Critical Thinking - Death of

At one time critical thinking was one of the primary lessons learned as an undergraduate. This was taught in a variety of ways but was always viewed as a fundamental learning technique. The rationale was that in order to learn one must think and thinking must be disciplined because undisciplined thinking led to poor learning while a disciplined and structured approach led to better thinking and thus better learning. Good teachers cultivate critical thinking and encourage it in their classrooms frequently using the Socratic Method of questioning and some common questions are:

a) What did the text say or what was meant?
b) What is the source of your information?
c) How did you arrive at that conclusion?
d) What assumptions have you made or what assumptions were made by the author?
e) Are there alternate interpretations?
f) So why is this relevant?

This form of thinking lies at the heart of the “Scientific Method” which rests on these basic facts. These are “Observation” – the phenomena or topic of inquiry must be observed. The second is “Description” so that data presented to describe the phenomena must be repeatable and pertinent. “Prediction” is third so that the data must be consistent through time and the phenomena predictable. The fourth is “Control” meaning that the data sample must be across all possible occurrences and not dependent on selected or opportunistic data. The purpose of this step is to prevent falsification – intentional or unintentional – of data in support of the original postulation. This means that a “theory” must remain a “theory” until there is a sufficient body of evidence that demonstrates the postulation and allows for a predictable result in every case.

Alas this seems to be where the educational system has gone astray because increasingly the classroom has become a bastion of “belief” rather than a center of skepticism. This begins with what is perhaps the most egregious example of “belief” rather than “science” and this is “Evolution”.
This debate began with Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” as described in his seminal work “The Origin of the Species”. The first problem of course is that Darwin’s book did not address or describe the origin of species, it simply described how existing species “adapted” to their environment. At the time of it’s publication critical thinking was alive and well in the universities and there was widespread skepticism at the time about his conclusions. Darwin himself established criteria that must be met in order for his theory to be proven. To date none of those requirements have been met. Yet “Evolution” is taught in the classroom as a fact and any questioning or critical analysis of this is not permitted. This is a vivid example of how critical thinking is rapidly approaching extinction in our universities.

Most recently there is the issue of “Global Warming”. While the reality of global warming is really not questioned, the debate on causation –as allowed in the classroom – is restricted to human activity. Data from climatologists is dismissed as irrelevant and popular opinions, none of which meet the test of scientific investigation as outlined above. Another example of how critical thinking is being abandoned by our educators in favor of “belief”. However, while these are two of the most obvious examples they are not the only ones.

Perhaps the one that has most impacted our society is that of “side smoke” or “environmental tobacco smoke”. It is widely reported that anywhere from thousands to millions of people die each year from the effects of “side smoke” yet there is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this belief. The entire foundation for this conclusion rests on “statistics” but even these statistics – such as they are – are highly suspect because their source is not disclosed and not disclosed for a very good reason. No death certificate has ever read – cause of death – side smoke. These statistics are almost always couched in terms of “smoking related” but then the statistics almost by definition are suspect because everybody dies of something and virtually everyone on the planet has been exposed to side smoke in some form. Therefore, every death on the planet can be ascribed to “smoking related”. However, does anyone challenge these figures? No - -because students are taught to believe what they are told and not to think for themselves.

But then we get into the metaphysical realm, where challenge is certainly not encouraged. In spite of numerous examples and scientific studies, life after death is not accepted nor discussed, even though it meets enough of the scientific method to at least qualify as a theory. It must be remembered that all reasoning has a purpose and all too frequently the reasoning in our classrooms is aimed at conversion or indoctrination to a belief rather than leading to an independent conclusion. Educated people, schooled in critical thinking cannot be stampeded or swayed by demagogues or those given to flawed and fallacious thinking, so it is no surprise that critical thinking is dying in our bastions of learning where the objective no longer seems to be education but the espousal of belief.

Pathetic Science

There are many engineers and scientists who labor in the bowels of corporations who generally remain anonymous and rarely publish anything because they are there to create a competitive edge and profits for their employers. Then we have the “popular” scientists who inhabit the halls of academia and who regularly publish articles describing their latest scientific finding with great fanfare. These “findings” usually run along the lines of “Scientist discovers a link between Twisted Tail Porcupine Poop and marriage”. It seems that women who regularly apply Porcupine Poop to their bodies have an 82% chance of not becoming pregnant. Of course they have a 90% chance of not having any male come within smelling distance but like most of these “scientific discoveries” based on statistics salient facts are left out and thus it is with the latest finding coming out of Academic Science.

The academic scientific community is losing all credibility as they move from empirical science and the scientific method to data mining and statistics. But worse than this shift from science to data sampling is the insufferable arrogance and supercilious air that characterizes the academic scientists. Challenges to their beliefs are no longer accepted and foremost among these beliefs is the denial of a supreme being. Science is becoming more and more of a religion with its practitioners expected to embrace it uncritically and with complete faith. This attitude is most commonly associated with Evolution which is no longer viewed by these scientists as a “theory” but as a “fact” even though all of their evidence is simply evidence of adaptation and not evolution in the sense that a new species is created. But most recently we have the popular science academics all in a lather about “global warming (or cooling depending on the year)” What they ignore in their rush to judgment is that no one denies that global warming is a reality, the dispute is over the cause. The scientists who actually study climate and climate changes are ignored while scientists in other fields are being quoted by the popular press as if they knew what they were talking about.

Now the academic scientific community has managed to combine their denial of God, their overweening arrogance, and total acceptance of Evolution into one finding, and THAT is that a belief in a supreme being is the result of Evolution. Washington University Anthropologist Pascal Boyer in his drive to determine why people who seem otherwise perfectly rational choose to believe in God rather than the more rational non-belief of atheism, has concluded that this characteristic is the result of Evolution. Indeed, he and a gaggle of other atheistic scientists have written a variety of books debunking God. These books include such provocative titles as “The God Delusion”, “The End of Faith”, “Breaking the Spell”, and my personal favorite “God is NOT Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. These books and these “scientists” view faith in God as some sort of mental flaw or aberration, but fail to see their blind faith in (non-empirical) science as tantamount to the same thing. Faith based science seems very like faith based religion and both require total belief with each denying any facts or evidence presented by the other group.

Boyer takes the position that even though he is an atheist his objective is not to debunk God but simply to present his findings, which sound more like opinions than facts. The academic community believed that as civilization advanced and societies based on science became the norm, religion would disappear, but surprisingly this hasn’t happened and approximately 97% of the population continues to persist in their irrational belief in God. Therefore, the only logical conclusion according to these atheists, is that a belief in God is some sort of Evolutionary defense mechanism. That this belief in a supreme being provides a framework for social behavior – such as working together and fighting off enemies, that allows individuals to survive in a hostile environment and it extends the life expectancy of the group and individuals within that group. This latter point was based on a study of Mormons in Utah but the scientists do admit that this correlation between belief in God and longevity among the Mormons might also be attributed to their relatively healthy lifestyle, which includes no alcohol (not even the highly touted red wine so dear to the hearts of many academics), tobacco, drugs, and unmarried sex. In effect this was not an unflawed study.

What seems to have escaped Boyer and his fellow atheists is that if their theory is correct and that a belief in God is driven by evolution, then there can only be two logical conclusions. One is that those who believe must be higher on the Evolutionary scale than those who don’t believe. Or alternatively the atheists among us are more highly evolved because they no longer require the approval of others, teamwork, or cooperation with the society, and they can exist as totally independent entities. It is fairly obvious which of these alternatives the scientists believe, but they seem to ignore that if Evolution is not a theory but a fact, then we are in fact highly developed animals. In the animal world, those individuals who are different, flawed, or unusual are shunned, driven from the group and ultimately die off leaving the gene pool cleansed of the deviants. therefore, it would be the atheists who are deviant and would be eliminated by natural selection. Their small number would seem to bear this out.

These scientists are so driven by their religion of atheism, that they are blinded by the illogic of their position. They ignore the first singularity that initiated the big bang, they ignore all of the findings of Quantum Physics, they ignore all metaphysical studies like near death experiences, but instead postulate a position and a conclusion that God doesn’t exist without offering any facts in support of their belief. I am reminded of the famous graffiti “God is Dead – Nietzsche” “Nietzsche is Dead – God”

Hell, Near Death, and Science

At this point it seems that we know that the origin of life was a random event brought about by the chance collision of various atoms, that the diversity of life is the result of evolutionary processes, and God is simply an invention by the credible and ignorant. We also know that Heaven and Hell are also inventions of man no matter how ancient the concepts and finally, we know that the resurrection of Jesus and his bodily ascent into Heaven were not only impossible but the whole idea borders on the laughable. But then Quantum Physics enters the picture and this beautiful picture so carefully constructed by scientists begins to wobble like a bobble head in a storm, as the need for a first cause manifests itself, followed by the uncertainty of atoms, photons, and other particles that make up our reality. Then there is the growing body of evidence that not only are we – Homo Sapiens – pure energy but that we – that is our ego’s – persist after clinical death.

The research into these Near-Death-Experiences (NDE’s) certainly indicate that our physical bodies are very analogous to a coat that merely houses us for a short period and that is cast off at death but the person wearing the coat survives in an energetic form. At this point, it seems certain that this survival or apparent survival is not the result of any psychological, physiological, or pharmacological process. But not unexpectedly, this conclusion raises even more perplexing questions. For example it has always been believed but not proven that consciousness and memories are localized in the brain and that thoughts or consciousness are produced by groups of neurons or neuronal networks, that is these functions are brain dependent and that these cannot exist without a brain. However, during a period of clinical death the brain function ceases and the EEG is flat, yet those people who have experienced an NDE retain memories and accurately describe events occurring around them during this period of clinical death, in effect they continue to function without an operable brain. For the moment let’s assume that recent research indicates that life does indeed continue after the death of the body but that it exists in an altered and energetic form.

Therefore, if we assume that life continues after clinical death that only answers one question while posing many others. In one study only 18% of the people in the study reported some recollection of events after clinical death and in another study only 10% reported an NDE, while 82% had no recollection of any event during clinical death. In those cases where an NDE occurs the overwhelming majority are positive but a percentage (1% to 15%) report negative experiences and within this group a small percentage report seeing demons or similar negative images. However, there does not seem to be any correlation between the person’s life experience and the positive or negative NDE and it those cases where a person has had multiple NDE’s some have been positive and others negative. In effect these people who have had an NDE experience that might be described as Heaven and Hell so what about Heaven and Hell?

Based on research mankind has had a belief in an afterlife since before written history but Heaven and Hell are relatively recent man made concepts, especially Hell with its colorful assortment of imps, devils, and demons. If these are not creations of God, and they appear to not be, then why do people experience them? More importantly, why do 82% not experience anything during clinical death? Furthermore, some comment on meeting Jesus during these experiences. Why Jesus? Why not Buddha, Mohammed, or even Zeus, why Jesus? Is this because that person expected to meet Jesus in the afterlife or is this an example of the inherent “rightness” of Christianity? And of course there is “Hell” which is even more of a human creation than Heaven. Where precisely is Heaven and why would at least some of the NDE’s experience what cannot only be described as “classic Hell”? Are these experiences based on the expectation of the person or are they reflections of the “real” afterlife? Probably we will never know although as research into NDE’s continues it is possible some patterns or correlations may emerge.

While many questions remain and not everyone who experiences clinical death has an NDE, it seems that there is growing evidence that we live in a physical world but a world of illusion. The entire universe is made up of identical protons, neutrons, and electrons, which combine to form what we perceive as our physical reality, but this reality – like the particles – is pure energy – in effect an energetic interconnected field that might be described as a thought projection. This physical reality is time driven but time itself is an illusion and is used solely as a framework for our individual and collective experience. Within this physical – mass oriented – reality we exist as physical beings but that existence is part of the illusion. We are in fact, energetic beings who exist independent of our bodies and of time – in effect we are eternal and our bodies disposable. We may visit the Earth Plane many many times, but death is really a rebirth into another plane of existence.

And this brings us back to the resurrection of Jesus. There are really two parts to this question, the first, can you die and be brought back to life and the second can you be transported physically to Heaven? I think the first question is a self-evident yes, because that is essentially what an NDE is, so yes Jesus could have died and been brought back to life in his physical body. This leaves us with the physical body of Jesus and could it be transported to Heaven? Let’s assume that Heaven is actually a different plane of existence, the one that we experience after death, then yes Jesus could have been transported there. If our bodies are pure energy then the physical body could leave by dropping its mass form and transform itself into pure energy – like light. So while the resurrection of Jesus may never be proven one way or another, it does seem possible. Furthermore, we do indeed appear to be energetic beings, with a soul and a life eternal.