NDE Research From a Christian Perspective (Podcast)

[David Bailey]

The more I think about it, the more significant I find the comparison between skeptics and Christians.

In both cases you hear the raw facts being manipulated to try to fit preconceived ideas. The exceptional unpleasant NDE is much more important to Rusty than the majority of pleasant NDE's - and he tries to introduce the idea that unpleasant NDE's somehow get forgotten.

Curiously, the skeptic approach to NDE's seemed to be (in part) to try to show that the patient's imagery came from their religion - because in that way it would not be real - just part of a learned myth. They both want to bend the facts to fit orthodox religion, but for opposite reasons!

I guess there is some interesting psychology at work here. Both groups have built their ideas round a viewpoint that just has to be right. They need to pretend to discuss the data, but heart they just want to scream "I know I am right, and absolutely nothing you say will change my mind!". You could hear the confidence in Rusty's voice when he got on to explaining that he would need a scientific proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead to shake him! He knows full well that there is no way anybody can prove anything so specific from a distance of 2000 years!

David

[ktb973]

What do NDEs have to offer on a practical level? The thing that amazes me is the utter uselessness of the information on this podcast. Skepticism actually has a use in everyday life. I can use Skepticism from science to buying carpet, and everything in between. How can you use what you are studying? That's really all that matters, isn't it?

Am I missing something?

[Mike]

ktb973,

NDEs are a phenomenon in the universe. I personally feel that there is value in learning more about the universe we live in, whether or not we can think of immediate practical uses for some of the phenomena in that universe. I also think that NDEs have potential to perhaps teach us things about the brain, the nature of cognition, etc. that could well eventually lead to practical applications.

[ktb973]

Originally Posted by Mike

ktb973,

NDEs are a phenomenon in the universe. I personally feel that there is value in learning more about the universe we live in, whether or not we can think of immediate practical uses for some of the phenomena in that universe. I also think that NDEs have potential to perhaps teach us things about the brain, the nature of cognition, etc. that could well eventually lead to practical applications.

First, you assume that NDEs are a phenomenon in the universe.

[Mike]

I certainly do assume that a certain percentage of people who come close to death have reported experiences that have been given the name, "Near
Death Experiences." I also assume that what causes them to have such experiences is a phenomenon (or a set of phenomena) in the universe. The only other alternative is to assume that everyone in history who has reported an NDE is lying.

[Mike]

Come to think of it, even if everyone who ever reported an NDE is lying, that fact itself is a phenomenon in the universe. In that case I would find it interesting to study why a certain percentage of people who come close to death make up similar stories about the time they were near death, when in fact they did not experience anything during that time.

[Topher Cooper]

Critical thinking is certainly useful in daily life. Real skepticism is part of critical thinking.

Not everything that purports to be skepticism is skepticism. Closed-minded rejection of any alternatives to conventional beliefs is not skepticism. Skepticism of conventional beliefs is part of skepticism.

Pseudo-skepticism may do people good, of course -- it, like any religion, leads to emotional and social reinforcement from those who share ones beliefs, for example. A sense of certainty about what is true and what is false without the questions raised by real skepticism (i.e., doubt) is emotionally very satisfying. Knowing that you are a member of an Elite fighting for Truth, Justice and the Skeptical way against the forces of People Who Believe Bad Things is very emotionally buoying.

I believe that inquiry about the universe is as worthwhile as any carpet. This is a fundamental value of something called science. Apparently, you don't understand science -- just practical engineering. Science believes that knowledge is useful for in its own right, it's not science without that value.

I believe that trying to understand about the world, especially something of such fundamental personal importance as whether or not we survive bodily death, makes for a richer, fuller life. I believe that that is true even if I consider that the methods used or the conclusions reached by the person in question are ones I disagree with.

If I really believed that you felt that nothing that isn't useful to you for purchasing a carpet is worthwhile then I would pity you. But I don't.

[ktb973]

Originally Posted by Mike

I certainly do assume that a certain percentage of people who come close to death have reported experiences that have been given the name, "Near
Death Experiences." I also assume that what causes them to have such experiences is a phenomenon (or a set of phenomena) in the universe. The only other alternative is to assume that everyone in history who has reported an NDE is lying.

So the only other alternative is that everyone is lying. False dichotomy anyone?

[Topher Cooper]

No false dichotomy. Many people have reported having the experience, and either they have or they haven't. If they have not had the experience (or at least remember having the experience) but say that they have, then they are lying. That's a true dichotomy. There are many things that might have caused the experiences if they are not lying about it, but that is a different issue -- and in fact the issue at hand and one worthy of scientific investigation.

[ktb973]

Topher, I do enjoy reading your posts, although I don't agree with most of your conclusions.

Not everything that purports to be skepticism is skepticism. Closed-minded rejection of any alternatives to conventional beliefs is not skepticism. Skepticism of conventional beliefs is part of skepticism.


What are these conventional beliefs that skeptics reject? What are the alternatives to said conventional beliefs?

Pseudo-skepticism may do people good, of course -- it, like any religion, leads to emotional and social reinforcement from those who share ones beliefs, for example. A sense of certainty about what is true and what is false without the questions raised by real skepticism (i.e., doubt) is emotionally very satisfying. Knowing that you are a member of an Elite fighting for Truth, Justice and the Skeptical way against the forces of People Who Believe Bad Things is very emotionally buoying.


Say again?

I believe that inquiry about the universe is as worthwhile as any carpet. This is a fundamental value of something called science. Apparently, you don't understand science -- just practical engineering. Science believes that knowledge is useful for in its own right, it's not science without that value.

Let's get one thing straight and out of the way. Inquiry about the price of carpet IS more important than the universe. I paid much more for my carpet than I did for my inquiry for the universe last month.


I do understand the method of science. You're probably right about me only caring about the practical side of science. Oh and by the way, science doesn't believe anything.


I believe that trying to understand about the world, especially something of such fundamental personal importance as whether or not we survive bodily death, makes for a richer, fuller life. I believe that that is true even if I consider that the methods used or the conclusions reached by the person in question are ones I disagree with.

If I really believed that you felt that nothing that isn't useful to you for purchasing a carpet is worthwhile then I would pity you. But I don't.

Why do you have to pull the pseudo pity card? You might not agree with me so you might have to pity me??? Please don't talk down to me on this board.

Hopefully you are smart enough to realize that was a stupid sentence.

As for the previous paragraph... I don't really care if we survive past our bodily death or not. I have no problem with fading to black. As a matter of fact, it is a bit comforting to me to think that there is no life after death. Is that scientific? No. But its no less scientific than concluding that the search for life after death leads to a fuller and richer life.

I know I'm not using the quote feature correctly. I'm more of a computer guy than an internet guy. I'll have to figure that one out.