Why We Believe

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: SherriAnn @ 10/31/2008 3:58:27 PM

    I have the experience of having my three-year-old grandson explain to me about being shot during the Civil War. I can't believe that at his young age he would have learned anything about the Civil War, but his story was detailed for one so young.

    • Posted By: gelizabeth @ 10/31/2008 4:36:33 PM

      Between the ages of 2 and 5 my son used to tell me episodes of his life when he was a man before. He often worried about his wife who had died and gone to heaven because "she was looking for some place to go. " Reincarntion was a possibility, or maybe he just knew about someone else's life and thought it was him. Just before he turned 5, he said that his wife was a baby again far away from him. After that, he never talked about it again. He doesn't remember the details anymore, but he does remember having a wife.

  • Posted By: dearoldblighty @ 10/28/2008 3:20:42 PM

    Oh man. Reincarnation? Ghosts? Aliens? Humans can be so stupid sometimes it makes me sick. It is like in Africa where there are those cases of "Penis Theft", or other "witchcraft" which keeps ending up with someone being murdered by a superstitious mob. Or, for another example, that "Witch hunting priest" who blessed sarah palin(after tormenting some poor innocent woman back in Africa). Furthermore, why does it always seem that people who think they are reincarnated are always notable individuals from history. John Adams, Anne Frank, etc. Reading that simkiew guys reasoning for "being" John Adams was hilarious and pathetic at the same time. They look a little alike, "I could have said that.", and so on.

    • Posted By: zakld @ 10/31/2008 4:34:13 PM

      Watch the youtube video it is very interesting (up). Also, there are loads of people who remember their past lives (or claim to) and they are not famous but they cannot find themselves in history in order to have a comparison because they were not important enough for the history to remember them. Additionally, it is very uninteresting for people to talk about unknown and unverifiable past lives so those ones that were important tend to stick out a lot more. You can also read about a lot and I mean hundreds of cases from India where children who remember past lives find their claimed past life family and that family is neither well off nor famous.

  • Posted By: william10 @ 10/31/2008 4:30:27 PM


    This article fails to even meantion the growing scientific field in paranormal activities. Although it does explain that the mind may cause us to see things that aren't real from hallucinations caused by human emotions, psychological impulses etc... , that doesnt mean that all paranormal things that people have seen are caused by this. This logic is equivalent to saying for example "Mcdonalds causes some people to be obese therefore all obesity is caused by Mcdonalds." To compare that to the logic of the author with emotions as an example of one of the causes of "paranormal hallucinations: "Emotions cause some people to hallucinate and see paranormal occurances therefore all paranormal activities are caused by emotional hallucinations" Although they making a compelling arguement for the "emotions cause some people to hallucinate and see paranormal occurances", the logic in their conclusion is very flawed.
    Also, Ghosts and the paranormal should be treated with a grain of salt just like psychology (the same science used here to attempt to discredit the paranormal). Both psychology and the paranormal are not exact sciences. Psychology is more except as it is much further along than the paranormal but, it is still filled with a bunch of theories while as the paranormal is just starting to get scientists to explore the possibilties. Perhaps the paranormal is a fraud, but maybe it isn't. But writing a paper that assumes the paranormal is false and then explains (as if its scientfic fact) that all paranormal experiences were caused by the brain hallucinating is a bit of an over site.

  • Posted By: 3928y9823 @ 10/31/2008 4:17:56 PM

    Perhaps some people do indeed "know". Ask anyone that has been through any miraculous event such as a miraculous healing or perhaps a supernatural experience. I would recommend against broadly speaking for "Us Religious believers".
    There is a book called "23 Minutes in Hell". I'm sure that you may revise your point if you dig deeper.
    http://www.amazon.com/23-Minutes-Hell-Bill-Wiese/dp/1591858828

  • Posted By: zakld @ 10/28/2008 3:14:56 AM

    That's how tabloids work and I must say from the bottom of my heart that this article seems to me like more of a personal ego massage that was written in a tabloid style rather than an educated, logical, critical and for that matter, coherent way.

    I could write an article simply criticising your article and it would be longer than your article and yet better written than your article although my article would not use as many big words that mean nothing as well as a number of things taken out of context like your article does. That's because my article would be focused on the essence and not a personal ego boost so that I could show my friends and brag about the number of read (and in your case misunderstood) articles I have read.

    One final thing, as the person before me said - simply not having proof that the Earth is round doesn't mean the Earth is flat - in your article you basically said that there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural so it must not exist and then you use simple surveys and experiments on people, which are in no way scientific proofs but simple theories, to try and prove your point. Has it been scientifically PROVEN that it is the human mind that makes us believe in ghosts? These things are so intangible that they cannot be proven. That's why researchers can only rely on study groups results to allude and point to something but in no way does it mean that a scientist interpreting statistics is right because he makes hypothesis based on his personal bias mind and then even if the hypothesis is right, it cannot be proven because thoughts are as intangible as ghosts so who is to say either of these exist when we have no concrete proof?

    You really must learn how to reference. You are giving names of random people that have conducted certain experiments and you do not reference where you got the information from and I am confident that you have misused at least one article, same as you have misused Walter Semkiw who wrote a rebuttle on your website as a response to this article which just shows to me as a reader that IF YOU CAN MISREPRESENT WHAT ONE PERSON WANTS TO SAY, WHY SHOULD YOU BE TRUSTED, AND FOR THAT MATTER, PAID ATTENTION TO AT ALL? You talk about articles without citing where you got them from and then you take Dave, Mickey and Joey (not real names) from the articles and you misrepresent them and portray them as retarded individuals who cannot think critically, all the while not even knowing that they may be nobel prize winner for all you know.

    • Posted By: rexymeteorite @ 10/28/2008 7:39:23 AM

      Its funny, I enjoyed your 3 comments more than this article. Seriously cheers man!

      • Posted By: zakld @ 10/31/2008 4:17:53 PM

        Thanks, it's comforting to know it wasn't a waste and that it was at least slightly coherent. In actual fact I found my comment more interesting than the article, and HELL I wrote it. I must say though that the article poses interesting questions so it can be interesting if you disregard all the personal comments in the article which is actually most of the article. In fact, the author tries to sound objective but her work is filled with personal bias emblemishments. Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. Now I gotta read all the stuff everybody else wrote and these heaps of it.

  • Posted By: zakld @ 10/28/2008 1:32:24 AM

    wow, if you really think you wrote a good article then you're bigger turds than your article is. First of all, why is there an interview at all in your article? As far as I can see, this article started as an interview, but that lasted for about 3 paragraphs and then you simply turned to your agenda and your personal belief and wrote a passionate and obviously bias article about what you think is the truth, and while doing so you simply dismissed any argument for the supernatural. Your view is very very very narrow - your reply to everything is simply "nah, that's the mind playing tricks on you." Kind of reminds me of the dark ages when the church would give a very simple and I must say logical and rational explanation to perhaps gifted women "nah, she's a witch". (would you kindly add sarcasm there). So, you had an interview with an actual live person and then you tried to humiliate that person in a smug and patronising way. You could have simply written an article about why we believe and talk about the scientific explanations of why it is so - you would have definitely got more respect from me for starters.

    It is evident from your writing that you are well read. Having said that, you are well read on things that only concern you. You simply state your case in the article without actually saying how that is relevant to the person you interviewed. What's the connection between reincarnation and the rattle snake? I understand that when you hear a noise that you may think it is a ghost and you may exaggerate and even start believing in ghosts, but what kind of noise can you hear and think it's a bear in respect to reincarnation? There are children as young as 3 who talk about what are thought to be their previous lives? I am sure that the poor little kids just had a bad dream and ended up believing in reincarnation for the rest of their lives. What about this - say a young kid remembers her "claimed lifetime" and actually states her name and the events from the previous lifetime and you can actually verify that information and it turns out to be accurate? What does this have to do with rattle snakes and bears? Nothing, and that's how your article simply focuses on a false presumption of reincarnation when you have not even studied it properly and you start rambling on about it as if you know what you are talking about, but the average reader will not be so critical and will not be bothered to research the other side of the coin

    • Posted By: Patrick8 @ 10/28/2008 5:22:38 PM

      Easy Zak. This article obviously triggered a strong emotional response from you. Hmmm....which suggests you tend to cling to emotionally charged explanations when confronted with rational, logical evidence. Behavior which, the article suggests, might lead one to adhere, irrationally, to the more fantastic explanations for the observed world. Sound vaguely familiar? Don't get too upset though. You have a lot of company.

      • Posted By: zakld @ 10/31/2008 4:13:43 PM

        Well, in actual fact I'm not a too emotional person which shows that retarded analysis of peoples' personalities can indeed be wrong. I do, however, get emotional when I see people try to influence others rather than give an objective stand. This article does not talk about the scientific research as a possibility or a theory but an already well established fact which is the biggest BS you can get and frankly I am tired of people trying to preach and influence other people with their own opinion when they put forward their views as facts rather than what they are - mere opinions.

  • Posted By: Daemos @ 10/31/2008 4:13:05 PM

    Let me guess sherriann is from Georgia or South Carolina and the whole family goes to Civil War re-enactments hoping against hope that they will win this time. And yet you wonder why your 3 year old grandson is making up stories about getting shot. Hmmmm

  • Posted By: seraphine @ 10/31/2008 4:12:51 PM

    For at least five days, this debate has continued. Researchers who study paranormal activity are called pseudo-scientists by those who think that they know better. Christians blast the atheists, who blast back. The middle ground is trod again and again by those people who are not religious, but believe they've experienced paranormal or supernatural activity. History is dredged up, and quotes from every shape and size of guru or scientist are added to the mix. I'm rather impressed that everyone's kept this going for so long.

    But I honestly don't think that this discussion board will solve this fundamental difference in perspective. And that's is ALL it is. What exists will continue to exist, without people believing in it, or trying to prove it. If god exists, then no scientist's disbelief is going to eradicate it. If god doesn't exist, then no religious figure can pray it to life. If paranormal activity exists or doesn't, it's simply there or not, and none of the many wonderful words everyone has been shoving around will change that.

    Reality will still exist, even if the definition of reality changes from person to person. Why isn't it enough to accept the philosophical differences of opinion and get on with more important things? Why is this divisiveness so influential when it comes to judging other human beings? Does it always have to be "us" and "them" when it comes to ridiculous disagreements about gray issues? Because of people are so caught up in their own opinion, reality suffers. Because of a two-party system that allows little compromise, with no third option, and no bloody give and take, societal evolution and understanding is stagnating, or worse, regressing. Without that evolution, without that comprehension, how can we possibly get our freaking acts together and clean up our collective mistakes?! How can we unite in order to talk about compromises which affect our lives and survival?

    ARGH! You know what? I'm going to go eat my pudding. Because guess what... PUDDING'S REAL. And I don't care if scientists can prove that it doesn't exist because all matter is imaginary and made up of atoms and the spaces between. And I don't care if a whole collective cult of pudding worshipers bow down before the triple chocolate in hope that it's creamy goodness will smooth the path to heavenly enlightenment. I'm going to enjoy the pudding with all five of my senses. And I won't vote in the election. Because it's NOT REAL, and millions of people delude themselves into thinking that their vote counts, when it's all about the electoral college and the sneaky under-handed districting. You want to talk about science and religion? Fine. I hope you enjoy the view from your high-horses across this over-trodden battlefield, because that's where you're going to stay for the rest of your life if you can't learn to parley.

  • Posted By: alanleak @ 10/31/2008 4:11:34 PM

    To balance the apparent views of Ms Begley and the experts she cites in her artlcle on the paranormal, Newsweek mignt consider the evidence for remote viewing, out of body experiences of those on the operating table and reincarnation, particularly the work of the late Dr. Ian Stevenson. That the mind is inseperable from the brain may someday ironically be shown to be the flat lander view after all.

  • Posted By: roomformysteyanddiscovery @ 10/31/2008 4:10:46 PM

    congratulations the study of the brain is factual, but what is soul? are we an energy being inside a vehicle
    that includes the brain. our brain has no functionallity to identify ourselves in such a manner. But
    it has been scientifically noted that our total amperage if you will is a little more than all the mechanics
    of our physical system . i am a soul with a physical body. and from that wisdom that i am i say truly
    and sincerly "its all very interesting" your soul can feel the energy i put in the words. i am an associate
    with the inner peace movement and on a rolodex somewhere in the home office in D.C.

  • Posted By: missyloo @ 10/31/2008 3:13:22 PM

    By the way, well put oldefarte, very well done!

    • Posted By: oldefarte @ 10/31/2008 4:09:58 PM

      Thanks. BTW, I don't have a dog in the fight over whether or not there is a God or not and whether or not ghosts exist. I have experiences which I am unable to explain. There was a professor up in Toronto or Ottawa who postulated that these experiences could be caused by magnetic fields and, given the geology of this area, I was willing to consider that, but one would assume that such an "induced experience" would be individually variable, not mutually reinforcing (i.e., my wife, granddaughter, and I would not experience the same thing at the same time). The same objection applies to theories such as that propounded in this article (or by Sagan in "Brocaw's Brain"). Were it merely me or were the experiences "personal" and distinct and/or idiosyncratic to each observer, I could accept these psychologically based explanations. However, if 3 different people, for example, describe seeing the same "weird lights" in the sky at the same time and in the same place, then I'm inclined to believe that there were, indeed, "weird lights in the sky". That does NOT, however, presuppose that they were alien spacecraft and, when I refer to our experiences as "ghosts" it is because I have no other way of expressing it. Until I can discern the nature of the experience and/or phenomenon, I can't do better than that.

  • Posted By: jera smiles @ 10/31/2008 4:09:12 PM

    Let us remember that it is our belief's that create the realtiy that we then see, react to, and experience in the first place. Therefore, it is unlikely that a scientist would experience the paranormal since he/she first believes that paranormal experiences simply do not exist and so they make up their own kind of fairy tales to explain them away. It is also unlikely that a scientist would ever understand, much less acknowledge, that consciousness creates realtiy it is not the other way around. It would behoove us to remember then that In the infinite scope of consciousness not only are all things possible but they are highly plausible as well.

    Example: 1989, Grand Jct., CO, I was attending a group meditation with a friend and my friend had brought a client and the client's daughter with her. I had never met this woman and knew nothing about her except that she had just arrived from Michigan. During the meditation I first noted that another attendee of the session was out of her physical body and standing beside me looking down at me, while at the same time she was lying on her bedroll in the aisle. Immediately afterwards I noticed a young man, around the age of twenty-one, suddenly appearing in a seat behind the daughter of my friends client. The young man was dressed in levis, a white T shirt, and a black leather jacket. He looked to be average height, was rather handsome, and had dark hair and eyes.

    When the meditation was over, the young woman who had been out of her body walked over to me and I asked her if she had memory of her experience. She didn't, but did look frightened and left. I then turned to my friend and told her about the young man sitting behind her client's daughter, described what he looked like, and asked if the others had noticed him. They had not. However, my friend's client stated, :"You are describing my son, he died two years ago. He was stabbed to death in Detroit, and he was only twenty-one. The clothing you described was his usual attire." She also stated that prior to and during the meditation she was hoping to contact her son, that's why she came.

    I could give numerous examples, but from the two given that arose out of just one event, I'm sure you get my point.
    Now I have seen more ghosts that most people, and I find the whole experience rather intriguing one since they occur spontaneously rather than bidden. I always see full bodied spirits, but I have never seen dark shadows or orbs. I don't always experience cold spots when these ghosts appear either, I simply experience a thickening so to speak of the atmosphere. All my paranormal experiences have been filed with the Rhine Institute in Durham., or at least those through 2004.

  • Posted By: nkrivosh @ 10/27/2008 12:55:10 AM

    There is obviously reason to believe in the supernatural, beyond scientific evidence. First of all there is no evidence that actually proves Anything at all from a philosophical perspective. All great philosophers and theologians understand that faith does not arise out of ignorance but out of experience. How you explain that experience shapes your ???beliefs??? and the terminology you will use to describe it. Furthermore, every scientist knows that no evidence does not constitute for proof of non-existence.

    For all the skeptics out there, here is how you begin to believe in the supernatural. First you Realize that all material substance can be subdivided infinitely. With each subdivision you discover that there is less and less actual substance. Then you come to the conclusion that there is actually no substance to begin with. Then you ask yourself. Well, if there is no substance then what is all this? Logic seems to be deceiving sometimes. All scientific conclusions are reached as a result of reason, but reason tell us that there is no substance to begin with.

    Here is another puzzle for you. We live in the NOW, not in the present or the future. There is only the now. So why is it that we believe that there is time? There is actually no evidence to suggest that there is time, past or future. Time is a manifestation of the mind, much like all supernatural beliefs, except that it is based on memory. But what is memory no one knows and it is impossible to study it from the perspective of the Now because you always rely on your memory for comparison. But, why do you trust your memory? Is it real or is it an illusion?

    Before rejecting and explaining away with paranormal and the supernatural, why don???t the skeptics ask themselves ???why do I believe what I believe? When the answer that comes to mind is ???scientific evidence???, ask yourself what constitutes for evidence and how do you know the true cause of your own perception? Can you trust anything in this world? Why? What is your evidence?

    • Posted By: JayTee123 @ 10/31/2008 4:06:37 PM

      Patrick8, he can't do that. There is no evidence that proves anything, remember? There is no truth, so there must not be an existance. Everything can be divided infinitly, but there isn't anything to devide because you can't even prove that the birthday cake sitting on your plate is really there. You're not even reading this post right now. Duh

    • Posted By: Patrick8 @ 10/28/2008 5:31:17 PM

      Help me "Realize" that all material can be divided infinitely. I would love to hear your evidence.

  • Posted By: driver1234 @ 10/31/2008 2:04:19 PM

    I truly feel for each of you who have no other faith except in yourself. To me that would be and was the saddest way to live. The way I see it, if I'm wrong about my faith, at least I lived my live in peace. If I'm right, I lived my life in peace and am rewarded for it after I pass. What do you get for your lack of faith?

    • Posted By: crochater @ 10/31/2008 2:32:48 PM

      why, im sure skeptics feel sorry for you, dont think that only religious people are happy with life, thats very closed minded

      • Posted By: driver1234 @ 10/31/2008 2:53:59 PM

        I have a job I love, a wonderful wife, beautiful children, and my faith. I have everything. That's not to say we don't have problems like everyone else. We just know we aren't alone which makes even the most extreme problems (ie. my kidney failure) easier to deal with. As I think about everything I've been blessed with, I'm really at a loss as to why anyone would feel sorry for me.
        It has been my experience that "close minded" is normally code for "you don't agree with my point of view and are wrong for it." So I guess by that definition, yes I am close minded.

        • Posted By: crochater @ 10/31/2008 4:05:11 PM

          my coment wasnt saying that you are not happy, just that people like myself, without faith, still can have a great life, i too have a great wife, job, health, etc.. Im just saying to each his own and try not to think that i know what makes someone else happy

  • Posted By: thekidman @ 10/31/2008 4:04:26 PM

    Plain nonsense! sure in some cases its true... But how do you explain documented cases using electronics equipment, cameras, audio records (evps - and not the junk you mostly see and hear out there. I mean real clear disembodie voices answing questions given by paranormal investigators) . Watch a few seasons of GhostHunters (no matter what anyone may think, they are 100% legitimate) and maybe go speak face to face with them before writing tis garbage that merely puts phsycologists in a good light.

  • Posted By: roomformysteyanddiscovery @ 10/31/2008 4:02:07 PM

    congratulations the study of the brain is factual, but what is soul? are we an energy being inside a vehicle
    that includes the brain. our brain has no functionallity to identify ourselves in such a manner. But
    it has been scientifically noted that our total amperage if you will is a little more than all the mechanics
    of our physical system . i totally agree that examining the parts of the brain and functions will lead to no
    discovery. i am of a scientific nature. and ask questions. where to we look to find consciousness in unconsciousness. i am a soul with a physical body. i can know without knowing see without seeing hear without hearing and feel (what the hindu's call the state of Brahma or such) myself as a soul.
    as of now their is no empirical evidence because scientists are looking empirically. and proving themselves
    right which they are in their ballpark. my soul would say to everyone. its sincerely all very interesting.
    scott_gabe@q.com

  • Posted By: Romon @ 10/31/2008 4:01:36 PM

    My father died on a Sunday 3 years ago. As the eldest amongst my siblings the responsibility for the funeral arrangements fell on me. The funeral was held on the Thursday. On the Friday morning (the day after the funeral) my wife accompanied me to the funeral home where I paid the bill, settled the accounts and collected his ashes. Then we went to my mother's apartment to drop off the ashes and went home. On the way home I told my wife that as i had not been to my office for the whole week that I would drop her at home and then go down to the office for a little while.....I did not intend to stay long at the office, but wanted at least to have an idea of what would be waiting for me on the Monday.
    As we entered the front door of our home we were greeted by a most beautiful perfume that pervaded the entire house. My wife (who is a catholic) had lit a candle for my father on the day that he died and the candle was still burning 6 days later BUT the candle was not a scented one. We asked our housekeeper if she had lit anything or sprayed anything but she answered in the negative. She too was smelling the perfume. She said that it had started about 10 minutes before my wife and I had come home.. I then left for the office and returned home approximately 90 minutes later. When I got back the beauriful scent was still there but was extremely faint. It went in about another 20 minutes. My wife and the housekeeper told me that as soon as I had left for the office that the scent had started to fade.
    I am a commercial lawyer of some 35 yeasrs standing. My intellect and my training have taught me to question everything and not to accept superstitions. Indeed, as an amateur historian I have taken a delight in researching the origens of many suerstitions as well as various religious beliefs. I am not superstitious, neither am I reilious. All of that being said I must confess that apart from the very obvious explanantion, I have been unable to find any other logical or scientific explanation for that beautiful (dare I say Heavenly?) perfume.
    Any explanatins from anybody would be most welcome.

  • Posted By: nkrivosh @ 10/27/2008 12:54:48 AM

    There is obviously reason to believe in the supernatural, beyond scientific evidence. First of all there is no evidence that actually proves Anything at all from a philosophical perspective. All great philosophers and theologians understand that faith does not arise out of ignorance but out of experience. How you explain that experience shapes your ???beliefs??? and the terminology you will use to describe it. Furthermore, every scientist knows that no evidence does not constitute for proof of non-existence.

    For all the skeptics out there, here is how you begin to believe in the supernatural. First you Realize that all material substance can be subdivided infinitely. With each subdivision you discover that there is less and less actual substance. Then you come to the conclusion that there is actually no substance to begin with. Then you ask yourself. Well, if there is no substance then what is all this? Logic seems to be deceiving sometimes. All scientific conclusions are reached as a result of reason, but reason tell us that there is no substance to begin with.

    Here is another puzzle for you. We live in the NOW, not in the present or the future. There is only the now. So why is it that we believe that there is time? There is actually no evidence to suggest that there is time, past or future. Time is a manifestation of the mind, much like all supernatural beliefs, except that it is based on memory. But what is memory no one knows and it is impossible to study it from the perspective of the Now because you always rely on your memory for comparison. But, why do you trust your memory? Is it real or is it an illusion?

    Before rejecting and explaining away with paranormal and the supernatural, why don???t the skeptics ask themselves ???why do I believe what I believe? When the answer that comes to mind is ???scientific evidence???, ask yourself what constitutes for evidence and how do you know the true cause of your own perception? Can you trust anything in this world? Why? What is your evidence?

    • Posted By: JayTee123 @ 10/31/2008 4:01:22 PM

      Personal experience is somehow more valid than scientific evidence. Insightful.

  • Posted By: crochater @ 10/31/2008 2:28:51 PM

    i always find it funny that everyone who believes in reincarnation is always someone famous or powerful, never just a normal guy....

    • Posted By: simply tracy @ 10/31/2008 3:30:11 PM

      This isn't true. About 22 years ago, I watched a show on reincarnation, where they took a woman and she led them to a little cottage in the middle of England. She was an American, but she had memories of living as an English woman in this cottage. And yes, the cottage still existed 400 years later, but it wasn't in one of the places that tourists generally go, and she had never been to England.

      Another person remembered being a student at one of the Universities in England. She showed them where halls were that had been blocked off for hundreds of years. The people at the college actually had to dig up building plans and found that she was right.

      Not everyone was someone famous, but isn't it possible that you remember the lives that are necessary for you to learn somehting?

      • Posted By: crochater @ 10/31/2008 3:59:54 PM

        see, that case has me wondering more, i didnt say that all reincarnation is false, i just question the instances where they were famous

  • Posted By: michaelaaron @ 10/31/2008 3:54:30 PM

    Newsweek and Time reprint a variation of this same article every 3 months. They cart out all the exact same people (Dawkins and co.) to reduce us to robots. I am not what you would call a religious person, I tend to go with science on a lot of things, but I really dislike the self assured attitude of anyone who thinks they have it figured out. Einstein, had varying beliefs varying from a spiritual mysticism to at times I suppose an atheistic sensne. I think he was a smart guy..right? He was not sure. What I really want to know is why no one metions Dr Karl Pribram. Do a google search on him. No dumb guy. Very scientific,, and has made huge contribuitions to the neuroscience that is used by some of the scientists that reject the chance of a spiritual world. Yet Pribram leaves the door more than a crack open for a spritual world connected in ways we can't perceive easily.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse