Rupert Sheldrake: The Death of New Atheism?

[@RebelWisdom]

hey guys - we had mic problems for part of this interview, when David is speaking it's a bit echoey, Rupert is clear as a bell - we're aware, very sorry and we promise it won't happen again

[@disruptivetimes8738]

I demand public whipping. Atone for your sins!

[@kyletindal]

So easily forgiven considering the breadth of discussion and thought provoking questions and answers. It's very much appreciated... Mistakes happen.

[@johnhandshake4460]

"we promise it won't happen again"... that's a bold promise. do you mean this specific mic problem or bad sound quality in general?

[@thegoldenvoid]

Your sound in general is fantastic. As someone who makes recordings myself what is the make/type of your mics? They are great.

[@paulaustdal8696]

No worries. You can make up for it by arranging a dialogue between Mr. Sheldrake and Mr. Peterson ;)

[@annawray2220]

Ken Wilber and now Rupert Sheldrake my mind will pop! Thank you!!!

[@marcoandreknottjung3418]

What do you want to Pop?

[@JiveTurkey1618]

Anna Wray I hear they’re working on a hologram of Terence McKenna next.

[@PorkSodaOnTheRocks]

Anthony Westcot It would be mean if you were joking.

[@andyfield7397]

Time to take another look at the works of Emmanuel Swedenborg, I feel

[@Wmom18]

Wonderful interview!! Fantastic to see the evolution of Sheldrake's ideas!! Laid out so clearly and openly!! Beautiful!! Bravo!! 💖💖

[@williammedford5891]

Rupert Sheldrake is a wonderful blending of a brilliant mind and a calm courage. History will show that he is among the great rebel thinkers.

[@wilfred309]

What's the big point of him / his arguments?

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@wilfred309 do your own research

[@jewelsbypodcasterganesh]

@@wilfred309 Science is not only scientific materialism.

[@wilfred309]

@@michaelmcclure3383 was interested in the opinions of others

[@wilfred309]

@@FableBlaze I agree on that. Too restricted by economic incentives as well as by political ones.

[@karlamsterdam983]

44:00 coming home from atheism. had me cryin. thank you. glad to be a patreon

[@johnbuckner2828]

11:50 " corrupting the youth" Keep up the good work, Socrates would be proud.

[@willtheelectrician8184]

Rebel Wisdom bring on another juggernaut of the intellectual heretical realm. I see a bright future for this channel with this type of content. Great video (less the lav mic failure, I forgive you)

[@cmdrlornfrahm277]

Hats off to having Rupert on. Sunlight is the best disinfectant of course.

[@JesseSudich]

He's seen plenty of sunlight and he's still here being interviewed...

[@michaelmcclure3383]

@@JesseSudich yes, sciencism hasn't disproved his claims. They probably don't want to expose his views, the so called contamination might spread haha

[@cmdrlornfrahm277]

I wouldn't want any researcher not to be questioned on there thoughts. His criticisms of "scientism" are very valid and need addressing as does his extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise it's mysticism.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@cmdrlornfrahm277 Isnt extraordinary a subjective term?

[@cmdrlornfrahm277]

What's The Takeaway? Isn't It?

[@ThirdGateMedia]

I used to be a huge Sheldrake fan. After having acquired a better understanding of epistemology, not so much. I agree that his ideas are worth exploring, but we can't just say "I believe that [insert claim]" with no substantial evidence and be done with it. His "universe as a machine" metaphor is not only straw manning the opposition, it's also the same type of argumentation I have often heard from creationists. I would've liked David to be a bit more inquisitive here. He has demonstrated many times that he's capable of that. Cheers!

[@johnnyblaze9158]

It’s a good thing if the new atheism era is dying off, it means that atheism has served its purpose in clearing a space to have better conversations, much like this one.

[@voiceofamos]

Is that the Joseph Campbell 'oroborous' stroke in your avatar?

[@johnnyblaze9158]

voice of amos No, its called an Enso. A Zen Buddhism symbol

[@matthewmeuleman3369]

No, it means the people financing new atheism, like Epstein are getting busted.

[@kyleganse4978]

Wow when described about rejecting his Christian roots really connected with my journey and many thoughts and feelings I have had in how they don’t have to be different at the core they are the same. Meditation can benefit any Christian life and even meditating upon Christ, and the holy scriptures. 🙏🏼 were all connecting to god with our own customs

[@richardkillian855]

The Rosary, my friend. The best Christian meditation by far. But the original with three mysteries per week, not four.

[@commandermudpie]

Just because we don't understand the reason for things like the placebo effect does not mean that there is a supernatural explanation for it. Sheldrake is a "consciousness in the gap" kind of religious thinker. Very unconvincing. He says "there are all these reductionist answers that we don't have so therefor there must be an integrated answer that I also do not understand."

[@JesseSudich]

Just because we think of consciousness affecting matter as being "supernatural" does not mean that it is. Perhaps our scientific ideas of "natural" are incorrect, hence why we have no materialist explanation for the placebo effect.

[@deladonics]

@@JesseSudich nailed it

[@PirkkaJokela]

@@JesseSudich it is true that we do not really know what consciousness is. But that does not mean that Sheldrake is correct when he says that telepathy and acupuncture work. They have been tested over and over again and they do not work. Sheldrake really is a mixed bag.

[@samwilliams662]

Hey this is a living legend ahead of his time, i treasure that theres people like this out there amongst us

[@michaelsorensen8670]

New Atheism was never credible. Dawkins arguments were and are so shallow. Science and religion are in perfect harmony as Freeman Dyson the great physicist says. " Don't make science into a religion and don't make religion into a science". Unfortunately Dawkins and Harris made these basic mistakes but there time has come to an end now.

[@lyonsailing7520]

Harris has not painted himself into a corner like Dawkins

[@michaelsorensen8670]

@@lyonsailing7520Maybe we will see Harris the guru. His wake up with Sam Harris are certainly an improvement on his dreadful religious phobic videos.

[@tommeakin1732]

Why are so many books renamed for a US audience...? Sounds like a trivial issue, but I find it so odd haha. How on earth is "Science set free" a better name than "The Science Delusion" ? Is it because the original title has a negative tone? Why is "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's stone" more appropriate than "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone" (especially as "the philosophers stone" is an established thing). It sort of sounds like US marketing companies really don't think a lot of the average American to me

[@hansjorgmixdorff5766]

Maybe because of Heather McDonald's "Diversity Delusion"?

[@tommeakin1732]

@@hansjorgmixdorff5766 I understand that having books with similar title structures might lead some people to believe they're related when they're not; but we have to remember Rupert's book *was* supposed to be off the back of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and that's kind of just been ignored by those US publishers haha. Again, this kind of comes down to respecting the general public to work these things out for themselves imo lol

[@kevincasey5035]

Tom Meakin Same thing happens here in Norway. They even rename the characters in novels!

[@tommeakin1732]

@@kevincasey5035 It's quite likely that during translation, certain terms and phrases might get lost, and a degree of rephrasing might be necessary to fairly present the book - but changing names and stuff just sounds unnecessary and silly haha

[@marcoandreknottjung3418]

Other language are other definition! Where does the words come from?

[@marcusTanthony]

Thanks for this very interview with Rupert. I must say I particularly enjoyed this one and the recent Ken Wilber interview. I’m looking forward to more enlightening content.

[@TheBasicTruth]

Rupert Sheldrake explains with some clarity the difference between things that are complicated (such as machines) and things that are complex (such as life forms). He expresses the clear defining lines between two entirely different sets of material entities and enunciates the properties of complexity systems. Although there is no unified definition of a complexity system, there are two key qualities that can be used as identifiers. One of those is described as adaptive. A system with this quality resembles a living system more than it does a mechanical system, for it has the ability to change its structure over time - it can transform - and continue to do so without regressing to a previously formed structure. The other key quality is described as emergent. What arises within a complex system is a synergy from the activity between and within its individual components, so that the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the single effects from each of its parts. Complexity theory is a field of mathematics and we still don't know a lot about the properties of complexity systems although we certainly can identify them from features they have that make them stand out from everything else. This is what Sheldrake describes so exquisitely in this discussion.

[@villiestephanov984]

That's Eric notes.

[@KipIngram]

Wow. I watched this immediately after watching the other Rebel Wisdom interview with Sheldrake, and was captivated for both interviews. I am just struck by how much I genuinely LIKE this man. Not just his theories or his outward facing behaviors, but everything he touched on - his personal philosophies, his values, etc. I wish we had many, many more people in our world like this. So, Dr. Sheldrake, thank you so much for all you've done - I am 100% convinced the world is a better place through your efforts. It's inspirational to hear your story.

[@oxiigen]

It's a real pleasure to listen dr. Rupert Sheldrake. Such an interesting and beautiful being. Thank you!

[@taracameron7922]

You are doing quality work here! Thank you!

[@roberthollands7863]

Thank you for this .Such good stuff !

[@shakespearemonologue]

Great interview - want to listen to it all over again - so different from many interviews on tv where interviewer is constantly interrupting interviewee and seeking clarifications.

[@swordghoti]

Absolutely fascinating, thanks for sharing.

[@pauls4075]

Sheldrake fun fact... he collaborated with Terrence McKenna.

[@marcoandreknottjung3418]

Mushrooms, CANnUBIS and LSD? Please Take These Psychoterrapeutics Not with everyone! Behind that scene is also a big Business Organisation! And when you are letting in some of these NLP Professionells you can be programmed in other ways! Please bei aware!

[@janellemckinley172]

In case anyone doesn't know, Sheldrake's talks with McKenna and Ralph Abrams (sp?). are called the Trialogues and they're all on you tube. Great fun, especially laughed at the one about crop circles.

[@marcoandreknottjung3418]

@@janellemckinley172 do you know what a crop is in GEMINI äääähhh GERmany? IT is a "KROPF" (crop, goiter)! Go and have fun!

[@Ryan-xq3kl]

@@marcoandreknottjung3418 Please don't take your schizophrenic symptoms out on the youtube comments section

[@marcoandreknottjung3418]

@@Ryan-xq3kl who wants to be like B-RY-AN hey? Shiatsu-phrenic is the best, to take the dumbness of the rest! And if it isn't mean on that way, please, give me your head, and I will kick it like beckham, out in the neverlands!

[@truBador2]

Great interview. The echo on the interviewer is a good effect, making his questions sound removed, objective.

[@lyonsailing7520]

Interesting point deliberately different miking for effect

[@AnHebrewChild]

I've seen countless Rebel Wisdom vids... same goes for Sheldrake videos. But never ever seen em together. How did I miss this one? Better late than never!

[@IanKorman]

Interesting reflection on the state of science research. He says, "they ignore results that don't fit their theory" and then proceeds to present information that only supports his own theory, thus giving a great example that this is just default human nature.

[@bigyin2794]

Excellent line up of guests, loved Wilber, and now Sheldrake, bravo.

[@littledarkone1995]

Thank you for using your platform to give some of our brightest minds (and no-minds :P ) the voice they need to help permeate the digital culture.

[@heekimsang]

The rejection of belief in a theist deity is not synonymous with a belief in 'scientific materialism'. I reject all theistic beliefs, yet I use science as a tool. Science is and always has been the best tool we have for progress. Its mis-ingenuous to say that 'science says' based on the edge of scientific knowledge. (when Rupert is speaking about dark matter, and the universe expanding). He seems to prefer to live in gaps of knowledge. New Atheism died when it got corrupted by the post-modernist/feminists. And unfortunately Hitch hasn't been around, who lets face it; was the real genius of that movement.

[@dirtymikentheboys5817]

I reject all theistic beliefs, yet I use science as a tool.

[@heekimsang]

@@dirtymikentheboys5817 You can't disprove a negative. Just because I also don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster I don't use science as a tool to disprove.

[@dirtymikentheboys5817]

@@heekimsangI can prove there are no married bachelors.and Sweden doesn't exist.

[@heekimsang]

@@dirtymikentheboys5817 I'm talking about logic, but if you want to infer word games go right ahead. You cannot disprove a negative, it is impossible. The sentence 'I can prove there are no married bacherlors" is a play on words, since a bachelor is someone who by definition isn't married. Prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

[@2stormento]

amazing interview! loved it!

[@colingeorgejenkins2885]

It would bee amazing to hear Rupert talk about CGJUNG

[@Jester2415]

Sigh, he criticizes scientists for their leaps of logic yet has no problems making them himself.

[@lokijam]

Sigh, another comment with absolutely no substance.

[@TofeldianSage]

Good example of whataboutism. Is he wrong about scientists making leaps of logic?

[@Dani68ABminus]

I think the point is to not exclude theories simply because they differ from entrenched belief structures. Science ought to be about free thought. Materialistic science is about domination, not expansion of knowledge. It's about power not growth. Triangle versus circle.

[@daNihilism]

Thank you Rupert for the candid information without getting hot under the collar.

[@briojaxen]

Really enjoying the refreshing open and straight forward approach of this channel. Thanks for your work in putting it together, and showing that there is far more interest in 'alternative' ideas, than mainstream media would have you believe.

[@juvenalsdad4175]

Sheldrake is right that science is a paradigm of reality rather than 'truth', however I order to achieve a paradigm shift he has to put up some evidence for his 'morphic resonance'. He is very dismissive of the idea of dark matter etc. on the grounds that 'we can't see it, and don't know what it is', but at least physicists and cosmologists can show the maths. His ideas (so far) seem to be nothing but conjecture. That said, there is nothing wrong with conjecture, and investigation into anything and talking about it is worthwhile, and Jerry Coyne et al were quite wrong to try and shut him up. It is quite sufficient to let him carry on and try to get his work into the relevant peer reviewed journals, although Sheldrake himself is also dismissive of that route. There are problems with replicability in certain fields, but the credibility of the scientific method is not as tattered as Sheldrake implies. It is also the best way we have of determining that paradigm of reality.

[@Jac0bIAm]

Actually, there is plenty of evidence for his theories on his site, if you'd bother to check - www.sheldrake.org (under the research tab)

[@andrewblake2254]

Good stuff Rupert! and you David

[@colinframe9634]

I still don't see how materialism can't fit into an evolution of consciousness.

[@imogen.magenta]

It can. It’s just not the total answer to everything.

[@imogen.magenta]

Bob Charles I guess he’s saying all matter embodies some kind of consciousness, at different embedded levels of resolution. It depends how you define consciousness - he seems to be saying it is inherent to all organisms and other matter that behaves developmentally like an organism.

[@matthewmeuleman3369]

@Bob Charles what part of consciousness is physical? We cannot tell the difference between artificial stimuli and real stimuli. All that is physical could be the result of a computer program, like VR. The only thing that we know for sure, is our own consciousness.

[@anthonyhudson3540]

They should do a Dragon's Den type scenario, putting together alternative researchers and wealthy funders.

[@cbody70]

Listen to JP's vacillation when he is asked if believes in god then you will understand why atheism is alive and well.

[@JackHeald5]

I've listened very carefully to JBP. His answers are always consistent. He refuses to answer the question because he doesn't understand what the questioner means by the terms "believe" and "God ". If you've never had the same questions, then perhaps that's why you interpret his answer as waffling. But I've struggled with those questions for decades, and his answer makes perfect sense to me.

[@IanKorman]

Yes. This is the segment with JP from the video I saw. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHjKlmCnnLiZhM0

[@highbreadhope3565]

This stuff has been popular in the new age, mystical, cosmic crystal communities for many years. The familiarity of claims about scientists regarding their character and principles is as strong now as when my step father, who had a double ph.d in philosophy and chemistry from Harvard and Penn St. respectively, made the same points to me 30 yrs ago. The scientific method and scientists are not the same. Some scientists behave badly? There is corruption in the scientific community? If this is surprising and therefore you distrust the scientific method you have made an elementary error. People like Jung, Campbell, McKenna, and other mystics are interesting to read but ultimately, for me, make wild claims with a confidence unearned. There is certainly much to criticize in the scientific community but let's not go overboard. And who knows, maybe an organic calendula, amethyst stem cell slurpee with ice from the Pleiades does help channel the Anunnaki.

[@highbreadhope3565]

23 Mammalian Drive. Right there with you. I get that Dawkins can be a bit of stick in the mud and Coyne could be characterized as abrasive occasionally. This seems to get under Sheldrake's skin a bit.The obviously patronizing way he goes about making claims about consciousness and gaia is going to agitate some, especially if you are a careful scientist. Using terms like self-evident and obvious in the wrong place can be dangerous for ones reputation and you may be clowned for it.

[@highbreadhope3565]

23 Mammalian Drive. The four are quite different. How would one even go about measuring and quantifying their respective negative effect. And on who's culture? Do you mean Western culture in general? Are you saying Harris, Dawkins, and Coyne are on one side of the spectrum of "bad" and Sheldrake is on the other side or they are all just bad for our culture independent of each other?

[@jcawalton]

Brilliant video. Thank you. God bless.

[@Omnifarious0]

Interesting. I'm very conflicted about Rupert Sheldrake's ideas. I hadn't heard of him before this, so I have no baggage of other people's ideas about him to carry around.

[@realcygnus]

I'm not a fan of his morphic fields. imo there are better & more comprehensive models but he is unquestionably an extremely interesting cat & an "out of the box" thinker. BIG fan overall. More like him would be a +.

[@Ebergerud]

Do check out David Bently Hart - he has many pieces on KZbin. For some reason he likes Pope Francis, but he's follows the Greek rite, not the Roman - and everyone has bad days. But he's a brilliant gent who gives splendid talks. His books are all top drawer.

[@jewelsbypodcasterganesh]

Rupert Sheldrake!

[@MrJasnotron]

These are lessons Sam Harris needs to learn before trying to debate Jordan Peterson again

[@robbyr9286]

@@ClintonAllenAnderson I don't think JBP drinks juice... :/

[@MrJasnotron]

I'm sorry you saw it that way Clinton. Even the moderators had to call Sam out on his sloppy thinking multiple times

[@jamesbrooks1367]

what does sam need to learn?

[@MrJasnotron]

That he can't derive a "best way to live" from the approach that he is taking. That science (more accurately scientism) can't ever get past the fact that science can tell us what is but has no mechanism for telling us what we ought to do with that info.

[@jamesbrooks1367]

@@MrJasnotron haha im not sure there is any mechanism for telling us what we ought to. The "best way to live" is subjective bud. Harris is also not using science to make any kind of claim that science tells us "what we ought to". Have you seen any of his videos or podcasts bud? haha

[@simoneerceg7116]

Very cool. Thank you.☆♡

[@rexsovereign7474]

Thanks for bringing on Rupert Sheldrake. The Science Delusion was a particularly revealing book. No scientist, atheist, skeptic should miss it.

[@david2the80s]

Bloody excellent nosh as always

[@meganneale2074]

Great interview. I’m very grateful for Sheldrake’s work in this important area. Thank you for this and other wonderful minds (Peterson, Wilbur) you have been making available to us.

[@Frederer59]

Wilber

[@meganneale2074]

Fred Cory Thanks for that Frud! Mind-blowing

[@Frederer59]

@@meganneale2074 Phread, if you please. ;)

[@MartinHaumann1]

Nice strawman introduction Rebel Wisdom. A) In Atheism there is not the assertion that somebody is stupid because they believe. Many very clever people are religious. It does however conclude that there is no evidence that is compelling enough to led to belief in a divine creator - nor that any religions commandments are of divine origin and can therefore reliably tell you how to act in the world. B) On the point of rejecting mythology. Atheism is not denying that mythology exists - that it does is self evident. The discussion of historical and cultural significance of these can be had regardless of your religious standpoint. Jordan Peterson comes out of a Jungian approach to religion - reintroducing religious language in trying to create (his) "meaning" and a basis for morality through what defines as judeo-christian values and attributing this to western culture. This does not disprove the assertion A). Also Jungian approach though enticing and interesting often falls into falsification problems as does JP in many of his conclusions and truth claims. And Rupert: Attacking the scientific community for having a reproducibility crisis and problems with peer review does not discredit the scientific method. On the contrary. Then problem is the scientific illiteracy of said people and the peer review protocols and insentives in research-programs (which is a know problem). The problem would be the unwillingness to be self-reflecting - this is contrary to the scientific and sceptic worldview. So you are preaching to the choir here and setting up a false dichotomy. Go for the ball not the troll - unless you have it in your agenda to obfuscate - then you are doing really well. So go attack the problem areas to fix that and try doing some steelmanning if you wanna be part of the IDW (which you are not with this type of argumentation).

[@lpsp442]

Mr. Sheldrake is a man ahead of the curve, and I'm very grateful to John Cleese for leading me to him.

[@OttoGrainer27]

Woah, Cleese? Did he tweeter at him or something? Do elaborate.

[@lpsp442]

He's talked about Sheldrake and others in a number of recent talks, including one he did at Google last year or so. I'll find the link.

[@OttoGrainer27]

@@lpsp442 Thanks man, don't worry if it's a hassle, I just wondered where to look. Funny that Shelrake's Englishness always kinda reminded me of Cleese anyway.

[@lpsp442]

It took two seconds of searching through my history, don't worry. You're welcome, and listen to the other figures Cleese names in that speech as well. Powerful mind.

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

Sheldrake is such a fine person, intelligent and kind!

[@HermesTrismegistus66]

This channel is revolutionary!

[@Autobotmatt428]

I hope you bring Rupert.

[@nightjar8898]

People looking at alternative cheaper meds sounds good until you realize that if this ever becomes fully mainstream, the big drug companies will try to dominate this market and once again the costs will go up.

[@imogen.magenta]

Sheldrake is ahead of the pack and history will show it. Great to hear him on Rebel Wisdom again. Lots of pushback in the comments I see - the establishment really dislikes him : validating my first point.

[@imogen.magenta]

23 Mammalian Drive the word ‘mystic’ is snide - dissing both Sheldrake and mystics - both of who think outside of science which is a valid but contained subset of human philosophical endeavour. The comments on this video make me think there’s a bunch of in-the-box die hards that just want to take Sheldrake down rather than consider his thesis.

[@imogen.magenta]

23 Mammalian Drive ok - but he is constantly researching via controlled experimentation. His books exhaustively describe such experimentation and replication. And I think he’s always arguing for more concrete research into these areas. He’s scientific in his methods and critical of where science is not scientific, ie where it fails to produce replicable evidence and is biased in its reporting. He’s criticising the pathological aspect of scientific organisations and institutions, not science itself.

[@theheck5176]

It is very strange that science itself doesn't like to be scrutinized. One possible pitfall I've noticed, is scientists referring to equations as beautiful and seem to hold them dear for their beauty. We can only hope this sort of "science vanity" is not getting in the way...

[@saltburner2]

Does he actually claim that the speed of light is slowing down? If so, please provide a link to the claim, and to the evidence upon which it is based.

[@slippy68]

He covers briefly the evidence in his "banned" TED talk.

[@suziw6926]

Barry Setterfield 1987 paper with Trever Norman, "The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time"

[@jaik195701]

Use de-echo software to make recordings made in lively venues listenable

[@manonslife]

Does anyone know Wilber's opinion of Sheldrake?

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

he has a very high opinion of Sheldrake, there are brothers in mind so to speak

[@davidlara993]

The problem with New Atheism is that its pretensions without any kind of philosophical foundation (in fact, they are constantly and easily exposed at their fallacies on the begging questions for the topic), will eventually have a very dangerous impact on science, as the same foundation that makes science predictable must be a advert signal to its limits. Of course they are a minority, but we must know wheter choosing Dawkins or George Ellis... Posmodernism is the only possible way where this is even a choice to take into account. Disgusting.

[@SelfishNeuron]

For those you want a summary of the dogmas as described by Sheldrake watch from here 13:07.

[@paulwillisorg]

Beautiful interview

[@thombly5772]

I feel that a lot of people confuse science with number theory. Number theory appears to be exact and perfect whereas the very basis of science is questioning. How can questioning ever be an end result other than just being a means of asking how things work?

[@PiggySquisherCaleb]

Interesting thoughts, but nonetheless pseudoscience. Much of Sheldrake's thinking seems to be the product of postmodernism and unsupported 'New Age' rhetoric.

[@marcusTanthony]

No. He’s a scientist and has a large body of published experimentation. You haven’t read much of his work.

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

@@marcusTanthony I fully agree

[@PiggySquisherCaleb]

@@marcusTanthony He dropped out of scientific study and career more than three decades ago. What Sheldrake postulates (namely morphic resonance) has not been supported by any scientific measure.

[@Werdna27]

How exactly would you propose measuring Morphic Resonance? Is measurement the donation of all things? What about Quantum Phenomena - are you going to suggest that the only true nature of light is the one where it has been measured, and not the one suggested by epiphenomena observed with the naked eye, beforehand? A lot of Sheldrake's theories are based on observations of epiphenomena. This does not deny their viability.

[@johannesbekker1970]

Atheism is a non prophet movement. Freedom is a possibility not handed out freely to man but can be attained by sheer willpower

[@johannesbekker1970]

Cheaper alternative to profit driven medicine ? Try weak bicarbonate of soda injections directly into a breast tumor for women in stead of the mad chemo process.

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

the" prophets" are all the green politicans as it seems... not very exciting really, always the same human production of unenlightened thoughts hypnotizing the masses, lol

[@BiznizTrademark]

Nothing is stopping Sheldrake from proving that his way to view the world provides more effective medicines and technology, and that it better predicts the behaviour of people and of nature. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[@williampettyrivers]

Smart phones and better dentistry, I’m glad science has given us something useful!

[@cassandraseven3478]

smart phones? You're getting radiated with microwaves. And 5G coming at us is a death sentence. As for dentistry, they've gotten good at patching up the problems that could have been prevented but weren't.

[@RobinDivine777]

Love to hear a conversation between Rupert Sheldrake and Richard Dawkins.

[@Autobotmatt428]

They had one. Theres a video were Rupert Sheldrake talks about his conversation.

[@apowave]

Science seeks to understand truth so any deviation is at the fault of scientists not science. I think he should explain that better.

[@johannesbekker1970]

@@CriticalMinking Science doesn't understand itself for instance how do the same charged particles : protons, reside so close together inside the nucleus of a molecule ? An impossibility according to its'own laws !

[@johannesbekker1970]

@@CriticalMinking Aren't they called "tackions" ?

[@villiestephanov984]

Science seeks not its own, but explanation possible by hearing of the heretics

[@magnuscritikaleak5045]

@@CriticalMinking liar liar pants on fire.

[@johnhammond6423]

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is a researcher in the field of parapsychology, who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience. He is shunned by the scientific community.....I wonder why? [facepalm]

[@Chronically_ChiII]

As a material atheist, I disagree with this.

[@nugley]

What is mind? Doesn't matter! What is matter? Never mind! - Homer Simpson.

[@84960934258kjklasb]

I feel like he was really fishing near the end when asking Rupert who he thought were important figures in making this shift happen. Rupert made sure to only list Jung and dodged saying the names he knew David wanted to hear. lol, just the way I saw it. David always wanting to talk about JP! Still love his work bringing in such interesting guests.

[@imammarc]

Is that lav mic just for show? Would love to have some better quality audio.

[@Orthodoxi]

If we ever understand our psychology then we’ll go on to the next level or paradigm. So far we only dabble fearfully in understanding and knowing it clinging mostly to what is known, so we are yet stuck in it.

[@thefreerangehuman4804]

'Corrupting the minds of the young' is a charge made against many great philosophers.

[@jasonb4321]

39:00 yes! David Bentley Hart

[@paulhaith4640]

As much as I try I can't hear the good and interesting things he might be saying because they are shrouded in lots of pseudo scientific claims. His argument that the scientific method doesn't work is not surprising given that standard scientific research on his work ie morphic resonance/telepathy has shown there is no evidence. Of course there are problems with science but holistic research??? Really

[@carolberry2239]

Well interviewed. Thanks for allowing Rupert to express what he expresses so well.

[@AliTwaij]

Excellent thankyou

[@sockgremlin9746]

So what about a Scientific patreon? One that has a firm contract that won't allow them to defund a project on baseless accusations.

[@gabrielsyme4180]

Did Sargon of Akkad do your audio? #boomeraudio

[@Goldfishsoldier03]

Sound is bought to you by Carl Boomjiman, owner, founder of boomer audio productions.

[@raz0rcarich99]

Snoregon of Borekad - your primary delivery service of sleep-inducing audio productions.

[@chrisreed5463]

I think Rebel Wisdom is a very important channel. But on this I could only handle 18 minutes. Basically this man fills his world with Woo wherever he doesn't have the capacity to understand. Don't keep your mind so open that your brains fall out.

[@masonhymas]

I recommend doing some drugs.

[@chrisreed5463]

What? Psilocybin, LSD, 2CB? Been there done it, blind alley. I was one of the original ravers in the 1990s and took a walk down the Terence McKenna path before realising it goes nowhere and is merely an indulgence of ego. I recommend meditation and also endurance walking carrying weights.

[@JonathanDavisKookaburra]

When will the world get the Sheldrake University of Natural Sciences.

[@fernandovillanueva4952]

If you're more than sixty (As I am) most likely you would not see Rupert Sheldrake as one of the western world references of REAL XXI century science but, as far as I can see, he's going to be in that place, a place he deserves and a place the western world science needs to give him. (A great interview btw)

[@jasonwarner3685]

I amazes me how many people think they understand atheism.but don't.most people who think they are athiest.are not.I've met 1 true atheist in 35 years.other than myself

[@flipgsp]

How would you describe a true atheist?

[@96deloused]

I never clicked so fast

[@jstanley011]

The good news is, new paradigms are in view as the old models fail. The bad news is, an economic collapse will be required before orthodoxy loses its stranglehold. (That's the kind of thing that happens when civilization-level models fail, see?) Or a world war. That would work too (provided, of course, that a few humans survive along with the rats and cockroaches).

[@jstanley011]

BTW, theologian David Bentley Hart does not present the human traditions of spirituality as if they are some kind of panacea for all that ails us. Anything but, actually... "David Bentley Hart - Death, Sacrifice, and Resurrection" kzbin.info/www/bejne/fojEmn2jn8d6e7M

[@Dilmahkana]

Do I hear a bit of Eric Weinstein's terminology sneaking in?...

[@marcpadilla1094]

Of course education follows scientific achievement. Holistic views are far more limited to the imagination than Scientific, mechanistic,views.

[@LAZARUSL0NG]

I don’t really understand this “science” he is describing. Is the problem he is describing science itself, or that current scientific work is being done unscientifically? Science is a method of inquiry, not a set of beliefs. If it is science he has a problem with, why is he making arguments and granting importance to evidence? He doesn’t seem to conceive of a difference between the science done by scientists, science stories in the media, or the state of scientific understanding in the general public. As to the things he claims to believe are true in this video, where in the world is the evidence? He says he wants to accelerate a paradigm shift, but a paradigm shifts when a new theory, or set of theories, does an equal or better job of accounting for currently understood phenomena, as well as accounting for the phenomena that are anomalous to the current paradigm. The terms “Quackery” and “pseudo science” are not slurs, although they are intended to convey a degree of contempt. If you prop up the idea that non anomalous phenomena are anomalous you are a quack. If you persist in claiming that certain anomalous phenomena occur, when in reality they do not you are a quack. He seems to be saying that recent scientific scandals diminish science as a whole to pseudoscience, and that therefore his pseudoscience is as good as anybody else’s. I don’t agree with his premise, but I will concede his conclusion.

[@deladonics]

It seems like you're saying you don't understand what he's talking about, and based on that lack of understanding, you disagree.

[@Nemesis-lg6zf]

Because his science is sophistry, there's nothing more to understand.

[@deladonics]

@@Nemesis-lg6zf His science doesn't become sophistry just because you ignore his evidence.

[@Nemesis-lg6zf]

@@deladonics He presents no evidence, just claims.

[@deladonics]

@@Nemesis-lg6zf He's summarizing his book here, not laying out his whole argument. If you want to know more, you could look at the book, which not only lays out his argument in detail, but also has a 20 page reference section that lists every source he uses when making his argument.

[@williampettyrivers]

Wait a minute. I’m confused. At 31:10, he seems to be using scientific studies to support his thesis that science is wrong? He seems to create a straw man argument against science (eg it is well known that scientists are human and make mistakes and many studies have not been replicated) and then uses science and rationality to claim that meditation and other spiritual practices have demonstrated benefits!?? Appeals to common sense as a way of knowing and only those scientific studies that support your view is sloppy thinking. I am surprised the interviewer didn’t question him about this inconsistency.

[@lacsativ1]

His thesis is not that science is wrong. The main concern of the Intellectual Dark Web in regards to science seems to be that science is being held back by certain limiting viewpoints and attitudes prevalent (or specific to a substantial minority) throughout the scientific scene. Generally, they tend to ignore the interior, non-material, non-quantifiable side of human experience by reducing it to the exterior, material side. The Rebel Wisdom guests seem to raise awareness on the fact that both should be taken into consideration because they are not mutually-exclusive. It's not that science deliberately denies the existence or importance of the interior side, it's the dogmatic interpretation of science that leads to these excesses. I think we could reach interesting results if we decided to accept and integrate both while bearing in mind that they seek to explain different sides of reality These kind of excesses can be also observed within the spiritual, "New Age" community, where certain viewpoints and attitudes tend to ignore the exterior, quantifiable, material side by reducing it to the interior. A sort of idealistic view and metaphysics. The consensus among the newly emerging integral movement seems to be that both should be considered and could help us create a superior and expansive map or reality, and I very much agree with that.

[@LondonReps]

Thanks again for another fantastic episode, you guys are a national treasure.

[@seth4766]

got a lot of love for Rupert

[@fraa888grindr7]

Mind over matter doesn't matter if the mind is only matter.

[@trezvoumlje]

His whole family is fascinating!

[@Muonium1]

I couldn't stand Rupert's deluded ramblings when I first heard them 20 years ago and I still have no patience for it today. Incoherent prattle for soft, uncritical minds.

[@deladonics]

Your mind is so critical that you won't even listen to the point of view of someone you disagree with. Top notch skepticism.

[@samus_aran_P]

I made it 20 minutes in ... This guy is just saying "tide goes in, tide goes out... can't explain that." in a more 'sophisticated' way. As soon as he claimed that there was some sort of evidence of telepathy (Who did this? What did they do/define as 'telepathy'? When was it demonstrated?) I was out.

[@imogen.magenta]

Interesting that he wasn’t going to be drawn on Jordan Peterson.