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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment