Not objective evidence.Quote
In Rupert's podcast, he not only makes the suggestion, but provides evidence,
Of course I considdered them - they are subjective.Quote
as well as personal experiences. You don't consider the suggestion, the evidence, or the experiences,
Well, it was I suppose somewhatinteresting in that it confirms his subjectivity and that he does not feel the need to support his claims with objective evidence.Quote
or comment on whether or not it was interesting to you.
I do not tell lies, Ray.Quote
Sounds suspiciously like you didn't listen to it at all.
Are you claiming that you do not have any religious bias, filter, or whatever you choose to call it, whether you keep it out of your science work or notQuote
If you want to accuse both of us as having a "religious" filter, then go back to Sheldrake's podcast and give some examples.
I doubt if atheist British scientists would want to waste their time commenting on Sheldrake's religious ideas, I'm sure they have better things to do!Quote
The reason for getting a British scientist's perspective, is that Sheldrake's examples are scientists. A scientist who is familiar with the atheist bias among his peers could comment on whether or not he noticed any "coming out of the closet" changes. Given the bias Rupert describes, most of the scientists one would question would be either atheists or agnostics. Whether atheist, agnostic, or openly religious, I don't think it would make much difference in their reports.