To start this particular blog, let it be known that you could consider myself a ârationalistâ. I am a biologist by academic standards, and I plan on pursuing a career in academics. However, I feel that being a ârationalistâ has clear and distinct differences from a âmaterialistâ, which I certainly am not in many instances of the definition. In anthropological terms, a âmaterialistâ might be a person who seeks physical evidence, (i.e. concrete data, visual evidence, etc.), and is rightfully so different from rationality. I think that Hufford does a very good job at accentuating the need for a post-modern distinction between the two views, seeing that they can be treated as synonyms by some. For those subjects who have had near-death experiences and reported a feeling/sense of spirituality and/or accompaniment by higher beings, it logically follows that these individuals have no possible way of producing material evidence of their experience. Yet, similar experiences are described by many people who have experienced an NDE, such as leaving oneâs body, traveling through a tunnel of light, observing their own physical being, accompaniment by âbeings of lightâ, etc. None of these phenomena are able to be proven by any scientific means or study, yet the subjects are able to reproduce similar memories and experiences completely independent of one another. On page 150 of Huffordâs âVisionary Spiritual ExperiencesâŚâ, in 1980 psychologist Kenneth Ring published the first data on NDEs and recorded some of these recognizable patterns among the subjects. In 2001 a published study by Dutchman van Lommel found a positive correlation between NDEs and a positive effect on the emotional and social health of the subjects.
Who are those that reject the âmaterialityâ of such experiences, especially when producing profound effects for their subjects? In our pre-modern, non-Western civilizations, shamans and other spiritual figures have been bringing about spiritual experiences for their people for hundreds and possibly thousands of years. Why should we now write off our own human history for the sake of what can âactually be provenâ? To me that feels ignorant; to only believe in something that can manifest itself in an omniscient form would be greedy, as if humans deserve 100% disclosure on what is to be accepted as real or not. We are only organisms that roam this planet, regardless of how complex we may be, and the idea that âmetaphysicalâ events are not actually true because it cannot be proven is irrational. Outside of drug-induced events, I personally cannot vouch for the existence of âsupernatural beingsâ. But I have previously, and from time-to-time still do dabble in meditative practices, and can report that I have felt positive spiritual experiences, just in the realm of being me. Itâs not something that I practice consistently, but I am able to recognize times in my life when my head is in a foggy place, and meditation not only helps clear out any rough patches, but it also provides a touch of bliss, and overall renewal to my everyday experiences. I certainly do not take for granted the time that I have spent just simply being; it has been beneficial to my mental and physical health, even if in the smallest of manners.
