Part 1 is here. It can be assumed that of all scientific disciplines, it is philosophy that should be more interested than others in studies of the phenomenon of near-death experiences (PSP) and study them thoroughly. After all, isn't philosophy concerned with issues of higher wisdom, the meaning of life, the relationship between the body, consciousness and about God?
Near-death experiences provide data that are directly related to all of these questions. How is it possible that philosophy has contrived to collectively ignore and even ridicule these studies? To those outside of academic philosophy, it may seem incredible that the vast majority of academic philosophers are atheists and materialists. By misusing science to sustain their materialism, they systematically ignore scientific evidence that refutes their worldview.
Even more surprising is that even those philosophers who are not materialists (and their number, I think, is growing) refuse to look at this data. One might suppose that the Cartesian dualists or Platonists will eagerly seize on data that convincingly support their view that consciousness is superior to the physical world, but this is not so.
I would like to share a personal experience that sheds light on this attitude. In the late 1970s, when the first studies of the PSP were just beginning to appear, I taught a course with a priest on campus. With excitement, I shared what I learned about the PSP, believing that he would be interested in empirical data, which, at the very least, serve as strong evidence of what he believed in - the existence of a soul, an afterlife, retribution for committed sins, higher powers, and etc.
To my surprise, he was just as skeptical as my fundamentalist colleague. When I asked him why he was not interested, he replied that his beliefs in God, the afterlife, etc. are based on faith; if these things were proven empirically, then there would be no room for faith, which is the basis of his religious beliefs.
I realized that the PSP are between two fires, since they are not taken seriously by the two sciences, philosophy and theology, that should be interested in this phenomenon. Once theology and religion open the door to empirical data, there is a danger that these data may conflict with some aspects of faith. Indeed, it happened so.
The PSP data, for example, say that God is not vengeful, he does not punish or condemn us, and does not get angry with us for our “sins”; Of course, there is condemnation, but, in this all stories about the PSP agree, this condemnation comes from the individual himself, and not from a Divine being.
It seems that all that God can give us is unconditional love. But the concept of an all-loving, non-punishing God is contrary to the teachings of many religions, so it's no surprise that religious fundamentalists don't feel comfortable.
Promotional video:
Strange allies
Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that both atheist and believer, from fundamentalist to fundamentalist, have something in common. Indeed, from an epistemological point of view, this common is much more important than where their views differ. They agree on the following: beliefs related to the possible existence of a transcendental reality - God, soul, afterlife, etc. - are based on faith, not facts. If so, then there can be no factual evidence to support these beliefs.
The belief that belief in a transcendental reality cannot be empirically validated is so deeply ingrained in our culture that it is taboo. This taboo is very democratic because it allows everyone to believe what they want to believe. This allows the fundamentalist to feel comfortable, convinced that the mind is on his side, that there is no afterlife, and those who think differently have fallen victim to irrational forces, taking wishful thinking. But it also allows the fundamentalist to feel comfortable believing that God is on his side, and those who think differently have fallen victim to the forces of evil and the Devil.
Thus, while the fundamentalist and the fundamentalist take extreme opposing positions on attitudes towards the afterlife, these extreme positions unite them as "strange allies" in the struggle against the factual evidence of the afterlife that empirical research may find. The very suggestion that empirical research can support beliefs in transcendental reality contradicts this taboo and threatens many elements of our culture.
Meaning of life
The study of the PSP led to the following unequivocal conclusion: those who experienced the PSP confirm the basic values common to most world religions. They agree that the purpose of life is knowledge and love. A study of the transformative impact of the PSP shows that cultural values such as wealth, status, material, etc., become much less significant, and more important are eternal values such as love, concern for others and the divine.
That is, the study showed that the survivors of the PSP not only verbally proclaim the values of love and knowledge, but also try to act in accordance with these values, if not completely, then at least to a greater extent than before the PSP.
As long as religious values are presented as mere religious values, it is not difficult for mainstream culture to ignore them or mention them in passing during Sunday morning sermons. But if the same values are presented as empirically proven scientific facts, then everything will change. If belief in an afterlife is accepted not on the basis of faith or speculative theology, but as a confirmed scientific hypothesis, then our culture cannot ignore it. In fact, this will mean the end of our culture in its present form.
Consider the following scenario: further study of the PSP confirms in detail what has already been found; even more cases of confirmed valid "out of body" experiences are collected and documented; advanced medical technology makes possible even more cases like the “smoking gun” described above; the study of those who experienced PSP confirms the already noted change in their behavior associated with newly acquired (or recently strengthened) spiritual values, etc. Research has been replicated across cultures with the same results.
Finally, the weight of the evidence begins to show, and scientists are ready to announce to the world, if not as a fact, then at least as a sufficiently confirmed scientific hypothesis:
(1) There is an afterlife.
(2) Our true identity is not our body, but our mind or consciousness.
(3) Although the details of the afterlife are unknown, we are sure that everyone will face a re-examination of their life, during which they will experience not only every event and every emotion, but also the consequences of their behavior, positive or negative. The usual defense mechanisms by which we hide from ourselves our sometimes cruel and unmerciful attitudes towards others do not seem to work during life redefinition.
(4) The meaning of life is love and knowledge, to learn as much as possible about this world and about the transcendental world and increase our ability to feel kindness and mercy towards all living beings.
(5) Harming others, both physically and psychologically, will be a big nuisance for us, since any pain that we have done to others will be experienced during the review as our own.
This scenario is by no means far-fetched. I believe there is sufficient evidence to make the above statements "likely" and "more likely than not." Further research will only increase this likelihood.
When this happens, the effect will be revolutionary. When science announces these discoveries, it will no longer be possible to do business as before. It would be interesting to speculate on what an economics would look like if it tries to fit the above five empirical hypotheses, but that is beyond the scope of this article.
The discoveries of the PSP researchers will mark the beginning of the end of a culture driven by greed and ambition, which measures success in terms of material wealth, reputation, social status, etc. Consequently, modern culture has a huge interest in discouraging PSP research by ignoring, refuting, and downplaying research findings.
I'll end the article with a little story. Charles Broad, writing in the mid-20th century, was president of the British Society for Physical Research. He was the last internationally renowned philosopher to believe there was something to it. Towards the end of his life he was asked how he would feel if he found that he was still alive after the death of the physical body. He replied that he would rather be disappointed than surprised. He won't be surprised, as his research has led him to conclude that an afterlife is likely to exist. Why disappointed? His answer was disarmingly honest.
He said that he had lived a good life: he was financially secure and enjoyed the respect and admiration of his students and colleagues. But there is no guarantee that his status, reputation and security will be preserved in the afterlife. The rules by which success is measured in the afterlife can be very different from the rules by which success is measured in this life.
Indeed, PSP research suggests that Charles Broad's fears are well founded, that "success" by otherworldly standards is not measured in terms of publications, merit, or reputation, but by kindness and compassion for others.
Used with permission from the Journal of Near-Death Studies.
Neil Grossman holds a Ph. D. in history and philosophy from Indiana University and teaches at the University of Illinois, Chicago. He is interested in Spinoza, mysticism and epistemology of parapsychological research.