At New English Review, author Kenneth Francis talks about the episode of the Piers Morgan show last month which featured neurosurgeon Michael Egnor vs. professional skeptic Michael Shermer, discussing the topics raised in his new book The Immortal Mind:
Dr. Shermer says there is no scientific theory that explains everything. He adds, this is true with UFOs and psychics and whatnot. And it’s just okay to say, you know what, we can’t explain everything and there’s still a lot unknown. Let’s keep an open mind.
Dr. Egnor replied, how do you explain the hundreds of accurate perceptions by people who are having near-death experiences of the goings-on in the room? But Shermer, the editor-in-chief of Skeptic Magazine, remains a sceptic. He is also an atheist.
Morgan and Shermer also discussed the topics like the existence of the soul, and theorised about the Big Bang, Ouija boards, transhumanism, and if AI could be sentient. Both men were polite with one another and respectful of each other’s views. But in my opinion, Dr. Egnor won the debate by a long shot, proving that neuroscience provides much evidence for the immateriality of some aspects of the human mind.
“NDEs, Scepticism, and Morality,” August 2025
Yes, and that respect business is a big change from the past, let me tell you.
Newfound Respect?
Francis mentions my role as Egnor’s co-author on The Immortal Mind (Worthy, June 3, 2025).
Yes and I was also the co-author with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard on The Spiritual Brain (Harper One 2007). Although that book was well received and sold well, it suffered from the public tendency at the time to just assume that 1) materialism has been proven right and that therefore 2) the mind is merely what the brain does.
That’s science!, we were told, and the rest is just wishful thinking. A mound of contrary evidence does not matter. Only the narrative matters…
That View Was False Then And It Is False Now
What’s changed? There is now far more recognition that our non-materialist approach to the mind is evidence-based and quite reasonable. Evidence from areas as diverse as split-brain studies, paradoxical lucidity, and veridical near-death experiences is best interpreted as evidence for a non-material aspect of the human mind. Hence the respectful treatment Michael Egnor is receiving as he makes his case.
Yes, there are still people who insist that science can only consider material causes and concepts. But in a world where evidence is pointing in another direction, their view amounts to saying that science is about the promotion of a materialist viewpoint and not about evidence. If so, so much the worse for science. Of course, in reality, science adapts to the evidence available (slowly, with much kicking and screaming). And that is what we are seeing.
One-Way Skepticism
In his article at New English Review, Francis goes on to discuss the moral aspect of the human mind:
It is a sad day when I have to quote the Pope of Atheism, but Dawkins said: “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
For once, Dawkins is right, but he quickly flips back to being crippled by psychological forces on an ontological issue, then flips again describing himself as a ‘cultural Christian.’
But back to Dr. Shermer: before starting a debate with him, the first question I would ask him is this: “As an atheist, how can you justify your moral indignation for anything? In other words, how can a sack of pre-determined atoms, void of reason or free will, debate a rational person who believes in God (Logos) and logic?”
Without God, objective moral values and duties do not exist. So, aren’t you piggybacking on the residue of Christian objective moral values and duties? Also, are you ever sceptical about your own scepticism? And, if so, are you sceptical about being sceptical about that scepticism, ad infinitum/reductio ad absurdum?”
“NDEs, Scepticism, and Morality”
Of course, if skepticism remains unidirectional, aimed only at discrediting immaterial realities, the problem might not arise…
Note: Ken Francis is also the author of Cities of the Absurd (forthcoming 2025), an anthology of short stories. He tells us that one of his stories is about AI going rogue…
Cross-posted at Mind Matters News.