Quote:
Originally Posted by DysonSphere  Almost invariably so called "believers" in life after death are put down by Skeptics as being unscientific. Sometimes there is a more easy-going skeptic who patronizingly says they would like to believe but the evidence is against it and they simply don't have enough faith to be a believer. A lot of believers seem to get timid when Skeptics try to play at being the "scientific"-type and they usually try to avoid an argument and in the process put down their beliefs. |
I would be interested in their argument that the survival hypothesis is unscientific. We have an apparent dependency of mental states on brain states on the one hand, and a huge amount of evidence such as NDEs, deathbed visions, apparitions, apparent reincarnation cases, mediumship on the other.
But the mind/brain correlations can be accounted for by transmission theory. And the evidence suggesting survival is extraordinarily difficult to explain away using known scientific principles. In short it seems to me that the more reasonable hypothesis is survival i.e "life after death". Does anyone disagree with this?