I always enjoy your economical style, Mr Holden, and the aesthetic/poignant quality it lends your prose. But some observations.

“[T]here is absolutely no proof that mind can exist outside of the brain”.

True, but nor is there proof it can’t. Indeed, science is still nowhere near accounting for consciousness in materialist terms, and in many quarters it’s conceded that other possibilities cannot be ruled out.
Soon after my wife died and all that trauma was over, my body was ‘occupied’ by a mysterious force one night. I woke up as what I can only call a benevolent energy (I sensed there was nothing to fear) filled my body. Though I felt in no danger, the urge to resist was overwhelming and finally, against my will, I had to struggle against it. It straight away relented and a male voice said, “Rest now”.
Since then I’ve heard the experience is common at the death of a loved one. To my amazement a friend once described her almost identical experience, including the sense of great power and love—nor any sense of threat. I’ve had other extraordinary experiences.

Of course the rationalists can easily dismiss such stories one way or another and in our rationalist age we’re effectively censored from revealing our ‘mystical’ experiences, yet they’re extremely common and compelling, even among scientists.
Such events perhaps punctuate our quotidian lives, but have no material effect. Thus your relation’s cloistered life seems pitiable to me too, even if she had 'mystical relief'.

“In our over-stimulated modern lives very few of us feel any connection to past lives lived before we were born”.

That’s presumptuous too. I suspect nostalgia and reverence for connections and remoteness together, through time, are common preoccupations.

“The core of human nature is basically identical for all of us”.

Ditto—the presumption that there 'is' a human ‘nature’, whatever that means. Surely, what’s common or natural to us is our bestial instincts and appetites and adaptive attributes and capacities ('species being'). The rest is “cultural”—idealistic and derivative—at least according to true materialists, who dismiss idealism as ideology and mysticism as delusion.

This morning a dead woman touched me.

A narrow fellow in the grass

A narrow fellow in the grass
Occasionally rides;
You may have met him,--did you not,
His notice sudden is.

The grass divides as with a comb,
A spotted shaft is seen;
And then it closes at your feet
And opens further on.

He likes a boggy acre,
A floor too cool for corn.
Yet when a child, and barefoot,
I more than once, at morn,

Have passed, I thought, a whip-lash
Unbraiding in the sun,--
When, stooping to secure it,
It wrinkled, and was gone.

Several of nature's people
I know, and they know me;
I feel for them a transport
Of cordiality;

But never met this fellow,
Attended or alone,
Without a tighter breathing,
And zero at the bone.

Emily Dickinson

I saw a very narrow fellow slithering through a slit in a Styrofoam container on our verandah. Emily caught the feeling.

Brian, thank you for an engaging piece. I share your sentiments about the importance of the family genealogist: I too have persevered in this role despite the apparent apathy of the younger generations and even most of my own. Moreover, I share your holistic impulse to "connect" with not only people of the past, present and future but also the the non-human world.

I suggest, though, that we should be very reticent about "speculating" what the motives and state of mind of our ancestors were. The younger people to whom we hand on our writing may well be inclined to accept it as fact. Such speculation probably finds a more fitting place in historical fiction. Writing short stories or novels, prefaced by a statement that they are "based upon" the life of the particular ancestor but enlivened by the author's imagination, can be a great contribution to the life of our community.

But thanks once again for a good read.

Having once had a very remarkable experience which some would call "spiritual" I see no reason to think that it emanated from anywhere except my brain. Apparently 90% of our brain functions are unconscious and possibly contain inherited attitudes and memories along with more readily identifyable characteristics.

I confess to having no concept of what people mean when they say "spiritual" or "God".

Thanks for the interesting piece.

Brian,

Your article is a refreshing change from the usual "politicking".

I've never had any interest in genealogy and I have no mementos of even my grandparents, so I'll never be able to revisit the past as you have, as result I take the "holistic" approach from a different perspective which is an interest in history. I'm still interested in my ancestry but only from a genetic perspective, one day I'll get my DNA tested.

We're all descended from a few thousand individuals that lived in Africa a few millennia ago-all humans are related. Any ancient artefact is a "letter" from an ancestor.

Squeers,

First I have to say I'm not expressing any opinion on the significance of what you experienced after your wife's death.

In my entire life I've never had any experience that could be remotely described as 'spiritual' or 'mystical', even after my wife's death, so I'm still deeply sceptical in regard to any reality beyond the material world.

Hi there Mr Holden...

I get the sense that you're a very sensitive, emotionally vulnerable gentleman, who's entered into the autumn period of life, and one who tends to reflect upon times past and folk (relatives) long gone.

You describe rather eloquently your many feelings and impressions as you read or re-read old letters, visit those places that revive memories past of happier times, and of the people who you've known, or never managed to know well, nor understand.

You describe a world of tender nostalgia, emotional sentimentality almost cloying to the point of serendipitous unreality.

As a Veteran, and a retired copper, I've seen much death in all it's various forms. Thus, for most of my adult life I've harboured two basic questions. The existance of God ? And is there any life after death ?

Before I retired, I was attached to the Coroner's Office for some 18 months. Subsequently I was stationed at the Morgue. There, I had many opportunities to quietly look down upon the wan, pasty countenance of the dead, with their dilated pupillary and sightless eyes.

There, I reckon I found the answer to my second question...regrettably, there's absolutely nothing whatsoever after death ! And my first and most enduring question, apropos God's existance ? I'd never actually realised it before, however, South Vietnam had given me the answer some forty odd years before...sadly there is no God, there never has been !

I'm sorry Mr Holden, if it appeared that I made light of your article, or I sounded impertinent or impolite. I certainly had no intention to do so. Neither did I intend to pillories or besmirch your account either. It's just that as an ex copper, I tend to look at the evidence...real evidence. And in relation to anything post death, there simply isn't.

Take care Sir, and I did thoroughly enjoy your beautiful account.

Cheers...Sung Wu.

mac,
Sorry, but I'm always amused when people say things like, "In my entire life...", when our 'entire' lives, in duration and content, are absurdly small and partisan, and hardly a sampling of anything--of nothing objective.
Nevertheless I agree with you and am "deeply sceptical" myself. My experience above is indeed easily dismissed and I might be the world's foremost materialist but, alas, I have other evidence that makes a mockery of that ontology.
We see the world through a cultural prism, which happens to be rationalist. It's moot whether "rationalism" is anything more than a conceit.
But I don't want to derail this thread. My understanding is that Mr Holden was not canvassing anything in the spectrum of the spiritual, merely empathy and nostalgia.

Squeers,

I don't want to derail the thread either, however your comments can't be left unremarked.

I didn't presume to interpret your experiences, so when I say "my entire (adult) life", I mean it, I don't have the 'gene' for spirituality/religion, "mystical experiences" are brain states, nothing more. I'll leave it there.

The statements
>>“mystical experiences" are brain states, nothing more<<
and
“a finger pointing to the moon is a finger, nothing more”
are both correct in the same sense.

And in both cases you can ask where is the visible/tangible object pointing to. And “nothing” is one, but not the only, possible answer, as a multitude of mystics, Eastern and Western, would testify.

The fact that I myself have never had a mystical or spiritual experience, or if had, felt that it was nothing but my brain states (whatever that means), does not invalidate the experiences of others.

The same as the fact that I do not understand the mathematics and physics involved in superstring theories does not imply that those who have the necessary background could not have reasons to claim that the theory is pointing to something "really existing" out there, because without those backgrounds I cannot critically assess whether, or in what sense, they are right.

mac,
sorry, I didn't mean to offend you and I can relate to your position.
""mystical experiences" are brain states, nothing more"
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
To all intents and purposes I agree with your position. I'm a materialist in all things but conception.
I have good reason (more than brain states) to suspect there's more to reality than is (apparently) apparent, but this is a background refrain for me (a hobby) and I'm much more focussed on and concerned with our material reality.
I can't entirely ignore the metaphysics on either side because it's part of the respective politics. To be a materialist, or rationalist, is not to be somehow above the popular idiom, or the political unconscious. We see the world through a cultural prisom, which happens to be rationalist.

Squeers,

I understand your position, for me, there's no proof or even evidence of any supernatural reality, of course I can't disprove its existence either, however the onus is on the believer. My point was that some people, probably a minority, are born materialists.

George,

"The fact that I myself have never had a mystical or spiritual experience, or if had, felt that it was nothing but my brain states (whatever that means), does not invalidate the experiences of others."

I agree, that's the point I was making from the opposite perspective when I was discussing the subject with Squeers, I wasn't disputing the fact that others might have some kind of numinous experience but that, even during very severe stress, I've never had a 'spiritual' revelation myself.

mac,
>>I've never had a 'spiritual' revelation myself.<<
Neither have I.

>>there's no proof or even evidence of any supernatural reality<<
Agreed. I do not know of any philosophically sophisticated person who would require a proof or evidence in matters of worldview preferences or orientation, since “proof” is used, strictly speaking, only in pure or formal logic or mathematical statements, and “evidence” makes sense only in a trivial everyday context, or when verifying the verisimilitude of scientific theories, or in a court of law.

If you A PRIORI believe (in God, whatever you understand by that) you can find confirmations of your belief in your "spiritual" experience or when admiring the beautiful and mathematically sophisticated picture of the cosmos that present-day physics can offer. If you A PRIORI don't believe, you will find confirmation of your disbelief in the same things.

>>the onus is on the believer<<
Why should it be? Unless, of course, he/she wants to convert you.

<<In our over-stimulated modern lives very few of us feel any connection to past lives lived before we were born. An opportunity to feel holistic is not recognised. In my old age I seek those opportunities.>>

Perhaps this may help - the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, aphorism 2.39, states:

"When a man becomes steadfast in his abstention from greed, he gains knowledge of his past, present and future existences."

It is like night-vision: so long as our eyes are used to bright light we don't see the details of objects in faint star-light. Abstaining for a while from bright lights allows us to see what was formerly invisible. As modern life is focused on this material world, not much else can be perceived.

Do note though, that knowledge of past/future existences is not that important and should not be valued in its own right. Abstention from greed is a spiritual practice, and knowledge of other existences is but a side-effect, not something to fall in for (otherwise you gain nothing by replacing worldly greed by unworldly greed).

Hi (again) Mr Holden...

You wrote an article that has been received with mixed views, as evidenced by the many threads in response.

Some appear prima facie, to support your own views, while other not quite so much, and mine not at all.

Why then, don't you feel it necessary to provide further comment, or at least expand upon your opinions, in order to reinforce or contradict, or simply outright challenge the many views expressed by others herein ?

Or are you one, who likes to place a fox amongst the chickens, then stand back to see what happens ?

George,

">>the onus is on the believer<<
Why should it be? Unless, of course, he/she wants to convert you."

Exactly, so when someone claims that there's a teapot in orbit or that Zeus controls the weather, the onus is on them, he/she is free to believe of course.

"If you A PRIORI believe (in God, whatever you understand by that) you can find confirmations of your belief in your "spiritual" experience or when admiring the beautiful and mathematically sophisticated picture of the cosmos that present-day physics can offer. If you A PRIORI don't believe, you will find confirmation of your disbelief in the same things."

No. A belief without evidence is not logically consistent with the requirement that evidence must be presented before acceptance. If, as an atheist, I make the statement that "there's no evidence for a deity or the supernatural" and to my amazement irrefutable evidence is presented for the existence of God, I would change my opinion. In contrast, the religious believe without proof or evidence, so we could say that "they believe in the absence of evidence."

The atheist or materialist position is not a belief system although religious people often use the straw man argument that it is.

mac,

We obviously have different understandings of the terms “logic” and “evidence”. Suspecting this, I gave an explicit description of what I understood by “proof” (and “logic” which today, like “proof”, is used in philosophy only in its formal, mathematical, setting) and “evidence”. The statement “there is no evidence for this or that worldview presupposition, does not make sense.

We already had a number of discussions about worldview presuppositions etc on this OLO, see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2952#68780 and the sequel. So I do not see any point in going into this again.

>>The atheist … position is not a belief system<<

I agree. Compare: “Not speaking English” is not a language. Nevertheless, most of those who do not speak English have another language they speak. Replace here language with “belief system”. See for instance Bertrand Russell’s book “What I believe” or “An atheist ... is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles...” (Richard Dawkins in 'The God Delusion').

Nobody will ask for "evidence" for Dawkins' worldview presuppositions thus formulated (on which he builds his "belief system") since they cannot be falsified.

Dear George,

You wrote: “Compare: “Not speaking English” is not a language. Nevertheless, most of those who do not speak English have another language they speak. Replace here language with “belief system”. See for instance Bertrand Russell’s book “What I believe” or “An atheist ... is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles...” (Richard Dawkins in 'The God Delusion').”

I think you are guilty of playing with words. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but those who do not collect stamps may not have a hobby. Replace here hobby with “belief system.”

Richard Dawkins was guilty of loose language. He did not write with the precision of a mathematician. He should have written “An atheist ... is somebody who thinks there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles. He thinks that way because there is no credible evidence for such concepts. Belief is not evidence.”

Lack of belief due to lack of evidence is not a hypothesis which requires either evidence or falsification.

George,

In my opinion david f and I have already refuted your argument that "atheism is a belief", you're using sophistry by claiming that it is.

For historical reasons we have inherited the term, "atheism", which was originally imposed by believers from their reference point, no one these days is described as "a-Zeus or a-Thor", "a-theist" is also obsolete.

I agree with your position, George.
I don’t even believe in the designations, “atheist”, “believer” or “nonbeliever,” as vested uniquely in individual worldviews—as if each one of us interrogates reality from some impartial perspective!
I’ve been trying to make the point that to be a materialist/atheist is logically to deny the centricity of individual being and subscribe to the individual psyche as “decentred” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism
Unfortunately most atheists I encounter haven’t thought this through, and so their (often rabid) convictions and naïve assertions of intellectual-independence are akin to a belief system, and even narcissism—although hopefully not the malignant kind—wherein everything is related to the ego. Such an egocentric worldview properly demands the concept of immortal soul (and God to temper it), though what seems to suffice for, let’s call them the “militant atheists” (as opposed to agnostics), is our dominant free-market logic. Much as its minions congratulate themselves on their unmanacled minds, they’re as manacled as ever, merely a shrill expression of their materialist culture, wherein the bogus chant of “freedom” spreads like Dawkins’s memes and adherents crow their ideology with all the autonomy of caged Cocks.

I hope, mac, this also addresses your last to me:
< I understand your position, for me, there's no proof or even evidence of any supernatural reality, of course I can't disprove its existence either, however the onus is on the believer. My point was that some people, probably a minority, are born materialists>
How can we be “born” materialists—or believers for that matters?

Dear david f,

Speaking of playing with words, you just replaced the verb “believe” with “think” in Dawkins’ description of what HE believes (I agree that one cannot make sweeping statements about what is an atheist’s belief system), which in my understanding means the same thing, unless… Unless one speaks in a strictly religious context, where belief is often confused with faith, since many languages do not have different words for the two, hence “I believe in one God, etc.” says more than just “I believe (or think) that a God exists, etc.” As you know, e.g. in German (more than in English), “I believe” is synonymous with “I think”.

I certainly would not mind if you quoted one of my worldview presuppositions as “I think there is a Reality (in particular what the Abrahamic religions call God) that is not reducible (I prefer this to “beyond”) to the natural, physical world”.

>>He (Dawkins) thinks that way because there is no credible evidence for such concepts. Belief is not evidence.”<<
As pointed out above, these things depend on the meaning of the term “evidence”; and “credible” is rather subjective. Usually one says that one knows, rather than believes, things for which there is credible evidence. Of course, I agree that “belief is not evidence”: after all e.g. Russell called his book “What I believe” and not “What I find evidence for”.

If all the difference between Dawkins and e.g. myself is that in these matters we think/believe differently, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is with zealots on both sides of the divide who think their worldview entitles them to denigrate - as irrational, immoral, superstitious, etc - those who think/believe differently believing/thinking that this may convert those others, i.e. make them change the presuppositions (about what they believe/think about reality).
(ctd)

(ctd)
Thus the difference between the two metaphors - not speaking English, and not collecting stamps - is that most everybody speaks some language whereas not everybody is a collector. I indeed believe/think that everybody has a worldview built around a system of a priori presuppositions. For instance, the belief in the “natural order” of science or the knowability (to some extent) of the physical world are presupposition that most of us share. Also, there are different philosophies (of science) that are built on different beliefs about the nature of (physical) reality, etc. However, I think we have been into this before.

mac,
I don’t think you understood what I wrote. Apparently my fault, sorry for that. If you are still interested, please read what david f - an atheist from whom I have learned a lot about how to formulate my own worldview, the same Squeers - wrote and my response.

Squeers,

I should state that I've no interest whatsoever in philosophical discussions in regard to the existence of a deity, or on human nature, in my opinion it's a waste of time, my approach to the questions is based on what I understand of the relevant science. So the references are scientific.

"How can we be “born” materialists—or believers for that matters?"

If you are interested in the explanation read-

'Why we believe in god/s" by J.Anderson Thomson explains the evolutionary reasons why most humans are programmed to believe. It's a rather slim volume, but it's a useful summary of the recent research. Part of the reason is that people see agency behind natural phenomena and contrive "explanations", so in a pre-scientific age the result is religion.

There are also some articles in the "New Scientist" magazine archives which also describe research on the subject of the origins of religion and belief in the supernatural. There is a minority of people (like me) that doesn't appear to have a sense of the numinous, we're "born materialists" in other words.

George,

The main problem is that you insist that atheism is a belief system, it is not

Dear George,

You are right. We have been over this before, and it seems pointless to me to go over it again.

Enjoy your life, and be well.

mac,

>>The main problem is that you insist that atheism is a belief system<<
Could you, please, quote me where I said such a nonsense?

George,

Yes, I know you've made statements to the contrary but the assumption in your arguments is that atheism is a belief system. We've reached an impasse, thanks for the civil discussion.

the thread reveals one sure thing

sure not everyone has hobbies
but but yet still ride a hobby hoarse.

the dead can touch us..[this is confirmed by the letter affecting even now ..after death,.../the writer

i likes the yu quote [re past lives compensating previous lives
that has its logic..as we as spirits must chose/appove our incarnation circumstances

and those 'circum-stances'..as the auther has implied
were her choice pre bithing..[as we all must..get the body as best meets our spirits abilities..

evolution of spirit..as we evolve into a spirit capable of human incarnation..is learned by previous lifes..and then there is karma

to infer that the dead 'virgen'..didnt know about sex= babies
forgets that kids of them days watched the animals mating in the street

what one kids knows they all find out about
but ignorance of life after death..yet again is based on a belief system..you got a belief..your riding the hobby hourse..[even if you claim [lame>.. to be not a hobbiest
\
\athiest is the wrong word..cause it personalises
attacking the believer not his belief..no god mob..use your minds

thiest = a believer in religious creed
so yes im a athiest

but
theo = god
antigod= atheost

but lets educate the ignorant
the spirit animates the flesh..that the flesh find logic..and via logic ..*form's..informs the form their new soul

soul = your passions
formed in this life..soul body of light..
[energy trapped in our recall..[mind..not brain.

Mac,
You say you're not interested in philosophical discussions on the existence of a deity. Yet you happily entertain discussion of why it is people believe when presumably there is no basis or substance for belief. This sounds like a justification to me. And I sense it leans more towards the philosophical than to anything else.

You give an explanation for why people believed in a pre-scientific age. This doesn't account for why so many now believe in our current scientific age. More importantly, how does this account for the very religious people (Bacon, Newton, Pascal, etc.) who ushered in (pardon the pun) the present scientific age?

Your explanation seems to look to our genetic disposition. Yet if only we could find the gene which inclines people to write in to the OLO Forum, then this would clarify much mystery.

Brian,
I can't really relate to this idea that, 'very few of us feel any connection to past lives lived'. 

Many feel very connected to people of other eras, especially through studies of history and the writings of narratives, biographies and historical fiction. My wife loves Jane Austin as an author and can feel a connection with people of that era.

The Gospels (though not entirely biographies in the usual way we use that word) are the most read literature of all time. From these, many sense a strong connection and identification with the personality of Jesus, the other persons presented, not to mention the issues, geography, beliefs and politics of the day.

It is said of the books of Samuel in the Bible (from around 1000 B.C.) that they provide, "an abundance of raw material from which to study the human condition, for they present real life with all its ambiguities."  ... "David grows, he learns, he travails, he triumphs, and he suffers immeasurable tragedy and loss. He is the first human being in world literature."

“There is absolutely no proof that mind can exist outside of the brain”. Maybe, but perhaps more importantly our experience suggests coded information cannot exist without originating from mind. Coded information is the substance of all books. Scientists will admit that coded information is a very good analogous description for the chemical DNA which is found in all living things.

Dan S,

"And I sense it leans more towards the philosophical than to anything else."

No, just the opposite, my comments are based on scientific research, not philosophical arguments.

Newton, et al lived at the beginnings of modern science, so the "god of the gaps" argument applies and my explanation applies in the modern age as well. Of course there's also the question as to what believers actually believe.

"if only we could find the gene which inclines people to write in to the OLO Forum,"

There's definitely a gene that compels people to satirise pompous smart-arses, I just can't resist it.

mac,

"There's definitely a gene that compels people to satirise pompous smart-arses..."

That's funny!

- best line on OLO all day.

: )

Mac,
I find it interesting that you would make certain scientific claims whilst denying that you engage in any philosophical endeavour. What is science after all if not a certain way of viewing the world with a method of discovery? At heart scientists have adopted various assumptions and presuppositions.  From where did science come from? Did it just fall out of the sky? Of course not. It is established on many philosophical underpinnings. To offer any scientific hypothesis is to engage in a philosophical pursuit 'par excellence'.

Yet I find the notion that people are religious or believe in certain propositions because of a 'belief gene' as particularly dubious.

I'm also curious as to what you were trying to suggest about some of those pioneers of modern science that I mentioned: Bacon, Newton, Pascal. These were no small fish in the development of modern thought. Were they also suffering the ill effects of the defective 'belief gene'?

the
a course in miracles..teaching for today
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3337&start=30
has relivance on this hobby hoarse thread

[quote="johan9"][quote="GeneHrsy"][b]Let not my seeing a worldly..vieuw
obscure the sight of Christ.[/b]

I can obscure.. my holy sight,
[b] if[/b].. I intrude my world upon it.
[/quote]
there is best here ..given egsamples/..in visions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q56zlqIZDxg

or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE&feature=watch-vrec

[quote]
Nor can I behold the holy sights Christ looks upon, [b]unless it is His vision that I use. [/b]
[/quote]
but his vision..is inner seeing..percieving recieving
based on not seeing the insane sins as reality[only judgments
every story has 2 sides..and the closer tie to 'the sinner'..the less repulsive the sin..[it is well that you forgive thyne owne[but who is not?

think how you percieve the same act..[b]of a loved one
versis a despised..other
[/b]

yet who is not ythy brrrr=other
a brother..is no bother
[quote]
Perception is a mirror,.. not a fact. And [b]what I look on is my state of mind, reflected outward. I would bless the world by looking on it through the eyes of Christ. [/b]
[/quote]
as much as i curse it looking out of mine own..in error

[quote]
And I will look upon the certain signs
that all my sins have been forgiven me.
[/quote]
yet do i look ..as hard
to find excuse for giving of that..'other'
him i deney to be my brother..oh why bother

[quote]

[i]You lead me from the darkness
<of mine own selfish judgments>..to the light;

[b]from sin to holiness. Let me forgive,
and thus receive salvation for the world.[/b]

It is [b]Your gift, my Father, given me to offer to Your holy Son,
that he may find again the memory of You, and of Your Son as You created him.[/b][/i][/quote]

do you ever have ...that 'gut feeling'..[i know i do
call it a hunch if you will..so in 45 seconds..lets hear the last visioning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PL1H5d5wc[/quote]