paranormal perception occurs during OBEs or NDEs, why the failure to find it in all of the con-
trolled experiments that have been undertaken to document it thus far? Various explanations can
be put forward (Augustine and Fishman 2015), but in the absence of ad hoc maneuvering, the hal-
lucination hypothesis predicts only one set of possible results: the results actually found. Until the
time that properly controlled NDE target-identification experiments yield replicable positive results,
they will take their place as historical curiosities akin to similarly unsuccessful tests of survival after
death (Augustine and Fishman 2015; Berger 1996; Fox 2007; Gay et al. 1955; Journal of the Amer-
ican Society for Psychical Research 1989; Lodge 1905; Perry and Fontana 2009; Schwartz and Russek
2001; Stevenson, Oram, and Markwick 1989). While some eagerly await the results of the follow-
up AWARE II study (which is recruiting subjects until 2020), at the moment the unsuccessful his-
tory of comparably easier-to-implement research into the paranormality of non-near-death OBEs
does not bode well for those results.
ARGUMENTS INVOLVING COSMOLOGY AND QUANTUM PHYSICS
Taner Edis, Truman State University
Before modern physics, arguments about the creation or design of the universe depended on every-
day, intuitive ideas of space and time. Creation has often been understood as an event in time
linked to supernatural agency. Hence the notion of divine causation involved in creation has also
been an intuitive, social concept of causality. Theistic traditions have placed creation and the design
of the cosmos within a richly layered story, in which a god interacts with humans and reveals some-
thing about its purposes. In the context of such a story, supernatural agents have genuine explana-
tory roles. Abstract discussions about a god of the philosophers have still depended on background
stories and intuitive notions of time and causality to anchor the metaphysical intuitions in play.
Historically, critical responses to creation claims have preserved everyday intuitions while
attempting to deny divinity any explanatory role. With the doctrine of creation from nothing
becoming dominant in established theologies, critics have often defended an infinitely old universe,
denying that there was a creation event. Ideas of an always existing universe have typically been asso-
ciated with pagan philosophy, heterodoxy, and doubt.
Skeptics have also had to respond to the suggestion that cosmic order was due to intelligent
design. They have typically intensified the perception of order to an extent where the flexibility
implied in personal causation became implausible. The laws of physics, in such a view, are where
natural explanations come to an end, while divine agency could be manifest in miraculous violations
of an otherwise rigidly impersonal order of nature.
Modern Views. Today’s skepticism about theistic cosmology has been shaped by the way modern
physics has undermined intuitive views of time and causality and the collapse in plausibility of the
traditional stories that provided a context for divine agency. Cosmology has become a subfield of
physics devoted to impersonal forms of explanation, so that supernatural agency has no productive
role in advancing cosmological understanding.
Therefore, in an inversion of the historical pattern, in today’s cosmology, supernatural creation
and design have become marginalized claims. Conservative religious thinkers loyal to the traditional
stories assert failures or limitations in physical cosmology to be remedied by divine agency. The big
bang might be best understood as a creation event. Possible fine-tuning of physical constants or the
low entropy of the early universe might indicate a universe intelligently designed to favor the pres-
ence of life and mind. Liberal theologians tend not to seek such direct employment for their gods;
they more often point out that cosmology cannot decisively rule out personal supernatural powers.
If there are reasons to think gods exist, these reasons may be found outside cosmology.
In this environment, atheists often point out either that physical cosmology has good candi-
dates for solutions to the problems theistic apologists bring up or that the prospects for physics to
596 THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY
make progress are good. If the gods are unemployed in as important an area as making the universe,
this casts doubt on their existence (Carroll 2005). Occasionally, a more ambitious atheist may argue
that physical cosmology can more rigorously formulate concepts such as “nothing”and supplant tra-
ditionally metaphysical debates about how anything happens to exist (Krauss 2013).
Beginnings. The modern theoretical context for doing cosmology begins with general relativity.
Time is mixed with space when changing reference frames; no such thing as a “now”is common
to all observers, and physicists are compelled to think of space-time as a single geometric object, past
and future included. Relativity and astronomy also indicate that time can be extended backward
only until a point where all space-time and all matter and energy collapse into a singularity.
For physicists, this suggests a breakdown in the applicability of general relativity; for some religious
thinkers, it indicates a creation event.
It is, however, misleading to think of the big bang as a beginning or as an explosion into a pre-
existing empty space. Space and time cannot be extended earlier from the big bang in much the way
that it makes no sense to speak of a point north of the North Pole. Attaching a divine cause to the
big bang is motivated by metaphysical intuitions, not physics. Moreover, general relativity is a
classical theory. It cannot be applied in circumstances close to the big bang, where quantum
gravitational effects dominate.
No adequate theory of quantum gravity is yet available. Nevertheless, cosmologists have
approximate models that, while speculative, promise better understanding of the early universe.
With only weak theoretical and experimental constraints on such models, however, there are a wide
variety of scenarios. Some models take quantum uncertainties to smear out the big bang, retaining a
space-time that cannot be extended infinitely backward while discarding the big bang as a unique
infinite-density point in space-time. Some models rely on inflationary cosmology to generate many,
perhaps an infinity of universes. Models that depend on string theory also can extend time back
infinitely, because the string-length scale provides a limit beyond which the universe cannot become
In any case, quantum cosmology inherits the randomness in quantum mechanics. Macroscopic
causality emerges from a quantum substrate where uncaused microscopic events are the rule. There-
fore physical cosmology does not support traditional ideas either of creation or of an infinitely old
universe with time understood in everyday terms (Edis 2002; Halper and Nayeri 2016). Some theo-
logians advocate atemporal gods, avoiding some of the difficulties with the concept of a creation in
time, but such views are also detached from physics and irrelevant to cosmology.
Fine-Tuning. Theists sometimes claim that physical constants have been fine-tuned for a universe
that allows the development of complex structures, which is best explained as a divine design. In
some circumstances, the fine-tuning appears exaggerated; regardless of the details, a theoretical con-
text that would allow us to reliably assign probabilities to fundamental constants does not yet exist.
Fine-tuning is highly model-dependent, and cosmological models are not always well constrained.
Indeed, fine-tuning problems are known from many areas of physics and often indicate a need for
novel physical approaches. Even within cosmology, solving fine-tuning problems has partially moti-
vated important developments such as inflationary cosmology. From a physical point of view, there-
fore, fine-tuning appears as one of the many puzzles to be expected in a cutting-edge, highly unset-
tled area of physics (Stenger 2011).
The low entropy of the early universe may also suggest design, but again this is a physics prob-
lem on which science can claim progress—for example, noting that an expanding universe is driven
away from equilibrium as the maximum possible entropy grows faster than the actual entropy. The
arrow of time is not a completely solved puzzle, but it does not call for supernatural intervention
Design as an explanation for fine-tuning or low-entropy states has its own weaknesses. A highly
abstract god of the philosophers implies almost nothing about what sort of universe such a god
might design. A more traditional divinity dressed up in stories does not help either, because the tra-
ditional stories are radically misinformed about the sort of universe human beings inhabit. A claim
THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY 597
of supernatural design responds to a puzzle with “God did it,”without engaging in the explanatory
work relevant to a physical puzzle.
Cosmology as Physics. The present state of cosmology supports nontheistic views but only weakly
and mainly through cosmology becoming a specialization within physics, where supernatural claims
are not useful. If it is not part of a broader evidence-based argument against supernatural agency,
cosmology has little significance on its own. Therefore, emphasis on physical cosmology tends to
accompany more broadly naturalist and physicalist views. While such views are often associated with
atheism, they are not strictly necessary for doubting the gods.
Quantum mechanics appears in debates about religion because some believe that quantum physics
supports the possibility of supernatural action or that it shows that consciousness is not reducible
to mindless processes. In the nineteenth century, many thought that classical physics depicted a
causally closed universe. Theists could therefore look for signs of the supernatural in exceptions to
this closure. If miracles that violated the laws of physics took place, this indicated a power beyond
the natural order. Free will meant that human beings are not determined by prior physical condi-
tions, which shows that consciousness is not bound by the laws of physics. Skeptics, however, have
usually thought that the case for miracles is weak. Determinism is not a comfortable position, but
the rigidly impersonal order glimpsed in fundamental physics strongly contrasts with ideas of a uni-
verse subject to the whims of capricious gods.
Quantum Loopholes. The advent of quantum mechanics challenged the hyperrationalistic picture
of rigid natural order. After all, the results of quantum measurements were random, and the equa-
tions of classical physics now referred to expectation values rather than completely determined out-
comes. Moreover, quantum measurements were defined by a classical, macroscopic limit, where a
superposition state randomly “collapsed”onto one of many possible outcomes. To some of the phy-
sicists working to formulate the early versions of quantum theory, state collapse in measurement
suggested a fundamental role for consciousness in physics, because definite results were associated
with the presence of an observer.
Quantum mechanics, therefore, changed the debate about supernatural intervention. In classi-
cal physics, an interaction between the universe and an outside agent would violate fundamental
laws such as the conservation of energy and momentum. Quantum randomness, however, means
that conservation laws apply not to the result of any single measurement but to the expectation
values that are approached over a long run of identical measurements. A god could, for example,
intervene in any particular event or in any small set of events. As long as the magnitude of the inter-
vention is small enough to be lost in the statistical noise, no violation of conservation laws could be
measured. If a god wanted to create humans by way of evolution, that god could make sure just the
right mutations took place over a long timescale, and this intervention would be undetectable by
New Age Magic. In popular culture, quantum means “magic.”The supernaturalism that claims
support from quantum mechanics is closer to that of Hindu religions or the more occult or mystical
variants of the Middle Eastern religious traditions; its allegedly scientific basis is parapsychology
rather than physics.
Neither New Age religious movements nor the more intellectual varieties of quantum mysti-
cism currently enjoy mainstream scientific support (Stenger 1995). Parapsychology has not pro-
duced reliable experimental evidence for psychic phenomena and has not established robust theoret-
ical links with the sciences—particularly not with quantum mechanics. Cognitive neuroscience
makes progress in understanding minds without taking seriously speculations about quantum con-
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is genuinely interesting, because state col-
lapse is not invertible, whereas all time evolution in quantum mechanics is invertible. This is not
598 THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY
a question unique to quantum mechanics, however; it is very closely related to the problem in sta-
tistical mechanics of macroscopic irreversibility deriving from microscopically reversible dynamics.
While questions remain outstanding, this is at least a partially solved problem. Quantum measure-
ments involve interactions with extremely complex, noisy environments, which lead to noninvertible
macroscopic approximate descriptions or a time evolution toward states with classical properties.
Schrödinger’s cat will be either dead or alive long before any observer investigates. Conscious obser-
vers are not special to the measurement process—they are just another part of a messy environment
Miracles. The claim that quantum randomness covers up supernatural intervention without violat-
ing conservation laws is associated with more conventional forms of theism. It is also scientifically
sterile (Sansbury 2007).
If any set of quantum measurements is to be claimed as evidence for intervention, it would
mean that the results of the measurements were not random—that there was discernible structure
in the data and that therefore quantum mechanics was violated. Currently there is not even the
smallest experimental hint of violations of quantum mechanics. If, on the other hand, the interven-
tions claimed are very few and lost in the statistical noise, they would not produce a discernible pat-
tern, and therefore the data alone could not support supernatural intervention as an explanation.
There could still be reasons to believe in intelligent design, but these reasons would have to come
entirely from outside the data and theories of physics. With undetectable interventions following
a purpose revealed only to those privy to special knowledge, we end up with a cosmic conspiracy
theory (Edis 2018).
In other words, the current state of affairs is not very different from that with classical physics.
Quantum randomness means humans live in a universe of uncaused events, which undermines
older notions of causal closure. Randomness, however, does not open up the universe to alleged
nonphysical interventions. Physical evidence for supernatural agency still requires robust signals
combined with a successful theory of intelligent design.
Chance-and-Necessity Physicalism. The fundamental randomness manifested in quantum
mechanics also affects how we conceive of physical explanations. In current physics, even the low-
temperature laws of physics are often seen as an outcome of a cascade of spontaneous symmetry-
breaking events, with random results. The most fundamental laws of physics, as in the standard
model of particle physics, are statements about highly symmetric conditions with very low informa-
tion content, while the complexities of our universe arise from symmetry breaking. Highly symmet-
ric fundamental laws, in other words, describe the dice that were rolled to generate our universe
Acknowledging the centrality of randomness in modern physics can lead to arguments that cast
doubt on all supernatural and theistic claims. Physical explanations combine rules and randomness,
both of which are mindless. Therefore, as some intelligent design proponents also recognize, the sig-
nature of an agent not reducible to physical processes would be data that could not be produced by
any combination of rules and randomness. In fact, possible functions exist that require infinite
computational resources, which would be available to gods with traditional omni-attributes. Data
that fit such functions might best be explained by an agent that is not limited by rules and random-
ness and therefore is beyond fundamentally mindless physical processes. Such data would not just
violate quantum mechanics but also defeat any physical theory. However, none of the data available
to science even remotely suggests such a possibility.
Hence quantum mechanics has an important role in formulating chance-and-necessity physical-
ism, according to which everything is physical, a combination of rule-bound and random processes,
regardless of whether the most fundamental physical theory has yet been formulated (Edis and Bou-
dry 2014). Religions usually take a top-down view, starting with an irreducible mind to shape the
material world from above. Physicalism, whatever form it takes, supports a bottom-up understand-
ing of the world, where life and mind are the results of complex interactions of fundamentally
THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY 599
mindless components. The current state of science, including quantum mechanics, supports chance-
If physicalism appears plausible, this does not imply certainty that there are no gods. Future
data may come to support nonphysical agents. Arguments that make no reference to publicly avail-
able information may yet seem compelling. Today, however, humans live in an environment where
the successful sciences have no use for the supernatural. This state of affairs puts claims for divine
agency on the defensive, and it means that the burden of proof for such claims is very high.
Anderson, Edward F. Peyote: The Divine Cactus. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press, 1996.
Augustine, Keith. “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death
Experiences?”Journal of Near-Death Studies 25, no. 4 (Summer 2007):
Augustine, Keith. “Near-Death Experiences Are Hallucinations.”In The
Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death, edited by Michael
Martin and Keith Augustine, 529–569. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Augustine, Keith, and Yonatan I. Fishman. “The Dualist’s Dilemma: The
High Cost of Reconciling Neuroscience with a Soul.”In The Myth of an
Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death, edited by Michael Martin and
Keith Augustine, 203–292. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,
Austin, James H. Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation
and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Baum, Dan. “Legalize It All: How to Win the War on Drugs.”Harper’s
Magazine (April 2016). https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize
Berger, Arthur S. “Thouless Test for Survival: Failures and Claims.”Journal
of the American Society for Psychical Research 90, no. 1 (January 1996):
Blanke, Olaf, and Thomas Metzinger. “Full-Body Illusions and Minimal
Phenomenal Selfhood.”Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, no. 1 (2009):
Blanke, Olaf, Christine Mohr, Christoph M. Michel, et al. “Linking Out-of-
Body Experience and Self Processing to Mental Own-Body Imagery at
the Temporoparietal Junction.”Journal of Neuroscience 25, no. 3 (2005):
Blanke, Olaf, Stéphanie Ortigue, Theodor Landis, and Margitta Seeck.
“Neuropsychology: Stimulating Illusory Own-Body Perceptions.”
Nature 419, no. 6904 (2002): 269–270.
Carhart-Harris, Robin L., David Erritzoe, Tim Williams, et al. “Neural
Correlates of the Psychedelic State as Determined by fMRI Studies with
Psilocybin.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 6
Carhart-Harris, Robin L., Suresh Muthukumaraswamy, Leor Roseman, et al.
“Neural Correlates of the LSD Experience Revealed by Multimodal
Neuroimaging.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no.
17 (2016): 4853–4858.
Carrier, Richard. Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical
Naturalism. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2005.
Carrier, Richard. “Christianity Was Not Responsible for Modern Science.”
In The Christian Delusion, edited by John Loftus, 397–419. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books, 2010a.
Carrier, Richard. “On Defining Naturalism as a Worldview.”Free Inquiry
30, no. 3 (2010b): 50–51.
Carrier, Richard. “Neither Life nor the Universe Appear Intelligently
Designed.”In The End of Christianity, edited by John Loftus, 279–304.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.
Carrier, Richard. Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the
Historical Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012.
Carrier, Richard. The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire. Durham, NC:
Carroll, Sean. “Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists.”Faith and
Philosophy 22, no. 5 (2005): 622–635.
Carroll, Sean. From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of
Time. New York: Dutton, 2010.
Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the
Universe Itself. New York: Dutton, 2016.
Churchland, Patricia. Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain. New York:
Cottrell, Allin. “Sniffing the Camembert: On the Conceivability of
Zombies.”Journal of Consciousness Studies 6, no. 1 (1999): 4–12.
Cromer, Alan. Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Dalai Lama. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and
Spirituality. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2005.
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. First published 1859.
Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
New York: Penguin Books, 2007.
Eccles, John Carew. The Neurophysiological Basis of Mind: The Principles of
Neurophysiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953.
Edis, Taner. The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2002.
Edis, Taner. “Cosmic Conspiracy Theories: How Theologies Evade
Science.”In Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology, edited
by Joseph Seckbach and Richard Gordon, 143–163. Hackensack, NJ:
World Scientific, 2018.
Edis, Taner, and Maarten Boudry. “Beyond Physics? On the Prospects of
Finding a Meaningful Oracle.”Foundations of Science 19, no. 4 (2014):
403–422. doi: 10.1007/s10699-014-9349-z.
600 THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY
Fales, Evan. “Can Science Explain Mysticism?”Religious Studies 35, no. 2
Fales, Evan. Divine Intervention: Metaphysical and Epistemological Puzzles.
London: Routledge, 2010.
Flanagan, Owen. The Bodhisattva’s Brain: Buddhism Naturalized. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
Fox, Margalit. “Ian Stevenson Dies at 88; Studied Claims of Past Lives.”
New York Times, 18 February 2007.
Furst, Peter T. Hallucinogens and Culture. Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp,
Gabbard, Glen O., and Stuart W. Twemlow. “Do ‘Near-Death Experiences’
Occur Only Near Death?—Revisited.”Journal of Near-Death Studies 10,
no. 1 (September 1991): 41–47.
Gabbard, Glen O., Stuart W. Twemlow, and Fowler C. Jones. “Do ‘Near-
Death Experiences’Occur Only Near Death?”Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease 169, no. 6 (June 1981): 374–377.
Gay, Kathleen, William Henry Salter, Robert H. Thouless, et al. “Report on
the Oliver Lodge Posthumous Test.”Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research 38, no. 685 (September 1955): 121–134.
Gillispie, Charles Coulston. Pierre-Simon Laplace 1749 –1827: A Life in
Exact Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Goleman, Daniel, and Robert A. F. Thurman, eds. MindScience: An East-
West Dialogue. Sommerville, MA: Wisdom, 1991.
Greyson, Bruce. “Implications of Near-Death Experiences for a Postmateri-
alist Psychology.”Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 2, no. 1 (2010):
Griffiths, Roland R., Matthew W. Johnson, Michael A. Carducci, et al.
“Psilocybin Produces Substantial and Sustained Decreases in Depression
and Anxiety in Patients with Life-Threatening Cancer: A Randomized
Double-Blind Trial.”Journal of Psychopharmacology 30, no. 12 (2016):
Griffiths, Roland R., Matthew W. Johnson, William A. Richards, et al.
“Psilocybin Occasioned Mystical-Type Experiences: Immediate and
Persisting Dose-Related Effects.”Psychopharmacology 218, no. 4 (2011):
Griffiths, Roland R., William A. Richards, Matthew W. Johnson, et al.
“Mystical-Type Experiences Occasioned by Psilocybin Mediate the
Attribution of Personal Meaning and Spiritual Significance 14 Months
Later.”Journal of Psychopharmacology 22, no. 6 (2008): 621–632.
Griffiths, Roland R., William A. Richards, Una McCann, and Robert Jesse.
“Psilocybin Can Occasion Mystical-Type Experiences Having Substan-
tial and Sustained Personal Meaning and Spiritual Significance.”
Psychopharmacology 187, no. 3 (2006): 268–283.
Grinspoon, Lester, and James B. Bakalar. Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered.
New York: Basic Books, 1979.
Guthrie, Stewart. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Habermas, Gary R. “Evidential Near-Death Experiences.”In The Blackwell
Companion to Substance Dualism,editedbyJonathanJ.Loose,AngusJ.L.
Menuge, and J. P. Moreland, 227–246. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell,
Halper, Phil, and Ali Nayeri. “Before the Big Bang.”In Christianity in the
Light of Science: Critically Examining the World’s Largest Religion, edited
by John W. Loftus,119−140. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2016.
Harner, Michael J., ed. Hallucinogens and Shamanism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1973.
Hartmann, William K. “Chelyabinsk, Zond IV, and a Possible First-Century
Fireball of Historical Importance.”Meteoritics and Planetary Science 50,
no. 3 (2015): 368–381.
Hayward, Jeremy W., and Francisco J. Varela, eds. Gentle Bridges:
Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind. Boston:
Hobson, J. Allan. The Dream Drugstore: Chemically Altered States of
Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
Holden, Janice Miner. “Veridical Perception in Near-Death Experiences.”In
The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation,
edited by Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, and Debbie James,
185–211. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2009.
Horgan, John. Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border between Science
and Spirituality. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
Houshmand, Zara, Robert B. Livingston, and B. Alan Wallace, eds.
Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on
Brain Science and Buddhism. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1999.
Hume, David. The Natural History of Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1976. First published 1757.
Jerryson, Michael, and Mark Juergensmeyer, eds. Buddhist Warfare. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research.“Has Arnold Barber
Survived Death?”83, no. 3 (July 1989): 286.
Kelly, Emily Williams. “Near-Death Experiences with Reports of Meeting
Deceased People.”Death Studies 25 (2001): 229–249.
Khalsa, Sahib S., David Rudrauf, Antonio R. Damasio, et al. “Interoceptive
Awareness in Experienced Meditators.”Psychophysiology 45, no. 4
Khalsa, Sahib S., David Rudrauf, Richard J. Davidson, and Daniel Tranel.
“The Effect of Meditation on Regulation of Internal Body States.”
Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2015): 924.
Koch, Christof, and Giulio Tononi. “Can We Quantify Machine
Consciousness?”IEEE Spectrum 54, no. 6 (2017): 64–69.
Krauss, Lawrence M. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something
Rather Than Nothing. New York: Free Press, 2013.
Lebedev, Alexander V., Martin Lövdén, Gidon Rosenthal, et al. “Finding the
Self by Losing the Self: Neural Correlates of Ego-Dissolution under
Psilocybin.”Human Brain Mapping 36, no. 8 (2015): 3137–3153.
Lenggenhager, Bigna, Tej Tadi, Thomas Metzinger, and Olaf Blanke.
“Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness.”Science
317, no. 5841 (2007): 1096–1099.
Lewis, I. M. Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession. 3rd
ed. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Lindley, James H., Sethyn Bryan, and Bob Conley. “Near-Death
Experiences in a Pacific Northwest American Population: The Evergreen
Study.”Anabiosis: The Journal of Near-Death Studies 1, no. 2 (1981):
Lloyd, G. E. R. Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and
Development of Greek Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY 601
Lloyd, G. E. R. The Ideals of Inquiry: An Ancient History. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2016.
Lodge, Oliver. “Opening of an Envelope Containing a Posthumous Note
Left by Mr. Myers.”Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 12, no.
215 (January 1905): 11–13.
Loftus, John, ed. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2010.
Loftus, John. The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is
True. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2013.
Loftus, John, ed. Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the
World’s Largest Religion. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2016.
Lutz, Antoine, John D. Dunne, and Richard J. Davidson. “Meditation and the
Neuroscience of Consciousness.”In The Cambridge Handbook of
Consciousness, edited by Philip D. Zelazo, Morris Moscovitch, and Evan
Thompson, 499–555. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Martin, Michael, and Keith Augustine. The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case
against Life after Death. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015.
Masters, Robert, and Jean Houston. The Varieties of Psychedelic Experience:
The Classic Guide to the Effects of LSD on the Human Psyche. Rochester,
VT: Park Street Press, 2000. First published 1966.
McMahan, David L., and Erik Braun, eds. Meditation, Buddhism, and
Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
McNamara, Patrick, ed. Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and
Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. 3 vols. London:
McNamara, Patrick. The Neuroscience of Religious Experience. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
McNamara, Patrick, and P. Monroe Butler. “The Neuropsychology of
Religious Experience.”In Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, 2nd ed., edited by Raymond F. Paloutzian and Crystal L.
Park, 215–233. New York: Guilford Press, 2013.
Melnyk, Andrew. A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Murphy, Nancy. Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Muthukumaraswamy, Suresh D., Robin L. Carhart-Harris, Rosalyn J.
Moran, et al. “Broadband Cortical Desynchronization Underlies the
Human Psychedelic State.”Journal of Neuroscience 33, no. 38 (2013):
Nanda, Meera. The God Market: How Globalization Is Making India More
Hindu. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2011.
Nelson, Kevin. The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain: A Neurologist’s Search for
the God Experience. New York: Penguin, 2010.
Neubauer, Raymond L. “Prayer as an Interpersonal Relationship: A
Neuroimaging Study.”Religion, Brain and Behavior 4, no. 2 (2014):
Newberg, Andrew. Principles of Neurotheology. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010.
Newberg, Andrew, Eugene D. d’Aquili, and Vince Rause. Why God Won’t
Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine
Newberg, Andrew, Michael Pourdehnad, Abass Alavi, and Eugene D.
d’Aquili. “Cerebral Blood Flow during Meditative Prayer: Preliminary
Findings and Methodological Issues.”Perceptual and Motor Skills 97, no.
2 (2003): 625–630.
Newton, Isaac. Opticks. New York: Dover, 1979. First published 1704.
Ofek, Hillel. “Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science.”New
Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society 30 (Spring 2011): 3–23.
Paley, William. Natural Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
First published 1802.
Parnia, Sam, Ken Spearpoint, Gabriele de Vos, et al. “AWARE—Awareness
during Resuscitation—A Prospective Study.”Resuscitation: Official
Journal of the European Resuscitation Council 85, no. 12 (December
Pasricha, Satwant, and Ian Stevenson. “Near-Death Experiences in India: A
Preliminary Report.”Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 174, no. 3
(March 1986): 165–170.
Perry, Michael, and David Fontana. “Charles Fryer and His Tape.”
Paranormal Review 52 (October 2009): 12–13.
Philipse, Herman. God in the Age of Science: A Critique of Religious Reason.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University
Ricard, Matthieu, Antoine Lutz, and Richard J. Davidson. “Mind of the
Meditator.”Scientific American 311, no. 5 (2014): 38–45.
Richards, William A. “Entheogens in the Study of Religious Experiences:
Current Status.”Journal of Religion and Health 44, no.4 (2005): 377–389.
Ring, Kenneth. “Precognitive and Prophetic Visions in Near-Death
Experiences.”Anabiosis: The Journal of Near-Death Studies 2, no. 1
Ring, Kenneth. “Prophetic Visions in 1988: A Critical Reappraisal.”Journal
of Near-Death Studies 7, no. 1 (September 1988): 4–18.
Rivas, Titus, Anny Dirven, and Rudolf H. Smit. The Self Does Not Die:
Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences. Durham,
NC: International Association for Near-Death Studies, 2016.
Sansbury, Timothy. “The False Promise of Quantum Mechanics.”Zygon 42,
no. 1 (2007): 111–122.
Schellenberg, J. L. The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy’s New Challenge to
Belief in God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Schjoedt, Uffe. “The Religious Brain: A General Introduction to the
Experimental Neuroscience of Religion.”Method and Theory in the Study
of Religion 21, no. 3 (2009): 310–339.
Schwartz, Gary E. R., and Linda G. S. Russek. “Celebrating Susy Smith’s
Soul: Preliminary Evidence for the Continuance of Smith’s Conscious-
ness after Her Physical Death.”Journal of Religion and Psychical Research
24, no. 2 (April 2001): 82–91.
Sedley, David. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2008.
Shanon, Benny. The Antipodes of the Mind: Charting the Phenomenology of the
Ayahuasca Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Shermer, Michael. The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity
toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom. New York: Henry Holt, 2015.
Siegel, Ronald K. Intoxication: The Universal Drive for Mind-Altering
Substances. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 2005. First published
602 THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY
Smith, Huston. Cleansing the Doors of Perception: The Religious Significance of
Entheogenic Plants and Chemicals. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/
Steiner, Rudolf. Nine Lectures on Bees. Spring Valley, NY: St. George, 1975.
Stenger, Victor. The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics
and Cosmology. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995.
Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not
Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.
Stevenson, Ian, Emily Williams Cook, and Nicholas McClean-Rice. “Are
Persons Reporting ‘Near-Death Experiences’Really Near Death? A
Study of Medical Records.”Omega: Journal of Death and Dying 20, no. 1
Stevenson, Ian, Arthur T. Oram, and Betty Markwick. “Two Tests of
Survival after Death: Report on Negative Results.”Journal of the Society
for Psychical Research 55, no. 815 (1989): 329–336.
Strassman, Rick. “Hallucinogens.”In Mind-Altering Drugs: The Science of
Subjective Experience,editedbyMitchEarlywine,49–85. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005, 49–85.
Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
Van Lommel, Pim. “Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain:
A New Concept about the Continuity of Our Consciousness Based on
Recent Scientific Research on Near-Death Experience in Survivors of
Cardiac Arrest.”World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution 62, nos.
1–2 (2006): 134–151.
Van Lommel, Pim, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, and Ingrid Elfferich.
“Near-Death Experiences in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective
Study in the Netherlands.”Lancet 358, no. 9298 (December 15, 2001):
Varela, Francisco, ed. Sleeping, Dreaming and Dying: An Exploration of
Consciousness with the Dalai Lama. Boston: Wisdom, 1997.
Veneziano, Gabriele. “The Myth of the Beginning of Time.”Scientific
American 290, no. 5 (2004): 54–65.
Victoria, Brian Daizen. Zen War Stories. London: Routledge, 2003.
Victoria, Brian Daizen. Zen at War. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,
Vyse, Stuart A. Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. 2nd ed.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Wainwright, William J. Mysticism: A Study of Its Nature, Cognitive Value and
Moral Implications. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.
Wallace, B. Alan, ed. Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground. New
York: Columbia University Press, 2003.
Wallace, B. Alan. Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience
Converge. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
Wallace, B. Alan, and Brian Hodel. Embracing Mind: The Common Ground
of Science and Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala, 2008.
Wright, Robert. Why Buddhism Is True: The Science and Philosophy of
Meditation and Enlightenment. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2017.
Young, Matt, and Taner Edis, eds. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific
Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Zaehner, R. C. Drugs, Mysticism, and Make-Believe. London: Collins,
THEISM AND ATHEISM: OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY 603