"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."– William Bruce Cameron
Introduction: The Invisible Threads That Tie Our Thinking
When someone says, “That’s just your opinion,” they’re usually dismissing something they disagree with. But what exactly is an opinion? How does it differ from a belief or a conclusion? These words shape how we view the world, relate to others, and navigate grief, love, science, and spirit.
As someone in the so-called "woo woo" field of the afterlife, I know how often people assume what I share is just my opinion or a belief. After all, how can anyone know about the afterlife? Haven't we all heard, "No one has ever been there!" (Well, maybe not for long.) So why should anything I say carry any weight?
I reflected on that question this morning as I prepared to present as an "expert" on the afterlife. The answer lies in distinguishing opinions, beliefs, and conclusions and in recognizing the different types of evidence and reasoning that underpin them.
Definitions: Clarifying the Language of Thought
* Conclusion: A judgment or decision reached after considering evidence or reasoning. It’s the endpoint of a thought process. Conclusions can change. They should change as new evidence comes in. But they are what I base my life on.
* Opinion: A personal view or feeling not necessarily grounded in evidence or logic. Often emotional, often fleeting.
* Belief: An acceptance that something is true, sometimes inherited, sometimes intuitive. Beliefs can be deeply held and may or may not be supported by evidence.
Here’s the thing: there’s nothing wrong with opinions or beliefs. We all have them. But we shouldn't give them the same weight as conclusions—especially when we’re making decisions, teaching others, or forming our worldviews.
Evidence: The Building Blocks of Conclusions
Conclusions are shaped by evidence, but not all evidence is created equal. Let's break it down:
* Direct Evidence: Firsthand, observable data. Seeing a medium give verifiable, specific information they couldn’t possibly know.
* Indirect Evidence: Circumstantial, but still compelling. Repeated patterns, consistent signs, or synchronicities.
* Testimonial Evidence: What others report. While subjective, large numbers of consistent testimonies matter. Thousands of near-death experiences, for example, can't be brushed off as meaningless.
* Intuitive Knowing: A quiet, internal "yes." Often dismissed in academic settings, intuition can be a valid pathway to insight—especially when paired with logic and consistency.
* Logical Consistency: When conclusions align with known principles and do not contradict themselves. Logical coherence helps distinguish plausible claims from emotional or contradictory assertions.
* Reasoned Analysis: Drawing on logic but also incorporating context, experience, and philosophical reflection. Reason helps us assess whether evidence supports a broader truth or if it has been misinterpreted.
A balanced approach doesn’t discard intuition or ignore logic and reason. For example, if there is one God, and that God is all-loving, does it logically follow that this same God would torment any of its children for all eternity? These two ideas are not logically compatible.
Reason and coherence matter. Truth shouldn’t contradict itself. When evidence (of any kind) is weighed alongside logical consistency and reasoned analysis, we have a much stronger foundation for our conclusions.
Subjective vs. Objective: The Myth of Pure Objectivity
Science tends to favor the objective. We’re told that what’s objective is real, and what’s subjective is merely personal or anecdotal. But that line isn’t as straightforward as it seems.
Yes, a thermometer is objective. But how do we know what it says? A person reads it. Interpretation requires experience. Even lab results rely on someone to record and translate them.
The double slit experiment, reproduced countless times in many labs, shows consciousness influencing the outcome of a physical system. In other words, awareness affects matter.
The double slit experiment revealed that particles such as electrons behave differently when observed, collapsing from a wave of probabilities into a single, definite state. This suggests that consciousness or observation itself plays a role in shaping physical reality—an idea that blurs the line between observer and observed. It challenges the classical notion of a purely objective universe, hinting instead at a reality that responds to awareness.
And consider this: if objective means "shared experience," then shared death experiences count. These are reported by multiple people who witness a person passing—and experience the beginning of that soul's transition together. That’s not solitary or internal; that’s intersubjective.
So maybe the real question isn't "Is this objective or subjective?" but: How reliable is this experience? How consistent is it? What conclusion can reasonably be drawn from it?
Logic, Reason, and the Role of Intuition
We must respect logic and reason, but not idolize them to the exclusion of other ways of knowing. Logic is a tool, not a god. Reason helps us make sense of the world, but intuition often guides us to ask the right questions.
* Logic: Offers consistency and internal coherence. Essential, but limited to what we already know.
* Reason: Broader. Takes logic and applies it to real-world contexts, often balancing emotional and philosophical dimensions.
* Intuition: Emerges from deep within. Sometimes it precedes evidence; sometimes it confirms it. It’s the whisper that says, Something about this feels true.
In my field, I use all three. When I say I’ve drawn a conclusion about the continuation of consciousness, I’m not asking you to just believe me. I’m inviting you to consider the cumulative evidence: direct experiences, consistent testimonies, philosophical reasoning, and yes—the nudge of intuition.
What Counts as Proof?
Before diving deeper into types of evidence, it's important to consider what we mean when we say something is "proven." Proof isn't binary. It exists on a spectrum, and what qualifies as proof can differ dramatically across disciplines. In mathematics, proof demands absolute certainty—a logical sequence that leaves no room for doubt. Mathematics, philosophy, and physics are about the only areas where this type of proof exists.
In science, proof often means reproducibility and statistical significance. In the legal system, we encounter familiar standards: "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal trials and a "preponderance of the evidence" in civil cases.
In the realm of spiritual exploration and the afterlife, we often operate with standards closer to these legal thresholds. Absolute certainty is rare, but a thoughtful, honest evaluation of the available evidence can lead us to reasonable, responsible, and personally transformative conclusions. For me, a preponderance of the evidence is often enough. Sometimes, the case is so strong that the conclusion moves closer to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Either way, being clear about the standards we're using helps us stay intellectually honest and emotionally grounded.
Conclusion: Weighing What We Know
Not all thoughts are created equal. Opinions are fine. Beliefs are natural. But when it comes to what we build our lives on, what we teach others, and what we lean on in our darkest moments, we must aim for conclusions.
And conclusions can be spiritual. They can be based on indirect, testimonial, or intuitive evidence—so long as they are filtered through reason, reflection, and internal consistency.
So the next time someone says, "That's just your opinion," you might say:
"No, it’s my conclusion—based on reason, intuition, and the best evidence I’ve been able to gather. And like any good conclusion, I’m open to revising it. But for now, it’s the ground I walk on."
In a world that asks for certainty but runs on mystery, may we become thoughtful navigators. May we know the difference between what we guess, what we feel, and what we know for now. And may we never stop seeking truth—wherever it leads.
