Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language (13 page)

“This
and other bestseller books have largely omitted discussion of any physiological
basis for these experiences, and instead appear to prefer paranormal
explanations over and above scientific enlightenment.”

Having
immersed myself for some time in the scholarly NDE literature, I think the
statement could be reworded to reflect my thoughts on the Mobbs and Watt
article:

“This
article omits any significant discussion of the large body of scientific
literature on near-death experiences, and instead appears to prefer highly
speculative and often disproven naturalistic explanations over and above
scientific enlightenment.”
(20)

Appendix
#3

Interviewing Circles of Trust
Tips
and Observations from My Original Research

I
shared the results of my original research in the body and endnotes. But
perhaps my most important takeaway was that fellow skeptics can often get
closer to the evidence by conducting their own interviews. NDE accounts lurk everywhere
– in our neighborhoods, at work, within our circles of trusted friends and
relatives. Anyone who’s gained the trust of a significant group of people
should be able to study many reports first-hand. Below, under Strategy #1, I
give suggestions for conducting such personal interviews.

Strategy
#2 is useful for filling in details that we don’t find in other research. Since
thousands of people have contributed their NDEs to Dr. Long’s site, we can
tabulate, for example, what percentage of NDErs report colors in their tunnels.

Strategy
#3 is valuable for exploring death-bed visions and shared death experiences,
since hospice workers deal with the dying and their families on a daily
basis.      

Strategy
#1: Interviewing Circles of Trust

As
we will discuss in Appendix #4, personal testimonies differ in their evidential
value according to several factors, one being our degree of trust. Revisiting
our imaginary investigation of Shangri-La, we should be more inclined to
believe reports of a faraway land from trusted relatives and friends than the
reports of strangers.

No
wonder Dr. Sabom remarked, upon first hearing about Moody’s interviews, “I
don’t believe it.” After all, Sabom didn’t know Moody personally. Neither did
he know the NDErs Moody interviewed. Besides, none of Sabom’s patients had ever
told him of such an astounding experience. But when Sabom took the challenge to
interview his own patients, he was shocked to find that many had experienced
NDEs. Personally interviewing his own patients over a period of time made a
believer out of him.

But
why should I trust Sabom? Granted, he worked with a team of professionals in
respected hospitals and published in peer-reviewed journals; so there’s some
accountability there. Further, I can be reasonably sure that he didn’t cherry
pick the experiences that fit Moody’s descriptions. After all, he denied doing
this, and if he did cherry pick, his medical peers could always try to
replicate his findings. It’s risky to fudge research in peer-reviewed journals,
especially if you teach at a well-respected institution such as Emory Medical
School.

But
still, I don’t know Sabom or his patients personally. The evidential value of
testimonies increases to the degree that I trust the testifier. Thus, it seems
to me that the problem of remoteness can be solved by interviewing our own set
of trusted NDErs. Here’s how I went about finding them, and how others with
trusting relationships can do the same.

Finding
NDErs You Can Trust

First
,
tell your friends and relatives (those with sound minds and trustworthy
character) that you’re studying paranormal experiences and are looking for
trustworthy accounts. Ask if they’ve had any experiences such as visions or
hearing from God or knowing about a friend’s death before you got official word
or leaving their bodies during a medical crisis. Casting a wide net for any
paranormal experience guards you from cherry picking only experiences that
conform to Moody’s elements.

Second
,
ask if they know friends or relatives (their trusted circles) who’ve had such
experiences.

Most
of the people I asked either had such an experience or knew of one experienced
by someone they trusted.

Conducting
Interviews

Interview
the people personally, explaining to them up front that you won’t publish their
names. This makes them more likely to open up about an experience they may be reluctant
to share. Also, it keeps attention-seekers from making stuff up in order to get
famous.

First,
let them share the experience in full without interrupting, since you don’t
want to influence the story in any way. After they finish this initial telling,
there’s probably much more to be harvested. As we’ve seen, people typically
have vivid memories of their NDEs and can reflect back to fill in interesting
details.

Here
are some follow-up questions:  

·
        
Were
your alertness and consciousness about normal, less than normal, or better than
normal? Can you describe it?

·
        
Were
your vision and hearing worse than normal, better than normal, or about normal?
Can you describe it?

·
        
Describe
your emotions during the experience.   

·
        
Did
you experience a tunnel or light?   

·
        
Did
time speed up or slow down?   

·
        
Did
it cut off in the middle of something, or have closure?   

·
        
Is
your memory of the event normal or better than your normal memory?

·
        
Did
it change your life in any way?   

·
        
Have
you had other similar experiences?

·
        
Do
you believe it was real, or just a vivid dream?

Conclusions

1.
My personal interviews verified that the experiences reported by researchers
have the same elements as those reported in my circles of trust.

2.
Personal interviews can be compelling.
Attention to facial
expressions and inflections of voice underscore their authenticity. The ones I
interviewed truly believe they’ve visited the other side.

3. The
experience is indeed widespread.
Most of my friends and
relatives either had such an experience or knew someone they trusted who’d had
one. I easily found a dozen NDEs and deathbed visions by asking about 15 of my
friends and relatives. Since I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances that
trust me, this approach may be more fruitful approach for me than a person who
has few close relationships.

4.
More than one person that I interviewed shared corroborating evidence
,
such as Bucky’s shared NDE in the middle of the night, at the precise time that
his father died hundreds of miles away. This report requires trust on the part
of you the reader, since you probably don’t know me or my relatives or me personally;
but for me, knowing Bucky and others who can corroborate the timing, this
provides unique evidence that NDEs are truly brushes with a reality outside our
brains. This underscores the evidential value of interviewing within your
circles of trust. 

Strategy
#2: Utilizing Dr. Long’s
NDERF
Site

Thousands
of NDErs share their experiences on this site. I discussed earlier the
strengths and weaknesses of this approach, but it does give anyone free access
to a large number of complete reports to use for research.

First,
I wanted to examine NDEs to see if they consistently exhibit closure rather
than being cut off abruptly. To study this, I started with the most recent
report and worked my way consecutively backwards (to avoid cherry picking
reports that supported my hypothesis) through 50 reports. [Case #3089 (7/21/12)
through Case #3139 (9/9/12). I threw out one report, although it wasn’t
inconsistent with my hypothesis, because it mentioned the title of a book she’d
written. This gave her an ulterior motive for possible embellishment. Otherwise,
since the reports don’t include full names, attention seekers would find little
satisfaction in writing fictional experiences and answering the long list of
questions.]

The
results:

·
        
I
found no NDEs reporting abrupt endings.

·
        
Twenty-seven
ended
with definite closure, typically either following a discussion about their need
to return, or the people somehow knew that they should return instead of
passing a barrier.   

·
        
Twenty-three
simply returned at the end of the experience. Nothing was interrupted, but
neither was there a decision to return.

Second,
I wanted to see if a pattern held for both western and nonwestern NDEs. To
accomplish this, I consulted the summaries of over 3,000 NDEs and copied each
NDE in its entirety if it came from nonwestern culture and wasn’t strongly
influenced by Christianity. I found 56 of them from 12 different countries. I
collected them in a file and studied them, concluding that the pattern did indeed
hold, as I discussed more thoroughly in Appendix #1.

Third,
I wanted to see if reports cited by Keith Augustine of mythological creatures
and people who were still alive on earth represented a significant percentage.
I
found no such reports in the 100+ cases (50 global and 56 nonwestern) I
examined. Thus, I attribute such reports to such possibilities as a)
hallucinations that mimic certain characteristics of NDEs b) hallucinations
that become confused with NDEs through subjects coming in and out of consciousness
multiple times c) errors or fabrications in reporting or d) delusional
individuals.

Strategy
#3: Interview Long-Term Hospice Nurses

After
reading Moody’s book on shared NDEs and finding one in my own circle of trust,
I wanted to see if I could find more shared death experiences, since they offer
enhanced evidence by including multiple eye-witnesses. I haven’t completed this
survey but will update the manuscript after conducting and compiling it.

Appendix #4
But is the Evidence Scientific?

Moody’s NDE studies convinced him that NDErs leave their bodies
and experience life in another dimension. Thus, I’m puzzled when he
occasionally deprecates the scientific nature of the evidence:

“There is one problem with
NDEs: As it now stands, they are just anecdotal evidence. It has not been
possible to scientifically duplicate them or study them on a closer level than
what we could call ‘word of mouth.’ Until the NDE phenomenon can be duplicated,
science can’t accept these stories as proof of anything but the existence of
something that happens to people who almost die.”
(1)

Typically, the scientists doing original NDE research have been
extremely cautious and tentative in their conclusions – wisely seeking to keep
discussions on a scientific, rather than hysterical, level. Thus, rather than
conclude in a professional journal article, “Obviously, the mind can therefore
exist apart from the brain!” they’ll instead conclude, more humbly, “These
findings seem to have implications for discussions of mind/body issues.” Moody
has been especially humble in this regard.
(2)  
Yet, for those seeking evidence of the existence of God and heaven, it’s
critical to clarify the type and quality of the evidence that NDEs offer.
Questions such as the following aren’t often clarified in NDE research:

·
        
In what way is the evidence scientific?

·
        
Is scientific evidence the only legitimate evidence?  

·
        
Can reports from patients serve as evidence, or should they be
dismissed as “mere anecdotes”? 

In part, neglect of these foundational questions may be explained
by the fact that so much of the research is done by physicians. Trained to view
evidence through the specialized lens of medical science, they tend to define
“scientific evidence” in relation to large-scale, double blind clinical trials –
a very specific and limited application of the scientific method. Perhaps
viewing NDEs through the lenses of other branches of science, and through the
lens of legal evidence, could clarify the nature and significance of NDE
evidence. 

1. Must events be repeatable to be scientific?  

Repeatability can
be important in medical science. If Mary takes 1000 mg. of Vitamin C and claims
that it cured her cold, scientists will rightfully insist that, to establish
this claim, the same effect must be replicated in a large group of patients
under controlled conditions.
(3)   
   

Yet, duplication
isn’t possible in many branches of science, such as cosmology. Just try to
repeat “The Big Bang” in your laboratory. Besides being extremely difficult,
most would consider it more than a bit dangerous. Yet, although the Big Bang is
not repeatable, we can gather data (e.g. observing an expanding universe and
noting radiation that appears to have come from the Big Bang) and infer to the
best explanation (also called abduction). And yes, scientists consider this
scientific, even though we can’t repeat the Big Bang.
(4)   

Indulge me an
illustration. I believe strongly that my wife and I were married in a ceremony
in Illinois on June 2, 2001. Admittedly, I have no scientific evidence of this
event, in the narrow definition of “scientific” that requires repeatability. Even
if we were to repeat the ceremony in a laboratory, the repetition would do
nothing to prove that a similar event took place in 2001.

Yet, I believe I
was married because of very strong
historical
evidence. Although photos
can be tampered with and false testimony can be obtained with bribes, 1) I have
a strong memory of the event, and 2) I can corroborate that testimony with my
wife and other trusted attendees. Additionally, 3) my life changed dramatically
as a result of the experience and those changes remain to this day.

Now take away my
wedding pictures and wedding certificate. The remaining evidence that I’m
married is very close to the evidence we have for a
shared
near-death
experience. Several reliable people were there and testify to sharing the
experience (accompanying the person through a tunnel, etc.). Plus, the experiencers
report being transformed over time. In this case, the historical evidence can
be quite compelling.

My point? Repeatability
isn’t a requirement for sufficient proof. While repeatability may not prove
that I’m married, I can assure you, I’m married. If you don’t believe me, ask
my wife.

In another sense,
NDEs are in fact repeatable. Unlike the Big Bang, NDEs keep happening under
predictable circumstances. Thus, past NDE studies can be replicated with a
fresh set of patients to check the findings of earlier studies. While it’s not
practical (not to mention moral) to study NDEs by causing cardiac arrests,
isn’t it sufficiently scientific to study, for example, the 20 percent of
cardiac arrest patients who report NDEs and infer from the resulting data to
the best explanation? After all, in prospective NDE studies, many of the subjects
are on operating tables, being monitored carefully and observed by medical
professionals during their NDEs.

Since naturally
occurring NDEs occur on a regular basis, they’re available for our observation
and study on a prospective basis. In this sense they are indeed repeatable.

4. Is the
evidence purely anecdotal?

Defining
“Anecdotal”

Although people
use the word “anecdotal” many different ways, in this context they typically
mean “evidence that’s deemed substandard because of a reliance on personal
accounts that amount to little more than hearsay.”
(5)  

Some seem to
imply that science, by its very nature, deals with facts and research, as
opposed to personal accounts, as if personal accounts have no place regarding
scientific evidence. That this is a gross overstatement is made clear when we
note that studies of the effects of prescription drugs (such as pain killers)
are often heavily reliant upon patient accounts of what they experienced after
taking the drug.

On Science and
Personal Reports

NDE researchers
explore many facets of the phenomenon, using many scientific approaches, such
as:

·
        
Research
into the present state of scientific knowledge concerning what happens in the
brain during cardiac arrest or anesthesia.

·
        
Screening
of patients for possible psychiatric issues.

·
        
Monitoring
consciousness via blood pressure, EEG, etc.

·
        
Testing
naturalistic hypotheses with blood tests to detect hypercarbia or anoxia.

·
        
Surveying
diverse people groups to test the possible impact of culture and expectations. 

·
        
Asking
standard questions to a set of patients to determine if prior beliefs about the
afterlife, levels of education, etc. might impact the occurrence or content of
an NDE. 

Some of these
approaches indeed involve asking patients to describe their experiences; but if
done according to scientific standards, this is far from hearsay. In fact,
patient reports are one of the primary tools used by doctors to accurately
diagnose illnesses. 

Much of what many
consider scientific evidence can be deemed
less
reliable than
testimonial evidence. Take a specific case in forensic science. You’re
investigating a murder. You find a glove and a hair in the victim’s car. You
run a DNA test on the hair and find that it matches the DNA of the accused. So
did you scientifically
prove
who murdered the victim? No. If two
respectable eye-witnesses (upstanding citizens, no apparent ulterior motives)
testify that they saw the real murderer plant the hair on the glove, the
eye-witness testimony may overturn the evidence from the “more scientific” DNA
test.

So personal
testimony can provide strong evidence – convicting criminals, educating us
about the side effects of drugs, and helping doctors diagnose illnesses. Thus,
when studying NDEs, testimonies of experiencers shouldn’t be dismissed
a
priori
, but rather examined to distinguish weak from strong testimony,
hearsay from persuasive reports.

Moody’s Study

In
Life After
Life
, Moody collected stories from 150 NDErs, delineating and describing
different elements of NDEs that kept turning up (tunnels, meeting deceased
loved ones, encountering a barrier, etc.). Although his study wasn’t, by his
own admission, scientifically rigorous, his background in philosophy and
medicine allowed him to reflect on possible explanations for the phenomenon.
His informal interviews and distinguishing of common elements performed a
valuable service in motivating other scientists to study NDEs in a more
controlled and rigorous way.

Skeptics could
rightly ask of
Life After Life
:

·
        
Since
he didn’t present complete interviews, did he cherry-pick from interviews the
parts that intrigued him and fit snugly into his NDE characteristics?

·
        
Did he
find interviewees by looking for those who had a similar experience to the ones
he wanted to explore, thus not hearing from those who had vastly different
experiences?

·
        
When
people mentioned seeing things while they were unconscious, were these claims
corroborated?

·
        
Were
people interviewed so long after the experience that they’d begun to forget or
embellish?  

In sum, although
Moody performed an invaluable service by exposing millions of people to a
fascinating phenomenon, his casual methods and reporting left many saying, “Not
very scientific. Mostly anecdotal.”

Sabom’s Study

Sabom tended to
disbelieve Moody’s claims and tested them by doing his own prospective study.
The evidential value of the reports he collected was enhanced in several ways.

·
 
He interviewed them as
soon as possible after the event often in the hospital.

·
 
He checked patient records
and personally interviewed patients to rule out psychiatric problems.

·
 
He verified claims of
veridical perception with a control group (Can patients likely guess the
specifics of their resuscitations?), medical records, family, and attending
doctors and nurses.

·
 
He considered possible
ulterior motives for sharing their experiences. Are they a bit too eager to
share? Are they searching for attention?

Van Lommel’s
Study

Van Lommel
conducted his interviews similarly to Sabom, but additionally re-interviewed at
two and eight years to see if their reports changed (through embellishment or
faulty memories). They didn’t. This helped to establish that NDE memories
remain fixed. This finding was replicated in other studies.
(6)

Is it likely that
NDErs are making things up? Many researchers note that NDErs make serious life
changes, differing from control groups that have a cardiac arrest but with no
accompanying NDE.
(7)
Why would their lives change as a result of an
experience that they fabricated?

Furthermore,
researchers found NDErs very reluctant to share their stories for fear of being
considered mentally ill.
(8)
There seems to be little upside and a strong
downside for sharing their stories, especially if researchers are providing no
cash or publicity incentives. 

Jeffrey Long’s
Study

Dr. Jeffrey Long
obtained his interviews anonymously, over his website. This approach takes away
from the evidential value in certain ways:

·
        
When
NDErs claim they had veridical perception, such as seeing events in the
hospital that others can supposedly verify, we must take them at their word,
since I don’t see indications that Dr. Long tried to corroborate these
testimonies.

·
        
Some
might report fabricated NDEs as a joke. 

Yet, anonymous
surveys also have evidential benefits.

·
        
Much
larger groups can be surveyed, which can make for more meaningful statistics. 

·
        
Asking
redundant questions (similarly worded questions with the same meaning) can help
weed out false reports.

·
        
People
who would never report an NDE face to face might report one anonymously on a
site.