Читать книгу The Case for an Afterlife - J. J. Jennings - Страница 4

How do we search for “credible” afterlife evidence?

For every type of afterlife evidence in our search, our approach involves the same four steps:

1.Define the type of afterlife evidence being considered in terms of its inclusions and exclusions. For example, in our search for “Possessions” as a type of evidence, we include those cases where the body of a living person is apparently under the control of a deceased person, but we exclude those cases where demonic possession is involved – since demons are not necessarily deceased human beings (given demons are part of our belief system, of course).

2.Establish a set of criteria to evaluate whether or not the evidence is to be viewed as “credible”. For example, one of the criteria established for “Apparitions” might be: “The sighting of an apparition in a potentially staged setting such as a séance or a ‘haunted house’ should not be viewed as credible.”

3.Conduct searches among the published material for the type of evidence defined in Step 1., using the criteria established in Step 2., to determine whether there is at least one example of “credible evidence” of that type. If there isn’t one example that may be viewed as credible, assume there are none to be found. If there is one example that may be viewed as credible, assume there may be others. (Note that this is a variation of a widely-used statistical technique known as “hypothesis testing”, where the practitioner starts by assuming a “Null Hypothesis”, and only rejects that hypothesis when there is sufficient evidence to support an “Alternative Hypothesis”. (1))

4.Identify interesting examples from the searches in Step 3. that may also contribute to the discussion of results. If there are examples that satisfy the majority of the criteria, but not all of the criteria, it might be useful to discuss the implications of such examples.

Since our search results depend so heavily on the criteria established at Step 2., how do we attempt to make those criteria sufficiently rigorous?

There is a concept imbedded in our United States legal system that seems very useful in our discussion of “sufficiently rigorous criteria”. According to that concept, a case must be…“proven beyond the point at which a reasonable, average, prudent person would be convinced…” – “beyond a reasonable doubt”, in other words. (2)

Where do we find criteria that would convince “a reasonable, average, prudent person”? We develop a set of criteria using comments made by skeptics as they address their issues with a given type of afterlife evidence.Then we supplement those criteria with additional criteria of our own. We make a concerted effort to establish as complete a set of criteria as we possibly can, recognizing that any such effort is always subjective to some degree.

Take a representative set of skeptics’ comments about “Past-Life Regressions”, for example. (3) Briefly, those comments suggest that “past lives” being recalled by patients under hypnosis are most likely one of the following:

1.Real or false memories of experiences in those patients’ current lives,

2.Pure products of the patients’ imaginations,

3.Suggestions from the patients’ hypnotists, or

4.Some combination of the three – called “Confabulations” on one skeptic’s web site.

Given those skeptics’ comments, we might establish the following criteria for past-life regression evidence:

1.Some or all of the past-life details being recalled by an individual must be clearly different from any possible details of the individual’s current life.

2.Some or all of the past-life details being recalled by an individual must be verifiable by historical record or by an impartial and credible witness as being part of the life of an identifiable individual who has lived in the past.

3.If a hypnotist is involved in the individual’s past-life recollection, the hypnotist must have no way of accessing or knowing some or all of the past-life details being recalled.

4.The details of the past-life being recalled must be specific enough to preclude their being produced through pure speculation or by reference to generic historical accounts.

Further, we might establish additional criteria of our own, such as this criterion:

1.Any past-life details that are not verifiable must be excluded from the evidence.

(These sets of comments and criteria relating to “Past-Life Regressions” are illustrative only – the complete sets are found in Chapter 11.)

Where do we search for “credible” afterlife evidence?

Generally, we search for credible afterlife evidence among those published reports that are not unverified “first-person” accounts, but accounts that are verified and reported by reputable “secondary” sources. If person “A” sights an apparition, for example, we don’t use person “A”’s unverified first-person account as credible evidence. Instead, we search for an account by a reputable source “B” that verifies and reports that person “A” sighted an apparition.

There are five types of evidence we search for:

1.“Apparitions” – sightings by living persons of effects attributed to deceased persons.

2.“Medium Sessions” – sessions in which a “medium” relates details about, and messages from, a deceased person to a living person.

3.“Past-Life Regressions” – details of a past life being recalled by a living person.

4.“Possessions” – control of a living person’s body by a deceased person’s spirit.

5.Still other types of evidence, such as “Audible Communication from the Dead” – a voice of a deceased person being heard, recognized, and understood by a living person.

Note that “Near-Death Experiences” are not among the types of afterlife evidence we search for. Why? Because “near-death experiences” are not the same as “after-death experiences”. Skeptics from the medical profession argue that the experiences reported by “near-death” individuals are probably hallucinatory visions produced by those individuals’ still-functioning brains – that the brains of clinically-dead persons may still be very much alive. (This includes the recent near-death experience described by a neurosurgeon who lay in a coma for seven days – whose neocortex was not functioning for six of those days, but whose neocortex recovered functionality during the seventh day. (4) (5))

There may be other types of afterlife evidence that we might have or should have considered, but the five listed above are the only ones covered in this book – and our coverage for “Apparitions” begins in Chapter 2.

*****