possibility but since there were 4 people present I would have to class it as a very minor possibility[/quote]

Minor possibility? You mean that it's more likely that you all had contact with the supernatural rather than a few of you you being carried away with the moment or just plain lying?

[quote]If you're sure that science has concluded that it's bollocks can you provide the proof of that conclusion.[/quote]

You are the one that's implying the incredible, not me. The onus is on you to prove something supernatural happened, not on science to disprove it. I could say that there's a goblin living in my cellar that has a constant craving for mushroom soup and cornflakes. Would you give that story credence just because science hasn't disproved it?

[quote]Scientists are, generally, the most narrow-minded people on earth.[/quote]

Narrow-minded or incredulous? Science is about following the evidence. I don't find that narrow-minded.

So because a few of us experienced something we can't explain we are liars ?
The supernatural seemed to explain the experience.
It may be incredible to you but not to many people and I never said I could prove it but you have stated that you're sure science would conclude that it's bollocks all I'm asking is, show me the proof and name the scientists

I have to agree that scientists can be very narrow minded.

There is a brand of political correctness in science just like general society. Every day at work I am surrounded by scientific staff (3 professors, 2 medical doctors and even our general lab staff have PhDs) - I am the fuck-witted dumb-arse of the group.

Now, you'd be amazed at how superstitious they can be. There is also a sort of intellectual mafia operating in many academic circles where the pet beliefs of the most senior administrators are protected. That is, if you want funding and resources you'd better not publish anything that casts doubts on the research their careers are built on.

Science itself is great, its just the human factor that corrupts it.