NDE Research From a Christian Perspective (Podcast)

[Larry Boy]

Occam's Chainsaw, you claim that you are open to possibility of the materialistic theory being refuted, but you insist that all other interpretations are "fairytales"?

Is there perhaps a serious bias here?

[Occam's chainsaw]

The simple answer is No.

[anonymous]

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/m...cible_min.html

I've been skipping around in the impressive (and impressively hefty) new volume Irreducible Mind, by Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, et al.

...

One of the most interesting chapters is Chapter 6, "Unusual Experiences Near Death and Related Phenomena," which was contributed by Emily Williams Kelly, Bruce Greyson, and Edward F. Kelly.

...

Anyone who has studied the subject knows that reductionists like to explain near-death experiences in terms of purely physical causes. The authors show the inadequacy of all such explanations....

....

The linked article goes through all such explanations and explains why they are inadequate.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/m...cible_min.html

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Whether the sceptics are right or wrong, I think there is a similar process going on here - you are listening to someone with a very strong emotional investment in one conclusion.

From my point of view, those who have a strong emotional investment in one conclusion are parapsychologists.

When you listen to Skeptiko, it's obvious that Alex really wants NDE to PROVE that materialism is wrong and dualism right. And he's really emotionnally invest in that belief, so he WANTS the NDE study to be convincing and to support his belief. That's why is always repeting that like a mantra ("the evidence are overwhelming", "the evidence are overwhelming", "the evidence are overwhelming"... ).

Myself, I don't really care about NDE. I don't think they support life after death at all, because nobody who had a NDE actually died (if your dead, you don't come back from it). And I don't thing than NDE support dualism, because at the end I'm convince that a materialist explanation will by find for them.

So I'm pretty not emotionnaly invested in NDE. It's not the same for spiritualist believers, like Alexis, who don't have a lot of bones to argue with...

[pacificwhim]

Venom, that's absolute nonsense. Why is it that the skeptics always insist they are the only ones with a completely unbiased, clear-eyed, unemotional look at things? That's like saying that scientists, by virtue of being scientists, have no emotional investment in the outcome of their work.

There is NO ONE in any field who can approach it without bias or emotional investment. Period. It is human nature. The best way to gauge this fact is by a person's emotional response to challenges to his or her cherished ideas, either by new data or by opposing argument.

If a person is truly open-minded and secure in themselves, as well as educated in the true philosophy of science, which is to question and explore and to not assume that any frame of reference is privileged, then in my experience said person will usually respond with some interest and curiosity to the idea that he or she may be wrong. I find that the best parapsychologists and scientists in general act this way.

However, if someone is closed-minded, dogmatic and insecure, so that his or her sense of self-worth is attached to defending a world view regardless of what other people or emerging evidence suggests, then the reaction is always different. It is characterized by anger, scorn, personal attack and the idea that "I know and you don't, you deluded idiot."

I have found the first attitude to be quite common in the best scientists in any field, including parapsychology. They tend to react to potentially dissonant information not with a defensive attitude but with curiosity and a spirit of exploration. I have found the second attitude most often in three groups: religious fundamentalists, hardcore New Age believers, and dogmatic pseudo-skeptics. The less learned, the more angry. One only need look at the tones in the online forums for both pro-psi and skeptical groups to see what I mean.

It takes a truly mature mind to be willing to say, "I don't know, but let's look into it." That's what so many of your supposedly unbiased skeptics seem so unwilling to say.

[David Bailey]

Just to amplify what Pacificwhim has said, I suggest that Venom - or anybody really - try a thought experiment in which they imagine being exposed to overwhelming evidence that the opposing 'side' of this debate was right after all!

Would any of us say "ho hum, so we were wrong" - at the very least, we would go round for a day or two trying to integrate our new understanding of reality into the rest of our ideas!

David

[pacificwhim]

Yes, David, but I think it's axiomatic that an honestly skeptical person (as opposed to a closed-minded pseudoskeptic who doesn't want to even entertain that something he thinks is impossible might be true, and therefore should not be even investigated) will ultimately be able to say, "OK, let's look at this."

That's the sign of an intellectually mature, honest person. It's OK not to know, to live with some mystery, and to explore subjects that you may find very unlikely to be valid out of the simple spirit of "What if...?" Because as we know from the history of science, often the greatest discoveries come from areas that are initially scorned.

[Lekatt]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

ktb973,

Having listened to the latest podcast, I think that comment is spot on. Rusty Wright did sound a lot like the sceptics while discussing the nature and interpretation of NDE's. Whether the sceptics are right or wrong, I think there is a similar process going on here - you are listening to someone with a very strong emotional investment in one conclusion.

David

I think you are right on. The religious person and the scientist have a lot in common when they are discussing near death experiences. I believe the reason is simple. Near death experiences present data that contradicts both religious views as well as scientific views. So the experiencer is left with only spiritual people in general that they can talk to about their experiences. By spiritual I mean those who believe in the spiritual nature of man, but don't embrace the doctrine of either science or religion.

However, the experience does have a lot to offer society in terms of peace and security.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Lekatt

However, the experience does have a lot to offer society in terms of peace and security.

Why is that? I mean even if it was true that there was something extraordinary going on during NDE, I don't see why it would change anything to the "peacefulness" of the society.

[Lekatt]

Originally Posted by Venom

Why is that? I mean even if it was true that there was something extraordinary going on during NDE, I don't see why it would change anything to the "peacefulness" of the society.

Near death experiences change the experiencer into a person that is kinder, patient, and more compassionate toward others. The reason for this is the lessons learned from the experience. If society would read NDEs they would also be changed, at least many would, I know this from the letters I receive about my site.

One of the lessons is there is complete justice in the world. Whatever you do to others returns to you. Another is there is nothing to fear in death or life.