I don’t claim that religion is the same as science or any other technical field. It clearly is not. And I agree that science can demonstrate that it works. I’m not arguing for one to the exclusion of the other. I do not believe that religion has much to say about physics or biology. However, I do not believe that science has much to say about morality, either. One can use scientific findings to support moral arguments, but that’s not the same thing. I do very much agree with you that there is a lot of ignoring the bad things done in God’s name, and a general tendency to ascribe survival in a disaster to God’s hand while at the same time denying that people who did not survive were victims of God. The same can be said for science and technology, though. We often look at the wonders of technology and ignore the fact that technology has also made it much easier to kill people by the millions and do great damage to much of the natural world. That doesn’t mean science or technology is bad; just that it’s not entirely good.
Very true. But many people simply take their gadgets to someone else to fix rather than understanding how they work and fixing the gadgets themselves. From their perspective, technology really does depend upon the faith that the technician will repair it through whatever incantations are needed.
Again, I agree that the scientific method means that one must demonstrate their flash of insight via experience. The point I was trying to make was that there are aspects of science that are not entirely logical. From a religious perspective, the person who has experienced the flash of insight also must demonstrate that it has changed his/her life in a meaningful manner, again through experience and not simply through demagoguery.
True religion does not corrode at the touch of science - the two are distinct. I agree wholeheartedly that when religion tries to describe or mandate science, it fails miserably. But that’s not the purpose of religion, despite the claims of the fundamentalist factions that make their way into the news (both Christian and Islamic). Religion most appropriately addresses questions of how to live one’s life; science does not. Science addresses how nature works; religion does not. Religion says a lot about death and what comes next. Science has nothing to say about what comes next.
I recall a discussion with a colleague who said that the religious belief that there is life after death is nothing but wishful thinking. The same could be said for people who believe that there is no accountability to a higher power after death.
BTW, I work in a scientific organization and have a PhD in engineering. I also am a practicing Christian. I see no contradiction in doing both. I believe in the Big Bang, evolution, and that pi is an irrational number approximated by 3.14159… I also believe that God exists, that there is life after death, and that there will be a final judgement. To paraphrase, render unto Einstein that which is Einstein’s; render unto God that which is God’s.
This is not any sort of answer at all. We are discussing, directly!, some of the evidence that you have presented as proving your case. We are examining whether what you present as evidence is actually a reliable summary of reality.
I don’t know what more I can do: I’ve linked to your claim that Pam Reynolds was clinically dead for “2 hours.” I’ve then quoted YOUR OWN CITES that concede that it was a matter of minutes. How could it GET any clearer that you are wrong here? Are you going to address this huge gaping hole in your claims and the way you back them up, or not?
I don’t know how you can possibly go around ignoring the direct contradiction here between your claims and your own cites.
Your cite says nothing I disagree with. I said NDEs can have a profound effect on a person. I’ve agreed with that. What I am arguing, and you seem to be neatly sidestepping with your inadequate cite, is that effects from other major traumatic events are also likely to have such effects; comparable in frequency and profoundness.
While I appreciate that you’ve put some work in already, could you try and find a cite comparing NDE aftereffects with the aftereffects of other major traumatic events? Again, you have and continue to make the claim with considerable certainty; I am sure you have a cite already prepared that compares these things.
It’s simply that we are too closed-minded. We’re blinding ourself to the notion that conclusions from cites must be based on those cites. Only lekatt is open-minded enough to see his opinion supported where it is not.
But logically they must. Someone who fears eternal damnation, for example, versus someone who fears recincarnating as something bad, or that their spells will come back and repay them.
It’s the same reason why personal experience isn’t enough alone to prove a religion right. Other people have had them, and believe in different paths. If other people can be wrong - why can’t we? Doesn’t mean we are wrong, of course. It just means we easily can be. After all, whoever is right, the one fact we can rely on is that the majority of all humans alive are wrong on how the universe works.
Hang on a sec. Throughout history, people have acted out of fear of witches, faeries, djinns, trolls, and a host of other supernatural creatures. By your logic, are we to assume that the existence of these fears is evidence of the existence of these creatures? Is the Malleus Malificarum proof that witches once ravaged Europe, spoiling milk and blighting crops with their Evil Eye?
Balls. I’ve looked back and lekatt’s cite does in fact make a comparison. And after I was all mocking, too. :smack: Apologies. I’m going to maintain that such changes do still exist for many people who don’t have NDEs, but perhaps there is reason to believe it’s higher for NDE-experiencers.
Alright, my next question would be this; how can we tell that the greater effect is a result of truth? Imagine that NDEs are actually dreams, and that people were unable to tell the difference. Would the effects be any less? I can’t see why.
That may be, but who needs it. My belief that God exists necessarily is axiomatic, and derives from my personal experience. I have no choice but to believe in what I’ve lived. Same as anyone else. I respect you for what you believe. In your shoes, I’d believe the same as you.
But, regardless of anyone’s claims, communism isn’t derived from science. It’s derived from a philosophy, thought up by some guy, what was his name? Groucho? Harpo? (And that’s assuming it’s hasn’t inevitably been coopted by fascists.) The closest you get is that communist governments historically tend to elevate atheism to the level of a state religion, since the fascists don’t like sharing power, and religions tend to accumulate it.
It should be noted and remembered that atheism isn’t science. It is a (very small) belief system that merely has the distinction of not contradicting the findings of science. It’s not the only belief system that does; agnosticism is similarly compatible, and Public Animal No. 9 claims to espouse a version of theism that is as well. (Presumably it’s not related to any common religion like Christianity.)
And it perpetually amazes me me how anyone can say that the Spanish Inquisition isn’t related to or caused by religion. Anything to make a point, I suppose.
Maybe so, but that does not, to anyone but you, constitute proof that “God cannot not exist.” In debate, you need the kind of proof that can be put into words.
No, it’s not faith because the technicians usually actually do fix the gadget, and if they fail you don’t see the gadget’s owners insisting that it is fixed despite not working.
Not in this universe. “Do as I say, not as I do” is the typical behavior of those who preach religion. And belief without evidence as well; that’s why it’s called faith. Religion by nature has no proof, because if it has proof it’s not religion any more.
“No True Scotsman” again. So much of religion these days is about claims that science can’t speak on, because religion always loses when science CAN speak on religion. Religon, being lies and delusion, cannot survive a skeptical, fact based evaluation; therefore, it must more and more restrict itself to either matters for which there are no facts to check it against, or to people willing to outright ignore or deny reality.
Of course it does, and the scientific answer is : nothing. People simply don’t want to hear it, so they turn to the madness of religion.
Nonsense. There’s zero evidence for any “higher power”, much less it bothering to hold anyone accountable, or it being in the right if it does. It’s not a possibility worth considering, any more than worrying about the opinion of Oberon, King of Faerie.
I find scientific evidence compelling. I find belief in the spiritual much less so Any of the experiences cited can be duplicated by drugs, electronic brain stimulation and meditation.You can never escape the fundamental problem. No proof. You are expected to believe as a result of training. I require a lot more. Here is the flaw. I speak for me and me only. I wonder why any one holds on to training in religion. Spme apparently do not question. How can not questioning be edifying? How can truths be arrived at without rigorous search? Who,what ,when where and why. No questions,no answers and no truth.
You are overlooking an important difference here: Any religion is a belief-system and a value-system. As such, it provides, in its own right, motives for human behavior. Believers feel a sense of duty to their faith, its doctrines and its god. It is because of that that some small proportion of religious believers (and a rather higher portion of religious leaders) are willing to engage in religious wars, religious persecution, suppression of any message that contradicts their faith’s, suppression of any personal conduct their faith considers immoral, etc.
Science is a belief-system in a sense, but a belief-system firmly grounded in provable elements of reality. It is not a value-system at all. Science as such has no values. The scientific enterprise is driven by one value assumption – “knowledge is good” (more fully stated, it is better for human beings, collectively, to have as much tested and verified accurate knowledge about the universe as possible than to remain ignorant about it) – but no scientist would cite “knowledge is good” as a proven scientific fact. Except for a practicing scientist, nobody does anything out of a sense of duty to science. The tools provided by science and technology can make wars more destructive. But no wars are fought, no crimes committed, for the sake of science.
Technology is neither a value-system nor a belief-system.
I think you would get your answer if you read a few dozen experiences. I have never known a dream to cause the profound changes in a person that a NDE causes. As far as I know no one else has either. NDE research scientists agree that consciousness does live after the death of the brain and body. And many of them believe in the realness (truth) of the experience because of the profound changes. After all if the experience could be duplicated we could turn this world into a utopia in a generation. But no one has ever duplicated a near death experience no matter how much they say so. Check back to the characteristics of one and you will see why no one has ever duplicated a NDE.
To me it was the most truthful and real experience I have ever had. I was wide awake during it, as all other experiencers are, in awe of what I was seeing and feeling.
OK, what is the how long for? phase. What are you talking about.
It doesn’t prove the existence of God, but since most near death experiencers say they were in the presence of God, I think it has a lot to do with God. But not the God of the Bible or religion, the God of unconditional love.
