|
NDE
Oct 14, 2012 12:11:09 GMT
Post by sandwiches on Oct 14, 2012 12:11:09 GMT
OK, I feel slightly ridiculous raising this point, (don't be unkind) and I was not sure on which forum to raise it, nevertheless: www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9598971/Is-the-afterlife-full-of-fluffy-clouds-and-angels.htmlIs the afterlife full of fluffy clouds and angels?What does the neuroscientist Colin Blakemore make of an American neurosurgeon’s account of the afterlife?
But NDEs have taken on a new cloak of respectability with a book by a Harvard doctor. Proof of Heaven, by Eben Alexander, will make your toes wiggle or curl, depending on your prejudices. What’s special about his account of being dead is that he’s a neurosurgeon. At least that’s what the publicity is telling us. It’s a cover story in Newsweek magazine, with a screaming headline: “Heaven is Real: a doctor’s account of the afterlifeâ€. His, and the multitude of other memories reported by people who have been close to death, have to be seen first through the prism of hard science. The crucial question is not whether such astounding experiences should lead us to abandon materialist accounts of brain function, but whether materialist accounts can possibly explain them. Is it not significant that the NDEs of Christians are full of Biblical metaphor? Either this confirms the correctness of their particular faith or it says that NDEs, like normal perception and memory, are redolent of culture, personal prejudice and past experience. Perhaps if Eben Alexander were a Muslim, there would have been the mythical 72 virgins on the butterfly wing, rather than the bucolic one. If he were a Buddhist he would be called a de-lok, a person who has seemingly died, but who travels into bardo – an afterlife state – guided by a Buddhist deity. I am a bit skeptical but .......? Anyone got a view?
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 14, 2012 12:27:40 GMT
Post by unkleE on Oct 14, 2012 12:27:40 GMT
I have seen that report too.
I think the state of play on NDEs is that it is now clear that something is going on and the stories can't be simply dismissed, but there are several hypotheses about what is happening.
I don't think his experience "proves" heaven, though I can understand that it might have rejuvenated his own faith. But surely this case, added to the many, many others, must lead us, and scientists, to seriously question or at least investigate, whether mind = brain and whether naturalism as normally understood can explain how his brain could be (according to Alexander) dormant or inactive while his mind was so active.
I also think it is a hint that there is something in religion - doubtless objectively the hint may be false, but it surely must be considered. I have been reading a bit on apparently supernatural healing, visions and other apparent encounters with the supernatural. Leaving aside all the urban myths and unbelievable stories, there are some investigations that have more credibility and at least an attempt at rigour. While these accounts cannot be objectively considered to "prove" the supernatural, they seem to me to at least show that, prima facie, the common atheist claim that there is no evidence for God is very shaky. The evidence may turn out to point elsewhere, but it can really only be discarded (at the moment) by someone who doesn't want to know. Alexander's account is just one more case study among many.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 14, 2012 13:40:02 GMT
Post by sankari on Oct 14, 2012 13:40:02 GMT
The most plausible and parsimonious explanation for NDEs is a naturalistic one.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 15, 2012 16:01:52 GMT
Post by sandwiches on Oct 15, 2012 16:01:52 GMT
The most plausible and parsimonious explanation for NDEs is a naturalistic one. Such as that those in a state of what is normally considered as "death" can experience another natural existence that science cannot yet explain?
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 15, 2012 16:36:33 GMT
Post by sankari on Oct 15, 2012 16:36:33 GMT
The most plausible and parsimonious explanation for NDEs is a naturalistic one. Such as that those in a state of what is normally considered as "death" can experience another natural existence that science cannot yet explain? Such as that those who were temporarily in a state of what is normally considered 'not dead at all' (Dr Alexander was in a coma) can, several months after their recovery, describe an alleged metaphysical event which shows every evidence of being derived from cultural and personal expectations about the afterlife. We have no evidence that Dr Alexander experienced his alleged experience during the coma. He admits he took months to 'reconstruct' it in written form (he didn't just blurt it all out within 24 hours of emerging from the coma; but why not?) and he admits it's the sort of experience you'd expect a Christian to claim to have had.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 15, 2012 18:51:12 GMT
Post by jamierobertson on Oct 15, 2012 18:51:12 GMT
Or it could have been a neurological event that left him with a "memory" of an odd event after regaining consciousness, rather than something that his mind was experiencing at the time of his coma. * shrug *
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 15, 2012 20:38:00 GMT
Post by eckadimmock on Oct 15, 2012 20:38:00 GMT
This is far from the first. The hardest NDEs to explain are those when the "dead" person sees things that went on when he/she was dead and shouldn't have been able to see anything. Fenwick and Parnia's work (published in the Lancet and Resuscitation) seems to suggest something more than the simple effects of oxygen starvation or ketamine on the brain. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11801343
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 15, 2012 22:59:44 GMT
Post by unkleE on Oct 15, 2012 22:59:44 GMT
The important first issue is not the nature of the experience - whether it is shaped by religious belief, etc - but an explanation of how it happens at all. Alexander, as a neuroscientist is presumably competent to judge from the medical information whether his brain was active during the time his mind was apparently active, and since it apparently wasn't, the question is how does the mind operate when the brain isn't active under normal naturalistic assumptions? It may be that there are levels of brain functioning that science is as yet unable to measure, but it cannot yet be said that naturalistic explanations are available, as far as I can see. This conclusion parallels the analysis by philosopher Phillip Wiebe in his books Visions of Jesus and God and other Spirits. Wiebe considers the persistent phenomenon of people having visions of Jesus, encounters with God, healings, etc, and the possible explanatory hypotheses, and concludes that no explanation (supernatural, psychological or neurological) successfully explains all these experiences. He doesn't address NDEs, but refers to them a lot and models his methodology on the modern assessment of NDEs. I understands that the jury is still out on NDEs, and hasn't even really begun to hear the evidence in the case of visions et al.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 19, 2012 9:12:09 GMT
Post by timoneill on Oct 19, 2012 9:12:09 GMT
This conclusion parallels the analysis by philosopher Phillip Wiebe in his books Visions of Jesus and God and other Spirits. Wiebe considers the persistent phenomenon of people having visions of Jesus, encounters with God, healings, etc, and the possible explanatory hypotheses, and concludes that no explanation (supernatural, psychological or neurological) successfully explains all these experiences. Does he come to the same conclusion about Hindus' visions of Krishna or Ganesha, or just the ones that happen to be from his own religion? Or maybe he has lots of examples of devout Shintos and African animists having visions of his Jesus as well. No? Didn't think so. Much more critical thought required here mate. Try again.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 19, 2012 9:26:43 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 19, 2012 9:26:43 GMT
That's a bit curt. He has mentioned reports of christic visions by a Sikh and a Muslim on his previous blog. While I wouldn't take a conversion account from a website called Isa al-Masih at face value, it disproves your assumption in your second rhetorical question.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 19, 2012 9:36:03 GMT
Post by timoneill on Oct 19, 2012 9:36:03 GMT
That's a bit curt. He has mentioned reports of christic visions by a Sikh and a Muslim on his previous blog. While I wouldn't take a conversion account from a website called Isa al-Masih at face value, it disproves your assumption in your second rhetorical question. I had no idea he had a blog. And cross-cultural influence is enough to account for the odd Sikh or Muslim (Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet) having an vision of Jesus. But the point remains - if it were ONLY Jesus being seen in visions or ONLY Christianity claiming these experiences there'd be a solid argument here. But since humans throughout history have claimed exactly these visions and since every religious tradition has their own, what exactly is being claimed here? That people (mostly Christians) see visions of Jesus? Big deal - people used to see Apollo all the time and Viking literature is full of encounters with Odin. And every other modern religious tradition has its own vision traditions. So we are left with "humans claim to see visions of their various gods". Which means ... not much.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 19, 2012 18:36:19 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 19, 2012 18:36:19 GMT
Fair enough, though neither UnkleE nor I have pretended it is anything of a solid argument for Christianity, divine origins of visions, a supernatural origin for NDEs or what not. UnkleE used it as an example of another case where, according to him, it is not conclusive that a naturalist explanation is available.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 19, 2012 20:37:03 GMT
Post by timoneill on Oct 19, 2012 20:37:03 GMT
Fair enough, though neither UnkleE nor I have pretended it is anything of a solid argument for Christianity, divine origins of visions, a supernatural origin for NDEs or what not. UnkleE used it as an example of another case where, according to him, it is not conclusive that a naturalist explanation is available. The ubiquity of the phenomenon and the fact their nature is usually culturally specific makes it pretty much obvious that a "naturalist" explanation makes the most sense. Occam's Razor shouldn't only be used when it's psychologically comfortable and convenient.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 20, 2012 0:32:42 GMT
Post by unkleE on Oct 20, 2012 0:32:42 GMT
Does he come to the same conclusion about Hindus' visions of Krishna or Ganesha, or just the ones that happen to be from his own religion? Or maybe he has lots of examples of devout Shintos and African animists having visions of his Jesus as well. No? Didn't think so. Much more critical thought required here mate. Try again. G'day Tim, have you actually read the book? I'm guessing you haven't, in which case you may have based this comment personal opinion rather than actual evidence, and so may have jumped to some conclusions. 1. He doesn't come to any conclusions, beyond that there is a phenomenon here that is not yet explained, and which no current explanation (natural or supernatural) seems to fully fit. He suggests it first needs to be documented, as NDEs are now bering documented, so there is enough data to analyse the phenomenon. 2. This isn't an apologetic book or a polemic, but a serious academic work published by Oxford University press and is the result of work he did while on sabbatical at Oxford. 3. He mentions visions from other religions, but has confined his discussion to christian visions, based on interviews he was able to do himself in his native Canada. I see no reason to impugn his integrity because he used the case histories most readily available to him. 4. He has since published a book with a broader focus - God and Other Spirits - which I am now halfway through. I will report on that when I have finished it. 5. I am impressed with his impartiality and open-mindedness, qualities one would expect in a philosopher undertaking this sort of study. I don't detect any attempt to assume christian truth, and his discussion of visions in the New Testament seems to be well-informed by good historical scholarship. He seems quite willing to accept natural explanations if they can be found. I suggest you have responded out of your own scepticism, and we are fortunate that his discussion is more evidence-based than that. We all have our opinions, and obviously I have mine, but let us recognise that they have little bearing on the work he has done, but rather, his work can inform our opinions.
|
|
|
NDE
Oct 20, 2012 0:40:03 GMT
Post by unkleE on Oct 20, 2012 0:40:03 GMT
And cross-cultural influence is enough to account for the odd Sikh or Muslim (Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet) having an vision of Jesus. But the point remains - if it were ONLY Jesus being seen in visions or ONLY Christianity claiming these experiences there'd be a solid argument here. But since humans throughout history have claimed exactly these visions and since every religious tradition has their own, what exactly is being claimed here? That people (mostly Christians) see visions of Jesus? Big deal - people used to see Apollo all the time and Viking literature is full of encounters with Odin. And every other modern religious tradition has its own vision traditions. So we are left with "humans claim to see visions of their various gods". Which means ... not much. Like ignorantianescia said, you'll see I didn't make any claims beyond "no explanation (supernatural, psychological or neurological) successfully explains all these experiences". So very little is being claimed here. But in the context of this discussion of NDEs, I think all the evidence points to the possibility that something not currently explainable naturalistically is happening in several places, and rather than simply assume naturalism is true, we should accept the possibility that it may not be. Not necessarily to change our opinions (yet) but to at least be open-minded enough to examine the phenomena on their merits. Christians are often charged with allowing faith rather than evidence to determine their conclusions, but it may be that naturalists are prone to the same thing. We are, after all, all human! : )
|
|