"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....."
-Plato
A skeptic is someone who questions the truthfulness of a given assertion. And the more radical the assertion, the more overwhelming the evidence has to be. These people are the hypothetical 'guards' to the truth, - guarding it from the bogus claims of potentially religious fanatics. The problem is, while these guards are meant to challenge controversial assertions of those enslaved to an ideology, they themselves have become enslaved the the ideology of naturalism. Claims are no longer viewed in a serious scientific light, but rather scrutinized under the assumption from the get-go that they must be false, and any justification they can give is better than what these people claim to have seen or experienced. Nowhere is this ideology more prevalent than in the assessment of Near-Death experiences.
When one thinks of religion, one typically assumes some type of belief in the afterlife. To many, this belief is viewed as wishful thinking, and it shows how fearful people are of death. Because of this fear, religions created the concept of the 'soul,' which survives after death - which they will say has absolutely no bearing on reality, and is completely a man-made invention. However, with globalization, the commonality of near-death experiences, as well as their striking similarities have been revealed for all, sparking a new sect of scientific (in some cases pseudo-scientific) research into the actual possibility that life-after-death may in fact be.
Approximately 5% of the population have experienced either a NDE or OBE (out-of-body experience). For people who are actually 'near-death,' approximately 1/3 have a NDE, and this number is probably is low, for reasons you can read about here. NDE's occur across all cultures, all races, and can be seen in documentation in various cultures throughout history. There are around eleven common elements of NDE's, and the usual person experiences around six to seven of these elements. The experience usually includes some variety of the following: a great being of light (this is the most prevalent, and powerful element in NDE accounts), a tunnel-like sequence, talking to deceased loved ones, feeling extremely loved, feeling like they are returning home, heightened perception, a life-review, communicating with religious figures, and being told they must (or can choose) to return to their body. The NDE'r typically does not fear death after his or her NDE, and actually welcomes it, seeing it as merely 'biological death.' The NDE'r usually becomes much more 'spiritual' as a result of their experience. Perhaps most importantly is that the NDE'r usually does not doubt that what they experienced was real, and does not believe that they were hallucinating.
Now the first response would be to ask if we can believe what these people are telling us. The obvious problem is the huge number of people who have experienced this, as well as the commonality most experiences share. If I told you I saw a polar bear in downtown Telford, you would probably be skeptical - and for good reason. If millions of people told you they saw that polar bear, it would be unreasonable to conclude they are all lying. The only way there wasn't a polar bear in downtown Telford is if these people, in one way or another, are deceived.
The next set of theories attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation for NDE's. You don't have to go far, however, before it becomes clear that a naturalistic explanation just cant solve all of these experiences. For example, take a NDE'r or OBE'r who follows his family around the hospital and sits with them in the cafeteria while they eat lunch, and after the NDE'r is healed, they proceed to tell their family the conversations they had while the NDE'r was in a coma. One could argue that this NDE'r could be imagining all of this, even though they are seeminly flat-lining, but one cannot explain in any naturalistic sense how a conversation taking place far away from their body could be overheard, and accurately retold. Once we realize that naturalism cannot explain this, the rest of the phenomena, which otherwise must be explained as some type of delusion, make much more sense. Does it seem realistic for those who are hallucinating to experience heightened perception? And if these people are hallucinating, wouldn't one expect them to at least by cynical as to what they've experienced?
This same type of skepticism is what produces Christ-Myth theories. If we are to believe that Christ didn't exist, then we have no more reason to believe that just about anyone before the time of Christ existed. We have reference to the historical Jesus is the accounts of Josephus, as well as later Roman Emperors to corroborate with the evidence given in the Bible. If the same set of scientific and historical standards were applied to evolution and Alexander the Great, we would feel completely different the actuality of both of these things. Historians who approach the historical Jesus without bias are able to recognize this, as seen in the video below:
The above examples lead me to believe that anyone who approaches the question of God with an open heart will find reason to believe in God. Many of the greatest minds throughout history, such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Aquinas, and Descartes were all theists in one way or another, so you're in good company (Aristotle is questionable, as he believed in a 'Prime Mover'). There are many reasons to believe in God, or merely to believe naturalism is false, as I think NDE's clearly provides, and I think those who approach spirituality as actual skeptics will be rewarded with the evidence available.
Indeed...reason to believe or at least reason to say belief in God is reasonable. I was thinking perhaps Atheists are intellectually comparable to Christians who refuese to accept as possible ideas that are different with what they have grown to accept (conceptions of heaven and hell, other faiths, evolution, biblical inspiration). I think this connects with what I said in our discussion below...Christians should fully believe in the information that is given to us by God through his revelations. But we should not make final statements about anything relating to spirituality that is not clearly concluded from these revlations. This is not our role and would represent a sort of limiting of God.
ReplyDeleteI think it is just as justifiable for an atheist to reject God as it is for a theist to believe in God until they are presented with evidence that outweighs the evidence they have for their current position. While I may not have conclusive proof for my belief in God, it still perfectly defensible for me to believe so because I have not been convinced otherwise. Likewise, an atheist may not have conclusive proof that God does not exist or that naturalism is true, and even if they acknowledge that their beliefs have inconsistencies, if they cannot be convinced that other beliefs have less inconsistencies and are more reasonable, their position is justified.
ReplyDeleteWe are more naturally inclined to accept information and ideas that fit in with what we already believe to be true. Something as fundamental as beliefs about how the universe works should not be taken lightly. You seem to be criticizing naturalists for not accepting evidence about NDEs that you find convincing, but you must remember, it would take stronger evidence from NDEs to convince them than it would for you because it does not align as well with their belief structure as it does with yours. It is the intellectually responsible thing for them to do to approach NDEs with more skepticism than you do. Likewise you are not convinced by naturalistic explanations of NDEs because they do not fit as well in your frame of reference.
Now, I am by no means a naturalist, but for the sake of discussion, I will do my best to offer some some counterarguments and "guard the guards"
I agree, people are always going to be inclined towards believing the way they already believe. And I also agree they should not be taken lightly.
ReplyDeleteNot too long ago I was skeptical of all empirical arguments for God, or at least against naturalism. I had never really done much research on NDE's, and I remember telling my friend when he brought up how a book on a NDE is a bestseller that I don't really buy into all that. I always thought that there was little evidence, the stories differed alot, etc, and I was skeptical of using them as a reason to believe. But when I began to look at the mountain of evidence, I started to change the way I viewed them.
I appreciate bringing up counterarguments. I feel in the case of NDE's, I actually was a skeptic coming into doing research on them. Now, obviously my worldview aligned with accepting NDE's, so I will give you that. But aside from this, I really do believe that there are too many cases that just can't be reconciled with naturalism. I can understand being skeptical if a scientific explanation were possible, but it some cases it just isn't. They would have to be lying. So I agree, I was swayed easily, but I still feel that someone who is actually a skeptic, and doesn't have his mind made up, will feel that the evidence for NDE's is extremely good, and will need to resort to calling people liars in many situations.
We don't kid ourselves and pretend we know everything about the brain. Just because we don't currently know enough to make a scientific explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. Science doesn't automatically turn to supernatural explanations when an answer is unknown, it admits it is unknown and searches for an answer.
DeleteWhile you were a skeptic, it didn't take as much evidence to convince you as it would have if you were also a naturalist. The evidence you cite itself doesn't necessarily point to theism. It fits in very nicely well with it, but unless you approach it with an already formed theistic frame of reference, you likely won't reach that conclusion. As long as it remains plausible there is a scientific explanation of NDEs, it would be unreasonable for a naturalist to abandon their current frame of reference in favor of a theistic one on the basis of NDEs alone.
First, a distinction should be made between naturalism and atheism. All naturalists are atheists, but not all atheists have to be naturalists - thus naturalism is more extreme. So yes, abandoning naturalism would not lead you to theism because they are not opposites in the sense that atheism and theism are. You can abandon naturalism and still be an atheist is what it boils down to.
Delete"While you were a skeptic, it didn't take as much evidence to convince you as it would have if you were also a naturalist." - yes, this is most certainly true, but it doesn't make the evidence I bring up any more wrong.
"The evidence you cite itself doesn't necessarily point to theism." - this is what I was trying to say by the first paragraph. No, it wouldn't, but it would point against naturalism.
"As long as it remains plausible there is a scientific explanation of NDEs..."
See this is what it boils down to - I really honestly don't believe you can believe this if you consider all the evidence, unless you say people are lying. I believe that's the only way. In the example above - I would maintain it's impossible by any naturalistic standard to make sense of that, unless the story is made up. You can say the brain could have imagined the whole thing , from leaving the body to following the family around, the whole bit. But it can't be reconciled with being able to recite a conversation that took place half a hospital away. If she heard a conversation in the room - maybe you could argue it.
I really do believe to write-off NDE's you have to ignore at least some of the evidence, or be convinced people are lying. I agree, science doesn't, nor should it, turn to a supernatural explanation. But that doesn't mean we can't logically consider all possible options and determine what is and is not possible by naturalistic explanations.
In the book I'm reading, it compares naturalists to creationists. 40% of America believes the earth is under 10k years old. Obviously it's not due to scientific evidence. The same can be said about naturalists - there is a mountain of evidence against it (psi, mediumship, NDE's, free will or intentionality, etc..) that just can't be reconciled unless ignored, and in many cases, science will directly contradict naturalism.
Sorry if it seems like i'm ranting here. I do appreciate someone challenging me on this. Hope you're doing well out at Messiah.
I think you might be overstating your evidence against naturalism. Many of those things are considered as in the realm of pseudoscience. I don't think free will and intentionality count as evidence per se, but rather philosophical arguments. Basing your arguments against naturalism on things that themselves are debated is shaky ground. As for NDEs, similarities are only significant if they are completely independent. While there are still probably many independent cases that have similarities, you have to add in many of the studies of NDEs are likely biased, potentially both by researchers and subjects, by religious beliefs.
DeleteI don't think it is fair to say that because you could not imagine a plausible naturalistic explanation for NDEs that there are none, especially because you do not have a naturalistic worldview. I have not looked into NDEs at all really, so I am unaware of any naturalistic responses, but it is likely they are out there.
Pat - I would agree that you may be overstating the effect of NDE's because it fits in well with your worldview and your arguments, particularly within the realm of science. As a related consequence, I think you may be overestimating the implausibility of naturalism. I don't know much about it and I tend to agree with your view on it, but that does not mean this is a true critics stance.
DeleteNick - At the same time I don't think Pat is suggesting it is not justifiable for an atheist to not believe in God. He may think the evidence is more on the side of theism and, therefore, a truly uncommitted person would side more with theism. But everyone has a worldview and no one comes into this without a bias. A skeptic is a person inclined to question all accepted opinions. This means that a skeptic should be questioning both theism and atheism and try to remain as uncommitted as possible. Therefore, a skeptic should be somewhere in the middle and would likely see evidence for theism as more complete. Now if you see a skeptic as someone doubting any religious truth, then they would be coming into this conversation with a strong bias and it would indeed take much more convincing evidence for them to be convinced of theism, particularly since their worldview would tend to skew information toward atheism. However, I think the point is that this person should still not reject theism as implausible. They can see that there is evidence available that would cause some people to believe in theism.
I think true skeptic would see that the arguments for theism are stronger. From a critical standpoint they seem more numerous, complete, without major weak points, and historically accepted than the arguments for atheism. A true guard would not be siding so strongly with atheism in lue of the evidence given. To me, atheists are usually claiming to be the skeptical intellectuals who analyze information without bias, but I think Pat is right when he says many of them have gotten caught up in their own ideology. In fact, the very notion that a skeptic to some could be synonomous with a person rejecting religious truth is problematic. A theist can just as readily be caught up in his ideology as an athiest, but he can also analyze information just as critically as an athiest. There should be no reason to associate skeptics with atheists, and if this happens (which it often does) then there is indeed no one to "guard the guards."
That's a good point Caleb. I guess I got caught up with Pat saying "The problem is, while these guards are meant to challenge controversial assertions of those enslaved to an ideology, they themselves have become enslaved the the ideology of naturalism" and assumed he meant that all skeptics were being trapped by naturalism and it was not as justifiable a position.
DeleteYou are right that an ideal skeptic would analyze the information without bias, but realistically no such skeptic exists. Ultimately you have to believe something. The most intellectually responsible thing one can do is to acknowledge what bias you have, acknowledge it is possible that you are incorrect, and evaluate ideas from there. I think one cannot honestly be a skeptic of things you already believe, only the things you don't believe. The best you can do is express your skepticism of the things you do not believe, and honestly listen to the skeptics of what you believe.
Caleb - yeah, this is why I'm very against the literal seven-day creation story, because it seems to create such dogmatic behavior in people.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that I am not an actual skeptic, but I was surprised at the evidence for these claims, like NDE's. I would encourage both of you to do some research on these kinds of topics and formulate your own opinions, don't take my word for it.
ReplyDelete"While I may not have conclusive proof for my belief in God, it still perfectly defensible for me to believe so because I have not been convinced otherwise."
This seems to imply that one should default to the belief system they were raised in unless presented with adequate evidence against it. It's one thing to say that most people will do this - I certainly agree. But it's another thing to say that this is how it should be. I would say that ideally, belief in God should not be the default until one looks at the evidence, and decides if it's convincing or not. But I don't think I agree that people should hold beleifs unless convinced otherwise, despite being the norm in society. There are many people who live their lives as atheists only to convert to theism after years of research, and vice versa.
"I don't think free will and intentionality count as evidence per se, but rather philosophical arguments."
Philosophy is a very useful tool because it can shine a light ahead of science and decide what the implications of scientific theories are, and if certain things are even possible in nature. For example, philosophy is very useful in debating things like an infinite regress, showing science that such a thing is considered by many to be impossible in nature.
I think you guys are hesitant because many people today are still naturalists - and you're assuming there are theories in place to take care of all the points I'm bringing up. But this seems to be an appeal to popular opinion, which should not be a deciding factor. If I was to recite evidence against creationism, it wouldn't be right to discount it because a huge number of people believe it. Science will, and should, continue to try and find naturalistic explanations. But again, it's clear that in certain cases an explanation is not conceivable, which makes the arguments a little moot. I would not be as confident if I felt a naturalistic explanation was possible - despite all odds - but I believe the evidence leads us to believe it's not.
I would encourage you both to do some research, watch some videos, and decide for yourself not just which explanation fits the evidence best, but if another explanation is even plausible.
Before I began to think of NDE's as very solid evidence for the afterlife/spirituality/God, I would listen to videos and ask myself, "what other possible explanations could there be?" I didn't want to attach myself if I thought it could be ripped out from under me by a scientific explanation. A lot of things go against modern science, but logically, it is conceivable for it to happen. For example - maybe, despite the person being clinically dead, there brain conjured up this whole thing. That is a logically possible explanation, even if it flies in the face of our understanding of the brain. Like you said Nick, we don't pretend to know everything about the brain. But I came to realize that some things are just not logically possible, and it's because of these scenarios that I am very confident in NDE's.
ReplyDeleteMy comments about your leanings may have been an appeal to popular opinion, which is ultimately not what we should be basing ideas on but it is a factor for most people none the less. If NDE's have not gotten as much recognition as you think they should in the scientific or philosophical community then I accept that. You cannot see any possible naturalistic explanation for these phenomena. But likely most people do not even closely analyze NDE's because they dismiss them in one way or another. Maybe academics avoid the subject on purpose as your following post suggested, but if popular opinion seems to be with you, or at least not against you, it may not occur to them that this is something to be strongly analyzed. There has to be some reason why more people are not arriving at your same conclusion that there is not plausible naturalistic for these experiences, whether it is intellectually responsible or not.
ReplyDeleteHow many NDE accounts are there about people knowing information that seems impossible to explain physically? I watched the one video on your link and it seemed to be the one you were referencing about knowing the conversation that happened in another part of the hospital. Are there several thousands with this type of information? Because if not then people could accept some evidence of NDE's, but reject the accounts with this type of knowledge suggesting people made it up. Most of the other NDE's I have heard about do not include this type of information that does not (as you noted) seem to have a plausible naturalistic explanation. If most of these experiences do not include this information, then people could continue to explain these with naturalistic reasonining. Maybe it seems more reasonable to accept these accounts as true then to stretch naturalistic reasons to cover for these exceptional experiences, but for people coming from a naturalistic view accepting non-physical reasons may seem illogical.