Terminal Lucidity: The Researchers Attempting to Prove Your Mind Lives On

Terminal Lucidity

That this article exists in the publication that it does is the first surprising thing about it. But the studies it mentions, and the two researchers, were both new to me, and I found their positions and goals measured and promising for future research.

Interesting article, interesting views though, as you say, surprising that the article should appear in what seems to be a Men's Mag where they admit to "talking about dicks a lot". Nevertheless, here's a quote that caught my eye:

Struck by an unexpected memory, Batthyány momentarily stumbles into a rational minefield. “I just remembered one of my mentors, John Beloff. He was a well-known professor of psychology. But he was also doing work in parapsychology. He was, as far as I know, a strict atheist. And yet, he tended to believe that there was survival of death. This is a rational position. Survivalism, it’s called. It’s a very rare position, but it’s a very legitimate position.

“The idea is, and I mean, I’m speculating now, but essentially, he asks, ‘If God isn’t right now in this world, very obviously, then why should He be in the next world? I mean, there’s no logic. It doesn’t follow, right? So one should separate those questions — the religious question and the Survivalism question.”

I'd be interested to know what our skeptics (aka atheists) think of this atheistic survivalist position. I must admit that it is news to me.

The personal website of the quoted Michael Nahm.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006...obituaries

A fairly measured piece for The Guardian (a paper often antagonistic to these subjects). I would point out that Beloff seems to have carried forward the wishes of Koestler who provided the grant to fund the Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh. I did, initially, have something to say about Caroline Watt and Richard Wiseman (Beloff's successors at Edinburgh) but that is a personal opinion that I hold and not a very complimentary opinion of those two "parapsycholgists".

In 1983, Beloff was nominated as an executor of the will of his friend Arthur Koestler. Koestler gave his entire estate to establish a chair of parapsychology, and Beloff took a key role in finding a university to accept the gift. In 1985, Edinburgh accepted the chair (awarded to the late Robert Morris) and, as a result, parapsychological research has continued there to this day. Without doubt, Beloff's rigorous work in this area laid the groundwork for these subsequent developments.

...

In an area where passions run high and opinions too often are guided by prejudice, Beloff relied on data and reason. He had no theistic inclinations; and always demonstrated an even-handed approach to the material and to opposing points of view. So although he never overtly encountered the paranormal first-hand, and although he never succeeded in obtaining evidence for psychic functioning in his own experiments, he saw no choice but to accept at least some of the evidence for ESP, PK, and survival of death.

I'd be interested to know what our skeptics (aka atheists) think of this atheistic survivalist position. I must admit that it is news to me.

I'm not sure why it should be news.

When I first had experiences of telepathy and out-of-body experiences, it had no impact whatsoever on any ideas I had or didn't have about god. Survival? Well, that might just be an extended OOBE perhaps. It still doesn't imply anything else.

But perhaps I'm just more awkward than some. I tend to reject basic ideas such as God as an entity or being. As I reject attempts to define these things, it seems that words such as atheist or theist can not even be relevant to my position.

This isn’t a rare position to have where I come from. In fact, an atheistic survivalist position is most often the one I come across with kids around my age. When I was a militant atheist, I still believed in survival, telepathy, witchcraft, etc. I didn’t, and still don't, see atheism and psi/afterlife as being mutually exclusive. To be entirely honest, I tend to think survival is more probable than a God/Creator/MAL existing. Nowadays, I describe myself as a deist for the most part, but my faith/belief in it isn’t very strong.

I'm not sure why it should be news.

When I first had experiences of telepathy and out-of-body experiences, it had no impact whatsoever on any ideas I had or didn't have about god. Survival? Well, that might just be an extended OOBE perhaps. It still doesn't imply anything else.

But perhaps I'm just more awkward than some. I tend to reject basic ideas such as God as an entity or being. As I reject attempts to define these things, it seems that words such as atheist or theist can not even be relevant to my position.

I've tried to describe my own views on God and religion in the past and they are not so different to how you describe yours in that I don't believe in the anthropomorphic, personal God either. I still would not go so far as to call myself an atheist because I do have a concept of God. To be clear, I don't think it should be unusual for someone to believe in an afterlife while doubting (or rejecting) a deity. I just happen to have discussed the subject with a lot of atheists who all seem to reject anything they deem to be "supernatural" along with God. Those discussions can generally be summarised thus:

Do you believe in God? 

Certainly not!

Do you believe in life after death?

No, that's wishful thinking for the religious types. Death is the end.

On the subject of afterlife without atheism - there's also this. I've only just become aware of it myself. Unfortunately, the website in his biography seems defunct.

EDIT: You can get a preview at least here.

I wasn't aware this was unusual myself.