Ship of Fools: Heaven is real and I saw it, scientist says.

Thread: Heaven is real and I saw it, scientist says. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024117

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

"Heaven is real and I saw it, scientist says." This persistent story, coming up again on Yahoo this morning, is common enough. I'm sure everyone on the Ship has run into stories like it. I can't recall any recent discussion though.

quote:
Dr. Eben Alexander, a Harvard neurosurgeon, nearly died four years ago when a ferocious E. coli meningitis infection attacked his brain and plunged him deep into a week-long coma. Brain scans showed his entire cortex -- the parts of the brain that give us consciousness, thought, memory and understanding -- was not functioning.

But, as the story goes, he was alive and conscious the whole time:

quote:
I was just a speck of awareness in kind of a dark, murky environment, in roots or vessels or something. And I seemed to be there for a very long time -- I would say years.

"I was rescued by this beautiful, spinning, white light that had a melody, an incredibly beautiful melody with it that opened up into a bright valley," he added, "an extremely verdant valley with blossoming flowers and a just incredible, rich, ultra-real world of indescribable complexity."

Alexander said there was a young woman who soared across time and space with him on a butterfly wing and gave him a message to take back from Heaven.

"She looked at me, and this was with no words, but the concepts came straight into mind: You are love; you are cherished; there's nothing you have to fear; there's nothing you can do wrong," he said.

God was there as a vast presence of love, Alexander said, and Alexander understood God through an orb of brilliant light.

Of course there are skeptics. He always believed that such things were hallucinations, but is now convinced otherwise:

quote:
Alexander isn't fazed at all by the skeptics. He was one, too.

Now he has "proof of Heaven," he said.

"For me, it's become clear that the best way to look at it is to turn it around and realize that consciousness exists in a much richer form, free and independent of the brain, which has everything to do with the eternity of our souls and the fact that our awareness, our consciousness, our soul, our spirit, does not depend on the existence of the brain in the physical universe. In fact, it's freed up to a much richer knowing when we're outside."

How do you react to this? Does the fact that he is a Harvard neurosurgeon and former skeptic make him more credible?

To me it all makes perfect sense.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
"Heaven is real and I saw it, scientist says."

quote:
Deep in coma, his brain infected so badly only the most primitive parts were working, Alexander claimed he experienced something extraordinary: a journey to Heaven.

What an odd word to use.

quote:

How do you react to this?

That it's rather a sad colorless world we inhabit and that a confused allegiance to some weird notion of 'science' is largely to blame.

And good on the guy for not letting the skeptics get him down!

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It makes perfect scientific sense, yes. His failure of judgement doesn't.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Apart from one or two stories in the more - shall we say exotic - reaches of the Christian press, isn't it rather odd that nobody ever seems to come back from a near-death experience* having been in Hell?

*(And while it's lovely that this lovely man has had this lovely experience, we should note that however nearly dead he was, he wasn't actually dead.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I tend to believe stories about near death experiences because:

a) they often convert sceptics
b) they are not relative to one's religion - people don't see Jesus, Muhammad etc. which they would expect to see
c) the various stages through which they progress is consistent

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I tend to believe stories about near death experiences because:

a) they often convert sceptics
b) they are not relative to one's religion - people don't see Jesus, Muhammad etc. which they would expect to see
c) the various stages through which they progress is consistent

Nice comment. I feel the same way.

I don't know how true your a) is, but it may be.

Reading accounts like these, I have often been struck by b). Sometimes they do reference Jesus or others, but not usually. In fact if they do, and especially if they get very detailed "doctrinal" information, I tend to be skeptical about the experience itself.

Your c) is especially interesting. Studies seem to indicate that the experiences are pretty consistent regardless of culture. To me this makes them more trustworthy.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apart from one or two stories in the more - shall we say exotic - reaches of the Christian press, isn't it rather odd that nobody ever seems to come back from a near-death experience* having been in Hell?

*(And while it's lovely that this lovely man has had this lovely experience, we should note that however nearly dead he was, he wasn't actually dead.)

Fair comment. You never know what would have happened after these scenes if the person had actually died.

The scenario in my own denomination's idea of the afterlife is that everyone receives a similarly joyful welcome to the next life, regardless of their quality or faith. It is only later, once the person is accustomed to the life there, that they decide what they want to spend their time doing and who they wish to be with. Their choices may be better or worse, and they then gradually move into a happier or less happy state accordingly.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The scenario in my own denomination's idea of the afterlife is that everyone receives a similarly joyful welcome to the next life, regardless of their quality or faith. It is only later, once the person is accustomed to the life there, that they decide what they want to spend their time doing and who they wish to be with. Their choices may be better or worse, and they then gradually move into a happier or less happy state accordingly.

I would expect (almost) everyone's choices would be better after experiencing God's love and presence first hand.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Haven't there been documentaries on people who went to hell and back? As well as those who went to heaven?

Can't remember its name, but I saw a documentary on the effects of people passing out at multiple G-force on centrifugal machines and how these partly replilcated religious near-death experiences. It included accounts of religious and non-religious people each of whom, it could be argued, experienced the very thing they anticipated according to their spirituality. Though there were definite similarities in each case. At least one of those accounts, IIRC, involved a man who had a very negative and hellish experience during his NDE.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Haven't there been documentaries on people who went to hell and back? As well as those who went to heaven?

Can't remember its name, but I saw a documentary on the effects of people passing out at multiple G-force on centrifugal machines and how these partly replilcated religious near-death experiences. It included accounts of religious and non-religious people each of whom, it could be argued, experienced the very thing they anticipated according to their spirituality. Though there were definite similarities in each case. At least one of those accounts, IIRC, involved a man who had a very negative and hellish experience during his NDE.

Yes, I've heard about people who saw 'hell' when they had their near-death experience. I imagine that some who saw that probably wouldn't want to admit it? Maybe they trot out the 'come into the light' stuff just to save face.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would expect (almost) everyone's choices would be better after experiencing God's love and presence first hand.

Good point. That would seem to be born out by the doctor's story.

On the other hand there's no accounting for the human response to experience. [Biased]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Exactly, it's ALL psychologically explicable, there is no reason to invoke anything else but brain chemistry.

While I'm away my Mission Shaped Community will play tomorrow with Ian McCormack's DVD, the guy who tripped on box-jelly venom.

Sigh.

An evil and adulterous generation.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would expect (almost) everyone's choices would be better after experiencing God's love and presence first hand.

Right. Look at how thoughtful the Disciples were...

--Tom Clune

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I tend to believe stories about near death experiences because:

a) they often convert sceptics

If some single cause were shown to be responsible for most apostasy would you tend to believe that cause was objective evidence of the falseness of religion?

b) they are not relative to one's religion - people don't see Jesus, Muhammad etc. which they would expect to see

Which could also be evidence for the more conventional scientific explanation that such experiences reflect the order in which brain activities tail off. The language centres have already shut down - we're into primitive level confabulation here.

c) the various stages through which they progress is consistent

Which would also be the case if they were due to some biological process.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The scenario in my own denomination's idea of the afterlife is that everyone receives a similarly joyful welcome to the next life, regardless of their quality or faith. It is only later, once the person is accustomed to the life there, that they decide what they want to spend their time doing and who they wish to be with. Their choices may be better or worse, and they then gradually move into a happier or less happy state accordingly.

A bit like ordinary life then! Alas, here not all are welcomed.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Interesting how everyone's expectations of eternity involve Alpine valleys and nubile young women. Even skeptics, it seems.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Exactly, it's ALL psychologically explicable, there is no reason to invoke anything else but brain chemistry.

While I'm away my Mission Shaped Community will play tomorrow with Ian McCormack's DVD, the guy who tripped on box-jelly venom.

Sigh.

An evil and adulterous generation.

I've never heard of Ian McCormack so I Googled him and I must say that the most impressive thing about his story is that he refuses to make money from it and his book is not copyrighted.

Very refreshing to read that. He could have made a fortune.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

I read this story last week, and the doctor, previously a complete skeptic, has had his life and perspective of reality totally changed by this NDE. The arguement often used against the reality of NDE's is that, however much the victim's brain appeared to ne non-functional, he couldn't have been dead, as he came back. There's a lot more to discover here.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Haven't there been documentaries on people who went to hell and back?

I have been to Barrow in Furness and back and no one made a documentary.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Interesting how everyone's expectations of eternity involve Alpine valleys and nubile young women. Even skeptics, it seems.

There are no nubile young women in my afterlife fantasies (except me, of course [Biased]

). I think you are saying 'everyone' when you mean heterosexual men, no?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There are no nubile young women in my afterlife fantasies (except me, of course ). I think you are saying 'everyone' when you mean heterosexual men, no?

I'm sorry, I was being cynical.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apart from one or two stories in the more - shall we say exotic - reaches of the Christian press, isn't it rather odd that nobody ever seems to come back from a near-death experience* having been in Hell?

Lucifer masquerades as an angel of light. I'd be very suspicious of any angelic being who told me I can do no wrong because it is a lie. And we know whose native language that is.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There are no nubile young women in my afterlife fantasies (except me, of course ). I think you are saying 'everyone' when you mean heterosexual men, no?
I'm sorry, I was being cynical.

Your cynicism was rather exclusive ....

(And I was teasing)

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Lucifer masquerades as an angel of light. I'd be very suspicious of any angelic being who told me I can do no wrong because it is a lie. And we know whose native language that is.

Yes we do. Bloody French.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Interesting how everyone's expectations of eternity involve Alpine valleys and nubile young women. Even skeptics, it seems.

My expectations include a lot of queuing, form filling and finding you're in the wrong place. After all they can't just let anyone in!

[ 25. October 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: que sais-je ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Whether he's the most eminent scientist in the world or the scrapings out of a petri dish, it's irrelevant as he's not applying scientific methods to this question. He says he experienced something, therefore life after death. Not even the slightest gesture towards scientific investigation, or even the elimination of other possible explanations for his experience. It's the very definition of anecdote.

This isn't intended as personal criticism - I fully appreciate that NDEs can have a profound effect on people - but his description should carry no more weight than any other person. As it happens, Kevin Nelson's book The God Impulse is a very good explanation of why NDEs are as they are, including (as Anselmina says) a narrowing of vision under extreme conditions, and it also touches on the nature of spiritual experiences and why people react so strongly to them.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Haven't there been documentaries on people who went to hell and back?
I have been to Barrow in Furness and back and no one made a documentary.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[qb] I tend to believe stories about near death experiences because:
a) they often convert sceptics

If some single cause were shown to be responsible for most apostasy would you tend to believe that cause was objective evidence of the falseness of religion?
...

(I can't speak for Leo)
But my tentative hypothesis on hearing a claim would be*.

a) They are lying 40% chance
b) Simple wishful thinking 40% chance
c) More complex random delusion 5% chance
d) More complex systematic delusion 5% chance
d) Actual primitive death response 5% chance
f) [X files theme] 5% chance

If I found they were a sceptic who, then changed significantly for longer than a joke/experiment that would rule out (a), depending on the nature of the 'conversion' (b), and multiple occurrences (c), at which point (f) is looking quite likely, and ones where you can say you believe the person, although have a different explaination (c?d?ef) are almost certain.

So in a sense, yes. It would be better (but still weak) evidence. To some extent you see it on TV. When someone with well known atheistic views says 'no evidence of Abraham=>doubts', one is inclined to think they didn't look too hard or think about what they'd expect to find**.
When someone with well known Abrahamic beliefs says that, one has questions.

*using Feynman's model for beliefs, and using what 'feels' right for percentages.

**Of course if they said 'we now know everyone who lived in Ur, and no Abraham' that would require thinking.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I read this story last week, and the doctor, previously a complete skeptic, has had his life and perspective of reality totally changed by this NDE.

"Complete skeptic" is a severe overstatement, if this review of the book is accurate:

quote:
Alexander claims to have been waffling on the matter of his faith before the meningitis. But the book reveals that he's always been a devout or at least a searching Christian. Long before he found himself in the "God-soaked and love-filled darkness" of his coma, Alexander took his family to church and made his children pray every night before they went to bed.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"Complete skeptic" is a severe overstatement, if this review of the book is accurate:

quote:
Alexander claims to have been waffling on the matter of his faith before the meningitis. But the book reveals that he's always been a devout or at least a searching Christian. Long before he found himself in the "God-soaked and love-filled darkness" of his coma, Alexander took his family to church and made his children pray every night before they went to bed.

I think things like this are usually crap piles, but I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. People who are very iffy in their faith might still go through the motions and make their children go through the motions, in part in a desperate attempt to find that whatever-it-is that they feel is missing.

Indeed they may be even more fervent about dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's of their physical faith rituals, just because the emotional or spiritual or whatever-you-want-to-call-it side of their faith is lacking.

What you quote proves nothing about how resolved his faith was.

[ 26. October 2012, 02:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

The only conclusion I was suggesting was that regularly attending church and encouraging nightly prayers are not behaviors one would normally associate with a "complete skeptic", as PaulTH* described him.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apart from one or two stories in the more - shall we say exotic - reaches of the Christian press, isn't it rather odd that nobody ever seems to come back from a near-death experience* having been in Hell?

I used to know someone who claimed exactly that.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Haven't read the article, but saw a couple of TV interviews.

The bits I especially liked were the emphasis on love, and the possible identity of the woman he met.

He was adopted. After his experience, he found out that he had a bio sister who had died as an adult. When he finally saw her picture, he said she was the woman he met.

As to other reported experiences, IIRC:

--People who report being in Heaven tend to report seeing a Being of Light, and they usually identify it in the context of their beliefs. So a Christian might see Jesus or Mary, etc.

--There are people who report some kind of Hell.

Dunno if any of this is true. I'm a universalist Christian with a fundamentalist Protestant background, and an agnostic to boot. I don't know what, if anything, there is after death. But I've pretty much decided to live as if there is something good, and we'll all eventually get there and be healed and Home. I'm much less panicky about death than I used to be.

So I take stories like the one in the OP as possible signs of hope, but I don't cling to them.

Freddy--I know Swedenborgians focus a lot on the afterlife. Is there any particular opinion on near-death experiences? Thanks.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
This isn't intended as personal criticism - I fully appreciate that NDEs can have a profound effect on people - but his description should carry no more weight than any other person. As it happens, Kevin Nelson's book The God Impulse is a very good explanation of why NDEs are as they are, including (as Anselmina says) a narrowing of vision under extreme conditions, and it also touches on the nature of spiritual experiences and why people react so strongly to them.

I'm curious: are the brain scan results (showing that his entire cortex was not functioning) consistent with Kevin Nelson's research results? I'm guessing from Amazon's book description that they are.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
This isn't intended as personal criticism - I fully appreciate that NDEs can have a profound effect on people - but his description should carry no more weight than any other person. As it happens, Kevin Nelson's book The God Impulse is a very good explanation of why NDEs are as they are, including (as Anselmina says) a narrowing of vision under extreme conditions, and it also touches on the nature of spiritual experiences and why people react so strongly to them.
I'm curious: are the brain scan results (showing that his entire cortex was not functioning) consistent with Kevin Nelson's research results? I'm guessing from Amazon's book description that they are.

From memory, yes. I couldn't swear to it, though - it was a while ago that I read it, and other features like the narrowing of vision (creating the impression of a tunnel with light at the end) and some very interesting material about spiritual and ecstatic experiences (including a bizarre but intriguing anecdote about a game of pinball) made more of an impression on me.

It's definitely worth a read.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Apart from one or two stories in the more - shall we say exotic - reaches of the Christian press, isn't it rather odd that nobody ever seems to come back from a near-death experience* having been in Hell?

There's an account of someone having come back from somewhere Hellish quoted in one of Hans Kung's books - I think Does God Exist?
(He concludes by pointing out that nobody who has reported a near death experience has ipso facto actually died.)

(i.f. - for that very reason)

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

In some of the accounts of the immediate post-death Bardo state in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition the road to a favourable or an unfavourable rebirth (including the heaven and hell realms) are similar. They all refer to long white tunnels and some have summer meadows, others have fields of loving kindness and beings like points of light. All these sound to me very much like cultural overlays upon a genuine physiological phenomenon. I haveexperienced the tunnel and white light for myself in the centrifuge and the sensation is different whether you experience blackout or redout.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I haveexperienced the tunnel and white light for myself in the centrifuge and the sensation is different whether you experience blackout or redout.

Wait - why would you put yourself in a centrifuge? Are you an astronaut?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I don't like the conscription of near-death experiences as evangelistic tools, simply because it's likely that the whole thing is completely explicable in physiological terms. Others on this thread have mentioned elements of this - the narrowing of the visual field, the 'white tunnel', and so on.

Why tell someone that what they've experienced is Heaven, when what they've really experienced is merely the process of their own body shutting down?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't like the conscription of near-death experiences as evangelistic tools, simply because it's likely that the whole thing is completely explicable in physiological terms. Others on this thread have mentioned elements of this - the narrowing of the visual field, the 'white tunnel', and so on.

Why tell someone that what they've experienced is Heaven, when what they've really experienced is merely the process of their own body shutting down?

A very pleasant way to shut down, don'tcha think?

[Smile]

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Wait - why would you put yourself in a centrifuge? Are you an astronaut?

No I worked for a company that made seriously cool jet fighters in the US and got a go on the simulator and the centrifuge on the graduate development programme.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Interesting how everyone's expectations of eternity involve Alpine valleys and nubile young women. Even skeptics, it seems.
There are no nubile young women in my afterlife fantasies (except me, of course ). I think you are saying 'everyone' when you mean heterosexual men, no?

Now, now, Boogie! Don't forget the lesbians! When I die I want to see a nubile Angelina Jolie or Uma Thurman lookalike! [Biased]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't like the conscription of near-death experiences as evangelistic tools, simply because it's likely that the whole thing is completely explicable in physiological terms. Others on this thread have mentioned elements of this - the narrowing of the visual field, the 'white tunnel', and so on.

Why tell someone that what they've experienced is Heaven, when what they've really experienced is merely the process of their own body shutting down?
A very pleasant way to shut down, don'tcha think?

That's as may be. It demonstrates nothing, and to claim such an experience as a demonstration of life after death, when there are so many perfectly good and natural explanations for the observed phenomena, speaks of either ignorance or dishonesty. (Or, to be strictly accurate, a willingness to push all else to one side in response to an experience which subjectively appears to have significance.)

You might as well argue that hypothermia victims who engage in paradoxical undressing were doing so because they were starting to feel the fires of Hell burning them.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't like the conscription of near-death experiences as evangelistic tools, simply because it's likely that the whole thing is completely explicable in physiological terms.

I don't like it because it suggests that the greatest benefit of Christianity is a pleasant afterlife.

Moo

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
They are lying 40% chance

There are accounts by some people who seem to have integrity; the sort of people who don't normally tell lies.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

One comment I have heard about near-death experiences is that none of those people actually did die.

Ask yourself what would constitute actual good evidence that such an experience is real. (This is at least a good creativity exercise.)

How about this: John Jones wishes he knew the answer to a question, something very specific and not fuzzy. No one alive knows the answer. Jones passes into a coma, has a near-death experience, and in the process he learns the answer.

If such a scenario came to pass, I think it would indicate that the experience was "real". Unfortunately, I've never heard of a case of this sort.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
They are lying 40% chance
There are accounts by some people who seem to have integrity; the sort of people who don't normally tell lies.

True, knowing the person would make massive difference to the likelihood of the top suspicions.
That's why I thought you found the sceptics interesting, where it's easier to tell if it's unlikely to be the kind of lie they'd tell/delusion they'd have.
And with the multiple independent testimony, the 'simple' answers seem unlikely to me as full explanations for every case. Though there are a vast number of more complex ones, both natural and supernatural.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I am in no way surprised that many people don't find the accounts of these experiences to be convincing.

What does surprise me is the lack of curiosity. Even if the underlying assumption is that we don't know and can't know what happens after death, it is still true that something, or nothing, will happen.

Why wouldn't we look for evidence of what that might be? [Confused]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

Why wouldn't we look for evidence of what that might be?

Because it is notoriously unreliable - on a level with asking whether mediums can speak with the dead.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why wouldn't we look for evidence of what that might be?
Because it is notoriously unreliable - on a level with asking whether mediums can speak with the dead.

Where do you get the idea that it has been notoriously unreliable? There has been an enormous amount of credible research about NDE's.

Certainly plenty of individual claims can be dismissed as bogus for a host of reasons. But consistent, cross-cultural evidence suggests that some experience like this is what will happen to you when you die. It is not unreasonable to see this as a possibility.

On the other hand mediums have been routinely discredited.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I am in no way surprised that many people don't find the accounts of these experiences to be convincing.

Convincing in what way? Convinced that people actually had these experiences, or convinced that they are actually a view of Heaven? The latter would generally require a much higher level of convincing than the former.

And curiosity can express itself in many forms. Some might become curious about the commonality of experiences and wonder about the physiological processes that happen as the brain shuts down. Someone else might be curious about the afterlife, but if they believe that near-death experiences aren't the same as what happens after death, they won't see any reason why what happens in the former has any bearing on the latter.

So just because people don't immediately jump to the conclusion that NDEs are an indication of what the afterlife looks like does not mean they are lacking in curiosity, or aren't interested in what happens.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
So just because people don't immediately jump to the conclusion that NDEs are an indication of what the afterlife looks like does not mean they are lacking in curiosity, or aren't interested in what happens.

Good point. You're right.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

He may be a scientist, but he was not doing science or thinking scientifically.

People like to think that a scientist would be more 'objective', but scientists are also easily fooled. Viz The explanation of how magicians do their tricks. I have heard (but have not a reference on hand) where scientists could not work out how the trick was done, and it took other magicians to show how the normal observer was being deceived.

It's just that the headline "Heaven is real and I saw it, lawyer* says" does not carry the same weight with a public that wants to be convinced.

*replace with profession of your choice e.g. nurse, gardener, politician, conjurer, car-salesman.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It's just that the headline "Heaven is real and I saw it, lawyer* says" does not carry the same weight with a public that wants to be convinced.

*replace with profession of your choice e.g. nurse, gardener, politician, conjurer, car-salesman.

Yeah, we'd know he was lying. [Killing me]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re NDEs being physiological events:

Why would that necessarily mean that they're nothing more? AIUI, our eyes send info to our brains, which put it together into seeing. It's physiological. But does that mean that what we're seeing doesn't exist?

(If you're a solipsist, and think that you're the only real thing, then nothing else exists. But for the rest of us...)

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

It is interesting that so many people who have never had a NDE, so quickly dismiss them and claim to be able to explain them naturalistically.

Dr. Eben Alexander was one such person until it happened to him - now he has changed his view, based on Experience. Yet still the intellectuals who have had no such experience claim they know better.

Anyway, I'm not prepared to dismiss something I've never experienced so lightly. One thing that does puzzle me though, is that no-one's mentioned any concept of "The Silver Chord." How would this fit into the NDE's thus far described?

The NDE and the Silver Cord

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re NDEs being physiological events:

Why would that necessarily mean that they're nothing more?

As Dumbledore said to Harry,

quote:
Of course it's in your head, Harry. Why would that mean that it's not real?

There is no question in my mind that NDE's have a connection to brain chemistry. Physiology and spirituality are inextricably linked. This doesn't make the spiritual unreal.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Freddy, what does the New Church teach about the "Silver Cord" (if anything?)

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Freddy, what does the New Church teach about the "Silver Cord" (if anything?)

I've never heard of the "silver cord", but looking it up in Wikipedia I see this:

quote:
The silver cord in metaphysical literature, also known as the sutratma or life thread of the antahkarana, refers to a life-giving linkage from the higher self (atma) down to the physical body. It also refers to an extended synthesis of this thread and a second (the consciousness thread, passing from the soul to the physical body) that connects the physical body to the etheric body, onwards to the astral body and finally to the mental body.

Assuming that this is what you mean the New Church has almost the same concept in slightly different terms.

In the New Church system the higher self or spiritual self is linked to the physical body by a similar connection that we call "correspondence." The higher self has numerous levels, the lowest of which is our conscious thoughts and feelings. All the levels exist within the physical body, but are actually independent of it. They are always connected though.

The nature of the connection between the intangible spiritual body and the physical body is one of life's great puzzles.

The New Church solution to this is the idea that the intangible spiritual qualities of our spirit find their corresponding expression in our bodies, specifically in terms of function. For example a smile on the human face corresponds to a particular feeling in the human heart, as do all facial expressions. Similarly, the works of our hands correspond to the efforts of our spirit and its specific intentions. Outer function that reflects inner intention is what drives the connection.

It is hard to express how this works, and the idea of a "silver chord" linking the two planes of existence is as good as any.

A key idea for me, though, and one that I find very profound, is the understanding that life from God does not flow into physical matter itself but into its function. The reason is that whereas matter is dead, function is living, and therefore it can receive what flows from God.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Thanks Freddy. I can't remember where I learned the "silver cord" idea from, but there is a reference in Ecclesiastes:

quote:
Ecclesiastes 12: 6-7
"Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

To me, it seems that in a NDE, the cord is never actually detached, so the soul or spirit (not sure which) - although it leaves the body, is still attached via the silver cord. It is only when the person's body is well and truly dead that the cord is severed and there is no way for the person to ever be revived in this world.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The point of religious faith is that it is faith, and proof is not given. Any time someone says they have The Answer or seen God, slowness to accept is best. We don't if he experienced something up, down, backwards or sideways. The ones with the words don't know too well.

quote:
Bruce Cockburn, "Burden of the Angel/Beast

From the lying mirror to the movement of stars
Everybody's looking for who they are
Those who know don't have the words to tell
And the ones with the words don't know too well

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

There is some evidence that NDEs can be induced – that, of course does not mean all are induced.

Interesting analysis here

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re NDEs being physiological events:

Why would that necessarily mean that they're nothing more?

Physiological explanations aren't necessarily complete, even when they are correct. I can cause the bulb in my lamp to go on with the switch, but assuming that the switch and the bulb are the whole story ignores the role of electricity.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I didn't know about the silver chord stuff but it's very interesting.

I have been reading for a sermon on the raising of Lazarus. It appears that the first century Jews believed that the soul of the departed hovered for 3 days from the time of death. This is why people were still at Lazarus's tomb. They believed that on the fourth day the spirit finally departed.

This is why Jesus didn't get to the grave until the fourth day. The belief was that Lazarus was well and truly gone - but Jesus wanted to show the total power of himself as the resurrection and the life. He therefore seems to have shown that he could call back Lazarus' spirit even after the 3rd day - as opposed to just raising someone on the same day as death, like Jairus' daughter.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have been reading for a sermon on the raising of Lazarus. It appears that the first century Jews believed that the soul of the departed hovered for 3 days from the time of death. This is why people were still at Lazarus's tomb. They believed that on the fourth day the spirit finally departed.

That is what I believe as well. Do you know what the origin of that belief is?

Maybe it is simply this passage:

quote:
Hosea 6:2 After two days He will revive us; On the third day He will raise us up, That we may live in His sight.

Is it anything more than that?

I'm sure you are aware that "the third day" is a phrase that crops up frequently in Scripture, and is evidently significant. For example:

quote:
Genesis 22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off.

Genesis 31:22 And Laban was told on the third day that Jacob had fled.

Genesis 34:25 Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain

Genesis 40:20 Now it came to pass on the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief butler

Genesis 42:18 Then Joseph said to them the third day, “Do this and live, for I fear God:

Exodus 19:11 And let them be ready for the third day. For on the third day the LORD will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.

Exodus 19:16 Then it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there were thunderings and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.

Leviticus 7:17 the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned with fire.

Leviticus 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the next day. And if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned in the fire. And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination. It shall not be accepted.

Numbers 31:19 And as for you, remain outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day.

1 Kings 3:18 Then it happened, the third day after I had given birth, that this woman also gave birth. And we were together; no one was with us in the house, except the two of us in the house.

2 Kings 20:5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD.

There are more. By contrast hardly anything happens on the second or fourth day.

In any case, we typically have funerals on the third day after death for this reason.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What a superb non sequitur Golden Key.

As ALWAYS this is about narrative disposition.

Despite the fact that there is nothing but evidence that this is entirely physiological, easily induced, repeatable, some want to believe that it's a door of perception.

Ian McCormack is more dangerous than anyone doing it for money (although making DVDs etc, COSTS money ... there's ALWAYS money involved), he completely believes what he says, like the Ivy League guy.

It's a side-show distraction and worse as it utterly turns off the secular from the radical propositions of Jesus. About us DOING something.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Martin--

Are following Christ's teachings AND acknowledging the possibility of an afterlife and NDEs *necessarily* mutually exclusive? If so, why?

ETA: There are lots of secular folks, and members of other faiths, who do respect Jesus's radical teachings.

[ 29. October 2012, 05:34: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Golden Key. A false trichotomy. Jesus teachings incidentally, icing-on-the-cakally (or icing-on-the-cakely to be more Britishly minimal) include the afterlife through a glass darkally.

His teachings are about NOW. The physiology of NDE has nothing to do with the afterlife. Tells us nothing about it whatsoever. There are NO accounts anywhere of the afterlife - beyond its intersection with this one - even by the only One we know who has one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I've also heard anecdotally that people can have NDEs, when not dying, but sort of sitting around eating biscuits, or whatever. So a kind of NDE-type but not ND experience.

But this is rather like Eastern mysticism-type non-dualist experiences, where the normal point of view is dropped. And then, if you know your Zen, dropping itself is dropped.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've also heard anecdotally that people can have NDEs, when not dying, but sort of sitting around eating biscuits, or whatever. So a kind of NDE-type but not ND experience.

Yes - this is an "out of body" experience, where you "leave" your body and watch yourself going about your daily chores, doing the ironing etc.

I'm not being flippant, one of my teachers told us of such an experiece her father had while doing some painting. I think it was from her that I first heard about the "silver cord", where you could only travel so far away from outside your body.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Golden Key. A false trichotomy. Jesus teachings incidentally, icing-on-the-cakally (or icing-on-the-cakely to be more Britishly minimal) include the afterlife through a glass darkally.

Wasn't it St Paul who wrote this?

quote:
His teachings are about NOW. The physiology of NDE has nothing to do with the afterlife. Tells us nothing about it whatsoever. There are NO accounts anywhere of the afterlife - beyond its intersection with this one - even by the only One we know who has one.

I would (for once) tend to agree with you here Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard. Whilst I keep an open mind, I don't think it makes much difference to one's christianity whether one believes in NDEs or not. Although I beg to differ about Jesus' teachings just being about NOW - how can we possibly conclude that, when He instructs us to store up treasures in heaven, and that "a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he posesseth?"

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I believe in NDEs as well Mark Betts, how could I not? But not as anything other than anoxia.

As for Jesus emphasis on THIS life, it's incontrovertible. Nothing we do in the next has ANY bearing on it. This is hyperbolic rhetoric my friend, redressing the absurd imbalance of nearly 2000 years of selling jam tomorrow if you'll only do what Babylon says today.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I believe in NDEs as well Mark Betts, how could I not? But not as anything other than anoxia.

As for Jesus emphasis on THIS life, it's incontrovertible. Nothing we do in the next has ANY bearing on it. This is hyperbolic rhetoric my friend, redressing the absurd imbalance of nearly 2000 years of selling jam tomorrow if you'll only do what Babylon says today.

Huh???

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I tend to believe stories about near death experiences because:
a) they often convert sceptics
b) they are not relative to one's religion - people don't see Jesus, Muhammad etc. which they would expect to see
c) the various stages through which they progress is consistent
Nice comment. I feel the same way.

Strange. I consider b) to be proof positive that NDEs are not experiences of the afterlife!

Though of course if they were, then a lot of people would be surprised by what or whom they get to see. If I am right in my belief, then for example a Muslim would meet Jesus. If I am wrong, then I would perhaps see the cloud of my bad karma form me into a worm, or Thor would smack me with his hammer.

Anyway, I see no good evidence that NDEs are anything other than some kind of natural brain shut-down mechanism. Or indeed wake-up mechanism. And that, by the way, gets easily around the bits of science that Alexander does throw about. It may well be that his brain was truly "low sugar disabled" most of the time. But he did snap out of it eventually, and that can also nicely match his reported experience of first dark, then light (if we assume that returning function is experienced as "light"). That he may have experienced all this as much longer than it actually took is quite possible, a type of tachypsychia then due to trauma.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As for Jesus emphasis on THIS life, it's incontrovertible. Nothing we do in the next has ANY bearing on it. This is hyperbolic rhetoric my friend, redressing the absurd imbalance of nearly 2000 years of selling jam tomorrow if you'll only do what Babylon says today.

Yes. This life is not some glorified Hogwarts Sorting Hat experience.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
While I'm away my Mission Shaped Community will play tomorrow with Ian McCormack's DVD, the guy who tripped on box-jelly venom.

I saw his 1st offering almost 15 years ago - and the new one is significantly different. Talk about a one issue ministry -- obviously stung by near death? Just rather fortunate I think.

Met a few people who claim NDE's including my dad plus sister in law. But still sceptical. What about those who have them and don't come back to earth? I'd like to know what they feel about it. Why do they all seem to choose to come back to earth?

[ 02. November 2012, 08:35: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

As I'm now the boss and everyone is away with the fairies over this, I must be mature, utterly inclusive (HA! How is one to be inclusive of homophobes in cell?) and statesmanlike and button my lip tonight.

Sigh.

As for here, I don't know why we give it the time of day.

There's nowt to be sceptical about.

When oh WHEN will we have ANYTHING to offer?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
While I'm away my Mission Shaped Community will play tomorrow with Ian McCormack's DVD, the guy who tripped on box-jelly venom.
I saw his 1st offering almost 15 years ago - and the new one is significantly different. Talk about a one issue ministry -- obviously stung by near death? Just rather fortunate I think.

Met a few people who claim NDE's including my dad plus sister in law. But still sceptical. What about those who have them and don't come back to earth? I'd like to know what they feel about it. Why do they all seem to choose to come back to earth?

Well, the ones that don't can't relate their experiences, obviously enough.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Could modern day NDEs actually be the products of demons? This author believes so:

The "Near-Death Experience" by David Ritchie

He compares them to Spiritualist doctrines in the 19th C, and the New Age movement.

Notably absent in modern day NDEs seems to be any sense of Judgement.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What a daft article.

The only justification he gives for his view is that NDEs somehow contradict Orthodox teaching.

What if Orthodox teaching is wrong?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What a daft article.

The only justification he gives for his view is that NDEs somehow contradict Orthodox teaching.

What if Orthodox teaching is wrong?

If you want to be hypothetical, you might as well ask, "What if the whole Christian Faith is wrong and Spiritualism is the true religion?"

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Notably absent in modern day NDEs seems to be any sense of Judgement.

NDE's fit perfectly into the Swedenborgian model of the afterlife.

According to that model, the judgment is actually there, but it is a self-imposed process that takes place only over time.

Everyone has a similarly joyful welcome to the next life, accompanied by an exquisite sense of peace.

But as a person settles into their new life their interests and choices take them in any number of directions - which may be good or bad. That's the judgment process, and it results in heaven or hell - places that are neither clouds or fiery pits, but consist of myriads of communities, each with its special qualities, either positive or negative.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What a daft article.

The only justification he gives for his view is that NDEs somehow contradict Orthodox teaching.

What if Orthodox teaching is wrong?
If you want to be hypothetical, you might as well ask, "What if the whole Christian Faith is wrong and Spiritualism is the true religion?"

I suppose one could ask nthat.

My point was that the article comprises circular argument and therefore has nothing to say of any interest or relevance outside one particular denomination.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My point was that the article comprises circular argument and therefore has nothing to say of any interest or relevance outside one particular denomination.

The intention was to show that modern-day NDEs are at odds with the beliefs of nearly all denominations - I know Swedenborgianism is one exception.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So maybe no denomination has absolute truth on its side once it claims to understand a mystery.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So maybe no denomination has absolute truth on its side once it claims to understand a mystery.

Is that because it is impossible to understand mysteries?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Of course. I am suspicious and mistrustful of churches that believe themselves to be stating timeless truths with confidence.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

You are probably right. [Biased]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Of course. I am suspicious and mistrustful of churches that believe themselves to be stating timeless truths with confidence.

I somewhat agree with your statement, but I suspect my reasons are very different than yours. Do you think truths cannot be timeless? That churches cannot understand them if they can be? That churches cannot be confident about them? That churches' beliefs about themselves are misplaced?

I would agree enough to say I'm skeptical rather than suspicious and mistrustful, but my reasons are not any of the above. I believe there are timeless truths that churches and other organizations can know and understand with confidence. I think the problems can arise when churches or other organizations try to express those timeless truths as statements about truth being communicated in words to the outside world.

Words can be used to communicate emotions, and they can be used to communicate facts, but not to communicate understanding of facts, at least not directly. That only takes place when the audience already shares a common basis or world-view with the speaker[s]. Otherwise, it takes someone in the audience a lot of work to develop an understanding of communicated facts, and the less the audience and speaker have in common, the more work it is.

When we think we're communicating truth, what we are really doing is communicating facts about what we think or how we came to think it, and anyone listening to those facts has to try to reassemble (as best they can) the picture that we have in mind when we generate the words. And in those situations, the immediate issue for our audience is whether or not they agree, which I don't think is the real purpose of truth. I believe that the real purpose of truth is to accomplish something good, so I think churches and organizations are better off trying to use their understanding of timeless truths to accomplish something rather than to persuade others and to argue for their vision of the truth. Even if what they want to accomplish is to teach the truth, I think they're better off using their understanding of that truth to figure out how best to find something to resonate with in their audience. And that rarely means simply stating the truth as words for an audience to absorb and accept.

I know that I'm being entirely abstract, so to illustrate it with an example: if I walk through a city with an architect, or a city planner, or a law enforcement officer, they can tell me all sorts of facts about what they see and how they interpret it, but I'm going to be at a complete loss to understand what they understand about the buildings, the infrastructure, or the neighborhoods. For me to do so would require years of effort on my part. We would be seeing the same raw data and I would be able to understand their words, but I would never see the city the same way they do. And if they wanted to communicate something important about the city based on their understanding, then they would do better to rely more on conversation than on lecture.

That must be what you had in mind when you posted - am I right? [Biased]

If not, then I'd be interested in hearing more about what you did have in mind.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Simply that God is beyond our understanding so all out theology is provisional.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Simply that God is beyond our understanding so all out theology is provisional.

Does that mean that we "know" nothing, or that we know little?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Ultimately, we know nothing but have glimpses.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ultimately, we know nothing but have glimpses.

It's actually a self-contradictory stance to take. How do you know?

It's one thing to be humble about what we think we know. It's another thing to be dead-sure that we can't be dead-sure.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think you have just condemned the whole apophatic tradition.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think you have just condemned the whole apophatic tradition.

Ooh. Good point. I take it back then.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
He may be a scientist, but he was not doing science or thinking scientifically.

People like to think that a scientist would be more 'objective', but scientists are also easily fooled. Viz The explanation of how magicians do their tricks. I have heard (but have not a reference on hand) where scientists could not work out how the trick was done, and it took other magicians to show how the normal observer was being deceived.

It's just that the headline "Heaven is real and I saw it, lawyer* says" does not carry the same weight with a public that wants to be convinced.

*replace with profession of your choice e.g. nurse, gardener, politician, conjurer, car-salesman.

How about: grieving mother easing the pain by flogging a book full of risible 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam' notions of the afterlife?

[ 19. November 2012, 12:45: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

That's tragic [Frown]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No more than those who have Marian visions and Box-Jelly-Venom trips.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0