Reading “Proof of Spiritual Phenomena”

I’m currently reading Proof of Spiritual Phenomena by Mona Sobhani. I picked this book because the author holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience and supposedly have been through the journey from being firmly grounded in materialism to being open minded about spritual phenomena. A transformation I have been seeking my entire life but never have been able to do as I never have been swayed by the available evidence nor have had any personal experiences.

It doesn’t begin well with several pages being spent on “Many Lives, Many Masters” by Brian Weiss. Brian Weiss is a past life regression therapist who claims to use scientific scrutiny in his work even though it’s so very obvious not true. A premium example being his famous patient “Catherine” whilst hypotised by Dr Weiss, saying that she could “vividly see” that, “The year is 1863 BC”. How could Catherine have seen a date that never existed at the time? Why were such cases never presented in a scientific journal? Could it be that such accounts really are fictitious?

At this early point in her book I’m very concerned about the so-called proof being presented. I had expected science, not anecdotal evidence from a Ph.D. Has anyone here read Proof of Spiritual Phenomena - Does it get better?

I’m currently reading Proof of Spiritual Phenomena by Mona Sobhani. I picked this book because the author holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience and supposedly have been through the journey from being firmly grounded in materialism to being open minded about spritual phenomena. A transformation I have been seeking my entire life but never have been able to do as I never have been swayed by the available evidence nor have had any personal experiences.

It doesn’t begin well with several pages being spent on “Many Lives, Many Masters” by Brian Weiss. Brian Weiss is a past life regression therapist who claims to use scientific scrutiny in his work even though it’s so very obvious not true. A premium example being his famous patient “Catherine” whilst hypotised by Dr Weiss, saying that she could “vividly see” that, “The year is 1863 BC”. How could Catherine have seen a date that never existed at the time? Why were such cases never presented in a scientific journal? Could it be that such accounts really are fictitious?

At this early point in her book I’m very concerned about the so-called proof being presented. I had expected science, not anecdotal evidence from a Ph.D. Has anyone here read Proof of Spiritual Phenomena - Does it get better?

OK I was very materialistic all through my time at university and for some time after that - so I have made the same transition that you are trying to make. Like you, I have not had much in the way of direct experience.

I would start with Ian Stephenson's work about reincarnation, continued by Jim Tucker. This is hard evidence that people die and their minds/souls/spirits - whatever you like to call them - transfer to another baby or fetus and that a small number of children remain aware of their former lives long enough to discuss them with their parents and for investigators like Stephenson to get involved.

Very few of his cases (which number in the thousands) report past lives of famous people, which is useful because the information they pass on is not common knowledge. Some of these cases are really extraordinary - such as the kid who remembered being a fighter pilot fighting in the war against Japan. He remembered being shot down and dying, and was able to give a lot of details about his colleagues.

Past life regression therapy seems a lot more real after you have read some of this research!

The other place for scientific evidence regarding parapsychology, in general, would be Dean Radin's "Conscious Universe.".

You might also like the book "Irreducible Mind" which discusses evidence from medical scientists.

I think if you read some of the hard evidence first, you may find the book you are reading more readable.

David

Bruce Greyson's book "After" is written from his medical/scientific viewpoint although the cases are inevitably anecdotal because he can't take someone into the lab and reproduce their experiences. Nevertheless, his objectivity is as you would expect from a scientifically trained mind (and it is an easier read than "Irreducible Mind").

However, I would caution against looking for "proof". At best you will find stories with verifiable elements but these experiences are, by their very nature, subjective to a certain degree. Subjectivity and science do not go well together, so much so that a taboo has developed which tried to eliminate all subjectivity from scientific endeavours. Sometimes it boils down to belief in human nature and statistics. What I mean by that is that I use my own sceptical facilities to determine whether something is believable while trying to keep an open mind and not dismissing something because it disagrees with my own worldview. As for statistics - there are just too many well-researched accounts of all kinds of paranormal phenomena to dismiss them all. That's probably running foul of some logical fallacy or other but it is enough to convince me.

David and Kamarling, thanks for your reading advices. coincidentally I considered reading “After” before I decided to buy “Proof of Spiritual Phenomena”. I also looked at Amazon reviews of the book but in the end decided it didn’t bring anything new on the table that would challenge my thinking as it’s mainly additional NDE accounts as I understand it.

I’m well aware of the reincarnation research. I have even attended a talk by late Erlendur Haraldsson a couple of years ago. Unfortunately it’s not hard evidence in my book. The main source of past life information is sourced through the parents in these cases. As an example read Jim Tucker’s published case about James Leninger. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stud...000331.pdf
 
I doubt such an article can sway anyone without an apriori believe in for example reincarnation. I think I hold the same position as Carl Sagan who wrote regarding that reincarnation research “have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong."

I’m well aware of the reincarnation research. I have even attended a talk by late Erlendur Haraldsson a couple of years ago. Unfortunately it’s not hard evidence in my book.

Until we recognise that we process spatially and temporally across spacetime (transcending spacetime) we ain't going anywhere fast.

David and Kamarling, thanks for your reading advices. coincidentally I considered reading “After” before I decided to buy “Proof of Spiritual Phenomena”. I also looked at Amazon reviews of the book but in the end decided it didn’t bring anything new on the table that would challenge my thinking as it’s mainly additional NDE accounts as I understand it.

I’m well aware of the reincarnation research. I have even attended a talk by late Erlendur Haraldsson a couple of years ago. Unfortunately it’s not hard evidence in my book. The main source of past life information is sourced through the parents in these cases. As an example read Jim Tucker’s published case about James Leninger. https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-stud...000331.pdf
 
I doubt such an article can sway anyone without an apriori believe in for example reincarnation. I think I hold the same position as Carl Sagan who wrote regarding that reincarnation research “have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong."

What sort of evidence would you want? In the example I quoted, the child attended some sort of military reunion and picked out his former colleagues. There is just shed loads of evidence, which is just ignored.

One of the first things that impressed me, was a TV program about psi, in which an 'expert' was rolled on to explain that sadly there was no scientific evidence for psi. I'd already read enough to know there were some positive results in published papers. This told me that some 'experts' don't have any interest in the truth. I don't know why - maybe it is fear of psi?

David

What sort of evidence would you want? In the example I quoted, the child attended some sort of military reunion and picked out his former colleagues. There is just shed loads of evidence, which is just ignored.

One of the first things that impressed me, was a TV program about psi, in which an 'expert' was rolled on to explain that sadly there was no scientific evidence for psi. I'd already read enough to know there were some positive results in published papers. This told me that some 'experts' don't have any interest in the truth. I don't know why - maybe it is fear of psi?

David

You ask a very good question - what sort of evidence would I want. I’m starting to believe a personal experience would be needed. I’ve had some experiences that with good faith could be interpreted as telepathy. But nothing that can be regarded as irrefutable evidence. By the way, I have read Ian Rubenstein’s “Consulting Spirit” - which I can highly recommend (all you british are probably familar with this author). I’m not completely immune to books about this topic.

I think you might get the best personal evidence if you looked up the mediums that the statistician Julie Beischel tested using an amazing multiply blind procedure. Go to one of these mediums explaining that you want to reveal as little information about yourself or the deceased relative(s) that you wish to contact - precisely to give yourself confidence in what information you get. Alex interviewed Julie on Skeptiko some time back so he might also be able to help.

Alternatively, I guess you could just walk into a spiritualist church without revealing any personal details, and see what turned up that way - but of course I guess those mediums might be less reliable.

Is your telepathic experience inherently one-off, or could it be extended. Why not describe it here?

I would also ask yourself how it is that the Ganzfeld telepathy tests have consistently averaged out at a little over 30% success rate, when they should average at 25%.

I'd always somewhat written you off as being an out-and-out materialist. It is interesting to know that you are not!

David

I think you might get the best personal evidence if you looked up the mediums that the statistician Julie Beischel tested using an amazing multiply blind procedure. Go to one of these mediums explaining that you want to reveal as little information about yourself or the deceased relative(s) that you wish to contact - precisely to give yourself confidence in what information you get. Alex interviewed Julie on Skeptiko some time back so he might also be able to help.

Alternatively, I guess you could just walk into a spiritualist church without revealing any personal details, and see what turned up that way - but of course I guess those mediums might be less reliable.

Is your telepathic experience inherently one-off, or could it be extended. Why not describe it here?

I would also ask yourself how it is that the Ganzfeld telepathy tests have consistently averaged out at a little over 30% success rate, when they should average at 25%.

I'd always somewhat written you off as being an out-and-out materialist. It is interesting to know that you are not!

David

I’m not an eliminativ materialist as Paul Churchland. Without haven read all his arguments I think this position is illogical. Many of the great scientists of last century held far less extreme views like Bohr, Planck, Schrödinger, Eccles and so forth and accepted that consciousness could not be described by reductionism (I derive this position from various  quotes by these gentlemen. Planck and Eccles was obviously religious). But I believe materialism can be false without survival of the “self” being true. At the end of the day I mostly care about the “survival” question. 

I have Julie Beischel’s work and the Ganzfeld experiments on my to-do reading list. Especially the latter is obviously not an introductionary reading text (I would need to refresh my under graduate statistics first) and I don’t feel I have time for that right now. I do read what the forum member “Ersby” writes about the subject from time to time as he obviously has invested the time and effort to make an individual opinion about this material.

I’m not sure if we have spritual churches in my country (Denmark) but it’s a good suggestion. I recently considered contacting a professional medium, but I’m not convinced it would be money well spent.

Anyway I will finish the book by Mona Sobhani as the later chapters in the book seems to provide more of a neurological perspective to the whole thing which is what I was hoping for.

I’m not an eliminativ materialist as Paul Churchland. Without haven read all his arguments I think this position is illogical. 

Opinion on Graziano's Attention Schema Theory? It fits on the eliminativist point of view, and had some hype going around for some years but dwindled out afaik.