Post by unkleE on Jan 19, 2009 4:23:49 GMT
krkey1:
Thanks for the useful summary of the type of evidence on offer, and for the links. I am happy to conclude that the evidence cannot be explained by current naturalist science, but I am not yet willing to conclude that the "supernatural" explanation is "proven". I'd be interested in your, and other people's, comments on why I conclude this way.
I think the problem comes with the definition commonly assumed for science, which relates to the physical world, what can be measured in 3 dimensional space and time, energy and matter. Now if that is all that exists, then that definition of science will lead to correct conclusions in the long run. But if there is more than matter, if there truly were "souls", or disembodied spirits or minds, if consciousness could exist apart from 3-dimensional matter, then science as presently defined will not be able to detect these things and naturalist scientists will conclude they don't exist, even if they in fact do exist. So far, I think we will mostly all agree.
But it seems to me that there are at least 3 possibilities about NDEs:
(1) They have a natural explanation that current science has not yet detected and explained. This is possible, but seems a little unlikely at present. But a die-hard atheist/naturalist will have to hold to it like grim death - i.e. in faith.
(2) The universe could include disembodied consciousness - whether because a god created it that way, or because it just happened to evolve that way. NDE's would have an explanation that was beyond "natural" (as usually defined) but not necessarily "supernatural" (as usually defined), because it would still be contained within the universe. If this was true, current science would be unable to detect NDEs, and naturalists would remain ignorant. But a new science could feasibly be established to test NDEs and other phenomena, using systematic analytical methods, but operating (somehow - I don't know how) outside 4 dimensional space-time.
(3) All non natural phenomena are caused by God (or other beings) operating outside this universe, and therefore not detectible directly, only indirectly by their actions which have impacts within the universe. If NDEs were in this category (as most christians would assume, I think), they cannot be addressed scientifically, but can only be addressed like we would investigate apparent miracles - i.e. indirectly and perhaps statistically, but not causally.
So I have two problems or questions.
(i) As far as I can see, a believer in NDEs as something beyond natural scientific explanation (whether they believe they fall into category 2 or 3) cannot provide a fully testable explanation for them, and hence cannot prove in a scientific or quasi scientific manner that they are non-natural and genuine. Until a non-natural explanation can be proven, the possibility remains that a natural explanation will be found. So they will likely remain neither proven or disproven, but simply probable or improbable, depending on one's assessment. And naturalist scientists will not give up believing, and attempting to demonstrate, a naturalist explanation.
(ii) NDEs remain problematic for both christians and believers in the paranormal (which I guess is you?). Both will be tempted to use the phenomenon of NDEs as some sort of demonstration of their worldview, when in fact the alternative explanation is also possible. For that reason, I may in the future use NDEs to attempt to indicate to atheists that "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy", but I don't see I can use them as some christians do to provide another "proof" that God exists.
How do you feel about that?
Thanks for the useful summary of the type of evidence on offer, and for the links. I am happy to conclude that the evidence cannot be explained by current naturalist science, but I am not yet willing to conclude that the "supernatural" explanation is "proven". I'd be interested in your, and other people's, comments on why I conclude this way.
I think the problem comes with the definition commonly assumed for science, which relates to the physical world, what can be measured in 3 dimensional space and time, energy and matter. Now if that is all that exists, then that definition of science will lead to correct conclusions in the long run. But if there is more than matter, if there truly were "souls", or disembodied spirits or minds, if consciousness could exist apart from 3-dimensional matter, then science as presently defined will not be able to detect these things and naturalist scientists will conclude they don't exist, even if they in fact do exist. So far, I think we will mostly all agree.
But it seems to me that there are at least 3 possibilities about NDEs:
(1) They have a natural explanation that current science has not yet detected and explained. This is possible, but seems a little unlikely at present. But a die-hard atheist/naturalist will have to hold to it like grim death - i.e. in faith.
(2) The universe could include disembodied consciousness - whether because a god created it that way, or because it just happened to evolve that way. NDE's would have an explanation that was beyond "natural" (as usually defined) but not necessarily "supernatural" (as usually defined), because it would still be contained within the universe. If this was true, current science would be unable to detect NDEs, and naturalists would remain ignorant. But a new science could feasibly be established to test NDEs and other phenomena, using systematic analytical methods, but operating (somehow - I don't know how) outside 4 dimensional space-time.
(3) All non natural phenomena are caused by God (or other beings) operating outside this universe, and therefore not detectible directly, only indirectly by their actions which have impacts within the universe. If NDEs were in this category (as most christians would assume, I think), they cannot be addressed scientifically, but can only be addressed like we would investigate apparent miracles - i.e. indirectly and perhaps statistically, but not causally.
So I have two problems or questions.
(i) As far as I can see, a believer in NDEs as something beyond natural scientific explanation (whether they believe they fall into category 2 or 3) cannot provide a fully testable explanation for them, and hence cannot prove in a scientific or quasi scientific manner that they are non-natural and genuine. Until a non-natural explanation can be proven, the possibility remains that a natural explanation will be found. So they will likely remain neither proven or disproven, but simply probable or improbable, depending on one's assessment. And naturalist scientists will not give up believing, and attempting to demonstrate, a naturalist explanation.
(ii) NDEs remain problematic for both christians and believers in the paranormal (which I guess is you?). Both will be tempted to use the phenomenon of NDEs as some sort of demonstration of their worldview, when in fact the alternative explanation is also possible. For that reason, I may in the future use NDEs to attempt to indicate to atheists that "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy", but I don't see I can use them as some christians do to provide another "proof" that God exists.
How do you feel about that?