The following is an interview with journalist Denyse O'Leary, co-author (together with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard) of the excellent book The Spiritual Brain. I thank Denyse for kindly accepting my interview. Hope this interview be of the interest of the readers.
1)Denyse, tell us something about your background?
I am a Canadian, and took a degree in English literature, but was early attracted to journalism. I became a freelance journalist in my early twenties and now, at nearly sixty, have never left the trade, despite its difficulties.
2) You’re a Christian, specifically a Catholic. Do you believe that, in current times, religion in general and catholicism in particular have been affected by alternative worldviews like materialistic atheism and metaphysical naturalism; or by non-religious spiritual systems like Spiritualism?
Well, Jime, I don't have a detailed basis for comparing current times with past ones. However, this much I know is true: Ordinary people today in North America are less likely to just plain attack you if you belong to a different religion.
However, a very serious concern here in Canada is the growth of materialist social engineering. The government wants to create a utopia where no one is supposedly prejudiced against anyone else - which inevitably means the growth of unaccountable "human rights" commissions, which behave with no regard for our common law tradition of justice - and the results are grievous.
So, ironically, at the very time that the public has become much more tolerant of differences of opinion, the government has become much less so, as soon as someone claims to be offended.
3 )In your opinion, what are the basic flaws and possible dangers for society of a consistently assumed and applied materialistic worldview?
Well, the loss of the "human" dimension is the biggest one. Humans are not simply material creatures. Our minds emanate from the divine mind that created the universe.
If we were simply material creatures, we could be crabs or weeds, and it would make no difference. Humans, unlike crabs or weeds, can simply decide to have a different point of view from their neighbours.
Example: Just today, my mother told me that the woman in line behind her at the local bank explained that she lives in an apartment building near our house and that she is simply delighted with all the flowering trees that I grow, which she can see from her window. Actually, that woman probably gets a better view of those trees than I do, if she really lives five floors up, but she is certainly welcome to it.
Anyway, you see, we humans can alter our part of the universe to make it a better place, intentionally, as many of us strive to do, but perhaps sometimes it happens accidentally.
4)Materialists complain that science is based on naturalistic assumptions; and enabling supernatural religious ideas like the soul or similar into science is giving a unjustified concession to religious dogmatism and obscurantism. What do you think about this idea?
Well, first we need to ask, what is and isn't part of nature? Quantum mechanics and relativity showed clearly that what people thought was nature - a clockwork regularity - wasn't really a good description of nature.
In medicine (a key focus of The Spiritual Brain), the question of what the patient THINKS about a treatment is often critical to its effect. The brain is highly plastic, reorganizing itself in relation to the mind's focus of attention.
I certainly wouldn't wish to give a free pass to superstition, but clinicians have not always done a good job of understanding how the mind and the brain interact.
Medicine is the point at which most humans interact regularly with science, so I would suggest looking there first. Basically, most humans will go with a treatment that, in their experience, "works", whether it is digitalis or Lakota Indian horse medicine (excellent for arthritis). It is difficult to fool people about whether they experience less anxiety or pain; that's why I wouldn't, in general, worry too much about religious dogma or obscurantism, provided we just stick to medicine. People's own bodies will tell them whether a treatment works or not.
5)What do you think about scientific research into paranormal phenomena (like telepathy and psychokinesis)?
Quantum mechanics showed clearly that the old Newtonian idea of the universe does not work below the level of the atom. Some functions of the brain depend on subatomic processes. One possible outcome is "entanglement"; in other words, two systems can share information faster than the speed of light because they are "non-local" - not bound by the rules of locality.
Now, much fraud as well as nonsense has been talked in favour of paranormal phenomena. But given what we know of events at the quantum level, I see no reason for robotic dismissal, and hope these phenomena will continue to be studied objectively using the tools of science.
I should also say that I think that telepathy is normally a small effect, rather than a large one, and confusion in this matter has resulted in much fraud and little insight..]
6)One of my main interests (which I discuss constantly in this blog) is the scientific research into phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness and afterlife (like near-death experiences or cases of mediumship). What do you think about these phenomena? Do you see any tension or conflict between these investigations and catholicism?
Well, Catholics wouldn't be surprised by the idea that we survive death. About half the prayers I say in the course of a day take that for granted.
I just don't want to end up in a bad scene, with no taxi waiting outside ....
Near death experiences have been much remarked of late - for a specific reason: Only recently did it become possible to bring people back from various states of "clinical" death. So people who would never have told their story in past centuries now can- and they do.
Mediumship is a tenser area, because the traditional Catholic thinks that people who are in training for heaven (Purgatory) should NOT be contacted, as intrusions from a more troubled world will only do them harm. If there is a good reason for believing that a person IS in heaven, that person can simply be prayed to directly, so the medium is not really required. The Catholic idea of a saint is precisely the belief that a person is in heaven now and can help you if you would be so kind as to ask.
7)Possibly, one of the best piece of evidence suggestive of an afterlife is Ian Stevenson’s research into reincarnation. I’m not a Christian, but as far I know, reincarnation is incompatible with Christianity and, therefore, with Catholicism. What’s your opinion about Stevenson’s research on reincarnation? If reincarnation is proved, would you count this against the basic doctrines or teachings of Catholicism? Or are they compatible?
[Well, the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly denied the doctrine of reincarnation. (= There is no reincarnation after death) See http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm
So, obviously, yes, Catholicism follows the traditional Western model that one life is enough.
I have not looked into evidence re reincarnation, and that is not prejudice on my part, but rather the incessant demands of other uses of time.
8)Materialists, often, conflate creationism with intelligent design, and dismiss them together as purely pseudoscientific and religious positions. However, some vocal atheists and materialists like Richard Dawkins have explicitly defended the idea that the existence of a creative super-intelligence (like God) is unquestionably a scientific question (therefore, not a pseudoscientific one) and he has admitted being open to the idea that life on earth is the product of an intelligent design (by extraterrestial beings). In your opinion, the intelligent design theory has been undermined or, instead, has got stronger, with the most recent findings of science?
Well, we need to start by asking what Dawkins is saying here. Does he really think that intelligent aliens designed life - but not that God did? Why? Millennia of humans are convinced that God designed life. Surely God allowed us to know of his existence in order to prevent grievous errors (like worshipping cats or squirrels - and, worse, imitating their morals as some kind of a duty). No one even thought about space aliens designing life before Dawkins or Star Trek, did they? So why should we believe his theories?
9)You’re the co-author, together with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the excellent book The Spiritual Brain. For the readers who have not had the opportunity to read it, could you summary the basic or main idea of this book?
Yes. Gladly. It is a lay-friendly explanation of why you can reasonably believe that you are a spiritual being, based on the best results of modern science. Do NOT listen to the local third-rate science hack who insists that you are just a trousered ape. That is not true, and it will not help either you or him.
10)What are the basic neuroscientific findings that support the existence of a soul and count against a purely materialistic interpretation of consciousness?
Well, neuroplasticity is a key finding from the 1990-2000 "decade of the brain". Many materialist assumptions have centred on the idea that the brain is a sort of machine, whose modules "do" this and that. The brain is omre like an ocean that is constantly rearranging itself, and the key question is the focus of attention. So what do you really care about? What is your focus of attention? Where is your heart directed?
11)Do you like to recommend some books or literature for the readers of this interview?
Well, you wont be surprised if I recommend Mario's and my book The Spiritual Brain, as rx for people who aren't sure if they have a spiritual brain, and they will be pleasantly surprised.
I also recommend Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley, The Mind and the Brain, and Norman Doidge, The brain that changes itself, especially for anyone struggling with a mental disorder. Your future is n YOUR hands.
12)Something else you would like to add to end the interview?
Only this: Your readers need courage. They need to grasp the fact that being human actually means something different from being a ferret. We may not know all it means, but we must know it means something. Cheers, d.
Link of interest:
-Denyse's blog Mindful Hack.
1)Denyse, tell us something about your background?
I am a Canadian, and took a degree in English literature, but was early attracted to journalism. I became a freelance journalist in my early twenties and now, at nearly sixty, have never left the trade, despite its difficulties.
2) You’re a Christian, specifically a Catholic. Do you believe that, in current times, religion in general and catholicism in particular have been affected by alternative worldviews like materialistic atheism and metaphysical naturalism; or by non-religious spiritual systems like Spiritualism?
Well, Jime, I don't have a detailed basis for comparing current times with past ones. However, this much I know is true: Ordinary people today in North America are less likely to just plain attack you if you belong to a different religion.
However, a very serious concern here in Canada is the growth of materialist social engineering. The government wants to create a utopia where no one is supposedly prejudiced against anyone else - which inevitably means the growth of unaccountable "human rights" commissions, which behave with no regard for our common law tradition of justice - and the results are grievous.
So, ironically, at the very time that the public has become much more tolerant of differences of opinion, the government has become much less so, as soon as someone claims to be offended.
3 )In your opinion, what are the basic flaws and possible dangers for society of a consistently assumed and applied materialistic worldview?
Well, the loss of the "human" dimension is the biggest one. Humans are not simply material creatures. Our minds emanate from the divine mind that created the universe.
If we were simply material creatures, we could be crabs or weeds, and it would make no difference. Humans, unlike crabs or weeds, can simply decide to have a different point of view from their neighbours.
Example: Just today, my mother told me that the woman in line behind her at the local bank explained that she lives in an apartment building near our house and that she is simply delighted with all the flowering trees that I grow, which she can see from her window. Actually, that woman probably gets a better view of those trees than I do, if she really lives five floors up, but she is certainly welcome to it.
Anyway, you see, we humans can alter our part of the universe to make it a better place, intentionally, as many of us strive to do, but perhaps sometimes it happens accidentally.
4)Materialists complain that science is based on naturalistic assumptions; and enabling supernatural religious ideas like the soul or similar into science is giving a unjustified concession to religious dogmatism and obscurantism. What do you think about this idea?
Well, first we need to ask, what is and isn't part of nature? Quantum mechanics and relativity showed clearly that what people thought was nature - a clockwork regularity - wasn't really a good description of nature.
In medicine (a key focus of The Spiritual Brain), the question of what the patient THINKS about a treatment is often critical to its effect. The brain is highly plastic, reorganizing itself in relation to the mind's focus of attention.
I certainly wouldn't wish to give a free pass to superstition, but clinicians have not always done a good job of understanding how the mind and the brain interact.
Medicine is the point at which most humans interact regularly with science, so I would suggest looking there first. Basically, most humans will go with a treatment that, in their experience, "works", whether it is digitalis or Lakota Indian horse medicine (excellent for arthritis). It is difficult to fool people about whether they experience less anxiety or pain; that's why I wouldn't, in general, worry too much about religious dogma or obscurantism, provided we just stick to medicine. People's own bodies will tell them whether a treatment works or not.
5)What do you think about scientific research into paranormal phenomena (like telepathy and psychokinesis)?
Quantum mechanics showed clearly that the old Newtonian idea of the universe does not work below the level of the atom. Some functions of the brain depend on subatomic processes. One possible outcome is "entanglement"; in other words, two systems can share information faster than the speed of light because they are "non-local" - not bound by the rules of locality.
Now, much fraud as well as nonsense has been talked in favour of paranormal phenomena. But given what we know of events at the quantum level, I see no reason for robotic dismissal, and hope these phenomena will continue to be studied objectively using the tools of science.
I should also say that I think that telepathy is normally a small effect, rather than a large one, and confusion in this matter has resulted in much fraud and little insight..]
6)One of my main interests (which I discuss constantly in this blog) is the scientific research into phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness and afterlife (like near-death experiences or cases of mediumship). What do you think about these phenomena? Do you see any tension or conflict between these investigations and catholicism?
Well, Catholics wouldn't be surprised by the idea that we survive death. About half the prayers I say in the course of a day take that for granted.
I just don't want to end up in a bad scene, with no taxi waiting outside ....
Near death experiences have been much remarked of late - for a specific reason: Only recently did it become possible to bring people back from various states of "clinical" death. So people who would never have told their story in past centuries now can- and they do.
Mediumship is a tenser area, because the traditional Catholic thinks that people who are in training for heaven (Purgatory) should NOT be contacted, as intrusions from a more troubled world will only do them harm. If there is a good reason for believing that a person IS in heaven, that person can simply be prayed to directly, so the medium is not really required. The Catholic idea of a saint is precisely the belief that a person is in heaven now and can help you if you would be so kind as to ask.
7)Possibly, one of the best piece of evidence suggestive of an afterlife is Ian Stevenson’s research into reincarnation. I’m not a Christian, but as far I know, reincarnation is incompatible with Christianity and, therefore, with Catholicism. What’s your opinion about Stevenson’s research on reincarnation? If reincarnation is proved, would you count this against the basic doctrines or teachings of Catholicism? Or are they compatible?
[Well, the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly denied the doctrine of reincarnation. (= There is no reincarnation after death) See http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm
So, obviously, yes, Catholicism follows the traditional Western model that one life is enough.
I have not looked into evidence re reincarnation, and that is not prejudice on my part, but rather the incessant demands of other uses of time.
8)Materialists, often, conflate creationism with intelligent design, and dismiss them together as purely pseudoscientific and religious positions. However, some vocal atheists and materialists like Richard Dawkins have explicitly defended the idea that the existence of a creative super-intelligence (like God) is unquestionably a scientific question (therefore, not a pseudoscientific one) and he has admitted being open to the idea that life on earth is the product of an intelligent design (by extraterrestial beings). In your opinion, the intelligent design theory has been undermined or, instead, has got stronger, with the most recent findings of science?
Well, we need to start by asking what Dawkins is saying here. Does he really think that intelligent aliens designed life - but not that God did? Why? Millennia of humans are convinced that God designed life. Surely God allowed us to know of his existence in order to prevent grievous errors (like worshipping cats or squirrels - and, worse, imitating their morals as some kind of a duty). No one even thought about space aliens designing life before Dawkins or Star Trek, did they? So why should we believe his theories?
9)You’re the co-author, together with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the excellent book The Spiritual Brain. For the readers who have not had the opportunity to read it, could you summary the basic or main idea of this book?
Yes. Gladly. It is a lay-friendly explanation of why you can reasonably believe that you are a spiritual being, based on the best results of modern science. Do NOT listen to the local third-rate science hack who insists that you are just a trousered ape. That is not true, and it will not help either you or him.
10)What are the basic neuroscientific findings that support the existence of a soul and count against a purely materialistic interpretation of consciousness?
Well, neuroplasticity is a key finding from the 1990-2000 "decade of the brain". Many materialist assumptions have centred on the idea that the brain is a sort of machine, whose modules "do" this and that. The brain is omre like an ocean that is constantly rearranging itself, and the key question is the focus of attention. So what do you really care about? What is your focus of attention? Where is your heart directed?
11)Do you like to recommend some books or literature for the readers of this interview?
Well, you wont be surprised if I recommend Mario's and my book The Spiritual Brain, as rx for people who aren't sure if they have a spiritual brain, and they will be pleasantly surprised.
I also recommend Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley, The Mind and the Brain, and Norman Doidge, The brain that changes itself, especially for anyone struggling with a mental disorder. Your future is n YOUR hands.
12)Something else you would like to add to end the interview?
Only this: Your readers need courage. They need to grasp the fact that being human actually means something different from being a ferret. We may not know all it means, but we must know it means something. Cheers, d.
Link of interest:
-Denyse's blog Mindful Hack.
