Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

Is ufology infected by materialism?

31 posts in this topic

William B Stoecker: Philosophical materialists believe that the primary reality is matter, or, in the parlance of modern physics, mass/energy and space/time...the observable, measurable physical universe. The mind is merely a series of electrochemical reactions in the brain and there is no afterlife, no God, and no moral absolutes. Yet, ultimately, materialists cannot define matter, energy, space, or time. By contrast, philosophical idealists believe that the primary reality is mind/thought/consciousness/soul/spirit... which they cannot define. The mind in a sense dreams the universe; indeed, all the universe is but a great thought. If the idealists are correct, there probably is an afterlife, and, for all of us to be at least roughly on the same page, perceiving at least approximately the same universe (otherwise we could not interact with one another or with the rest of the universe) our minds must be connected at some higher level, forming a greater, or universal mind... God. I must admit at this point that I have become convinced that idealism is the correct view. After all, how can we be absolutely certain that the material universe out there is real and independent of our thoughts?

arrow3.gifView: Full Article
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, this piece "masterpiece" reminded me about this event:

(September 1989, USSR) The Soviet Union is home to a growing number of psychics and mentalists. One of them, E. Frenkel, became convinced that he could use his powers to stop vehicles in their tracks. He believed that "in extraordinary conditions of a direct threat to my organism, all my reserves will be called into action."

Frenkel started small -- a bicycle here, an automobile there -- before graduating to streetcars. Finally, he devised an ultimate test of his psychic power: he would halt a freight train in its tracks.

The engineer of the train that ran Frenkel over saw him toss his briefcase aside, and step onto the tracks with arms raised, head lowered, and body tensed. The engineer applied the emergency brakes, but it was too late.

The mentalist psyched himself out.

(link)

:lol:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ufology is infected by kooks like William B Stoecker.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry I usually enjoy reading your columns - dont believe a word of them but enjoy them - til this one - you lost me at intelligent design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy, matter, space and time are undefined? Sure we don't know everything about the universe, but the legacy of the materialist far surpasses that of meta-physicists. The former gave us science, technology, and better, longer lives. If it were up to the latter we wouldn't even know that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, and wouldn't even be speculating about Extra-terrestrials.

I'll admit there is a lot that we do not know about the Universe and it's physical laws, but if our experience is anything to go on, then I strongly doubt that ET would be both star-faring and metaphysically minded.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think there are a lot of things that we don't know about that we can put into words in human's language to describe certain matter in the universe and beyond. would human's language evolve then if we finally found the true answers to all the quests about universe? therefore, there are a lot of things that human should learn in discovery which would lead to a new term of calling for certain finding. I believe that the relativity theory does not only apply to the materialism aspect of discovery.

Edited by Mindscanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ufology caught its materialism from science-minded persons already infected

with materialism who would apply the scientific method to any and all phenomena.

The scientific method is bound to fail where the objects of study are considerably

more intelligent and technologically advanced than the scientists. To be fair, as

scientific instruments become increasingly sensitive and powerful, psychic and

spiritual phenomena will become more accessible to providing hard, replicable

data for scientists to analyze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ufology caught its materialism from science-minded persons already infected

with materialism who would apply the scientific method to any and all phenomena.

The scientific method is bound to fail where the objects of study are considerably

more intelligent and technologically advanced than the scientists. To be fair, as

scientific instruments become increasingly sensitive and powerful, psychic and

spiritual phenomena will become more accessible to providing hard, replicable

data for scientists to analyze.

When has con artists.. sorry psychics actually discovered *anything*? Well besides human gullibility.. Edited by Rlyeh
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one little problem with Scientific Materialism and don't get me wrong, I have a lot of faith in science/materialism it takes care of a lot of our day to day needs and wants and the general plumbing of our universe; however materialism views that all is someTHING. I ,though, have to think of myself as someBODY. The materialist will tell you it's just some egotistical part of the brain that makes you feel that way. They'll tell you that consciousness will be defined someday and that it'll turn out to be just another brain function/computation of the brain.

I fiercely resist this. I am somebody, however infinitesimal I am in this universe. I'm in this world for a very short period of time and I have a chance to make some positive change before I die. I feel to do that you have to be somebody.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one little problem with Scientific Materialism and don't get me wrong, I have a lot of faith in science/materialism it takes care of a lot of our day to day needs and wants and the general plumbing of our universe; however materialism views that all is someTHING. I ,though, have to think of myself as someBODY. The materialist will tell you it's just some egotistical part of the brain that makes you feel that way. They'll tell you that consciousness will be defined someday and that it'll turn out to be just another brain function/computation of the brain.

I fiercely resist this. I am somebody, however infinitesimal I am in this universe. I'm in this world for a very short period of time and I have a chance to make some positive change before I die. I feel to do that you have to be somebody.

So you don't like being a thing?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one little problem with Scientific Materialism and don't get me wrong, I have a lot of faith in science/materialism it takes care of a lot of our day to day needs and wants and the general plumbing of our universe; however materialism views that all is someTHING. I ,though, have to think of myself as someBODY. The materialist will tell you it's just some egotistical part of the brain that makes you feel that way. They'll tell you that consciousness will be defined someday and that it'll turn out to be just another brain function/computation of the brain.

I fiercely resist this. I am somebody, however infinitesimal I am in this universe. I'm in this world for a very short period of time and I have a chance to make some positive change before I die. I feel to do that you have to be somebody.

Materialism states what you are, but says nothing about how you should feel about yourself or your place in the universe. Overall compared to the rest of the universe we may seem insignificant, but as our brains are amazingly complex and are the only known bits of matter that can contemplate these issues we would still seem pretty relevant in the universe
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ufology caught its materialism from science-minded persons already infected with materialism who would apply the scientific method to any and all phenomena.

And yet UFOlogy in the same breath claims science does not take UFOlogy seriously. Can you lot make you freaking mind up please? Not serious, or too serious? Which is it?

And what exactly is wrong with scientific method? Can yo pretend I am like 2 years old and spell it out to me? Taking small steps and verifying each one as yo go seem a darn good idea to me, if one seeks the truth?

The scientific method is bound to fail where the objects of study are considerably more intelligent and technologically advanced than the scientists.

Why? That sounds pretty silly actually, we observe Gravity, yet science will openly admit it has not a clue how it works. Does that mean gravity is "fake"? Let's hope not for both our sakes huh.

To be fair, as scientific instruments become increasingly sensitive and powerful, psychic and spiritual phenomena will become more accessible to providing hard, replicable data for scientists to analyze.

Bwahaha, yeah, like 20 billion dollars and decades of failed studies are not enough for you, because you just know don't you!

Keep telling yourself that, LOL. Maybe one day you too will actually believe it! I cannot see a thinking person believing it though. Most see decades of constant failure as a decent indicator. People like you are why people like Uri Geller and Peter Popoff take advantage of innocent people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ufology caught its materialism from science-minded persons already infected

with materialism who would apply the scientific method to any and all phenomena.

The scientific method is bound to fail where the objects of study are considerably

more intelligent and technologically advanced than the scientists. To be fair, as

scientific instruments become increasingly sensitive and powerful, psychic and

spiritual phenomena will become more accessible to providing hard, replicable

data for scientists to analyze.

People actually applying the scientific method to all phenomena? You say this like it's a bad thing. Just how do you figure that such an approach is doomed to fail? I eagerly await any replicable evidence for spiritual or psychic data. Not holding my breath though.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ufology is infected by kooks like William B Stoecker.

It's almost the entire ET section condensed into one crazy thread isn't it. Intelligent design, thought induced universes, and moon structures.

Good God, moon structures.

Ohh, didn't you just love the bit about NASA apparently hiding that Mars "almost certainly" had life and are probably not being totally honest about the conditions there today?

I think Mr Stoecker is vying for a job with Vanity Fair or Pravda.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or Fox News

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost the entire ET section condensed into one crazy thread isn't it. Intelligent design, thought induced universes, and moon structures.

Well, it's hardly surprising coming from the same William B Stoecker that wrote a weasel-worded article here entitled "Did we land on the Moon or didn't we'. That article was full of made up hogwash, most of which was parroted/plagi-thesaurused from the ludicrous and completely discredited AULIS Apollo-denial website. I and many others criticised that article and Stoecker initially came on and fired off a pile of ad hominems (that post was rightly removed by moderators) and then in a blistering display of backpedalling in his next post said that he "never at any time stated that we did not land on the Moon", despite the rather obvious nature of the wording of the article title along with its content. I disputed his 'facts' in detail starting here and on the next couple of pages. Mr Stoecker, after his one surviving post, wisely decided to run for his life and refused to answer any further criticisms. I expect he will have learnt from that, but in the faint hope he may wish to defend himself here, I'd make the following quick comments on this 'article' (term used very loosely).

1. Why state the bleeding obvious? Of course we can only surmise and do the best we can to document and understand what we observe. That's what GOOD science does - it observes, documents and offers explanations (aka theories). The very best science (aka NOT UFOlogy, I'm afraid), does a very good job, and it is always open to corrections and better theories. Such science is not often found in Youtube videos of fuzzy lights, and people telling bedtime stories..

2. A number of ludicrous proclamations are made by Stoecker - among my favorite is his claim that "Materialism cannot adequately explain the phenomenon of synchronicity, or clustering of like objects, people, and events." Wow, what a handwave that is!! Righto, Stoecker, give your best example of what you mean, IN DETAIL.

3. The whole tenet of the article seems to be that we shouldn't try to properly explain observations by documenting and understand them, but rather simply be 'idealistic' and make up our minds by ignoring the understanding bit and also ignoring the experts who instead of dreamily waffling and handwaving, do all the hard work to 'materially' define and document and understand the Universe we inhabit.

Well, I disagree and think the whole article is DAFT. And I'm trying to be polite... (yes, I failed..)

And may I say that I would have to admit to being a 'closet' ufologist, as in it's a phenomenon I study in great detail. But I apply science, photographic knowledge and simple logic. That seems to be unlike 'ufologists' like Stoecker, so I'd rather not be labeled with that term (or as he would say - "clustered") - 'ufologist' has now pretty much become an insult.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's hardly surprising coming from the same William B Stoecker that wrote a weasel-worded article here entitled "Did we land on the Moon or didn't we'. That article was full of made up hogwash, most of which was parroted/plagi-thesaurused from the ludicrous and completely discredited AULIS Apollo-denial website. I and many others criticised that article and Stoecker initially came on and fired off a pile of ad hominems (that post was rightly removed by moderators) and then in a blistering display of backpedalling in his next post said that he "never at any time stated that we did not land on the Moon", despite the rather obvious nature of the wording of the article title along with its content. I disputed his 'facts' in detail starting here and on the next couple of pages. Mr Stoecker, after his one surviving post, wisely decided to run for his life and refused to answer any further criticisms. I expect he will have learnt from that, but in the faint hope he may wish to defend himself here, I'd make the following quick comments on this 'article' (term used very loosely).

1. Why state the bleeding obvious? Of course we can only surmise and do the best we can to document and understand what we observe. That's what GOOD science does - it observes, documents and offers explanations (aka theories). The very best science (aka NOT UFOlogy, I'm afraid), does a very good job, and it is always open to corrections and better theories. Such science is not often found in Youtube videos of fuzzy lights, and people telling bedtime stories..

2. A number of ludicrous proclamations are made by Stoecker - among my favorite is his claim that "Materialism cannot adequately explain the phenomenon of synchronicity, or clustering of like objects, people, and events." Wow, what a handwave that is!! Righto, Stoecker, give your best example of what you mean, IN DETAIL.

3. The whole tenet of the article seems to be that we shouldn't try to properly explain observations by documenting and understand them, but rather simply be 'idealistic' and make up our minds by ignoring the understanding bit and also ignoring the experts who instead of dreamily waffling and handwaving, do all the hard work to 'materially' define and document and understand the Universe we inhabit.

Well, I disagree and think the whole article is DAFT. And I'm trying to be polite... (yes, I failed..)

And may I say that I would have to admit to being a 'closet' ufologist, as in it's a phenomenon I study in great detail. But I apply science, photographic knowledge and simple logic. That seems to be unlike 'ufologists' like Stoecker, so I'd rather not be labeled with that term (or as he would say - "clustered") - 'ufologist' has now pretty much become an insult.

Yeah, well, another example from Mr. Stoecker. Not exactly surprising, I daresay as Mr. Stoecker is not exactly coming across in his columns as the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is ufology infected by materialism? I'm not sure but judging by that article its infected by insanity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know damn well what the physical laws are of the universe..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the intergrity of the article but I cannot say I agree with all of his views.

But one thing that I may join him is the fact that nearly all UFO supporters and skeptics alike refers to UFOs and Aliens as beings from other planets. But it need not be so. Could it be that, assuming that at least some reports of UFO sightings are what they may seem to be: something otherworldy, that these ships or craft are actually immaterial and not in the exact same frequencie (for lack of a better term) than us? That's a possiblity to consider if we want to speculate. And the possibilites can, even for a rational mind, be overwhelming in our conditions as living human being on planet Earth.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or Fox News

I am not so sure, I can think of two very good reasons to watch Fox News.

Fox-News-black-bra.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's hardly surprising coming from the same William B Stoecker that wrote a weasel-worded article here entitled "Did we land on the Moon or didn't we'. That article was full of made up hogwash, most of which was parroted/plagi-thesaurused from the ludicrous and completely discredited AULIS Apollo-denial website. I and many others criticised that article and Stoecker initially came on and fired off a pile of ad hominems (that post was rightly removed by moderators) and then in a blistering display of backpedalling in his next post said that he "never at any time stated that we did not land on the Moon", despite the rather obvious nature of the wording of the article title along with its content. I disputed his 'facts' in detail starting here and on the next couple of pages. Mr Stoecker, after his one surviving post, wisely decided to run for his life and refused to answer any further criticisms. I expect he will have learnt from that, but in the faint hope he may wish to defend himself here, I'd make the following quick comments on this 'article' (term used very loosely).

1. Why state the bleeding obvious? Of course we can only surmise and do the best we can to document and understand what we observe. That's what GOOD science does - it observes, documents and offers explanations (aka theories). The very best science (aka NOT UFOlogy, I'm afraid), does a very good job, and it is always open to corrections and better theories. Such science is not often found in Youtube videos of fuzzy lights, and people telling bedtime stories..

2. A number of ludicrous proclamations are made by Stoecker - among my favorite is his claim that "Materialism cannot adequately explain the phenomenon of synchronicity, or clustering of like objects, people, and events." Wow, what a handwave that is!! Righto, Stoecker, give your best example of what you mean, IN DETAIL.

3. The whole tenet of the article seems to be that we shouldn't try to properly explain observations by documenting and understand them, but rather simply be 'idealistic' and make up our minds by ignoring the understanding bit and also ignoring the experts who instead of dreamily waffling and handwaving, do all the hard work to 'materially' define and document and understand the Universe we inhabit.

Well, I disagree and think the whole article is DAFT. And I'm trying to be polite... (yes, I failed..)

And may I say that I would have to admit to being a 'closet' ufologist, as in it's a phenomenon I study in great detail. But I apply science, photographic knowledge and simple logic. That seems to be unlike 'ufologists' like Stoecker, so I'd rather not be labeled with that term (or as he would say - "clustered") - 'ufologist' has now pretty much become an insult.

I do remember that article quite well. And I remember unanswered posts too. I read it exactly as you did, despite Mr Stoecker's denial. Not long after we lost the great MID if I remember correctly, which added to the insult. And I agree, this is certainly the same level of nonsense passed of as an article. It seems to be every bad argument made in the ET section condensed into one article, if he wants to be certain that the Universe is real, he can speak to my bank manager.

Well said Chrlz, I agree with everything you have pointed out here. The 50's are gone, we don't channel Venusians anymore. This sort of nonsense I would have thought well behind the modern world. Welcome to the 2,000's Mr Stoecker.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the intergrity of the article but I cannot say I agree with all of his views.

But one thing that I may join him is the fact that nearly all UFO supporters and skeptics alike refers to UFOs and Aliens as beings from other planets. But it need not be so. Could it be that, assuming that at least some reports of UFO sightings are what they may seem to be: something otherworldy, that these ships or craft are actually immaterial and not in the exact same frequencie (for lack of a better term) than us? That's a possiblity to consider if we want to speculate. And the possibilites can, even for a rational mind, be overwhelming in our conditions as living human being on planet Earth.

That's not going to explain the people who claim to have been on spaceships, and alleged visitors from places like Zeta Reticuli who claimants say state destinations though. If we call them incorrect, why would any other such guesses be correct? All the UFO answers that we do have like natural phenomena, plasma and black ops are very much earthly, why is that trend going to change to something extraordinary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know damn well what the physical laws are of the universe..

Indeed, and aliens have to obey them too.

Anyone who disagrees can take that up with Michio Kaku.

images-2.jpeg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not going to explain the people who claim to have been on spaceships, and alleged visitors from places like Zeta Reticuli who claimants say state destinations though. If we call them incorrect, why would any other such guesses be correct? All the UFO answers that we do have like natural phenomena, plasma and black ops are very much earthly, why is that trend going to change to something extraordinary?

I do not think we have to accept every claim of Alien encounters and UFO sightings at face value without skepticism. There are people on Earth with mental health issues and others that seek to be famous with extraordinary tales.

However it would be rash in my opinion to deem that this is the case of every reports of sightings and encounters. I do no think that the UFO hypothesises that have been put forward, such as Venus and military secret operations for instance are necesserely all there is to it.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.