I want to believe there is something after we die, but I just can't get myself to believe any more.

Every time I learn of some new "proof" there seems to be a logical explanation. Don't you find it interesting that most people feel the "presence" of a deceased loved one that they are usually half asleep or something like that?

Anyway, here is my latest disappointment. I have a good friend who claims he has had many contacts with the dead. Most of his family have passed on and he has told me of his encounters with them. He also claims to be very intuitive. He has told me of impressions he has had about people I know. I put a lot of faith in him for quite awhile and believed that he was psychic. He claimed to have had a visit from my deceased father.

However, with time, whenever I was able to verify his experiences he tended to be wrong more often than right. He once called me and told me he had a strong impression I was doing something (I can't remember what it was) but I wasn't of course. He also told me about a strong impression concerning my son which turned out to be false.

So I became a doubter about this friend's psychic ability and contact with the dead. Then the last straw...

This completely blew me away, he joined the LDS church. I asked him why he would do such a stupid thing. He told me that he has had visions that confirm the church is true, and that the visions of Wilford Woodruff and others about the last days and the book of Revelation are mostly true based on his "revelations." He can't wait to go to the temple and have contact with deceased relatives.

I "know" the church is bologna because I have studied it extensively. He read the book of Mormon, had a "spiritual" experience that it was true. He had his patriarchal blessing which he interpreted to be more proof the church was true. He said "how could that patriarch know so much about me if he werent receiving messages from the spirit world?" It goes on and on…

It seems to me that people who are supposedly more sensitive or spiritual are just more psychologically screwed up than the average…or they are very suggestible…

So I remain a skeptic about the after life.

And articles such as this don't give me faith in an after life either…


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven

However one might interpret near death experiences, Shermer's suggestion that they equate with other types of "hallucinations" is grossly inadequate as an explanation.

First, accounts of near death experiences are psychologically rich; detailed, complex, coherent, and consistent. Also, unlike physically based hallucinations DNEs cannot be clearly identified as the result of particularly prescribed brain defects; e.g. epilepsy or schizophrenia. In some cases, the cognitive richness of the DNE is inconsistent with the localized brain trauma accompanying the experience.

Shermer is an example of where one's highly motivated skepicism often runs amuck against legitimate scientific explanation. If NDEs are indeed a natural phenomena, science has not as yet been able to provide anything close to a satisfactory scientific explanation that goes beyond casual dismissals like Shermers.

And the claim that the hallucination explanation is not an adequate explanation only seems to play well with people that want to believe in an afterlife.

Well, and I could say, (like you, without evidence) that the claim that the hallucination explanation IS an adequate explanation only seems to play well with people that want to DISBELIEVE in an afterlife. But, of course, both such statements have no bearing on the issue and are fallacious.

Which is why I would not make such a statement! And why I gave a short explanation as to why they obviously are inadequate!

And to claim that there is life after death with no evidence is fallacious and unscientific.

But there is indeed evidence that the visions might well be hallucinations because the same sort of hallucinations can be created by drugs or stressing the brain WITHOUT DEATH (meaning it is not an after life vision). Yes, you may say it is inadequate, but it is still more evidence than the life after death people have to support a detachable soul. Adequate or not, the preponderance of the evidence so far supports no life after death.

If you want to claim there is life after death, you need to show the evidence that shows it does exist. It is not enough to just "poo, poo" the evidence against your view that you do not like.

"And to claim that there is life after death with no evidence is fallacious and unscientific."

RESPONSE: First, I have not made that claim. Second, those who do make such religious claims generally do not make the claim on scientific grounds. Third, the word "fallacious" suggests faulty logical reasoning, and is not applicable here. People who believe in life after death because of a profound NDE, or because they take such experiences seriously and at face value, are not being fallacious in their reasoning. They are merely drawing conclusions, right or wrong, based upon their experiences or the experiences of others.

"But there is indeed evidence that the visions might well be hallucinations because the same sort of hallucinations can be created by drugs or stressing the brain WITHOUT DEATH (meaning it is not an after life vision). Yes, you may say it is inadequate, but it is still more evidence than the life after death people have to support a detachable soul. Adequate or not, the preponderance of the evidence so far supports no life after death."

RESPONSE: I will agree that there is evidence that NDEs involve brain mechanisms because if you break down the NDE there are correlations that can be made for each aspect of the NDE. But this correlation does not even come close to explaining the NDE. First, NDEs occur when such correlations seem to be absent. Second, NDEs are much more than the the sum of discrete neurological causes of its parts, just as ordinary experiences are much more that the sum of their parts. THere is a coherence to such experiences that suggests the operation of multiple brain modalities, working in harmony, with a particular role for the neocortex. The problem is that NDEs occur when such modalities are compromised, often severely so.

This is not a question about the "preponderance of the evidence." It is a question about scientific explanation. If science cannot explain the phenomena, then NDEs are open to other types of explanation, including religious explanations--even if difficult to accept on other grounds. This may be unfortunate, but it is the reality. Bottomline: NDEs by their nature suggest an independent "soul." NDEs are "data" that support the existence of a soul. There is nothing about the proposed scientific explanations for NDEs that are sufficiently compelling to undermine the religious interpretation. You have to add a materialist, or anti-religious bias for your argument to work.

"If you want to claim there is life after death, you need to show the evidence that shows it does exist. It is not enough to just "poo, poo" the evidence against your view that you do not like."

RESPONSE: Well, as a reminder, I personally do not make such a claim. However, NDEs are evidence for this view--whether you like it or not. Second, I do not "poo, poo" the evidence for a materialist explanation. I have read it and considered it thoroughly. Moreover, within the limited context of a RFM post, I have stated my views about it several times.

I've come to realize that there is nothing supernatural - only natural things that we don't yet have all the answers for.

I saw this video last night and it was a fantastic eye-opener concerning psychics. Even if you just watch it for a little bit and then skip to the conclusions at the end, it really helps you to see how these people work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_1TtZ1tNww

I've come to see these professional psychics as grief vampires, taking advantage of the hurting and the vulnerable, just like the LDS Church often does.

"I've come to realize that there is nothing supernatural - only natural things that we don't yet have all the answers for."

Quite right. In fact, the term "supernatural" is arguably incoherent. Presumably, if seemingly bizzare phenomena actually occur, there is some natural "explanation" for it, however such an explanation might be beyond our present scientific understanding.

Of course, what this means is that anyone can claim a "metaphysical" explanation and invoke ignorance as to the "natural" explanation. It then boils down to what kinds of explanation and evidence are subjectively required to support our particular belief system; e.g. do we insist on scientific explanations and evidence, or if such is lacking, are we free to invoke metaphysical explanations. In any event, in both cases the explanations are ultimately "natural."

+Quite right... Some things are called supernatural because we don't have the explanations right now.

Those who advocate some sort of afterlife don't have any theories about how such an afterlife interacts with the known universe. The reason is that none of the possible theories are satisfactory. If you come across a valid theory then then post details of it so that we can discuss it.

Yes. However, it should be remembered that in science it is the data that requires (often demands) a scientific explanation, not the religious believer.

Thus, if a scientific explanation is what is wanted, then it is up to science to provide it. As long is such a scientific explanation is elusive, the door will be open to those suggesting an alternative metaphysical (not supernatural) explanation. Moreover, ruling out such explanations per se is not a legitimate scientific position, but rather a bias; since science does not claim to provide a complete explanation of reality.

Yes, there are a lot of attributions, but attributions are not science.

You are quite wrong here. In virtually every area of science subjective psychological reports have relevance and, if credible, have evidential value. Moreover, such reports represent data that requires scientific explanation.

To call such reports (and by implication others less controversial) "attributions" betrays a lack of understanding about both NDEs and science.

Thank you. . was going to post a similar response.

Those stories are evidence that SOMETHING happened but are not enough to claim that there is actually an afterlife.

To claim that evidence that shows that "something happened" is evidence of what you want to believe is fallacious at best.

Yes, those stories are evidence that SOMETHING happened. To claim that because "something" happened is not evidence of a life after death, it is only evidence that something happened.

You are wrong - before a hard scientific experiment is set up there is first the gathering of information through direct experience. One of the problems with experimenting with human subjects (why psychiatry is a soft science) is that it is hard to get the same date with several individuals. It is not like geography, astronomy, physics or other hard sciences-- with hard answers.

So since psychiatry is still a soft science, then anything to do with an individual's perception of reality cannot be completely mapped. What is interesting is that the one area that scientists have spent years studying is the brain and the importance of sleep and dreams. Before this study, people believed that dreams were not that important to sleep. Now we know better.

So eventually we might learn more about how and why we perceive the world around us-- through our senses and neurons. I had a biology professor tell me over ten years ago that we had two brains in our bodies. Now we are finding neurons like the ones in our brains in the spine. His thing was that the brain did not have the power to completely control the body.

I guess short answer-- we are still in the land of mystery when it comes to the human (and animal) psyche.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2013 02:10PM by cynthus.

I am glad you asked. As indicated, "supernatural" suggests a phenomena that lies beyond any natural explanation, even in principle. Even randomness offers a natural explanation; i.e. it suggests something about the natural world, so is not supernatural.

"Metaphysical," on the other hand, suggests that a phenomena is simply beyond physical explanation, or better, beyond an explanation within the framework of current modern science. In short, it is "beyond physics." Such an explanation is often not even testable. For example the scientific theory of multiple universes is clearly "metaphysical."

Science is often engaged in metaphysics; particularly as a starting point in formulating theories. For example, scientific theories, like string theory, that postulate through mathematical speculations a realty beyond what is known (and arguably knowable) by science, is, by definition, metaphysical. Metaphysical explanations have a legitimate place in science when used with caution. Supernatural explanations do not.

Trying to use terms like "metaphysical" in this context is an invalid attempt to raise philosophy to the level of science in determining truths.

We did not fly to the moon on the creation of philosophers.

Let me explain myself better. When it comes to an afterlife, there must be "something" that continues after a person dies. That "something" must be able to record a person's experiences and personality, which means that it must replicate what a brain does. That "something" must therefore be as complex as a brain. It must co-habit with a person's body in order to do its recording. It must not be destroyed, no matter how a person dies. It must avoid detection while in a body and after it has left a body.

There is no theoretical value of "something" that can fulfill all of the above requirements. "Spirit particles" within this universe can't do it. A "parallel universe" can't do it. "Magic goo" can't do it. No theoretical thing can do it. There are a limited number of possible theories, all of which are false. Calling it "something" doesn't mean that it is possible.

"Let me explain myself better. When it comes to an afterlife, there must be "something" that continues after a person dies. That "something" must be able to record a person's experiences and personality, which means that it must replicate what a brain does. That "something" must therefore be as complex as a brain. It must co-habit with a person's body in order to do its recording. It must not be destroyed, no matter how a person dies. It must avoid detection while in a body and after it has left a body."

RESPONSE: So far so good. I agree, except I would not say that such a system "must replicate what a brain does." All it needs to do is be complex enough to process information at least as well as the brain does. How it accomplishes that presumably does not involve physical processes similar to the brain. (There need not be "spiritual neurons!)

"There is no theoretical value of "something" that can fulfill all of the above requirements. "Spirit particles" within this universe can't do it. A "parallel universe" can't do it. "Magic goo" can't do it. No theoretical thing can do it. There are a limited number of possible theories, all of which are false. Calling it "something" doesn't mean that it is possible."

RESPONSE: We must be very careful about making statements about what can or cannot provide the natural foundation for a "soul" with all its alleged processing power. It is certainly true that we do not have any idea as to what this could be, but there is nothing inherently impossible with the idea of "spiritual particles" that provide the discrete organizational content for such processing. Science's ability to comprehend the micro world beyond particle physics is notoriously difficult and ultimately impossible in principle. This should leave us humbled when considering what "entities" and organizational principles might lie at the surface of reality.

Now, granted we are engaged in hard metaphysics here; and you are right in claiming that we have no scientific basis to support such speculations.

I can't pinpoint when it happened, but somewhere along the way I honestly quit thinking about it, worrying about it, or wishing there were proof one way or the other.

The things I KNOW are 1) if there is an afterlife NO ONE knows what it is like and it certainly for sure is not the mormon version. So if there is, I'll live the best I can and let it take care of itself. No Pascal's wager needed. 2) what we leave behind goes on. So I hope to keep trying to make a difference.

I used to wonder how life could have meaning if you didn't unequivocally believe life goes on after mortal death. Now I wonder how my life, the one I know and live now, had any real meaning when I had to be so self consumed with worrying about the next one.

I tend to think that people who have visions are a bit more creative in nature. When I read about Emanuel Swedenbourg's visions of angles and such it was after he had completed a long career of highly successful inventions. He then wanted to know more about the spiritual realm and, voila, he started having visions and impressions of the spirit world. I don't think it was because it was actually there but because he WANTED it to be there.

Your friend will get lots of praise for having spiritual impressions in the Mormon church whereas in the outside world he will be met with skepticism and criticism and possibly even laughter.

My most staunch TBM friend came from a highly intellectual family where she was just average. Her parents didn't give her much in the way of praise for her accomplishments. Then she found the Mormon church and now gets all kinds of praise for just being a regular at church. She has a special needs kid and gets tons of praise for dealing with him. I always wondered how a friend who was so well educated could still not see how false the Mormon church is. Now I know why she is so certain Mormonism is true. She gets tons of praise and reinforcement for just being herself. That's pretty hard to walk away from.

Wondering if there is life after death ?

Trespass on my land and find out.

I mentioned about this book elsewhere, but it's applicable in this topic, too. I found neurosurgeon Eben Alexander's book "Proof of Heaven" interesting for the fact that the guy was an agnostic/atheist beforehand, and he posesses a good understanding of brain function against which he analyzes (and tries to understand) what happened to him during a critical illness. Worth a read.

I don't feel that anything needs to be proven. It may never be proven to anyone's satisfaction. However I do believe in life after death. My belief does not overly intrude on my life. It does no harm to me nor to anyone else. I don't worry about being worthy or unworthy, I just generally try to do the right thing like most people do.

Try reading a book called ""HELLO FROM HEAVEN "" ..Too many evidences from too many people, of too many classes and diversities of life .

Also its like you have never visited Peru and even if someone came up to you and described what Peru is like , because you have never been there yourself, you won't believe their evidence. Or in other words "I will only believe it exists, if I have been there and seen it for myself..."

Also try looking up a website about NDE's --world wide.

JB