Greg Taylor writes: On their own, each of the four areas we have discussed [Near-death experiences, end-of-life experiences, communication from the dead, and memories of past lives] offer compelling evidence for the survival of consciousness. Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelming. People have NDEs, during which they often perceive themselves as leaving their physical body and being taken to another realm; the large number of veridical NDEs provide proof that their consciousness does indeed leave their body. People at their death-bed see deceased loved ones come to greet them and escort them to another realm; Peak-in-Darien experiences and other anomalous phenomena provide proof that their experience is real. Mediums communicate with deceased individuals and are able to produce verifiable personal information as a result. Children tell of memories of past lives (and often have birthmarks or defects related to injuries in that life), the details of which researchers have been able to verify.
Furthermore, the fact that all these evidential areas are pointing at the one, unified conclusion, the survival of consciousness beyond death – without having to rely on or necessarily reference each other at all – is evidence itself and makes the case all the more compelling. And yet still, while each does not need the others, these areas do support each other: NDEs and ELEs share common elements; deceased individuals communicating through mediums tell of experiencing facets of the NDE after death; and children’s past-life memories also reference similar elements. If this were a court of law relying on corroborated, multiple witness testimony, the jury would be convinced.
On the other hand, skeptical arguments must rely on individual, convoluted and often unconnected explanations for each facet; even NDEs on their own require a long list of suggestions of separate physiological and psychological causes that, as we have seen, researchers have dismissed. If we were to employ that favorite tool of skeptics, Occam’s Razor, to the arguments for and against survival of consciousness, the simplest and most parsimonious solution to the evidence is that our consciousness survives the death of our body.
So why isn’t it a generally accepted conclusion?
In modern society, the phenomena mentioned in this essay are considered mysteries and anomalies, despite decades of investigation and analysis. But they remain mysteries only when viewed from within the framework of materialism: the dominant scientific worldview that physical matter is all that there is. When viewed from a framework that allows consciousness to exist independently of the body, they actually make perfect sense, and the evidence from NDEs, ELEs, mediumship and past-life memories fit perfectly – similar to the simplicity that Copernicus’s heliocentric theory brought to the strange movements of the cosmos once it was accepted. On the other side, skeptical explanations for this range of phenomena introduce a complex list of individual explanations to suit each, like Ptolemaic cycles within cycles explaining the anomalous movements of the planets within an Earth- centered cosmology.
The reality of the matter is that modern skepticism is, for the most part, a defense of the materialist paradigm, rather than an unbiased system being used to seek after the truth. That is not to say that we should disregard skeptical commentary – it is absolutely necessary in the areas explored in this essay, and when employed correctly is one of the most valuable tools we have in analyzing evidence, testing our theories and ultimately understanding the world better. But we should be very careful in understanding the difference between good skepticism and bad, as many of the ‘authoritative’ skeptical sources that comment on areas related to the survival of consciousness are often ‘believers’ in the current paradigm, motivated to defend it by any means necessary.
When, instead of critically analyzing the evidence in total, skeptics instead pull out one case – such as pointing out a fake medium, or a hoaxed NDE story – to dismiss the entire topic, we should understand that this is bad skepticism. If they ‘cherry-pick’ data or misrepresent it to make a point, we should understand that this is bad skepticism. If they present convoluted arguments that make little sense, just to explain away anomalous data, we should understand that this is bad skepticism. And this is exactly what has happened in skeptical arguments that have marginalized the abundant evidence for the survival of consciousness.
Doubt can be ‘weaponized’. Across the corporate world, sowing seeds of doubt is now an established method of disrupting scientific evidence. When cigarette companies faced the existential crisis brought on by medical evidence that smoking caused cancer, an industry report noted that their marketing strategy needed to change. Instead of actual cigarettes, the report decided, “doubt is our product [emphasis added], since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public.” Sowing the seeds of doubt, it continued, would provide “the means of establishing a controversy,” rather than allowing the facts to be accepted.
Our world is now awash in ‘controversies’, where reasonably established ideas – such as the overwhelming safety of vaccines, and results of carefully monitored elections – are now viewed with uncertainty, and sometimes even outright distrust, by significant portions of the population due to campaigns to sow doubts and disinformation – a strategy that author David Michaels calls “manufacturing uncertainty.” He cites the case of the aspirin industry delaying FDA regulation of their product – to warn that consumption by children with viral illnesses greatly increased their risk of developing a serious illness – simply by arguing that the science establishing the link “was incomplete, uncertain and unclear,” even though the medical community was virtually certain of the danger. Compare this to skeptics’ framing of the evidence for survival of consciousness as being incomplete and unproved, despite the fact that nearly every researcher who has spent substantial time investigating these topics thinks otherwise.
An analysis of the tactics used in such campaigns feels like it could just as easily apply to the large body of evidence for the survival of consciousness, and the tactics used by many skeptics:
The principles of scientific inquiry involve testing a hypothesis by exploring uncertainty around it until there is a sufficient weight of evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion [emphasis added]. Proof can be much longer in coming, and consensus still longer. The product-defense industry subverts these principles, weaponizing the uncertainty inherent in the process. Its tricks include stressing dissent where little remains, cherry-picking data, reanalyzing results to reach different conclusions and hiring people prepared to rig methodologies to produce funders’ desired results.
That is not to say that skeptics of the survival of consciousness are involved in knowing deception or organized campaigns against the idea; just that many of their strategies do mimic those of “product defense consultants.” In this case though, the defense of the ‘product’ (the materialist paradigm) is often motivated mainly by a staunch belief in it.
There are numerous examples of skeptics, and well-known skeptical organizations, presenting ‘authoritative’ cases against the evidence for survival of consciousness beyond death which do not hold up to critical examination. For example, the ‘authoritative’ debunking of Leonora Piper’s mediumship was written by the famous skeptic Martin Gardner, and having his name attached to the piece alone allowed it to be cited for decades as trumping decades of research done by multiple well-credentialed investigators of the S.P.R. And yet a close examination of Gardner’s essay, when compared to the original case notes, shows that he either disregarded nearly all the original research and testimony, or didn’t even bother to read it in the first place.
When looking at the large body of evidence accumulated over many decades supporting the survival of consciousness – and the quality of those investigations – we can only conclude that skeptics of the hypothesis aren’t so much at odds with the evidence, as they are with the conclusion it is pointing to.
As we will see though, it’s a strange stance, given that a change of scientific worldview – to one that includes consciousness as being a fundamental part of it – really isn’t that controversial, as some of the finest minds of recent times believe that is the case.
Greg Taylor, “What is the Best Available Evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness after Permanent Bodily Death?” An essay written for the Bigelow contest addressing this question. I am presenting excerpts without references, but this essay is available with footnotes and a bibliography at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.
No comments:
Post a Comment