Gordon:
>> Couldn't this simply be a religious position? There _is_
>> evidence of a higher realm for some people -- the experiences
>> of some mathematicians, for example. It is the best way
>> they have of explaining their experiences to themselves, in
>> spite of the fact that there is no physical evidence for it.
Dace:
> Platonism is indeed a religious belief. Newton believed that universal,
> eternal laws were thoughts in the mind of God. His mechanistic synthesis of
> matter and the ideal hinged on the notion that God was the master mechanic
> who designed the universe and all the living things in the world according
> to his Ideas. This view permeates modern thinking, despite the fact that
> God is gone, and evolution has replaced not only the mechanistic creation of
> life on earth but even the development of the cosmos. Whether cosmic or
> biological, evolution depends on habit, not ideal laws.
>
> Superstition does not explain experiences. It just prevents us from
> searching for the real explanation.
And "real" is what? In 25 words or less, please.
But even assuming we know the real like a brick, why should a search for it be impeded by religious ideas? It might just as well be enhanced -- Einstein's convictions about God, for example, which seem to have encouraged, if not impelled, his most creative work. One might think also of the revolutionary egalitarianism of the 17th century.
Compared to our little brains, the universe is very large and very deep. We almost certainly don't know much of what's going on. The astonishing discoveries of the last few hundred years should give us at least a hint that we are in for many more, and perhaps some that will make the likes of the Copernican revolution small potatoes.
Hence, it does not seem reasonable to tell people who have direct experience of ghosts, gods, or higher realms, that they should reject these in favor of a contrary and equally unprovable religious position (that there are no ghosts, gods, or higher realms), which they do not experience.
Gordon