Links of interest:
-Paper "Investigating paranormal phenomena: Functional brain imaging of telepathy"
By subversive thinking, I'm referring to a critical approach to many controversial topics, including (but not limited to) paranormal phenomena, afterlife research, pseudoskepticism (debunking), reductionistic materialism, dogmatic atheism, philosophy of consciousness and religion/spirituality. Occasionally, you'll note some broken english expressions of mine... I'm sorry, I'm japanese and I'm learning the english language.
I realise this is very weak, and I've said I don't feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind. But I still think it's a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths. Richard Dawkins in this interview.
Moral laws are maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions are to be deemed moral or immoral. But how could such laws exist in the absence of any mind or sentience in the universe at all? Are moral laws objective in the way that laws of nature are? They do not seem to be, for few would argue that "murder is wrong" existed in some Platonic realm of ideas when galaxies were forming over ten billion years ago and there was no sign life or consciousness anywhere in the universe. The use of the word "law" implies an objective existence of unchanging moral maxims independently of sentience. Yet it appears that there can be nothing objective about so-called "moral laws", because it seems absurd on its face to say that maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions of sentient beings are moral or immoral could exist in the absence of sentience.