Sunday, June 20, 2010

Why I Have No Religious Beliefs - Updated & Expanded


About three years ago I wrote a post of the same name summing up my reasons for becoming an atheist. In this updated post I'm going to try to go into a bit more detail than before and add information I neglected to in the first post.

I was never raised in a religious home. I was never indoctrinated by my parents, though my mother when I was younger would often try to get my father and I to go to church; for what reasons I’m not sure. But my father would have none of it. As it turns out he was (and still is) an atheist and that’s why he didn’t care to go. As for my mother, I do not know what her beliefs were when I was a child, but at this point in her life she considers herself an agnostic.

I have very few memories about any religious instruction. Most of it comes from a day care I attended as a child for a few years that was run in a church. I recall being forced to attend church services once or twice a week, but that didn’t affect me. I mostly thought it was boring and didn’t pay any attention. All the children who attended the day care, however, were (from what I recall) told to practice for a small concert that was being put on by the church and we all had to rehearse. I recall the woman leading the practices asking me and several others if were going to make the performance that night. I told her I wasn’t going to make it. I didn’t like practicing and I had no desire to be up on a stage singing those songs.

Other than that, I recall asking my mother when I was younger “what we were” referring to religious belief and she told me that we were “Christians, because we believe in god.” I also remember my mother telling me that when I die I would be rejoined with my foot (more on this later) I had lost when I was a child (I’m assuming she was imparting the belief that once you die you will get a new body in heaven).

I remember being very confused as a child about who god was. Was Jesus god, or were there two gods, even though I would always hear there was only one god.

I did believe in god as a child and would occasionally pray for something. Once I found an insect (maybe a grasshopper) that looked injured to me and I tried to help it stand up since it was laying on its back wiggling its legs. After several attempts it seemed to me that it was helpless so I decided to “put it out of its misery.” I stomped on it and killed it, but before doing so said a prayer before killing it.

I also believed that god knew and saw all that you did, both in action and thought and sometimes that would bother me. I do not recall exactly why.


One last memory I have, and I cannot recall where it occurred (maybe the day care I spoke of earlier), I was sitting in a group with other children and a woman was holding up a picture of Jesus that was similar to the one on the left. Since it happened so long ago that may even be the very same picture used. It looks very familiar, though I’ve also seen it since.

I recall her explaining to the children and myself how we have to let Jesus in. He wants to be a part of our lives; we just have to realize that he is at the door asking to be let in and all we have to do is let him in.

Fast forward to my teenage years.

So what I’m about to say all makes sense I think it’s best to explain that I am an amputee and have been since early childhood. I was a very well-adjusted child. I didn’t care what others thought of my leg. I recall one faint memory when I took off my prosthetic leg for my classmates for a kind of show-and-tell. But things changed when I entered middle school.

When I began my three years in middle school (from sixth grade to eighth grade) that is when most children begin to find themselves and begin their journey to adulthood and try to fit in with their peers. It was this period of time when I first realized that I was different from other children. Prior to middle school I had always been raised like any other child. I ran and played, did my best to do what other kids did, despite my prosthetic leg.

In trying to fit in I realized that a lot of people seemed to dislike me; they would avoid me or act as if they didn’t like me. I sometimes wonder if since I was on the bottom rungs of the popularity ladder if some people just pretended to not like me for fear of being teased because they befriended someone who was unpopular.

I did have several good friends who did not care about the prosthetic leg, and that got me through middle and high school. But despite my friends helping me out during tough times, some people can be too cruel for words.

One time in a music appreciation class this group of kids every day would harass me. For weeks this went on. One day one of them asked if I had termites. The group laughed loudly. He was obviously asking this because this idiot thought my prosthetic was made of wood. They haven’t been made like that since before I was born at least. Another time this girl who was friendly to me at first out of nowhere became one of my worst antagonists. One day the teacher decided to create assigned seating alphabetically by each students’ last name. As it so happened she was supposed to sit right next to me. When her seat was given to her she got furious and refused to sit in the seat next to me. She yelled out, “I ain’t sitting by no cripple!” I cannot describe how small I felt. I looked over in the other direction at one of my friends who was sitting next to me. I can still remember the immense sympathetic look in his eyes as he watched how this girl was reacting.

One experience that truly made me depressed happened in middle school and cemented my belief that it was my prosthetic leg that caused people to dislike me. At first it was just a belief I had; perhaps I was just being paranoid or wrongly feeling discriminated against, but one day I got confirmation that my belief was true, which caused me to feel even more depressed. I had liked a girl in a class but she had a boyfriend at the time. We were still friends anyway. Once during a class I overheard her talking with another girl who asked her, “Would you go out with him?” And the girl I had a little crush on replied, “Yeah,” to which the other girl responded with some shock, “But he’s only got one leg” as they whispered back and forth to each other. Of course, obviously not quiet enough. After which the girl I liked retorted, “It’s not what’s on the outside, what matters is what’s on the inside” and the other girl said, “Yeah, but...” and I think they glanced over at me and saw I had heard them so the rest of the conversation I did not hear because they lowered their voices even more.

These and many other unfortunate experiences drove my self-esteem to near non-existence. In the summer of 1997 I pretty much hit rock bottom from all the teasing I had endured over the years. I was a sophomore in high school at the time. I remember countless times asking god to take the sadness away; asking god why he let me live. When I was a baby I was premature and almost died and was not expected to live. I wondered why god would save me only to make my life hell later on. Was this his plan for me? Why didn’t god answer my prayers? These and many other questions and thoughts raced through my mind.

After so long of living in despair and not having my prayers answered I basically gave god ‘the finger’ and I finally realized that I had to help myself. And that’s what I did. I read books on philosophy, Buddhism, psychology, etc. and just sat and thought about my life, trying to figure out answers about why I was feeling the way I was and how to fix those issues.

It was at this point I would call myself an agnostic. Looking back I cannot recall my feelings exactly; if I still believed in god or just didn’t give a shit about him because of his negligence. Because of Buddhism and a lot of self-diagnosis and pondering I cured my depression and my self-esteem began to rise again.

It was after this period in my life that I didn’t give god, or religion in general, much thought until about 2005 when I was visiting friends out of state. I didn’t know it at the time but they were Christians and cared about my salvation. One of my friends asked about my religious beliefs and I told him that I didn’t really know one way or the other; that I liked a lot of the teachings of Buddhism because it’s teachings about living in the present moment was probably the single thing that helped me the most. I would torture myself by replaying all of the horrible things people would do and say to me over the years. Through Buddhism I learned to stop this destructive cycle so I could begin healing.

He then preceeded to make fun of Buddha by referencing something (I can’t recall now exactly) about his weight. It was then that I was officially introduced to the process of witnessing. My friend takes out a book titled The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, by Lee Strobel, and quotes the book about the (with my current knowledge of these arguments I know it was the) first cause argument. At the time it sounded convincing, but I am not one to just take someone’s word for it, so it was after I got back home from my trip that I bought that book along with several others, including God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World, by Patrick Glynn and searched the internet for answers.

For about six months of reading these books, searching the internet and reading what both sides had to say I slowly began to make up my mind about who was right. I read about the Discovery Institute’s goals of sneaking religion into schools, the many lies by historical revisionists who claim America is a “Christian Nation,” and the many claims by Intelligent Design advocates about the alleged flaws of evolution. I looked at what both sides had to say and eventually sided with the non-believers and science. The reason the arguments of the non-believers and scientists swayed me was because they made the most sense to me and in many cases I researched the truth for myself. By researching many of these topics on my own it was clear there was some deception coming from the side of the theists and intelligent design advocates. Many of the statements and claims made by the Intelligent Design proponents did not stand up to the facts we knew about the world. If a group must feel they can’t be honest in order to make their case then that seriously harms their credibility and this made me doubt their claims.

It was at this point that I truly began to doubt the reality of god. After several more months of searching and learning I finally had made up my mind. I was a confirmed atheist.

I have been continually researching and learning ever since and the more I learn the more I doubt the existence of god (not to mention all the other claims of the supernatural) and believe that, at least this point in time, it seems that science will continue to poke holes in the fantasy so many people love to fool themselves with. But only time will tell.

24 comments:

  1. This breaks my heart to read. Thank you for being vulnerable. It's nice to know where you are coming from.

    Even when some 'Christians' are idiots, Jesus loves you.

    Have you read Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death by Chris Carter before? It'd be interesting to find out what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks. No I haven't read that book but have read a few others by Blackmore and Patrick Glynn's God: The Evidence that sums up a lot of those arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Massive post,so very glad i popped over to read it.Understand some of where you are coming from.And so also found somethings you said very useful myself too.Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  4. AA,

    I really appreciate that story - I don't have a prosthetic leg, and while I know I can't fully identify with your story, I was picked on a lot as well when I was younger, and I feel like it has damaged me a lot even to this day.

    In some ways, my story is kind of like yours. I grew up in a religious household, but somewhere around high-school I kind of decided that religion didn't make much sense. I didn't really bother to research it at the time, but i'd guess implicitly, learning about evolution in school really made me feel there was a conflict between science and religion. Through college - I would never have called myself an atheist, I don't think, but if you asked me I would have said I was. It was after I graduated that I decided it was time to really learn what the truth was, and if there was any sense in it at all.

    I started with atheist works, believing that what I was learning about was the truth. I learned a lot about biology, cosmology, and obviously all of their opinions about religion, but for some reason it just never seemed, and I learned this later, it never seemed like they were really making any points. I felt like I was reading a lot of anger, a lot of rants, and lot of opinions about why religion was wrong (and bad). Especially concerning religion, I felt there was a lot of blatantly false things propagated by atheists (Zeitgeist, for one..), and it made me think, like you, 'why do people need to make things up?' I guess it goes for both sides of the argument though - I learned early on I had to be careful about what sources to trust.

    After reading atheist literature, I started to do research on the most sophisticated arguments for God's existence, and I felt as though many of the secular books I have read beforehand intentionally misconstrued the arguments in order to create something more easily defeatable. Again, it made me question the intellectual honesty of the secular books I had read. I felt that in my head the best metaphysical arguments were never addressed, and it really made me doubt whether atheism was the side of 'reason.'

    It was about this time I came down with a fever. I'm not sure exactly what it topped at, but my roommate told me at one point I passed out on our couch, where I had been resting, and he drove me to the hospital. I felt myself being pulled out of my body and encountering this light. I was told I had to go back - and I can't tell you how upset that made me. I also can't describe the feeling of dying - there is honestly nothing better. Anyway, I thought I was crazy - my roommate certainly thought so. I figured what I had experienced must be really rare, only to find out that millions have people have had similar experiences. To this day - I feel afterlife studies are the most important evidence against naturalism. Blackmore's study, while innovative at the time, hasn't held up against the massive amount of evidence, and the corroborated verdical experiences of other NDE'rs has, in my opinion, shown no naturalistic explanation can suffice.

    I know I don't know you, and you have no reason to believe my story. I just hope you continue to search for truth in this world, whatever side of the debate that lands you on. I once felt there was no way religion had any piece of the truth - and now, while I'm not particularly religious, I realize that at the core of religion is a sense of spirituality, something that is, for me, real beyond any doubt. I had to strip off all the dogma attached to religion to respect it, but once I did, I realized that there is something to it.

    Again, I wish you all the luck in your admirable and necessary quest for truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the comment Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

    Thanks for sharing your story. I agree that one must be careful about how much you trust some information because it's not always accurate, like Zeitgeist. I was actually influenced by that documentary for a while, as well as “Acharya S's” work, The Christ Conspiracy, but I continued to look into it and I came to believe many of her theories were long shots at best. What books have you read about atheism, since you say that many atheists do not deal with the best arguments?

    It's funny you say this since I was recently in a discussion with a Christian who said I needed to read more sophisticated books by people like Alvin Plantinga. Thing is, I have read some of these more sophisticated theologians and I wasn't convinced, and I didn't see much difference between the more common Christian arguments and those of Plantinga. One is just more impressive sounding because it uses a lot of philosophical jargon, but it's all based on the same fallacies and misunderstandings. That's my opinion, anyway. I do plan on reading Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief to get a more complete argument from him, though. I have, however, read several articles and watched several interviews with Plantinga so I am familiar with some of his arguments.

    I'm interested to hear which argument's of Blackmore's you believed didn't fit the evidence. While her books are a bit dated she discusses several issues that are still discussed to this day. While some of Blackmore's theories may not be entirely accurate based on newer evidence (though I'm not sure about that) I wasn't convinced by NDE's because there are many stories of people of different faiths who saw their Hindu gods, their Christians god, and whatnot when they died. If these people actually went some place why did they see their interpretation of god? If there truly is a place called heaven and there is a god then this reality will be the same regardless of a person's personal beliefs.

    Because of this fact, why do people view these different gods when they supposedly die and go to “heaven?” It should be clear that neither you or anyone else went anywhere. It is your brains creating this experience, which is why each person's personal beliefs were projected into the dream, or hallucination, or whatever you want to call it.

    Again, what books on atheism did you read and which arguments did you believe were based on misunderstandings? Also, what aspects of NDE's convince you that you've actually been some place? What about the natural explanations do you not accept?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AA,

    Thanks for your reply. I'm going to try and respond to your questions about NDE's, and then I'll write back later with some more thoughts about what I said regarding dealing with unsophisticated arguments. In short, regarding that, when I read through some of the New Atheist literature (at least the big four), I found it really odd that they paraphrase cosmological arguments in ways that nobody ever formed them, and all of them seem to have this menace against Paley's watchmaker analogy. I mean, yeah, the guy was wrong, but once one of them dealt with him, it seems like the rest would have moved on refuting other people. Instead, they just kept kicking the crap out of him, which lead me to believe that they didn't want to deal with other people.

    I was on someone else's blog recently, and they were saying how atheist-theist debates now are so different than what they used to be. It used to be about a communal effort towards finding the truth - now it seems like it's all about winning, and making the other person look bad, it's a shame really.

    My first experience with NDE's was actually with a college professor. He had said he was an ardent atheist before his experience, and after having his NDE promptly converting to theism (and later Christianity). This is when I first became fascinated. I've talked with a guy who's read 160 books on the topic (I have not read that many..but I hope some day I can). He obviously, like others in the field, have no doubt as to the authenticity of the experience.

    I'll try and go over a few things with the NDE's. So as far as Blackmore, I think the reason her theory is as famous as it is, is that it was the first major attempt (at least that I know of) to pull together all the proposed explanations into one comprehensive theory that accounts for all the commonalities in the NDE. A lot of her material rests on the effects of anoxia and excessive carbon dioxide. With anoxia, though, patients usually report irritability and a lack of mental focus, in stark contrast with the typical NDE. Furthermore, with both of these, patients who had a NDE had blood samples taken, and in many cases they had higher levels of oxygen and lower carbon dioxide levels, which leads most people who work with afterlife studies to believe those two factors don't play a role.

    I saw on another post (I was just skimming briefly) you mentioned rapid acceleration and G-forces. Well, obviously the people dying are not experiencing rapid G-forces, so the similarity is that the blood is draining from the head - which leads to a lack of oxygen - which leads us to the above problem that lack of oxygen doesn't play a role. There are a lot of physiological explanations proposed, but all of them (in my opinion, of course) have fatal flaws.

    As far as psychological explanations - yes, there is some differences between cultural NDE's. As far as I know, even in China, the NDE is very similar to Western NDE's, but it's mainly in India where we see differences in what is recalled. I understand your hold-up here, but I still don't think this works. The NDE is statistically independent of religion - meaning people who are non-believers have them just as frequently (well, per capita) as religious believers. Furthermore, young children, who arguable don't have knowledge of religion will have them as well. It's also independent of whether or not people have heard of the NDE or not beforehand.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The biggest problem with all naturalistic explanations, however, is the corroborated accounts by medical personnel. There are several dozen cases where the operation procedure is such that audio/visual perception would be absolutely impossible, yet they are able to perceive things that happen mid-operation (not just details of a general procedure, but details unique to that persons operation). Also - there are even more people who have perceived conversations their family members had remote from their body (across the hospital, for example). On top of this, it's typically regarded as the most important event of a persons life, and the NDE'r usually has no fear of death after they had this experience (these types of things, I would say, count against a psychological explanation). As impressive as I found the NDE studies, I found the studies for deathbed visions perhaps even more convincing. Many of people who have written books on the NDE, in support of the afterlife theory, have gone into the studies attempting to disprove the NDE, and find a naturalistic explanation, only to realize they could not. It seems to be only people who aren't actually skeptics, but ardent naturalists (such as Blackmore), find a way to torture data and construct a theory that appeals to fellow naturalists, but is easily torn down.

    I think that's about it - sorry if I skipped out on anything (you're probably thinking I said way too much, and I probably did). I'll get back to you on the other questions, it's just the NDE is what I've done a majority of my studying on, and I hate to see people trumpt Blackmore's book as this end-all be-all account of the NDE, which it most certainly (and I would argue, can never be) naturalistic account of the NDE. Also, I realize I made a ton of statements without any type of citations whatsoever, so you're obviously perfectly entitled to not believe any of my assertions, but I'd encourage you, if you're interested on the topic, to read some in-depth analyses of them.

    My final thing, and this is just something I always think about, because I usually bring up afterlife studies to atheists I talk with. I'd like to think that I value the truth just as much as the next guy, and I like to think I'm somewhat level headed, being I've been on the other side of the argument before in my life. But how come people even want to say no to what is, in my opinion, an outrageous amount of evidence for the afterlife? I mean, I don't want to live a lie either, but it just seems so bizarre to me when people stick to their guns in the face of evidence about something that is so incredibly wonderful by its very nature. Just something I've always wanted to ask...

    Hope you'll excuse any slanderous remarks I made (as well as spelling errors, I ain't checking this thing down). Thanks for taking the time to respond

    -Mr. Anonymous (actually, my name's Pat)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh - I forgot to mention persons who are blind (some since birth) and are able to see during a NDE.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Pat, thanks for getting back to me.

    In short, regarding that, when I read through some of the New Atheist literature (at least the big four), I found it really odd that they paraphrase cosmological arguments in ways that nobody ever formed them, and all of them seem to have this menace against Paley's watchmaker analogy. I mean, yeah, the guy was wrong, but once one of them dealt with him, it seems like the rest would have moved on refuting other people. Instead, they just kept kicking the crap out of him, which lead me to believe that they didn't want to deal with other people.

    Can you please give me an example of a mischaracterization of the cosmological argument by one of the new atheists? As far as Paley, I know that people like Dawkins cite Paley as being the first to make the argument from design but they only cite him as the first person to make this argument. The new atheists do not seek to rebut him and instead go after creationists' more modern arguments, like Behe (I'm thinking specifically of Dawkins' The God Delusion here).

    My first experience with NDE's was actually with a college professor. He had said he was an ardent atheist before his experience, and after having his NDE promptly converting to theism (and later Christianity).

    Yes, many peoples' lives have been transformed after these experiences but this doesn't prove it was real.

    A lot of her material rests on the effects of anoxia and excessive carbon dioxide. With anoxia, though, patients usually report irritability and a lack of mental focus, in stark contrast with the typical NDE. Furthermore, with both of these, patients who had a NDE had blood samples taken, and in many cases they had higher levels of oxygen and lower carbon dioxide levels, which leads most people who work with afterlife studies to believe those two factors don't play a role.

    I'm confused by your statements. Blackmore answered this argument, which I cited in my review of God: The Evidence by Patrick Glenn. A naturalistic argument for why NDE's occur is cerebral anoxia, or oxygen deprivation to the brain. Some of the claims by NDE proponents is that NDE's have occurred without anoxia happening, seemingly ruling it out as an explanation. However, Blackmore responded with the following: “If the heart stops pumping blood then blood in the arteries is not reaching the tissues or cells which will use it and therefore oxygen levels in those arteries will only fall very slowly. If extra oxygen is given as well, which is common during cardiac arrest [as with Sabom's patient], then the arterial levels may actually rise. By contrast, blood in the veins will not have much oxygen left because it is in contact with the tissues and therefore loses oxygen. Since the brain uses a lot of oxygen, levels in cerebral veins will fall fast and the brain quickly run [sic] out of the oxygen it needs. Sabom's patient had arterial blood tested and so we cannot conclude that he was not suffering from cerebral anoxia.” (Dying to Live, 52) It seems the method by which many of these peoples' blood gases are measured is giving inaccurate results. If this is the case anoxia has not been ruled out.

    I saw on another post (I was just skimming briefly) you mentioned rapid acceleration and G-forces. Well, obviously the people dying are not experiencing rapid G-forces, so the similarity is that the blood is draining from the head - which leads to a lack of oxygen - which leads us to the above problem that lack of oxygen doesn't play a role. There are a lot of physiological explanations proposed, but all of them (in my opinion, of course) have fatal flaws.

    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You seemed to miss my point. I made this argument in my review of God: The Evidence so if this was not what you read I apologize. However, my point was that NDE's do in fact occur during anoxia, which is what is happening to the pilots in the centrifuge. The cause (the G forces from the centrifuge) of the anoxia I don't think should matter. An NDE still occurred due to a drop in oxygen to the brain.

    As far as psychological explanations - yes, there is some differences between cultural NDE's. As far as I know, even in China, the NDE is very similar to Western NDE's, but it's mainly in India where we see differences in what is recalled. I understand your hold-up here, but I still don't think this works. The NDE is statistically independent of religion - meaning people who are non-believers have them just as frequently (well, per capita) as religious believers. Furthermore, young children, who arguable don't have knowledge of religion will have them as well. It's also independent of whether or not people have heard of the NDE or not beforehand.

    I don't see why it would matter if even atheists have them since they are apparently a physical, biological reaction to death in many cases. This would naturally occur to any human, regardless of his or her personal beliefs.

    I think the cultural differences between NDE's is a huge stumbling block to the reality of NDE's for the reason I previously mentioned. Let me try to be more clear with an analogy. Let's say three people claim to have visited my house. Except they each don't agree about what my house looks like, even though they are 100% certain they visited my home. That would cast a lot of doubt on whether or not these three people even visited my home in the first place, and maybe dreamed the entire trip. Similarly, if heaven is a real place for the sake of argument and people are said to have seen it wouldn't heaven look the same? And wouldn't the god be the same god regardless of someone's personal beliefs about god? This discrepancy is a huge one.

    The biggest problem with all naturalistic explanations, however, is the corroborated accounts by medical personnel. There are several dozen cases where the operation procedure is such that audio/visual perception would be absolutely impossible, yet they are able to perceive things that happen mid-operation (not just details of a general procedure, but details unique to that persons operation). Also - there are even more people who have perceived conversations their family members had remote from their body (across the hospital, for example). On top of this, it's typically regarded as the most important event of a persons life, and the NDE'r usually has no fear of death after they had this experience (these types of things, I would say, count against a psychological explanation). As impressive as I found the NDE studies, I found the studies for deathbed visions perhaps even more convincing. Many of people who have written books on the NDE, in support of the afterlife theory, have gone into the studies attempting to disprove the NDE, and find a naturalistic explanation, only to realize they could not. It seems to be only people who aren't actually skeptics, but ardent naturalists (such as Blackmore), find a way to torture data and construct a theory that appeals to fellow naturalists, but is easily torn down.

    I've read many reports by medical personal, but I've yet to find one that cannot be explained through naturalistic means. Either that, or a person's account is unable to be corroborated and it then boils down to hearsay. That's not very good evidence to believe in something.

    I mean, I don't want to live a lie either, but it just seems so bizarre to me when people stick to their guns in the face of evidence about something that is so incredibly wonderful by its very nature. Just something I've always wanted to ask...

    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can't answer this for certain since I don't know every person's thoughts who believes in NDE's but from my perspective I think many people don't want to believe that once it's over, it's over. They want so badly to believe in an afterlife so they can see their loved ones and not have to worry about fearing death. I can understand this reasoning. It would certainly be comforting to know that I was never going to die. But that's not what the evidence tells us, so I must be content with having just this life to live and make it the best one that I can.

    Hope you'll excuse any slanderous remarks I made (as well as spelling errors, I ain't checking this thing down). Thanks for taking the time to respond.

    I didn't see any slanderous remarks at all. This discussion has been an interesting and fun one.

    Oh - I forgot to mention persons who are blind (some since birth) and are able to see during a NDE.

    Per the above comment, thanks for bringing this argument up. I haven't come across it much so I looked into a little bit. I looked in Blackmore's Dying to Live (pages 128-133) and she argues that she, nor another NDE researcher Kenneth Ring, have found no legit cases of anyone being born blind having an NDE/OBE. Of course, since this is an older book I looked online and lo and behold I found a few claims of this. The only cited case of this type I could really find is one alleged OBE by a Vicki Umipeg. It's cited often in discussions about NDE's and OBE's.

    I'm not convinced of this experience for the following reason. Assuming it is an entirely accurate representation of what this woman claimed to have seen is the fact that she is very vague about everything she claimed to have seen. The only exception to this is the detail given in the above account is about her wedding ring. I am hard pressed to believe that this woman was never given a description of the ring that was given to her by the man she was going to marry. The second her husband put it on her finger I have no doubt she wanted to know what it looked like, and so she described the ring, but we can't know that she actually saw the ring. She described it, yes, but that description likely was told to her at some point in the past. The same thing with all of her other visual depictions of what she claimed to have seen. We have no way of knowing that she actually saw anything other than what she believed light to look like, etc. Now, if she described the doctor or the room without ever being given a hint as to what these objects looked like then we could talk, but from the above account that did not happen.

    I've found Ring's book Mindsight and I plan on getting it to look at these other cases. But so far from what I've read by people who have read the book is that most of these people were not always blind, and so would have a visual map of the world and would already know what things look like, unlike the congenitally blind. Most of the stories, too, seem to have not been corroborated by any eye-witnesses, and the authors only had the person's word. Not very impressive. But I'll see what I think after I read the book myself.

    Before I end my reply I'd like to ask you a question. Do you believe in aliens and/or UFO's?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey AA - Thanks for getting back to me. I also think this has been a good discussion.

    I want to say upfront that I started my research with a book that went over the skeptics responses to the NDE, and explained why they all couldn't quite fit the bill. Most reference Blackmore's book as a combination of these various theories, so I have to admit that I have not read her work, but I should do so. I also think you should read a book or two that support the NDE as authentic - the one mentioned at the top of this thread is a pretty good one. While it's my personal opinion that the NDE is real, I appreciate all the testing and skepticism that revolve around them, as there should be! If there was no skepticism, and subsequent testing, any faith in the afterlife would be obviously misplaced.

    Again, quickly on the NA's. 'What caused God?' is never a good objection to the CA. Furthermore, I felt that all cosmological arguments, (for one), were grouped as all the same. The most egregious error in my opinion was not understanding Aquinas's metaphysical arguments , and grouping them as cosmological arguments of the kind WLC might say. Dawkins also states several times there is no reason to think God would be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, etc, much less the God of the Judeo-Christian storyline. While that last tidbit is true, most of the traits follow for God's existence with the acceptance of Aristotelian metaphysics, which in my opinion was a mistake to abandon. One can obviously deny these metaphysical principles, but to suggest these traits are arbitrary is a mistake in my opinion.

    @Before I end my reply I'd like to ask you a question. Do you believe in aliens and/or UFO's?

    Haha. By this question, I assume you're implying something along the lines that there are many people who say they witness UFO's/aliens, and if I don't believe their stories, I shouldn't believe the NDE. If this isn't what you're implying I apologize. If you're implying I'm stupid - i'll consider it par for the course. To be honest, though, I have done no research at all on UFO's/Aliens/Extra-terrestrial life, etc. I could speculate a reply to what I think you're replying, but I'll let you develop your point in the next post.

    But that's not what the evidence tells us, so I must be content with having just this life to live and make it the best one that I can.

    I fully agree that we should do everything we can to make this life the best we can, but I can't see how one can say there is not evidence that tells us otherwise. There is obviously evidence. There are the millions of people having a NDE who say there is life after death, there is deathbed visions, and there is evidence for reincarnation. I fully agree - we should be skeptical, but to say the evidence tells us life doesn't exist after just seems silly, considering there's so much.

    I've read many reports by medical personal, but I've yet to find one that cannot be explained through naturalistic means. Either that, or a person's account is unable to be corroborated and it then boils down to hearsay. That's not very good evidence to believe in something.

    One thing I can say with certainty is that Blackmore commented in her book that verdical NDE's were few and far between, and rarely, if never verified. Since that, researches have made many more attempts to corroborate the experience, and usually more of these experiences are contained in newer books. (Actually, there are experiences like this everywhere, but not to the extent that they have been corroborated recently). There is a book that I wanted to get that has 20 some of the best verdical NDE cases, but I can't seem to find it. I wanted to read it, and if you did we could potentially discuss what our thoughts were. But alas...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the cultural differences between NDE's is a huge stumbling block to the reality of NDE's for the reason I previously mentioned. Let me try to be more clear with an analogy. Let's say three people claim to have visited my house. Except they each don't agree about what my house looks like, even though they are 100% certain they visited my home. That would cast a lot of doubt on whether or not these three people even visited my home in the first place, and maybe dreamed the entire trip. Similarly, if heaven is a real place for the sake of argument and people are said to have seen it wouldn't heaven look the same? And wouldn't the god be the same god regardless of someone's personal beliefs about god? This discrepancy is a huge one.

    First off, I think you're greatly exaggerating the differences, and downplaying the similarities. Like I said before, accounts are incredibly similar across North America, Europe and China, with India being the major exception (from what I've seen). From what I've seen, Indian NDE's typically involve a 'man in a chair' that tells them there has been a 'clerical mistake' and they must go back. Again - I fully admit this is odd, but I think the evidence of similarity is much more impressive. There are many cases of children, some as early as six months old, who have had them, experiencing similar things to adults. It is argued these children are too young to have religious training.

    Regarding your house scenario - I also admit there are differences. Again, they are not as striking as you seem to be making them, but I don't think the evidence supports saying that these people are imagining this situation.

    I think the cultural differences between NDE's is a huge stumbling block to the reality of NDE's for the reason I previously mentioned. Let me try to be more clear with an analogy. Let's say three people claim to have visited my house. Except they each don't agree about what my house looks like, even though they are 100% certain they visited my home. That would cast a lot of doubt on whether or not these three people even visited my home in the first place, and maybe dreamed the entire trip. Similarly, if heaven is a real place for the sake of argument and people are said to have seen it wouldn't heaven look the same? And wouldn't the god be the same god regardless of someone's personal beliefs about god? This discrepancy is a huge one.

    A couple thoughts that I have on this. If we are assuming the NDE is a cultural experience, influenced by psychological factors, it would seem as if the account of the NDE would match what the Bible tells us heaven is like. But in my opinion religion is notably quiet because it differs. Nowhere in the Bible (that I know of) does it talk about a life review, or a tunnel, or an 'OBE' in the literal sense, or that we'll be ushered to another realm by the deceased. Heaven is typically described as a city of gold in Revelation - which is not how it is described by NDE'ers. I think if the NDE was strictly a cultural thing, we would expect it to conform to our preconceived notions based on some standard, but they don't seem to do this. One could argue that the standard is set by the NDE itself, but persons who don't know about NDE's experience the same symptoms. Non-believers would be believing that death is the end, but they seem to have them all the same. Also, think of the children!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'll continue this soon - I want to get to the rest of your points.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi there again Pat.

    I want to say upfront that I started my research with a book that went over the skeptics responses to the NDE

    I'm curious, which book did you read?

    Again, quickly on the NA's. 'What caused God?' is never a good objection to the CA. Furthermore, I felt that all cosmological arguments, (for one), were grouped as all the same. The most egregious error in my opinion was not understanding Aquinas's metaphysical arguments , and grouping them as cosmological arguments of the kind WLC might say. Dawkins also states several times there is no reason to think God would be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, etc, much less the God of the Judeo-Christian storyline. While that last tidbit is true, most of the traits follow for God's existence with the acceptance of Aristotelian metaphysics, which in my opinion was a mistake to abandon. One can obviously deny these metaphysical principles, but to suggest these traits are arbitrary is a mistake in my opinion.

    Aquinas' arguments are first cause arguments, though. Craig might use more “scientific” language to try to convince his audiences with this already bad argument, but each of Aquinas' arguments are essentially trying to posit god at a first and necessary cause, which is illogical. If everything needs a cause, as even Aquinas himself says (“nothing can cause itself to be” - A Shorter Summa, Kreeft, 55). Given his very own argument everything needs a cause for its existence, but miraculously, god does not. This is contradictory and hypocritical.

    How do Aristotelian metaphysics support those attributes of god?

    Haha. By this question, I assume you're implying something along the lines that there are many people who say they witness UFO's/aliens, and if I don't believe their stories, I shouldn't believe the NDE.

    Actually, you're exactly right. Given the facts that 1) Those that experience NDE's often have a series of events that they experience, just as alien abduction stories have a lot of similarities to them; and 2) Many very sincere people have these experiences.

    How is it that in the case of NDE's you accept these peoples' testimonies (personal testimony has been shown to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence after all; just look at numerous court cases) but you're likely skeptical of the alien abduction stories? They're both based on the exact same form of bad evidence.

    There is obviously evidence. There are the millions of people having a NDE who say there is life after death, there is deathbed visions, and there is evidence for reincarnation. I fully agree - we should be skeptical, but to say the evidence tells us life doesn't exist after just seems silly, considering there's so much.

    See my previous reply.

    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think you're greatly exaggerating the differences, and downplaying the similarities.

    I wouldn't say so. Even in ancient cultures there are stories about people having these experiences and many are not very similar. Some examples: Not every NDE includes visions of tunnels. One man told of his NDE experience where four messengers at him next to Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead, and apparently there was a mix up and the messengers brought the wrong man, so he was sent back to his body. (Dying to Live, 18). Other visions include a hen with chicks, and a fight with a huge monster. (Ibid., 19). Others experience frightening scenes, such as a person walking on a bridge over a huge fire pit (Ibid. 14-15). So, while I agree there are many common experiences, there are a lot of cultural, and personal differences too. Not that this cannot be explained. To quote Blackmore, “[W]e all have similar brains that die in similar ways.”

    I don't think the evidence supports saying that these people are imagining this situation.

    I don't doubt these people are having these experiences and seeing these things. The question is, is it real and I don't think so. Something that I think that a lot of people who accept these experiences as real are forgetting is the fact that these same experiences occur in people who are nowhere near death, as in the centrifuge training of pilots. If these people really are seeing heaven and whatnot, what are completely healthy people doing seeing the exact same thing, who are nowhere near death? Other than the differences between cultures (ie. Hindu's seeing the Hindu gods and Christians seeing Jesus, when they have an NDE), the fact that healthy people have the same experiences is another huge blow to the argument that these people are actually going somewhere or seeing heaven. These are things the supernatural hypothesis for NDE's cannot explain.

    I look forward to your further comments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Aquinas' arguments are first cause arguments, though. Craig might use more “scientific” language to try to convince his audiences with this already bad argument, but each of Aquinas' arguments are essentially trying to posit god at a first and necessary cause, which is illogical. If everything needs a cause, as even Aquinas himself says (“nothing can cause itself to be” - A Shorter Summa, Kreeft, 55). Given his very own argument everything needs a cause for its existence, but miraculously, god does not. This is contradictory and hypocritical.
    Just to clear things up, because it sounds a little vague. Aquinas’s arguments entail God as a necessary and first cause of the universe even if we assume the universe had no beginning. Therefore, they are based on metaphysical principles, namely, the fact that change occurs in the universe all around us. He uses these metaphysics to deduce his Uncaused Cause, and Prime Mover – but in no way does it postulate God as a ‘first and necessary cause’ as in the cause of an accidental series of events, but rather the first and necessary cause of an essentially ordered sequence. Obviously, one is free to disagree with his premises, which is where…
    How do Aristotelian metaphysics support those attributes of god?
    Aquinas uses Aristotelian ideas of formal and final causes, and well as the more standard efficient and material causes. Formal causes are evident with the concept of universals, final causes are most evident with the existence of teleology. It is from these four essential causes that Aquinas forms his arguments, which is why they’re important.
    I wouldn't say so. Even in ancient cultures there are stories about people having these experiences and many are not very similar. Some examples: Not every NDE includes visions of tunnels. One man told of his NDE experience where four messengers at him next to Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead, and apparently there was a mix up and the messengers brought the wrong man, so he was sent back to his body. (Dying to Live, 18). Other visions include a hen with chicks, and a fight with a huge monster. (Ibid., 19). Others experience frightening scenes, such as a person walking on a bridge over a huge fire pit (Ibid. 14-15). So, while I agree there are many common experiences, there are a lot of cultural, and personal differences too. Not that this cannot be explained. To quote Blackmore, “[W]e all have similar brains that die in similar ways.”

    ReplyDelete
  18. Obviously, I fully recognize that there will be people who see other things – such cases are only natural. However, you didn’t respond to the point I made about claiming these instances are a cultural phenomenon. Say we take, what the majority of persons claim. Typically there are eleven common elements with the NDE, with some having only one or two, others five or six, and others are ‘full-blown” (The Light Beyond, 7). To say these entirely depend on culture would be to assume that, if the cause is psychological, upon death the brain recreates one’s cultures notions of death. But what notions of death does our culture have? Here you said:

    (1) I think the cultural differences between NDE's is a huge stumbling block to the reality of NDE's for the reason I previously mentioned. Let me try to be more clear with an analogy. Let's say three people claim to have visited my house. Except they each don't agree about what my house looks like, even though they are 100% certain they visited my home. That would cast a lot of doubt on whether or not these three people even visited my home in the first place, and maybe dreamed the entire trip. Similarly, if heaven is a real place for the sake of argument and people are said to have seen it wouldn't heaven look the same? And wouldn't the god be the same god regardless of someone's personal beliefs about god? This discrepancy is a huge one.

    (2) If these people actually went some place why did they see their interpretation of god? If there truly is a place called heaven and there is a god then this reality will be the same regardless of a person's personal beliefs.

    This is to assume that, especially in the latter example, that persons are recreating death based on their cultures religion. But this just isn’t the case. As I’ve mentioned earlier – the life review, the OBE of viewing one’s body, the tunnel, and even the depiction of heaven are nothing like what is mentioned on the Bible. So if we are to say that Christianity is the dominant religion in the West, and these experiences coincide with our cultures depiction, then they should match what the Bible says.

    I’ve also said it’s inadequate to say that the NDE is its own standard, because it’s well known that people who haven’t heard of the NDE before are just as likely to have the same symptoms – thus it does not depend on knowledge of the NDE. It seems obvious from this that the NDE cannot be a psychological phenomenon, but must rather be a physiological one if it is to debunked.

    Something that I think that a lot of people who accept these experiences as real are forgetting is the fact that these same experiences occur in people who are nowhere near death, as in the centrifuge training of pilots.

    But isn’t this the exact theory that is being examined?

    You seem to be saying ‘Do we need to be near-death for a NDE to occur?’ Which the answer seems obvious – no. But how does this at all go against the afterlife hypothesis? If there is a spirit that coincides within the body, then we should expect separation in extreme circumstances, even if they are not near-death. The fact that these people experience them, yet do not experience the same physiological conditions that someone dying of say, a heart attack, experiences, is evidence that validates the NDE, not goes against it. Yet somehow, like Blackmore, you arrive at:

    These are things the supernatural hypothesis for NDE's cannot explain.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But this is just obviously false for the reasons above. Like others, such as Greg Stone, point out, evidence that would not harm the afterlife theory in any way is taken as a negative factor. This type of rationale goes against a physiological explanation. I only have The Light Beyond with me, so I can’t mount much of an attack on individual physiological explanations, but other than above:

    - The tunnel – many people experience a tunnel, some experience a stairway upwards, some an ornate door, others floating across a dark plain. If a physiological reason were behind the ‘tunnel’ experience, shouldn’t these be common? Instead, it seems that one has a common aspect of ‘transfer into another realm,’ instead of a completely common cause, located in the brain.

    - The hallucination in question must be so incredibly real that nearly all NDEers are convinced what they saw was real.

    - Typically, ‘heightened senses’ are reported, which is difficult to see how this is possible when brain activity is either lessened or completely diminished.

    - Finally, and I say this as a plea – you should really watch a bunch of videos, read about some experiences. The more you read, the more it seems obvious this experience is not a physiological hallucination.

    In the case of alien abductions, like you mentioned earlier, the most reasonable cause would be a psychological cause, and from a brief search:

    Alleged abductees are seen by many pro-abduction researchers to have a higher incidence of non-abduction related paranormal events and abilities.[6] Following an abduction experience, these paranormal abilities and occurrences sometimes seem to become more pronounced.[6] According to investigator Benton Jamison, abduction experiencers who report UFO sightings that should have been, but are not, reported by independent corroborating witnesses often seem to "be 'psychic personalities' in the sense of Jan Ehrenwald."[6]

    But we typically find no correlation between being paranormally prone and having a NDE. Nor, from the statistics I’ve seen, is the scale of these incidents, nor the similarities of the reports, anything close to the NDE. Now, if millions of people all claim to have seen anywhere from two to eleven similar aspects of a given UFO, and these people are seemingly independent of one another, as well as cases that are corroborated by other witnesses, then I would say the two instances you are referring to would be a good relation, and there probably would be something to seeing a UFO.

    Again, you also never address some other points I’m making, most likely because you’ve only seem to have read Blackmore’s book, namely:

    - Many of those in the field of the NDE, who believe in its authenticity, started out as actual skeptics, not ardent materialists like Blackmore herself admits prior to her account. Many books about the topic are written by these people. It seems like maybe we should trust the experts.

    - There are many cases that are corroborated by medical personnel and researches on the matter of people witnessing things otherwise inaccessible to their body. Again, Blackmore says she didn’t have this evidence, which has changed since then, as I’ve said before.

    - There are even more cases corroborated by just researches where people witness remote events.

    - There are even more cases where the NDE’er’s case is not corroborated, but witnesses conversations taking place remote from the body, which their family later recognizes, and this story is later told.

    - Incidents of ‘foresight’ where the future is revealed to patients.

    - Evidence for reincarnation

    - Evidence for death bed visions

    - And finally, nearly all persons have their life significantly altered, don’t fear death, and believe their experience to be real.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Again, I don’t feel the explanatory scope on any of these other explanations fits with the evidence that, namely, the afterlife exists. Also, the fact that there are many physiological theories on how these experiences occur show that no one theory adequetly fits the evidence, and all have their obvious flaws, like is pointed out in the book on the top of the thread, Science and the Near-Death Experience (which in answer to your question is one of the first books I looked at). It’s been a really good discussion so far – but as I’ve been saying, I’d appreciate if you'd give the possibility of the afterlife a chance, checking out the experiences/watch the videos/read some other books on the matter that can elaborate more fully on the points I’ve tried to touch on above.

    I too look forward to your further comments.

    (Sorry about my formatting on post one!)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Pat,

    Thanks for the information about the metaphysical principles. I'm not convinced by them, but I appreciate the info.

    This is to assume that, especially in the latter example, that persons are recreating death based on their cultures religion. But this just isn’t the case. As I’ve mentioned earlier – the life review, the OBE of viewing one’s body, the tunnel, and even the depiction of heaven are nothing like what is mentioned on the Bible. So if we are to say that Christianity is the dominant religion in the West, and these experiences coincide with our cultures depiction, then they should match what the Bible says.

    Rather than any kind of evidence for a supernatural explanation for NDE's your argument actually helps to prove my point. There is very little about these experiences that can be directly tied to the religious beliefs of various cultures, with the exception of people from various cultures seeing their own cultures' deity, as I mentioned before. Again, these discrepancies are best explained by natural processes about the dying brain.

    I’ve also said it’s inadequate to say that the NDE is its own standard, because it’s well known that people who haven’t heard of the NDE before are just as likely to have the same symptoms – thus it does not depend on knowledge of the NDE. It seems obvious from this that the NDE cannot be a psychological phenomenon, but must rather be a physiological one if it is to debunked.

    True. To a point. Psychology clearly plays a role since each persons' personal belief in their cultures' deity is often seen in these visions, so it can't be a purely physiological phenomenon. It appears both play a factor.

    You seem to be saying ‘Do we need to be near-death for a NDE to occur?’ Which the answer seems obvious – no. But how does this at all go against the afterlife hypothesis? If there is a spirit that coincides within the body, then we should expect separation in extreme circumstances, even if they are not near-death. The fact that these people experience them, yet do not experience the same physiological conditions that someone dying of say, a heart attack, experiences, is evidence that validates the NDE, not goes against it. Yet somehow, like Blackmore, you arrive at:

    These are things the supernatural hypothesis for NDE's cannot explain.


    Interesting hypothesis. I hadn't considered a “traumatic” event causing any kind of separation of some soul, or some such thing, but this still begs the question. Is there anything non-physical to 'detach' from the physical body in the first place? There has been no evidence of this. To argue that NDE's and OBE's are the proof is begging the question.

    But this is just obviously false for the reasons above. Like others, such as Greg Stone, point out, evidence that would not harm the afterlife theory in any way is taken as a negative factor. This type of rationale goes against a physiological explanation.

    Not true for the reason I explained. There isn't any evidence of anything immaterial about our bodies, and using NDE's and OBE's as “evidence” is just begging the question.

    I only have The Light Beyond with me, so I can’t mount much of an attack on individual physiological explanations, but other than above:

    - The tunnel – many people experience a tunnel, some experience a stairway upwards, some an ornate door, others floating across a dark plain. If a physiological reason were behind the ‘tunnel’ experience, shouldn’t these be common? Instead, it seems that one has a common aspect of ‘transfer into another realm,’ instead of a completely common cause, located in the brain.


    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There are several possibilities for these visions and it's unclear exactly why people view many of the things they do (be it a door, bridge, etc.), but the tunnel is one of the most commonly reported experiences. Until we fully have all the answers about what's happening I think answering these questions (beyond giving speculation) is not possible. And just because someone imagines they are somewhere else doesn't mean they are. See my explanation below. Finally, just because some experiences cannot be entirely explained by either a physiological or psychological cause does not rule out a natural explanation. These experiences seem to have both a physiological and psychological cause. We just have to figure out what process is causing which experience.

    - The hallucination in question must be so incredibly real that nearly all NDEers are convinced what they saw was real.

    This isn't a valid argument for the reality of NDE's since a person's perception doesn't mean something actually was taking place. If this were the case I could say that I actually had an argument with my mother the other night, but it was just a dream, regardless of how real it felt. Regardless, there have been experiments where volunteers have been given “various mixtures of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Some of these people saw bright lights, had out-of-body experiences and relived past memories. Some faced terror and some ecstasy, some cosmic understanding and universal love. One described everything as 'so real and simple' and another reported 'complete understanding and harmony with God.' One called it 'a wonderful feeling, as if I was out in space.'” (Dying to Live: Near-Death Experiences, 54) These experiences obviously were not real, but people believed they were real.

    - Typically, ‘heightened senses’ are reported, which is difficult to see how this is possible when brain activity is either lessened or completely diminished.

    Examples?

    - Finally, and I say this as a plea – you should really watch a bunch of videos, read about some experiences. The more you read, the more it seems obvious this experience is not a physiological hallucination.

    I've read several books about this phenomena and there has yet to be a case that was completely convincing. In addition to all of the unimpressive examples of NDE's and OBE's one critical component must also be proven before this phenomenon can even conceivably be real. The existence of the supernatural must be proven. It must be shown that materialism is false, and that there is something immaterial about us.

    Alleged abductees are seen by many pro-abduction researchers to have a higher incidence of non-abduction related paranormal events and abilities.[6] Following an abduction experience, these paranormal abilities and occurrences sometimes seem to become more pronounced.[6] According to investigator Benton Jamison, abduction experiencers who report UFO sightings that should have been, but are not, reported by independent corroborating witnesses often seem to "be 'psychic personalities' in the sense of Jan Ehrenwald."[6]

    But we typically find no correlation between being paranormally prone and having a NDE. Nor, from the statistics I’ve seen, is the scale of these incidents, nor the similarities of the reports, anything close to the NDE. Now, if millions of people all claim to have seen anywhere from two to eleven similar aspects of a given UFO, and these people are seemingly independent of one another, as well as cases that are corroborated by other witnesses, then I would say the two instances you are referring to would be a good relation, and there probably would be something to seeing a UFO.


    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm sorry but you seemed to have missed my point. Both experiences (NDE's/OBDE's and alien abductions) contain many unconfirmed stories and are by people who both truly believe they experienced something. You've failed to explain why the UFO experience is less real than the OBE/NDE experience even when both have essentially the same form of evidence for them.

    So, it appears that you're suffering from cognitive dissonance since you accept one set of experiences but reject the others, even though they are based upon the same from of evidence: human testimony and often unconfirmed, or exaggerated stories.

    Again, you also never address some other points I’m making, most likely because you’ve only seem to have read Blackmore’s book, namely:

    - Many of those in the field of the NDE, who believe in its authenticity, started out as actual skeptics, not ardent materialists like Blackmore herself admits prior to her account. Many books about the topic are written by these people. It seems like maybe we should trust the experts.

    - There are many cases that are corroborated by medical personnel and researches on the matter of people witnessing things otherwise inaccessible to their body. Again, Blackmore says she didn’t have this evidence, which has changed since then, as I’ve said before.

    - There are even more cases corroborated by just researches where people witness remote events.

    - There are even more cases where the NDE’er’s case is not corroborated, but witnesses conversations taking place remote from the body, which their family later recognizes, and this story is later told.

    - Incidents of ‘foresight’ where the future is revealed to patients.

    - Evidence for reincarnation

    - Evidence for death bed visions

    - And finally, nearly all persons have their life significantly altered, don’t fear death, and believe their experience to be real.


    I actually don't recall you making nearly any of these arguments prior, so it would be hard for me to respond to something you haven’t said yet. But, again, each of these reasons for belief are based on faulty premises. Either they are based on personal testimony, which has proven to be unreliable, and second-hand accounts, which are commonly error-ridden. And the first one is simply an argument from authority. None of these reasons are compelling in the least, and most of them have been debunked, or are found to be unconfirmed stories, such as your fourth example.

    Cont.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Again, I don’t feel the explanatory scope on any of these other explanations fits with the evidence that, namely, the afterlife exists. Also, the fact that there are many physiological theories on how these experiences occur show that no one theory adequetly fits the evidence, and all have their obvious flaws, like is pointed out in the book on the top of the thread, Science and the Near-Death Experience (which in answer to your question is one of the first books I looked at). It’s been a really good discussion so far – but as I’ve been saying, I’d appreciate if you'd give the possibility of the afterlife a chance, checking out the experiences/watch the videos/read some other books on the matter that can elaborate more fully on the points I’ve tried to touch on above.

    There actually are natural explanations for each of these things. In many cases, when an independent researcher looks into the “I heard someone say something in another room” type of stories, the reports do not match. One such story pops into my head and is a common OBE story, but the story turns out to be highly embellished, despite the claims of believers. It's the story about a woman named Maria who claimed to see a shoe on a ledge during an OBE. (Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences).

    I have actually given the afterlife a chance. I used to be a big time believer in not only the afterlife, but aliens and UFO's. I used to think there was a government conspiracy and Men in Black threatened people who looked to uncover the government alliance with aliens and things like this. I was not born skeptical by any means. When I was a child I was even superstitious and believed that crossing a black cat or going under a ladder meant bad luck. I used to watch these shows about cattle mutilations or crop circles and believe the explanations of the believers who felt aliens caused these things. It was after looking into all of these beliefs and looking at the evidence objectively that I came to reject them. I've even watched some of the same kinds of shows over the years since becoming a skeptic and I recall watching one about cattle mutilations and these guests' beliefs that aliens had to have been responsible. In their minds it was the best explanation. However, while watching the show I critiqued everything they said, and their reasons for believing this were entirely illogical.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for considering to leave a comment. I highly value both positive and negative feedback but please abide by my comment policy at all times. If this is not done your comment may end up getting deleted. If you wish to leave a comment I usually respond to all of them, so if you'd like to begin a discussion please check back to see if I've responded.

If you'd like to subscribe to the comments you can find the links to do so along the right side of my blog.

Thanks.