The Dawn Treader

Scientists are to try to explain this phenomenon.  Out of body experiences are most commonly associated with near death experiences (NDEs).

(photo courtesy of AP)

I have done a little reading on NDEs.  NDEs are more common than you think.  Estimates typically run around five percent of the population experiencing some form of NDE.  There are documented cases of NDE survivors who have accurately observed or heard things even in the absence of brain waves.  How exactly does one hear without a brain?  Or see without using your eyeballs?

This is obviously an argument against scientific naturalism.  No wonder scientists are trying to explain it (or should I say, explain it away?).  It is not too hard to predict what conclusions will be reached by these scientists.  They will argue that a brain with no blood flow and activity can still function.  Why?  Because you need your brain to hear and see ... that's why.  In otherwords, a tautology.

Skeptic Michael Shermer writes an open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens in a Scientific American essay entitled Rational Atheism.  Shermer chastises his fellow atheists because of their attacks on religion and then asks them to follow the golden rule.

Shermer does not quote the Bible but simply refers to the "golden rule" as if it were floating around out there somewhere.  Shermer quotes Martin Luther King Jr. heavily.  This is ironic since MLK Jr. grounded his morality in a Judeo Christian worldview.   Anyway, Shermer quotes an objective moral rule in the final sentence of the essay.

"the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion."

Wha?  Says who?

This is from a guy who says he believes that ultimate reality is matter in motion.   Molecules.  Matter.  Nothing transcendent.  Just matter.  That's it. 

Reading Shermer make moral arguments based on objective moral principles, therefore, is  irrational if his worldview is true.  The supreme irony is that Shermer titled his article Rational Atheism.

This just in.  Two Yale psychologists are claiming that resistance to naturalism science is natural.  We think things are designed because ... well, they look designed, have purpose, have function and bear the signs of engineering.   However, our common sense is being tricked, claim these enlightened ones.  We need to know that everything is actually random and only appears to be not random.

Also, these psychologists assert that we typically believe things because experts we respect (and who hold the same worldview as us) tell us to believe things.  Those experts may wear lab coats or robes ... doesn't really matter.  The Yale researchers themselves, however, have figured out how to somehow rise above this annoying problem and have an unencumbered, God's eye view of reality.

In summary, these psychologists conclude that naturalism is counter intuitive ... and therefore, the common sense thing to do is explain why common sense should be ignored and replaced with brain washing more knowledge of naturalism.

Just thought you should know.

Joe Carter, ponders some of the atheistic truth claims floated about in the marketplace of ideas.  Many of these claims, like emergent properties, amount to hand waving.  As you drill down for details and specifics, you find air. 

I find belief number three particularly intriguing.

3. Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms.

This raises a cogent point.  Is it reasonable to assume that rationality can arise from chaos and chance?  If so, why?  If by some magic it did, why should we trust our cognitive faculties?  Wouldn't it be reasonable to just assume that our minds were just products of evolutionary determinism ... and therefore programmed to think in a certain way?  Free will would be an illusion.  Truth would be an mirage, because our minds would be programmed to accept truth claims based on genetic programming rather than on correspondence to reality.

There are no satisfying answers to these questions from a naturalistic framework.  The only response I ever get when raising these tough questions are questions thrown back at me about the incomprehensibility of God.  In other words, there are no answers; just debate tactics.

When you get down to the meat and potatoes of a worldview, we all make assumptions whether we like to admit it or not.  At the end of the day, our worldviews are ultimately based on ... faith trust.

In my Salt and Light post I referred to a transcript of a discussion that took  place at Book Talk .  The discussion was about Pale Blue Dot, a Carl Sagan bestseller.  The special guest for this discussion was Ann Druyan, who was married to Carl Sagan up until his death in 1996.  Ann was co-producer of the movie Contact.

At one point, Ann quotes Socrates who said:  "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.  And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all."

Ann says: "I would like us to get to a place where we embrace our newness and lack of knowledge ... Clueless and proud! Yes! Because like Socrates knew we know most who know we know nothing."