Blog

Continuing to Believe the Unbelievable

Posted by Roberta Grimes • September 12, 2015 • 31 Comments
Afterlife Research, Human Nature, Understanding Reality

I have just read the most foolish bit of nonsense that I ever have seen in Early ScientistsScientific American. And given the fact that most issues of my favorite magazine include further examples of the resolute cluelessness to which mainstream science has reduced itself, to call this article perhaps the most epic bit of ignorance ever written is to say something remarkable about it.

Entitled How Come Some People Believe in the Paranormal?, this piece lumps together UFOs, Bigfoot, the New World Order, and all psi phenomena into one hilarious sideshow. No summary I could give you would properly encapsulate the Luddite thinking of this author, and of the French investigators whose work is his subject. What they have done is the rough equivalent of our inviting investigators to step outside so we can demonstrate that the earth is flat; then filling a balloon with helium and letting it go; and then assuming that these two experiments have proven that all scientific theories are baseless. We proceed directly to trying to figure out what mental flaws might have prompted any scientist ever to have believed what is so unbelievable as the thought that the Earth might be round and not flat and it attracts objects to itself.

I do not exaggerate. That is these researchers’ mission. They investigate none of the targeted phenomena. Instead, they assume that since their belief-system of materialism declares them all to be impossible, the fact that you and I and more than 71% of Americans believe in ‘miracles,’ 42% of Americans believe that ‘ghosts’ exist, (and) 41% think that ‘extrasensory perception’… is possible,” then clearly something must be wrong with us. (Those dismissive quotation marks are in the article. They give you a flavor of the piece.)

Of course, if any of these folks had undertaken even a modest search of the literature Scientific Machinebeyond their narrow world of materialism, they would have found so much evidence for miracles, ghosts, extrasensory perception, remote viewing, communication through mediums, and life after death that they would have realized that people believe in such things for the same reason that research scientists believe that matter is composed of atoms: there is abundant and well-documented evidence of these phenomena. But scientists generally see material and non-material theories as  forever at war with one another, never imagining that they might both be right.

So to figure out how you and I could believe in things that the scientific dogma of materialism declares to be impossible, a set of experiments was done. (Indeed, to reassure fellow scientists that these investigators were not committing the sin of actually investigating the phenomena themselves, the reporter informs us about the psi experiment that “the experiment was rigged of course.”) Inevitably, conclusions were drawn about differences between the minds of believers and non-believers. It was something about some folks being “intuitive thinkers,” while others are “reflective thinkers.”

For those of us who are past our shock at the self-willed cluelessness of modern science, wryly amusing moments abound. The author lumps those who have investigated phenomena that he himself is not allowed to consider without risking his mainstream scientific career with people who are sure that a secret, evil cabal must run the world. And he won’t even let us enjoy what he sees as our naive ignorance. He assures us that it is not harmless. He says, “You might ask: Why kill the magic? Not everything needs to be explained by science. Yet misinformation of this kind can be harmful. For example, in a recent study, I found that merely exposing people to a 2-minute conspiracy video clip significantly decreases acceptance of science, civic engagement, and overall pro-social inclinations. I call this the ‘conspiracy-effect.’ Although I did not measure cognitive style, non-reflective thinkers may be especially vulnerable to such misinformation.” So the fact that you and I are convinced that evidence supports powers of the mind that scientists still refuse to consider makes us likely fools for every conspiracy theory and probably irrational, anti-social grumps.

Old MachineThe harm that science does to its own credibility by stubbornly clinging to materialism as a dogma is something to which, incredibly, nearly all working scientists still seem oblivious. They are blind to their own enormous blind spots; they are clueless about their own confusions.

For example, scientists acknowledge that about 27% of what they can demonstrate exists is composed of matter that will not interact with material light. Non-material matter takes up at least five times as much space as does the whole physical universe, but scientists cannot explain what it is. They can’t even figure out how to investigate it! And only with the greatest reluctance do they ever admit their massive ignorance. Nor do they realize that their inability even to conceive of what dark matter and dark energy might be could mean that their accepted theories might be missing something big.

As further evidence of how scientists’ self-imposed dogma of materialism keeps jabbing them with inconvenient facts, recent experiments suggest that quantum mechanics is fully as inconsistent with Newtonian physics as they long had feared that it might be. Scientists keep finding evidence that indeed the whole particle theory of matter may need revision.   And weird, unexpected things keep happening that throw core scientific theories to the winds.

So mainstream scientists’ view of reality is nothing like the certain lock on facts that they want us to believe it to be. But never do they budge from their dogma-based belief that everything that exists must be material, even though that theory has long since been demonstrated to be unbelievable. You may wonder how long this can continue. How much more time will it take before their beloved scientific dogma of materialism will have led scientists so far into the weeds that they will feel forced to make a course correction? It is hard to know. And meanwhile, of course, the toll that their insistence on believing what is unbelievable takes on all of humankind in terms of absurd assumptions and unnecessary fears is beyond incalculable.

Afterlife researchers cannot yet supply answers to every question that still flummoxes mainstream scientists. But ours is a field of research in which progress of late has been accelerating, so it won’t be long before we will be able to supply a great many of those large_4052593758answers. Will they accept them? That is hard to say. For certain, the pain of having to go back and acknowledge a full century of largely wasted scientific effort based on an erroneous core belief in materialism is going to be great.  

Our poor, befuddled writer, still trying to maintain his illusion that his theories make objective sense, opines that, “Although our intuition serves us well in some cases, we may all benefit from a little more reflective thinking before we decide to accept uncanny explanations about the nature of reality.” Sadly, on this point he is exactly right.

photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/37667416@N04/4030999931″>1004138</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>(license)</a>

photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/37667416@N04/4031009689″>1004101</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>(license)</a>

photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/37667416@N04/4074920446″>106229</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>(license)</a>

photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/dustpuppy72/4290962747/”>Dustpuppy72</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/”>cc</a>

Roberta Grimes

Roberta Grimes is an internationally recognized expert on death and the afterlife. Learn More

Latest posts by Roberta Grimes (see all)

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

31 thoughts on “Continuing to Believe the Unbelievable

  1. There is a great informative book that speaks to much of the above called: ‘QUANTUM ENIGMA: Physics Encounters Consciousness’ by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner , Like: ‘The Holographic Universe’ before it, it contains clues to what is inside us.
    Ever have something impossible happen, (until you realized it shouldn’t be happening, that its ‘impossible’) and it stops, or no longer works? … Then you have encountered the hidden power of your mind over matter of all kind. It is what most would call belief and is what we used collectively to build the pyramids!

    1. Oh Robert, that is one of my favorite books! I recommend it to everyone. Thank you for reminding me that it should be mentioned here! Not only is it massively enlightening, but Quantum Enigma is an easy and fun read for laypeople. How often can you say that about a physics book?

      The dead tell us in consistent detail what the physics of the afterlife is like, and it is all so utterly different from the physics of this level of reality that it was only when I encountered Quantum Enigma that I could begin to make sense of the differences and how a consciousness based in physics actually would work – and does work. You are perfectly right: our minds are part of the same power that continuously brings forth the universe, and as Jesus said, if we believe we can cause a mountain to throw itself into the sea and never doubt that it will happen, then indeed it will happen. This whole concept deserves its own blog post, doesn’t it? Thank you for sharing such a great comment!

  2. Another Right-On blog, Roberta! You’ve nailed the problem correctly.

    The authors complain about “non-reflective thinkers,” yet they themselves go about embodying that very thing. Lumping all the categories of UFOs, New World Order, conspiracy theories, ghosts, Big Foot, psi phenomena, afterlife, etc.. into the same category, then, as you point out, not even bothering to do any in depth investigation and reflective thinking into these fields whatsoever. It’s absurd.

    They appear to be putting down “intuitive thinkers” in favor of “reflective thinkers,” yet we obviously need both. Actually, one of science’s big heroes, Albert Einstein, is quoted as saying: “The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

    It’s been obvious for quite some time that the Atheist/Materialist paradigm has an iron grip on mainstream science and most science publications. To extend your recent conversation with Michael Tymn, the vast majority of scientists have to toe this line or their jobs and careers can be severely threatened, whether in a private research company or at a university, public or private. This has been well documented.

    To be fair, scientists are human beings and have families to support and raise, mortgages and bills to pay. And, many also having to pay off the exorbitant student loans they incurred while getting the education that led to their present job. It’s understandable the pressure they’re under to conform to the materialist orthodoxy.

    Of course, their are exceptions, like afterlife researcher Dr. Gary Schwartz, who has tenure where he teaches, Dr. Dean Radin, who is the head scientist at the privately run Institute Of Noetic Sciences, and Dr. Craig Hogan, who heads up his own private organization, to name only a few.

    Frankly, I think it’s going to be quite a while until the materialists lose their control over mainstream science and most of the funding. Eventually, they’ll have to evolve into what is being called the “Post Materialist” paradigm. But, they’ll put up a bitter fight all the way, as they are now. Max Planck was right, it’s a waste of time to try and convince most of them of their errors, they’ll just have to die off(pass on) and the new batch of Post Materialists scientists will gradually replace them.

    Oh, I should have emailed you sooner about that article I referenced about “CERN creating a rainbow universe.” It’s now been exposed as an April Fools joke that first appeared this last April 1st. It tricked a lot of people and it would seem that there are some folks busy putting out phony science news and interviews. A few months ago a fake interview with Dr. Amit Goswami appeared, with him supposedly trashing CERN and how it was out of control and everyone there was nuts. That went viral and many were fooled. I emailed him and asked if it was real. He emailed me back and said “no” and was fit-to-be-tied! He was desperately trying to get the article retracted and an apology, but was having no success.

    Roberta, here are two sites you’ll really enjoy, if you don’t know about them already, and many of your readers here will as well. Numerous insightful articles that take on the debunkers and pseudo-skeptics and dismantle them point for point. Mr. James Randi and his fraudulent challenge really gets picked apart from several angles.

    http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/

    http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

    If you run into some debunkers, just refer them to these sites!

    1. Hello dear Michael! Thank you for your detailed and comprehensive comment. You know, the fact that the rainbow universe article was a scam is kind of delicious, don’t you think? Was the magazine scammed, or was it scamming us? And thank you for reminding us that there are some honest brokers who are seeking the truth and running websites where they can reveal it to the world. I should be saying that a lot more often!

      I feel sorry for the researcher whose article I trashed. The scam of materialism is being perpetrated at the highest levels, and if you want a career in science you’ve got to hold to the “fundamental scientific dogma” of materialism. You’re required to make a devil’s bargain. So our friend who wrote that article is trying to eke out a career for himself in a field where even to hint at an interest in investigating the “paranormal” will cost you your career.

      Dear Michael, my wonderful friends, Gary Schwartz and Craig Hogan, actually prove the awful rule that good science is shut out of nearly all universities. Gary had to stay straight-materialist for most of his career, and then he had to find an open-minded university; to this day, he has the protection of a university department whose dedication to pursuing the truth is literally unheard-of elsewhere in this country. And Craig, equally brilliant, must do cutting-edge research that really is going to transform the world on a proverbial shoestring. That the wonderful Dean Radin has found a comfortable home in which to work is so good to see, but – again – he is a rare exception.

      And everyone’s hero, Max Planck, made his insightful remark about science advancing by deaths more than sixty years ago! We have had at least two more ignorant generations since he said those words. The problem is that for them to begin so late to investigate these phenomena would make them look and feel foolish; and for them to discover what we know is true would means that much of a hundred years of scientific research has to be pitched into the dustbin. Not pretty! So they continue to try to delay the inevitable until their particular careers have ended. It is a very peculiar situation, indeed!

  3. The website that put out the phony CERN article re-published an earlier one. I’m not certain if they were in on the joke or not. When I first read it, I double checked on the Internet and found what looked like an official CERN news site that verified the story. Now, that site is down and was another fake. These Internet jokers are getting clever!

    I think a certain personality type is drawn to the materialist views, in science, plus it is the default paradigm in the Western world culture. So, we’re all conditioned to the physicalist(materialist) model in subtle ways most are not aware of.

    I should mention a little about how James Randi and his million dollar challenge is taken apart in some of the articles on those sites. Since you’re a business attorney, you’ll get a kick out of this.

    Randi and his board at his foundation(all hardcore materialists) run the challenge. A person has to sign a lengthy contract and among the items listed is a stipulation that Randi and his board have full ownership of all evidence submitted and can do with it what they want. And, get this, Randi can call off the challenge at any time for any or no reason and the person challenging can take no legal action against him or his foundation in court.

    Some fair playing field, huh? – There are other problems with the whole fraudulent deal, but that’s a show stopper.

    1. You probably know that there is a genuine million-dollar challenge ongoing, but let’s remind everyone of it. For the past fifteen years, Victor and Wendy Zammit of Australia have been offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that all the evidence described in their book, A Lawyer Presents the Evidence for the Afterlife, is either misinterpreted or faked. I have read their protocols: they are entirely fair. And the money is in the bank (which was not true with Randi’s challenge). A number of people have contacted Victor about trying the challenge, but no one has devoted much time to it… for the (to me) obvious reason that the evidence is genuine. The afterlife is real!

      And our problem with materialist science seems to be worse than a difference in personality types, dear Michael. The “fundamental scientific dogma of materialism” seems to date to the first few years of the 20th century, when researchers were documenting astounding proofs of survival that teams of the dead were then delivering. It was first then that I began to find those damning words in print. It was then that the gatekeepers foolishly turned science from an open-minded search for the truth into just another closed-minded belief-system.

      The wonder of it is that the university departments and peer-reviewed journals have been able to enforce their dogma for so long, and even in the face of so much evidence now in the mainstream that the dogma makes no sense! As would be true of any delusional belief-system, after a hundred years of trying to figure out why on earth we’ve got all these puddles on the floor when all that we’re allowed to examine is the walls and we are forbidden to study the ceiling, mainstream scientists are deep in the weeds of cluelessness. It truly is amazing that the youngest researchers don’t throw up their hands in disgust!

      When this false paradigm shatters – and it will – it is going to take down most of a whole century of scientific research. Every experiment done since 1900, and every conclusion drawn from each experiment’s results, will have to be re-examined in light of the facts that reality is fundamentally not material and consciousness is primary and pre-existing. No practitioner in any field wants to be around when that happens to his whole life’s work! So this can is going to be kicked down the road until finally it lands in the wet cement of so much evidence about what is going on that mainstream science will lose laypeople’s trust altogether. I hate to see that happen! But it seems that nothing less is going to wake them up.

      Thank you again for commenting, dear Michael!

  4. As the materialist world crumbles around them every day, these folks will use whatever means possible to justify their perspectives. My response is taken from a classic Dr. Phil question, “How is that working for you?” My energy will not be wasted trying to convince people such as this author that there are miracles available to all of us. Instead I choose to teach the teachers and let the results speak for themselves. The shift is happening and the ‘old regime’ feels their power centers being threatened as people learn to take control over their own lives and stand in their true power. These cynics will die sooner or later and learn the truth for themselves as part of their journey. I’m not sure if everyone is here to have a spiritual experience but it definitely works for me and that’s the only person I can truly change anyway.

    1. This is so beautifully said, dear Sherri – Thank you!

      (And yes, the evidence is pretty strong that the universe exists only as a place for us to have spiritual experiences. Unfortunately even being tricked into becoming an obdurate fool for materialism is a spiritual experience – just not a helpful one!)

  5. Roberta, like you, I love the weekly online newsletter Victor and Wendy Zammit put out and look forward to it. It’s highly recommended to others who may read this. And, like you say, Victor’s million dollar challenge has not been taken on yet by the debunkers and pseudo-skeptics.

    You gave a good, short review of the scientific investigation into the afterlife in the later part of the 19th century and the early 20th century.

  6. And perhaps we should give the email address for their free newsletter again, dear Michael: it’s victorzammit.com. When I mention it on my podcast, I call it what it is: it’s the best news you’ll read all week! (Unfortunately, in this political climate that is a lot lower bar than it should be, isn’t it?)

    We have a producer interested in perhaps doing a reality show based around the Zammits’ million-dollar challenge, which might be a fantastic opportunity to get the word out! But it’s all up to Spirit. All we can do is show up ;-).

    1. You’re right, it doesn’t take much good news to beat the dreary news that’s out there on a regular basis. But, the Zammit’s set a high bar for good news about the afterlife!

      Exciting news about a producer being interested in doing a show based on their million dollar challenge. I imagine it would be out of Australia and know you’ll keep us informed of any updates.

      1. Hi Michael! Actually, it will be filmed in the US primarily, if it happens. I will probably executive-produce it. In all my spare time ;-).

  7. Although not a scientist, I am an advanced math major and nuclear engineer, so I know a thing or two about science, which of course originated as philosophers of nature in or around the 12th century, grew up as a child nurtured by religious leaders as a means to demonstrate that faith based practices could be proven. What I find most interesting, and perhaps few are aware or remember, but the entire world of science and all our laws and formulas are predicated under a giant assumption that the universe is a closed system. In this closed system, we further assume that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Both of these assumptions are theories, and can never be proven by mere mortals. If these assumptions — which are based on FAITH–are not true, all of the scientific laws and formulae fall apart. And of course, we know they fall apart because fundamental physics and theoretical physics, although useful, are incomplete because they cannot coexist in the same universe or time space local. It is as if one was a mac and the other a PC. Their languages do not work on the other device. So much for science being able to prove things. The only one truth that I believe all can agree (philosophers from Socrates to today, modern scientists, and thought leaders) is that the only certain, repeatable, universal truth is math. Mathematics appears to be the universal language of the Creator. Perhaps that explains how the science of numerology can decipher every thought, picture, document, or photograph, into a binary code, convert that into a frequency, which becomes a light beam, and can reappear at the end of the fiber optic device into a mobile phone. Everything is energy, which are photons, which is light. We are a luminous being, just like Yoda said to Luke. Everything comes from the World of Light, but appears to exist in the World of Form, which is still within the World of Light.

    1. Hello JD, and welcome! I love what you say here. Thank you for that! I would add to it only one mind-bending fact: math is the universal language of the creator only on this material level of reality, which physicists themselves have come to admit is likely less than five percent of what exists. The rest of reality seems to be governed by a physics that is entirely consciousness-based; indeed, math doesn’t seem even to be relevant there, but rather everything is governed by Mind.

      So, why is there a different physics in this material level of reality, and one that is mathematics-based?

      Afterlife researchers speculate that this universe exists as a school in which we can perfect ourselves spiritually. And since our minds (the greater part of which we cannot directly access while in bodies) are very powerful, a tougher sort of physics is necessary here to keep us from using our minds to mess with the schoolroom ;-).

      Thank you again, JD!

  8. It sounds like the author of the article is one of the Ministers of Disinformation comparable to the Amazing Randi. Professional skeptics help make their living from such “studies,” but in fact defy the scientific method by already knowing the desired outcome of the studies they do. Its not only bad science, its bad sociology. To dismiss the huge numbers of people who believe in and have had paranormal experiences is at best condescending–kind of like dismissing all experiencers of UFO phenomena as the hillbilly swigging on his last bottle of warm beer while mistaking Venus for an extraterrestial craft on a hot summer night.

  9. Roberta,

    On what basis do you make the following claim:

    “The rest of reality seems to be governed by a physics that is entirely consciousness-based; indeed, math doesn’t seem even to be relevant there, but rather everything is governed by Mind.”

    In one of your books you repeated the following quote from Max Planck: “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Of course, Max Planck died in 1948 and had no access to almost 70 years of research and experimental evidence undertaken since then. Moreover, just because a scientist has a particular belief, even a Nobel Prize winner, doesn’t mean it is correct or even reflects the consensus of experts in a field.

    You claim above, repeatedly, that scientists are obliged to adhere to “materialist dogma”. Where do come to this conclusion? Where is this dogma set forth? If nowhere, how do you know they are obliged to adhere to it?

    Scientists study, develop theories about, and experiment on many aspects of reality which are not simplistic matter — such as consciousness, quantum forces, magnetic fields, etc. Scientists believe that these things are part of reality even if they cannot touch them.

    I believe most scientists, if asked to sit down and take the time to review some of the phenomenon you believe to be true, such as distant viewing, would reject them based on the evidence, lack of a coherent theory, conflicts with other well-established laws of nature, etc. This is different from rejecting out of hand.

    I’ve read several books on so-called mediums. I don’t reject their abilities out of hand, or based on adherence to a “materialistic” world view, but rather because the techniques they demonstrate are much more easily explained by tricks such as cold reading, and human psychological traits such as confirmation bias. You would benefit your readers, I suggest, if you focused on real objections to this phenomenon as opposed to your invented one.

    Similarly, I have read a number of books on so-called near-death phenomena. All have struck me as fairly similar: the author recounts the stories as relayed by the people who experienced the NDE. The author may also summarize various trends, do some analysis (e.g. Christians are X% more likely to see Jesus than atheists). They don’t entertain seriously alternative interpretations, such as the NDE is a mental phenomenon only, like a dream.

    None that I have read seriously tackles the objections of people who think NDE’s are explainable without assuming immortal souls. None address the growing body of research which maps more and more aspects of consciousness, as we perceive it, with activity in the brain. None address the increasing number of aspects of NDEs which can be reproduced in the laboratory. It is for these reasons that I am skeptical about your interpretations of NDEs, not because of my adherence to any dogma.

    I am curious to hear your thoughts on this.

    Best,
    John

    1. Hello John! I’ll answer your first question simply. Nearly 200 years of abundant and consistent afterlife evidence overwhelmingly indicates that most of reality is governed by a consciousness-based physics. Nothing to do with our friend Dr. Planck. Everything to do with a simple willingness to pursue the unbiased truth wherever it leads.

      And now I have a question for you, dear. I’m curious as to why you even would read my blog, when you so resolutely reject every bit of evidence that does not neatly fit your own belief-system. Why have you bothered? It is clear from the scope and tenor of your questions that you have not even a passing acquaintance with the emerging science of afterlife research, but rather you seem to fear it. What you have said here suggests that you find tremendous comfort in your own beliefs in the infallibility of mainstream science, and that is just fine, dear John! I think that everyone here wishes you well in your beliefs. If you were curious to investigate in an open-minded manner the field in which I work, then I would be happy to assist you in that investigation, as I have assisted many others. But I feel no need to convince you of anything. My hunch is that you are rather young. And, dear friend, life will eventually do for you what I never could.

  10. Roberta,

    To answer your question, somebody I am close to asked me to read one of your books, which I did. Afterwards I tried to understand how an intelligent person, as you seem to be, could make some of the claims that you do.

    For example, that Jesus knowingly made unclear or misleading claims which would stand 2000 years because of the presence of Temple guards (rather than record directly what he meant to say, or arrange for the guards not to be present). Or that you believe Jesus, in deciding to set the record straight, chose to communicate to the world through you, rather than leaders of Muslim sects currently engaged in violent holy war. Or that Thomas Jefferson is also communicating to you, only not directly but through a medium.

    I came to your website via Amazon in an attempt to understand a belief system which is hard for me to understand, even after having spent abundant time reading and listening to countless hours of their arguments.

    You are incorrect that I am close minded, that I have not read some of the seminal work on NDE, for example, that I am young.

    I often find it to be the case that people who hold strange beliefs attribute others’ disbelief as being close minded. But on that note, when was the last time you gave any serious consideration to the possibility that your beliefs in spirits, ghosts, mediums, etc. are misguided? Despite the many compelling alternative explanations? I suspect decades. It is therefore a bit disingenuous to throw around the label of close minded.

    If you thank that 200 years of people having visions, or having memories of having visions, constitutes evidence comparable to that for the prevailing scientific view of physics, go ahead.

    I posed my questions because every now and then I try to find somebody in your position who is willing to engage the evidence against their position, address that evidence, and explain why they nonetheless hold their views. I am not surprised you choose not to do that and instead take a patronizing tone. I might have an inflated sense of my own importance, too, if I thought the son of God and dead Presidents had selected me to communicate their message to the world.

    1. Oh my dear John, I am happy to help you begin to understand, if you truly do want to understand! Perhaps we have misjudged one another. The whole tone of your questions, and your apparent lack of knowledge, made me believe that you were another ignorant debunker who had been unsettled by something I had written and you were looking for excuses to close your mind again and go back to your comforting sleep. Apparently my tone in response made you think that I was arrogant. Perhaps, happily, we both might be wrong?

      How I wish I had the time to take your hand and lead you from where you are in your knowledge to a threshold of perceiving the greater picture that mainstream science and mainstream Christianity have denied you! What you perceive to be a patronizing tone on my part is instead frustration. There was a recent time when we could have shared phone numbers and I would have been happy to spend an afternoon beginning your education, and then weeks of time sharing books and answering questions. But my problem now is time, dear. I am overwhelmed. Yesterday I was able to do not a single thing on my list of what I had to accomplish before I slept in order to stay afloat because I spent an entire morning just answering emails, phone calls and comments before I spent an unexpected and very enjoyable and productive two hours over lunch with someone who has arrived at about the same place where I am from a source so different than the afterlife evidence that she and I both needed that time to reconcile what we had learned. Then I drove for half an hour each way to take my two youngest grandchildren off the schoolbus while I returned phone calls from legal clients, after which I answered more emails from seekers. When I tell people that I will answer their emails, “and if you don’t hear in 24 hours, send flowers,” I mean that! They deserve to have their questions answered. So sometimes, answering emails is all I can do. Then dinner with my husband of 43 years, who deserves a lot more of my attention than he gets. And that was my day. I am up at five this morning, hoping to get a jump start so I can finally get done what I was supposed to do yesterday!

      Your questions to me in your first comment are all the rough equivalent of, “What you believe is insane! How can you say that matter is related to energy? Energy comes through wires! Matter is solid!” Yes, dear John, each of your questions has answers that would satisfy any intelligent person of good will, but some of them would take (and have taken) whole shelves of books to begin to answer. If you want my help, then I am thrilled to help you! But if you just want to find a reason to make feel more tidy what you are determined to continue to believe, then I’m sorry, dear. I still would love to help you begin to want to know what I know! I just simply now don’t have the time to try to break through to you.

      So, the next move is yours!

      If you really want to begin to understand, then please send me an email through this website and remind me there of who you are. I will send you some things to read. We can then have a conversation. It is apparent that you haven’t yet read enough to be able to discuss these topics from a basis of knowledge that you can gain only by reading! But if you want help, dear, then I will try to help you. Meanwhile, I am sending you my love.

  11. Oh my dear John, I am happy to help you begin to understand, if you truly do want to understand! Perhaps we have misjudged one another. The whole tone of your questions, and your apparent lack of knowledge, made me believe that you were another ignorant debunker who had been unsettled by something I had written and you were looking for excuses to close your mind again and go back to your comforting sleep. Apparently my tone in response made you think that I was arrogant. Perhaps, happily, we both might be wrong?

    How I wish I had the time to take your hand and lead you from where you are in your knowledge to a threshold of perceiving the greater picture that mainstream science and mainstream Christianity have denied you! What you perceive to be a patronizing tone on my part is instead frustration. There was a recent time when we could have shared phone numbers and I would have been happy to spend an afternoon beginning your education, and then weeks of time sharing books and answering questions. But my problem now is time, dear. I am overwhelmed. Yesterday I was able to do not a single thing on my list of what I had to accomplish before I slept in order to stay afloat because I spent an entire morning just answering emails, phone calls and comments before I spent an unexpected and very enjoyable and productive two hours over lunch with someone who has arrived at about the same place where I am from a source so different than the afterlife evidence that she and I both needed that time to reconcile what we had learned. Then I drove for half an hour each way to take my two youngest grandchildren off the schoolbus while I returned phone calls from legal clients, after which I answered more emails from seekers. When I tell people that I will answer their emails, “and if you don’t hear in 24 hours, send flowers,” I mean that! They deserve to have their questions answered. So sometimes, answering emails is all I can do. Then dinner with my husband of 43 years, who deserves a lot more of my attention than he gets. And that was my day. I am up at five this morning, hoping to get a jump start so I can finally get done what I was supposed to do yesterday!

    Your questions to me in your first comment are all the rough equivalent of, “What you believe is insane! How can you say that matter is related to energy? Energy comes through wires! Matter is solid!” Yes, dear John, each of your questions has answers that would satisfy any intelligent person of good will, but some of them would take (and have taken) whole shelves of books to begin to answer. If you want my help, then I am thrilled to help you! But if you just want to find a reason to make feel more tidy what you are determined to continue to believe, then I’m sorry, dear. I still would love to help you begin to want to know what I know! I just simply now don’t have the time to try to break through to you.

    So, the next move is yours!

    If you really want to begin to understand, then please send me an email through this website and remind me there of who you are. I will send you some things to read. We can then have a conversation. It is apparent that you haven’t yet read enough to be able to discuss these topics from a basis of knowledge that you can gain only by reading! But if you want help, dear, then I will try to help you. Meanwhile, I am sending you my love.

  12. Roberta,

    Thanks for your response. You seem to be a kind person, and I have no wish to take your time if the conversation is unlikely to be fruitful.

    As a parting comment, you seem to take the position that if I’ve only read 10 books about NDEs, written both by NDErs and researchers, that is inadequate. What I really need to do is read many, many more, as you presumably have, at which point I’ll be able to see how compelling the evidence is.

    I, on the other hand, feel I’ve read enough (including one of your books) to get a pretty good sense of what the collective NDE movement has to say: it is not about orthodox religion, it is about love and light, there will be a life review, you may be sent back to earth for various reasons, heaven exists, hell does not, there is an explanation for why human suffering exists, etc.

    What I have never read (or frankly heard of) is an NDE book which attempts to reconcile these beliefs with the evidence of modern science. For example, scientists can induce the experience of seeing light, feeling bliss, being outside one’s body, etc. in the laboratory. We know that the brain as a matter of course creates false memories.

    It would be interesting to see somebody from your camp honestly and openly tackle this evidence. What is not interesting, to me at least, is a response which ignores the scientific evidence and alternative explanation with dismissive hand-waving about “materialist dogma”.

    You sound very busy, but if you are able to draw on your decades of reading on 200 years of research, and point me to a thoughtful discussion of the evidence from NDE stories vs. the evidence from science from the perspective of a believer such as yourself, that would be helpful, perhaps also to people on this forum.

    None may exist, in which case you can hardly be expected to provide one.

    But if there is one, I would think it would have a prominent place on your bookshelf, so that you don’t simply read accounts which a priori reinforce your current beliefs while ignoring facts which challenge those beliefs. If I couldn’t name a single book which addressed NDE claims, you might call me closed minded.

    All the best.

    1. Hello dear John! You seem to be kindly as well. And I understand that you do not feel ready at the moment to undertake a journey beyond where you feel comfortable, which is fine. If ever you would like me to help you, though, my offer always will be open!

      I can answer all your questions with two simple points:

      1) NDEs have nothing whatsoever to do with death. NOTHING. An NDE is an entirely different and very limited process, and I gather from your extensive reading in this field that you know more about them now than I do!

      2) The best I can say for NDEs is that there are some well- documented ones which seem to confirm that consciousness can exist apart from the brain. But this evidence is anecdotal. I don’t rely on it, since so much more important evidence of the survival of consciousness is available.

      Frankly, dear John, I cannot imagine why you have done such deep reading on the very narrow phenomenon of NDEs. As I say, NDEs are unrelated to death, so while they are fascinating, they are not “hard science,” even in my own field of study ;-).

      So I’ll throw it back at you again, dear John! Why don’t you stop reading only “accounts which a priori reinforce your current beliefs while ignoring facts which challenge those beliefs”? Hmmm…?

  13. I mentioned NDE’s because my impression was that they had the most scientific respectability (vs. ghosts, psychics, mediums, etc.) So I thought I was giving you an easier topic about which to present something scientifically literate.

    But having just watched part of your video, conveniently you follow the same pattern with respect to mediums. You state your process was to read many, many accounts of mediums who claimed to communicate with the dead. Researchers in this case were people who wrote down what the mediums said. Not people who generated and tested hypotheses, made and tested predictions, etc. More like court stenographers.

    Now how did you conclude that these purported communications were really with dead people, as opposed to (a) wishful thinking (b) hallucination (c) fraud? As far as I can tell, because the stories were similar and in accord with one another. (Also, I would assume broadly consistent with some core part of your belief in God). But one would also expect similar stories under (a),(b) or (c) because participants would be part of the same culture, of sham psychics would give testimony their audience would expect to hear.

    Maybe your line of reasoning gets and “A” in the new spiritual community, but it earns an “F” as far as showing an understanding of the scientific method. You would do better to understand and implement basic science, I think. But I suspect you’ll continue to represent in your books, blogs and videos that you actually understand science and can represent the views of scientists on highly complex topics, and that open-minded, maverick, true scientists actually agree with you. (I notice early in your video you again repeat the lie that science only deals with the material. Will you continue to make that claim?)

    Reading accounts of alleged mediums is not science. Perhaps it is history. But the research you laud isn’t even in the same ballpark as the real science, such as the standard model of particle physics. You do know that, don’t you?

    Regarding your last line — I’ll throw it back to you. If I have it wrong, and there are actually scientifically literate texts on deep trance mediums, which address alternative hypotheses like real science, what are they? If you name them, I will read them. I hope you do not choose, once again, to ignore this sincerely offered request.

    1. I sigh as I say this, dear John. I do! I’m sorry, but I really have no more time to banter with you here. All of your comments have been some version of “Aha! You believe this stupid thing!” Or, “No? Then you believe this other stupid thing!” I have assumed that you mean no insult, but rather you simply are ignorant of the vast and embarrassing gaps in the modern mainstream scientific understanding that you cherish. But since you haven’t been willing to open your mind, even a little bit, then clearly I am not going to be able to help you, dear.

      I am – as I gather that you are, as well – highly skeptical by nature. Unlike you, though, my skepticism extents to traditional science and Christianity as well, so I have spent a half-century investigating the truth about what actually is going on, while accepting nobody’s pre-existing assumptions. Arriving where I am after all that time would take you a year or two of serious study – no more – but I gather that you are sufficiently incurious not to be willing to spend even that time.

      “Reading mediums” is something I did a lot of perhaps thirty years ago. It was a good beginning, for reasons that you do not yet have the sophistication as a researcher to understand. I have studied broadly in more traditional scientific fields as well, including what you call “particle physics,” to the point of knowing that in the summer of 2014 a symposium was held with the sole purpose of trying to decide whether subatomic particles still could be called “particles” when they turn out to be just vortices of energy (and yes, physicists think they have found the Higgs, but they still have no idea what it is or how it works). You will be relieved to know that important symposium held a year ago last summer to decide the fate of a crucial scientific word ended with a decision to continue using the term “particle” for those subatomic whatzis, for the sake of auld lang syne ;-).

      Mainstream scientific thought is bound by a fundamental understanding that is in error. That understanding – which I have seen actually called a “dogma” in print, although they are sophisticated enough not to have done that lately – is that reality must be material. Even discovering that EVERYTHING is in fact energy, down to the smallest subatomic particle, and even discovering more and more oddities that are not small and that existing theories cannot explain, most modern working scientists think as you seem to think: they cannot pursue any investigation beyond their narrow realm of understanding, for fear that all hell will break loose.

      My offer to you remains open, John. If you have actual questions, I will be willing to share with you a short course of reading that will give you a foundation of understanding, and then I am happy to spend whatever time you need to help you get to where I have arrived after a lifetime of study. Either you are what I have assumed you to be – someone who is disturbed and uneasy, but not sufficiently curious about the truth to want real answers – or you are a genuine seeker. I cannot help people who are unwilling to open their minds, dear. But my life is devoted to helping those who – like me – want the truth, and are willing to accept nothing less!

      Please don’t make another comment here. If you do – and no matter what it says – I will be forced by lack of time to delete it rather than responding to it with yet another time-consuming version of “Whoops! You’ve just guessed wrong again!” If you want to continue our conversation, then email me through this website. Call yourself something like “John the Seeker” so I will remember who you are. I assume that I won’t hear from you again, so please accept my love and a big hug!

    1. The main problem with Johns assertions is that there are no engineering details on how brain cells can actually do anything. No brain cell or group of brain cells has ever been measured to think, feel, remember, or anything else. The only thing that can be measured is electrical impulses.
      If electrical impulses are thought then my blender is a genius.
      John says that stimulating the brain can for instance create the OBE effect. This explains nothing. If the subject was not asked if he was having an OBE there would be no way for the experimenters to conclude that one occurred by making any measurement. Science does not accept the subjective but here has only the subjective report of the subject to go on. Exactly what do the brain cells do to generate this OBE? Make a call to Dreamworks? John also ignores the fact that the science he worships has already proven using it’s own methods that when you look for the basic building blocks of the universe there is nothing there! We are not 99% empty space we are 100% empty space. Particles are just a concept. Nothing “solid” exists.
      I’m really annoyed when brain worshipers like John make their assertions despite the lack of any engineering details whatever.
      There is no theory, math, or empirical measurements that relate electrical impulses to consciousness, thoughts, feelings etc. Stimulating the brain in various ways simply creates an experience. A personal experience perhaps but still an experience. Consciousness must always exist to have that experience no matter how bizarre it may be. Science will never be able to describe what that experience is without doing one thing- asking.

      1. Dear Tom, this is frankly one of the most brilliant things that I have ever read. Thank you! But too few people will read it as a comment; it deserves to be a blog post on its own. I’m cooking some articles toward a blog post that is a few weeks away, and I’m going to quote your comment there so many more people will see it. Brilliant. I hope that you’re teaching these truths somewhere! When enough of your fellow scientists have made your leap of understanding, then at last the whole world will change.

  14. Well I must say I have a few questions after reading one of your books Seven levels of heaven where did that come from? Judaism has several levels so does Islam so does Hinduism.God said three the atmosphere the universe and his home.Dante made up several levels in his writing.Jesus never mentioned seven levels.How did you get to study two hundred years of death? God says do not contact the dead.You are trying.My first e mail to you I asked if you were a medium. You said no but you indicate channeling with Thomas for information about your book. My opinion of your book is you are not satisfied with your Christian religion. So you find several faults with it. Breaking away is easier than conforming to it.I find you have several great thoughts about organized religion and some of the mistakes they make . But the Christian religion is at its base good, We do not always get everything correct but I do believe most Christians try their best. We are human we make plenty of mistakes including in our religion.Christanity is attempting to follow Jesus. But we don’t always have the ability to see how we should do it.

  15. Hi Jim! To answer your questions:

    1) The whole “seven levels” thing is a convention generally used by afterlife researchers for simplification; in fact, there are infinite levels but they seem to group roughly into the lowest levels, the middle levels (commonly called the Summerland), and the upper levels (near and including the Source. Again, though, they are infinite in number! Does that help?

    2) Good grief, the Bible is full of instances of people talking with the dead! (Have you ever actually sat down and read the whole Bible?) Not only does God not forbid communication between here and there, but what do you think that praying is, anyway? Especially praying to Jesus and to saints? Not only does God not forbid afterlife communication, but God is working now to help us do more of it! Those that we used to think were dead are working on more efficient ways to communicate and get the truth to us at last. And as 1 JN 4:1 tells us: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Why would the Bible tell us to “try the spirits” to make sure we aren’t dealing with demons if we are not supposed to talk with spirits at all?

    3) And modern-day Christianity DOES NOT follow Jesus. CHRISTIANITY AS IT IS PRESENTLY PRACTICED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS. It is a first-century Jewish sect created by Paul, and none of its dogmas is based in the Gospels. We have nearly 200 years of abundant and consistent communications from the dead, and they consistently insist to us that:

    (a) There is no human-like God that can’t forgive us unless it gets to enjoy the murder of Jesus. (Good grief, Jim, what does that teaching say about God? What a horrendous insult it is to the Godhead!)

    (b) The genuine God is just what Jesus told us that God is – perfectly loving Spirit – and it never has judged anyone. (All judgment after death is by oneself. The toughest judge there is.)

    (c) There is no evidence whatsoever that the death of Jesus on the cross has ever made an afterlife difference for a single human being. (Here is another insulting and barbaric Christian teaching! Jesus spent more than three years teaching us what we now can confirm is actually the truth, but modern Christians think of Him as just a human sacrifice!)

    And sadly, Jim, Christianity is not at all “at its base good.” Modern Christianity is based in fear, which is the opposite of love; and in teaching people that they don’t have to follow the teachings of Jesus – all they have to do is claim Jesus as their personal savior, and they will cut right to the head of heaven’s line – Christianity as it is presently practiced actually is blocking the work of Jesus on earth!

    I didn’t choose to leave Christianity. I loved it, and I still miss it. I can sing so many hymns by heart! But in April of 2009 I gave the rest of my life to God, and I have reconfirm that gift every day of my life since; and it is the Lord who has called me to be a modern-day Prophet, a John the Baptist, an Elijah calling God’s people to come to Jesus and begin at last to follow His teachings, and only His teachings. Not my idea at all!

    The dead tell us that this false and barbaric first-century Jewish-sect version of Christianity is going down now. Actually, we can see it happening all around us! And that is a good thing, since once we are rid of the false, then at last the Lord can teach us the truth and we can begin the genuine work of spreading the Gospel truths and bringing the Kingdom of God on earth.

    Jesus is saying now to all modern Christians ( and to you, too, Jim):

    “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (LK 6:46). “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter” (MT 7:21). “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (JN 8:31-32)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.