> Having just now looked for the first time this
> month at the AoM board and, more fool me!, having
> read through the lot, I am sitting here shaking my
> head and sighing deeply at yet more use of words
> like 'spiritual' and 'divine' as if they had an
> accepted definition and as if they are the
> prerogative of those who have a belief in the
> reality of the supernatural.
I will be happy to define the words "spiritual" and "divine". However, these are words which are used in abstract and subtly different manners by many religious faiths, so you should probably direct your frustration more to the world at large than to me. So ... "Spiritual" is an opposing word to "material". We use it as a way of subscribing to the view that reality consists of more than what is merely tangible to creatures. What that hidden aspect consists of varies from belief to belief. Some say there are spirit beings, an astral plane, etc. I have no firm belief in such. I use it in the sense that consciousness has a metaphysical foundation. It's a phenomenon that hasn't ever been understood via reductive materialism. Similarly, I use "divine" in the sense that reality is deeper than just space-time. I look at the Big Bang singularity and I don't impose the laws of nature upon it, because the laws of nature are what came out of it (see my AOM essay for more).
> I noted one comment:
I weep!! Can youQuote
Dean Radin is my
> favourite scientist who specialises in
> parapsychology. He has written four books, all of
> which are excellent:
> produce one verifiable, objective fact from his
> books (about parapsychology, consciousness, etc)
> which has become part of the objective knowledge
Dean Radin has undertaken a massive amount of research, mostly using meta-analyses. Psi effects tend to be small and experiments prone to failure. But a meta-analysis allows for a statistic to be drawn on the probability of psi vs. chance expectation. The results consistently favour psi. All of this is heavily documented.
The reason why mainstream science hasn't embraced psi phenomena is not because they don't exist, but because most scientists reason from within a paradigm where they *can't* exist. And unless an experimenter is able to checkmate a viewer with a big grand display, like levitating an object, it's very hard to shift the opponents philosophical biases.
Your position is dangerously close to an argument from popularity, and those are never any good. Let's remember that two thousand years before Copernicus, the Greek philosopher Aristarchus said that the Earth went around the sun. He was right, but went unheeded for the next two millennia.
But I'm guessing you probably think this is all word salad, and you won't read the research for yourself. You want me to convince you with an anecdote, and that's impossible.
If it matters to you at all, Albert Einstein wrote the foreword to Upton Sinclair's "Mental Radio", a 1930 book on ESP. He thought very highly of the research. In Sam Harris's "Waking Up", the author admits that there is a growing body of research that suggests psi is real.