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.
Are you interested in what happens to us after our bodies die? If so, then this book is a great resource.
We’re going to bring many assumptions to this subject. Maybe we are involved with one of the world’s religions, or perhaps our background is completely secular. I think this book will be relevant for everyone, whichever worldview we are personally starting from. (1)
We’re all coming with different assumptions, yet we’re all going to die one day. So, it is very helpful to read Miller’s careful assessment of the data gathered from people in two main groups. First, those who have not yet reached their final death, but apparently have had a sneak peek into what comes next (NDE). Second, those who had surprising encounters as their final death approached them (DBE). Various professional studies have been done on these phenomena. In this book, Dr Miller focuses on the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) database and assesses the experiences recorded there. He balances the data entered by medical professionals with reports from the general public, and assesses both in an even handed way.
Dr Miller has two strengths that he brings to this book. First, his rigorous and curious approach to the world. He’s not trying to confirm what he thinks he already knows. He’s genuinely looking at all the data he can find that seems to relate to what happens for ordinary people as they approach death. Second, he is incredibly generous in his scholarship. I can see that generosity in the extensive reference list he provides. But I can also see it in the way he forms his arguments. His rigor is matched by kindness, tentativeness, and accessibility. It’s a joy to read, and I never felt railroaded as I assessed his arguments in the book. But I did leave wanting to know more.
He covers a lot of ground, and so inevitably, Dr Miller cannot go into depth on every area he explores. For example, his treatment of the problem of evil in chapter 17 is very brief indeed. There is much more that can be said here, and some readers may feel their own issues with evil and suffering are not addressed. Yet perhaps a comprehensive treatment of this area is not really Miller’s goal. There are other resources that he points to that do that job. I think in this book, he helpfully faces the common complaint that life sometimes just does not make sense to us. He illustrates this problem by referring to the death of his first wife when she was very young. He then sketches out an argument to suggest that NDE’s point to a divine love and justice that will only be fully known and understood by us after our final death. I think this is helpful in two ways. Dr Miller might be breaking some new ground with this argument, and he is also laying helpful groundwork for future scholars to run with. Generosity again.
Are you skeptical about NDEs and DBEs based on your religious or secular commitments? Why not read Dr Miller’s book, and then come to your own opinion based on both the data and the inferences that he draws from it.
Consciousness is hard to understand. I’m conscious as I write this, and you are conscious as you read. But it is very hard for scientists to understand just what our “consciousness” amounts to. The resources in philosophy help. Some philosophers only allow an explanation of consciousness to be formed in materialistic and reductionist terms. For example, Daniel Dennett thinks that consciousness is matter.[1] Others think that brain matter itself, while correlating with our experience of consciousness, cannot be the cause of conscious experience. In other words, we are not our brains. Rather, we have brains.
A theory is emerging called the non-locality of consciousness. It comes from the field of Quantum Physics, and the observed phenomenon of quantum entanglement (QE). QE describes the behaviour of two sub-atomic particles that once entangled, remain mysteriously connected over long distances with no apparent physical connection existing between them. Pim van Lommel, cardiologist and Near-Death Experience (NDE) researcher for over 30 years describes a theory of nonlocal consciousness:
Our endless or nonlocal consciousness with declarative memories finds its origin and is stored in a nonlocal realm as wave-fields of information, and the brain only serves as a relay station for parts of these wave-fields of consciousness to be received into or as our waking consciousness. The function of the brain … [is as a] transceiver.[2]
In this blog, I want to give three examples of phenomena that seem to support the hypothesis of nonlocality of consciousness. All three relate to the practice of medicine:
1 – neuroplasticity
2 – terminal lucidity
3 – consciousness during a period of brain malfunction
1 – Neuroplasticity
Mindfulness studies show the ability of the human mind to shape the physical composition of the brain. Van Lommel observes that both neural networks and electromagnetic activity are shaped by one’s mind. He asks, how can we explain this scientifically if the conscious mind is merely a side-effect of a functioning brain, or if consciousness is just an illusion?[3]
He cites an example of a three-year-old girl whose left-brain hemisphere was removed surgically to alleviate symptoms of epilepsy. This procedure would be disastrous on adults. However, young children appear to have a high degree of adaptability, or plasticity, in their brain function. The number and location of neuron connections is highly adaptable. A year after her operation, she showed virtually no symptoms and could see and think clearly. She proceeded to develop normally, did better at school than others with a whole brain, even though she only physically possessed half a brain.[4]
Clearly, for this outcome to have been achieved, the girl must have been able to form new neural connections that allowed all function to be taken over by the remaining half of the brain. She re-programmed her brain because she had the conscious will, and the ability to do so. Her conscious mind changed the construction of her brain.
For this to be possible, that means brain and mind cannot be the same thing, though they are closely related things. If the mind is the product of the brain, we would expect her mind to suffer the massive loss of brain matter. Yet this was evidently not the case over the long term. She was able to overcome the loss of brain tissue and carry on after a period of recovery. If the mind is an illusion, we would not expect it to have the ability to rewire the functioning of the brain. And yet this is evidently what it did.
2. Terminal Lucidity
Sometimes, in the last week or day of a terminal patient’s life, they regain capabilities that are not easily explainable by normal neurological processes. David was dying of lung cancer. His head was stuffed full of tumors, and on his final scan, he had virtually no brain tissue left. All he had were haphazardly growing grey masses. He was non-responsive, his body kept alive on machines.
On his final evening, the consultant checked on him and noticed his breathing indicated that death was imminent. He did not expect David to survive the night. The next morning, the room had been cleaned, and the bed made up following David’s death. However – the nurse that had cared for David as he died stopped the doctor in the corridor to talk.
He woke up, you know, doctor – just after you left – and said goodbye to them all. Like I’m talkin’ to you right here. Like a miracle. He talked to them and patted them and smiled for about five minutes. Then he went out again, and he passed in the hour.[5]
This was a wonderful opportunity for David’s heartbroken family to say goodbye. But notice this. It couldn’t have been David’s brain that woke him up. He didn’t have any brain tissue, only metastases. This strongly suggests that David’s mind was able to push through the physical impairment for a short time prior to death. This is hard to explain on a materialistic understanding of brain but makes sense on the non-locality of consciousness hypothesis.
3 – Conscious During Brain Malfunction
On patients under general anaesthetic, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and registration of electrical activity of the brain (EEG) show functional loss of all major brain tissue. Connections are temporary severed while under anaesthetic, making information flow between neural centres impossible. In this state, conscious experiences should not be possible on a materialistic understanding of consciousness (where mind = brain). Van Lommel gives the following report from an anaesthetised patient that challenges materialism:
I suddenly became aware of hovering over the foot of the operating table and watching the activity…soon it dawned on me that this was my own body. So I … heard everything that was said: ‘Hurry up, you bloody bastard,’ was one thing I remember them shouting … I could also read the minds of everybody in the room…I later learned … it took four and a half minutes to get my heart … going again. As a rule, oxygen deprivation causes brain damage after three or three and a half minutes. I also heard the doctor say that he thought I was dead. Later he confirmed saying this, and he was astonished to learn that I’d heard it. I also told them that they should mind their language during surgery.[6]
A common response to this phenomenon is to suppose that the person’s hearing remained active during the procedure, and they imagined a visual scene based on prior experience of medical procedures seen in their lives, perhaps on TV or films. If so, their memory is not an example of the non-locality of consciousness.
However, this materialistic explanation has been well studied by Dr Penny Sartori. She shows convincingly that the recall of patients who claimed an out-of-body (OBE) experience is much more accurate compared to patient recall based who did not claim an OBE and were working on their limited background knowledge.[7]We therefore have good reasons to believe van Lommel’s patient when she claims to have seen and heard her operation while physically unconscious and unable to do so in a natural sense.
4 – Conclusion
The clinical examples quoted in this blog are not easily explained on a materialistic account of consciousness. They are, however, compatible with the non-locality of consciousness. When taken together with the evidence of NDE, this forms a robust argument for the non-locality of consciousness and refutes the physical argument for consciousness.
[1] Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained, (1991), mentioned in Pim van Lommel, The Continuity of Consciousness A Concept Based on Scientific Research on Near-Death Experiences During Cardiac Arrest, Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies, https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/index.php/essay-contest/.
I’ve been reading about Vipassana Meditation this week.[1] This is a practical approach to finding peace and freedom from suffering in life. Given the fears many people carry around with them today (will I have enough to live on, will there be a war here, will my family be okay), I can see why a strategy for peace and freedom is attractive.
The Buddhism on which Vipassana is based is one of the world’s oldest religions, starting somewhere around the fifth century BCE, although it is hard to be precise on those dates.
Vipassana seems to be built upon some core Buddhist doctrines. Oxford University Buddhist Scholar Sarah Shaw says that while there are many different schools of Buddhism, they tend to share these core tenants of the Buddhist dharma, or law:[2]
Impermanence (anicca). Huston Smith describes this as an ontology where nothing in nature is identical with what it was a moment before.[3] John Dickson suggests this means there is no Buddhist thinker, just thoughts.[4]
Suffering (dukkha). This is the first of the Siddhartha Gautama’s (the Buddha’s) Noble Truths. Everything is impermanent and imperfect, and it leads to suffering in our lives.
Egoless-ness (anatta). This is about an absence of self, or the illusion of self. The Dali Lama says this means people possess no immutable essence,[5] and Zen scholar Masao Abe notes that there is therefore no Hindu atman or eternal self, just anatman.[6]
The Buddhist dharma teaches that while there is no self, we are composed of five parts or skandas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness that appear together like grains of sand in a pile.[7] Our goal is enlightenment, and one way that many Buddhists work towards that is by following the eightfold path, which is moral instruction.
In this blog, I will assess the metaphysical problems that result from this ontology. I will argue these problems seriously undermine the rationality of Buddhism as a world view. Consequently, while it is right to seek peace and freedom in life, we need instead to find these important things in something which is solid and real.
The Problem of Buddhist Ego-lessness
There is a metaphysical commitment that seems to be held by almost everyone, including Buddhists. J P Moreland describes this as the absolute view of personal identity. A person moves through time and exists fully at each moment of his life, even though his physical attributes (e.g. height and weight) and mental attributes (e.g. understanding) change throughout the whole of life.[8] The Buddhist talks about achieving peace and freedom in life, and ultimately attaining enlightenment. So, the Buddhist makes the metaphysical commitment of “sameness through change.”
Yet there is a problem. On Buddhism, we are under the illusion that there is actually a self. There is no eternal self. Rather, there is a pile of parts. I am therefore defined by what my parts are now. I do not have a simple core essence, or soul, that defines me. If the Buddhist is right that I am an assembly of parts, then as one part changes, I therefore must necessarily become a different person. Why? Because I am defined by my parts. Once a part is different, so am I. Imagine swiping through a sequence of photographs of different people on your phone. That’s what change actually must accomplish on the Buddhist view of self.
The Buddhist talks about “my freedom,” and ”my enlightenment.” They apparently assume that the same person exists through all the changes that lead towards eventual enlightenment. So, they are committed to “sameness through change.” But their view of self does not allow for it. The idea that we are a collection of parts, and the idea we are a simple core self, are mutually contradictory. And “sameness through change” is only possible on the latter. This is a metaphysical problem for Buddhism.
Joe cannot become enlightened on the Buddhist view of the self. As Joe’s skandas change, his identity alters in metaphysical terms. Joe is no longer Joe anymore, his changes have made him into someone else. If Joe is Siddhartha Gautama, then Buddhism has a problem because Siddhartha can never attain enlightenment on his own doctrine of personhood.
So – there is a big problem with the doctrine of ego-less-ness. It makes the Buddhist aim at freedom and enlightenment impossible. But here’s a second problem.
Why Be Good on Buddhism?
There appears to be no absolute good or evil on Buddhism. After all, “all things … abstract concepts … are devoid of objective, independent existence.”[9] Abe notes that good and evil are co-dependent, they arise together, and the “distinction between [them] is not only relativised but the two values are reversed.”[10] If Buddhism recognises no objective moral categories, perhaps good and evil are just human conventions?
Yet at the same time, Abe requires the Buddhist to “seek good and avoid evil.”[11] And the Dali Lama agrees, seeing personal values as, “the basic, innate capacity for compassion in all human beings … [all people have] an equal potential for goodness.”[12] So – on the one hand, moral knowledge is available to Abe and Lama and moral statements are factual and have objective meaning. Yet on the other hand, they say moral categories do not exist in an absolute sense. If everything is impermanent, there are no absolutes, so it is not clear how Abe and Lama can legitimately require us to seek the good. Worse, if Abe is right that the meaning of good and evil is reversed on Buddhism, then we cannot objectively assess the rightness of anything. Including Buddhism!
However, in the real world, the problem of evil exists. We intuitively know the good we should do but tend not to do. And human beings recognise evil actions when they see them and rail against them, demanding justice to be done and for the evil to cease. We might disagree on what constitutes “evil,” but people don’t tend to doubt the existence of “evil” actions themselves. Buddhism therefore seems to be at odds with the intuitive understanding of people. Could this be a strength of Buddhism?
Perhaps not. Abe says the solution to the problem of evil is to recognise that we need to overcome good-evil duality. We must be freed from all desires and ethical demands. The Buddhist solution to the problem of evil is found in the realization of absolute nothingness; the awakening to sunyata.[13] But if he is right about that, why it is right for good actions to be prioritised on Buddhism anyway? Why should anyone want to be good on Buddhism? The answer seems to be that we must get past good and evil and achieve personal freedom from suffering. It is not about developing moral virtue. In that case the danger for the Buddhist seems to be moral indifference. If the Buddhist’s aim is to overcome thinking about good and evil actions, then this means Buddhism lacks the resources to justify ethical behaviour. They can ask us to follow the eightfold path and be good, but in the end, there’s no ethical reason for it.
This has an impact on how we view human atrocities on Buddhism. Think of the attempted genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. If there is no good or evil, there really is no difference between the perpetrators and the victims. If perpetrators are no different from victims, why should we do anything to stop the genocide? Why should we have a justice system that holds people accountable for crimes? This view is at odds with our deepest moral insights.
Why should we be good on Buddhism? There doesn’t seem to be a good reason. Abe admits that Buddhist doctrine cannot ground or motivate compassionate, moral behaviour without Christianity. “Buddhism [needs] … a serious encounter with Christianity which is ethical as well as religious.”[14] Maybe this is required because Christianity is a closer account of reality than Buddhism.
Conclusion
Vipassana calls us to cultivate freedom and peace in our lives. This is also an important call in the New Testament. People who welcome Jesus to lead their lives can grow in the fruit of the Spirit. This includes love, joy and peace.[15] Both Buddhism and Christianity point us to these virtues, yet the core doctrines of Buddhism prevent a person from developing them as a Buddhist.
Also, there seems to be no reason to prioritise these as good things on Buddhism. I suggest the Buddhist’s goal is right, but their means of getting there is not. Like Masao Abe, it seems like the Buddhist needs a genuine encounter with true Christianity and the person of Jesus Christ to effect real positive change in their life. Christianity is rooted in the historical resurrection of Christ, it offers an understanding of personhood consistent with the life change that it offers, and it also offers to solve the problem of evil rather than to claim the problem is of no ultimate importance.
[3] Huston Smith, The World’s Religions, (HarperOne, 1991), 117.
[4] John Dickson, A Doubters Guide to World Religions, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2022), 76.
[5] His Holiness the Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom How Science and Spirituality Can Serve Our World, (London: Little Brown, 2005), 49.
[6] Masao Abe, “The Problem of Evil in Christianity and Buddhism”, in Buddhist-Christian Dialogue Mutual Renewal and Transformation, ed. Paul O. Ingram and Frederick J. Streng, (University of Hawaii Press, 1986), 145.
“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.”[2]
The idea that people are arrogant for observing humanity’s privileged place in the universe seems odd to me. It’s odd because first, this push-back seems unaware of the scientific data that shows humanity has a privileged place in the cosmos. The data suggests our place is very privileged indeed. It is also odd because second, data is just data. To claim data as “arrogant” is simply mistaken. If the data did not support the conclusion that our position in the universe was privileged, then maybe you could make a case that this claim could be arrogant.
So – how does the scientific data support the claim that we are in a privileged spot in the universe? It does so in at least two ways.
1. We are Positioned for Scientific Discovery
The scientific revolution started in the 16th century, and has relied on some very specific sets of circumstances that most individuals have probably just accepted as a given. And yet, the fact of their existence is striking. The Copernican Principle has often been understood as the point when mankind and our cosmic home was found to be mundane. This was not the point Copernicus was originally making. And the more we learn about the universe, this mundane interpretation of the Copernican Principle is harder and harder to sustain.
Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and Philosopher of Science Jay W Richards have amassed a surprising body of evidence that shows that the fact that humanity is here now at this place and time, and we are physically capable of making scientific discoveries, is the result of an optimal balance of competing conditions (just like any humanly designed system). We are equipped with mental and physical capacities, and we are unusually well positioned to decipher details about the cosmos. We are therefore exceptional in our existence and in our ability to do science, and we sit at the optimum location to do that in cosmic terms. Surely this requires an explanation?[3]
What do they mean by an optimum location?
We inhabit a planet with a moon that stabilizes our orbit and climate. The relative sizes are perfect for allowing us to see solar eclipses. The moon is travelling away from us, and this capacity will be lost in an estimated 250 million years’ time. Yet we are here now to take advantage of our conditions to do science.
The earth’s surface is a data recorder. Ice cores store ancient data about CO2 and methane levels and allow us to correlate nitrate spikes to past cosmological events in the universe.
Planetary earthquakes and plate tectonics allow us to map the planets interior, and also maintain a planetary crust that sustains the carbon cycle and a life permitting ecosystem on the planet.
Earth’s magnetosphere shields and protects the atmosphere from solar wind.
If our gravity force was weaker, our atmosphere would leak away.
If our atmosphere was thicker, it would be harder for us to see through it to do astronomy.
Jupiter and Saturn are our solar-system’s vacuum cleaners, protecting Earth from asteroid impacts, and also acting as a source of material for us to study dating back to the formation of the solar system.
Our sun is at a particular size right now making it stable. It is unusual and contributes to the earth’s habitability and our ability to do scientific analysis.
Our position in the Milky Way galaxy is higher significant for us. We are actually sitting at the best lab bench in the galaxy. If we were any closer to the centre, our night sky would be so bright it would obscure light from distant stars.
We are also at the right time in planetary history for astronomical discovery. This will not always be the case during the Earth’s history. Big Bang cosmology predicts accelerating expansion of space, causing distant objects to fade from view from Earth. But at this very particular place and time in cosmic history, we are here to observe them.
Of course, you could reply that we are just lucky and we just happen to exist at this time and place. This seems to me to be the wrong way to interpret the scientific data. Why?
Well, consider the activity and development of the sciences. These are only possible because of these and many many more highly specific parameters that have very particular settings. Are we going to accept this rich prime location to perform scientific study, while at the same time passing our position off as the result of blind chance? We do not leave any part of scientific analysis to chance. So why is it fitting to leave the precise conditions allowing us to do our science to blind chance? We are sitting at the best lab bench in the galaxy, and surely that demands an explanation.
The naturalist may dismiss these notions. Not because he disagrees with the data, but because the interpretation of the data does not fit within his limited, naturalistic box. And – probably because he doesn’t like to think about the possible implications of the conclusion that we were put here to allow us to use of minds to study nature.
If the universe did exist for a divine purpose, how could we tell? Surely the answer is – look for the existence of some incredible coincidences within nature. Perhaps, the optimum balance of competing conditions just like the ones Gonzales and Richards point to.
2. We Live Within a Finely Tuned Universe
Physicists have discovered that the incredible coincidences just keep on coming as we look closer and closer into the fabric of the universe.
It turns out that for our universe to exist at all requires a highly precise setting of many initial conditions that are themselves independent. Each of these initial conditions is sometimes described as being like a very precise dial that can take different values. If even one of those dials was to be set slightly differently, our universe would cease to support the existence of life.
The incredible thing is that the laws of physics as we know them depend on the initial conditions of the universe being set correctly. But the initial conditions are not set by the laws of physics. In fact, physics relies on dial settings that are fundamentally mysterious. We don’t know why they are set as they are, but life couldn’t exist in our universe if they were not correct.
Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis give some examples:[4]
Turn off gravity and there’s nothing to drive matter to gather into galaxies
Turn of electromagnetism and there is no chemistry as there’s nothing to keep electrons bound to their nuclei
Turn of the nuclear strong force and there are no atomic nuclei in the first place
These ideas are explored by theoretical physicists. But surely, they are also relevant to the claim being made by the “Dear Believer” video. Do we occupy a privileged place? Absolutely we do, the whole universe is the result of incredible and precise fine-tuning.
The late great Douglas Adams once mused that, “imaging a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly…staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it.”[5] Could it be that our universe works the same way? If the hole weren’t there, the puddle wouldn’t be there. If the universe wasn’t here, neither would we.
Except Adams’s puddle analogy fails to describe the fine-tuning of the universe. The water in a hole will always take on the shape of its hole. If the hole had been different, the water will adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. However, not just any universe will do for life. It is more likely that a universe would pop into existence for 1 second before collapsing again. Or, the universe would last longer but contained so few particles that no two would ever interact during the history of that universe.[6]
Fred Hoyle, who discovered the incredibly unlikely carbon atom production process within stars, once exclaimed:
“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”[7]
3. Attempting An Anthropic Escape
The common response to the religious implications of the physical fine-tuning of the universe goes something like this:
“We exist. So – what else should we expect from a universe that contains us? We expect precisely these facts you lay out. Namely, that the universe can support us. If the universe wasn’t finely tuned this way, we would not be here to discuss it. So – don’t worry about all this.”
The reply tries to undercut the impact of the incredible coincidences that lead to our existence on this planet. But this anthropic response fails to undercut the impact of the scientific data and its implications. Why?
Well – lets write the anthropic escape response this way:
If (physical_observers)
then
an observer permitting universe
The problem is, this little conditional statement does not answer the question – “why observers in the first place?” After all, this statement as it is written is true whether there are physical observers in our universe, or whether there are no such observers! So, we have not touched the crucial question – why are there observers anyway?
The anthropic response is good at explaining why we do not have a life prohibiting universe. But it doesn’t explain why a life permitting universe exists. In fact, it doesn’t even try to approach that problem. Surely this question deserves some thought and consideration?
4. Summary
As the Dear Believer video states, it is time to understand how the universe really is and to accept this even if it challenges our philosophical presuppositions. Humanity’s privileged place in the universe will deflate the conceits of naturalistic philosophy, and the non-believer will try to resist its implications. And yet if we are committed to truth rather than just supporting our own pet theories, we must honestly face the implications. We have been put here for a purpose.
[3] Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2004).
[4] Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2016), 91.
[5] Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitching the Galaxy One Last Time.
[6] Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, The Trouble with “Puddle Thinking”: A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03381.pdf.
[7] Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November 1981. Pp. 8-12, quoted in Fred Hoyle, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle.
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?
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 