What is scientific evidence? Can a spiritual experience count as scientific evidence? Most people would say no, but I am not so sure we can say that with absolute certainty.
Christians are often asked by atheists “What is your evidence for God?”, and sometimes the answer given is (as it has been for me) something along the lines of “I had a personal encounter with God”, or “Jesus Christ who convinced me that God is real”. This is usually met by the retort that the questioner was asking about “scientific evidence” not personal subjective narrative. After all, we all know that such experiences could be made up, or could be visions arising from lack of sleep, eating the wrong food or drinking too much of the wrong beverage, etc. And, even if none of these things apply, clearly the human mind is not trustable when it comes to making objective, reproducible, and verifiable observations, which is what the scientific method is based on.
Well, I can’t really argue with any of that. But I can raise some questions, which is my purpose for this post. The argument against deeply felt spiritual experiences as scientific evidence for anything is strongly ingrained in the thinking of all scientists. Its origin was at the dawn of the scientific age, when objectivity was in short supply, and the rules for examining the truth of any claim became firmly and uncompromisingly established.
But are they right? If someone is not making it up, did not do anything to provoke this kind of experience, and wasn’t even conscious of wanting to deal with any issues about God or religion, does that help? Not really, because we have evidence that the mind cannot always be trusted. People have all kinds of wrong ideas from all kinds of sources, and illusions are more common than reason.
But while that is true, the problem that scientists have been facing for some time is even worse. Not only can we not trust our thoughts, visions and dreams, we can’t even really trust our senses. Physicists have written about how our perceptions of the world are not actually correct. We see what we see not because it’s what is there, but because we are animals who evolved to see solid object that reflect a narrow band of electromagnetic radiation. We hear what we need to and miss a huge amount of vibrational energy around us. We touch things that feel solid but are really made of mostly empty space. We perceive a lit stove or a fireplace as being hot, when in fact, relative to the scale of temperatures in the universe, a wood fire is on the cool side.
So, the problem is not simply that our mental experiences of thoughts and emotions are not reflective of reality, it’s that nothing that we think we know or see of feel is reflective of reality. Does this mean I am a post-modernist, who doesn’t believe anything is real? NO, emphatically not. We have in fact learned how to devise ingenious tools to examine reality. I can look at a film of radioactive spots and see the structure of a gene. Physicists can use amazing instruments to see the behavior of subatomic particles. We have learned to overcome our sensory limitations when it comes to understanding our world through science.
But we haven’t made much progress regarding the most fascinating object in the universe, the human brain. I should rephrase that. We have indeed made a great deal of progress in that area, but we are still at the very beginning. Our methods are crude, and while way ahead of where we were a few decades ago, still cannot tell us much about where the mind comes from. We still don’t come close to understanding consciousness.
So, given what we know, and what we know that we still don’t know, how can we easily dismiss a mental event that has the power to transform a life as “nonscientific” emotional illusion or an artefact of neuronal activity with no basis in actual reality (whatever that means)?
I do not suggest that we automatically take every report of subjective experience seriously. I don’t think the woman I recently met who explained to me that she knew that aliens had taken over her husband’s mind should be taken seriously (well maybe by mental health workers, but not by scientists). But it isn’t easy to distinguish delusional thoughts from valid evidentiary mental activity. Someone who has a dream of an encounter with Christ, and then begins to feel that his life has been touched and changed for the better (and shows no sign of mental illness) might have experienced something as real as the appearance of a boson in a linear accelerator. I am aware that some atheists have recently been claiming that all religious or spiritual experiences are forms of mental illness. But how do they know that? Where is their scientific evidence for that claim?
I am not proposing that personal subjective spiritual experiences are scientific evidence for the existence of God. But they can be something more than silly, meaningless illusions or signs of mental deficiency. I would say they are evidence of something, and that we should not presume that we have the tools to answer where they are coming from and what it is that they are pointing to.