People can certainly derive help from their relationship with a psychiatrist but that is an entirely different matter from saying that the science is sound. As science buckles under the strain of trying to be a secular religion, it pays to get things like this straight.
Why is it that the people most likely to be attracted to this sort of naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” also appear to be full of rage against what they perceive to be injustice, smashing stuff and people? And none of their theories about how they’ll make anything better sound very convincing.
Moreland: If you are suffering from anxiety and depression, I want you to know that you can change. I want you to have hope because there are things you can do to get better.
Human cloning: It can’t happen vs. It can but wouldn’t matter much.
Walter Bradley Center fellows weigh in: The idea that we are a simulation by space aliens is a staple of science fiction, of course (think The Matrix, 1999). But some scientists take this simulation hypothesis seriously. Serious discussion started with a paper by philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003, “Are you living in a computer simulation?” […]
Just because people are in the news doesn’t mean they did anything. It rather shows how a bad actor can change the news picture.
You didn’t think plants were conscious, did you? Did you really think salad is murder? Yet telling us that plants are not conscious is the gist of a recently published major paper in Trends in Plant Science. (open access) Part of the background to the “plants think like people” movement in science, which they oppose, […]
You can go away screaming I suck! at an uncaring universe if you like or else you can look at evidence-based alternative views.
Generally, the materialist constructors of brave new worlds entirely believe in design in nature, as long as they design it themselves. Anything else is a botch or else it sucks, right?
Falk is careful to say, above, that experiments to test the idea have been proposed. Maybe we should all say nothing about the matter until they have been done and the results announced.
In neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s view, “Here is one way of seeing it” If someone took a sledgehammer to your computer and pulverized it, yet it still worked fairly well, you would conclude that there was something rather strange about the computer that you had not previously considered: I am not arguing that fMRI imaging of […]
Atheism seems to be on the table these days here at UD and a few points need clarification. First up, what is Atheism? The usual dictionaries are consistent: atheism n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. [French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 […]
Come to think of it, believing in artificial intelligence or space aliens as god-like makes as much sense as believing in lucky numbers and charms.
Michael Egnor: This study is consistent with the work of Wilder Penfield, who showed that higher-level abstract thought did not seem to arise from the brain in a material way.
The purveyors of the course want to make acceptance of fact claims depend on their origin rather than their relationship with evidence. As for science, well, you can’t get there from here.