The Rational Explanation

Whenever mainstream newspapers cover a story about the possibility of the afterlife (for example: the subject of mediumship or NDEs) you can usually count on a materialist (i.e. non-spiritual) solution being touted as the “rational explanation.” The same is true for various other reports of paranormal phenomena, but we’ll just stick with the afterlife here.

Near-death-experiences, for example? The familiar arguments that these are hallucinations brought on by a dying brain (which, while a possibility, is hardly set in stone) are held up as the logical way of looking at the subject. With mediums, we are told that they’re either one of two things: charlatans bilking people out of their cash or well-meaning but delusional individuals. A similar array of explanations are given for poltergeist activity, ghost sightings and numerous other incidents of such kind.

There is nothing wrong with raising these arguments and giving them consideration. Indeed, in some – perhaps many – cases, they may be the correct answer to what occurred. What is irritating, however, is the media’s tendency to claim that a materialist explanation is *the* one singular rational way of looking at what happened. They don’t just say that it’s a rational explanation, they assert that it’s THE rational explanation – i.e. any view that allows for the possibility of a spiritual element is irrational and therefore wrong.

If mainstream newspapers are looking to discourage the public from being open-minded to the idea of an afterlife (or, indeed, the paranormal in general) then this is probably a useful technique. After all, who wants to think they’re irrational? Committed believers who know more than a few titbits about the subject will usually have their views unaffected by some prejudiced comments from a journalist, but those on the fence may well be shamed into rejecting the potential of an afterlife. As for the committed believers, the newspapers can just mercilessly ridicule them, and often do. In ideological conflict, ridicule is a very effective weapon – if you want as a few a number of people as possible to take a subject seriously, what better approach is there than to make fun of that subject and its supporters?

All that said, is the ridicule justified? Sometimes yes, but on many occasions, no. Is the materialist explanation the only one true rational viewpoint? In my opinion, no - it’s one of several rational viewpoints, some of which include an acceptance of spirituality.

What many mainstream newspapers are either unaware of or ignore, is that there is a rather strong body of evidence supporting the afterlife hypothesis, which stretches back to the 19^th century. The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882, whose mission was to investigate spiritual phenomena “in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the SPR’s experiments with mediums yielded results that are not easily explainable by materialism alone. Academic parapsychology has also provided scientific data which supports the potential for survival of bodily death. As for NDEs, the “dying brain” hypothesis does not encompass every part of the experience. There are those, for example, who experience veridical NDEs, that is, NDEs in which they feel themselves leave their body and are able to accurately report on conversations which took place while they were unconscious.

These are just a few sweeping examples of some of the evidence for an afterlife. There is a lot more, but one does have to work to find it.

Given that there is fairly substantial scientific evidence for an afterlife, it seems more than a little unfair to me to consistently be reminded by news outlets that the materialist approach is the only rational one. No it’s not. It’s a rational way of looking at the situation, it’s a possibility, it deserves to be taken into account and considered – but it’s not the ONLY rational interpretation of an NDE or a clairvoyant experience or other matters of that nature. My belief in the afterlife is based upon the evidence and on a few personal experiences of my own. Since the afterlife hypothesis is supported by evidence, it is no less rational than a materialist view.

It would be nice if the mainstream media would admit that a viewpoint which allows for the afterlife is just as logical as its opposite, but it’s highly unlikely that they will do so anytime soon. For now, people like me will just have to settle for browsing the latest Guardian article on NDEs and hoping that the writer isn’t too sneering and malicious.