All Comments (45)

The attacks on Professor Stevens-Arroyo's narrative (as well as on his person) seem based on the premise that all phenomena can be based on a logical, scientific explaination. Having already lived the better part of half my life, I disagree with that premise: there are events that can only be classified as "miracles," illogical, or occuring without a rational basis. Is the glass half-empty or half-full? There are two signs in western society that a person is losing his or her marbles: 1) a person hears voices, or 2) a person talks about God. To write in one essay about both of these topics therefore removes all doubt for some readers. Professor Stevens-Arroyo has a right to tell us about his experiences. All the best to you, Prof. Professor Stevens-Arroyo.

i think that your father wants you to visit his friend. this is probably why you heard his voice.

i think your father knew your mother would forget and wanted you to know his good friend died.

i think your father knew your mother would forget and wanted you to know his good friend died.

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.
"if you have faith no proof is needed,if you do not,none is possable."ST.Tomas

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.
"if you have faith no proof is needed,if you do not,none is possable."ST.Tomas

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.
"if you have faith no proof is needed,if you do not,none is possable."ST.Tomas

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.
"if you have faith no proof is needed,if you do not,none is possable."ST.Tomas

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.
"if you have faith no proof is needed,if you do not,none is possable."ST.Tomas

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.
"if you have faith no proof is needed,if you do not,none is possable."ST.Tomas

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.
"if you have faith no proof is needed,if you do not,none is possable."ST.Tomas

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.

i think that your father was trying to tell you that you should go to the funeral. it was to late for you to have gone,and he wanted you to know his friends died.

i think ur dad wanted you to go to the funeral.he probably thought you would want to know and ur mother would forget.

i think ur dad wanted you to go to the funeral.he probably thaought ud want to know and ur mother would forget.

i thnk that what happend to you was a conection between you and your father. he probably wanted you to go to the wake.

i thnk that what happend to you was a conection between you and your father. he probably wanted you to go to the wake.

i thnk that what happend to you was a conection between you and your father. he probably wanted you to go to the wake.

To/Brothers as Sisters,..as all good people to knowing God one must be equal with God, not the grovling, snivling,fools that we having become. You but allow others to brainwash as abuse that you become as servants to man,as prisoners unto their deceit cunning.God having no need or wish that you come a begging as a dog,unto its master to obey on call.Get off your knees,stand before God as your equal,thus win your freedom....Your BROTHER inARMS...LUCIFER xxx X

Locomoco writes: "However, the fact that the uniquely relevant details of his dream wer corroborated by verifiable events is undeniably significant. No doubt this is why the naysayers have ignored that minor detail so assiduously."

The uniquely relevant details of my dream were corroborated by verifiable events as well. Shall I take my dream as constituting personal evidence for the afterlife of houses?

There's no point arguing with anyone's mystical experience. You weren't there, you don't know what happened. You don't know how long the story has cooked in the man's mind before he told it, or whether any confabulation took place. You just have to accept it as a personal story, and say, "Huh. That's interesting."

You don't accept it as evidence of anything, either. The experience is completely subjective and unreproducible. It isn't evidence. It's a story.

Most responders who devalue Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's personal experience are studiously dodging the key point.

It was not that he woke up thinking that he heard his dad's voice. I agree this, in itself, is meaningless.

It was not so much that he was able to remember a particularly striking portion of his dream. If that was all there was to it, again, it's meaningless.

However, the fact that the uniquely relevant details of his dream wer corroborated by verifiable events is undeniably significant. No doubt this is why the naysayers have ignored that minor detail so assiduously.

Those same naysayers cannot prove their contentions any more definitively than the believers can prove theirs. Moreover, no amount of blustering about "imaginary friends" or "childish fantasies" can remedy that defect. Therefore my respect goes more towards the classic agnostic (according to the true meaning of the term) than to the fundies of both extremes.

Having had a couple of similar experiences myself, I concur with the Prof and John of the Cross that it's really not possible to generalize them in such a way that they "prove" anything to anyone else. That certainly doesn't minimize their profound significance in my own life.

And in closing I must say it's quite hilarious to see people making reference to the various beliefs of fictional characters -- not as illustrations -- but to buttress their arguments.

Pagan Place;

Hi. you are wrong to deduce that atheists project their fear of death onto others.
My comment that without death we would not need religion,is something I really believe.
Frankly I am nearing the end game,two years tops.
I see no reason to fear death. I do not look forward to dying.But death is fine.
I was dead for billions of years before I lived.
I will be dead again one day.And,as far as I know,I will stay dead.
I am not so afraid that I want to think-up a God to give me comfort.Thats for little old ladies.
All we really know Pagan,is that there is death after life. We have to get over it,instead of making up childish fantasies about a hereafter.
Respectfully...yoyo

"Without death,we wouldn't need God."

I think that's a narrow view of spiritual experience that some forms of religion unfortunately live down to, much to the sorrow of many.

Maybe we wouldn't need a 'God' of absolute control if we weren't taught to fear death so blindly.

But suppose that weren't an issue... Could be there's more.

Me, I see atheists and monotheists squabbling about which side of an ultimately sterile and dead and painful universe, it's 'ultimately right' to be on (after you're dead, from that imagined point of view.)

Could just be that life is bigger than what we think of it and that's worth loving.

The rest, it seems, is talk.

Too often, I think, atheists and Christians both, like to project their fears of death onto others.

I gotta tell you. If you've hurt enough, death is not the scariest thing out there.

Life, on the other hand... Ain't worth wasting worrying about What In Words Is Ultimately Right.

Our experience is of our world being alive, and if one can see it otherwise, well, I don't know what comfort that brings, but that's OK if you can make it work.

This... should not be a war.

"If you've ever been under general anesthesia, where the conscious functioning of the mind is halted, you know that the time between when you go under and the time that you come to absolutely does not exist for you."

Actually, I have been, and found the anaesthesia wasn't quite as absolute as promised, much to my later discomfiture. :)

Belief in souls and spirits does not necessarily mean belief that souls and spirits have *active brains.* :)

I believe in death after life.
There's no avoiding it.

Religion has a big investment in death.
Without death,there would be no religion.
Without death,we wouldn't need God.
Death scares us.And religion promises us paradise,
if only we believe in magic,and the skygod.
But it's so darn childish I just can't do that.
I don't understand how ANYBODY can do that.
Maybe the only way a grown-up can believe this stuff,
is to be indoctrinated as a child,which,mercifully I wasn't.

organized beliefs. (pp194)

"My father's rejection of all that is called religious belief was not,as
many might suppose,primarily a matter of logic and evidence: the grounds for
it were moral, more than intellectual. He found it impossible to believe
that a world so full of evil was the work of a God combining infinite
power with perfect goodness and righteousness.
His aversion to religion,in the sense usually attached to the term,was of
the same kind with that of Lucretius; he regarded it with the feelings due
not to mere mental delusion but to a great moral evil.
It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father's ideas of duty to
allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings
respecting religion;and he impressed on me from the first that the manner in
which the world came into existence was a subject on which nothing was known".

John Stuart Mill,quoted in "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell.

Dear Paganplace -

Re: Sherlock Holmes & Conan Doyle.

Your point about Doyle being a spiritualist have nothing to do with the conversation. Stevens-Arroyo cited Holmes as an example, not Doyle. Doyle put nothing of the spiritualist into Holmes when he created the character of Holmes.

One may as well posit that Stephen King believes in the fantastic situations found in his dime store novels.

I tell you by the ending of this year you will see many famous people go to their graves. Take this as a sign America as I have seen the dead come to Me. They speak of belief, and many of you will say they are lost because they placed their riches before God. But I tell you many in their final moments will accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and King, and make him their Lord. I tell you the needy will join the Savior, for it is the needy that need Christ.

http://jcudell.blogspot.com/

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenents and rituals irrational, archaic and more importantly when it comes to matters of humanity’s long-term survival, mutually incompatible. There are names for people who have beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.’’

Criticizing a person’s faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse. Criticizing a person’s ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.’’

A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy, if not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in the holiness of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the sake of expediting the second coming of Christ believe in the holiness of their cause. Such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their religious texts or ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously, attending to the holy texts on which their faith is built. Unhappily for international community, the Good Books that undergird the world’s major religions are extraordinary anthologies of violence and vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die.

In the 21st century when swords have been beaten into megaton bombs, the persistence of ancient, blood-washed theisms that emphasize their singular righteousness and their superiority over competing faiths poses a genuine threat to the future of humanity, if not the biosphere: ‘’We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation,’’ he writes, ‘’because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.’’

I have a particular ire for religious moderates, those who ‘’have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths’’ and who ‘’imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.’’ Religious moderates are the ones who thwart all efforts to criticize religious literalism. By preaching tolerance, they become intolerant of any rational discussion of religion and ‘’betray faith and reason equally.’’

The human need for a mystical dimension to life like mysticism and other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity.

At this time Islam is the reigning threat to humankind. Much like a gruesome, Inquisition-style Christianity of the 13th century only leads us to believe not all cultures are at the same stage of moral development,’’ I couldn’t help but think of Ann Coulter’s morally developed suggestion that we invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity.

I will say this of Faith: it has been the foundation of every religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches, temples and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of millennium past. Evolution is still howled as the great enemy of faith. It simply has the greatest following of scientists and evidence. It's not scientifically that any religion has ever tried to debunk Evolution. They brought forth no evidence. They claimed no new discoveries. Their only tactic was to point to tattered and very old scriptues -- to flip through the pages, and read the rancid words, almost as if they were pure gold. Faith does not require investigation, or evidence, or demonstration, or observation, or logical deductions. It simply requires that a person believe, in spite of what evidence may say: it requires that a person blindfolds themselves when demonstration is shown, to use earplugs when anyone speaks of logic, and to turn away at every reason for them to believe what Faith tells them is wrong. Those cults and sects which have utilized violence for the realization of their apocalyptic future -- they required nothing but the willpower and a great deal of Faith.

The mind has a physical basis. It is the result of electrochemical interactions in the thousand trillion interconnections between the 100 billion neurons in the brain. Using magnetic resonance imaging, thoughts can be "seen". However, this unbelievably complex organ has a very hard time understanding very large numbers. That is why it can't understand its own function. It can't understand the concept of billions of years, and so often doesn't believe in evolution. It cannot understand the size of the universe - 150 billion light-years, and thus the earth's place in it.

The mind is firmly anchored to its material existence. If you've ever been under general anesthesia, where the conscious functioning of the mind is halted, you know that the time between when you go under and the time that you come to absolutely does not exist for you. Those who are in serious accidents often have no memory of the accident itself. This is not due to some kind of repression, but instead to the fact that the mind is disabled during the time that permanent memories are normally formed. If thought could exist without brain function, then neither of these things would happen.

There are some people that will never believe what I'm saying - they "know" better. But once again - for those interested in reality - the world is the way it is - not the way we may wish it to be.

Though, as for this, Professor:

"So what was my dream about Mr. Molnar? A “real” contact with my deceased father? Or just the mind playing tricks? My answer follows the teachings of St. John of the Cross. What happened is for me and for me alone to decide."

Whosever 'answers' you follow, it *is* for you: you dreamed of your father and his friend and got Good Information.

'Truth' is cheap. Information costs. This is a powerful dream and one probably about something more important than 'proving' anything about something else. :)

Blessed be. :)

Hi, Professor.

I agree, actually. Well, mostly.

You quote here:

"He states clearly that such manifestations are not “revelation” to be added to the scriptures. Rather, they are “gifts” to individuals to advance their faith. In the thinking of the Mystical Doctor, spirit contacts are just as likely to be found among the doubting as they are among the saintly. In all cases, they do not guarantee salvation or holiness. Moreover, it should be obvious that much less theological importance is attached to spirit tip-offs about winning lottery numbers."

As something of a self-styled detective, I say,
how does this follow that spirits necessarily have anything to do with what 'scripture' says in the first place, or even that they must a priori be taken to 'advance faith' in particular dogmas?

Is that the reality and knowing of these experiences, or is that merely what someone insists we be *taught* to think of them?

Now, in my dealings with such things, I'd say to Mr. Mark that it's really more important to know what the spirits are *doing* than to say, 'They caused this.'

Holmes' axiom does not say 'Throw away reason at the point your rationalism is overwhelmed or seems inadequate.'

Arthur Conan Doyle, in fact, was quite the spiritualist and Faery seeker... to varying degrees of understanding. He would not *categorically blind himself* to the supernatural, ...perhaps in accepting it was not *impossible,* he was able to speak of keeping reason, able to insist on *not being bamboozled,* even *in* a world and consciousness populated by spirits and conceptions of lost loved ones.

People who don't fall for scams are in general not those who insist on a materialist or religiously-defined world, ....these have a tendency to have their incredulity overwhelmed and therefore decide everything in their heads that they'd previously dismissed must in fact be true.

I sometimes joke to rational materialists who say, "Show me a wonder and I will believe,"

"That's exactly why I wouldn't, if this stuff worked on-demand in the first place."

Cause they'd believe any damn thing that came to their minds, cause they taught themselves and were taught all their lives that if anything 'supernatural' was real, it would mean that all manner of other stuff they usually don't think hard about must also be 'real.''

I think that's why people so often become credulous and manipulable once that 'safety barrier' is crossed.

What if it's just life?

That ain't peanuts. :)

Stevens-Arroyo writes:

"Sherlock Holmes, who was supposed to have said something like: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” It’s the only reasonable and logical position to assume about spirit contact."

The great Holmes would be the first to eliminate spirits in coming to an explanation for why something happened. I direct you to "The Hound of the Baskervilles" for starters.

Here's the thing about Mr Holmes' statement, Mr S-A:

ELIMINATING possibilities is not the same as IGNORING or BEING IGNORANT OF evidence. Apparently, your being ignorant of scientific evidence allows you to treat fantasy as evidence. I see this with the creationists and their anti-evolutionary straw men. Creationists love to make statements like, "evolution can't explain how life began in the first place," when the fact is that evolution DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE how life got here in the first place. They set up a strawman and then reach the same conclusion as you: god/spirits did it.

Infantile thoughts, sir. I'm surprised your contributions (?) to On Faith haven't cost you your university position.

Stevens-Arroyo's anecdotal evidence is unimportant, as he well knows. This kind of introspective testimony cannot be used to substantiate a claim of para-normalism (whatever that means).

What is interesting are the three statements he opens with. I'll reproduce them here so others do not have to go back to the full article:

"No. 1. Yes, there are para-normal experiences amply documented in the past and continuing into the present that as yet have no scientific explanation.

No. 2. Some people conclude there are reasons to attribute the events to spirits, thus indicating an after-life.

No. 3. Even in the face of evidence contradicting their pre-determined convictions, some will refuse to believe there is life after death."

Now, no. 2 is out immediately. That some people draw certain causal relationships between events and the existence of "spirits" is not evidence of an afterlife. It is evidence of wishful thinking. Therefore, No. 2 is no more a proof of spirits than is Stevens-Arroyo's personal story.

No. 3 says nothing, if the so called "evidence" is false. No. 3 also begs the question, because it assumes that the evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural is true. Thus, no. 3 is out unless Stevens-Arroyo can provide this evidence (see no. 1).

Which leaves no. 1. Now, even assuming the truth that there have been -- let's use Stevens-Arroyo's chosen term of "para-normal" experiences for argument's sake -- that as yet have no scientific explanation, this does not even begin to approach proof of the existence of the supernatural. A scientific explanation of these experiences, presumably would rule out a para-normal explanation, and since a scientific explanation is still possible at some point in the future, to use no. 1 in an argument for the para-normal is absurd.

There are many other criticisms that can be made of the reasoning in point no. 3, I will provide one more. Stevens-Arroyo seems to be committing the either-or fallacy. Either science can presently offer an explanation for X-experience, or it must be para-normal. This is clearly fallacious.

KENNETH, FRANCOIS

So Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is woefully wrong. His starting syllogism made me laugh out loud. But that's no reason for the personal venom.

Disagree with his arguments, but don't condemn the person. Otherwise, you are no different from those who try to club people into believing by personal attacks.

Looking at all of your "On Faith" columns, I'm convinced you're a fool.

Your brain contains a mindset that I despise; I will fight people like you until the day I die.

If you were truly an intellectual, you would laugh at yourself and the deluded views you espouse.

On numerous occasions, I've been awakened by hearing the voice of a loved one ringing in my ears, as if they were in the room with me. The kicker is that these people were still very much alive, but were living hundreds of miles away at the time.

I'm sure all of us have heard voices such as this, perhaps due to nothing more than echoes of past memories or a particularly lucid dream. Hearing the "voice" of a dead loved one is really no different than hearing the voice of a living loved one who happens not to be present; it is not evidence that proves there is life after death.

There are no coincidences!
Until ten minutes ago, I didn't know your article (Sherlock Holmes and the Spirits) existed. I had just finished posting a response to the response of "Gigi" to Sally Quinn about the realness of her experience of her deceased son's presence. In my (latest) response to Gigi, in part I said, essentially, that her experience was God's gift to her to let her know of the reality of the non-material world so as to encourage her to continue to seek Him.
Then, as I was about to leave the WashPost site, I "was moved" to poke around, and found your article. When I found your "(St.) John of the Cross" reference (which paralleled my just-posted observance to "Gigi"), I couldn't contain my spontaneous laughter at the Holy Spirit's seeming re-inforcement (to me) of what I wrote (only possible by His urging) in charity for Gigi to see!
Prior to my initial, unsolicited psychic experiences at the age of 21, I had been a dyed-in-the-wool (closet) atheist since the age of 10 at my parochial grade school. I ascribed all the "supernatural" events related to me as so much hogwash meant for the gullible. That all changed when I was a college student in my junior year majoring in physics. At that time I had been studying Tai Chi Chuan since I began college, and I began having (unanticipated AND unsolicited!) psychic experiences: having dreams come true and hearing/knowing things without anyone or any thing telling me. These experiences opened me to the possibility that I was wrong and that there WAS an existence/reality beyond the material one with which we are so familiar. Over time, I was led, via an exploration of the religions of the world, to embrace the fullness of Truth which resides in the Catholic Church.
I hope that whoever reads this may benefit by not spending lost time in disbelief of God's existence and the truth of Christianity.

I lived in the same house from ages 1 to 10 and then we moved into a new house. One night soon after we moved I dreamed that the old house burnt down. I dreamed that my dad told me about it over the table saw that was still standing in our as of yet unfinished kitchen.

I awoke in the morning and my dad fulfilled my dream precisely.

Shall I conclude that the spirit of the old house was trying to contact me for one final 'goodbye'?

It's painful to see fellow humans that want to believe something so badly that they'll subjugate their own intellect in order to believe it.

"So what was my dream about Mr. Molnar? A “real” contact with my deceased father? Or just the mind playing tricks?"

What do you think the most-likely answer? If you said, "just the mind playing tricks," you win a cigar.

Mr. Arroyo,

After reading your postings, I still can't believe you're a college professor. Obviously, the school you teach at could be considered mediocre at best.

You still didn't dicuss the evidence of life after death anyways.

Again, the Washington Post cshould be ashmaned to publish such dribble.

-Kenneth