Christopher Hitchens’ analogy during a debate with Sam Harris, David Wolpe and Bradley Shavit Artson on the subject of Is There An Afterlife? in 2010.
I find myself agreeing with Harris and Hitchens on the subject. I was born and raised by Muslim parents, which subsequently meant that I was Muslim. At a young age I turned away from my belief in God, thanks partly to being taught evolution in a protestant primary school.
Though before I accepted my non-belief in God, I was tremendously skeptical about the afterlife and spent many nights thinking as many possibilities as possible. In this debate, Hitchens’ and Harris’ points are what I’ve concluded over the years that I’ve spent thinking about this very subject.
Full playlist for the debate.
Despite a scientific investigation of occult phenomena that has lasted for at least a century and a half, there is no scientific proof that ghosts exist. Nevertheless, there are many accounts that seem to have more in common than they would if they were based on random lies or delusions.
I have talked to people who claimed to have witnessed ghosts, and who seem to be telling me what they believed.
If ghosts exist, it is true that at least in some cases something of the mind survives the death of the brain.
Hans Holzer made a career of investigating ghosts, and writing books about his investigations. I do not believe he was ever exposed as a charlatan. If anyone knows of such an exposure, please post it.
I have lived in old houses. When I was younger I liked to walk in old cemeteries after dark. I never saw any ghosts. The scariest thing that ever happened to me was when I was nearly arrested. :eek:
Name one thing they have in common that couldn’t come from lies or self-deception,
Most people who think they see ghosts probably really thought they saw something. They are mistaken. So what?
An incredibly circular argument. Prove ghosts exist, and then we’ll discuss it. Start by defining the word “ghost.”
If this Hozer ever produced any scientific evidence for ghosts, let’s see it. “Charlatan” is neither here nor there. A lot of ghost hunters, exorcists, etc. sincerely believe in that stuff. The sincerity of belief is meaningless. It’s about evidence, not personal credibility.
Belief is a problematic word. It often becomes conflated with faith, which is irrational; particularly in this type of discussion. My understanding of the available evidence is that there is none available to support the existence of an afterlife. Our understanding of human consciousness is not complete yet, nor is our understanding of physics and energy finished and put away. It is therefore prudent to not wholly dismiss the possibility of an existence past physical death, but it is no more prudent to let such a question have any bearing on your life. There is a gap, but the gap grows smaller every day, with each discovery pointing to us simply ceasing to be upon physical death, I see no reason to operate under any other assumption.
As for ghost hunting, I think that like Dio mentioned most, true believer types are simply mistaken about what they are investigating. I’ve done a fair bit of it myself, and yet to find anything but rational explanations, or been unable to replicate the stories I’ve heard. It seems that general ignorance and the effects of religion conspire to produce “ghostly” answers to strange phenomena people experience. The idea that strong EM fields can produce odd effects in humans was not widely known by the general public before the popularity of such pastimes for example. Now it is one of the first things checked for, and in many cases can be eliminated. The same goes for very low frequency sound waves.
Isn’t a belief in ghosts incompatible with Christainity/Judaism?
Look at the trouble Saul got into, when he had the Witch of Endor raise Samuel from the dead!
Bad things happened!
Wait! What?
Witches can bring people back to life?
Doesn’t that mean more evidence that ressurection is a certainly to be entertained as a possibility?
So if I throw this cross, with a jesus on it, into the water.. and it floats then He’s a witch and… OMG!!!
I consider myself a Christian, but my view on the afterlife is considerably more complex than it is for most Christians because of time I’ve spent musing about creation, our souls, and the nature of God. I see us all as parts of a greater whole and, in so being, that whole carries on in so much as we create our own heaven or hell through our actions rather than some arbitrarily wonderful or horrible other place.
As for rationalization, it gets quite complicated, so I’ll try to cover only the important topics, but I view science as mostly a single dimension through which we can observe and experience existence, of which other dimensions are things such as philosophy and religion, emotion, and these sorts of things. And so, to argue that the universe is consistent with scientifically derivable laws and, as such, it is understandable in that context is only to observe that it is consistent with that respect.
And it is with this same regard that the other aspects of view come into play and, similarly, consistencies come into play and can be observed and it is this way through which we can derive other laws such as morality and purpose as manners of selection of optimal choice in pursuit of an end state. And so, it is through my pondering of these consistencies and derivations of these laws through which one can further derive moral and purpose progression, origin, and goal, and it is this that verifies a greater existence in much the same way that science illuminates the beginning, the progression, and eventual end of existence.