The will to disbelieve

I'm still reading Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?, by Jonathan Margolis, and just finished Chapter 14. In addition to recounting Geller's early experiences in Britain, it provides a fascinating exposition on the nature of scientific skepticism, with revealing stories of how some leading scientists changed from doubt to belief - and then changed back!

Fortunately, as Marcos F pointed out in comments, the whole book is online at Uri Geller's Web site (starting here). I recommend taking a look at Chapter 14 particular.

Chapter 13, which focuses a rather penetrating gaze on James Randi, is also well worth a look.

Comments

[Tony S]

I've noticed in my own life that I tend to drift towards skepticism when I'm not reviewing evidence directly.

I.E. All mediums are probably be using cold readings or other conjuring tricks.
Ghosts are just our minds playing tricks on us (when they aren't outright hoaxes)
UFOs are misidentifications of manmade and natural objects.
NDEs are just the hallucinations of a dying brain
etc. etc.

Then I'll reread some case literature that give evidence which shatter the above, and I'll believe strongly again, but eventually I'll start drifting towards skepticism again.

So I suppose I can understand why it happened to the scientists mentioned in chapter 14.

[Michael Prescott]

You're right, the scientists' reactions are understandable. I've noticed the same tendency in myself. I "forget" how good some of the evidence is. It's some kind of unconscious denial or defense mechanism, I think.

[Teri]

Whenever I get het up and start to doubt, I try an online Zener Card test. You have to use a "relax don't force it" method to get anywhere, so it brings your mind into a kind of meditative state. (The computer chooses the card, so there's no chance of cheating) I had a very high score of 11/22 yesterday, so I was obviously "in the groove".

[wvogt]

I believe that at any time in any society there is a prevailing worldview. This worldview shapes our thinking, like it or not, from early childhood on. It thereby becomes a default position. To escape it requires a steady effort and when the effort stops we are inexorably drawn back into the default position. Our prevailing worldview is, of course, materialistic.

[Zerdini]

Thank you Michael P for drawing attention to Margolis's book about Uri Geller and, in particular, chapters 13 and 14.

As I recall Margolis,(he is a well-known journalist here in the UK),wrote a book about Uri called "Uri Geller:The Truth", in 1999 or thereabouts, which was advertised as follows:

Jonathan Margolis - a devout and self-confessed rationalist - was persuaded by his teenage son to meet Uri Geller, whom he had always regarded as a fraud. During the meeting Geller bent a spoon (bought specially from the Margolis kitchen), read Jonathan's mind and executed an identical drawing to Jonathan's son's while his back was turned. Jonathan began research, and discovered that while magicians are almost unanimous in their condemnation of Geller, no scientist in 30 years, after running tests on Geller, has disputed that he has paranormal powers. He can predict the weather, natural disasters, aeroplane crashes. He has worked with the Pentagon, the CIA and the FBI, who once placed him on a flight next to two KGB agents who were flying with diplomatic pouches chained to their arms - his job was to erase the floppy disks in the bags. Oil and mining companies use him: the chairman of one Australian company has declared, 'I will never drill an oil well without asking Uri Geller's advice first.' Margolis has moved from a position of deepest scepticism to one of conviction. He has written this biography with Geller's full co-operation.

[filip vd]

wvogt, don't you think several worldviews are available in our society? You are talking about our western society?
If you would grow up in a zen master his family I'm sure you'll have a very different worldview during your childhood than when you grow up in an atheistic family or fundamentalist christian one...
This worldview can change of course...
And these world views can be liberating or help create a very dogmatic person depending on the person and the people that influence him.
A person raised in a fundamentalist christian home could become free of dogmas once he sees the limitation of such a world view. I agree it requires effort but I think a new world view can be deeply realised so that you are not drawn back anymore to a previous transcended one.
Because that one is not competed it is understood, differentiated from and integrated in something new.

krgds,
Filip

[TomC]

I once mentioned that i still have doubts despite all the evidence supporting the afterlife to my friend, who's an atheist (but a true skeptic, not dogmatic), he said that perhaps the reason that i still have so much doubt is because the fact that deep down inside i know that there is no such thing as paranormal, nor afterlife, nor God, but a materialistic world- and that's the ultimate truth.

that really made me wonder- am i a born materialist, or somehow my intuition/gut feeling just know that this is a materialistic universe. why do i feel this way? am i genetically disposed to think this way? after all, some scientists proposed that we have built-in gene that made us believe in God- why can't that be me?!

all the ranting aside, i wonder if my doubts are the result of 'feeling that something is just not right because it is not right,' or i was conditioned to this worldview that it's hard to switch my point of view.

should i trust my intuition (that afterlife is just not true), or should i go with the evidence?

Of course there is searching, Filip: Inquiry into the nature of the self is searching. So too is the whole of God’s manifestation: enquiring into Who He Is.

Note that identification or disidentification is not in your power to control. Any guru or sage who says he can disdentify from his self is careful not to remind you that he cannot actually disidentify from the basic bodily needs –he doesn’t stop eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting. True disidentification is impossible, because a lot of investment has gone into creating individualized creatures, layer on layer of identity. God will not allow you to throw it all off. You’re part of the plan, and you’re stuck with it.

[Leo MacDonald]

I a lot of times wonder if the materialist's are right and that their is no meaning in life, no afterlife, no free will, no god. But when I look at the evidence and my own personal experiences I see that the evidence does in fact point towards the above mentioned things.

Then when all natural explanations are ruled out their still is psychic reservoir theory and super psi theory. That could explain away all the evidence for survival however it appears now the evidence has tilted in favor of survival.

Now here comes the big questions

1. How long do we survive for? I would say that time does not exist so the afterlife goes on for forever.

2. Is the afterlife a dream like reality or a real reality? I ain't sure on that one could be a real reality.

3. Are spirits made up of a different type of energy and matter? I would say they are

[wvogt]

Filip: If I understand you correctly I don’t think I am in disagreement with you. There are a lot of worldviews floating around. Some of them formerly occupied a more prominent position in our society than they do now, the one based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, for example. There are plenty of people who still see the world that way. What I was referring to is a dominant worldview. An example would be the Aristotelians who were entrenched in the church and the universities of Europe in the Late Middle Ages. I think you would find that the editors, for example, of the scholarly journals in the physical and biological sciences today pretty much share the same outlook. People in such positions have more resources at their disposal than does the pastor of a rural church. The opinions of these privileged persons tend to filter down into the nooks and crannies of society and affect people at long range, much more so than just personally-held worldviews.

[Tony S]

I think the reason I keep returning to skepticism and materialistic-type thinking is because I don't have any solid paranormal experiences myself. All I have is the stories of others.

[Michael H]

I agree it requires effort but I think a new world view can be deeply realised so that you are not drawn back anymore to a previous transcended one.

I agree with this, Filip. Once someone has experienced a powerful insight within themselves, the previous worldview dissolves on it's own. That's been my experience anyway. It's impossible to go back to my previous worldview, even if I wanted to, because the insights transcended my prior belief system.

Doubt?

Dr. Moody M.D.:

I was sitting in a room alone when a woman simply walked in. As soon as I saw her, I had a certain sense that she was familiar; but the event happened so quickly that it took me a few moments to gather myself together and greet her politely. Within what must have been less than a minute, I realized this person was my paternal grandmother who died some years before. l remember throwing my hands up toward my face and exclaiming, "Grandma!"

At this point I was looking directly into her eyes, awestruck at what I was seeing. In a very kind and loving way she acknowledged who she was and addressed me with the nickname that only she had used for me when I was a child. As soon as I realized who this woman was, a flood of memories rushed into my mind. Not all of these were good memories. In fact many were distinctly unpleasant. Although my reminiscences of my maternal grandmother were all positive, those with my father's mother were a different matter. One of the memories that rushed into my mind was the annoying habit she had of declaring, "This is my last Christmas!" She did that every holiday season for the last two decades of her life. She also constantly warned me when I was young that I could go to Hell if I violated any of God's laws. She once washed my mouth out with soap for having uttered a word of which she disapproved. Another time when I was a child, she told me in all seriousness that it was a sin to fly in airplanes. She was habitually cranky and negative. Yet as I gazed into the eyes of this apparition, I quickly sensed that the woman who stood before me had been transformed in a very positive way. I felt warmth and love from her as she stood there and an empathy and compassion that surpassed my understanding. She was confidently humorous, with an air of quiet calm and joyfulness about her.

The reason I had not recognized her at first was that she appeared much younger than she was when she died, in fact even younger than she had been when-I was born. I don't remember having seen any photographs of her at the age she seemed to be during this encounter, but that is irrelevant here since it was not totally through her physical appearance that I recognized her. Rather, I knew this woman through her unmistakable presence and through the many memories we reviewed and discussed. In short this woman was my deceased grandmother. I would have known her anywhere. I want to emphasize how completely natural this meeting was. As with the other subjects who had experienced an apparitional facilitation, my meeting was in no way eerie or bizarre. In fact this was the most normal and satisfying interaction I have ever had with her. Our meeting was focused entirely on our relationship. Throughout the experience I was amazed that I seemed to be in the presence of someone who had already passed on, but in no way did this interfere with our interaction. She was there in front of me, and as startling as that fact was, I just accepted it and continued to talk with her. We discussed old times, specific incidents from my childhood. Throughout, she reminded me of several events that I had forgotten. Also she revealed something very personal about my family situation that came as a great surprise but, in retrospect makes a great deal of sense. Due to the fact that the principals are still living, I have chosen to keep this information to myself. But I will say that her revelation has made a great deal of difference in my life, and I feel much better for having heard this from her. .

I say heard in an almost literal sense. I did hear her voice clearly, the only difference being that there was a crisp, electric quality to it that seemed clearer and louder than her voice before she died. Others who'd had this experience before described it as telepathic or "mind to mind communication." Mine was similar. Although most of my conversation was through the spoken word, from time to time I was immediately aware of what she thinking and I could tell that the same was true for her. In no way did she appear "ghostly" or spectral during our reunion. She seemed completely solid in every respect. She appeared no different from any other person except that she was surrounded by what appeared to be a light or an indentation in space, as if she were somehow set off or recessed from the rest of her physical surroundings. For some reason, she would not let me touch her. Two or three times I reached to give her a hug, and each time she put her hands up and motioned me back. She was so insistent about not being touched that I didn't pursue it.

I have no idea how long this meeting lasted in clock time. It certainly seemed like a long time, but I was so engrossed in the experience that I didn't bother to look at the clock. In terms of thoughts and feelings that passed between us, it seemed like a couple of hours, but I have a feeling that it was probably less than that in what we consider to be "real" time. And how did our meeting end? I was so overwhelmed that I just said, "Good-bye." We acknowledged that we would be seeing each other again, and I simply walked out of the room. When I returned, she was nowhere to be seen. The apparition of my grandmother was gone. What took place that day resulted in a healing of our relationship. For the first time in my life I now appreciate her humor and have a sense of some of the struggles she went through during her lifetime. Now I love her in a way that I didn't before the experience. It also left me with an abiding certainty that what we call death is not the end of life.

I realize how people can assume that these apparitional facilitations are hallucinations. As a veteran of altered states of consciousness, I can say that my visionary reunion with my grandmother was completely coherent with the ordinary waking reality that I have experienced all my life. If I were to discount this encounter as hallucinatory, I would be almost obliged to discount the rest of my life as hallucinatory too.

More?

Source: Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, M.D.
In her book, On Life After Death, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, a pioneer in the study of the near-death experience (NDE), states that her first account of an NDE came from “a certain Mrs. Schwartz.” After being declared dead following 45 minutes of resuscitation attempts, Mrs. Schwartz began to show signs of life and was revived. She lived for another year-and-a-half, during which time she met Dr. Ross and related her experience during a seminar on death and dying at the University of Chicago.
Some 10 months after Mrs. Schwartz’s death, Dr. Ross decided to discontinue the death and dying seminar. After giving her lecture on death and dying in a classroom, she was discussing shutting down the seminar with a minister who had worked with her in the program. As they approached an elevator, where the minister would leave her, Ross noticed a woman standing in front of the elevator. The woman looked familiar, but Ross could not immediately place her. As soon as the minister got on the elevator, the woman, who Ross described as being somewhat transparent, approached her and asked her if she could accompany her to her office. Dr. Ross came to realize that it was Mrs. Schwartz and began to question her own awareness.
“This was the longest walk of my life,” Ross related. “I am a psychiatrist. I work with schizophrenic patients all the time, and I love them. When they would have visual hallucinations I would tell them.” She told herself that she was seeing Mrs. Schwartz but that it couldn’t be. She did a reality check on herself and wondered if she had seen too many schizophrenic patients and was beginning to see things herself. “I even touched her skin to see if it was cold or warm, or if the skin would disappear when I touched it. It was the most incredible walk I have ever taken, not knowing why I was doing what I was doing. I was both an observing psychiatrist and a patient.” When they reached Ross’ office door, Mrs. Schwartz opened it and told Ross that she had come back for two reasons, first to thank her and the Reverend Gaines, a former minister in the program, for the help they had given her, and, secondly, to ask her not to stop her work on death and dying. Ross got to her desk and did another reality check, touching her desk, chair, and a pen. “I was hoping she would disappear,” Ross continues the story. “But she didn’t. She just stood there and lovingly said, ‘Dr. Ross, did you hear me? Your work is not finished. We will help you and you will know when the time is right, but do not stop now. Promise?’”
As a further test of her awareness or sanity, Ross asked the woman if she would write a note to Reverend Gaines. Mrs. Schwartz complied. She then got up from her chair, and said, “Dr. Ross, you promise,” to which Ross replied, “I promise.” With that Mrs. Schwartz disappeared. Ross kept the note and later told the story to many friends and associates. She considered having fingerprint and handwriting experts examine the note to see if they matched up with the fingerprints and handwriting of Mrs. Schwartz, but she never got around to it and eventually gave the note to the Rev. Renford Gaines. Researcher Boyce Batey later contacted Gaines, who had changed his name to Mwalimu Imara, in line with his African heritage, at the Boston Center for Religion and Psychotherapy, Inc. Imara informed Batey that because of various confidentiality concerns relative to Mrs. Schwartz and her family, he could not provide a copy of the note. However, he provided Batey with the exact wording, viz. “Hello there, Dropped in to see Dr. Ross. One of two on the top of my ‘list’. You being the other. I’ll never find or know anyone to take the place of you two. I want you to know, as I’ve told her, I’m at peace at home now. I want you to know you helped me. The simple Thank you is not enough. But please know how much I mean it. Thank you again. Mary Schwartz.”

[zerdini]

A skeptic's point of view:

This review is from: Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic? (Hardcover)
It is sad that so many people say "It's great! buy it!" without actually saying WHY! I am weary of this work because I have been interested in this subject for a while. It is written fluently and it is interesting, but the author is deceptive. It is clear to me that Margolis is not the converted sceptic he claims to be. Margolis twists every quote and piece of information to suit his argument. Sceptics who have dealt in Parapsychology for a lot longer than Margolis are either ignored or dealt with in a disparaging, patronising tone. Of course Sceptical authors also fall in to this trap too, but eventually it is logical evidence that must tell, and Uri Geller fanatics can offer little. I would love Margolis to contact me and explain why Gellers countless failed soccer predictions (English soccer fans find him hilarious) his failure on a certain TV show, his promises to stop Big Ben (ridiculous? Of course. So why did he say it?) and his superb episode with the Brazilian cash ( ask someone) have been ignored or glossed over while his supposed achievements receive so much hype. As I have said before, I have nothing against strongly sceptical or pro arguments as long as the author is honest about his views. Margolis claims to be a converted sceptic. You will note that before we reach halfway in the book, Margolis mentions "a strong liking" of Uri. He also mentions that he went for a morning walk with him every day for so many months! Yet sceptics like Randi and Hutchinson get one visit each! The work of a converted sceptic? That is why I resent this work.

[william]

Rather than physical entities we appear to be walking talking balls of vibrational energy. Even the TV show the dog whisper brings this out as dogs feel and respond to our energy. One has to wonder if the future of healing will be in vibrational or energy healing.

Skepticism is a powerful defense mechanism as it helps us to prevent personal embarrassment and rejection from our peers. To have an inquiring mind especially in areas outside the accepted “norm” will undoubtedly lead to levels of embarrassment and rejection.

Society tends towards the need for acceptance, as peer acceptance is one of our most cherished wants. Dr. Hora writes that embarrassment may be one of our most valued opportunities to learn and change our mode of being in the world.

I consider myself a skeptic and a materialist but the evidence keeps pouring in that there is more to this world than meets the eye. I have personally experienced paranormal phenomena that I have no explanation for other than this world is but one small portion of reality.

I have seen beauty in the clouds that goes beyond any colors that I know of or can describe. I have seen physical objects move when I challenged them to move that scared me so bad I did not tell anyone for 27 years. I have had a visitation in a dream that is beyond anything this world has to offer. I have experienced telepathic communication that there are no words to describe it.

This is not to boast for I suspect most people have experienced such things or more but keep them to their selves for fear of ridicule or worst.

[Zetetic_chick]

"it provides a fascinating exposition on the nature of scientific skepticism, with revealing stories of how some leading scientists changed from doubt to belief - and then changed back"

I've had the same feeling. I think true skeptics (zetetics) have a tendency to doubt because we're in constant questioning even of our beliefs.

Sometimes, we re-examine the evidence, and doubt come back, because we think in new alternatives, scenarios and possibilities.

However, doubt isn't an end in itself. It doesn't give us any knowledge. It's only a methodological tool to find the truth and avoid (or reduce) bias and prejudices when examining new claims.

All knowledge imply the acceptation (or belief) in specific propositions. And in complex topics, we tend to accept one proposition (e.g. "psi exists") when we see the alternatives to it (including doubt) as less reasonable or less plausible.

In most cases, knowledge is a matter of gradation and approximation to the truth; not of certainties or dogmas. Sometimes, we feel confused and uncertain regarding evidence about specific. This is the hard and long way of a zetetic...

Rob Hubbard (the controversial founder of scientology) wrote that to avoid confusion, you need a basic "stable datum" to relate all other data. That datum can be false, but it will avoid confusion (= ramdom movement of particles/ideas) while you hold it. And the confusion will come back when the stable datum is refuted or soundly criticized (cognitive dissonance will help to put again in its place the original stable datum, or substitute it by another new stable datum.).

As far I'm very critic of Scientology's cultist practiques and dogmatism, I agree with Hubbard about his stable datum doctrine to avoid confusions.It can explain why sometimes we back to previous views or "forget" the evidence... (our stable datum about it isn't very strong, sure or sound; and any strong counterexample seems to invalidate it)

[william]

“However, doubt isn't an end in itself. It doesn't give us any knowledge. It's only a methodological tool to find the truth and avoid (or reduce) bias and prejudices when examining new claims.”

I often wonder if doubt is perfection in action like karma. A kind of universal principle that is necessary for us to find our way back home. Maybe doubt is not methodological but a spiritual necessity for the stabilization and/or continuous improvement of a society.

I often wonder if perfection is all around us but we are unaware of this perfection and it looks like sin or chaos or random chance to us.

[Filip VD]

Ananymous person said "Of course there is searching, Filip: Inquiry into the nature of the self is searching. So too is the whole of God’s manifestation: enquiring into Who He Is.

Note that identification or disidentification is not in your power to control. Any guru or sage who says he can disdentify from his self is careful not to remind you that he cannot actually disidentify from the basic bodily needs –he doesn’t stop eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting. True disidentification is impossible, because a lot of investment has gone into creating individualized creatures, layer on layer of identity. God will not allow you to throw it all off. You’re part of the plan, and you’re stuck with it. "

I'm not sure how you got to this interpretation from what I wrote. I clearly said differentiate and integrate. This is very different from only disidentification. i agree that only disidentification is not possible, it's not healthy either, it creates unbalance. Integration means that you embrace and encompass the previous level. It doesn't mean you go sit somewhere on an ivory tower high in the sky and kick out previous held thing and won't have anything to do with it anymore. It is quite the opposite. Integration also means being grounded, not living only in the mind or high in the sky but realising the body you are and all its needs. Integrating it all, dualism and non dualism...

greets,
Filip

[Filip VD]

TomC "I once mentioned that I still have doubts despite all the evidence supporting the afterlife to my friend, who's an atheist (but a true skeptic, not dogmatic), he said that perhaps the reason that i still have so much doubt is because the fact that deep down inside i know that there is no such thing as paranormal, nor afterlife, nor God, but a materialistic world- and that's the ultimate truth."

If your friend is a true skeptic and thus not 100% sure, you could ask the same thing. Is he doubting because somewhere he knows, god, the paranormal exists? :)

Doubt means we don't have 100% certaincy,
100% certaincy can not be found in science, it is not made for this, doubt is a normal part of life.
I doubt :) ultimate truth can be found in theories, for me it is the absolute, it is non dualism.
Ultimate truth, the absolute has no room for dualism, else it's not ultimate or absolute, it is not 2, not doubt and not certaincy.
Everybody has all these aspects in them.
The part which doubts, which is skeptic to everything, the part which absolutely knows, which knows the way, the part which is egoistic, the part which is friendly.. and so on, it all depends how we play with these parts and react on them... Genpo Roshi a zen master developped a great technique to discover all these different parts.

krgds,
Filip

greets,
Filip

[Michael H]

I think true skeptics (zetetics) have a tendency to doubt because we're in constant questioning even of our beliefs.

This short sentence encapsulates the view of the honest skeptic, as opposed to those who have corrupted the term as a means to disparage anyone who suggests that there are aspects of existence and subjective experience that cannot be easily explained.

The 'skeptics' do play an important role in drawing attention to fraudulent characters, and battling the credulity exhibited by some who are fascinated by the 'paranormal'. Few skeptics are willing to question their own assumptions though, although they revel in questioning other's.

I agree with Filip's statement: "100% certainty can not be found in science, it is not made for this, doubt is a normal part of life. I doubt :) ultimate truth can be found in theories, for me it is the absolute, it is non dualism."

Science is a tremendous tool for the investigation of material reality. Because of those successes, 'skeptics' assume that science will inevitably solve the riddle of existence itself, essentially accepting the doctrine of promissory materialism. Which is nothing but an act of faith.

At the same time, many dualists accept 'paranormal' phenomena as absolute in and of itself, such as the anonymously posted excerpts regarding the Kubler-Ross and Moody experiences above. Neither the skeptic nor the dualist considers that the direct experience of the source of existence, consistently described as noetic in quality and entirely ineffable, does not invalidate how things appear to either side. One of those individuals, Allan Smith, MD, does his best to explain what he understands:

"To say that subject merged with object might be almost adequate as a description of the entrance into Cosmic Consciousness, but during Cosmic Consciousness there was neither subject nor object."

I think all anyone can do is accept what makes sense to them, but I also think that if someone wants to understand absolute truth they need to adopt the role of a genuine skeptic and be willing to question their own assumptions.

[Zetetic_chick]

"Science is a tremendous tool for the investigation of material reality. Because of those successes, 'skeptics' assume that science will inevitably solve the riddle of existence itself, essentially accepting the doctrine of promissory materialism. Which is nothing but an act of faith"

Yes, for "skeptics" (pseudo-skeptics or debunkers), science isn't a metaphysically neutral method: for them, science presuposse and confirm materialism. And science can only investigate materialist phenomena. Any other phenomena is outside from science scope.

However, suppose the above view is correct. The conclusion isn't that non-material phenomena don't exist, but that they can't be proved by science. But debunkers, as a scientific fundamentalists, use the above view as a proof against spiritual and non-material phenomena. (It's a sign that "skeptics" aren't motived to find the truth, but by an ideological-philosophical worldview)

I think science can prove (at least, from a logical point of view) that materialism is false. For example, the best cases of NDEs refute the view that mind is a by-product of brain. (Debunkers will try to force materialist interpretations, like crying fraud or delusions; but the logical fact is that, if NDEs are real, materialism is false). And this evidence comes from science, not from metaphysics or misticism.

I think the above refute the view that science can only investigate and confirm phenomena consistent with materialism.

Science can refute it too.

[william]

Speaking of materialism; why is it needed? There is much suffering associated with materialism i.e. a physical world. This quote below is taken from Findlay’s book on the edge of the etheric.

“Earth then is the training ground for mind which has become individualized. Here it is trained in image-making through contact with earth’s grosser surroundings, and as it develops it takes more and more control of its surroundings in the etheric world until ultimately we (as represented by our minds and our surroundings) become as we think.”

At another place in the book he says something to the effect that the earth is an incubator for mind to develop. I have suspected that nature may be a very effective process for mind development. Very Hinduism I think.

[Michael H]

I think the above refute the view that science can only investigate and confirm phenomena consistent with materialism.

Yes. However, although science can be applied with demonstrable success to objective phenomena, it ultimately fails in addressing subjective phenomena.

What 'skeptics' won't admit is that science has already demonstrated the validity of some 'paranormal' phenomena (the ganzfeld experiments, Radin's work that indicates precognition, etc.), but because data is interpreted subjectively, through the metaphysical lens of whoever is interpreting the data, truth remains at bay.

Eventually, it will be understood that there is no 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' phenomena, but not in the sense the 'skeptics' intend. As W. Y. Evans-Wentz wrote a century ago: ". . . if our investigations lead us to the tentative hypothesis that [these phenomena exist], they are natural and not supernatural, for nothing which exists can be supernatural; and, therefore, it is our duty to examine [these occurrences] just as we examine any fact in the visible realm."

When the 'skeptics' understand that statement, science will have returned to its proper position of metaphysical neutrality.

And peace will reign on earth. :-)

(Don't wait up!)

[Zetetic_chick]

Some argue that materialism can be proven wrong from a philosophical point of view. It could be, but in my opinion the falsehood of materialism is empircally proven by afterlife research and some psi effects.

Also, as said Michael H, consciousness and subjetive phenomena can be seen as a failure of materialism. (However, emergent materialism recognize the existence of consciousness as a emergent property of neurological systems. In this point, it's a superior form of materialism, different from other eliminative or reductionistic materialist theses). But emergent materialism has their problems, and it's refuted by NDEs and other evidence too.

The debate about natural and supernatural is, in my opinion, a little bit misleading. What's natural? What's supernatural? Both concepts are defined in terms of each other.

Is supernatural something contrary to natural laws? Most definitions say so, but it doesn't appear as conclusive, because science (quantum mechanics) has proved violations of natural laws (e.g. the law of energy conservation):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae605.cfm

According to the above link: "To sum it up, yes, conservation of energy can be violated, but nature makes sure it is always within the limits of uncertainty. In other words, the energy must be returned, and the books set straight pretty quickly. But, the fact that it can be violated is important, and although it can never be observed directly, it does have important consequences."

So, violations of natural laws don't seems to be a conclusive demarcation criteria between the natural and supernatural.

It's a hard philosophical problem, and I don't have a definitive answers about it yet. But I think that some classifications and categories used today are incorrect to interpret consciousness, psi effets and other phenomena.

[Michael H]

Is supernatural something contrary to natural laws?

Supernatural could be seem as contrary to physical laws, I suppose, but that definition assumes physical laws as absolute, and even if one proceeds from that assumption, it doesn't address the irreconcilable differences between macro and quantum physics.

And in any case, we can't just assume that physical laws are absolute in the first place. If the physical laws of our cosmos are but one consequence of a higher order of natural laws, we could never know that through investigation limited to the physical cosmos.

Perhaps we should adopt the term 'superphysical', instead. If the 'skeptic' wishes to bind themselves inexorably to the physical world, the alternative terminology would gently remind them that there are phenomena, including objective data in support of the premise, that appear to transcend the physical world and suggest higher orders of existence.

:-)

[Ben]

"Perhaps we should adopt the term superphysical instead"

Richard Lewontin's January 9, 1997 article, Billions and Billions of Demons, which is a review of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark contains the oft-quoted line about not allowing “a Divine Foot in the door.” It is probably the best statement of the philosophical foundation for the Darwinian fundamentalist perspective, and for materialist scientism in general:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Empiricism is subservient to the materialist philosophy. Facts are subservient to a priori presuppositions. From the point of view of the materialist scientist, doubt in his position cannot be allowed in. It is interesting that as Zetetic Chick and Michael H said, anything non-materialist automatically becomes supernatural and miraculous, imagined to be directly caused by God in contravention to nature. Nature cannot be allowed to be anything but material.

Yet as you cannot prove Materialism, Lewontin's commitment to it is based on faith, and that is definitely not a good way to do science.

[Paul Welsh]

Could it be that this drift back from conviction to scepticism is because although you have read a lot of other people's accounts you haven't had much/any direct personal experience of the phenomena described? I feel the same way and I am pretty sure that's why I vacillate.

[william]

“And peace will reign on earth. :-)”

Don’t think we humans are quite ready for that yet. Jesus preached love and compassion and forgiveness over 2000 years ago and we all know how that worked out for him. Even Findlay in his book has an optimistic view of how soon things will change. Paradigms appear to change at a snails pace but then when we look at infinite time I suspect things change pretty fast in god’s eyes.

“It could be, but in my opinion the falsehood of materialism is empirically proven by afterlife research and some psi effects.”

Amen to that. How can someone explain away Findlay’s book with his work with Sloan a humble medium that never asked for a dime and refused to take money with the exception of twice while out of work. And certainty not a seeker of fame.

Ultra skeptics (materialists) that claim to be debunkers would not even read Findlay’s book because the publisher was psychic press. Personal knowledge of that one.

“Perhaps we should adopt the term 'superphysical', instead”

how about “superscientism” they may buy into that. One small admittance to anything that cannot be explained by a materialistic paradigm and the walls of their materialistic mental model comes tumbling down.

It is very uncomfortable to read something that goes against our established beliefs. It appears to me that to do as unbiased research as possible one must try very hard to question one’s established beliefs.

[Michael H]

Rather than physical entities we appear to be walking talking balls of vibrational energy.

William’s mention of ‘vibrational energy’ brought to mind some interesting observations from several sources, which may point to the ‘natural law’ issue that Zetetic Chick, Ben and I discussed earlier.

First, there are several instances in the literature of medium communication that indicate differences in vibration between other realms and this one contribute to the difficulty often encountered in medium communications. MP has posted on this issue before, and I believe Michael Tymn has as well.

Second, Sri Yukteswar, before describing the incredible diversity of the astral realms, describes the astral universe as ‘made of various subtle vibrations of light and color” in his conversation with Yogananda recounted in Chapter 43 of Autobiography of a Yogi. It’s worth noting that this conversation takes place some time after Yukteswar’s physical death, yet Yogananda describes him as appearing as entirely real and fully physical, quite similar to the two accounts provided by Kubler-Ross and Moody posted anonymously above. Yukteswar explains that, “I am the same. This is a flesh and blood body. Though I see it as ethereal, to your sight it is physical. From cosmic atoms I created an entirely new body, exactly like that cosmic-dream body which you laid beneath the dream-sands at Puri in your dream-world.”

Third, the Chapter ‘Fundamentals of Qabbalistic Cosmogony’, in Manly P. Hall’s, The Secret Teachings of All Ages includes commentary that also supports varying vibrational levels. After a brief introduction to the Qabbalist concept of AIN SOPH as the source of existence, a chart illustrating concentric spheres is provided, with this introduction: “On the accompanying circular chart, the concentric rings represent diagrammatically the forty rates of vibration (called by the Qabbalists Spheres) which emanate from AIN SOPH.” In a matter quite similar to Yukteswar’s descriptions, the process of growth involves ascension through the various levels until final reunification with the source.

I’m just guessing here, but it could be that all of the phenomena that are considered ‘paranormal’ involve nothing more than awareness of, or interaction with, different vibrational realities. If this is the case, I would also guess that the different levels each have ‘physical’ laws that are every bit as real and effective as those here, but that all levels are founded on a deeper set of natural laws which cannot be discovered via the laws ruling any given level. Those who assume that the physical cosmos is ‘absolute’ would be correct from the perspective of the laws of the physical cosmos and would find endless evidentiary support for their premise, but those who had awareness of other realities would be aware of genuine aspects of existence which could never be conclusively demonstrated within the confines of physical reality. Neither one would likely have any understanding of the underlying natural laws (of vibration?) operating behind all realms.

If this is the case, then instances of flip-flopping by those who have yet to experience ‘paraphysical’ phenomena themselves would make perfect sense. It would be very difficult to discern ‘truth’, when both the skeptics and those who claim to have experienced subjective phenomena would be telling the truth as they understand it.

By the way, Ben, thanks for the excerpt. That sums up the materialist position as well as it can be in a brief paragraph.

[Bill I.]

Personal experience is key to dispelling doubt but doubt arises naturally.

Such experience can be created; some effort is required, at least initially, and a bit of persistence, too, but one need not spend years sitting at the feet of a master.

I've found that doubt is most natural when I'm in a "narrowed" egoic place, that place seemingly required in order to function in our society.

Mentally focusing on my unusual experiences tends to open me up, bring me to a place where such experience is more likely to occur.

This closing and opening is a process I've explored for many years, on and off; there are cumulative effects, long-term a ha's.

Recently I've become aware of fears that ordinarily block certain "psychic" experience.

These go back to childhood and reflect a kind of conditioning, some version of which is likely to prevail in all societies in which paranormal experience is suspect.

Part of this involves the need to solidify the egoic identity -- a chief fear is that without this solidification, self will dissolve into nothingness, and this fear can come to consciousness when touching the realm of thorough connectiveness that lies just beyond the physical senses and waking mind.

There's also the fear of psychic intimacy, related, as how can you retain your separate identify if you are united with other?

The fears are real, but somewhat groundless, more pronounced, of course, in the narrow place of doubt, even if not all are conscious of them.

Regards

Bill I.

PS. For your Entertainment:

The Right Spook for the Job: John O'Neil Investigates 9/11

[william]

“Recently I've become aware of fears that ordinarily block certain "psychic" experience.”

I think it is very difficult not to be a materialist in a physical world. I have had many interesting phenomena happen to me that I have no explanation for other than the paranormal but even with those experiences doubt stills creeps in.

My own wife and her sister when their brother was passing had objects move in the room all on their own when they asked a certain question. They admitted it scared them really bad. One had to hear the emotion in my wife’s voice when she called an hour later to tell me about it to know how it upset her. She kept saying you won’t believe this, you won’t believe this.

“Part of this involves the need to solidify the egoic identity” “There's also the fear of psychic intimacy”

Very interesting comments worthy of investigation.

[Ben]

"the forty rates of vibration (called by the Qabbalists Spheres)" "vibrational realities"

I wonder if instead of talking about different vibrations, which seems to turn materialists off, we talked about different universes or different dimensions...

[william]

Could dark matter be nothing more than different dimensions?

And why dark matter I suspect that so called dark matter is brighter and more profound in color than our matter.

[Ben]

Have you seen this edited out extract from Yogananda’s autobiography, when he did an interview for the Skeptics Society?

Dennett: I understand you actually claim to experience a parallel universe with its own dimensions.
Yogananda: Yes.
Dennett: What evidence can you show me for this?
Yogananda: That’s an odd request. How could I show you evidence for something that’s not here? You can’t bring things or people back here and hold on to them –if they appear here, it’s temporary, depending on attunement to someone’s Intuition Quotient here.
Dennett: Intuition Quotient?
Yogananda: It’s a “higher mind” thing. Different universes are only linked to one another in consciousness.
Dennett: Well why can’t I do it? I’ve got a high IQ.
Yogananda: I’m afraid that might well give you an extremely low Intuition Quotient. A busy intellect and preconceived ideas can be devastating -they clog it up. It would be like you looking for a needle in a haystack.
Dennett: I’d use an x-ray machine.
Yogananda: Sorry, I was using a simile -that’s a higher mind thing. Intuition Quotient won’t allow x ray machinery.
Dennett: Oh really? So how does it work then?
Yogananda: To find the needle in the haystack, you need to tune into the needle and tune out of the haystack. Once you tune in, you find the needle expands and replaces the haystack. You’ve relocated to the other universe; or it’s relocated to you.
Dennett: Sounds supernatural.
Yogananda: Radios tune into stations in this universe. Consciousness can tune into minds in other universes. Simple.
Dennett: Of course, you can’t demonstrate any of this empirically.
Yogananda: Only to my own consciousness. You could too, to yourself, but as I say, your mind is presently too crammed and crowded with concepts. In this state you’re firmly welded to this haystack universe. You’re just not up to it. You need to develop your Intuition Quotient.
Dennett: What method would I use for that?
Yogananda: Start by disbelieving everything you think you know. Empty your mind.
Dennett: Impossible. I’d be a vegetable.
Yogananda: You said it.

[Michael Prescott]

That's a classic case of two people talking past each other. They have such different frames of reference, they are barely able to communicate at all.

[Zerdini]

That reminds me of the famous dialogue on British TV between Krishnamurti and Bernard Levin.

You can see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1AvljMbU8c

[Michael H]

That's a classic case of two people talking past each other.

It's hilarious, though . . .

I wonder if instead of talking about different vibrations, which seems to turn materialists off, we talked about different universes or different dimensions...

I don't think terminology matters to the hard-core materialist. I was just speculating on the possible nature of natural laws that could explain superphysical phenomena, yet would remain undetectable using the tools available to the physical reality. It could explain why we have the Yogi and Dennett "talking past each other": Dennett's convinced that the physical laws of the cosmos are absolute, while Yogananda recognizes through conscious realization the deeper natural laws that give rise to the physical laws. The two views appear irreconcilable, but they really aren't.

The mention of different universes and/or dimensions does bring up a good point. Modern cosmology and string theory each engage in their fair share of metaphysical speculation. What's puzzling is that the materialist assumes that the entire cosmos, including the occupants thereof that are investigating it, just 'somehow' arose as a consequence of a random accident. This assumption is extended to their speculations regarding parallel universes or alternate dimensions. The question, "How or why did it all happen?", is answered with, "It just did."

The comment has been made before that "atheism is the more educated guess." I couldn't agree more.

I think it is very difficult not to be a materialist in a physical world.

It is also difficult to integrate spiritual understanding in a world dominated by materialism. It does seem to me that a big part of the problem in the battle waged between the materialist and those who posit spiritual realities is that the latter are perceived as anti-intellectual by the former. That certain religions teach renunciation of the physical world as a path to understanding doesn't help matters, and strikes me as somehow misguided. But so does the materialist's renunciation of spiritual realities.

Perhaps I'm wrong to do so, but my hope is to find a balance between the two, to achieve integration, as difficult as it may be. I tend to agree with Solomon Trismosin:

"Study what thou art, whereof thou art a part, what thou knowest of this art, this is really what thou art. All that is without thee also is within, thus wrote Trismosin."

[Ben]

Sorry, I ought to admit that I made up the Yogananda-Dennett thing, just in case this Blog gets sued! It's just that I'm thinking about a comedy play along these lines.

You just can't believe anything you read these days. (Actually, they’re a generation apart -Yogananda died in 1952: but it would still work if it was a mock appendix to his colorful autobiography, and Yogananda was materialising before a medium)

[Michael H]

. . . it would still work if it was a mock appendix to his colorful autobiography, and Yogananda was materialising before a medium

Why don't you just have Yogananda materialize before Dennett, sans medium? It might add an interesting twist to Dennett's demand for evidence.

:-)

[Michael H]

. . . it would still work if it was a mock appendix to his colorful autobiography, and Yogananda was materialising before a medium

Why don't you just have Yogananda materialize before Dennett, sans medium? It might add an interesting twist to Dennett's demand for evidence.

:-)

[Zetetic_chick]

Ben, thanks for that extract. I didn't know it.

I think that interview confirm Ken Wilber's view about the quadrants of knowledge, as explained in his wonderful book "The marriage of sense and soul" (in my opinion, the best of Wilber's books)

Wilber writes about epistemological pluralism. It includes:

1)The eye of flesh (empiricism, empirical evidence of the material world). This is the field of empirical science.

2)The eye of mind (logic and reason)

3)The eye of contemplation (misticism, spiritual realms)

As far I think the above 3 spheres aren't absolutly independent (because, as I explained in other comments, I think science can deal, at least partially, with some spiritual and non-material matters), the distinction is useful.

The arguments of Dennett are based on the eye of flesh (empirical evidence), but the responses of Yogananda are based in the eye of contemplation (e.g. when he responded to Dennett's requeriment for empirical demostration: "Only to my own consciousness. You could too, to yourself, but as I say, your mind is presently too crammed and crowded with concepts").

In fact, Yogananda excludes the eye of mind (concepts) to understand the spiritual knowledge.

Dennett would never accept Yogananda's explanation, because they're based in a different "eye". Dannett wants empirical evidence for a spiritual experience. (Yogananda would never accept Dennett's requeriment for empirical evidence as a valid objection, because in his view it isn't relevant at all)

Wilber's book is a masterwork dealing with these questions.

[Michael Prescott]

Sorry, I ought to admit that I made up the Yogananda-Dennett thing

Well, you got me! I thought it was real.

[Zetetic_chick]

You got me too... anyway, my post has the same vality (regarding Wilber's interesting views about the epistemological "eyes")

:)

[Filip VD]

Zetetic chick, Wilber produced some amazing work. I'm reading One Taste from him. The depth of his spiritual life is obvious.

"In fact, Yogananda excludes the eye of mind (concepts) to understand the spiritual knowledge"
This is so true, you just can't understand spirit by thinking about it. There is even nothing to understand in the end. You can think about it but this is still not spirit.
Spirit experiences are direct, spirit to spirit. And this is a thing that makes it hard for a lot of people in the west, cause we are so used to use concepts, to search knowledge, to understand things with theories etc... They are helpfull to point to the moon, but they are no the moon. Eventually realising that you don't know anything is an essential step.

I'm really a fan of Wilber, one of the dudes that inspired me very much the last year. I just love the integral approach.

greets,
Filip

[Paul Welsh]

Ben that is so funny. You should definitely write a book :)

[Ben]

A nice thought Paul, but for the purposes of this thread, I think Matt Chait should write a book. Anyone who ever starts to slide back into doubt need only read Matt's online refutations of the Dawkins mindset to be brought back to their senses.

http://beyondevolutionistheregodafterdawkins.blogspot.com/2007/04/selfish-genes-replicators.html

[Michael H]

I wasn't aware of Chait's blog, Ben. He does make some excellent points, and does so from a standpoint that appears to be refreshingly free of theology as well. I'll have to work my way through his previous posts.

[Ben]

"I wasn't aware of Chait's blog, Ben."

Well, he's certainly on the same wavelength as you. I was reading through old posts, and I thought some ideas (eg on the Consciousness thread) were from what he'd written.

[Michael H]

Well, he's certainly on the same wavelength as you.

You're certainly right about that. It's the wavelength thing that causes all of the confusion and conflict between people, as well as what engenders agreement. The problem he'll run into is that neither the materialist or the theologian will be happy with him. (Which he already understands - he anticipates it in his introductory banner copy).

For some reason the suggestion that consciousness is the ground of being is interpreted as anti-intellectual by the materialist, and heretical by the theist. Yet, it's the one premise that appears to tie everything together. (Is there a simpler explanation for the annual migration of Monarch butterflies than that they are just responding to a greater consciousness within?)

I suppose it's just easier to imagine that God doesn't exist, or that He does in some distant realm, rather than consider that we're simply existing within the divine, and that the divine exists within us.

Must really creep some people out!

[Ben]

"Is there a simpler explanation for the annual migration of Monarch butterflies than that they are just responding to a greater consciousness within?"

What a lovely image. But don't suggest it to a materialist, because he'd just start talking about parasites and river blindness. No wonder or gratitude permitted! That's what gives me the creeps.

[Ben]

Actually, I remember I'm wrong about gratitude. Dawkins said we should all feel lucky that we were born and are going to die, because most sperms never fertilise an egg so didn't get a chance at life. Hmmm. Joy in statistics. Not quite up to the monarch butterfly image, is it?

[Michael H]

What's interesting is that I'm sure he somehow finds that fulfilling. If nothing else, humans are really, really good at rationalizing.

[Teri]

Thank you for the link to Matthew Chait's site. I have been looking for clarity of expression like this for many years.

[Hope Rivers]

MP says : You're right, the scientists' reactions are understandable. I've noticed the same tendency in myself. I "forget" how good some of the evidence is. It's some kind of unconscious denial or defense mechanism, I think.

TomC says: I once mentioned that i still have doubts despite all the evidence supporting the afterlife to my friend, who's an atheist (but a true skeptic, not dogmatic), he said that perhaps the reason that i still have so much doubt is because the fact that deep down inside i know that there is no such thing as paranormal, nor afterlife, nor God, but a materialistic world- and that's the ultimate truth.

that really made me wonder- am i a born materialist, or somehow my intuition/gut feeling just know that this is a materialistic universe. why do i feel this way? am i genetically disposed to think this way? after all, some scientists proposed that we have built-in gene that made us believe in God- why can't that be me."

Doubts keep us from the truth, they also lead to sitting on the fence regarding following the truth. Our thoughts which we consider to be ours alone, sometimes aren't. With this said there are spirit beings who enjoy confusing and deluding.

Many folk may not believe this but don't be suprised if this is more the case, than some convincing scientific theory with little substance.

One may ask why would a "spirit being" do such a thing and what would they get out of it? Well I guess if we look around us, we would see people living in states of jealousy, anger, closedmindedness, hatred, envy, bitterness etc. In the afterlife there are many who have taken these character traits with them and their only joy is to ruin another's hope for freedom.