An interesting article on scientific explanations of near-death / out-of-body experiences

by cedars 95 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  So you're asking people to accept the concept? The possibility? The fact?

  I get the feeling like the modern world would like to do away with ideas such as heaven. Ricky Gervais made a movie that essentially says that religion brought the lie into society. By offering comforting explanation to the near dead that eternal bliss was on the way. He called that a LIE. Wow, it was quite the bold move, to attack HEAVEN instead of just religion. We all make choices, I guess. He's a briliantly funny man, but if I were him I would take that one back. What I want for the world to accept is the validity of the idea of heaven and eternity. Calling it a "lie" is essentially a deletion process from society. Calling it a lie spontaneously creates liars out of good honest people and that's a travesty, even if it's just ideological. Experiences like NDE's are just one facet of how we, as a species, have interacted with the spirit realm otherwise known as heaven. We just need to rethink heaven, not toss it in the trash.

  -Sab
• 

  GromitSK

  sorry to be persistent Sab - what are you asking folks to accept?
• 

  Mary

  The best book I've read on near death experiences is called Science and the Near Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death. It's not quite as simple as some like to make out. That it's either a hallucination or 'someone looking to make a quick buck.' There are several cases that cannot be dismissed quite so easily, although to those who already have their minds made up, no amount of evidence will ever convince them of the possibility that something might exist after this physical life.
• 

  sabastious

  What exactly are you asking people to accept? (genuine question).
  
  So you're asking people to accept the concept? The possibility? The fact?
  
  sorry to be persistent Sab - what are you asking folks to accept? - GromitSK

  People need to accept the idea of a spiritual realm. If you want a definition try, "What is above and beyond." - Sab

  What I want for the world to accept is the validity of the idea of heaven and eternity. Calling it a "lie" is essentially a deletion process from society. Calling it a lie spontaneously creates liars out of good honest people and that's a travesty, even if it's just ideological. - Sab

  No need to retype

  -Sab
• 

  GromitSK

  I see, so to be clear, it's the concept or idea you want people to accept - am I correct? I can't see why that would be a problem for many people to be honest, though there maybe others who simply cannot conceive of it. I dont understand why folks would react so energetically to the simple concept, perhaps there is more to it than that? Maybe they think you have a different objective than simply having the idea accepted as valid?

  The reason I was so specific about the question was that you seemed to me to be also insisting people accept more than just the concept eg referring to what God has done without qualification (ie assuming he/she/it exists etc). :)

  If you want others to go further and ask people to accept the possibility in the general sense, then I suspect that wouldn't attract massive opposition. However the next step is trickier - probability. Then we are in the territory of evidence, not concept. I suspect that's where the real arguments begin. You may have sufficient personal evidence to convince you that there is a heaven and eternity but that won't necessarily have any affect on another person's assessment of the probability of it being correct, ie heaven and eternity.

  I'm not sure how calling something a lie means that makes believers liars, though it is perjorative. If the concept of heaven and eternity is not true then it is false yes? In that sense it would be perpetuating a lie or falsehood. That doesn't necessarily make believers liars, it may simply mean they have been taken in by it. If however folks are teaching such things and don't believe them, or are not being honest about the evidence, then they are being deceptive, ie lying aren't they? Maybe it would be better to say it is plain wrong rather than a lie.

  For me, adopting a position of certainty at either end of the debate doesn't really help. Obviously if one has direct revelation of the existence of heaven and eternity, that's nice but unless it can be shown to be anything other than some form of delusion or an invention it isn't worth much to someone who hasn't experienced it (as per the Paine comment earlier). The moment one tells others about it and insist it true, it is going to be challenged though isn't it?

  To me it does seem there are many strands of evidence suggesting survival. On their own they are often open to refutation, even if only by that old saw "fraud". Taken overall they do weave a stronger thread though.

  * off to bed :)
• 

  sabastious

  I see, so to be clear, it's the concept or idea you want people to accept - am I correct? I can't see why that would be a problem for many people to be honest, though there maybe others who simply cannot conceive of it. I dont understand why folks would react so energetically to the simple concept, perhaps there is more to it than that? Maybe they think you have a different objective than simply having the idea accepted as valid?
  
  The reason I was so specific about the question was that you seemed to me to be also insisting people accept more than just the concept eg referring to what God has done without qualification (ie assuming he/she/it exists etc). :)

  The problem is that the concept for many is not even considered anymore. It's become a non issue. Theology had it's scientific tag removed and it has been replaced with things like ontological physics. The concept of a spirit realm helps with the idea of God. Without the realm God cannot be considered all powerful and merely exists within the physical realm. This is why the secular community is so hard on the idea of a spiritual realm because it aids in the tearing down the idea of God (no God is their utopia). You can argue about a non-loving God until you are blue in the face, but if there is a spiritual realm that's where he would reside. And if he has a home he is more real than not. Because, if God created existence that would mean he was before existence. An immaterial realm solves this logical problem rather nicely.

  If you want others to go further and ask people to accept the possibility in the general sense, then I suspect that wouldn't attract massive opposition. However the next step is trickier - probability. Then we are in the territory of evidence, not concept. I suspect that's where the real arguments begin. You may have sufficient personal evidence to convince you that there is a heaven and eternity but that won't necessarily have any affect on another person's assessment of the probability of it being correct, ie heaven and eternity.

  Not everyone is given personal revelation. Fortunately humanity opperates on a system called love and therefore personal revelation is more easily believed. If you love someone you are more prone to accept their testimony and can often tell when they are lying. Therefore love is actually required for truth to remain strong and endure through time. That's what time is really, the constant covering and uncovering of truth. It is love that keeps the light turned on and it's the opposite of love that brings forth darkness and keeps truth at bay.

  I do not like dealing in the concepts of possibility and impossibility. All is possible and all is impossible; what changes is the circumstance which is what controls probability. If humanity didn't have gods that would be one thing, but the deeper we dig the more gods we find. What many explain this with is that we are afraid of death. However, this is folly because fear of death is just losing faith in the afterlife. Like I said time has the ability to corrupt truth, so we see a linear decay throughout antiquity. Maybe there is reason to fear TYPE of death, but not death itself which is just a "passing over." Fear of death has been slowly indoctrinated into humanity over thousands of years, mainly through all the brutal death that has been dished out. History is a pool of innocent blood.

  I'm not sure how calling something a lie means that makes believers liars, though it is perjorative. If the concept of heaven and eternity is not true then it is false yes? In that sense it would be perpetuating a lie or falsehood. That doesn't necessarily make believers liars, it may simply mean they have been taken in by it. If however folks are teaching such things and don't believe them, or are not being honest about the evidence, then they are being deceptive, ie lying aren't they? Maybe it would be better to say it is plain wrong rather than a lie.

  If heaven were not real at all it would be no deep mystery, it would be a simple acceptance process. The secular community calls parents who tell their kids they will not be gone after death intellectually irresponsible. They insist on this ideal even though they cannot disprove the idea of a spirit realm despite evidence shown. If they choose not to inform their children of the wonderful blessing of heaven that's their choice. But to insist it's intellectually irresponsible is just putting one's nose in the air.

  For me, adopting a position of certainty at either end of the debate doesn't really help. Obviously if one has direct revelation of the existence of heaven and eternity, that's nice but unless it can be shown to be anything other than some form of delusion or an invention it isn't worth much to someone who hasn't experienced it (as per the Paine comment earlier). The moment one tells others about it and insist it true, it is going to be challenged though isn't it?

  Paine didn't say that personal revelation serves no value to anyone but the experiencer. He said that the experiencer has no authority to dictate the experience as real to anyone else. They have the right to insist that it was real, but not to impose the idea on others. He was in favor of allowing natural influence to take place and was against spiking the punch so to speak. Emotional manipulation is a sure sign of a lie. If someone wants to believe in the personal revelation of another that's their God-given right. That's called freedom of religion and it's a staple of modern society.

  To me it does seem there are many strands of evidence suggesting survival. On their own they are often open to refutation, even if only by that old saw "fraud". Taken overall they do weave a stronger thread though.

  It's important to safeguard the largest picture possible of the universe. It really all boils down to ideology. There are some who favor order over truth and others who favor truth over order. The former is the dictator and the latter is the revolutionary and they never mix.

  -Sab
• 

  Anony Mous

  Because, if God created existence that would mean he was before existence. An immaterial realm solves this logical problem rather nicely.

  An immaterial realm solves this problem quite poorly. As it becomes untestable. Therefore it is no longer logically (or scientifically) an acceptable solution, rather it becomes actually a disproof of the proposition you stated (from a purely mathematical-logical viewpoint).

  They insist on this ideal even though they cannot disprove the idea of a spirit realm despite evidence shown.

  If evidence was shown, you cannot disprove the idea anymore as there is evidence. Therefore your statement is logically contradictory. If there were evidence, we would've known by now and there is someone giving you a guaranteed $1M in case you do as well.

  There are some who favor order over truth and others who favor truth over order.

  With "truth" I assume you mean the concept of what is testable to be true in all circumstance then yes, there are those that favor order (as in God created everything orderly) and they are dictators and religionists. The truth is that there is no order in the universe, everything is totally random (look at the Universe) and thus favor the inconvenient truth that we're here entirely by our own with no-one to 'save' us in case we screw up. Thus I favor the truth over the 'order'.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Yes, on "paper" these types of tests don't stand up to other models which produce better more lasting results. However, NDE's are a specific case and serve as the exception to the rule, if you will.

  I won't, they aren't and attempting special pleading doesn't change the facts. Experinces near death in an altered mental state are nothing more that evidence that you can experience things in an altered mental state. They are in no way proof of anything more than that.

  The person who experienced the NDE has an actual valid test they can perform. They can seek out the McDonalds that was in the "dream state" and if they find the cashier with the dragon necklace, they have PROOF POSITIVE evidence that their mind extrapolated real information around them without being physically present to it.

  You have left out all kinds of controls to make that a valid test. Perhaps a person could have an NDE and take my shirt challenge....

  Now, the person KNOWS that what they experienced was BEYOND illusion or imagination as they have proof. However, this doesn't prove the existence of a spirit realm, but it does provide evidence towards that understanding of existence. Like finding an organic sample in the forest of an unknown creature. The evidence suggests a creature, but the specifics are sketchy. However, drawing a conclusion that there is no creature at all would be unscientific because that's ignoring evidence, it's essentially bias.

  False equivalency. You can show a sample to other people and have it independently tests.
• 

  DavePerez

  Sab said:

  I have been saying this for quite some time now. The scientific method can be CIRCUMVENTED by entities who have the power and will to do so. We can have valid experience that we cannot demonstate to others. In no way does this make the experience not real or made up. Sure, lots of experiences can be shown to be false, but that doesn't mean that they ALL are and always were.

  And you're making a great argument for the pointlessness of even trying to worry about invisible beings, because if God allows the scenario to be so fixed against mere mortals (where Jesus says that 'angels of darkness' will pose as angels of light), then there's a 50/50 chance, at best. SO even those who think they're communicating with the good guys don't stand a chance, as it may be a 'false flag'.
• 

  unstopableravens

  perez : i think thats a cope out, 1john 4:1 tell us to test these things , satan may appear to be light but hes not jesus is the light, satanis going to twist gods word like he did in genesis 3, and matthew 4, etc... so i dont see it as a 50/50 chance if you examine all things by means of gods word