There’s a movement afoot to frame science/religion discussions in such a way that those of who believe that the two are incompatible are labeled as extremists who can be safely excluded from grownup discussions about the issue. It’s somewhat insulting — to be told that people like you are incapable of conducting thoughtful, productive conversations with others — and certainly blatantly false as an empirical matter — I’ve both participated in and witnessed numerous such conversations that were extremely substantive and well-received. It’s also a bit worrisome, since whether a certain view is “true” or “false” seems to take a back seat to whether it is “moderate” or “extreme.” But people are welcome to engage or not with whatever views they choose.
What troubles me is how much our cultural conversation is being impoverished by a reluctance to face up to reality. In many ways the situation is parallel to the discussion about global climate change. In the real world, our climate is being affected in dramatic ways by things that human beings are doing. We really need to be talking about serious approaches to this problem; there are many factors to be taken into consideration, and the right course of action is far from obvious. Instead, it’s impossible to broach the subject in a public forum without being forced to deal with people who simply refuse to accept the data, and cling desperately to the idea that the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t getting any warmer, or it’s just sunspots, or warmth is a good thing, or whatever. Of course, the real questions are being addressed by some people; but in the public domain the discussion is blatantly distorted by the necessity of dealing with the deniers. As a result, the interested but non-expert public receives a wildly inaccurate impression of what the real issues are.
Over the last four hundred or so years, human beings have achieved something truly amazing: we understand the basic rules governing the operation of the world around us. Everything we see in our everyday lives is simply a combination of three particles — protons, neutrons, and electrons — interacting through three forces — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force. That is it; there are no other forms of matter needed to describe what we see, and no other forces that affect how they interact in any noticeable way. And we know what those interactions are, and how they work. Of course there are plenty of things we don’t know — there are additional elementary particles, dark matter and dark energy, mysteries of quantum gravity, and so on. But none of those is relevant to our everyday lives (unless you happen to be a professional physicist). As far as our immediate world is concerned, we know what the rules are. A staggeringly impressive accomplishment, that somehow remains uncommunicated to the overwhelming majority of educated human beings.
That doesn’t mean that all the interesting questions have been answered; quite the opposite. Knowing the particles and forces that make up our world is completely useless when it comes to curing cancer, buying a new car, or writing a sonnet. (Unless your sonnet is about the laws of physics.) But there’s no question that this knowledge has crucial implications for how we think about our lives. Astrology does not work; there is no such thing as telekinesis; quantum mechanics does not tell you that you can change reality just by thinking about it. There is no life after death; there’s no spiritual essence that can preserve a human consciousness outside its physical body. Life is a chemical reaction; there is no moment at conception or otherwise when a soul is implanted in a body. We evolved as a result of natural processes over the history of the Earth; there is no supernatural intelligence that created us and maintains an interest in our behavior. There is no Natural Law that specifies how human beings should live, including who they should marry. There is no strong conception of free will, in the sense that we are laws unto ourselves over and above the laws of nature. The world follows rules, and we are part of the world.
How great would it be if we could actually have serious, productive public conversations about the implications of these discoveries? For all that we have learned, there’s a tremendous amount yet to be figured out. We know the rules by which the world works, but there’s a lot we have yet to know about how to live within it; it’s the difference between knowing the rules of chess and playing like a grandmaster. What is “life,” anyway? What is consciousness? How should we define who is a human being, and who isn’t? How should we live together in a just and well-ordered society? What are appropriate limits of medicine and biological manipulation? How can we create meaning and purpose in a world where they aren’t handed to us from on high? How should we think about love and friendship, right and wrong, life and death?
These are real questions, hard questions, and we have the tools in front of us to have meaningful discussions about them. And, as with climate change, some people are having such discussions; but the public discourse is so badly distorted that it has little relationship to the real issues. Instead of taking the natural world seriously, we have discussions about “Faith.” We pretend that questions of meaning and purpose and value must be the domain of religion. We are saddled with bizarre, antiquated attitudes toward sex and love, which have terrible consequences for real human beings.
I understand the reluctance to let go of religion as the lens through which we view questions of meaning and morality. For thousands of years it was the best we could do; it provided social structures and a framework for thinking about our place in the world. But that framework turns out not to be right, and it’s time to move on.
Rather than opening our eyes and having the courage and clarity to accept the world as it is, and to tackle some of the real challenges it presents, as a society we insist on clinging to ideas that were once perfectly reasonable, but have long since outlived their usefulness. Nature obeys laws, we are part of nature, and our job is to understand our lives in the context of reality as it really is. Once that attitude goes from being “extremist” to being mainstream, we might start seeing some real progress.
Alan, 117 above, to VB, 124.
I would be very interested to hear how any of the phenomena in my post above, especially the light phenomena, all detailed in the Scole Report (1999) above could be reproduced without coming to the conclusion that consciousness can exist without physicality and that this points to evidence for life after death. Any takers?
This implies that there something missing in the above article. Please (and everyone else, I hasten) do not launch into such appraisals until all data have been considered.
Also these posts tend to talk past each other when this kind of challenge is given. This suggests that there is a psychological difficulty here. The evidence here is so shocking that many academics are unable to reverse their present positions, some of whom post here. But academics took part in this study, to a great depth. So, a problem and one for science.
#64 Mantis — Very well stated, thank you. Hysteria about man-made global warming fills the void in atheists like Sean formerly occupied by Christianity, and Algore is their high priest offering indulgences — and the price is oh so reasonable.
@126,
Academic participation far from guarantees the production of facts.
If those Scole phenomena can be reproduced under proper controlled conditions (That means, for example, there is no excuse for researchers not using thermal imaging or IR, or just having flashlights to at least be able to check no-one has moved!)…
It’s easy for individuals to get excited about strange phenomena, but that isn’t going to make me believe in ghosts any more than it makes me believe in Cold fusion.
Belizean, have you forgotten what happened before the Enlightenment?
You know, it’s funny that the world still sucks so much arse after a consistent pattern of getting better every decade/century/millennium.
Hi DaveH @ 128
The Scole phenomena have been reproduced by other groups set up after the original studies were done and I believe have been witnessed (the lights) years before. But you have to appreciate that the scientists were witnesses to other intelligences coming in from “somewhere else”, a statement many here would positively baulk at. But NOT if you “take the physics seriously”, i.e. higher dimensions and perhaps an informational character to space. Well, why not? Here’s the data, so what is the theory?
I also have the report and spoke to some of the scientists involved. You have to read it in its entirety to fully appreciate the scholarly nature of the study. Scientists from NASA also saw these phenomena when the sitters flew at their own expense to the US. The authors also give a highly detailed reply to ALL criticisms. One observer was Prof. Bernard Carr, a leading UK cosmologist and past president of the SPR (Society for Psychical Research) and editor of Universe or Multiverse?, an excellent compilation from leading physicists/cosmologists (well known to readers of this blog). He has presented a model which tries to explain these and other paranormal phenomena.
I just do not understand why other physicists do not form a collaboration, look at the data and follow Professor Carr’s bold lead (BTW I did a couple of physics degrees in the UK in the past and try a little to follow-but it’s been a while!)
Follow the data, gentleman/ladies!
DaveH @ 128 and anyone else?
Try this for starters!
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_15_2_keen.pdf
But NOT if you “take the physics seriously”, i.e. higher dimensions
We must shrink somewhat in the afterlife.
I also have the report and spoke to some of the scientists involved. You have to read it in its entirety to fully appreciate the scholarly nature of the study.
That’s dandy, and the SAME applies to those papers documenting Cold fusion.
Until the phenomena are reproduced in properly controlled conditions i.e using some kind of IR/thermal imaging, there’s nothing doing.
Hi again DaveH
Best to read it in it’s entirety, look at the full range of the light phenomena observed (in particular the lights), which means the full display(s) of what was seen by multiple witnesses under the controlled conditions as discussed in detail in the report. Get back then, I suggest.
And yeah I know about squashed up dimensions too!
You are also criticising by comparison, an interesting position and subtlely ignoring parts of my post. To turn this around, I would like you to offer some suggestions as to how ALL the light phenomena, under the conditions set by the authors, could be reproduced. But you can’t cheat (!), you gotta read it first.
Alan,
From the Monty Keen journal entry you linked to :
“It is quite legitimate to make much of the fact that most events described occurred
in darkness, that mediums as well as the conscious members of the Group
were not kept under physical restraint or subject to bodily examinations, that
the use of infrared photography or thermal imaging devices was not acceptable
and that we did not get a series of similar productions (e.g., of the films)
under precisely determined and wholly satisfactory evidential conditions.”
Then, as his “but”, he appeals to some rather naive speculation as to lack of motive for cheating.
You are also criticising by comparison
No, I am explaining why your smoking gun aint smoking, via comparison. The cold fusion saga provides interesting insight as to the value (and, ultimately, inevitable success) of skepticism in science.
To turn this around-
Sorry, no.
Dave
You are a very fast reader! But perhaps not at all. Your post does not even begin to discuss what is in the complete study. You have merely taken a comment from Montague Keen. The FULL context must be appreciated. No reading, careful analysis or suggestions of reproduction of the complete range of light phenomena at all or discussion of the full report.
The cellar (at Scole) was underground (as cellars are!), very sparse, thoroughly searched each time by experienced investigators, would have required highly sophisticated electrical equipment to produce the light phenomena seen (as testified by Prof. Arthur Ellison, an electrical engineering professor at London University) and the sitters lightly clothed (shirt sleeves, light dresses etc.). And remember many related phenomena were seen in the US by NASA scientists too.
And, as I said, no suggestions of reproduction of the phenomena? Not surprising. It would be nigh impossible under the conditions detailed.
Believe me, I am as baffled as you, but one may have to consider the possibility that intelligence can exist without “physicality”. Philip Goff (philosopher) is musing on this. Is space structured so that this is possible? This is a fair question.
Alan,
I am skeptical rather than baffled, but if my inability to adequately explain phenomena, let alone localized phenomena, were an indication of life after death, then you could count a range of EM phenomena as positive evidence. Magic shows, lightning, cosmic rays and pulsars would all count.
See comments 128 and 133. I feel no compunction to spend any more time on this. If you have a genuine curiosity to explore it further you’ll find willing souls to help you get to the bottom of it at:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=5997
Cheers (?) Dave
(But you notedly did not answer my points!) Randi is one place one should seriously avoid. He has created a rabbit hole well left alone.
Prof. Bernard Carr’s modelling, Philip Goff’s and perhaps Prof. David Chalmers ideas are the place to be on this journey and, as I said above, solid mathematical/physics based enquiry on the nature of space (some deep information ideas?) which may explain this. “Irreducible Mind” by Profs. Kelly et.al. is also a mighty tomb I am slowly perusing. If this is real (you know I think it is) science should be in there.
I don’t suppose anyone could persuade Ed Witten to get on board…
Hey, look at the product description of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060653019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277235357&sr=1-1
Well, I guess with a great book like this, we should have more reluctance to let go. 🙂
Well, I guess with a great book like this, we should have more reluctance to let go.
Actually, C. S. Lewis is totally cool. Go to a bookstore and read “Out of the Silent Planet.”
Reluctance to Let Go
by Sean
“What troubles me is how much our cultural conversation is being impoverished by a reluctance to face up to reality.”
I’m an atheist retired science educator troubled by your impoverished troubled conversation about your reluctance to face up to reality not of your own definition.
You are not a god, and selling books to acolytes is like selling circus tickets to rubes.
$$$
Being an evil capitalist myself, go for it.
You being something other, well….
…not much reluctance there. 😉
If it were primarily about the socially justified education of the masses down-trodden by an over-lording elite, your book should be free — excerpts are cheese in the $$$ mouse trap.
In response to Sean on the question of Faith versus science, I see that religion is full of inconsistencies and bizarre concepts but it seems to me that some aspects of spirituality may be just as much part of the natural laws of the Universe as, say, dark matter. No one has yet detected or measured dark matter; its existence is only inferred from observations and mathematics, it is not absolutely proven to be real. The existence of the soul may turn out to be no less real. There exists a huge body of data concerning near death experiences and out of body experiences that infer the existence of a soul. The existence of multiple dimensions has already been predicted by physicists so it seems entirely reasonable that when the life force leaves the body at death it moves to some other, unseen, realm. Only science could prove this so there may, after all, be common ground between spirituality and science.
There exists a huge body of anecdotes about near death and out of body experiences, which is nowhere close to sufficient to imply the existence of a soul. Further, there is no scientifically recognized or empirically supported entity that could be described as “life force,” so postulating about its actions after it “leaves” the body is utterly worthless (especially given that, even if its existence were supported, the idea that it “leaves” at death would not necessarily be).
Kevin
Best to wait until the results of this study comes out (and read a little of my above comments – thrashed out a bit with Dave!). It is a very extensive medical experiment.
The AWARE study
http://www.mindbodysymposium.com/Human-Consciousness-Project/the-AWARE-study.html
Preliminary results out in 2011 I believe (and later a peer-reviewed publication) but these studies are the latest of a long line by Drs. Peter Fenwick, Bruce Greyson, Penny Sartori, Jeffrey Long…
There is also a well known quantum physicist on board Prof. Henry Stapp, who is trying to model all this, and working closely with the team. Very, very interesting.
Interesting comment John @ 143!
Kevin 144, I agree that the current data concerning near death and out of body experiences is largely anecdotal but surely it’s a bit too soon to be labeling it as utterly worthless. The concept of a life force seems pretty reasonable. One moment a person is a living, breathing, conscious entity, the next, at death, the body is just a collection of trillions of slowly decaying cells; all bio-electric processes have ceased. Were a life time of memories erased in that moment? If we counter this thought with the analogy of unplugging a computer, without first saving work on the desk top, my intuition tells me this doesn’t come close to being a worthwhile model of life, mainly because computers don’t have consciousness to begin with. I will keep an open mind on this subject, pending evidence.
Alan 145, thanks for the link to the AWARE study. I have met Peter Fenwick and look forward to reading his team’s results.
John
I’ve met him as well at some lectures in London. They are an interesting and professional group. If they get some powerful veridical data from the hidden target studies, consciousness/mind studies will fairly open up. Would also make meaning central in the sense that something doesn’t get lost, rather countering Steven Weinberg’s and others comments on the meaninglessness of life. I believe they simply do not know about this kind of data. Super-intelligent but ignorant in the sense they simply do not read any of the relevant medical literature. Anyway, wait and see.
I think that we are not automatons and that free-will can be described by stochastic fundamental laws as the developed for the study of complex systems in recent years by the Brussels-Austin School and by other researchers in the world. In this new picture of Nature, deterministic laws (as those by Newton and Schrödinger) arise only as approximations.
Pingback: Friday Links (2-Jul-10) -- a Nadder!
Not really convincing article, probably less applicable to discussion in Western Europe (Amsterdam, Netherlands in my case.)
Although some scientists might think philosophy is a lot of blabla, there are interesting statements done, rejected, revised, etc, about the status of ‘laws of nature’ and what they actually do describe. The relation between religion and science has already been extensively discussed from pioneers as Diderot and especialy since the rise of positivism in the 19th century. I think some key remarks were made in 1920s by the ‘Wiener Kreis’ (=’Vienna Circle’) and the logical empirists. They mainly argumented that to do a meaningfull statement, it has be to be verification possible. This is of course only the case for statements describing matter, not statements about immaterial souls etc, therefore metaphysics can only produce useless statements. The logic and mathematics is left outside here, because they were considered different statements, so-called a priori, analytical statements, but that becomes to technical for now.
There has been loads of counter-arguments against this verification and the idea that statements only descibe, and not give a morel judgement or such. Still I think their ideas are in the heart of this discussion concerning religion and science. Science is best described by science, metaphysics can be verified and is just a believe. How believe and empirical verification are connected is complicated philophical question, but in common sense the difference is quite clear. But one is quite clear. SCIENCE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF INMATERIAL SHAPES, like gods, angles or whatever.
Now religion is not only metaphysics, but also largely ethics, rules of society. But in different areas with the same religion (e.g. Islam) the ethics are quite different (compare Shariah in Nigeria, with Pakistan, with Somalia, with Saoudi-Arabia or with Indonesia.)
So to me it seems the ethics is more due to the society than to the religion.
Still a lot of people do believe, and I cannot prove they are wrong. I can only argument that their ethics are not mine.
I know agnosticm or ignosticm is not the most popular side one can choose out loud in the media, but bloody hell, it is the most rationable one, better than hide behind thick walls of burroughs of religion and atheism.
SCIENCE IS NOT HELPED A BIT, when it is used for or against religion, only honest and open discussions should count. So the standard model should stay were it belongs, under the category of science, and yes, it would fantastic if it could be popularised the a big audience, but not against religion, that would make nobody happier.