Ufological Theology: A preliminary reflection about the possible links between ufology and religion

Currently, I'm studying intensively the up-to-date scholarly literature in English and German about the Historical Jesus and the case for and against Jesus' Resurrection, and also the best literature on ufology.

On a intuitive level, I feel the UFO phenomenon is a missing link in the study of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Most scholars in religion (and scholars in other areas) are wholly ignorant of the literature about ufology, in part because there are a lot of books on ufology which are not serious and in part because pseudoskeptics and other atheistic charlatans and dogmatists have stigmatized this field in academy.

By the phrase "Ufological theology" I'll refer to the hypothesis according to which religion in general, and Biblical Christianity in particular, are closely linked to the UFO phenomenon, and can be only understood properly in the ufological context.

For the record, I have no idea whether this hypothesis is true or false. I'm going to publish this article just for the sake of posing ideas and letting the readers to think hard about these questions.

A key website which explores this UFO-BIBLE connection is this, and I suggest the readers to study the material there.

THE UFOLOGICAL THEOLOGY HYPOTHESIS:

This hypothesis argues that the origin of religion and Christianity is connected by the UFO Phenomenon. In the Bible, there are a lot of references about flying objects/lights which were interpreted as God, angels, etc. because the religious contexts and the lack of technological knowledge prevented the people of that time to realize the true nature of the phenomenon in question.

Let's to take some examples:

In the Bible, in the book of the Exodus, you can read:

"And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people." (13:21)

And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses (33:9)

In Nehemiah you can read: "Yet thou in thy manifold mercies for sookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go." (9:19)

It is obvious that the term "pillar" refers to some object with that form as seen by the people in that time. (The biblical writer used the concepts and terminology common in this time. The analogy of "clouds" is logical because in that time the only permanent objects seen in the sky by day are clouds, so the putative UFO in question would be compared with a cloud; and "fire" because by night the UFO in question was lighting).

Now, for people familiar with the ufology literature, UFOs with the form of "pillars" are well-known. Just examine carefully the following UFO pictures:

Now I ask you: Assuming for the argument's sake that all the above pictures are real (if they're not, it is irrelevant, because many reliable witnesses have observed objects like that), is not the term "pillar of cloud" (e.g. as a description of the object seen in the last picture) or "pillar of fire" (in the first and third pictures) a rather accurate description of what currently we would call cigarratte-shaped UFOs? Is it not argueably the same kind of phenomenon or object with different (and accurate!) descriptions?

Watch these videos:

















Note that by night or afternoon, the UFOs are lighting, and by day they tend to look just white or black. (If some or all of the above videos are real or fake is hard to say, but it is besides the point. There are a lot of witnesses around the world who have argued to have seen cigar-shaped or cylinder-shaped UFOs, and even members of the army and military groups have seen these objects. The above videos are just for the purposes of illustration of my point).

It seems to be a least possible that the Exodus (and other parts of the Bible) is actually describing an actual UFO phenomenon.

A key point here is to consider that Jesus' Second Coming will be (explicitly, by Jesus' own words) manifested in the sky, in the clouds:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30)

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. (Mark 13:26)

If the hypothesis we're commenting here is correct, then the correct interpretation of Jesus' Second Coming will be in the form of a massive UFO-like phenomenon, in which certain people will be elected (presumibly, in order to save them from the destruction of the Earth) and carried to other place (the "heaven" could refer to another planet or dimension where such people will be carried).

Thinking of Jesus literally flying like superman in the clouds is hard to believe; but thinking of him as a commander of a fleet of UFOs (angels?) coming in the sky, in the clouds, to save certain people (the spiritually more advanced people?) in order to save the human race from destruction (e.g. by nuclear war or a massive asteroid coming to the Earth) is less implausible, specially if we take into account the reality of UFOs and their consistent (putative) presence in all the books of the Bible.

The obvious objection against this hypothesis is that it assumes that UFOs are real and from extraterrestial origin, and this is not known to be true (or at least it is highly controversial).

The objection is right. But I think we can think of this hypothesis in terms of a conditional: IF the UFO phenomenon is real and from extraterrestial origin, THEN an ufological interpretation of the Biblical texts seems to be plausible and make sense, and at least it deserves serious consideration.

In any case, I have not idea of the true explanation of the UFO phenomenon and hence if the hypothesis of "ufological theology" has some actual merit.

Just think about this and other possibilities.

Morality and worldviews: A preliminary reflection

I've showed in this blog how many atheists defend that, if naturalistic atheism is true, then no objective (human mind-independent) morality exists. In my opinion, they're totally correct in this point.



If naturalism is true, then (and please, keep in mind the following 5 characteristic of naturalism in order to understand this discussion):



1-There is not objective purpose for cosmic evolution and existence (only subjective, person-dependent purposes or ends do exist).



2-Persons and sentient beings are not essential or basic features of reality, but an accidental and non-necessary by-products of evolution.



3-Persons are purely material, and since matter is controlled by deterministic laws (at least in the macro-physical level), then a person's actions are wholly and fully determined too. This destroy any libertarian concept of free will and, as consequence, of moral responsability.



4-Physical things (persons, cell phones, molecules, shoes, cars, atoms, etc). have at least a basic universal property in common: all of them have physical ENERGY. However, moral values have not physical energy, therefore (if they exist) they're not physical things.



If naturalism is true, then physicalism is true; but if non-physical moral values do exist, then physicalism is false, and so naturalism too. (This is why the objective existence of non-material moral values is at variance with naturalism).



5-Moral commands (orders, prescriptions) are directed upon rational sentient beings (just think giving a moral command to a non-sentient object like your chair, shows, t-shirt or keys, or to a non-rational sentient being like a rabbit).



Now, if rational sentient beings are not essential or basic in naturalism, is it plausible that objective moral laws like "Don't kill other people" do exist in such worldview? Who or what would be exactly the foundation of such command, if naturalism is true?



Please, keep in mind that we are not talking here about religion or God or the church or the Bible (or any other red herring used by charlatanistic atheists to prevent you to think hard about atheism). We're trying to think about the putative existence of objective moral values and laws in a naturalistic-atheistic worldview. Period.



Is it plausible that a moral command like "You shall love other persons like yourself" be an objective feature of reality (like atoms, entropy, etc.) if the naturalistic atheism is true? I think the answer is obvious to any honest thinker.



As naturalist Keith Augustine has argued: "It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang, but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose. However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in the universe--that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings "in mind" (in the mind of a Creator?). To accept the existence of objective moral laws that have existed since the beginning of time is to believe that the evolution of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning (such as human beings) has somehow been predetermined or is inevitable, a belief that is contrary to naturalistic explanations of origins (such as evolution by natural selection) which maintain that sentient beings came into existence due to contingent, accidental circumstances" (emphasis in blue added).



Note that, as Keith correctly argues, the view that objective moral laws do exist objectively would imply some element of "purposefulness" (which is incompatible with an essential feature of naturalism: namely, the non-existence of an objective purpose for existence and evolution).



It is absurd to think the universe created moral laws having in "mind" the future existence of human beings, because if naturalism is true, no "mind" existed before the arising of sentient beings. Therefore, how the hell could the purely physical, mechanistic, non-conscious and non-mental universe to have such a purpose (or any other purpose for that matter)? If naturalism is true, the "universe having purposes by itself" makes no sense at all.



THE KEY TO UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION:



Having thought hard and for years about this question, I think the best way to understand this problem is to classify worldviews in terms of "personalistic ones" and "non-personalistic ones".



The personalistic worldviews are those in which persons are ESSENTIAL in the fabric of reality. The best example is theism (the view that God exists) , in which the most important and essential being (namely God) is a PERSON. In theism, persons and sentient beings are essential, and non-sentient beings and properties (atoms, energy, keys, pens, etc.) are secondary. In these worldviews the physical universe is thought mainly as an instrument to satisfy the spiritual ends or needs of persons (God or his spiritual creations: human beings, souls, spirits, etc.).



Non-personalistic worldviews are those in which persons are ACCIDENTAL, in the sense that they could or couldn't exist. The best example is naturalism. In naturalism, everything that exists is physical matter-energy and its configurations (=patterns of organization). Persons and sentient beings are just lucky, contingent (non-necesary) accidents of a non-personal, largely random and without purpose cosmic evolution.



Now, I ask you: In what kind of worldview an OBJECTIVE moral command or prescription or law like "Don't rape little children" or "Search for the truth" or "Love your parents" (which is aimed at rational sentient beings with free will) fits better? In a non-personalistic one like naturalism, or in a personalistic one like theism?



I think the answer is obvious and doesn't need any particular defense or justification.



Just think hard and honestly about it. I'll write more in future posts.

According to Fox News: Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers

According to the website of Fox News: "American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.



This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”



Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."



Read more here.



I agree with Craig's opinion about atheistic ideologues. Basically, they're INTELLECTUAL COWARDS. They feel very brave in atheistic internet forums or infamous websites (like PZ Meyers' blog) in which they act like wild cats. But when they're challenged to defend rationally their beliefs in a high-level public debate, many of them chicken out of it.



For example, at least 4 times, atheist Richard Dawkins has been invited to debate Craig regarding Gods' existence, and consistently Dawkins has refused to accept such intellectual challenges. See for example this video where Dawkins says he won't debate Craig:

In fact, Craig actually did exchange some arguments with Dawkins in Mexico, and you can see how Dawkins replied to Craig's arguments (intellectually and philosophically, Dawkins is clearly a light-weight amateur):

Craig is well-known for his reputation of sweeping the floor with atheists in his debates. In my opinion, some of the factors which explain why Craig wins his debates are these:



1-There are no good, persuasive or sound rational arguments for atheism. The best ones (like some recent versions of the argument from evil) have been refuted or undermined by sophisticated theists.



This is the main reason why atheists try to avoid debating Craig. And the few atheists who accept such debates are clearly and painfully defeated by Craig. (See a recent example here).



2-As a rule (and save some exceptions), atheistic ideologues are intellectually dishonest and sophistical "thinkers". As consequence, they are ready to lie and even defend incoherent positions just in order to win the argument. Therefore, for a seasoned debater like Craig, it is very easy to spot these fallacies and exposing them publicly, making the atheist to look like a sophistical, ignorant and dishonest charlatan.



For example, Michael Martin (a leading atheistic philosopher of religion) rejects the notion of simultaneous causation in order to undermine the Kalam argument for God: "God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect"



However, atheistic philosopher of religion Quentin Smith appeals to simultaneous causation when arguing for atheism: "Bill believes the Big Bang was caused by God and I believe it both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist. At the Big Bang there is a line of simultaneous causes and effects. This is implied both by a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics and by the EPR correlations - for those of you in the audience who are science majors - which imply - you don't need to understand either of the sciences to understand my talk - and these theories imply that there are instantaneous causal relations between simultaneous events" (emphasis in blue added)



Note that Martin and Smith cannot be both right. If Martin is right, Smith's case is seriously undermined. If Smith is right, Martin's objection is refuted. However, for atheists, it is not a motive for concern: their whole purpose is not to find the truth, but to defend atheism at all cost even if they begin from mutually incompatible premises. (It seems that atheism has to be true, even if the case for it begins from mutually incompatible premises regarding the physical universe!)



Another example: Martin argues that some cosmologists have embraced the (absurd) view that the universe began "out of nothing": "First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view".



However, atheist Jeff Jay Lowder (the founder of the infidels.org website) has argued "Naturalists who accept the Big Bang model do not believe that the Universe just pop into existence out of nothing", as you can hear in this video:

If Martin is right, and some naturalist cosmologists have embraced the view that the universe began to exist "out of nothing", then Lowder's claim is false. And if Lowder is right, Martin's claim is false. Anyway, one of them is lying.



Another example: Atheist Lawrence Krauss, in order to reject God's existence and defend atheism, is prepared to deny that 2+2=4 is true, as you can watch in this funny video:







3-As consequence of their intellectual dishonesty, atheist ideologues CONSISTENTLY misrepresent the arguments for God's existence. For example, in criticizing the Kalam argument for God's existence, Martin ineptly argues: "It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause"



But the Kalam argument doesn't say that everything has a cause, but that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause, as Craig explains in this video:

It's astonishing to see a "prominent" (atheist) philosopher of religion misrepresenting the kalam argument in that way. In fact, Martin is not informed (or is intentionally misrepresenting the facts in order to fool the readers, or is intellectually unable to understand philosophical arguments) that NO ONE of the best defenders of the cosmological argument has ever argued that "everything has a cause".



As comments philosopher of religion Edward Feser: "n fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended"



Can you see why atheist "intellectuals" like those are so easy prey for Craig and why they refuse to debate him? They have not the intellectual honesty, the logical rigour, the knowledge of philosophy and the proper cognitive faculties needed to defend their position coherently and find the truth (if they had all of these things, they weren't atheists).

A few atheists will accept Craig's intellectual challenge. And they'll be badly beaten... AGAIN.

Many atheist propagandists are charlatans and frauds, and they are intentionally misleading the public. As no-holds-barred truth-seekers, our intellectual and ethical principles demand that such atheists receive a proper, systematic and evidence-based debunking, and this blog is (and always will be) a modest attempt to do precisely that.

Victor J. Stenger vs William Lane Craig. Debate on the topic Does God exist? at Oregon State University, 2010

Interview with Michael Tymn about the afterlife, God, consciousness and his lastest book The Afterlife Revealed

This is an interview with writer and afterlife researcher Michael Tymn, one of the most erudite authors in the field of empirical afterlife studies. Michael has just published a must read book entitled The Afterlife Revealed, which I strongly recommend to all my readers. I thank Michael for accepting the interview. Enjoy.

1-Michael, tell us something about your background.

I grew up in Alameda, in the San Francisco Bay Area, and graduated from the San Jose State University School of Journalism in 1958. Because newspapers were closing right and left due to the growth of television in the years following college and military service, there wasn’t much of a future in print journalism. Therefore I ended up with a career in insurance claims management, although I did much freelance writing – mostly sports – on the side over the years. After becoming interested in spiritual matters during the early 1990s, I began writing more and more in that area. I have contributed articles on spirituality to at least a dozen different publications, many of the recent ones appearing in Atlantis Rising Magazine. My book, The Articulate Dead, was published in 2008 by Galde Press and my latest book, The Afterlife Revealed, has just been released by White Crow Books.

Much of my insurance career involved litigation management and so I applied the scientific method thousands of times in my 40 years in the business. Basically, my job was to weigh all the evidence and then decide whether to settle the claim or go to court, while considering the costs involved in the two alternatives. Yes, it was courtroom science, not laboratory science, but the evidence for the paranormal is more in the area of courtroom science than laboratory science. So when someone asks me what my science credentials are I tell him that I might very well hold the Guinness world record for applying the scientific method, 40-plus years of applying it on a daily basis.

Also, I have written a book about distance running, titled Running on Third Wind. A fellow runner recently asked me how I went from running to writing about afterlife research and I explained to him that running is all about learning how to die. In the perfectly run race, you metaphorically “die” at the finish line, but then, when you recover, there is great elation at what you have accomplished, sort of a “heaven on earth” if it is an especially important race to the person. I experienced it many times in my competitive years.

2-Why did you get interested in afterlife research and spiritualism?

Looking for something to read on a train from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta in 1989, I hastily bought a paperback about reincarnation. I found it intriguing and things just evolved from there – first Edgar Cayce, then books on near-death experiences, then mediumship. I had grown up a Catholic but left the church during my 30s. I was 52 when I bought that book in 1989 and was looking for something to believe in. I guess you could say I had a will to believe.

3-Have you had any personal, first-hand experience with some phenomenon suggestive of survival of consciousness?

I had a couple of fairly evidential readings at the Spiritualist Association of Great Britain in London during 1999, but for the most part I have been a vicarious experiencer.

4-Your lastest book about the afterlife entitled The Afterlife Revealed has been recently published. Can you tell us what did motive you to write this book and which is the main contribution of it to the afterlife literature?

There is so much out there about dying and the afterlife, but it is scattered all around in different books and journals. I wanted to make an attempt at collating the best and most credible information. Dr. Robert Crookall did that 50 or 60 years ago, but I am not aware of any attempts at it since. As I quote Dr. Carl Jung in the opening to the book, “A man should be able to say he has done his best to form a conception of life after death, or to create some image of it – even if he must confess his failure. Not to have done so is a vital loss.” I really believe that and believe that most of the chaos and turmoil we have in the world today is a result of non-belief in the survival of consciousness. Many people say they believe, but they really just hope for it. Religion has not given them anything to visualize beyond streets paved with gold and angels with wings and harps. Can you imagine an eternity of singing hymns and praising God 24/7? No wonder so many people claim to prefer extinction and turn to atheism. As I discussed in my last blog post, life after death is even a taboo subject in hospices.

It is my belief that once people see this life as part of a larger life, they better enjoy this life and become more spiritualistic and less materialistic and hedonistic. We hear so much about “living in the moment,” but the best way to live in the moment is to “live in eternity,” and the only way to do that is to be able to visualize a meaningful afterlife. That’s what I try to picture in my book.

5-Is your book aimed at a popular audience, or at scholars (or both kinds of public)?

It’s aimed at anyone who expects to die and wants to make the most of it.

6-Which is the best scientific evidence for the afterlife?

To quote Professor C. J. Ducasse, “The prima facie most impressive evidence there could be of the survival of a deceased friend or relative would be to see and touch his materialized, recognizable bodily form, which then speaks in his or her characteristic manner.” If my deceased parents or brother were to materialize in my presence and talk to me about personal matters known only to us, that would be the best possible evidence for me. While the great majority of materializations have been incomplete, defective or partial, there have been a few mediums who were strong enough to produce full materialized spirits who could stand and talk to the sitters. Joseph Jonson, Minnie Harrison, and Alec Harris are mediums that immediately come to mind. Dr. John King, president of the Canadian Society for Psychical Research, had his wife materialize through Jonson’s mediumship. She spoke to him for several minutes about very personal matters, before disappearing into the floor. Roy Dixon-Smith, a British army officer, tells of a sitting with Minnie Harrison in which his deceased wife, Betty, materialized, spoke with him, kissed him, and then disappeared. There were many such manifestations with Alec Harris.

Second best would be the direct voice, in which the voice resembles that of the deceased person while also relating veridical material. The most convincing reports of the direct voice were by Admiral W. Usborne Moore with medium Etta Wriedt. His books, Glimpses of Eternity and The Voices, are available on the Internet and I highly recommend them.

7-Do you think the super-ESP hypothesis can account for the best cases suggestive of survival?

The Super ESP hypothesis does not seem to have any limits for those who accept it. The key question which believers in Super ESP never address is why the subconscious is so intent on tricking the conscious self, and others at the same time. If all those communicating “spirits” are simply aspects of our subconscious, then we have to ask who programmed the subconscious to be such a trickster. Why is the subconscious pretending to be your deceased loved one or friend? What’s the game? In the evidential reading I had in London, it was an old friend I had rarely thought about in 20 years who communicated. Why did my subconscious surface him rather than my brother? If there is a God who programmed it that way, does that mean we have a God without an afterlife? If there is a “cosmic reservoir” out there with every thought and deed ever expressed, is that God? Alfred Russel Wallace, co-originator with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory, said he couldn’t see how evolution could produce such a trickster. I think Occam’s Razor easily favors the spirit hypothesis over Super ESP or Superpsi. .

8-As an expert in the mediumship literature, what do you think of William Crookes' research with Florence Cook? As you know, skeptics who question Crookes' research with her have mentioned several important criticisms: 1-In at least two occasions, sitters grabbed a materialized spirit in one of Florence Cook's séances and found it to be Florence herself. 2-Cook had an association with Rosina Showers, who was a fake medium. 3-In the photos taken by William Crookes, they never clearly show Florence Cook and Katie King together. Moreover, in the photo that supposedly shows both of them, Florence's face is covered by a shawl. 4-Also, King has a amazing facial similarity with Cook, which is what we'd expect if they're in fact the same person. Critics argue that this evidence, taken as a whole, cast doubts on Florence's mediumship and hence on Crookes's positive scientific conclusions about her. What do you think of such criticisms?

It would take a 5000 word essay to properly address your questions. However, it seems well established now that physical mediumship is carried out by low-level spirits, not necessarily evil spirits, just not particularly advanced ones, and that they control the medium while she or he is in a trance condition. I am not sure that Rosina Showers was a “fake” medium any more than Eusapia Paladino was. That is, their “fraud,” if you want to call it that, was mostly unconscious action carried out by the low-level spirits who were influencing them to achieve an objective. I believe there is good evidence that Showers produced some genuine mediumistic phenomena, although it may not be as well documented as with Paladino. In fact, as I recall, Serjeant Cox, the lawyer who supposedly caught Showers cheating, concluded that it was unconscious “fraud.” I believe there were many other physical mediums disparaged and defamed because investigators couldn’t distinguish between these unconscious movements of the entranced medium and actual fraud. Moreover, many people look at some of the seemingly ridiculous manifestations from ectoplasm and they jump to conclusion that the mediums were fake, when in fact the spirits simply couldn’t master the materialization process and thus they produced incomplete and sometimes very hokey manifestations. Or the mediums weren’t strong enough in the first place to provide the spirits with sufficient working material.

As for the resemblance of Katie King to Florence Cook, it is my understanding that the ectoplasm, which comes from the medium, is to some extent responsible for this. That is, the medium’s vital fluids carry with them DNA or genetic material that results in the materialized spirit bearing a resemblance to the medium. But I believe that Katie was clearly 4-5 inches taller than Florence, according to Crookes and others and I am not sure she resembled her that much. But one has to understand that the ideoplastic nature of ectoplasm requires the materializing spirit to visualize what he or she looked like when alive and project that image into the ectoplasm. One spirit told Professor Charles Richet that he could not materialize because he couldn’t remember what he looked like when alive. The same thing happened with Florence Marrayat in a sitting with Florence Cook. Her friend appeared, but it didn’t look like him. He said something to the effect that he needed to practice a little and he would give it a better try the next night, which he did, and she recognized him the second time.

It is the same with spirit photography. Many of those old spirit photographs resembled portraits of the person when he or she was alive and so they were assumed to be fraudulent for that reason. But those photographs were what the spirit visualized when trying to remember what he or she looked like. If you were to ask me to project an image of myself to you on the other side of the world over the telephone, I suspect I would look much younger than I am, perhaps like an old photograph when I was 25. I tend to think of myself as being closer to 25 than 75 and sometimes shock myself when I look in the mirror and realize I don’t look as young as I think I do. When I think of my deceased brother, I think of him as he appears in a graduation photo I have of him. If I had to project an image of my brother to you, it would be that photo. Think about it. If we didn’t have old photographs of ourselves, would we remember what we looked like when we were younger?

I don’t recall for sure, but I think Katie King lived before photography and so she probably didn’t have a fixed image of herself when she was alive. Thus, she couldn’t mold the ectoplasm with Florence Cook’s characteristics very well and so ended up looking something like Florence.

9-What do you think of the contemporary materialization mediumship of David Thompson?

I have never had the opportunity to sit with him, but I find it difficult to believe that the many credible people who have sat with him, including Victor Zammit, under controlled conditions, could have been duped countless times. I think Victor has sat with him over a hundred times. I just can’t bring myself to believe that a trickster can get away with it that many times or that he has the desire or incentive to keep up the imposture for so long.

10-Chico Xavier was the most famous and respected medium in Brazil. However, some serious brazilian researchers like Vitor Moura Visoni have argued that Xavier was a fraud. Xavier never accepted scientific controls, his guide never existed, there is much evidence of cold reading and the books have passages copied of others famous books that Moura and other researchers have discovered and documented. Do you think the criticisms mentioned have refuted Xavier's mediumship? Was Xavier a real medium?

My only knowledge of Chico Xavier comes from Guy Playfair’s biography of him and sundry articles found on the Internet. . My guess is that Chico, being a physical medium, was also a victim of some low-level spirits on occasions and that this activity was accepted by his critics as conscious fraud. There was just too much phenomena that cannot be explained by magic or fraud to write him off as a charlatan. I recall that one of Vitor’s primary arguments is that Chico’s spirit control could never be tracked down or confirmed. Neither could Phinuit, Imperator, and other spirit controls, but the information that came through them was the evidence, not the prior existence of the spirit control. Indications are that some controls are not individuals but rather a “general spirit influence” that has given itself a name to simplify things. When a spirit was speaking through D. D. Home, Crookes asked for an identity. The response was that it was not one spirit, but several, as one spirit was not strong enough to control Daniel. When the purported William James began communicating through Susy Smith he gave another name as he assumed that if he gave his real name no one would believe it. Vitor seems to be applying terrestrial standards to celestial matters he doesn’t understand.

11-According to your research, does reincarnation exist? And if it's the case, how do we explain that many mystics and spirits in the afterlife have said that reincarnation doesn't occur?

I have come to the conclusion that reincarnation exists, but it doesn’t play out the way most people who believe in it think it does. I believe that the non-local aspects of time put it beyond human comprehension. I accept Silver Birch’s communication about reincarnation that “… there are what you call ‘group souls,’ a single unity with facets which have spiritual relationships that incarnate at different times, at different places, for the purpose of equipping the larger soul for its work.” I don’t really understand that, but I accept that there are celestial matters that are beyond human understanding and language.

12-What do you think of the teaching of Silver Birch? Are they reliable?

Everything that Silver Birch communicated appeals to reason, at least to my reason. I find nothing offensive or unreasonable in the teachings of Silver Birch. “By their fruits, ye shall know them,” is the best test.

13-What do you think of Jesus of Nazareth? Does your research suggest something about Jesus' resurrection?

I consider the Christ spirit as part of the hierarchy of souls, perhaps even the equivalent of Chairman of the Board, if we can apply terrestrial organization to the celestial spheres. I feel certain that orthodox religion has misinterpreted his resurrection. I believe his spirit body, whatever name one wants to give to it, separated from his physical body, as it does with all of us and that he later materialized in front of his disciples. There is speculation that Jesus chose his disciples based on their mediumistic ability so that he could easily materialize in their presence. I can accept that theory.

14-According to your research, the phenomena known as "ghosts" or "apparitions" is a real one? Do ghosts exist?

If we define “ghosts” to mean “spirits of the dead,” then, yes, I believe they exist. I believe there are many “earthbound” spirits hovering around us and sometimes making themselves known and influencing people in negative ways. But there are also more enlightened spirits who influence us in positive ways.

15-Do you think near-death experience provide good evidence for the afterlife?

Definitely. I don’t think is as good as some mediumship phenomena, but it clearly suggests that we have a spirit body as well as a physical one.

16-A very controversial line of evidence for survival is Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) and Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC). Do you think research in these fields provide good and reliable evidence for survival?

Frankly, the field has not interested me all that much. I have read four or five books about EVP or ITC, and they have been fairly convincing, but so much of it is like looking for faces in the clouds. Not all of it, but most of it. I recently read a book by Anabela Cardosa (“Electronic Voices”) that suggests that there is much more to it than faces in the clouds.

17-Do you think that the evidence for survival conflicts with contemporary science, specially neuroscience and evolutionary biology?

Not being a neuroscientist or evolutionary biologist, I am not sure I am qualified to answer that question. As they say in the law, Res Ipsa Loquitor, the evidence speaks for itself. The neuroscientist or evolutionary biologist should figure out how to fit his or her paradigm to the spiritual paradigm, not the other way around.

18-According to your extensive research, can you summarize what happens when we die?

There is a separation of the spirit body from the physical body. Depending on its spiritual consciousness, or its “moral specific gravity,” the spirit body awakens in its new environment or on its new plane of existence. If the person did not develop any real consciousness while alive, he won’t even realize he is dead and will be “earthbound” and may take years in earth time to awaken. If he developed a little spiritual consciousness, he might be in a stupor for some time, however time is measured there. It is a matter of degree. The more spiritually conscious person will quickly adjust and adapt to his new environment and take up where he left off, continuing to learn and evolve.

19-What reliable information coming from the afterlife have you read regarding God's existence?

I believe that God, whatever He, She, or It happens to be is beyond human comprehension. I lean toward God as being Cosmic or Collective Consciousness. I don’t concern myself with the existence or non-existence of God. It is enough for me to believe that consciousness survives physical death. Most people need an anthropomorphic God and to some extent I do, as I can’t visualize cosmic consciousness. So Jesus is still “God” for me in a way, occupying that Chairman of the Board position. There was a reason why the Church adopted Jesus as God. People needed to visualize a king figure or some kind. But then the churches muddled it all up with some ridiculous dogma and doctrine, especially the atonement doctrine.

20-What do you think of organized skepticism (CSICOP, etc.) and its militant and persistent opposition and hostility to psi and afterlife research?

I believe such pseudoskepticism begins as a reaction by left-brained people with strong egos against the superstitions and non-sensical teachings of religious fundamentalists without much, or any, understanding of spirituality outside of organized religion. It is scientific fundamentalism or scientism. They never really open their minds to true spirituality and they remain stuck in the muck and mire of their own closed-minded egos.

21-What books would you like to recommend about the scientific evidence for survival?

The best books were all written by the pioneers of psychical research – Crookes, Barrett, Lodge, Myers, Hyslop, et al. My book, The Articulate Dead, more or less summarizes their work, which is as solid today and it was a hundred years ago. If I had to pick one author, I would say the four or five books written by Dr. James Hyslop would be the starting point. It depends on the level the person is at in the first place.

22-Do you want to add something else to end the interview?

Life is like a long-distance race. There is a start and a finish. In between, we strive and we stride, we stumble, stagger, and struggle, but we surge on and we surmount. We sometimes surrender and we sometimes soar. The objective is to train properly and pace ourselves so that we completely soar just after hitting the finish line.

Review by skeptic Gerald Woerlee of Chris Carter book Science and the Near-Death Experience, and Chris Carter's reply

Anesthesiologist and skeptic Gerald Woerlee wrote a critical Amazon review of Chris Carter's lastest book Science and the Near-Death Experience. I'll post here Woerlee's whole review (in black) and Chris's extensive reply to him (in blue). I'd suggest my readers to read Chris's book before you examine Woerlee's criticisms and Chris' refutations of them, in order to get a full grasp of what this debate is all about.

Gerald Woerlee's review:

Yesterday I purchased the Kindle version of "Science and the Near-Death Experience" written by Chris Carter. Was the $13.79 I paid Amazon for this book well spent? The answer to this question is a qualified yes and no.

Yes, because I do not begrudge anyone who entertains me for a few hours his just wage. No, because although this book contains several interesting arguments, it is little more than populist fodder for believers in the apparent reality of the NDE. First the complements, because I was always taught to be polite in an introduction.

Complement 1: The book is easy and quickly read. Nothing difficult.

Complement 2: The analogy of the brain and the television or radio receiver is very good, and raises many interesting discussion points. I like it. It is somewhat better than my analogy of a driver in an automobile which I used in a book called "Mortal Minds".

Complement 3: A very good discussion of transcultural differences in NDE visionary content. Nice graphical material. This reveals profound intercultural and neurophysiological differences between peoples of different cultures. What a shame that an elementary scientific Chi-square analysis was not performed on these interesting data.

But there are many, many disturbing points in the book totally destroying the pretence of any scientific credibility. I will reference these using the Kindle locations for convenience of reference (e.g. Kindle location 555 is termed K555).

We read that: "The theory of production is therefore not a jot more simple or credible in itself than any other conceivable theory. It is only a little more popular."(K555). Does the author mean to tell us that materialism is more popular than dualism? Strange... Studies show that about 70% of people believe the soul is the source of consciousness. Dualism is actually more popular. Skeptical materialists such as I are a minority group.

At location K569 he states that the physical brain filters consciousness. This is an imprecise and sloppy statement, because as with many such books, this work by Chris Carter does not clarify whether he is actually talking about "mind" or "consciousness". Mind and consciousness are precise and different neurological concepts. So what actually happens?

- The brain filters sensory inputs, otherwise it would be flooded by neural noise etc. This is the well known effect of LSD. LSD blocks the sensory input filtering actions of the geniculate bodies in the brain for sound and vision, giving rise to the typical LSD trip. Moreover, it is not consciousness that is filtered, but sensory inputs. Consciousness makes it possible to perceive and be aware of sensations arising from these inputs.
- The brain does modulate the level of consciousness, but does not filter it. For example, a person may be sleepy, i.e have reduced consciousness, but have normal mental function.
- Properties of mind, such as enhanced mentation, memory, personality, etc are properties of "mind", not consciousness. Consciousness makes these properties of mind possible. There is no mind without consciousness. And the brain does filter or modify these properties of mind, eg a person may be fully conscious, but delerious due to the effects of drugs and disease upon the brain.

This brings us to the matter of enhanced mental processes reported by NDE-ers. At location K4162, just as throughout this book, he says that materialism cannot explain the phenomenon of enhanced conscious awareness. But no figures are presented telling us that enhanced conscious awareness occurs in between 19% (Lommel 2001) to 75% (Jeffrey Long 2010) of NDE experiences, (depending upon definition and type of NDE study). This means it is in no way a universal feature of NDEs. Therefore to call this a true manifestation of the unfettered conscious mind is poor logic.

Chapters 5 and 6 discuss how memory is a function of the immaterial conscious mind. Carter treats us to a very superficial discussion of the neurophysiology of memory, richly larded with quotes from (mostly aged or dead) prominent figures, who say they do not understand how memory is stored in the brain. Finally he invokes the very unproven "morphic fields" of Sheldrake to "prove" that memory is extracorporeal. He ends with the almost triumphant statement: "... the theory of memory traces has become a metaphysical theory, and the theory of formative causation, with its notion of extracerebral memories, is the remaining scientific alternative!"(K1854). Carter uses an unproven theory as proof of the location of memories to counter a materialist theory which has considerable modern neurophysiological proof. Curious, but understandable when writing for believers with preconceived ideas.

Quantum mechanics is often invoked as an explanation for anything not understood by all believers in the immaterial nature of the conscious mind. The reasoning apparently goes; "If you cannot explain it, throw in some quantum mechanical magic." This book is no exception. My only reaction is a weary sigh. While some phenomena similar to quantum entanglement do occur in macromolecular systems, (see June 2011 edition of Scientific American), this does not mean that quantum mechanics as understood by NDE-ite believers is the explanation for NDE and other apparently inexplicable phenomena. Nearly all physicists knowledgable in this field have to work hard at suppressing impolite hysterical laughter when presented with the ideas of believers in the quantum mechanical nature of the NDE.

The discussion of the materialistic versus the dualistic origins of the NDE is quite conventional NDE literature. Essentially nothing fundamentally new is presented. The same tired old and discredited arguments are used. No really fundamental questions are asked, nor are any really theories enabling new research presented. The level is on par with that of the uncritical belief systems presented in the books written by Jeffery Long, Pim van Lommel, Mario Beauregard, etc, and subject to the same criticisms.

Now for a last few other curious specific points regarding the suggestive and tendentious presentation of several specific NDEs:

At K2824, a sentence states that patients can "sometimes elect to undergo cardioversion,..." What nonsense! The cardiologist determines which treatment is the best for the patient. After all, that is his/her expertise.

At K3873 is a strange sentence written by Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist. The man of the "missing dentures" case was discharged from hospital after having been resuscitated from a cardiac arrest caused by a myocardial infarction. Here we read the cardiologically nonsensical sentence: "4 weeks later he left the hospital as a healthy man." A person who has had a large myocardial infarction has a scarred and damaged heart. The reason for such a heart infarct is coronary artery disease, and the fact that this man had an infarct and died two years after admission is proof that this was very likely the cause. So this man was far from healthy at discharge. A very curious statement for a cardiologist to make, and even more so after a decade of uncritical acceptance of this statement. The missing dentures story related in the 2001 article by Pim van Lommel was far from complete. It was even very biased and suggestive. A link to the true primary account of this story is to be found at my website together with an explanation of this apparently extraordinary account. I also wrote an extensive article on this very subject published in the Summer 2010 "Journal of Near-death Studies".

K4463, relates the end of the story of the well-known deathbed vision of a woman dying in the Mother's Hospital, London, England during 1926. This is a story I happen to know a lot about, because during 1978-1979, I was an anesthesiology resident who worked at this very same hospital. At the time I worked there, it was relatively unchanged from its form and function in 1926. It was still a Salvation Army run hospital, originally set up for the poor and deprived women living in the area. This woman was dying of heart failure. A common enough event at the time in poverty stricken areas of London such as Clapton where this hospital was located. Presumably this was the end-result of rheumatic heart disease which was prevalent at the time. And then Chris Carter tells us something really surprising; "Apparently the young woman 'saw' something she found so appealing that she was willing to give up her life and her own baby!" (K4463). Really... So it appears this woman had the choice of not dying. Interesting .... Mind over matter, miraculous cure of your own heart failure! Please don't tell the patients in my hospital that they can choose not to die or be sick, otherwise I'll be out of work!

Then we come to the well known Pam Reynolds case. I have written several articles on this case since 2004, and have extensively explained each aspect of the very good report in the chapter of "Light and Death" by Michael Sabom on one of my sites (see [...]). Carter, among others talks about the impossibility of hearing when the 100 dB clicks were administered, and says in the same sentence that prolonged administration of sound at this level causes hearing damage (K4028). And Chris Carter gives an appropriately "scientific" reference for this wisdom - the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper. Apparently the treating physicians of Pam Reynolds were intent upon damaging her hearing by administering 100 dB sounds at this level during a prolonged neurosurgical procedure! He quite correctly states that Pam Reynolds made absolutely no mention of hearing these clicks (K4041). But just as many others before him, Carter ignores the basic stimulus parameters of the clicking sounds, as well as the nature of the consequent auditory evoked response signal (which facts actually reveal how she could hear sounds). Instead he, as have many others have before him, seems to liken this sound to a continuous 100 dB sound such as music. But these clicks are not the same as music, and the report of Pam Reynolds clearly tells us she could hear. She awoke to the sound of a "natural D" (K3930). Pam was a musician, and many such persons have natural pitch. So by saying it was a "natural D", she meant a sound with a frequency of 293.6, or 587.3 Hertz. This fact together with the stimulus parameters reveals how she could hear the sounds of speech etc (I will write an article on this for the JNDS if they are interested).

Then a last bit of nit-picking. At K4675, Chris Carter ends the description of another seemingly remarkable case study with the words: "The skeptic must say that the dying person telepathically or clairvoyantly gains true information about a recently deceased friend or relative, ..." I find this a remarkable statement. A skeptic with even a basic knowledge of body structure and function also rejects belief in telepathy and clairvoyance. These are paranormal sensory abilities which the experiences of the blind, the deaf, and gambling casinos teach us simply do not exist.

Concluding this rather lengthy commentary, all I can say is that this book only possesses the three redeeming aspects I mentioned at the start. Carter is preaching to his own parish, because there is disappointingly little true science to be found in this book. The "science" in the title is at the same level as the "science" in the title of other "scientific" studies of the near-death experience written by Jeffrey Long (Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences), and Pim van Lommel (Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience), Mario Beauregard (The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul). "Science and the Near-Death Experience" is a book guaranteed to warm the hearts, and fuel the beliefs of the unknowing and uncritical, but no more than this.

Chris Carter's reply to Woerlee:

I would like to thank Gerry for reviewing my book; the opportunity to respond provides me with the opportunity to clear up several mistakes and misconceptions that he has been busy trying to spread among those new to the field.

Following Gerry's example, I will be polite in my introduction, and start with a compliment: unlike many of his fellow "skeptics", Gerry appears to have actually read my book before reviewing it. This is commendable behavior.

However, Gerry appears to have understood little of what he read. I will deal with his criticisms in the order in which they appear in his review.

Gerry wrote:

"We read that: `The theory of production is therefore not a jot more simple or credible in itself than any other conceivable theory. It is only a little more popular.'(K555). Does the author mean to tell us that materialism is more popular than dualism? Strange... Studies show that about 70% of people believe the soul is the source of consciousness. Dualism is actually more popular. Skeptical materialists such as I are a minority group." [emphasis added]

The surprising words above are "Does the author mean to tell us...". If Gerry had read that passage with any degree of care, he would have easily realized that the words are not my own, but come from a quote from the celebrated philosopher-psychologist William James, from his famous Ingersoll Lecture of 1898. The full quote is:

"The theory of production is therefore not a jot more simple or credible in itself than any other conceivable theory. It is only a little more popular. All that one need do, therefore, if the ordinary materialist should challenge one to explain how the brain can be an organ for limiting and determining to a certain form a consciousness elsewhere produced, is to ask him in turn to explain how it can be an organ for producing consciousness out of whole cloth. For polemic purposes, the two theories are thus exactly on a par."

As James mentioned, the theory that the mind produced the brain was probably "a little more popular" among scientists in 1898, in the days before modern physics when most working scientists were still under the sway of classical physics, which we know today to be grossly incorrect. Gerry is correct though, in pointing out that today "skeptical materialists" are a minority group, and this seems to be true not only among the general public, but also among physical scientists as well as modern consciousness researchers. (Evans, 1973; Wagner, 1979; Whitehead, 2004, p. 70)

Gerry wrote:

"At location K569 he states that the physical brain filters consciousness. This is an imprecise and sloppy statement ... The brain filters sensory inputs, otherwise it would be flooded by neural noise etc ... Moreover, it is not consciousness that is filtered, but sensory inputs. ... The brain does modulate the level of consciousness, but does not filter it. For example, a person may be sleepy, i.e have reduced consciousness, but have normal mental function.
- Properties of mind, such as enhanced mentation, memory, personality, etc are properties of "mind", not consciousness. Consciousness makes these properties of mind possible. There is no mind without consciousness. And the brain does filter or modify these properties of mind, eg a person may be fully conscious, but delerious [sic] due to the effects of drugs and disease upon the brain."

Some may consider the above to be simply splitting hairs over definitions, but I consider the remarks simply wrong. It is true that the brain filters perceptions, as illustrated by the fact that a mother, sleeping in a room filled with noise from traffic outside, may be suddenly awakened from deep sleep by a cry from her baby. But functions and properties of the mind - such as memories, thoughts, and clarity of thought - may also be blocked or reduced by the filtering effect of brain upon consciousness.

Gerry wrote in the above that "a person may be sleepy, i.e have reduced consciousness, but have normal mental function" and "a person may be fully conscious, but delirious due to the effects of drugs and disease upon the brain."

Does he really believe that a sleep-deprived driver can "have normal mental function" and that a disoriented drunk or a person with dementia "may be fully conscious"? One shudders at the implications of taking these statements seriously.

In my book I quote from several philosophers in support of the view that the brain works as a filter. For instance, in Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception, Huxley describes and reflects on his experiences with the drug mescaline, experiences that led him to the view that the role of the brain and nervous system is eliminative rather than productive. Like Bergson and Schiller before him, Huxley came to accept the theory that the brain functions as a sort of two-way filter, normally shutting out perceptions, memories, and thoughts not necessary for the survival and reproduction of the organism.

In support of these ideas in my book I mention cases of terminal lucidity, in which dying patients suffering from severe mental illness or a brain disease suddenly seem to regain full consciousness and lucidity, becoming their normal selves again shortly before death. Such cases make perfect sense if the purpose of the brain is to selectively inhibit consciousness and memory to those thoughts and memories of utilitarian value to the organism. These experiences can be interpreted as the activity of mind disengaged, or in the process of disengaging, from the restrictions of a material brain. (those interested in a detailed examination of several such cases should see the article listed below by evolutionary biologist Michael Nahm).

As astronomer David Darling puts it, "we are conscious not because of our brain, but in spite of it."


Gerry writes:

"This brings us to the matter of enhanced mental processes reported by NDE-ers. At location K4162, just as throughout this book, he says that materialism cannot explain the phenomenon of enhanced conscious awareness. But no figures are presented telling us that enhanced conscious awareness occurs in between 19% (Lommel 2001) to 75% (Jeffrey Long 2010) of NDE experiences, (depending upon definition and type of NDE study). This means it is in no way a universal feature of NDEs. Therefore to call this a true manifestation of the unfettered conscious mind is poor logic."

The fact that enhanced mental processes are not reported by all NDE'rs does not imply that materialism can explain the phenomenon of enhanced conscious awareness. Accurate out-of-body perception is not reported by all NDE'rs either; but concluding from this fact that this feature is not a true manifestation of the unfettered conscious mind is poor logic indeed.

Gerry writes:

"Carter treats us to a very superficial discussion of the neurophysiology of memory, richly larded with quotes from (mostly aged or dead) prominent figures, who say they do not understand how memory is stored in the brain."

This is disingenuous sophistry: in my "superficial discussion" neuroscientists are not quoted as merely saying that "they do not understand how memory is stored in the brain." Rather, they say that from experiments with animals they can find no evidence of memory traces in the brain, leading one researcher to the untestable conclusion that "memory seems to be stored both everywhere and nowhere in particular."

Gerry continues:

"Finally he invokes the very unproven "morphic fields" of Sheldrake to "prove" that memory is extracorporeal. He ends with the almost triumphant statement: "... the theory of memory traces has become a metaphysical theory, and the theory of formative causation, with its notion of extracerebral memories, is the remaining scientific alternative!"(K1854). Carter uses an unproven theory as proof of the location of memories to counter a materialist theory which has considerable modern neurophysiological proof. Curious, but understandable when writing for believers with preconceived ideas."

If Gerry understood the nature of science, he would know that scientific theories can never be proven correct, yet a single counter-instance can prove them false. For example, the (simple) scientific theory "all swans are white" can never be proven true; neither ten nor ten thousand white swans logically implies that the next swan we see will be white. However, a single black swan logically proves the theory false.

The utter failure to locate the storage site of memories in the brain has lead to the assumption that "memory is stored everywhere in the brain and nowhere in particular," thereby rendering the theory of memory traces untestable and hence unscientific. By contrast, I mention several easily testable - and to some extent already tested - predictions of Sheldrake's theory of morphic fields. This is what I meant when I wrote that Sheldrake's testable theory is the remaining scientific alternative.

Note that contrary to Gerry, the materialist theory does not have "considerable modern neurophysiological proof"; rather, in the continuing absence of any direct evidence, it remains more a matter of faith than of fact.

Gerry writes:

"Quantum mechanics is often invoked as an explanation for anything not understood by all believers in the immaterial nature of the conscious mind. The reasoning apparently goes; `If you cannot explain it, throw in some quantum mechanical magic.' This book is no exception. My only reaction is a weary sigh." Then, without a shred of evidence, he adds "Nearly all physicists knowledgeable in this field have to work hard at suppressing impolite hysterical laughter when presented with the ideas of believers in the quantum mechanical nature of the NDE."

In the first place, in my chapter on "Physics and Consciousness" I do not "throw in some quantum mechanical magic" to promote the "quantum mechanical nature of the NDE." Instead, I take great pains to explain in detail how the 18th century scientific case for the ancient philosophy of materialism was based upon the classical physics of Isaac Newton. This theory has been known to be fundamentally and grossly incorrect since the earliest years of the twentieth century, and so any materialist theory based upon it must also be fundamentally flawed.

Classical physics has been superseded by the quantum theory, and in my chapter I discuss the famous interpretation of quantum mechanics developed by mathematician John von Neumann and physicist Eugene Wigner. Von Neumann was one of the most important intellectual figures of the twentieth century, and his friend Eugene Wigner was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in physics. In my book I argue that this theory is by far the most rigorous and logical interpretation of the quantum facts. The von Neumann/Wigner interpretation makes quantum mechanics an inherently dualistic theory - that is, it requires the existence and action of a non-physical mind - and the several respected academic physicists that I quote in support of this interpretation do not seem to be "suppressing hysterical laughter."

Carrying on in his tendentious fashion, Gerry writes "The same tired old and discredited arguments are used." At no point does he try to show how my arguments are "discredited." Readers of my book will know that the second section is devoted to discrediting "tired old" materialist explanations of the NDE, such as oxygen deprivation, excessive carbon dioxide, temporal lobe seizures, and so forth.

Gerry writes:

"At K2824, a sentence states that patients can `sometimes elect to undergo cardioversion,...' What nonsense! The cardiologist determines which treatment is the best for the patient. After all, that is his/her expertise."

That section in my book discusses research by cardiologist Michael Sabom. My cardiologist friends tell me that cardioversion is usually an elective procedure, to be delivered mostly for rhythmic disturbances of the heart that are not life threatening, such as atrial fibrillation, or ventricular tachycardia. The patients need a short-working anaesthesia because the electric shock is very painful. Except in emergency situations, it most certainly requires patient consent, and in that ordinary sense, it is indeed "elective."

Gerry writes:

"At K3873 is a strange sentence written by Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist. The man of the `missing dentures' case was discharged from hospital after having been resuscitated from a cardiac arrest caused by a myocardial infarction. Here we read the cardiologically nonsensical sentence: `4 weeks later he left the hospital as a healthy man.' A person who has had a large myocardial infarction has a scarred and damaged heart. The reason for such a heart infarct is coronary artery disease, and the fact that this man had an infarct and died two years after admission is proof that this was very likely the cause. So this man was far from healthy at discharge. A very curious statement for a cardiologist to make."

If Gerry had carefully this section, he would know that this "strange sentence" was not a statement by van Lommel, but rather was part of a quote - translated from Dutch - by the nurse on duty that night. The quote appeared in an article written by van Lommel.

Regarding the famous case of the missing dentures, Gerry tells us that "I wrote an extensive article on this very subject published in the Summer 2010 "Journal of Near-death Studies." True, but what he does not tell us it that the points in his article were easily and clearly refuted by Rudolf Smit and Titus Rivas, in the very same issue of the Journal of Near-Death Studies.

Gerry writes:

"K4463, relates the end of the story of the well-known deathbed vision of a woman dying in the Mother's Hospital, London, England during 1926. ... This woman was dying of heart failure. ... And then Chris Carter tells us something really surprising; `Apparently the young woman "saw" something she found so appealing that she was willing to give up her life and her own baby!'. Really... So it appears this woman had the choice of not dying. Interesting .... Mind over matter, miraculous cure of your own heart failure! Please don't tell the patients in my hospital that they can choose not to die or be sick, otherwise I'll be out of work!"

It should be clear from an unbiased reading of this account that nowhere is it implied that this young woman died by choice. Merely, she was eagerly willing to accept her fate. I am frankly astonished that Gerry does not understand the difference between acceptance and choice.

Gerry writes:

"Then we come to the well known Pam Reynolds case. ... Carter, among others talks about the impossibility of hearing when the 100 dB clicks were administered ... He quite correctly states that Pam Reynolds made absolutely no mention of hearing these clicks. But just as many others before him, Carter ignores the basic stimulus parameters of the clicking sounds, as well as the nature of the consequent auditory evoked response signal (which facts actually reveal how she could hear sounds). Instead he, as have many others have before him, seems to liken this sound to a continuous 100 dB sound such as music. But these clicks are not the same as music, and the report of Pam Reynolds clearly tells us she could hear. She awoke to the sound of a "natural D" (K3930). Pam was a musician, and many such persons have natural pitch. ... This fact together with the stimulus parameters reveals how she could hear the sounds of speech etc."

Gerry's attempt to dismiss this case is truly desperate. During the operation not only was Pam under heavy anesthetic, but her eyes were taped shut and her ears were blocked by small molded speakers. The speakers continuously played 100 decibel clicks into her ears at a rate of 11.3 per second (100 decibels is about the level a symphony orchestra plays at full volume). As long as Pam's brain stem was still functioning, these clicks would evoke sharp spikes on the electrogram.

Ordinary conversation is at around 60 decibels, and the 100 decibel clicks were 10,000 times more intense than that. In her testimony, Pam neither mentions hearing loud clicks nor struggling to hear through them.

Pam's neurosurgeon Dr. Robert Spetzler added this testimony:

"At that stage in the operation nobody can observe, hear in that state. And I find it inconceivable that the normal senses, such as hearing, let alone the fact that she had clicking modules in each ear, that there was any way for her to hear through normal auditory pathways."

However, Gerry tries to convince us that of course she could hear; he writes "the report of Pam Reynolds clearly tells us she could hear. She awoke to the sound of a "natural D" (K3930). Pam was a musician, and many such persons have natural pitch. ... This fact together with the stimulus parameters reveals how she could hear the sounds of speech etc."

What he does not mention is that Pam's experience of hearing and seeing began as she felt herself leaving her body:

"The next thing I recall was the sound: It was a natural D. As I listened to the sound, I felt it was pulling me out of the top of my head. The further out of my body I got, the more clear the tone became. I had the impression it was like a road, a frequency that you go on. . . . I remember seeing several things in the operating room when I was looking down. It was the most aware that I think I have ever been in my entire life. . . . I was metaphorically sitting on Dr Spetzler's shoulder. It wasn't like normal vision. It was brighter and more focused and clearer than normal vision. . . . There was so much in the operating room that I didn't recognize, and so many people."

Her detailed report of conversation and observed activity in the operating theatre was later verified as accurate by members of the operating team.

At last, we come to Gerry's final point:

"Then a last bit of nit-picking ... A skeptic with even a basic knowledge of body structure and function also rejects belief in telepathy and clairvoyance. These are paranormal sensory abilities which the experiences of the blind, the deaf, and gambling casinos teach us simply do not exist."

Let us first deal with Gerry's remark that "A skeptic with even a basic knowledge of body structure and function also rejects belief in telepathy and clairvoyance." Well, two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another were made in the 1970's. Both surveys found that the majority of respondents considered ESP "an established fact" or "a likely possibility": 56% in one and 67% in the other. (Evans, 1973; Wagner and Mary Monet, 1979. Note that in the former study only 3% of natural scientists considered ESP "an impossibility", compared to 34% of psychologists.)

But his final point is more relevant to my first book, which will be re-released in Spring 2012 with a new publisher under the new title Science and Heresy (publisher chose to rename it, I did not). Suffice to say here that abilities such as telepathy and clairvoyance are not only reported in anecdotal accounts from virtually all cultures in recorded history, but their existence has been established in repeatable experiments conducted in laboratories all over the developed world over the past 100 years. In my book I even mention several academic skeptics conceding that the experimental evidence was already convincing by 1950.

Skeptics of psychokenesis are fond of pointing out that there are well-established laboratories for testing PK in Reno, Las Vegas, and Monte Carlo. So, could PK be used to beat the odds in the casinos? Not likely. The PK effects observed in the laboratories are simply far too weak. Physicist Nick Herbert (1993, pp. 195-8) has calculated that the odds in favor of the house on even the most favorable casino games are about 100 times larger than most of the deviations from chance observed in the PK experiments. Even the most gifted micro-PK subjects do not even come close to displaying results that would allow them to consistently beat the house.

Regarding the experiences of the blind and the deaf: whether or not the blind and the deaf have greater telepathic abilities than the unimpaired is an empirical matter. As such, the issue can only be settled by experiment and observation, and not by a priori arguments. At this time there have been no experiments to test this matter so the question remains unanswered.

Conclusion

Since writing this reply, I have since learned that "Gerry" is in fact Gerald Woerlee, fanatical materialist and militant atheist, author of the book The Unholy Legacy of Abraham.

Why are there so many "skeptics" such as Gerald Woerlee eager to debunk not just reports of psychic phenomena, but also phenomena such as the near death experience?

As I discuss in my first book Science and Heresy, this militant opposition is something peculiar to Western societies, and it is basically due to the historical conflict in the West between secular and religious members of society.

Genuine skepticism plays an important role in science; but genuine skepticism involves the suspension of belief, not the refusal of belief. So, individuals such as Woerlee are not genuine skeptics, but rather pseudo-skeptics strenuously defending the theory of materialism from the data which refute it. As Karl Popper stressed, science progresses with the refutation of theories; it follows from this that defending a theory by strenuously denying the data which refute it must be one of the defining characteristics of pseudo-science.

Essentially, as I argued in my first book, this debate is not primarily about evidence. Rather, the debunkers and deniers are defending an out-moded world view in which psychic phenomena and out-of-body experiences are simply not allowed to exist. It is essential to realize that most of the deniers and phony-skeptics are militant atheists and secular humanists. For various reasons, these people have an ideological agenda which is anti-religious and anti-superstitious. One of the main pillars of their opposition to religion and superstition is the doctrine of materialism: that is, the doctrine that all events have a physical cause, and that the brain therefore produces the mind. If they conceded the existence of psychic abilities, and of the NDE as a genuine separation of mind from body, then this pillar of their opposition to religion would crumble. Hence, their dogmatic denial of the evidence that proves materialism false.

When I wrote the first edition of my book Science and the Near Death Experience I had never heard of Woerlee. However, in the second edition of my book - due out soon - I have added a section entirely devoted to Woerlee's criticisms of the dentures case mentioned earlier. Ironically, Woerlee's determined debunking of this case has made this case even more impressive. For if it were not for his strident opposition, then certain medical facts concerning this case may never have been published, medical facts that reveal the extreme implausibility of any materialistic explanation.

I am glad that Woerlee did not like the first edition of my book. He will like the second edition even less.

Chris Carter

References

Carter, Chris (2010). "Persistent Denial: a Century of Denying the Evidence". In Debating Psychic Experience, edited by Stan Krippner and Harris Friedman. New York: Preager Publishing.

Evans, Christopher, 1973. "Parapsychology-what the questionnaire revealed", New Scientist, 25, January 1973, page 209.

Herbert, Nick, 1993. Elemental Mind: Human Consciousness and the New Physics. New York: Penguin
Books.

Nahm, Michael (2009). "Terminal Lucidity in People with Mental Illness and other Mental Disability." Journal of Near-Death Studies, 28 (2), 47-61.

Smit, R. H. (2008). "Corroboration of the dentures anecdote involving veridical perception in a near-death experience." Journal of Near-Death Studies, 27, 47-61.

Smit, R. H. and Rivas, T. (2010). "Rejoinder to `Response to Corroboration of the dentures anecdote involving veridical perception in a near-death experience.'" Journal of Near-Death Studies, 28 (4), 193-205.
TG. (2008). "Commentaar op Woerlee door A-verpleegkundige TG [Commentary on Woerlee by registered nurse TG]." Terugkeer, 19(4), 8.

Wagner, Mahlon, and Mary Monet, 1979. "Attitudes of College Professors Toward Extra-Sensory Perception," Zetetic Scholar, 1979, 5, pages 7-16.

Whitehead, C. 2004. Everything I Believe Might Be a Delusion. Whoa! Tucson 2004: Ten years on, and are we any nearer to a Science of Consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies 11 (12), 2004, 68-88.

Woerlee, G. M. (2004). "Cardiac arrest and near-death experiences." Journal of Near-Death Studies, 22, 235-249.

Woerlee, G. M. (2010). "Response to `Corroboration of the dentures anecdote involving veridical perception in a near-death experience.'" Journal of Near-Death Studies, 28 (4), 181-191.

Woerlee's final reply:

Thank you for the extensive response to my criticism of your book. I find the answers interesting but revealing of the same "will to believe" as revealed in the book under discussion. Some points do require a reply.

1. The article of Smit and Rivas in the Summer 2010 edition of the JNDS was in no way an adequate reply to my analysis of the article in the same edition of the JNDS. It was extremely poorly argued, ignoring pertinent facts stated by the male nurse. They even begin by explicitly ignoring the technical medical aspects of the event as too technical. They also ignored the fact that the male nurse also stated that some people recovered consciousness during cardiac massage. I refer you to the English translation of the manuscript at the Merkawah website at: http://www.merkawah.nl/images/stories/trnursetg.pdf . Read my article carefully, as well as that of Smit and Rivas, compare it with the facts in the transcript, and you will find my article explains the facts of the case better. This was even implicitly admitted by the male nurse in his commentary, where he stated that this case taught him that an apparently unconscious person may be conscious. This is no news to anesthesiologists who always take this possibility into account.

2. As regard the Pam Reynolds case. I have an extensive web page on this matter, and have published articles in 2004 and 2005 clearly revealing her to have simply been aware during anesthesia. That other opinions persist can only be attributed to a lack of knowledge of the drugs used during general anesthesia, the effects of general anesthesia, and the manifestations of awareness during this state. For those interested, I have an extensive website devoted to matters such as the various types of awareness during general anesthesia at:
http://anesthesiaweb.org/awareness.php
This brings us to the matter of the deafening 100 dB clicking sounds. I have half finished an article on this very matter. This article uses known and proven neurophysiology to clearly demonstrate how Pam Reynolds was able to hear these sounds, music and conversations. The ideas of

3. As to the matter of OBEs, these are the subject of considerable serious neurophysiological research. THey are not due to separation of some immaterial conscious mind from the body.

4. Paranormal abilities. I clearly disposed of the reality of these phenomena in two books: "Mortal Minds" and "The Unholy Legacy of Abraham". As mentioned earlier. The roulette wheel in casinos is proof neither PK or other psi abilities exist. Casinos have data from untold billions of turns of the wheel. In Nevada, they are obliged to balance these wheels, and they do this, because they earn money from honest wheels. And their earnings are precisely what chance predicts, and the numbers of times the wheel lands on a "0" or a "00" is also what chance predict. The fact that many scientists propose an open mindedness or actual belief in PSI abilities is a manifestation of ignorance to which they are just as prone as all others. To say that most scientists who know little of how PSI is studied, believe in the reality of PSI, is much like saying 100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

5. Hypoxia is not the only cause of NDEs. In fact is is only one of them, true the most common cause, but still only one of several ultimately resulting in the diffusely defined syndrome called the NDE. If interested I have an extensive teaching page on the subjective and objective effects of hypoxia: http://anesthesiaweb.org/hypoxia.php

6. Other matters such as the study of consciousness and quantum mechanics are such lengthy and exhaustive subjects that these can be left to the judgement of future texts. But my opinions remain unchanged.

7. I will be interested in your comments on my work in the revised edition of your book. Criticism is an enjoyable tool aiding my studies, and greatly appreciated by me. It reveals weaknesses in arguments, and generates new insights. I hope you will be as pleased with my forthcoming book "Narcothymia" in which I clearly demonstrate that deathbed experiences, OBEs and NDEs are proof that consciousness and mind are products of brain function, and not properties of a separable immaterial conscious mind.

References:
Woerlee, G.M. (2004). Pam Reynolds: Ein Nahtodeserlebnis aus der Sicht eines Anästhesisten. Skeptiker, 4, 144-150.
Woerlee, G.M. (2005a). An Anaesthesiologist examines the Pam Reynolds story; Part 1: Background considerations. The Skeptic, 18, 14-17.
Woerlee, G.M. (2005b). An Anaesthesiologist Examines the Pam Reynolds Story; Part 2: The Experience. The Skeptic, 18, 16-20.