# Evolutionary Basis for Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2007, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985 "2007-09-04T08:02:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/81 "2007-09-06T15:01:28Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] [QUOTE=CJJ\*] Not only has it taken the relatively interesting question raised in the OP and reduced it to the usual shouting match over the existence of God, but it now has some folks advocating what I have to assume is the forcible injestion of drugs to cure those we see as deviant. [/quote] So we should just abandon the insane ? The problem isn’t that they are “deviant” in society’s opinion; society **agrees** with them. The problem is that their brains are malfunctioning, that they are seeing things that aren’t there, and the religious are willing to sacrifice such people’s sanity on the altar of their religion. So much for the alleged compassion of the faithful. [/QUOTE] The identification, care and treatment of those with true mental disorders is a grand science; we do not have a simple, acid test to show if people are insane. IANA psychologist, but I would guess simply claiming religious experiences–even if they fit a clinical definition of “hallucination”–is not enough to declare the person insane, or even to slot him/her as a candidate for drug therapy. It might help to have a tangible example to discuss, rather than speak in abstracts. How would posters have dealt with, say, [Padre Pio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina)? Let’s concede for the moment that his visions were the result of a delusional mind and his stigmata were fraudulent. I’m interested in people’s thoughts whether, on balance, these delusions spurred him and religious followers to greater social goods, or was he simply “sacrificed on the altar” of religion as a useful idiot for improving the position/wealth/whatever of the Roman Catholic Church? This might steer the discussion into a more profitable direction than a simple “yes it is/no it isn’t” shouting match. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/82 "2007-09-10T19:57:03Z")
[QUOTE=scjas] Since religious and spiritual belief is a near universal characteristic it must confer a survival advantage on its host and therefore have a genetic basis. Has anyone found the “religion gene, or genes” yet. [/quote] I’ll offer a response to the original poster. I disagree with this theory. In fact, I can offer many reasons why there is no evolutionary basis of religion, any one of which ought to be quite sufficient. Firstly, a person’s genome remains the same throughout their life, yet a person’s religious beliefs often changes. For example, I was an atheist until age 23 and a Christian thereafter, yet my genes are identical to the ones I had ten years ago. Hence my religious beliefs cannot be determined by me genes. Second, many people have religious beliefs vastly different from their ancestors, and many entire societies have shifted their religious doctrines. The English, for instance, are far less religious than they were two centuries ago, while the Koreans are far more religious. If religion were determined by genes, then religious people could only produce religious offspring and atheists could only produce atheist offspring. Thirdly, humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Hence, if religion were genetically determined, we’d see a lot more chimps in church. (Unless all our religion genes were hidden in the one percent of our genome that we don’t have in common.) > [@](#): > > 1. Last time I checked genetics was incredibly complex. Sexual behavior, child rearing, tool use, digestion, vision processing, consciousness, are all complex and are all manifestations of our genes. Why then not religious belief? In has been theorized that various types of behavior have a genetic basis. It has not been proven. There is not a single gene which has been conclusively proven to cause any specific human behavior or belief. Frankly it’s remarkable how widespread the belief in evolutionary psychology is, given the total absense of evidence. > [@](#): > > Has anyone suggested this to their pastor or priest. I can promise you that nearly every pastor or priest in America has heard your theory many times, carefully considered it, and rejected it. It is, after all, not exactly a new theory. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2007, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/83 "2007-09-10T20:53:49Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Firstly, a person’s genome remains the same throughout their life, yet a person’s religious beliefs often changes. For example, I was an atheist until age 23 and a Christian thereafter, yet my genes are identical to the ones I had ten years ago. Hence my religious beliefs cannot be determined by me genes. Second, many people have religious beliefs vastly different from their ancestors, and many entire societies have shifted their religious doctrines. The English, for instance, are far less religious than they were two centuries ago, while the Koreans are far more religious. If religion were determined by genes, then religious people could only produce religious offspring and atheists could only produce atheist offspring. Thirdly, humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Hence, if religion were genetically determined, we’d see a lot more chimps in church. (Unless all our religion genes were hidden in the one percent of our genome that we don’t have in common.) [/QUOTE] While I’ll not quarrel with either your characterization of evolutionary psychology (_just so stories_, anyone?) nor with the idea that religion is cultural (mostly, if not entirely), only the first point is a good one. The second one relies on genetics being static, which is obviously not the case. Variation, combination, and mutation happen. A clearer case would be two carriers of a recessive trait; neither exhibits the trait, yet there’s a 1 in 4 chance one of their offspring will. As you point out, the third assumes that a “religious gene” is not part of that remaining 1%. And yet, there are genetic traits that must be in that 1%; why not a “religious gene” (if one were to exist)? Finally, I’d note that the term “religious gene” is used not to refer to a _particular_ religious doctrine, but to a _general_ tendency towards belief in a religious doctrine. As an aside, it was recently established that the genes shared between apes and humans was overestimated slightly; it’s now been determined to be about 92%, IIRC. There was an article in the NY Times within the past couple weeks about it; I’ll try to dig up a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/84 "2007-09-10T21:42:35Z")
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia] If you’re really interested in this, you should read [Breaking the Spell](http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8723423-3558330?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188923026&sr=8-1). [/QUOTE] I’ll second **Larry Borgia’s** recommendation of Dennett’s _Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon_ for anyone who is truly interested in the question raised by the OP. And also for anyone (believer or non-believer) who is interested in religion generally. I think Dennett does a fine job of examing possible evolutionary roots and/or mechanisms of religion; as well as raising interesting moral questions around the issues of belief and non-belief. I found the book well-reasoned and gentle-toned; especially compared to, say, the strident and opinionated voice of Sam Harris, who – don’t get me wrong – I enjoy on quite another level (or perhaps it’s a sort of impending trainwreck fascination I feel when I read Harris). ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2007, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/85 "2007-09-11T15:06:25Z")
Here’s the [NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-DNA-Differences.html?_r=1&oref=login) (free reg. required). It mostly concerns the similarity between humans, originally thought to be 99.9% but revised downward to 99%: > [@NY Times](#): > > The studies produce the lower figure because they uncovered chunks of DNA that differ among people, whereas previous studies focused on differences in individual building blocks. > > The 99 percent figure is close to what scientists have often estimated for the similarity between humans and chimps. But the human-chimp similarity drops to more like 95 percent when the more recently discovered kinds of DNA variation are considered, Venter said. My figure of 92% was remembered incorrectly; it should have been 95%. Sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2007, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/86 "2007-09-12T22:44:00Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] As you point out, the third assumes that a “religious gene” is not part of that remaining 1%. And yet, there are genetic traits that must be in that 1%; why not a “religious gene” (if one were to exist)? [/QUOTE] I was thinking of the chimp argument more as a general response to the idea that all common human behavior must have resulted from natural selection. Chimps may share ninety-two percent of our DNA, but plainly they don’t share ninety-two percent of our behavior. Humans have government, business, education, charity, religion, art, medicine, and a great deal more. Chimpanzees never got beyond communal louse-picking. To me, this strongly suggests that something more than DNA is operating on human activity. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2007, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/87 "2007-09-13T05:49:50Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] I was thinking of the chimp argument more as a general response to the idea that all common human behavior must have resulted from natural selection. Chimps may share ninety-two percent of our DNA, but plainly they don’t share ninety-two percent of our behavior. Humans have government, business, education, charity, religion, art, medicine, and a great deal more. Chimpanzees never got beyond communal louse-picking. To me, this strongly suggests that something more than DNA is operating on human activity. [/QUOTE] Right. But that’s fallacious reasoning due to induction, right? That is, you’re moving from a general class (humans have many customs, institutions, etc. that chimps do not) to a specific (a “religious gene”, should one exist). Oh, and just so I’m not the cause of propagating a misquoted statistic, Ventner determined a 95% similarity between humans and chimps. I apologize again for my original misquote. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/88 "2007-09-14T13:56:59Z")
Below is a quote from “The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul.” This fits right in with this thread and I hope you read it, it is the future of neuroscience. > [@](#): > > "But recently materialistic explanations of spirituality have gotten out of hand. Influenced by this materialistic prejudice, popular media jump at stories about the violence gene, the fat gene, the monogamy gene, the infidelity gene, and now, even a God gene! Evolutionary psychologists attempt to explain human spirituality by insisting that cave dwellers in the remote past who believed in a supernatural reality were more likely to pass on their genes than cave dwellers who didn’t. Progress in genetics and neuroscience has encouraged some to look, quite seriously, for such a God gene, or else a God spot, module, factor, or switch in the human brain. By the time the amazing “God helmet” (a snowmobile helmet modified with solenoids which purportedly could stimulate subjects to experience God) in Sudbury, Canada, became a magnet for science journalists in the ‘90s (the Decade of the Brain), materialism was just about passing beyond parody. Nonetheless, materialists continue to search for a God switch. Such comic diversions aside, there is no escaping the non-materialism of the human mind. > > Essentially, there is no God switch. As the studies with the Carmelite nuns have demonstrated and this book will detail, spiritual experiences are complex experiences, like our experiences of human relationships. They leave signatures in many parts of the brain. That fact is consistent with (though it does not by itself demonstrate) that the experiencer contacts a reality outside herself. > > The fact is, materialism is stalled. Not only does it have no useful hypotheses for the human mind or spiritual experiences, it is not close to developing any. Just beyond lies a great realm that cannot even be entered via materialism, let alone explored. But the good news is that, in the absence of materialism, there are hopeful signs that it can indeed be entered and explored with modern neuroscience. > > Non-materialist neuroscience is not compelled to reject, deny, explain away, or treat as problems all evidence that defies materialism. That is convenient because current research is turning up a growing body of such evidence. Three examples addressed in this book are the psi effect, near death experiences (NDEs), and the placebo effect." > **[Mindful Hack: The Spiritual Brain: Introduction](http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/09/spiritual-brain-introduction.html)** > **[Amazon.com: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of...](https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Brain-Neuroscientists-Case-Existence/dp/0060858834)** > > Amazon.com: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul: 9780060858834: Beauregard, Mario, O'Leary, Denyse: Books ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/89 "2007-09-14T14:22:35Z")
I bet a non-materialist neuroscientist would enjoy eating jumbo shrimp and boneless ribs while taking an elevated subway to a working vacation. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/90 "2007-09-14T15:10:18Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] I bet a non-materialist neuroscientist would enjoy eating jumbo shrimp and boneless ribs while taking an elevated subway to a working vacation. [/QUOTE] Naahh, shrimp and ribs don’t go well together. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/91 "2007-09-14T16:26:01Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] “Such comic diversions aside, there is no escaping the non-materialism of the human mind.” [/quote] I’d like to see him back up this assertion. I’ll read on… > [@](#): > > “Essentially, there is no God switch.” OK, so spiritual emotions are complex and not easily attributable to a single gene a region of the brain. I’m still waiting on this demonstration of non-materialism… > [@](#): > > “The fact is, materialism is stalled.” OMFG. Every advance in the science of the brain points more and more to the conclusion, that our personalities, who we are, is dependent on physical brain processes. How can you have a ghost in the machine if the “ghost” is just the process of the machine doing its work? > [@](#): > > “That is convenient because current research is turning up a growing body of such evidence. Three examples addressed in this book are the psi effect, near death experiences (NDEs), and the placebo effect.” Oh yeah, psi and NDEs are solid evidence of a separate soul, they are. Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/92 "2007-09-14T17:38:09Z")
[QUOTE=CurtC] Oh yeah, psi and NDEs are solid evidence of a separate soul, they are. Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect. [/QUOTE] It’s hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic with the first part there - but I don’t myself see how most of the things that are generally referred to as psi effects _would_ be evidence against materialism. With the possible exception of OBEs, all they are are the mind having awareness of and the ability to effect things remotely to it. If that’s evidence of non-materialism, then every TV, radio, handheld remote control device, and magnetized piece of metal has a soul, too. So to my eye, this guy is wrong on at least _two_ of his listed items that demonstrate non-materialism - and NDEs are of course only evidence of such if they actually work as advertized, rather than through some other method. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/93 "2007-09-14T17:57:21Z")
[QUOTE=CurtC] Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect. [/QUOTE] I’d like to think you meant _It’s no wonder that_, rather than _Makes me wonder how_. The misunderstanding is not really a surprise, after all. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/94 "2007-09-14T19:36:28Z")
[QUOTE=CurtC] I’d like to see him back up this assertion. I’ll read on… OK, so spiritual emotions are complex and not easily attributable to a single gene a region of the brain. I’m still waiting on this demonstration of non-materialism… OMFG. Every advance in the science of the brain points more and more to the conclusion, that our personalities, who we are, is dependent on physical brain processes. How can you have a ghost in the machine if the “ghost” is just the process of the machine doing its work? Oh yeah, psi and NDEs are solid evidence of a separate soul, they are. Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect. [/QUOTE] We been through this many times, but one more won’t hurt any. The man is talking about research that shows very clearly the mind or consciousness is separate from the brain and continues to live after the death of the brain and body. > [@](#): > > “How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? . . . Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience. NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation. In our prospective study of patients that were clinically dead (flat EEG, showing no electrical activity in the cortex and loss of brain stem function evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex) the patients report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, or memory from early childhood occurred, as well as perceptions from a position out and above their ‘dead’ body.” (Van Lommel, Van Wees, Meyers, Elfferich (2001). Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands. Lancet.) > **[Question 28 about Near Death Experiences.](https://aleroy.com/FAQz28.htm)** > > Question 28 about Near Death Experiences. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/95 "2007-09-14T19:50:50Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] We been through this many times, but one more won’t hurt any. The man is talking about research that shows very clearly the mind or consciousness is separate from the brain and continues to live after the death of the brain and body. > [@lekatt](#): > > “How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? . . . Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience. NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation. In our prospective study of patients that were clinically dead (flat EEG, showing no electrical activity in the cortex and loss of brain stem function evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex) the patients report a clear consciousness, in which cognitive functioning, emotion, sense of identity, or memory from early childhood occurred, as well as perceptions from a position out and above their ‘dead’ body.” (Van Lommel, Van Wees, Meyers, Elfferich (2001). Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands. Lancet.) [/quote] We **have** been through this many times and each time we have to provide the same correction to the misleading quotation provided here: The quotation, of course, would be more persuasive if it was actually something that had been verified. As noted throughout this and many preceding discussions, no one who wants to believe in consciousness separate from brain activity has ever taken the effort to establish that the “conscious” moments did not occur in the moments before and after the actual cessation of brain activity. They are all anecdotal memories such as that by Dr. Sabon that leave a lot of room for error–particularly among people who hope to champion a particular viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/96 "2007-09-14T20:19:17Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] We **have** been through this many times and each time we have to provide the same correction to the misleading quotation provided here: The quotation, of course, would be more persuasive if it was actually something that had been verified. As noted throughout this and many preceding discussions, no one who wants to believe in consciousness separate from brain activity has ever taken the effort to establish that the “conscious” moments did not occur in the moments before and after the actual cessation of brain activity. They are all anecdotal memories such as that by Dr. Sabon that leave a lot of room for error–particularly among people who hope to champion a particular viewpoint. [/QUOTE] Of course they did, in all the research, otherwise it would not be anything different, they did it in the quote provided and in every single one of the studies. I posted this once but will again, in this experience the patient was **never, say again never** conscious during the entire session in the OR yet could accurately describe the doctors in attendance. Proof positive. > [@](#): > > Question: Just wanted to relate a personal experience. I used to be a 100% skeptic, but this happened to me and now I am more open and I am looking for the truth. Please let me know your thoughts. > I am an emergency room nurse. About a year ago we received a patient by ambulance in full cardiorespiratory arrest. No pulse, no effective cardiac rhythm ( refractory ventricular fibrillation ). Patient had been in arrest for at least 15 minutes prior to arival. CPR/ACLS in progress on arrival. > > To make a long story short, we worked him for about 25 minutes without positive response. The physician in charge stated that we would defibrillate one more time and if no response we would stop. One last shock, and his heart converted to a beating rhythm, and continued to impove from there, later being admitted to intensive care. > > **AT NO POINT DURING HIS STAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WAS HE CONSCIOUS. Most of the time he was technically dead.** > > The next day, one of the ICU nurses called down and told us the patient wanted to see several of the ER staff. He named several of us by name, and described us to the ICU nurses. He said he wanted to see us in person “to make sure he wasn’t going crazy”. > > During a slow time later that night we went upstairs and he called us by name without introductions. He told a story of floating out of his body, just below the ceiling, watching us attempt resuscitation. He said he knew our names from when we called out to each other while working on him. One thing I found especially fascinating was that he said when we defibrillated ( shocked ) him, he would be pulled back into his body for a few seconds, then end up back floating by the ceiling a few seconds after. The last time we defibbed him he was pulled back in and became unconscious. At this point he had a pulse and improved. > > We have talked quite a bit about it here. Some of the staff think maybe he was actually semi-conscious the whole time, his brain remaining oxegenated and at least partly functional due to effective CPR. Something akin to anesthetized surgical patients retaining the sense of hearing and being able to relate the conversations of the operating team after they have been awakened. > > Others in the group here believe it was a NDE. We reason that this would explain the out-of-body viewpoint and the retention of sight and cognitive abilities by the patient even though he was to all intents and purposes dead when we were together in the ER. There is no other way he could have known our names, either, as his family was not allowed in the room during the resuscitation. > > None of us have any experience in this matter and when I stumbled on this newsgroup I thought I’d post and see what you all thought. > > Answer: He learned that this kind of experience has been seen many times in this group. For those who may think the patient was semi-conscious and listening, please note the author states: “He named several of us by name, and described us to the ICU nurses.” This question is quoted from the alt.consciousness.near-death-exp newsgroup with the permission of the author. He was directed to NDE accounts for further reading. The bolding is mine, there are hundreds of these experiences, there is no mistake. The research is accurate. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/97 "2007-09-14T20:33:59Z")
I notice that, while the quote in post #88 is directly germaine to the topic of the thread, a general argument for/or against the validity of NDEs is **NOT**. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/98 "2007-09-14T22:05:07Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] I posted this once but will again, in this experience the patient was **never, say again never** conscious during the entire session in the OR yet could accurately describe the doctors in attendance. [/QUOTE] But surely you’ll acknowledge that there’s a huge difference between simply being unconscious, and having a flat EEG, right? About the perceptions during the times when the patients had a flat EEG, if their EEG was flat, how did they communicate their perceptions to the researchers? I would think that would be quite a trick. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/99 "2007-09-14T22:28:41Z")
[QUOTE=lekatt] Of course they did, in all the research, otherwise it would not be anything different, they did it in the quote provided and in every single one of the studies. [/quote] Where? We have been through this, perhaps even earlier in this thread. No study has documented that the experiences reported after recovery actually occurred during a period of flat EEG. None. Every reported event might have occurred in periods when the brain was active. [QUOTE=lekatt] I posted this once but will again, in this experience the patient was **never, say again never** conscious during the entire session in the OR yet could accurately describe the doctors in attendance. Proof positive. [/quote] You are deliberately distorting what was actually reported. This included statements by other members of the OR team that his heart was occasionally, but not constantly, in arrest and that some of him felt that he was ufficiently alive\* to actually learn all the information that he later related back to the emergency team. In addition to which, no member of the team has demonstrated that their jobs (which, presumably, compelled them to turn their attention to actual monitors, drugs, surgical equipment, and other hardware), could actually document a flat-line EEG (a machine that was probably not even being used at the time) throughout the entire episode. - Insisting that he was not “conscious” is dishonest on two levels: first, no one would (or should) claim that consciousness is required for a person’s brain to accept and process information; second, no member of the team was actually able to verify the level of consciousness throughout the episode as noted in your own story that other members of the team felt that he had been sufficiently aware. The accurate report of the episode is that he repeatedly suffered periods of cardiac arrest that were never documented for when they occurred nor how long they lasted. You are free to believe what you choose. You are not free to post that some event has been documented when the documentation for the event leaves a lot of lattitude for multiple interpretations–even among the participants. > [@lekatt](#): > > The bolding is mine, there are hundreds of these experiences, there is no mistake. The research is accurate. This was not research, it was anecdote. You have refused to quote the entire passage. You have misinterpreted what was stated in the passage. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985/100 "2007-09-14T22:51:17Z")
“that some of him felt that he was ufficiently alive” s/b that some of **them** felt that he was **s** ufficiently alive [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionary-basis-for-religion/417985.md?page=6)