"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]

What! Could Infinite have multiple thoughts that create multiple universes? Of course probably infinite universes.

[Michael Prescott]

Interesting video, but I don't see how the satellite will be able to capture images of a parent universe, if the parent universe is outside the parameters of our own reality.

But if scientists can indeed prove this, more power to them. Time will tell.

[Ulysses]

They will be able to "see" parallel universes because gravity and other some fundamental particles like the steril neutrinos can sips through the hyper dimensions into our 3D world ... or so they say.

[Ulysses]

Theoretical physicist are an imaginative bunch. As an example here is note of another search for the visitors from another dimensions here on Earth --without the need of WMAP or LISA satellites:
http://tinyurl.com/y9xp6mm

[planet nibiru 2012]

A friend of mine mentioned 2012 last night to me and it's the first I heard about it so I jumped on here out of curiosity. I think it's kind of sick and sounds like a bunch of skeptical jargon.
I choose to live every day like it is the last because let's be real, WHO THE HELL KNOWS what is going to happen or when it's your time to go on. The past is history, the future is a mystery and now is a gift, thats why it's called the present. It's not healthy to sit around and trip out about when you will die. Stop wasting your time you have now.
http://2012earth.net/your_new_chakra_system.html>earth 2012
- some truth about 2012

[dave]

Hello again. My second comment and last comment is directed to the woman that often writes here about "real" seances. Especially one i remember about some loved one that materialised into a spirit body that could be touched like you can touch another fleshy human being. This kind of dainty fantasy is not science, it is not life in general, and it is simply untrue.

I recently read a thread on this site about the Medium David something-or-other that doesn't allow infrared cameras into his seance rooms. This kind of masking of evidence would not happen if the "ghosts" involved were scientists or people like Arthur Conan Doyle. It is simply preposterous to believe in this kind of whimsical fancy.

So i bid you audieu with the PS remind yourselves of replicables. Eh Thank you (dave has left the building)

[Sandy]

Dave,
As a scientist, when I'm describing a situation I try to be more specific than using terms like "David something-or-other". Why not be polite and address the poster you are referring to directly? And why is it so difficult to know what/who you are talking about? Couldn't you be bothered to read the posts before commenting?

If you are trying to present yourself as an informed skeptic, you are doing a lousy job at it.

[Aftrbrnr]

Hi dave, you're probably talking about David Thompson. I find it interesting that your tone implies that people who read this blog believe in the Thompson seances, Michael Prescott and most of this blogs readers have been very critical of Thompson. (Use the search function on the left side of the page if you want to see what transpired). Michael has actually received some insults from at least one "believer" who didn't like Michael criticizing the problems with David Thompson, and Michael even consulted escape artists to see what forms of deception that Thompson could have perpetuated.

You'll find that there is even a medium that at one time read this blog (Marcel Cairo) that is skeptical of things such as materialization mediumship (Marcel even values the need for mediums to be tested, something I praise him for). To come on here and imply everyone here believes in materialization mediumship is a sweeping generalization, maybe if you read up on the blog's archive your opinion may change.

[Andrew Davidson]

Saying that David Thompson is a real Materialization Medium is pretty much like saying the Tooth Fairy exists, Don't ask William Cadwell about his earthly existence too because that won't get you anywhere.

Don't criticise Mr Thompson in front of Victor Zammit though or he will have you shot on the spot. ;)

Seems to me like this Dave guy has chosen the easiest target in this case so no points for you sorry Dave, Back to Skeptic school you go.

[Zerdini]

If you are trying to present yourself as an informed skeptic, you are doing a lousy job at it.

An uninformed skeptic more likely!

Saying that David Thompson is a real Materialization Medium is pretty much like saying the Tooth Fairy exists, Don't ask William Cadwell about his earthly existence too because that won't get you anywhere.

Very true! David Thompson has stated that he is NOT a materialization medium and he is absolutely right. What transpires in his seances bears no resemblance to a genuine materialisation seance.

Very few people have ever been to a materialization seance - including Marcel Cairo - yet they pontificate as though they have.

[dagezhu]

To illuminate what is and is not provable, I recommend a very famous paper in the philosophy of science, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism."

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html