Argument from Mystical Experience

"What if you slept, and what if in your sleep you dreamed,

and what if in your dream you went to heaven

and there you plucked a strange and beautiful flower,

and what if when you awoke you had the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?"

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Although I have yet to formulate an argument based around what I find to be the most compelling lines of evidence for the soul, and then theism, I would say I find Arguments from Mystical Experiences to be convincing. Now, I'm not saying that all 'mystical' experiences are true. In fact, I am hesitant when mystical experiences are brought up too often in the church setting. Claiming divine intervention on healing is a bold claim, and I think for a skeptical audience member, this might seem as if they are trying to postulate a 'Healing of the Gaps' argument for divine intervention.


So what exactly is a mystical experience? I would consider the following lines of research 'mystical' in nature:


- Evidence of Near-Death Experiences
- Evidence for deathbed visions
- Evidence for Reincarnation
- Evidence for mediumship


Other lines of research that would seem to undermine naturalism are evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance, healing powers, psychic powers, etc.


How about this:


1. If naturalism is true, then all mystical experiences would be explainable in naturalistic terms.
2. Not all mystical experiences can be explained in naturalistic terms.
Therefore:
3. Naturalism is false
And, for me:
4. The best explanation for these lines of evidence is the existence of an entity separate from our physical bodies, an immaterial 'thing.'
5. The best explanation for this 'separate entity' or 'soul,' 'mind,' or 'spirit' is the existence of a God capable of creating such an entity (Another rationale behind this is that if we accept the evidence for verdical experiences as authentic, then we have no reason not believe the rest of the standard NDE - namely that God, or 'The Light' exists, and there is an afterlife).


It's pretty clear that the above argument begs the question at premise two, so the only way to accept (2) is to decide if the evidence is explainable in naturalistic terms. I say it cannot be. If one takes a step back and acknowledges that there is, at the very least, evidence, in all the above areas, it's easy to say that we should only expect this type of evidence if naturalism were false.


In order to accept premise (2), however, one has to do some research on the matter, and no example given in this space could suffice for what thousands of pages of NDE research could accomplish. It's not very hard to find information on the matter, as many of the top experts on NDE's have moved past whether they are authentic or not, and have moved towards understanding their implications. So, needless to say, there are many books on the matter that revolve around their authenticity, and for the skeptic, those should be the ones to debunk.