119. Dr. Pim van Lommel Transformed by Near-Death Experience Research (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Cardiologist and NDE Researcher Dr. Pim van Lommel discuses how his research with near-death experiencers has changed his beliefs about life and consciousness.

Join Skeptiko host ...

Click here to read more ...

[Cyrus Kirkpatrick]

Fabulous opening Alex and the best analysis of the skeptic v believer issue I've heard.

[David Bailey]

That was a very good interview, which put NDE's into the right perspective, I think.

I'd just like to make a comment about your remark about the "Atheistic sand box" - which I guess I am still in!

I puzzle over what exactly the more religious NDE's are about - because as I understand it, these are somewhat culture dependant. Certainly it seems absurd to interpret NDE's as a meeting with a Christian God, when there are so many alternative Gods. Maybe this feeling is more acute in the UK, where there are several large religious communities, plus a big block of non-believers.

I think it is this (plus the cruel and arbitrary nature of many religious sects) that makes me still call myself an atheist.

I sometimes wonder if there is an afterlife, but that we don't all say "gosh that is how it all fits together" - perhaps the confusion and cultural groupings continue even after death!

David

[larry4444]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Cardiologist and NDE Researcher Dr. Pim van Lommel discuses how his research with near-death experiencers has changed his beliefs about life and consciousness.

Join Skeptiko host ...

Click here to read more ...

Your presentation of the problematic nature of making an assessment of proof based on deference to the “experts” without understanding the science oneself hit home for me. In as much as I’ve read many of the books and reviewed a lot of the evidence, I still find myself being frustrated and discouraged when someone of the skeptical persuasion (with science credentials) tears apart seemingly persuasive research and arguments by yourself, Radin, Bieschel, Paqart. . . Guess I’ll head to Barnes and Noble and look for the idiots guide to statistics and other sciences. But seriously, it is pretty hard to sort through data presented in a debate without the knowledge to discern the subtleties of the arguments. It often looks like a standoff to me. I sometimes fantasize having some neutral expert mediator who could at least judge which argument was more credible.

[larry4444]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

That was a very good interview, which put NDE's into the right perspective, I think.

I'd just like to make a comment about your remark about the "Atheistic sand box" - which I guess I am still in!

I puzzle over what exactly the more religious NDE's are about - because as I understand it, these are somewhat culture dependant. Certainly it seems absurd to interpret NDE's as a meeting with a Christian God, when there are so many alternative Gods. Maybe this feeling is more acute in the UK, where there are several large religious communities, plus a big block of non-believers.

I think it is this (plus the cruel and arbitrary nature of many religious sects) that makes me still call myself an atheist.

I sometimes wonder if there is an afterlife, but that we don't all say "gosh that is how it all fits together" - perhaps the confusion and cultural groupings continue even after death!

David

I think religion is more like cultural software that gives us access to a deeper commonly shared truth or reality

[vikki]

That was an awesome interview. It's nice to be able to put a voice with a name and Dr. Van Lommel is one researcher whos reputation precedes him. Sincere and confident with his research and findings, and a great example of progress when matters are approached with an open mind.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I sometimes wonder if there is an afterlife, but that we don't all say "gosh that is how it all fits together" - perhaps the confusion and cultural groupings continue even after death!

David

David, You have to remember than an NDE isn't something that can really be described in words, but when we come back here, words are what we are stuck with. So NDErs are forced to take an experience that can't be described and translate it using words that just don't fit the context.

I think the cultural differences may come about because all you can do is translate an experience that can't be described into something more familiar. So of course your culture influences how you do that.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by vikki

That was an awesome interview. It's nice to be able to put a voice with a name and Dr. Van Lommel is one researcher whos reputation precedes him. Sincere and confident with his research and findings, and a great example of progress when matters are approached with an open mind.

It was a good interview. If you want to add a face to the voice, here is another van Lommel interview:

YouTube - Present! - Pim van Lommel (part one) Consciousness Beyond Life

YouTube - Present! - Pim van Lommel (part two) Consciousness Beyond Life

[vikki]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

That was a very good interview, which put NDE's into the right perspective, I think.

I'd just like to make a comment about your remark about the "Atheistic sand box" - which I guess I am still in!

I puzzle over what exactly the more religious NDE's are about - because as I understand it, these are somewhat culture dependant. Certainly it seems absurd to interpret NDE's as a meeting with a Christian God, when there are so many alternative Gods. Maybe this feeling is more acute in the UK, where there are several large religious communities, plus a big block of non-believers.

I think it is this (plus the cruel and arbitrary nature of many religious sects) that makes me still call myself an atheist.

I sometimes wonder if there is an afterlife, but that we don't all say "gosh that is how it all fits together" - perhaps the confusion and cultural groupings continue even after death!

David

Hi David,
I was an atheist for the same reasons as you state. Religion seems to be counterproductive to moral 'progress' more often than not. Since I started accepting the ideas that originally came from within, and finding my own path through all the BS, things became a lot easier. I hated religion so much it literally made me sick
Now I am more tolerant and respectful for religion, particularly towards some of the eastern philosophies. The Tibetan Book of the Dead actually strikes me as something that might be more than a bit useful!
You don't have to follow anyone elses ideas. Just keep an open mind, investigate/incorporate ideas that resonate, and keep the dialectic going.

[vikki]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

It was a good interview. If you want to add a face to the voice, here is another van Lommel interview:

YouTube - Present! - Pim van Lommel (part one) Consciousness Beyond Life

YouTube - Present! - Pim van Lommel (part two) Consciousness Beyond Life

Thanks Sandy, I'll do that