The new mechanistic philosophy (NMP) seeks to identify and explain the mechanisms of various phenomena, including their overall organization and the interactions between the individualized components. I argue that mechanistic explanation focuses on mechanisms conceived of as organized complex systems and should not be considered as merely a form of metaphysical reductionism. I discuss that among the phenomena that can be approached within the new mechanistic framework are near-death experiences (NDEs), which can be included within the vast range of experiences that are grouped under the category of religious experience. Since studying such experiences is far from methodologically simple, I show the feasibility of applying the mechanistic explanation to NDEs. While some scholars, such as Egil Asprem and Ann Taves, argue that mechanistic explanation can shed new light on the explanation of religion, I emphasize the limits of such an explanation in this context as well as the epistemic-methodological advantages in comparison with alternative explanatory models, especially the models proposed by Michael Marsh, Frederick Barrett and Roland Griffiths.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Feasibility of the Mechanistic Explanation in the Case of Near-Death Experiences: Nothing but a Reductionism?

  • Michał Oleksowicz

摘要

The new mechanistic philosophy (NMP) seeks to identify and explain the mechanisms of various phenomena, including their overall organization and the interactions between the individualized components. I argue that mechanistic explanation focuses on mechanisms conceived of as organized complex systems and should not be considered as merely a form of metaphysical reductionism. I discuss that among the phenomena that can be approached within the new mechanistic framework are near-death experiences (NDEs), which can be included within the vast range of experiences that are grouped under the category of religious experience. Since studying such experiences is far from methodologically simple, I show the feasibility of applying the mechanistic explanation to NDEs. While some scholars, such as Egil Asprem and Ann Taves, argue that mechanistic explanation can shed new light on the explanation of religion, I emphasize the limits of such an explanation in this context as well as the epistemic-methodological advantages in comparison with alternative explanatory models, especially the models proposed by Michael Marsh, Frederick Barrett and Roland Griffiths.