Interview with near death experience researcher and philosopher of religion Rene Jorgensen

This is an interview with Rene Jorgensen, philosopher of religion and near death experience researcher. Enjoy.

1)Rene, tell us something about your background.

I am originally from Denmark but now living in Montreal, Canada with my wife. I started out in business but after my own personal NDE-Like experience in 2000, I went back to school to study philosophy and religion in order to better understand the near death experience.

I have now studied the NDE for ten years and just released my first NDE research of the parallels to religion in the book “The Light Behind God.”

2)How did you get interested in near-death experience research, and afterlife research in general?*

After my own experience

3)Mainstream scientists and other intellectuals have a hard time accepting the survivalist interpretation of NDEs, because it seems to contradict the best evidence from neuroscience and physiological psychology, which (they claim) point out to a purely materialistic interpretation of the mind-brain connection. In your opinion, what are the main flaws and limitations of the materialistic conception of the mind-brain connection?

Yes, I think the mere fact that people who come back from clinical death and report clear coherent experience poses a challenge to classical science. The materialists dislike the near death experience because it is an anomaly that does not fit into their scientific paradigm and view of the world.

The main problem with most of these skeptical theories is that they build their argument on the preconceived classical model of the brain. Based on Darwin’s theory of evolution this model sees consciousness as something that evolved out of biology. However, as many of us are able to conclude consciousness is clearly very different from matter and therefore they have no evidence how exactly this would have occurred and no idea what produces consciousness.

The fact is that it’s all theory and classical science has no clue what consciousness is or what produces it. Also on a broader perspective classical science and materialism has a problem as new science has proven that the fundamental level of the universe is energy and our material world only consists of 5% of the universe – the rest is unknown dark matter and energy. So, if you hold on to strict materialism your world is pretty much flat.

4)Some people argue that the evidence of the so-called split-brain patients show that consciousness is strongly dependent on the brain, and therefore that survival of consciousness is argueably impossible. What do you think of this materialist argument?

I think there is a connection between consciousness and the brain, but the question is: what is the relation between the two? As long as we still don’t know what produces consciousness we cannot determine that it must be the brain – it may as well be that the brain is the receiver of the signal which is consciousness and thus the brain could still be the main area of concentration of consciousness. But try to hit your finger nail with a hammer and all of a sudden it seems like consciousness has moved to your finger and become non-local.

5)If NDEs and other data provide evidence for an afterlife, what theory of mind-body connection could better explain that evidence? Dualistic interactionism?James/Myers' filter/transmission theory?

I support the dualistic theory: as long as we have not solved the mystery of our universe there is more out there than our limited spectrum of reality. We neither see nor hear the full spectrum of reality so why should we be able to see it? In fact, with only 5% of our universe being matter we live in a very limited perception of reality so duality, that there is more, seems the best conclusion.

6)Do you think the super-ESP hypothesis is a plausible alternative to the survival hypothesis, in order to explain the best cases of mediumship or NDEs?

This is not my area as I do not know much about this subject.

7)What do you think of current evidence for reincarnation?

If life continues as the energy of our universe is constant, I think reincarnation would be the logical conclusion as the energy is being recycled. However, I do not think we have enough mainstream scientific evidence to prove this yet.

8)Do you think that reincarnation conflicts with the contemporary evolutionary theory?

I don’t know.

9)What do you think of God, and (provided He or It exists) which are its connections with science and religion?*

God must certainly exists in religion and I think that if you define ‘him’ as the ultimate level of reality instead of a bearded man, science is in search of God too.

The Big Bang and what created the universe is in my view the search for God and while I agree with a fight against religious dogma and fundamentalism, I do not see a conflict between science and religion. In fact, I don’t see how you can accept the evidence from new science without becoming if not religious then at least spiritual. Take quantum entanglement or non-locality. The fact that all particles are interconnected sounds to me like the Golden Rule. Also in my own research of near death experiences almost nine in ten conclude that God is energy and this is the same conclusion that science got from the double slit experiment: that the fundamental level of the universe is energy – so unless we keep fighting the old war I do not see where the disagreement is?

10)As a philosopher of religion, what do you think of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (like the Kalam cosmological argument, or the moral argument)?

I think the cosmological argument makes sense: something makes us create order out of caos – this seems to be ingrained in nature and our universe. But I also like Anselm’s ontological proof: that God is greater than what can be conceived – as long as our universe is greater than what we can conceive: God is there on the other side of the event horizon.

In my own research, I found that eight in ten people say that their experience was hard to "interpret precisely in human language" and this suggests an experience that is bigger than what we humans can conceive – there is more to reality than what meet the eye and our mind.

11)Do you think the afterlife evidence provides new (scientific or philosophical) arguments for God's existence?

Yes, it suggests that there is more to reality than what we can perceive and conceive. In my own research I also found that 80% described the core of their near death experience as an experience of “God” – so clearly to people who have experiences of death or close to it there is a link to God.

12)Do you think the evidence for an afterlife has ethical implications (e.g. implications for our own actions regarding other people)?

People think that preoccupation with life after death is morbid but in fact the afterlife gives more purpose to life. If life is not simply short and painful then it has meaning and purpose, and when you add eternal evolution to this then responsibility enters. The fact that people have so-called life-reviews in their near death experiences implies responsibility, not in a religious dogmatic sense but in the sense that there are consequences to our actions. And you don’t even need religion or the afterlife for this conclusion; just look at the climate or quantum entanglement: as we are interconnected our actions have consequences towards the ‘other.’

The conclusion from near death experiences is that life is about learning and what you do to another you are doing to yourself.

13)Does the afterlife evidence that you have studied conflicts with Christianity and other traditional religions?

No, not if you understand Christianity or God in the right way. Of course we all argue about what is the ‘right way’? NDE research concludes that God really is love: inclusive, not angry and ‘he’ does not punish. Main stream Christians get this from the Bible as well and if you see Jesus as the Prince of Peace there is absolutely no conflict with NDE research – in fact, the research confirms and empowers the message of Jesus.

I use Bible quotes to explain my research data all the time and I do not see a conflict as I see myself as Christian also. NDE research only challenges religious dogma and fundamentalism. Christian Fundamentalists will quote 2 Cor. 11:14 that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” but NDE research talks back with Matthew 7:20: “By their fruit you will recognize” false prophets. Here one should note that while fundamentalists spread fear and intolerance, NDE research finds that 80 – 90% of people who have near death experiences report significant life-changes where they become more loving, compassionate, forgiving and kind towards other people as a response to their experience.

14)Which are the main spiritual lessons you have learned from your afterlife research and your own personal NDE?

The main spiritual lesson from the NDE I would put into one line: all we have is what we give. However, as we cannot all be mother Theresa, I think another important lesson for me is the two directions: That there is both ascension and descension.

In pointing towards God many religions and spiritual tradition only teach from an absolute perspective. But what do you do when you have found God and have to live the rest of your life on earth? This is the challenge of the near death experience after having found God, people are forced to descend again and live in the body.

That there are two paths, ascension and descension has implication for how I define truth. Rather than an either/or I see truth as the balance between these directions that are opposing.

16)Which books on philosophy, spirituality, afterlife, science or religion would you like to recommend to the readers of this interview?

If you are interested in parallels between the NDE and religion, I would recommend my new book “The Light Behind God,” which has a lot of my research and conclusions pointing towards a connection between the two and a deeper understanding of religion. Also if you want to get closer to the scientific evidence for life after death, I would recommend Pim Van Lommel’s book “Consciousness Beyond Life,” who puts forward to good scientific case.

Links of interest:

-Rene's website.

-Rene's youtube channel.

The moral poverty of metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism: Bertrand Russell on morality as a herd phenomenon in the atheistic worldview

At one time, famous philosopher Bertrand Russell believed in the existence of objective moral values. After some criticisms and reflection, he realized that if metaphysical naturalism is true, then objective moral values cannot exist (other ideas followed Russell's realization of the implications of metaphysical naturalism. See for example this post.)

Having realized this, Russell wrote:

"...ethics arises from the pressures of the community on the individual. Man . . . does not always instinctively feel the desires which are useful to his herd. The herd, being anxious that the individual should act in its interests, has invented various devices for causing the individual’s interest to be in harmony with that of the herd. One of these . . . is morality" (Human Society in Ethics and Politics, p.124. Emphasis in blue added)

Note that, if Russell is right, morality is purely an expression of the pressures of the community on us. Therefore, if the pressures are different, then morality also is different, because morality as such doesn't refer to an objectively existent realm or reality of intrinsic values, but that is the product of (we can say) "peer pressure".

And I submit that, if naturalism were true, then Russell's view is basically correct.

In other posts, I've mentioned that hardcore metaphysical naturalists, metarialistic atheists and pseudo-skeptics are individuals of a typical and obvious herd-like mindset, where the herd in question is the the handful of comitted and organized atheists who are obsessed with the idea of convincing the rest the world (i.e. 97% of the world population) that atheism is true, that parapsychology is bunk and the afterlife doesn't exist. And this is done in the name of "science".

Like in a herd of wolves, they tend to follow and be absolutely submitted to the will and power of a leader which tells them what to do and think. In the case of pseudo-skeptics, naturalists and materialists, the leader in question is science (more exactly, orthodox scientific authorities or the scientific establisment). As consequence of this herd mentality, they are intellectually unable to have an independent opinion or belief inconsistent with the consensus of the scientific authorities. They're essentially incapable of free thinking and independent thought (they're the secular equivalent of the religious dogmatist). They need the approval of mainstream scientific authorities, in order to have a personal opinion about whatever topic. Whatever evidence is incompatible with such consensus, the pseudo-skeptic will reject and dismiss it on purely a prori grounds (in the few cases of a posterior research, this is performed not to seek the truth, but as a debunking exercise of the anomalous information in question, because the aim is to protect the consensus of the scientific orthodoxy which is essential to the pseudo-skeptical belief system)

Marcello Truzzi, original member of the leading pseudo-skeptical organization CSICOP and hence an "insider", realized this:

The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers' approach. This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific community towards anomaly claims. It is characterized by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). "Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else." Seemingly anomalous phenomena are denied first and sometimes investigated only second. Like the Fortean the debunker is not concerned with the full explanation. Whereas the Fortean types don't want explanations, the debunkers don't need them as they believe they have already them.

The above is an empirical observation, which whoever is familiar with professional pseudo-skepticism will know that it is demostrably true. But it's a purely psychological and sociological fact. The knowledge of it is useful in order to know the sociology of professional pseudo-skepticism and the very particular psychology of its followers, ideologues and propagandists (so-called metaphysical naturalists, secular humanists, "brights", philosophical materialists, apologists of atheism, etc.)

In principle, the above has nothing to do with Russell's philosophical realization about morality. The latter is a purely philosophical insight, derived of a study of the consistent logical implications of the naturalistic worldview. This implication is independent of the psychology of pseudo-skeptics and materialists.

In a purely physical world (if it's all what exists as naturalism and materialism imply), there is not space for objectively existing normative properties like values (properties which, in contrast with physical properties, are not accesible to empirical observation nor are explainable in terms of materialism, precisely because they're not physical. This is why materialists have a tremedous pressure to define such values in terms of natural or physical properties, mainly psychological ones, like pleasure, desires, happiness, etc.).

On the other hand, even if an objective realm of moral value were consistent with naturalism, it is extremely unlikely that given a purely evolutionary process (which is largely random), we're equiped to grasp such moral realm, specially when such realm is, in naturalism, causally non-efficacious (since it is not physical) and hence incapable of having direct influence or effect on the organism and enviroment in order to be detected in the process of natural selection (note that this implies that our cognitive faculties couldn't be selected in the evolutionary process for their reliability to grasp or detect such non-physical moral realm, since such realm couldn't have any effect in our behaviour). Moreover, given naturalism and conceding for the argument's sake that our cognitive faculties developed by natural selection enable us to grasp such moral realm, how are we going to explain, ontologically, that a purely physical brain can grasp (or be in touch or interaction with) such non-physical realm of normative properties?

This is why a naturalists, if consistent, have to reject the objectivity of moral value, and accept moral subjetivism (in its relativistic implications). Moral values would be a projection of human ideas, which are essentially the product of evolution, herd pressure and cultural indoctrination.

But if you have good reasons to think that objective moral values do exist, and that certain actions or behaviours (like torturing a baby for pleasure alone, or raping animals for fun) are intrinsically bad and wrong (and not just a matter of herd pressure, personal taste or shared cultural fashion), then you have a powerful reason to reject metaphysical naturalism, and the moral poverty implied by it.

You'll have a purely ethical reason against metaphysical naturalism.

Think about it.

Link of interest:

-Bertrand Russell's realizations on other consequences of metaphysical naturalism.

Daniel Drosnin: Zen and the Art of Debunking: Updated version (2010)

Daniel Drosnin has updated his much read article on pseudo-skepticism entitled "Zen and the Art of Debunking", which is a funny and clever way to explain the common tricks used by pseudo-skeptics and materialistic ideologues to dismiss, reject, misinterpret and undervalue the evidence and data which refutes the metaphysical naturalistic worldview and the scientific orthodoxy (due to their faulty cognitive functioning, intellectual cowardice, spiritual impairment, herd-like mindset and typical dogmatism, naturalistic-materialistic ideologues and pseudo-skeptics manifest an obvious intellectual submission and an extreme credulity to the authority of the scientific orthodoxy, a trait which prevents them to think for themselves, and put them permanently and predictably at the feet of the scientific authorities. As consequence, these ideologues also will attack, ridiculize and try to suppress ideas which are not, as such, contrary to the metaphysical naturalistic ideology, provided they're widely rejected or still unaccepted by the mainstream science. Read this article by Marcello Truzzi, for a brief explanation of this ideological mindset)

Drasnin's article can be read here.

Enjoy.

Chris Carter refutes Richard Wiseman's latest exercise in psi debunking

Chris Carter

Richard Wiseman

Richard Wiseman, a professional debunker of parapsychology, who forced by the evidence has made some important concessions in favor to psi research, like explicitly conceding that the evidence for ESP meets the rigurous standards of mainstream science, has recently published a critique of parapsychology, which we can call Wiseman's lastest debunking exercise.

Well, Chris Carter, author of two must read books (Parapsychology and the Skeptics and, more recently, Science and Near-Death Experience, which is probably the best book on NDEs ever written) has written an detailed refutation of Wiseman's lastest debunking of psi research.

You can read Carter's critical paper in this link.

September 7, 2010, Debate: Christopher Hitchens vs. David Berlinski on How Atheism Poisons Everything

An UFO shooting a laser beam on a missile? Bob Jacobs PhD on CNN Larry King Live

Ufology is not among my main interests, so I lack the knowledge to comment soundly about this matter. Currently, I remain largely agnostic about the putative extraterrestial origin of UFOs.

I don't deny the existence of UFOs, that is, of flying objects which haven't been identified yet. Technically, this is what ufos are all about. But I remain agnostic about the possible extraterrestial origin of some cases of UFO phenomena.

So I consider that the phenomenon is real, but its actual interpretation and understanding is still unknown and problematic due to the complexity of the phenomenon.

In any case, whatever is your opinion about this matter, the above short video could be of your interest.