I’ve been running this blog for 11 years. It presents my carefully researched arguments for the truth of the historic Christian faith.
This week I reached quite a cool milestone – I published my 300th post. It’s wonderful to see how many thousands of people have visited the site over the years.
I’m thankful for the opportunity to engage with them all. Including my merry and sarcastic band of haters.
Check out the archives if you want to know more. I have plans to revamp the site to make this easier in the future.
For now – I’m looking forward to the future. I’ll be engaging with more ideas and arguments and responding to them. And my aim – is to present a careful argument for the truth of Christianity. And to respond to dumb counter arguments with gentleness and respect.
I am wondering whether David Gordon Green and Peter Sattler understood the subject matter before sitting down to write “The Exorcist: Believer.”
They clearly have a great understanding of the original William Friedkin movie. It’s referred to powerfully from their first to their final frame. They have story elements that resonate for those who remember the original. Green, who directs the picture, executes familiar moments of dread early on that were quite effective on the audience. People freaked out a few times. Green even has at least one actor from the original movie in it. This film is a well-made horror film, even though it sometimes seems a bit ponderous.
On a positive note, I appreciated some ways they raised the subject of unexpected evil and suffering. They mention these in a careful way that will relate to people. They also attempt to give a perspective on evil and suffering that (while it is inadequate – more in a moment) at least is thoughtful and seems well intentioned. This has distant echoes of William Peter Blatty, writer of 1973’s “The Exorcist” and devout Catholic. I also like the fact that Christianity is represented in this film. Now – I would argue the church is shown to be wholly inadequate, impotent, and lacking in any agency here. But at least it is there, and Christian people are active and part of the resolution to the crisis that unfolds.
There is also encouraging evidence that Green and Sattler researched demonic possession. At least one element in this story has been lifted straight from accounts I’ve read from experienced medical doctor, and psychologist Richard Gallagher.[1]
But here’s where I come to a fundamental and serious misunderstanding at the centre of “The Exorcist: Believer.”
I worry that it could potentially have dangerous implications for the audience were they to take its dumb message seriously. On the one hand, Green and Sattler want us to know that the demonic realm is a real one. Demons exist whether or not we believe in them, and they hate people. I think Green and Sattler are right to say that. But on the other hand, their stated solution to the problem of demonic possession seems to be – the love of a parent for their child. This is a big problem for me. Why?
1 – In the original movie, part of the dread and the horror related to Chris MacNeil’s powerlessness to help her daughter Regan in their shared situation. Chris loved Regan, but this made no difference to the demon, or to her daughter’s plight. A parent unable to help a suffering child is a terrible thing to see. Green and Sattler’s tale lacks this central dilemma.
2 – If demons exist (I think they do based on scripture + contemporary professional accounts) and if demons hate people (I think they do based on the same evidence) then why would they be defeated by a parent’s love for their child? Human love isn’t a weapon against the demonic. Rather, it’s one weapon the demons use against us. They hate us, and so they use everything at their disposal to make us suffer. We see this in the New Testament, in Richard Gallagher’s work, and even in Blatty’s original “The Exorcist”. Because Green and Sattler’s demon is vulnerable to human love, it is clearly the dumbest demon on the block. But I don’t think real demons are dumb. They have existed for thousands of years, and they know just were to get us and how. This movie paints a real threat as an idiot. That’s unwise.
3 – But there is worse to come. Green and Sattler have unwittingly set up possible conditions that could lead to demonic influence in gullible people’s lives. At best, that’s irresponsible. How have they done this? They’ve told us that our love for the living and the dead is powerful, and solves all problems. This would be dangerous if it led unwise audience members to attempt to contact dead loved ones who they love. Why dangerous?
The evidence would suggest that demons are real – and they don’t give a hoot what we think and feel about anyone. In the past, people turned to spiritualism and Ouija boards as a way to make contact with dead relatives. They did that because they loved these people and missed them. There was a resurgence of this practice during the First World War, and it has been on the rise again more recently. Reportedly, there’s sometimes an initial sense of connection to the deceased. Yet this is followed by destructive and harmful events in the life of the grieving and budding spiritualist. I would argue that this suggests if we go looking to speak to the dead, we will only encounter demons who pose as our loved ones, and want to mislead and harm us. Green and Sattler’s message – human love conquers all – is like sending you into battle without any defence or weapon at all. On the one hand – demons are real – on the other, we can take ’em guys! I’m wondering why they would send such unwise and mixed messages in this movie?
Finally, while I found parts of the movie’s climax touching, I also found it deeply unsatisfying. Green and Sattler want us to believe that human love conquers all, and all God can expect of us is to do our best to keep going in our lives and keep loving people. That’s all God can expect of us when it comes to us being good enough for heaven after we die. Right? Loving people is good, but the God bit here is exactly wrong.
Blatty was closer to the truth of the matter in the original “The Exorcist”. Demons want us to think we’re not good enough to receive God’s love. That’s why he said the child was possessed – to make us think we are animals. But the demon is wrong. God loves all people, we are precious, made in his image. He wants us to know him. Life is not about being good enough for God. It’s not human love that conquers all. Rather, it’s Jesus Christ’s love that defeats the power of man’s freely chosen rebellion against God. For those who decide to put their trust and belief in Christ, a future in heaven is assured. Human love is not the solution, it’s an important signpost towards the powerful love that God has for people. That’s where the true eternal hope lies. “The Exorcist: Believer” mistakes the signpost for the true thing. And it underestimates the threat of the demonic in people’s lives. I would argue – William Peter Blatty made neither of these mistakes.
“There is more than enough room in my father’s home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you…I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the father except through me.”
John 14:2, 6, NLT
“You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.”
James 2:19, NLT
[1] Richard Gallagher, Demonic Foes: My Twenty Five Years as a Psychiatrist Investigating Posessions, Diabolic Attacks, and the Paranormal, (2020).
The term Near Death Experience (NDE) was first proposed by Dr. Raymond Moody in Life After Life. It relates to an event occurring in three categories of people: first, people resuscitated after having been pronounced clinically dead, second those close to death, and third those describing what happened as they died.[1] These subjects often report similar experiences, containing some or all of the following: one hears oneself pronounced dead while simultaneously navigating a tunnel, landing outside the physical body (OOB) while remaining in one’s original physical environment. The subject observes their resuscitation from above. Other beings come to help the individual, including deceased family. A loving light is encountered, a review of life experiences, and eventually a barrier is reached. Rather than cross it, survivors decide, or are instructed to return to their physical body. On recovery, they find their ineffable experience hard to communicate.[2]
While NDEs were not well studied before Moody, they do appear in history. George Ritchie’s NDE was published in 1955,[3] Anna Atherton’s was published in 1680,[4] and around 300 BC Plato recorded a Greek soldier’s NDE in The Republic.[5]
Moody’s research was followed by Bruce Greyson who constructed a scale permitting the differentiation of true NDEs from other clinical diagnoses.[6] Michael Sabom studied seventy NDE cases, discovering autoscopic NDEs where the patient observes specific details of their resuscitation that could not have been naturally sensed by them.[7] These evidential NDEs suggest the NDE experiencer (NDEer) had an OOB where they perceived events later confirmed by third parties. Kenneth Ring studied NDEs in the blind and eighty percent reported visual impressions. Their observations were corroborated in two cases.[8]
Responding to Secular Skepticism
Michael Shermer claims all NDEs are in Moody’s category two because no physical death occurred. He opines that if a heart stops for ten minutes, this does not make one clinically dead. Successful resuscitation indicates the patient’s low-level bodily processes had not yet ceased. Consequently, the NDEer remained potentially alive even though they had flat electroencephalogram (EEG) output.[9]
I will make four responses to Shermer. First, the clinical definition of death involves absence of clinically detectable vital signs. Moody notes people in this state have been correctly declared dead for centuries, including category one NDEers.[10] The clinical death diagnosis does not preclude the possibility of resuscitation. Second, Shermer seems unwilling to allow OOB experiences. Because the mind is a product of the brain, and Shermer believes science definitively demonstrates that minds cannot exist apart from brains, OOBs are impossible.[11] Yet Moody’s evidential NDE studies support OOBs. Rather than producing mind, perhaps Shermer could consider the possibility that brains receive immaterial minds like radios receive radio waves.
Third, Shermer’s medical diagnosis seems misaligned to the reported heightening of consciousness during NDEs. Jeffrey Long observes surviving cardiac arrest patients generally experience confusion following resuscitation.[12]Shermer’s idea that brain produces mind supports this discovery; a low functioning brain would impede one’s consciousness. Yet Long also reveals a second group of cardiac NDEers who recall a heightened level of awareness during their resuscitation.[13] Shermer’s physicalism fails to account for both the second group, and the contrast between patient confusion in one group and recall of heightened awareness in another. Understanding the brain as a receiver rather than a producer may help explain this difference. Steve Miller opines we can assume an oxygen deprived brain undermines the mind’s activity. However, if the NDEer’s mind has become freed from their dysfunctional brain, this could present conditions that explain their heightened level of awareness.[14]
Fourth, Shermer’s naturalism means NDEs cannot be evidence for minds separate from brains. Yet science is not as definitive as he claims it to be on the relationship between mind and brain. Perhaps Shermer must assess all the evidence before reaching his conclusions.
Responding to Christian Skepticism
Norman Geisler rejects NDEs, observing a Biblical definition of death involves leaving the body and not returning without God’s intervention. Cases of final death include Jacob’s wife Rachel dying in childbirth,[15] and the Apostle Paul preferring to be away from his earthly body to be at home with Jesus.[16] Cases of divinely initiated return include Jesus’ raising of Lazarus,[17] and Jesus’ own resurrection.[18] Geisler opines only God can raise the dead.[19] This may be the case. Yet NDEers are resuscitated, not resurrected. Their physical body sustains life once medical intervention has restored it. Second, the possibility exists that God was involved in the resuscitation. NDEer’s commonly encounter a loving being of light. This seems somewhat consistent with Daniel’s vision of God’s blazing throne,[20] and the God who lovingly knits people together in the womb.[21]
Geisler also observes that non-Christians experience NDEs, asking why God would miraculously allow people to resume their unbelieving lives.[22] Perhaps God grants unbelievers the NDE to draw them towards himself? Jesus knew the hearts of those he spoke to; the rich young ruler loved his money,[23] and the hearts of the Pharisees were far from God.[24] It is plausible Jesus also therefore knows the state of every NDEer’s heart, recognizing the importance of a supernatural experience of his love before their ultimate demise. Moody describes changes in NDEers after their recovery; increased moral sensitivity,[25] and spiritual seeking is common.[26] These are often characteristics of those who eventually bow the knee to Christ.
Finally, because scripture teaches people only die once,[27] Geisler thinks the NDE is unbiblical.[28] Yet category one NDEs describe someone who dies but is resuscitated to live in the body a while longer. Their final death still awaits them. The NDE phenomena is therefore compatible with the Biblical observation that people only finally die once.
Importance of NDEs for Apologetics
NDEs evidentially support Jesus’ teaching that the human soul and body are distinct.[29] Gary Habermas explores this by discussing evidential NDEs that involve the patient’s unexpected conscious awareness during resuscitation, and NDEs in the blind. These NDEs contain veridical testimony pertaining to this world that remains unexplained naturalistically.[30] They therefore establish an evidential case supporting Jesus’ teaching about the nature of human beings.
[1] Raymond A. Moody, Life After Life, (London: Ebury Press, 2016), 8.
[6] Bruce Greyson, “The Near-Death Experience Scale Construction, Reliability, and Validity,” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 171, no. 6: 369 – 375.
[7] Michael B. Sabom MD, Recollections of Death, (London: Corgi Books, 1981).
[8] Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper, “Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Vision,” in Journal of Near-Death Studies, 16, no. 2, (Winter 1997): 101 – 147.
[9] Michael Shermer, Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia, (London: Robinson, 2018), 90.
[12] Jeffrey Long, “Near-Death Experiences Evidence for their Reality,” in The Science of Near-Death Experiences, ed. John C Hagan III, (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2017), 65.
[14] J Steve Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language, (Georgia: Wisdom Creek Press, 2012), 27.
[30] Gary R Habermas, “Evidential Near-Death Experiences,” in Minding the Brain: Models of the Mind, Information, and Empirical Science, eds. Angus J. Menuge, Brian R. Krouse, and Robert J. Marks, (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2023), 651 – 673, summarised.
Christianity claims to be the only, ultimately true religion. Jesus is recorded as having said:
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”[1]
The Father Jesus is talking about here is God, you can tell that from the context of these verses. So – Jesus is claiming to be the only way to get to God. If religion is defined as us getting connected with God, then that’s a pretty restrictive view of religion. Right? Jesus is saying – Christianity is the only correct one. The other religions might be helpful in various ways for people’s lives. But – in the end – they don’t get you to God like Jesus does.
“Isn’t it time to stop thinking that we are somehow the reason why this universe was made? That our culture is somehow better than other cultures? Its time to learn how the universe really is, even if that deflates our conceits, and forces us to admit we do not have all the answers. You must confront these fundamental questions.”[3]
I think we need to make several important responses to this.
Initial Response
First – I agree with their statement that it is time to learn how the universe is. It is important to follow the data where it leads. We must hold lightly to our assumptions if we are going to honestly confront fundamental questions. Because inevitably, we will not understand everything. This is absolutely a helpful approach to take. And – notice – it cuts many ways. It is a call to everyone whatever their persuasion, whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, secular humanist, or whatever.
Second – I can’t speak for other belief systems, but Christianity was not founded on the idea that Christians are better than anyone else. Jesus laid down the foundations very explicitly:
your sin has broken your relationship with God, so believe in me and my death and resurrection will count for your sinfulness and make you right again with God.[6]
Christians don’t claim they are better than others. They claim that everyone is of the utmost value, because we are made in God’s image. John Dickson notes that, while the Christian church has a chequered history living this out, history shows that these foundations were a rationale for “caring for the poor, burying the dead, starting hospitals, and even freeing slaves.”[7]
It’s interesting to note that often online, it is the internet atheist who looks down their nose at professing Christians. Christianity and Jesus as its founder has no time for this common superior thinking.
Third – the Bible does not claim the universe was created for humans. Rather, it was created because God is God – he’s creative, powerful, and he made the universe for himself.
“For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.”[8]
Deeper Response
But having said all of this – I think there is a deeper assumption being made here and it is that it is arrogant for the believer to think they have the only right religion.
Here’s two problems with that statement.
First – ideas are not arrogant. How can an idea possess an attitude all of its own? No – ideas are simply ideas. Following the evidence where it leads isn’t arrogant, it is accepting the unwavering uniqueness and exclusivity of the truth of a situation. In a murder case, there can be many suspects, but only one culprit or culprits. Truth by its very nature is exclusive. We know this. But a truth claim is not arrogance.
Do you know what is arrogant? People. People can be arrogant, because arrogance is a haughty, superior, and rude way of speaking to another person. Now – the Plumbline video voiceover is polite in its use of vocabulary, but I detect a lot of “talking down” to the religious believer in their video. It sounds from the video that the video narrator is privy to some privileged knowledge, and every religious believer on the planet is living in a version of the supposed Dark Ages. To me – that sounds very arrogant.
Second – truth claims are either true or false. Wesaw earlier that Jesus makes a truth claim, that he is the only way to God for people. That claim is either true, or its not. Maybe our culture doesn’t like the sound of this exclusive truth claim, preferring to think that everyone has a bit of the truth about God and no religion is necessarily the right or wrong one. Okay – but notice that this attitude doesn’t make Jesus’ words false. Also – it is itself an exclusive truth claim. The claim that all religions lead to God is an exclusive one, but where does the claim come from? It certainly doesn’t come from the lips of Jesus. Personally, I think we should prioritise what Jesus says on the matter and defer to that.
Also – claiming that all religions are false (as the video seems to do) is also an exclusive truth claim. It seems that on matters such as these, we cannot get away from making exclusive truth claims. And the reality is that these claims are either true or false.
Summary
Is Christianity arrogant? Not at all. It makes an exclusive truth claim like every other belief system on the planet – atheism included. Christian truth claims are not arrogant just like lawyers and scientists aren’t arrogant when they are seeking the truth about a state of affairs.
The question is – how are we going about talking to people about our truth claim? Are we acting in an arrogant way or are we valuing the people we speak to as Jesus said we must?
Objection 4 – Religion is a crutch to make people feel better
“I wonder if religions aren’t just ancient constructs … attempt[ing] to explain unexplained phenomenon. Though irrational in content, they are not irrational in their emergence. But we no longer live in the dark; science is ablaze in our world, we no longer live in the cave. We no longer require comforting stories that make us feel safe, comforted or valued. Isn’t it time our faith matches our discoveries? Our ideas, our new perspective? Greater awe in reality rather than fantasy?”[2]
1 – But’s Isn’t Atheism Also a Crutch?
I’ve always wondered why people claim that belief in God, and Christianity in particular, is some sort of emotional “crutch”? After all, crutches come in all shapes and sizes. If we define atheism as disbelief in a God (or lack of belief in a God), then can’t this also act as a crutch? If there’s no God, then I don’t have anyone who I am ultimately accountable to. I can live life as I please, and I won’t be answerable to anyone in an ultimate sense. This props up my own self reliance and belief that – my life is ultimately down to me and my choices alone.
Greg Reeves puts his finger on the main crutch of atheism when he says that if there is no God then when I die, no one is going to hold me accountable for my immoral actions.[3] I can live as I please and indulge whatever desires I happen to have. Yes – there are consequences in the here and now – but no God exists to answer to. So – who cares!
Yet perhaps, as C S Lewis said in Mere Christianity, we have a cause to feel uneasy in atheism. If objective standards of morality exist in the world, then that means there is a moral law. And there are very good reasons to understand this moral law as objective. So – there must be a moral law Giver. Don’t you think the one who sets objective moral laws that apply across every human society – might have something to say about those who break those laws? The atheist has reason to feel uneasy as he leans on the crutch atheism to justify his lifestyle.
2 – Christianity is Rarely Easy
People who decide to authentically live out their Christian beliefs rarely escape some sort of painful collision with their society. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and here’s a taste of it.
In the 3rd century AD, Perpetua became one of the first female Christian martyrs in Carthage, North Africa. Christianity was viewed with suspicion at the time as it denied the emperor’s divine character. Consequently, Christians were thrown into the arena to be torn apart by animals, or killed by the sword. Imagine a young mother who was unwilling to deny her Jesus, and so faced execution as her family begged her to recant. That’s the Perpetua story. Christianity was not easy for her.[4]
In 2019, the then British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt ordered a report on religious persecution around the world. This report found that Christian persecution in various areas around the world are at near genocide levels.
Christianity in Iraq is close to extinction. In the previous few years, Christians have been brutally killed in Iraq by Islamic State militants. The oldest Christian church in the world is in Iraq, and it is almost gone.[5] Christianity is not easy for Iraqis.
I have friends in Malawi and Mozambique in Africa today whose lives are under threat from Nigerian Islamic militants. They are not sure from day to day whether they will be safe. Its becoming less and less easy to be a Christian in some African countries.
Mao Zedong’s Chinese government are working to eradicate religious belief in China. The officially atheist nation only permits religious believers to attend nationally instituted churches which do not maintain Christian beliefs. Ironically, their attempts at stamping out Christianity has led to its growth. Estimates are that over 100 million Chinese Christians are active in the underground Chinese Christian church, and it is growing. Yet the Christians are also being persecuted. Church leaders are being taken from their families, interrogated, and jailed.[6] Christianity is not easy for the Chinese.
Clearly, Christianity is not easy for a lot of people.
3 – Christianity Removes A Person’s Autonomy
Perhaps the atheist misses this important point, but the life of the Christian is about following Christ and his will for your life. It is not about following your own autonomy. After around fifty years as a Christian, I have rarely found this to be an easy process.
I had a plan in my early twenties for what I wanted to do with my life. I was never going to give up my Christian beliefs, but I was going to invest and focus in my career. I remember where I was when I suddenly realised that I could not follow that plan, because Jesus had another plan for my life that I had to follow. And – I realised that following his plan was my only option.
I have not fully understood his plan, and so I have stumbled my way through things during my life. But I’ve always sought to follow what Jesus has been leading me to do. This has rarely been easy.
I have had to balance my working life with service in the church. This has involved many challenging roles, like taking groups of people to visit Malawi and Mozambique in Africa for periods of time and teaching there. These are not comfortable trips.
I have funded multiple theological degrees myself to better prepare myself for Christian ministry. This has cost in excess of 100 thousand pounds – and its not finished yet.
I have built and maintained relationships with people in the church over the years inspite of the difficulties that I have experienced with them. I have known various church leaders who have been quite controlling in their dealings with me. Inevitably, not everything I have followed them into has been a roaring success. The reality, is that I have only done this because I am following Jesus and want to build Jesus’ church. And I know that difficult people and challenging relationships are used by God to build my character. And people who are difficult to work with are sometimes those who are able to achieve great things. Has this been easy for me? Not at all!
4 – Whatever Christianity Is, the Reasons for Theism Must Be Considered
Finally, its actually irrelevant whether or not Christianity is viewed as a crutch or not!
If there are good reasons for becoming a Christian, as the countless persecuted Christians in the world today would attest to, then we must respond to those reasons. Maybe Christianity is a crutch to some, maybe it leads to painful hammer blows to others. It doesn’t change the fact that – the reasons for Christian belief are what must be considered.
Christian belief is rooted in historical events, not fictional claims. As I said in the previous blog in this series, the arguments for theism are incredibly robust. Christianity makes sense of the world, but it does so much more.
5 – Conclusion
C S Lewis once said –
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
I don’t think Christianity is a crutch. It is a challenging life, but it has incredibly helpful and positive aspects to it. Being a Christian is like having a light that illuminates our path forward in a dark and dangerous world.
I’ve been thinking about the claims made by the video, “Dear Believer: Why Do You Believe?”[1], which is often beautiful in its depiction of human cultures. You can watch it here – Dear Believer: Why Do You Believe? (ORIGINAL) – YouTube.
One of the points made in the video that I agree with is that religions are mutually exclusive. They teach different and incompatible doctrines, and so they cannot all be right. This is an important point that is often missed. Yet the video also proceeds to lump all religions together, stating that secular humanism is a better outlook. They don’t take religious claims on their own terms, preferring instead to reject them all.
It’s important to point out that not all religions believe there is a creator God, an author to all of time, space, reality and what they contain. Theistic religions (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are distinct from non-theistic religions (like Buddhism), and very compelling arguments for the truth of theism have been proposed down through the centuries. Philosopher Alvin Plantiga gave a talk once called “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments,” and you can find a summary of some of the work that’s been done on these arguments here. There are many good reasons to be a theist.
Having said that – lets return to the Dear Believer video, and respond to their next objection:
Objection 3 – Religious believers are atheists too when it comes to other religions. They just believe in one more god than the atheist does.
“Truth is, you already know what it’s like to be an atheist for all gods but your own. The way you view them (other people) is the same way they view you. Every devout Hindu, for example, has embraced his faith for the exact same reasons you’ve embraced yours. Yet you do not find his reasons compelling, nor do you lose sleep at night wondering whether you’ll wake up in his hell. Given this, is it so hard to see why some of us just take our atheism one God further?”[2]
In other words, every religious person is like an atheist with regards the gods taught be other religions. The atheist just goes one god further – saying there are no gods.
This was first proposed by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion book and has been picked up and used as a supposed axiom and conversation stopper by many atheists since. Perhaps these atheists don’t realise that – this claim has been clearly shown to make absolutely no sense whatsoever! It is the equivalent of saying, “the bachelor is married.” How can an unmarried man be married? That makes no sense – it’s a contradiction. So is the video’s “one god more” claim.
First – the “one god more” claim is a contradiction.
The “one god more” claim says the experience of atheism is like religious belief (“you already know what it’s like to be an atheist”). But is it right to do so?
Let’s define atheism as belief there is no god. Let’s define Christianity as the belief in the God of the Bible to the exclusion of every other God presented by other non-Biblical religions (Judaism and Christianity are on the same page till it comes to Jesus). Can you see why atheism and Christianity are not in the same category of belief? How can you liken atheism (there are no gods) and Christian belief (there is a single God)? You are trying to claim apples and oranges are the same when they aren’t. This claim makes no sense.
Second – the objection forgets that there are very good reasons to be a theist. I pointed towards some of those reasons above. There’s the argument from human reason, the moral argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and so on. If there are arguments for theism, then surely you must show how all of these theistic arguments are flawed before atheism becomes a reasonable belief. And then you’ve got to explain what kind of atheism you have adopted. There are many different kinds. The objection seems oblivious…sounding like empty rhetoric.
Third – the “one god more” claim is like an acid that eats away at many important human disciplines beyond religion. Andy Bannister observes that the argument just goes too far. In any situation where we have a number of possible options, and we decide to choose X exclusively over Y or Z, the “one god more” skeptic could say “no – we must reject X, Y, and Z.” This would be devastating to the legal system, where evidence is sifted to arrive at a single judgement and just conviction of the guilty person. It would also devastate science, where evidence is assessed, and multiple models are suggested to explain the data. Eventually one scientific model becomes the winner, leaving failed hypotheses by the wayside. But not if the “one theory more” skeptic had his way![3] Nope – all options must be rejected.
Fourth – the “one god more” argument acts like an acid because it assumes all possibilities in religious terms are equally likely. It doesn’t care about the evidence at all. It has decided all options are as unlikely as each other, and so it rejects all of them without assessing the arguments for each. Can you see why that would be a devastating approach to take in the other disciplines I mentioned? If the argument doesn’t work in law or science, why should it be used in religious belief?
Fifth – the “one god more” argument makes a category mistake when it says, “Believers are atheists with regard Zeus, Thor, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.”
When you include God in a list like that, you are trying to make out that God is like an entity inside the universe. Yet the Christian view of God is not like that at all.
Imagine if I tried to claim J. R. R. Tolkien was in the same category as the Hobbits Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin? You would probably laugh, saying “You’re crazy. Tolkien is the author, and these Hobbits are his characters.” Exactly! That’s why the “one god more” argument makes a category mistake.
God is not like the entities we find in our universe. Rather, “all things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite well-spring of all that is, in whom … all things live and move and have their being.”[4]
Summary:
The problem with the “one god more” argument is that it is contradictory and makes God out to be something he’s not. Further, it is very uncritical. It doesn’t care to look at the evidence for a claim, rather it just assumes all options are equally unlikely, and so decides to reject them all. This is a bad way to reason about everything in life. It is just a silly argument.
Also – consider this.
I engage with a lot of people who spend time arguing against the existence of God. I wonder whether they realise that when they do this, they tacitly admit that God exists.
To write books, tweets, blogs, or blog comments arguing against Christianity (for example) is to admit truth is important. If truth isn’t important, why does it matter what anyone believes?
Consequently, pursuing knowledge is a virtuous thing to do. It is beneficial to pursue a hard truth over a comfortable lie (as Carl Sagan said).
It is right to claim that justice matters, and morally bankrupt belief systems must be rejected on moral grounds.
Yet truth, the pursuit of knowledge, the existence of ultimate values like morality and justice cannot be grounded in atheism. They can only be grounded in a transcendent, personal God. They reflect his character, and they are therefore reflected in the universe he has created. A truly consistent atheist position would be to say:
nothing means anything because there is no ultimate meaning in the universe. So, it doesn’t matter what anyone believes and life is absurd. So my absurd beliefs can coexist with the Christian’s absurd beliefs. It doesn’t matter.
How interesting that – by seeking the truth of God’s supposed non-existence, the atheist often plays by God’s own rules![5]
In the next blog, I’ll address the next objection – “Religion is a crutch to make people feel better.”
How does one know their exclusive belief claims are true? “Dear Believer: Why Do You Believe?”[1], is made by Plumbline Pictures and it poses this question. You can watch it here – Dear Believer: Why Do You Believe? (ORIGINAL) – YouTube.
It vividly portrays various religious beliefs and contrasts them with a narration that is grounded in secular humanism. It attempts to force us to confront the claimed irrationality of our religious beliefs. They quote Mark Twain, who apparently said, “the easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”[2]
So – how compelling is the secular humanist argument against “religion” in this video? More importantly, how effective is it in challenging the exclusive truth claims made by Christianity?
In the previous post, we responded to their claim that religious belief is accidental based on our place of birth, and so therefore has no truth content. This post moves on to objection two:
Objection 2 – All religious devotees think their beliefs are the only correct ones. What are the odds that you, dear believer, are correct and everyone else is wrong?
“There are 2 dozen major religions … [and] more than 45,000 denominations of Christianity alone, each claiming to understand ultimate truth better than the rest. Each member of every faith is just as devoted and sincere and convicted as you. Did you know they also read infallible texts, have airtight apologetics, have experienced miracles…? Yet since every religion is mutually exclusive, they cannot all be right, right? If every member of every faith feels just as you do, what are the odds you are right?”[3]
I think the narrator is right when claiming the major religions are mutually exclusive. This is correct. They all have different beliefs around whether there is a God, who God is and what his nature and character is, the role of human effort in one’s religious observance, etc. He is also right to point out the sincerity of religious belief amongst the believers of different religions.
However – there are also some very major problems with the rest of this argument.
First – the veracity of religious belief is not determined by the number of people who hold to this belief.
Just because there are many people with religious beliefs that contradict Christianity, this does not mean that Christian belief is rendered false. Greg Reeves describes this idea as the “popularity contest” view of religion.[4] If the narrator is saying that the most popular belief system with the highest number of adherents is the correct one, then he has missed the point of religious belief in general and Christianity in particular.
Think of this another way. The sincerity of one’s religious belief has nothing to do with the truthfulness of that belief. I can honestly and sincerely believe that I will receive a Bugatti Chiron sports car for Christmas. The ultimate correctness of that belief is a different thing compared to the sincerity of my belief. Sincerity and truthfulness are two different things. And – as I already said – religion is not a popularity contest where someone’s belief must necessarily be false if someone else believes something different. Not at all.
Second – the narrator’s claim actually turns out to be self-refuting.
The religious popularity contest idea is a big problem for atheism. Now – atheists are sincere people. I know many sincere atheists. And I know any sincere religious believers as well. But studies consistently show that atheism is a much rarer belief system amongst human beings than religious belief is. Or, if you like, atheism is much LESS popular than Christianity.
In a recent Pew Research study, the largest single religious group was found to be the Christian group, measured at 31.2% of the world’s population. Muslims are measured at 24.1%, yet their group is also the fastest growing religion in the world today. Hindus, Buddhists and the others make up 28.7%. The unaffiliated are measured at only 16% and growing much more slowly than most other religious groups. Only a percentage of that unaffiliated group will qualify as atheists.[5]
This data is fascinating, and it reflects badly for atheism on the “belief as a popularity contest” idea. Atheists accounts for a very small percentage of the world’s population. If belief is a popularity contest, the atheist should trade up for Christianity, a much more popular belief system!
What the atheist will usually tell you is that – it is the content of atheistic belief that matters, not the size of their group. Well – its no surprise that the Christian understanding is the same. In other words, the size of the group, and even the rate of growth, are not actually related to the truthfulness of anyone’s belief. That this video claims it is, is simply incorrect, and misrepresents atheists as well as religious believers.
There’s also a complaint being made by the secular humanist narrator in this video. He laments, there are so many religions out there, there are too many to pick the correct one. I’m much more likely based on the odds to pick the WRONG one, he claims! Well – if you are playing a game of “pin the tail on the donkey”, shutting your eyes, and picking a religion at random, then yes. That’s right. But I know no one who actually does this. This suggestion is absurd. I think that on the whole people think deeply about spiritual matters, atheists and religious devotees alike. There’s no random choice being made here. I think the narrator’s complaint turns out to be rhetoric that is pretty dismissive of the very atheistic belief system that is being espoused by the video.
Rather than complaining about the number of religions in the world, what the atheist must do according to Reeves is to marshal evidence and show that atheism is a better choice. Please convince me that atheism does a better job of explaining the world than Christianity does.[6]
Third – this objection actually contradicts with other claims made in the same video.
Think about the first objection I identified in the video. Previously, we noted that the narrator complained that religious belief was linked to one’s place of birth, and this makes religious belief to be accidental and of no real value. But if the narrator is correct that religion is a popularity contest, as this second objection supposes, then you would expect religious beliefs to be passed on to your descendants, and so you would expect to find religious belief to be linked to your birth place. In other words, objection 1 objects to the very grounds being assumed by the narrator in objection 2! Are you confused yet? This is very bad reasoning on the part of the secular humanist narrator.
Further, towards the end of the video, we hear that the correct way to form beliefs is through logical deduction and reasoning and scientific methods and testing of hypotheses. So – belief systems are not the popularity contest assumed by the narrator in this objection after all. And these objections are turning out to be contradictory – this points to poor quality arguments.
Fourth – the claims made by the narrator are inconsistent in various ways.
First – he claims all belief systems have airtight apologetics. But this statement makes no sense. All belief systems cannot all have airtight apologetics. Only the one single correct belief system can have this. The others will lack the strong and reasoned arguments that the airtight belief system has. Having studied various world religions including Christianity, I think Christianity has the best reasoned defence compared to all the others.
Second – he talks about all belief systems having infallible texts. Well – does atheism have infallible texts? That seems highly unlikely to me. All religions may claim to have infallible texts. The challenge is for the adherent to that religion to present well reasoned arguments that support this claim. I think the notion of an “infallible text” assumes that one of the religions is correct above all the others.
Summary
This objection turns out to misunderstand the nature of belief, and the measure of a belief’s truthfulness. Sincerity and believer group size are irrelevant to truthfulness. It also suggests people choose a random approach when coming to a set of worldview beliefs. This is an unreasonable – and unkind – view of people that should be strongly. challenged.
Next time, we will turn to the third objection. Christians are atheists too, just for one more god than the atheist.
The vibrancy and colours we are shown are mesmerizing, and the differences between the people and their religious practices are striking. It is also interesting that, while visually showing evidence of many different worldviews, the audio voiceover comes from yet another different worldview. You could describe the narrator’s worldview as – secular humanist.
This secular humanist voice assures us that the world religions are many and varied and all teach something different. We must abandon these superstitions; we must grow up, and learn how the world truly is so we can move forward in a positive direction. As Carl Sagan said, it is “far better to embrace a hard truth, than a reassuring fable.”[2]
So – how compelling is the secular humanist argument against “religion” in this video? More importantly, how effective is it in challenging the exclusive truth claims made by Christianity?
I can see six important arguments in this video, and I intend to respond to them one at a time. I think these are important arguments to address because they are very common today. And – judging by the comments section under the video – they resonate strongly with many people.
Here are the arguments:
You’re only a religious devotee / believer because you were born into it.
Objection 1 – You’re only a religious devotee / believer because you were born into it.
“Aren’t you suspicious that most people adopt the religion of the society in which they were born? Yet remain convinced they’ve found the one true faith? Did you know that most people choose it not for reasons, but because they were born into it? Can it be just an accident of geography?”[3]
I think the narrator is telling us that religious belief is accidental, it occurs because of events outside of a person’s control. We don’t control where we were born – right? If I was born in the US or Europe, I might become a Christian. If I was born in Saudi Arabia, I might be a Muslim. And so on.
In other words – he is saying the religious believer has no reasons for their belief.
Well – I would ask the narrator, how does he know that? Has he asked the people that are shown in the video if they have rational reasons for adopting their religious outlook? Given the lack of evidence for this discussion in the video, I suspect not. And so, this argument that “belief is always accidental” starts to look rather suspect.
Actually – this argument is deeply fallacious. It lacks the logical grounding required of every good and sound argument. I can see two fallacies here and there may be more.
First – this argument is self-refuting.
The claim is that since the believer’s religious outlook is a result of cultural conditioning, the religious beliefs themselves cannot therefore be true.
Can’t the same observation be made of any sort of secular humanist or non-believer? Perhaps you are an atheist because your parents were atheists. They did not go to church or introduce you to spiritual things. So – your atheism is a cultural thing. If that is the case, then by the video’s logic, there are therefore NO good reasons for your atheism.
The atheist might respond, “not at all. I’m an atheist based on evidence and good reasons.” Well, if that sort of evidenced belief is possible for you, then why is it impossible for the religious believer to have an evidence-based belief too?
Think of it this way – why must it be the case that only Christianity is cultural, and not atheism? This idea is clearly false.
The video says that, because a person’s beliefs are culturally conditioned, that the beliefs themselves cannot therefore be true. This applies equally to atheism, and so the argument is self-refuting.
Second – this argument commits the genetic fallacy.
Because the religious devotee was born into a belief system, that system is necessarily false. So, because the narrator finds the origin of one’s religious belief to be suspect, that belief cannot be true. This is a clear example of the genetic fallacy.
Genetic Fallacy – the alleged mistake of arguing that something is to be rejected because of its suspicious origins. More widely, any mistake of inferring something about the nature of some topic from a proposition about its origins.[4]
Why is this argument fallacious? Because it claims that just because a belief stems from one’s upbringing, this belief must be false. But that claim is simply false. Greg Reeves points out that someone’s religious belief MIGHT turn out to be untrue. But you would need to bring a valid argument to bear on that religious belief to ascertain that fact, not a fallacious argument like this one.[5]
This argument is weak because it seeks to discredit belief based on its source rather than evaluating that belief based on its merits. If there were no grounds for belief apart from the belief of your parents, then this argument would have strength to it. But that is absolutely not the case. There are many reasons that support Christian belief. It would be absurd for me to claim that I was a Christian simply because my parents were. Rather – I must explain why I have chosen to become and remain a Christian believer by giving reasons for my beliefs. This is what this blog site does.
Third – this argument backfires
It is increasingly the case that Christian belief has little to do with the culture that one is born into, because becoming a Christian involves the rejection of one’s parent’s beliefs. Christianity is growing in Africa, Asia and South America because believers are rejecting the traditional beliefs of their parents. Atheism, on the other hand, is growing in more wealthy nations.[6]
Perhaps it is atheism that is the true accident of birth right now. When one is born into a secular humanist society, atheism may turn out to be the default worldview. Maybe the atheist has their beliefs only because they were born into it?
For those who state that “atheism is not a belief,” then I would reply, “Really? I thought you believed it?”
In the next instalment, I’ll respond to objection 2 – every religious believer thinks they are in the only correct one, so what is the likelihood they are right?
So far in this series I have explored some interesting evidence from Near Death Experiences (NDEs) that seem to suggest we go on – we do not cease to exist. I have argued a naturalistic dying brain theory fails to account for the OBE element of NDEs. Yet those who experience NDEs (NDErs) are most struck by their visit with beings in an unearthly world. Following her NDE, Mary Neale wrote a creed reminding her of what she learned; the truth of God’s promises in scripture, heaven exists, God is loving, daily divine support, and God’s purposes for her life.[1] I think the response of NDErs like Mary suggest NDEs complement the teaching of the Bible in three ways.
1) NDEs Do Not Supersede Scripture and the Christian Gospel, they Apply It
First, NDErs almost always experience a being of brilliant light in an otherworldly place who communicates overwhelming love and acceptance to them. This reminds me of Daniel’s vision of God. “His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him.”[2] Yet as the Psalmist reminds us, he also cares deeply for us because He, “created [our] inmost being … knit [us] together in [our] mother’s womb.”[3] God loves us. The scripture says, seek him and you will find him.[4]
The Christian NDE critic (NDEc) may object to NDErs claims of overflowing love and acceptance. Perhaps it sounds to the NDEc like universalism, the heretical idea that the Atonement is unlimited, applies to all people, and that all men will eventually be reconciled to God.[5] I think this worry is unwarranted. First, because Jesus exhibited deep love in his life; he said, “as I have loved you, so you must love one another,”[6] and Paul taught faith, hope, and love are vital for the Christian, but “the greatest of these is love.”[7] Perhaps the NDE experience is a divine gift to let some people experience the Bible’s idea of this love. Second, the love experienced by NDErs does not supersede the Christian gospel, it seems to illustrate it. Some NDErs like Ian McCormack find themselves in distressing darkness during the NDE and explicitly call to Jesus to save them. Ian describes being drawn out of darkness by the brilliant, loving light.[8] This aligns with the New Testament claim Jesus is the light of the world whose followers will not stay in darkness.[9] It is also illustrative that Jesus came to seek and save the lost.[10] Third, this love is reminiscent of the biblical God because, as J. P. Moreland observes, it challenges human cultural assumptions of highest goods being success, ancestor worship, honour or purity.[11] Rather, the Bible teaches love for God and people is the highest good.
But who or what does the mystical loving light represent? If it really is the God of the Bible, wouldn’t God reveal himself rather than leaving his identity vague and open to interpretation? On the contrary, scripture often reports times when God intervenes in human affairs while leaving his identity ambiguous. God’s angels visit Lot in Sodom but hide their identity,[12] Joshua encounters the mysterious commander of God’s army,[13] and Jesus comes to Israel as the divine Messiah yet many fail to recognise him.[14] An unidentified being of light is not at odds with God’s behaviour in scripture. Rather, it is consistent with it.
2) NDEs Seem Consistent With the God of Scripture Who Knows What I Need
The second alignment of NDEs with scripture comes in the apparently tailored nature of NDE experiences, designed to draw the NDErs toward God. Scripture shows this is the way Jesus engaged with friends and critics. For example, when the rich man asks Jesus how to inherit eternal life, the text says Jesus loved him and sensed a love for his wealth, so he challenged him to give it away and live a life loving and honouring God instead.[15] Likewise, in his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus saw through their piety observing they honoured God with their lips, yet their hearts were far from him.[16] NDEs seem consistent with God knowing our hearts, engaging with us in the way that will draw us towards himself.
The NDEc might object to the extra-biblical nature of these NDE experiences. Why should only some people have a special divine encounter prior to their ultimate death? Scripture seems to say it is better not to have this, because “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”[17] Yet there is nothing in these words precluding a pre-mortem encounter with God. The apostle Paul may have had one of these experiences himself.[18] Surely if God opts to allow such a thing, he is free to do so. The NDEc may also object that Hebrews says we all die once, and then face the judgement.[19] Yet NDErs have not actually died yet, though they were close to their ultimate death. Consequently, because the NDErs remained alive, their NDE experience does not contradict the teaching of Hebrews.
3) NDErs Return With a Biblical Sense of God’s Purpose for People
The third alignment of scripture with NDErs experience is found in the sense of God’s plan for them involving hope, purpose, and beauty.[20] Scripture says our days are ordained by God before our birth,[21] and our lives matter because God has placed eternity in our hearts.[22] Further, God has a plan for us to, “do good works, which [He] prepared in advance for us to do.”[23] The NDErs returning sense of divine purpose seems aligned with God’s promises. Yet scripture also teaches the gospel message, God’s plan to save humanity. Do NDErs return with a new appreciation of this? Ian McCormack reportedly did, being instructed by God to “see things in a new light.”[24] A specially arranged, direct encounter with the loving God, and a sense of God’s purpose in one’s life, has transformed NDErs like McCormack to love people and seek to serve them. The gospel is about God welcoming us home. NDErs who experience this “being of light describe a love … [running] towards them [to] embrace them, value them … simply want[ing] them home.”[25] Perhaps NDErs experience the gospel more vividly than most. Further, the minority of hellish NDE experiences reported in Long’s study suggests while God wants no one to be lost, the possibility remains that those rejecting God’s love will spend their afterlife separated from God. NDEs therefore remain consistent with scripture’s teaching.
Conclusion
In this series, we have found that:
we found here and here that dying brain hypotheses do not account for the NDErs evidence
NDEs seem to be somewhat objective because sometimes they are shared by the living
Neuroscience gives reason to think that the human mind is only correlated to the brain, and can function when the brain is virtually absent, so its no great leap to suppose mind can exist apart from brain
Further – NDEs are consistent with the Bible’s teaching. We haven’t had time to discuss the fact that those of other religious traditions return from an NDE with their interpretation of a solidly Christian picture of the afterlife, rather than any other religious outlook.[26]
NDEs are common, and as we assess an NDErs account, we must remain open to the possibility that they have engaged in a supernatural circumstance which complements the Bible’s teaching. Taking this willing perspective on NDEs may encourage Christian believers in their hope of heaven, and it may challenge unbelievers to finally choose to believe in Jesus and so orient themselves toward an eternity with Him.
[1] Mary Neale, “Seven Lessons from Heaven,” quoted in Moreland, 214.
[11] J. P. Moreland, A Simple Guide to Experience Miracles Instruction and Inspiration for Living Supernaturally in Christ, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2021), 217.
We’ve been talking in this series about the evidence for Near Death Experiences (NDEs). This evidence suggests people have retained vivid conscious awareness following clinical death, and they have gone to another place.
For biological naturalists, this is a hard claim to take seriously. The naturalist will typically assert that we are our brains. “Conscious states are entirely caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain.”[1] Our minds are an emergent property that comes from the physical stuff of the brain, and so when the brain ceases functioning, we cease to exist.
This view of the brain is very common. But that does not mean it is correct. Many people can believe something that later turned out to be false. Right? For centuries, people thought life emerged spontaneously; dust created fleas, rotting meat made maggots, and wheat in a dark place led to mice. It took scientists like Louis Pasteur to show that spontaneous generation was a commonly held, but false belief. Is it possible that the naturalist belief that we are our brains is a contemporary common, false belief also?
The evidence from NDEs argues against the naturalist understanding of mind and brain. If I go somewhere else after death, I cannot be my brain, because my brain has ceased to function. In fact – if my mind is non-physical but related to my brain, and if my mind can exist without my brain, then the claims of NDEs are probably what we would expect. And in this blog series, we have looked at just a few examples from the volumes of NDE accounts that exist.
But how would we be able to tell if our minds were separate from our brains? In our normal experience, don’t we engage with conscious beings who have brains?
Yes – of course. But even if I have only engaged with conscious beings with brains, that does not mean consciousness is GENERATED BY those people’s brains. It could also be that their conscious mind is simply closely CORRELATED TO their brain at this time. Further, there are medical cases of Hydrocephalus and Hydranencephaly that may suggest people do engage with conscious human subjects who have severely degraded, and even absent brain hemispheres. This supports the idea that mind is not created by brain, rather it is correlated to it.
Evidence from Hydrocephalus
Doctors have encountered instances where conscious people lack a normal, functioning brain. Hydrocephalus is a condition where fluid builds up in the skull and puts pressure on the brain tissue, causing damage to it and hindering personal development. In half of the most severe cases, the patient was mentally challenged. Michael Jones notes this is what we would expect if biological naturalism was right and – we are our brains. However, the other 50% of the severest cases of Hydrocephalus had IQs over 100 and functioned properly.[2]
Brain Scan Showing Hydrocephalus
Neurologist John Lorber has studied hundreds of cases of Hydrocephalus. In one case, he talks about a university student with an IQ of 126, a first-class honours degree in mathematics, and an active social life. Yet he had virtually no brain, just a thin layer of mantle a millimetre or so thick. His skull was mainly filled with cerebrospinal fluid.[3] Early onset Hydrocephalus in children has also been studied and it does not lead to degraded development in every case because some patients develop above average intelligence despite drastically reduced brain mantle volume.[4] Lorber has systematically studied a remarkable set of accounts that litter the medical literature and go back a long way.[5] Jones observes that these cases are anomalies if materialist views of the brain are true. Yet if it is right that consciousness is only correlated to the brain, they would be somewhat expected.[6]
Evidence from Hydranencephaly
Hydranencephaly as an even more severe condition involving cases where brain hemispheres do not develop at all and are absent. These patients are assumed to exist in a vegetative state because they lack the brain areas that supposedly produce consciousness.
Brain Scan Showing Hydranencephaly
Yet studies have been done on children suffering from Hydranencephaly who exhibit traits of consciousness. In some cases, they express themselves, display evidence of the experience of feelings like pleasure and joy, and they smile and laugh.[7] They are awake and responsive, can distinguish voices, and do not appear in a vegetative state. The British Medical Journal observes Hydranencephaly usually presents with severely delayed milestones during early childhood.[8] What is fascinating however is that development is delayed, not precluded due to a lack of evident brain hemispheres. Children without brains are slower to develop, but they do develop. One boy lived for many years and was able to interact with his family and his environment even though medically speaking there was no brain present in his skull.[9] Again, this situation is anomalous if the brain generates the mind. But if mind and brain are merely correlated, we would probably expect cases like this to sometimes occur.
Conclusion
This blog series has assessed some of the evidence for NDE’s which suggest that people have left their bodies at certain times, often close to or in a state of flat line clinical death, before returning from that state afterwards. Skeptics will argue that because the human mind and the brain are essentially the same thing, this clearly is a physical phenomenon, the dying brain. Yet we have seen why that conclusion does not satisfy the available evidence.
In this blog, we have summarised medical cases of Hydrocephalus and Hydranencephaly that suggest that human consciousness is not necessarily dependent on a complete brain anyway. If we are resistant to NDEs because of a biological naturalist view of personhood and the brain, I would suggest in the light of these cases, we need to rethink our position. If people can be conscious without a complete brain, then surely it is at least possible that human consciousness can go on once the physical body has died.
What about the theological implications of this? Are NDE claims at odds with the Bible’s teaching about life after death? Do they sound more mystical than Christian? We will pick up that important subject in the next instalment.
[1] John R. Searle, Mind A Brief Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 79.
[3] Lewin, R, “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?” Science, vol. 210, no. 4475, 19080, pp. 1232-1234.
[4] Berker, D. E., Goldstein, D. G., Larber, J. Priestly, D. B. and Smith, D. A. (1992), “Reciprocal neurological developments of twins discordant for hydrocephalus,” Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 34: 623-632, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1992.tb11493x
RESPOND 