Of
late I have been preoccupied with a lot of interesting phenomena of
the paranormal kinds. I would go to the extent of admitting a degree
of obsession with these topics, my favourites being Near Death
Experiences (NDEs), Out of the Body Experiences (OBEs),
Rebirth/Reincarnation.
Do
I believe in these? If I have to reply very honestly, I am very
intrigued, evidence which is being published seems strangely
convincing, but if asked for a yes/no, I would have to say "I
don't know". I would like to believe in it. I want to believe in
it. My personal leanings would be towards belief. However, that is
entirely besides the point.
Any
attempt at discussions with most people leads to one of two answers -
a total belief (largely based on religious convictions and/or based
on available evidence) or an outright denial. It is only a handful of
people so far who have said "I don't know - maybe, may not
be".
I
have nothing against the people who disbelieve. My only arguments are
against their reasons which are essentially the same as for a
question like "Is there a God"? It would be, there is no
"proof" orno
"evidence" for
such a phenomenon. They would go out of their way to give some
neurochemical explanation to shrug off the evidence based on case
studies which is being published these days. Never mind the fact that
their explanation does
not necessarily disprove the
phenomenon. Does
lack of evidence or proof constitute valid reason to negate a
theory?
I
wonder: why is it that we can accept mathematical equations which are
"empirically formulated", but not other evidence. (I might
be absolutely stupid, but frankly an entity like "pi" whose
value is 3.14 to me appears to be empirically fixed. Where did they
dream up the value from? The level of mathematics I studied in
school/junior college did not give me any explanation on how it was
derived. And I am sure it is the same for anyone whose field of
expertise is not mathematics. But we have accepted this value
"empirically" nonetheless and got through school quite
uneventfully by accepting it as it is. Is there any "proof"
for this value? There might be, but my level of knowledge in the
field or the lack of it does not let me understand it.
On
what grounds can I refute studies which are published by leading
psychiatrists or experts in the field? What is my level of expertise
in this area)?
Fair
enough, one wants to think of possible alternative explanations -
neurons are triggering all over the place, the person is in an
altered state of consciousness - be it due to medication, trauma,
level of suggestibility of the subject - whatsoever. But what is the
harm in accepting that the other side may also be true? That there
are many things we do not know and may not know for centuries to
come, that there could be a dimension beyond our comprehension,
beyond our ability to prove?
The
earth was spherical even before it was proved to be so. (How many
people lost their lives because they said it was)! The earth did
rotate around the sun even before someone came along and proved it.
Until then anyone who said it was not the sun that rotated around the
earth was accused of heresy with "grave" (pun intended)
consequences. Gravity existed even before the apple landed on
Newton's head. The proof came only later and then only on a chance.
If that apple had not decided to fall off the branch on Newton's
head, there is a possibility that the existence of gravity may not
have been discovered for decades or centuries. Would that mean there
was no gravity? Our ancients talked of "prana" and "vayu".
How did we accept the existence of these without the proof?
Looking
at the flip side of the coin, what makes an organization like NASA
spend so many billions or trillions of dollars on launching space
missions looking for life on other planets? Why don't they say, "We
have never seen any such creatures so far. So they can't exist"?
(Ironically all this goes on while "rationalists" try to
claim that sightings of UFOs and extraterrestrials are fraudulent and
reported by highly suggestible people). Isn't this a contradiction in
terms of "science"? You spend so much of money trying to
find life on other planets, but when someone says they have seen or
photographed unidentified spacecrafts, you say it is rubbish. 
That
there is no proof of NDEs or OBEs or of a "God"
(definitions of "God" could vary and which definition is
right or wrong is not the point of this discussion) does not
necessarily mean that they do not exist. It only means that we do not
have the means today to prove or to disprove their existence.
The
very spirit of science demands that we approach any possibility with
an open mind. And all such possibilities are valid unless proven to
be absolute, incontrovertible impossibilities.
