"It's a belief system"

Several years ago I saw an episode of Larry King Live featuring a debate about life after death. One of the participants was the medium John Edward. At one point, apparently a bit exasperated by the endless back-and-forth among the other guests about empirical evidence, Edward blurted out that he couldn't quite understand the constant effort to prove the issue scientifically. After all, he said, "it's a belief system."

At the time I didn't quite know what to make of this since, back then, I was interested in trying to obtain scientific proof of life after death myself. In the years since, however, my position has changed somewhat, and I now think Edward was on to something. The reality is that spiritualism -- or any sort of belief in a spirit world -- is a belief system and cannot be otherwise. It's not the kind of thing that can be definitively proven, in the same way that we might prove that water boils at 100°C at sea level or that smoking increases the risk of certain cancers. I would say that a belief in life after death is justifiable but not provable. Justifiable, because there is evidence to support it and there is a larger, reasonably coherent worldview in which an afterlife would make sense. But not provable, because an afterlife lies beyond our present range of experience.

With that in mind, here's how I would sketch out my personal worldview.

1. I think there is clear evidence that the cosmos was fine-tuned to be complex, orderly, and habitable. It is now reasonably well known that if any of the cosmological constants or laws of physics varied even to a small degree, the universe either would have collapsed back on itself immediately after the Big Bang or would have developed in such a way that any imaginable kind of life would be impossible. The extremely narrow parameters in which life can exist argue strongly for some kind of master plan that lies behind the universe. Chance coincidence is an explanation only if we posit the existence of a virtual infinitude of parallel or sequential universes, each with different initial conditions. But there is no empirical evidence for this so-called "multiverse" and no apparent way for such evidence to be acquired, since by definition these alternate universes would be completely outside the scope of our reality. To my mind, at least, the most parsimonious and satisfying explanation is not that there is an infinite number of universes, but rather that there is one universe which, to paraphrase astronomer Sir James Jeans, is more like a great thought than a great machine.

2. If the universe is improbable, so is life. Many mathematicians have pointed out the extreme statistical improbability that even a single protein could be assembled by chance. A living cell requires many proteins. There does not appear to have been enough time in the entire history of the universe, let alone in the comparatively brief history of the earth, for these proteins to develop at random.

3. Moreover, proteins alone are not enough for life. Life requires encoded information, which is found in either DNA or RNA. This information consists of the instructions necessary to make proteins and do all the work of the living cell, including the all-important job of replication. The only information that appears to arise spontaneously via natural processes is of a very limited type, like the repetitive structure of a crystal, which consists of the same simple pattern repeated over and over. The information encoded in DNA is not of this kind. Information theorists call it "specified complexity," meaning that the bits of data are arranged in a specific, unpredictable, nonrepetitive pattern like the letters of the alphabet in a written communication. To me it seems most unlikely that a natural process could bring about the origin of information of this type, any more than a purely natural process could somehow produce the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Indeed, it may even be logically impossible for information to arise in this way.

4. There is yet another difficulty for a purely naturalistic theory of the origin of life -- namely, the chicken-and-egg problem of which came first, the proteins or the DNA. DNA is useless without proteins to carry out its instructions. But proteins don't exist in the absence of DNA, which tells the cell how to make them. Perhaps there is some way out of this conundrum, but for now the problem appears insoluble.

5. The fine-tuning of the universe, coupled with the apparent intelligent organization of the living cell at its deepest level, strongly suggests that the random concatenation of subatomic particles cannot explain the origin and nature of either the cosmos or life. Another explanation appears to be required. Nor should this be surprising when we consider that there is obviously more to the universe than just physical matter and energy. There is also consciousness. It is pretty rare for anyone to argue that consciousness is a physical thing, like a brick. Some people do liken it to an energy field, but this kind of argument leaves unexplained the subjective properties of consciousness -- the so-called "qualia" and sense of self. It seems clear enough, at least to me, that consciousness is simply a different kind of thing -- not different quantitatively but qualitatively -- from the physical constituents of the universe.

6. If this is true, then at least at a certain level of analysis, we are led inexorably to dualism. Dualism is the view that reality consists of physical things on the one hand and nonphysical consciousness or spirit on the other. It is of course possible that at a deeper level this dualistic dichotomy could resolve into a single source; the technical name for such a view is neutral monism, which holds that both consciousness and the physical world spring from the same ground of being. Regardless of the ultimate source, we at least perceive the world dualistically. There is matter and energy on the one hand, and there is consciousness on the other. How exactly they interact or interrelate, and which (if either) comes first, are difficult questions to which I don't pretend to have the answers. It's enough for me to know that this dualistic property is part of the universe as I understand it.

7. Dualism naturally implies a dichotomy between matter and spirit. It means that naturalism, materialism, or physicalism cannot be a complete explanation of reality, even if these approaches may be extremely productive in more narrowly circumscribed areas. It also means that there is no reason to rule out of bounds phenomena that run contrary to materialistic assumptions, by which I mean paranormal phenomena, such as out-of-body experiences, ESP, and even miracles. Indeed, I've spent a good deal of time on this blog providing evidence for such things, and I believe that we are more than justified in accepting the reality of such events in some cases. The evidence for remote viewing, for instance, is particularly good, as is the evidence for telepathy as gathered in the ganzfeld experiments. This body of evidence strongly suggests that consciousness operates through the brain but is not necessarily restricted to the brain in all circumstances.

8. If consciousness is not inextricably tied to the brain, then it might reasonably be expected to survive the death of the brain. This is where life after death comes in. Again, I've spent a lot of time on this blog talking about the evidence for life after death, which includes apparitions, deathbed visions, near-death experiences, mediumship, reincarnation, and possession, among other things. Naturally some cases are stronger than others. No doubt some superficially strong cases can be debunked. No doubt there has been a fair amount of fraud, error, and delusion. Nonetheless, when I look at the strongest cases in each of these categories, I'm convinced of their genuineness.

9. Moreover, the great majority of people throughout history have also been convinced of the reality of the spirit world. Undoubtedly this remains true today, even in an age of triumphalist materialism. Nor has this belief been relegated to the margins of society. It has been the central, organizing belief behind most cultures. The earliest works of art and architecture were inspired by religious motives. Prehistoric cave paintings, the ziggurats, the pyramids, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the writings of the ancient Hebrews, the earliest law codes like the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi, and the other signal achievements of the primordial civilizations were grounded in spiritistic beliefs. The complete rejection of such beliefs is the hallmark of a comparatively small minority of intellectuals in the modern Western world. Naturally they believe themselves to be the vanguard of a rationalist future. But, to my way of thinking, it is more likely that they will prove to be an aberration, perfectly understandable given the circumstances of our age, but an intellectual and cultural dead end nevertheless.

10. If there is a spirit world, and if the physical world was created according to some kind of overarching plan, then we would reasonably expect to find some purpose in this world. And in fact generations of sages, seers, mystics, prophets, mediums, channelers, and other spiritual seekers have generally agreed that we come here to learn lessons, to overcome hardships, and to grow spiritually. There are, of course, innumerable differences of doctrinal detail, but the broad consensus is sufficiently clear. It has been labeled "the perennial philosophy."

11. When we ask specifically what it means to grow spiritually, we are told in almost all traditions that it means to learn to love as much of creation as possible, and in doing so, to achieve what mystics know as unity consciousness -- also called cosmic consciousness -- a sense of oneness with the universe, with all other living beings, and with God. In the mystical traditions that I'm aware of, this kind of consciousness is the highest goal.

12. The reward, or least the concomitant, of this universal consciousness is awareness of being reunited with the Source of all that exists. In effect, we start out in exile from the Source and then make our way back toward it. We're like raindrops, born in evaporation from ocean waters, which then rain down on the ocean and become one with it again. In some paradoxical way, we may not lose our individuality even when we achieve total union with the divine. At least this is what some traditions teach, though others teach that at the end of our journey individuality is extinguished -- but only at the point when we are more than ready to give it up.

Now, this is a fairly comprehensive scheme that tries to answer the basic questions: Why are we here? What we meant to do? What's it all about?

But it is not a testable scientific theory. Parts of it may be testable, like the reliability of certain mediums. But the overall system is not testable and cannot be confirmed or falsified by any scientific method.

Moreover, every part of this scheme can be challenged. Point 1, for instance, can be challenged on the basis of the multiverse theory. The points about biology can be criticized as a "God of the gaps" argument. (I don't think that this criticism is correct, and for a reply I refer the reader to God's Undertaker by John C. Lennox, which also covers points 1-5 in considerable detail. Still, the debate is far from settled.) Obviously claims about the reality of paranormal phenomena can be vigorously questioned. And so on.

At the end of the day, what we have here is a map of the world that makes sense to me, but does not compel the acquiescence of anyone else. Reasonable people can disagree. I can only say that, for me personally, this outlook on life is more satisfying than the skeptical, rationalistic outlook that I previously held. I have found it useful to me in my own personal development and growth, and in dealing with personal difficulties. I take some comfort and reassurance from it, and I think it is more likely to be true, at least in broad outline, than to be false. It is not written in stone, and it's not the final word, and there are many gray areas and lacunae, but it is the best worldview that I've been able to come up with so far in my nearly fifty years on this planet.

In other words, it's a belief system. And it's one that I'm pretty happy with.

Comments

[william]

“The reality is that spiritualism -- or any sort of belief in a spirit world -- is a belief system and cannot be otherwise”

It seems like we had this dialog about a month or so ago. We cannot predict the future or what science or technology will discover or invent that may indeed be able prove that life after death exists. The last two hundred years of technological innovations has been astounding and what the future holds can be just as astounding. Or not.

This may be way to picky but may not be otherwise might be more accurate than cannot be otherwise. My degree in technology may bias this assumption.

I am not sure John Edwards would know the difference between a system of beliefs and qualitative evidence. The word beliefs and its synonyms hold such a tentative outlook.

Now what the evidence does show is that if one does the research there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in any court of law that life after death exists. But beyond a reasonable doubt is not absolute proof.

From my point of view spiritualism has done the best and interesting the worst job of proving life after death. The fraud element and the level of awareness of the spirits that communicate can mislead the best of researchers and I might add those that experience NDE’s and OBE’s.

On a personal level a significant realization about a truth removes doubt, as does some significant paranormal experience. I say significant because paranormal experiences happen every day of our lives but we are seldom tuned in to and aware of those experiences.

Those twelve paragraphs you listed Michael P are an excellent summary that points to a system of beliefs that highly suggest that life after death exists. At this stage of our human awareness and divine intelligence it may be best that such technology does not exist. Someone would figure out a way to use it as a military advantage to control others and even kill others.

I just read a book where the author left her body and traveled to different dimensions on the other side and received profound knowledge about the meaning and purpose of life. In her life this was a significant emotional experience that appears to have removed all doubt for her at least that life after death exists.

The book God’s Undertaker does an outstanding job of providing evidence against materialism but the last chapter may give away his own beliefs as it tends to take on a bit of a belief in God and a Christian take away. If we do research and we already have a system of beliefs in religion or politics or materialism or whatever that research is often bias. There are exceptions of course.

[Michael Prescott]

"The book God’s Undertaker does an outstanding job of providing evidence against materialism"

I liked that book very much, and it basically inspired me to write this post. The ideas were mostly not new to me, but it had been a while since I had thought much about the cosmological and biological arguments that Lennox summarizes so skillfully.

"but the last chapter may give away his own beliefs as it tends to take on a bit of a belief in God and a Christian take away."

Lennox is definitely a Christian, but I didn't feel that his religious beliefs compromised the wider points he was making, which could be applicable across a wide spectrum of religious/spiritual positions.

"We cannot predict the future or what science or technology will discover or invent that may indeed be able prove that life after death exists."

That's true, but for the present, at least, it remains part of a belief system.

I don't mean to use the term "belief system" in a negative sense. I think any worldview is a belief system. The term, as I use it, does not imply an arbitrary or unjustifiable philosophical outlook. It implies a system of thought that may be justifiable, but which cannot be proven beyond dispute. In other words, we are logically and epistemologically entitled to hold it, but not compelled to hold it.

[Zetetic_chick]

Outstanding post, Michael.

I think most people will agree that we're talking here about a belief-system or worldview.

The idea of a "belief-system" has, for some people, some negative connotations since it seems to suggest some sort of faith or uncritical belief.

Many Materialists don't consider materialism or philosophical naturalism as a belief system or worldview, but as fact demostrated by science.

Fact is that every person has a worldview, consciously or unconsciously. If a person hold it unconsciously, he'll be blind of his bias and prejudices.

The points that you mention are pieces of evidence or information that need to be accounted for by a worldview.

Materialism hardly can account for them; at most, it can deny them or explain them away.

Perhaps the best way to explain the insufficience of materialism is presenting the evidence as a cumulative case:

-Qualia

-Parapsychological phenomena

-Moral intuitions

-The fine tuning of the universe

-Mystical and religious experiences

-Near death experiences

-Mediumship cases

-The existence of free will as part of our identity, of moral choice, and even of rational discourse.

-Rationality itself

Is philosophical materialism the most simple and parsimonious worldview that account for all these facts? Are these facts what we would expect if we're purely physical-biological-chemical complex organisms that seek to spread their DNA?

I think it is pretty obvious that all of these things is exactly what we would expect to exist if a spiritual worldview (broadly speaking) is true and materialism is false. This is the reason why materialists misrepresent and try to refute or undermine these facts.

In their inner self, they fully know these facts are incompatible with materialism as a belief-system.

For instance, the multiverse theory is defended and believed by materialists to avoid the theological implications of an absolute beginning of the universe.

It's amazing incoherence to reject laboratory evidence for remote viewing and telepathy, but accept the multiverse theory that doesn't have any evidential support at all and it's purely speculative.

This is what I refers to as a "extraordinary faith" in materialism. These sort of materialists are not interested in a consistent application of evidential criteria, but in a crusade to defend by all the means an anti-spiritual worldview which is psychologically comfortable to their idiosincratic and personal tastes.

As a cumulative case, I think the evidence against materialism is compelling and decisive.

We'd need an extraordinary faith (or ignorance) to keep a materialist worldview in the face of that cumulative evidence.

But at the end, it is up to each person to decide that worldview fit better in her existential journey.

[Luis]

Great post Michael. By the way, it sums up perfectly fine my own personal view after 5 years of investigation in all those fields (evolution/creation, life after death, conciousness, duality mind/brain, paranormal phenomena, etc. etc.)

I started up in this path 5 years ago, as a complete materialist and atheist. At that time I began to investigate if something different to that view was even "thinkable", and I began because of fear, and the urge not to transmit those fears to my children.

It's been a really long and hard path, as I never got a "revelation" as people like Vittorio Messori (I'd have killed for one of those ;-) ). Tons of books, webs (yours being one of the best by the way), papers, workshops, podcasts, videos, talks with people like Gordon Smith, Melvin Morse, Pin Van Lommel, Srikumar S. Rao ... and a lot of excellent other human fellows.

And my conclusions, after all that, are also the ones perfectly expressed in your post. It's great to have a good writer near to adequately summarize the result of a 5 years life changing process in just a few words. Thanks!.

[michael duggan]

Brilliant Post Mchael.

I agree with ZC, the evidence is now so strong for certain slices of the cake that makes up the wordview you outlined, in particular Psi research, that the onus has shifted onto materialists to account for the evidence and explain or try to accommodate it in their worldview.
Whenever skeptics have tried to undermine the case for psi, the counter arguments have always been far more convincing. A recent critical article by the skeptic Richard Wiseman on the way parapsychologists apparently always ensure positive interpretations for negative results in psi research has been critically debunked several times already (and counting). The same applies to the Ganzfeld debates of the mid 80's. Skeptics lose ignominiously when confronted head on by those doing the research.

So, yes, a belief system is just that; a way of seeing the universe through your own filters and ways of perceiving, but the one you outline certainly trumps the alternative, in at least a few areas, and probably most if not all.

[jimbo]

Freeman Dyson once said something similar to this, to the effect that psychic powers etc. probably exist, but they will never be proven scientifically.

Which makes sense, when you think about it. science has as it's basis a certain set of assumptions (which most practitioners don't even realize they are making): that there exists an objective world "out there" that is the same for all people, that thoughts don't have any effect on it, etc. These are actually perfectly reasonable assumptions to make if you are interested in obtaining a certain kind of knowledge, and have served science (and the technology that has resulted from it) very well. But they tend to limit the sorts of phenomena that it can investigate. You can't "prove" psy objectively, because psy is inherently subjective.

Even the strongest examples - remote viewing, mediumship (at least the best ones, like Edwards), telepathy (as in Sheldrake's experiments) - suffer from this squishyness. It works, then it doesn't work. It gets accurate results, then it goes off the deep end. It's not like a nuclear reactor, which always works to 99.999% tolerances every single time.

[Kevin W.]

Let me add my kudos to the chorus: a well presented compendium. Reductionistic empiricism cannot begin to dismantle non-physical occurances, and thus such occurances will naturally resist comprehension by using analytic approaches based on physical materialism. One of the lessons for materialists seems to be experiencing continuous frustration at being unable to call up, on demand, those occurances experienced by others which don't fit into their conception of reality. One of the best aspects of this blog is that a considerable variety of such occurances are posted. Not everyone will experience similar occurances, but their awareness is increased and, I hope, the appreciation of the possibilities inherent in the conscious experience. So, once again, thanks for the wonderful posting, Michael.

[michael duggan]

Jimbo, not sure I agree with this statement. Nothing in science can ever be proved. Proof is the reserve of mathematics and logic only. We have degrees of evidence. Even some skeptics such as Wiseman (yes, him again) agree that Psi is proven by the usual standards of science, but demand greater proof, because of the controversy of the subject matter.

Would the evidence stand up in court? For Psi, most definitely. For post mortem survival, probably.

Remember, the evidence base is accumulating every year, and the scientific worldview is slowly becoming less inhospitable to Psi phenomena, with advances in understanding quantum physics, in particular quantum entanglement in biological systems. Quite recently, entanglement was demonstrated at room temperature in several biological systems. It is not such a huge leap to then consider quantum entanglement between people (telepathy), between people and other living systems (healing), people and random systems (Psychokinesis), people and information in the environment (clairvoyance) or people and future information (precognition).

ZC made an excellent point about scepticism towards psi phenomena whilst accepting outlandish claims about multiverses. When you consider that eventual understanding and incorporation of psi phenomena is not necessarily a remote prospect, that frustration is even more understandable.

[Alex Tsakiris]

I enjoyed the post... but think it side-steps the issue -- science informs our beliefs, beliefs inform our science.

Moreover, all the hand-wringing about lack of "scientific proof" of the afterlife is unnecessary. Much of our accepted truth/science is based on exactly the kind of "evidence" MP has offered in this post.

Are you in pain? Are you depressed? We accept that these questions can be approached by medical science (usually through billions of big pharma dollars). But, these questions rely completely on measuring subjective human experience. They are no more "testable", than questions we could pose regarding the afterlife.

Science is about understanding our human experience. Up to now, this inquiry has ignored the common human experience of an afterlife. This a cultural/human failure... hopefully one we can correct through science.

[Sandy]

Alex, I think it might help if scientists knew had more exposure to philosophy in the early years of their education. I have two undergraduate degrees, one in science and the other in fine arts, without even one philosophy credit to my name.

I thought I was trying to be a "good" scientist, when I was really just trying to be a dedicated materialist. I didn't know the difference until I started reading this blog and the skeptiko forum. I still struggle with philosophy.

I would like to understand my experiences. But even if I never get to the point of understanding, I think things would be OK if I could just accept these experiences and look at them with curiousity instead of sadness or fear.

On my good days, I am curious and grateful that I've been given the chance to experience such things. I like to think I'm a better scientist on those days.

[Alex Tsakiris]

I still struggle with philosophy too :)

I hear ya re the experiences... I'm kinda glad to be experience-less, but you never know what's coming :)

[Sandy]

Maybe those of us who get these experiences really need them. I'm going through a really rough time both at home and at school right now. I could handle it if it were one or the other, but being constantly under attack from both sides is hard. I've sought out counseling to try and get through this situation. I don't know if I can salvage the marriage or the doctorate at this point in time.

I was asked by my counselor if I ever had thoughts of suicide. He told me that many people in my situation have such thoughts. He knows about my weird experiences, but he isn't familiar with how NDErs are less likely to kill themselves.

I explained to him why that really isn't an option for me. Apart from the value I place on life because of being an NDEr, I've talked to a few people who have killed themselves. It isn't a solution to one's problems because you carry those issues with you when you die and still have to sort them out somehow. I did tell my counselor that sometimes I wished for the option of going back to the NDE place, but I know suicide isn't how I'm going to get back there. In a weird way, I carry that place with me anyway, so I'm kind of already there.

He said that whatever I think about my experiences, no matter how much I sometimes want to be cured of them... he thinks they are positive forces in my life. So maybe I need them.

[Ben]

Thanks for that great summary, Michael.

The complete rejection of such beliefs is the hallmark of a comparatively small minority of intellectuals in the modern Western world. Naturally they believe themselves to be the vanguard of a rationalist future. But, to my way of thinking, it is more likely that they will prove to be an aberration, perfectly understandable given the circumstances of our age, but an intellectual and cultural dead end nevertheless.

Earth’s environment will indeed soon become too wet and woo for the survival of the rationalist species. Unable to evolve quickly enough, their numbers will dwindle. Some will find homes in distant, dry, woo-free deserts. Newly evolved predators will discover them using their remote viewing capabilities, but will let them be because they know rationalists tend to leave a smug taste in the mouth.

[Eric]

Your post closely mirrors my own belief system. Thank you for sharing.

[Leo]

I would disagree a belief system usually means take it on faith, evidence doesn't matter.

[Michael Prescott]

"Earth’s environment will indeed soon become too wet and woo for the survival of the rationalist species."

Isn't this the theory of AGW - anthropogenic global wooing?

[Ben]

"Isn't this the theory of AGW - anthropogenic global wooing?"

Shhh! The evidence is still being manufactured.

[william]

“I would disagree a belief system usually means take it on faith, evidence doesn't matter.”

At first glance of this statement I completely agreed. Then I spent some time thinking about faith and beliefs. It appears to me that a system of beliefs is a mixture of faith and evidence. Evidence can enhance our faith or cause us to lose some level of faith. Evidence of an intellectual nature I don’t think can remove all doubt but it can enhance our system of beliefs on a given topic such as the existence of life after death.

The synonyms for belief are all over the place from certainty to faith to trust to idea.

“Moreover, all the hand-wringing about lack of "scientific proof" of the afterlife is unnecessary. Much of our accepted truth/science is based on exactly the kind of "evidence" MP has offered in this post.”

I agree with this statement especially with the word “much” not all but much of our accepted truths are based on the kind of evidence that has been obtained about the paranormal.

Scientists accept qualitative evidence in other realms of life but refuse to accept this level of evidence of the paranormal. This is the hold materialism has on the system of beliefs in the world. But it is natural at this stage of human development with the successes of science has had on some of the industrialized world.

Much of science with its materialistic beliefs has turned science into the religion of scientism.

Plus religious institutions have not been helpful hanging on to many of their beliefs that don’t pass the simplest of logic tests. And the skeptic debunkers attack those beliefs on an on going basis as proof at least in their minds of the fallacy of life after death.

[sonic]

A beautiful summery! Thank-you.

[Zerdini]

Michael Prescott has written an excellent article which must be commended for its insight and, as he rightly says, worldview.

Of course, it is not set in stone as over the next twenty or thirty years it may be modified but, at this moment in time, it is a masterly exposition.

[Zerdini]

@ZC: This is what I refers to as a "extraordinary faith" in materialism.

As Carl Sagan might have said " Extraordinary faith requires extraordinary belief".

[Andrew Davidson]

I don't believe Carl Sagan ever said that Zerdini, I do recall him saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" though.

[Zerdini]

I was being ironic, Andrew. It was based on his original statement which I assumed most people knew which is why I said 'might'.

Humour is lost when you have to explain it!

[Zetetic_chick]

Michael's post is so good that I wanted to read it again there times. This is one of the best online summaries of the facts/information/data that need to be accounted for by any worldview.

I was thinking about what other facts I'd add to that summary, but I think evertyhing is basically there.

I'd suggest to Michael, if time is available, to publish that same entry as an essay in his website michaelprescott.net.

It creates much resonance with and have an inspirational effect in many spiritual seekers, as testified by most of the comments above (including mine).

It's not like a nuclear reactor, which always works to 99.999% tolerances every single time

Jimbo, a great deal of scientific beliefs are not based on proof over 90% of certaintiy. It's specially obvious in cases of social sciences, psychology, medicine and research about human skills.

So it's not a reason to reject psi the condition that psi has to be provable in the 100% of cases, or over the 90% of cases.

It's not a valid scientific objection.

It's well explained in Dean Radin's books.

When skeptics ask for a "proof" of psi in every individual case to be convinced, they're intentionally misrepresenting science to serve their purposes.

We have to avoid being caught in their fallacies.

Materialists ask "proof" for psi,when their own cherished beliefs are based on weak or questionable evidence (for instance, the standard Darwinian theory of evolution, the belief that consciousness is illusory or produced by the brain) or even in not evidence at all (the multiverse theory or Dawkins' "memes theory").

This dishonest double standard suffices to not take seriously these materialist "thinkers"

[Coffones]

Hi Michael,
i think you can find something interesting about the Materialists' "belief-system" and their arrogance on this article:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100210/full/news.2010.66.html

[Michael H]

Like most others here, I agree that what MP has outlined in this post is a well-reasoned and articulate position. I’ve railed quite a bit against all belief systems in these threads, but I also recognize that it’s nearly impossible to exist without one. What I find most admirable in this essay is the complete lack of rigidity, the willingness to remain open-minded to new information or experience going forward, as well as the courageous humility that’s involved in the admission that “It is not written in stone, and it's not the final word”. The most important part, though - at least as I see it – is contained in the last sentence: “And it's one that I'm pretty happy with”.

There’s no doubt that this outline presents a vastly different worldview than the materialists, but maybe more importantly, it’s also vastly different from the fundamentalist religious worldview that continues to afflict many in the world today. If more people would understand that the New Testament, the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas and the Buddhist canon aren’t “written in stone” either, more might understand what Yeats meant when he said, "There is another world, but it is in this one."

It is what it is. As long as we’re on the topic of belief systems, I thought some here might appreciate a quote from James David Duncan that I came across a while ago. He identifies himself as a Christian, by the way, but I’m not sure how welcome he’d be in certain churches:

“I believe that the Cross is inescapable whether you're ensconced in a "fold" or not, and that Norman Maclean was a better theologian than Billy Graham, and that ... diehard baseball fans are wiser about the object of their adoration than the average diehard bishop is of his.... I distrust and reject Christian fundamentalism and televangelism, not because they're all wrong, but because they seem to me to do more harm than good. The chief problem is the arrogance of folks who think that in possessing a book, a dogma, the letter of the Law, they possess the Truth. For me, love is the truth and the expression of love, in any form, is allegiance to Christ.... I keep watching, day and night. And listening to, and for, His notes....

“I believe--based on phallic clouds giving birth to stars, spring storm clouds to snow, summer snow banks to rivers, and orange orbs to trout; I believe based on punctiform dots melting into vastest spheres, spheres dividing their way back into dots, lives collapsing into ashes and dust, and dust bursting back to life; I believe based on spheric shapes singing, dividing, creating cells, plants, creatures, creating my children, sunflowers, sun, self, universe, by constantly sacrificing all that they are in order to be reconfigured and reborn forever and ever--that when we feel Love's density, see its colors, feel its pulse, it's time to quit reasoning and cry: My God! Thanks!”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_3_124/ai_n27147336/

[Renzo]

I have been reading your blog for a couple of months but this is my first comment. I want to thank you for this post because it is really great!

[Michael H]

Just so I'm not left out of the continued materialist-bashing, the most amusing thing about "rational" materialism is how irrational everything becomes when the philosophy is followed to its logical conclusion. The one thing that everyone has absolute certainty of - their own consciousness, their sense of "being" - is dismissed as illusory, and cosmology becomes a train wreck, as described in the New York Times article, "Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1

The materialist's "reality" just dissolves into mathematical abstractions. Fortunately, most people just have too much common sense to take these people seriously.

[Kris]

passing this on for the sweetness factor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAF01WG6FyQ

[william]

“I'd suggest to Michael, if time is available, to publish that same entry as an essay in his website michaelprescott.net. It creates much resonance with and have an inspirational effect in many spiritual seekers, as testified by most of the comments above (including mine).”

Maybe fate has some plans for Michael P.

Why do I believe this? Now as a senior as I look back on my life it has all the makings of fate rather then just the choices I made in life. Won’t bore you with the details but I think fate plays its hand often and to a great extent in our lives and profoundly helps to create our destiny.

Those novels that Michael has written may have only been preludes to writing something the world desperately needs. Evidence into the paranormal and how this evidence proves there is profound meaning and purpose to our lives. Materialism cannot provide this to the world and religion often has failed to provide this evidence.

The book I just read a lady had an out of body experience and it was profound in love and knowledge she was given and when she went to the local priest he told her it was Satan confusing her.

This is only an observation and is not meant to be taken as factual but as a senior it is somewhat eerie to look back on one’s life and see how “things” we thought we wanted and then rejected proved later to be of great benefit. It only made sense after about five years into retirement when I could put “many” of the pieces of my life’s “puzzle” together.

This idea of absolute free will over fate is probably one of the greatest fallacies we humans and even most spirits hang on to. The ego cherishes the idea of its absolute free will without limitations. I think the belief in free will helps the ego believe it is in complete control of its future and leaves the involution/evolution creation process out of the life’s processes that many call the journey of the soul.

Now our dualistic beliefs tell us if we don’t have free will then we must be like robots with not choices in life. The relative phenomenal word is about variation not dualism. This dualism mentality causes many religions to teach its moral dualism with a heaven or hell scenario. We see the same dualistic intellectual ideologies with political and economic beliefs.

Zetetic_chick excellent comments the materialists like the religious are protecting their cherished paradigms in spite of the evidence.

Example the Swiss refused to manufacture an electronic watch even after their own engineers invented the first electronic watch. Their paradigm was that of a mechanical watch with gears and jewels as bushings. They lost the electronic watch industry and maybe a big chuck of the computer chip industry.

[Zetetic_chick]

This is off-topic.

Winston Wu has written a critique of Buddhism:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Buddhism_Critique.htm

[Zerdini]

Excellent article ZC - thanks for posting it and thanks to Winston Wu for writing it.

[william]

This was an excellent critique of Buddhism. Buddhism is a very profound religion but still a religion and like all religious teachings it has its limitations. Winston ends his critique with this wisdom.

“As someone once said, "Truth is not something that you have. It's a continual search..."”

As one of my favorite authors stated that I think reflects Wu’s statement very well.

“As there are different degrees of knowledge, so are there different degrees of truth, different grades of steps in the approach to the Underlying Reality. As one gets a closer glimpse of some truth, it will appear to him in a different light, and perhaps he will not recognize it; but everything is some reflection or shadow of the Underlying Reality, which is Being, which is what you call your Selfhood or Universal Consciousness or God. So do not regard anything as false for all things are true in their degree.”

I suspect there would be a lot less suffering the world if this simple paragraph was adhered to by most of the world.

“The root of man's suffering lies in the attachment to endless cravings and desires that are ultimately illusory and transient. In addition, we have a false illusory sense of a self (or "ego" as Freud called it) that we treat as separate from others and are attached to, which creates suffering.”

Winston correctly states above one of the core teachings of Buddhism that the origin of suffering is our attachment to endless cravings and desires that are transient.

The Buddhist teachings that attachment, craving, and desire (I prefer misguided desire) are the root of man’s suffering are somewhat in error and an error that most Buddhists make including many Buddhist monks. Attachments, cravings, and misguided desires are symptoms of ignorance so the root or origin of suffering is ignorance. Many enlightened Hindus also teach that the origin of our suffering is ignorance.

It is a common practice in the world to confuse symptoms with origins or root causes.

This may indeed seem like a irrelevant distinction but was important to me as attaining knowledge that the origin of suffering was ignorance and not attachment, craving, grasping, or desire allowed me from my experience as a consultant teaching root cause and statistical analysis to ask: what is the origin of ignorance.

Interesting to me that it was not Buddhism that allowed me to attain knowledge of the origin of suffering as ignorance but the teachings of Meta psychiatry by Dr. Thomas Hora.

That you for that link much appreciated. Buddhism has much to offer any spiritual seeker.

[alanborky]

Michael, you say Spiritualism is a belief system which cannot definitely be proven, unlike Science.

Well, when you test much of Newtonian Science, for instance, it quickly becomes apparent it, too, is a belief system: when I was a junior school kid me and my Science obsessed teacher tested Gallileo’s theory about two objects ALWAYS falling and landing at the same rate and time. We tested metal spheres, bricks, lumps of lead, all kinds of things and, to our astonishment, they didn’t always hit the ground simultaneously. At first my teacher explained it was probably due to the wind, but when I pointed out there wasn’t even a breeze, he admitted it was true and also admitted he’d encountered the same thing in previous years, “Besides, which,” as he pointed out, “according to the theory a feather and a coin should fall at the same rate in a vacuum tube and these are lumps of lead.”

Over the years, at different times, whenever possible, I’ve tested Gallileo’s theory out a number of times, in a number of circumstances, in a number of different ways, and found it didn’t always live up to its reputation – and, if others’re to believed, they’ve experienced much the same thing.

Remember, Aristotle, essentially the founder of the Scientific method, had no time for unverifiable theories, and according to HIS experience heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones, though this tends to be brushed under the carpet.

Over the years I’ve also watched a number of various types of physics and chemistry teachers and lecturers – operating at levels all the way up to university level - spiel the various theories their experiments were about to illustrate then watched in abjection when everything happened but the thing that was supposed to, at which point they’d turn on their lab technicians for having set it up wrong; but whenever I’d ask the lab technicians what exactly it was they did wrong, they’d always invariably pointed out how the same set-up subsequently DID work and observe that, in their experience, that was the nature of such experiments – they didn’t always work, but the technicians DID always got the blame.

Remember, Science is only a method - and it’s only a method if you yourself use it: it doesn’t matter how reputable, esteemed, or trustworthy particular scientists’re considered to be: their claims’re only hearsay or theory – BELIEF SYSTEMS you've bought into - unless you yourself’ve verified them by reproducing them.

[Cyrus]

Wu is such a brilliant writer. It's a shame his main site, happierabroad.com, is filled with so much...weirdness.

[sam]

Are you really taking a stance against Galileo's law of falling bodies, alanborky? I'm sorry but that seems kind of ridiculous.

[Michael Prescott]

I would assume that one reason why two bodies might appear to fall at different speeds is that they weren't released exactly simultaneously. Even a split-second delay in releasing one of the two objects would cause it to land later than the other one, thus appearing to fall more slowly.

Anyway, it seems to me that the laws of physics must be pretty reliable, given that NASA is able to guide its spacecraft into position around other planets with pinpoint accuracy, using calculations made months or years in advance.

[Sandy]

My understanding is that this experiment needs to be done in a vacumn in order to work due to the effect of air resistance.

http://physics.info/falling/

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, Sandy. Very interesting article.

[Paul]

I don't think Galileo used a vacuum did he? :)

[Michael Prescott]

According to the article linked by Sandy, Galileo rolled objects down ramps so as to time them more accurately. He used his own pulse as the timer. Aristotle's physics stated that if one object was ten times heavier than another, it would fall (or roll down the ramp) ten times faster. Galileo was able to show that this was untrue, and that the two objects would fall (or roll) at the same speed. Air resistance would not be much of a factor except in the case of very lightweight objects.

[dave]

hello. New here. I have a couple of things to say that i hope to finish up in another post but half of which i would like to add now.

This debate about falling objects has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

[Paul]

How true Dave LOL

[Ryan]

Actually (correct me if I'm wrong) lighter objects fall faster than heavy ones - since the same force is being applied to a lighter mass.

[Zetetic_chick]

Off-topic:

I've created a blog in english called Noetic Sciences:

http://noeticssciences.blogspot.com/

Feel free to join and participate.

[william]

yes I tried to post on this website but it did not post. maybe if the posting instructions were in english also that would have helped.

I may have been clicking on the wrong links.

my comments were that often what is referred to as this inner knowing may not be all that inner and our own thoughts. my point my research and my own personal experiences tell me that the other side is often helping us and we often take that help as our thoughts.

this is a topic I am not sure has been commented on in most blogs.

[Michael Prescott]

I couldn't post a comment either. I think it's because the commenter has to log in via one of the services listed in the drop-down menu. It might be easier if you allowed anonymous commenting.

[Zetetic_chick]

Thanks for alerting me about this.

It was a mistake in the configuration. The default configuration only allow comments by log in bloggers.

I've activated the option to allow comments by any person, including anonymous commenting.

Try again.

[Zetetic_chick]

I may have been clicking on the wrong links.

I've changed too the language of the links, now it's in English too.

My mistake was to use a Spanish configurarion; fortunately, blogger allow to change the language of the entire blog.

Now it's entirely in English.

[sam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ

looks like the multiverse theory may become testable in a few years