Squeers,

I was going to wait for your next post before I responded but I’m never going to have the time or posting allowance to respond to most of what you’ve already written anyway, so here’s my brief response.

<<What you’re saying is that mystical evidence is only admissible if it’s subject to empirical analysis, that is demystified and made manifest—no longer mystical?>>

If they could find some other non-empirical way of demonstrating the validity of their claims, then that would be fine too. But if we can’t validate it in some way, then it has no real explanatory power and is therefore useless.

<<...according to your own strictures your anecdotal experience, as well as that of the “many others” you invoke, is inadmissible and possibly delusional...>>

I agree. But I’m no lone ranger here with a conspiracy. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much accepted knowledge amongst a great many (possibly the majority of) atheists. Heck, I only provided that link to comments sections as an additional bonus. I didn’t even think it was necessary at first.

You’re the first atheist I’ve come across who honestly doesn’t seem to know any of this. Although I’m sure you won’t be the last.

But don’t just rely on my small OLO sample, there’s a wealth of debates out there on the internet with examples of what I’m talking about, in videos and other forums.

<<...perhaps your opponents were sincere in their charge of scientism, and resent analytic denunciations of what is after all mysterious—spiritual.>>

They probably were/are sincere (I wouldn’t think they’d always do it consciously) and they almost certainly would resent analytic denunciations of their beliefs. But when they are dishonest enough to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, then what else can they expect?

Considering these people influence the public sphere, it would be irresponsible to just let them continue on unabated and this is why I get so frustrated when well-meaning atheists, such as yourself, unintentionally and indirectly hand them more legitimacy than they already think they have.

Cheers.

AJ Philips,
<Unbelievers of what?>
I meant you were denigrating unbelievers in your rationalist view of consciousness when you dismissed their alternative or sceptical thinking as needing, “to retain a certain level of mysticism in their lives” and so not being “comfortable with science exploring that area”. The imputation being that dissenters are necessarily irrational and the mystery of consciousness must ultimately yield to material causes and explanations. Why must it? This preliminary ruling-out of other possibilities is a hallmark of the scientific study of consciousness and, according to one expert, in this way “resembles a religious conviction”.
Then you say, <I don’t have “faith” in anything either. I have trust that has been earned and I will grant trust tentatively, but I don’t have faith.>
Here, you first equivocate between faith and trust, though your trust is akin to faith, vested as it is in your experience, your faith in your senses, and your subjective/ideological preferences. It’s not even “your” experience or knowledge on which your trust is based, rather it’s vested in appreciation of and preference for reports of empirical explanation—how else can you explain that other people are just as trusting in their preferred explanations as you are in yours? Doesn’t this suggest that humans are easy-prey to all manner of influence?
<Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something.>
Notice how this aphorism includes the implicit premise that people’s “faith” can only be based on “belief”, and not on spiritual evidence? Because “spiritual evidence” is a misnomer and ruled inadmissible.
<I’m sorry if you find what I said offensive but that's my experience and it’s an important factor in what I’ve been saying.>
Can you see then that I’m not “offended”, far from it. I was, and am, merely deconstructing the rhetorical bias in what you say—and indeed in how you think!

tbc

<what reason do you have for devoting so much energy to spiritual/mystical/transcendental considerations…>
“I am a man, nothing human is foreign to me”.
This experience/perception we label “spiritual/mystical/transcendental” is part of the human condition and I’m not qualified or brazen enough (unlike science) to dismiss it.
<… that you could go on such a tirade against those who are sceptical?>
“Tirade”—have I?
But wait!
<Has science once failed somewhere? Is there an occasion I’m not thinking of where scientists had to give up and conclude that the answer must lay in a different realm? No, and until such time, tirades and derogatory labels like ”scientism” are unfair, inappropriate and just plain irrational.>
Doesn’t “this” qualify as a “tirade”?
However, to your first question; what about “Hiroshima”?
According to Terry Eagleton, “Dawkins [in the God Delusion] castigates the Inquisition … [but] On the horrors that science and technology have wreaked upon humanity, he is predictably silent. Swap you the inquisition for chemical warfare. Yet the Apocalypse, if it ever happens, is far more likely to be the upshot of technology than the work of the Almighty”.
I think I’ve addressed the rest of that paragraph already, except to observe that it sounds an awful lot like an angry profession of faith to me! Am I at risk of being burned at the stake?
And after all this we still haven’t so much as touched on the “manifestations” of scientism I’ve said I’m more interested in.
All ideologies have practical, political and social complements and consequences in the world, and “logical positivism/scientific materialism”, “rational optimism”, “liberal rationalists” “intellectual snobbery”, “arrogance”—the spectrum of scientism—preside over a world of stupendous and unprecedented immanent catastrophe and misery.
This post was meant to follow the last but I’ve had to wait. Apologies for my prolixity but I felt I had to respond at length. I hope I’ve at least given you pause, but I’ll continue to respect your intelligence and position regardless.
I have to knuckle down now and work for some time, so adieu to all—if I can resist temptation.
Mark.

Squeers,

You might find this an interesting article supporting your position:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7714533/brain-drain.thtml.

Interesting article, George.

Here's another along the same lines that might be of interest.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html