Raymond Moody was writing 30+ years ago. Things are different now. NDEers are talking about their experiences more readily since there are numerous organizations and experiencers who share their views.
How about a Dan Brown novel plot?
Is there anything in religion or mysticism that didn’t end up being explained as an artifact of the divine feminine in The Da Vinci Code?
Whose story, of course, is still anecdotal and explainable.
It is a commonplace report that people who come close to death, whether by accident or illness, are changed by the experience, resolve to live their life differently, etc. This is without the specific experience of “seeing the afterlife” of which you speak.
I’ve seen a bunch of your links. I think it’s very interesting but I doubt it qualifies as scientific reasearch. The links that I’ve seen you post are usually people telling the story of their NDE and others drawing some conclusion after noticing similarities from story to story. That appears to be exactly what this link did. I don’t think it provides conclusive evidence. That’s another similarity to the links you’ve provided. They seem similar in quality.
I think this is a very valid point and I’ll add one aspest to it. Another type of Near Death Experience.
My parents were both in failing health for some time. Every time the phone would ring a little to early or to late my heart would jump and I felt a sense of dred answering the call. I stood in my Dad’s hospital room as he faded over a period of days and was in the room alone with him, talking to him when he passed away.
A few months later I delt with the same thing with my Mom, although I was not there when she passed I spent some time at her bedside saying goodbye.
After getting through the trauma of those two experiences within a few months I find my own attitude about death is much different than before. I don’t claim that this is the same as an OBE. I’m just saying that our physical death or the death of our loved ones is a very hard thing to deal with mentaly and emotionally. Having an experience where you encounter death up close and personal can bring about some serious changes, even without an OBE. There are other types of NDEs than the ones **lekatt ** refers to.
Add me to that list. “I have trouble believing that the hallucinations of a dying brain can create an experience as life-changing as some that I’ve heard” is not a convincing evaluation of anything. It’s one guy’s opinion. I’ve had life-changing experiences watching movies. Does that prove that the things on the screen really happened and aren’t fiction? It’s not surprising that an event as unique and unusual as a near-death experience can change people’s lives. That’s not proof, or even evidence, that those experiences are more than they appear to be.
The thing about these skeptical accounts is always the same. They never tell the truth, Pam did not say the things listed in this account. Pam said she was watching over the shoulder of the doctor, plus many more things in describing the tools and such during the time she was dead. These accounts are either deliberate lies or written by people who never studied the case. If you think I am wrong read the real account.
Some of the studies were published in “Lancet” and others were done by qualified research scientists. People believe what they want to believe, but it doesn’t change the truth. Of course they are similar because they yield similar results.
OK, you will remain skeptics as long as you don’t research the experiences on your own. No one can make you look at the data with an open mind. That is a decision of your own.
Don’t be mad if I don’t believe in your hallucinations causing these changes.
There is only one type of NDE, although it may contain a lot of elements or a few elements.
Did I mention they have no fear of death or life anymore.
Which “real” account? The original account, in which her descriptions are very much in line with the issues that Dr. Woerlee addresses? Or the later elaborated accounts given after people began asking her to describe her experiences?
(Mind you, I do not claim that she is lying, only noting that the memory is a funny thing that can offer more recall than the events actually experienced.)
As to your claims of “lying,” (funny, coming from you, after all), I will note that Dr. Woerlee is actually respected by several people who do believe that NDEs represent some mystical event. In fact, I found his site as a link from an NDE researcher who disagrees with Dr. Woerlee, but who does not resort to false claims against Dr Woerlee to poison the well in the way that you do.
You assert that her claim is some sort of “proof.” I have simply offered an evaluation of her account that provides an alternative possible explanation. For you to jump in with claims of “lies” indicates that you are behaving in exactly the way that you always accuse others of behaving: simply disregarding anything that does not match your preconceptions.
Can you provide an actual citation for those? Or is this just a vague memory that some article somewhere in Lancet happened to mention the abbreviation “NDE”?
Here we go, the battle between lekatt and everyone else.
Good try on the boilerplate, SentientMeat. I think you need a more complete response for it to be effective, however.
Tomndeb is correct: there can be no unifying theory of the paranormal because there are not necessarily things in common between those things labeled “paranormal” (there are in some cases, not in others).
The term “paranormal” is like the term “millet.” Millet does not identify a plant genus; rather, it identifies a group of plants that happen to look alike and function alike as foods. In other words, both “millet” and “paranormal” identify how we feel about the things in question, not their essence.
We (or, at least, a segment of us) feel that certain phenomena are not normal, not graspable, not provable, yet stick around enough for us to keep thinking about them. I don’t like the term because, in many cases, it serves as shadow pejorative for phenomena whose existence I think has been more than adequately proved, but which nevertheless run afoul of particular worldviews: e.g., evangelical Christian (they don’t like Jesus not playing a starring role in most NDEs), atheist-materialist (they reject the concept of an Afterlife altogether), etc.
All that said, the OP does ask a good question, and one I have been pondering lately: Under what principles does a worldview and its constituting elements get accepted or rejected, and how are those stubborn phenomena that contradict it to be dealt with?
The answer to this question is philosophical and political. Trying to bang that nail with the hammer of empiricism, as the atheist-materialists are prone to do, is futile.
Let’s take the example of Freudian psychology. But 30 years ago this was a module in the worldview of Scientific Consensus–belief in it wasn’t optional. Today, it is completely exiled from that worldview. Anathema. Believe at peril to your reputation.
Before someone jumps in with a bromide about the Scientific Method and how worldviews may progress, let me continue with some pertinent questions. Freudian Pschology was never empirical, made virtually no advances beyond folk psychology or common sense, and in many cases was actually a barrier to valuable research into psychology and other fields of study. But why, I ask, did that module or belief sub-system (it always tried, and succeeded for two generations, to be a member in good standing of Science) succeed so well in being accepted by “real scientists”?
The worlds great minds got snowed and snowed the public in turn. Keep in mind that this was a system without any scientific justification, and which in many cases did harm instead of good. That is why talk of the “scientific method” won’t work here. It never fit that method in the first place!
Understanding how Freudian Psychology succeeded as a meme is a necessary but not sufficient condition of understanding how phenomena that are currently labeled “paranormal,” or subgroups thereof, continue to garner belief yet be rejected by Scientific Consensus.
Now I think I have an insight into how this all happens. In short, you are going to have both false positives and false negatives in any belief system as to the elements thereof conforming to Reality. And the reason for that is that is… complicated.
The trouble with the concept of Reality or, as I like to term it, That Which Is, is illuminated by Godel’s proof that any mathematical system cannot be both complete and consistent. We cannot verbally access the concept of “Reality” and project our confidence in that system’s making sense, “playing nice.” We cannot do so and hope to be without error.
Hence, the Scientific Mind points to NDEs and says, “Dreams, illusions, hallucinations–not real.” Alien abduction experiences are just hallucinations associated with sleep paralysis. Not part of Reality. Ah hah! Gotcha! The assumption being that we can point in confidence to Reality and see its contents. The assumption is false.
(Quick disclaimer: I, along with serious investigators like Jacque Valee, don’t believe the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the corrrect explanation for UFOs and alien abduction phenomena. But they can’t be blown off as mere “dreams,” either.)
There are two ways that the atheist-materialists dismiss claims that violate their worldview, one correct and one incorrect. The first and correct way is to demonstrate that the claim is not in harmony with the purported phenomenon, not even by the standards of the claimant. If a medium says she can produce ectoplasm, and when the lights are flipped on she is spitting out cotton balls with a bag of CVS-brand cotton balls in her hand, the gig is up.
The second and incorrrect way is to call the phenomenon “unreal” and forget about it. Dreams, NDEs, alien abduction experiences, etc., are all “unreal” since they are “mere” mental phenomena. And we can blow off mental phenomena as stuff that just happens in your head. And thus it’s “unreal.” Circular reasoning 101.
(What the atheist-materialists simply cannot allow, however, is for any of the above phenomenon to impinge upon what they do consider real, and they will fight tooth and claw and downright dirty to deny that NDEs can be veridical or that alien abuductions have any associated physical effects. These are empirical matters, and I won’t argue them here, since that’s how these discussions get nasty. I want to focus on the philosophical issues.)
At the end of the day, the atheist-materialists feel they have captured their opponents flag if they can label his phenomena “unreal.” My big point here is to say that real inquiry and discussion begins there, not stops.
Back to the OP’s question, rephrased: Why do so many people believe in phenomena that are “unreal”? Following my advice above, I would divide that question into two parts. One, within the set of those beliefs, what claims are completely unfulfilled on their own terms? Two, what claims are completely fulfilled on their own terms?
For example, NDEs. We can investigate whether the claims of veridicity (is that a word?) are coherent. But even if we conclude that they are not, there is still the phenomenon of people feeling like they’re going to a new world, seeing their deceased relatives, experiencing total peace, etc. And if they experience that, then mustn’t we conclude that there is (or was) an Afterlife, if only for them as individuals, since the requirements for that concept’s realization have been fulfilled?
In short, give up the dull dagger of “real/not real,” and true inquiry begins.
http://www.ntdaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/01/21/41f0a79e73d4c
Go for it! I have plenty more.
Aeschines I appreciate and understand your post. Thanks. It would be great if we could just search for “what is” and not have to defend sacred belief systems. Religion says we are the true one, and science says we are the true one. Probably many more small belief systems that say we are the true one.
Just drop the polemic and study the data from all sides until we can understand it better. Nice idea, but to much vested interests in the belief systems. Too many people that don’t know, that can’t think outside the box.
How can you have “more” of what you have none? I asked for a citation to The Lancet and you gave me a vague reference in a separate newspaper. The study to which your link alluded could have said anything. Certainly, the fact that people who undergo particular types of operations often report the “light at the end of the tunnel/all my friends and relatives were there” phenomenon. That has been labeled “Near Death Experience.”
Now, can you provide an actual citation for an actual study presented in The Lancet?
Warning, PDF.
The link that includes that link.
An experienced poster/mod is prodding his opponent for a cite that is so basic to the debate that he should be ashamed he doesn’t know exactly where to look for it and hasn’t provided it himself.
C’mon, tomndeb there is a right way to debate in which start from common ground and actually help your opponent to make the best arguments possible and counter them in a respectful and productive manner. Sheesh.
We are not starting from common ground. lekatt begins with the lie that science is out to deny spirituality. He frequently posts anecdotes as facts. He disparages citations that others provide as biased without providing evidence for his accusations (often misstating the position of his opponent or simply inventing his accusations).
When he posts a claim, it is only fair that he support it. When a simple request for that support results in him dodging the issue by linking to vague references, it is quite legitimate to call him on the fact tht he has, one more time, avoided doing what he claimed.
I am actually open to the possibility that there is a spiritul component to NDEs. However, since so much of his information is false, I see no reason to do his work for him.
Projeting to the 10th degree here.
Fact is, the believers are the ones that fought tooth and nail to keep believing in paranormal explanations for phenomena that eventually was explained properly. When the threat of burning at the stake came in disuse, your side lost the best argument they had.
For example: lightning was considered a divine power, but after Ben Franklin, no one thinks it has a supernatural explanation.
And checking reality, the information for the Lancet is fascinating, but the problem is that the research shows that very few of the people resuscitated had the NDE, right out of the bat, it can not be denied that is not a universal phenomenon, being that it is capricious in nature, the fact that the ones that experienced NDE got a change of attitude regarding death is not strange. The phenomenon is real, but it does not mean what you want it to be.