Quote:
MG, would you care to qualify your accusation?!
The context missing from your quote is that we were talking about the tendency of the scientific community to ignore or worse suppress evidence which is contrary to the commonly held perceptions of what is correct. This very tendency is most often ascribed to religious beliefs, particularly among, as I said, the 'blind faith' types.
If you are really denying that this behaviour exists in the world of science then I would suggest you consider your purpose in contributing a comment, because really all you have achieved is to make yourself look dishonest or foolish in denying something so readily accepted by both religious and scientific people alike.
Additionally you appear to have thrown me into a box of your own design, labelled as you see fit. Proper examination of the other contents therein should prove you need to be more careful in your observations.
|
What are you babbling about? The only thing that matters to me is that you think science is acting like blind faith when it comes to NDE when it obviously isn't. I've had enough of responding to anything else. You put yourself in the box.
Science can't study first-person experience (inaccessible except brokenly through conversation), and if pressed for some kind of explanation, then because all mental functioning is reducible to the nervous system, they are likely to respond NDE's are probably chemicals in the nervous system going berserk. Popular culture conditions everyone to reflect on the possibility of an afterlife (it is never an unknown, even to atheists), and given the odd things the mind can think up during dreams, it is hardly unthinkable that people would imagine an afterlife as they fade out of existence, or that there would be commonalities in expectation, etc. After all, what else is there to do when you are dying?
That might not be the case, but it is still the most likely under current scientific knowledge.