Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language (15 page)

Since
we form theories by considering all the data and inferring to the most
reasonable explanation, the afterlife hypothesis seems to fit the data much
better than one that denies the existence of the self and the world.

Which
is the more extravagant hypothesis?

If
inventing other worlds to explain NDEs seems a bit extravagant to Blackmore,
I’d suggest that explaining NDEs by denying our present world, to the point of
denying our own existence, is at least as extravagant. After all, if we deny
our selves and the perceived world, what do we have left to reason about? If
the constructs built by my brain are ultimately flawed and there’s no way to
improve upon my construct, then haven’t we destroyed the scientific method,
since it’s a construct as well? If the world doesn’t exist, what then is left
for science to study?
(22)  
  

Granted,
if her argument holds up, then she truly destroyed the argument that NDEs are
real because they seem so real. Yet in doing so, she destroys any notion that
anything whatsoever is real, destroying the reality of science, us, and the
present world along the way.
(23)   

7.
She fails to adequately explain away the corroborating evidence.
Blackmore
admits that verified veridical perception would disprove her hypothesis.
Concerning the claim that people leave their bodies during NDEs, Blackmore
states, “If these claims are valid then the theory I am developing is wrong….”
(24)
 

I
appreciate that Blackmore devoted an entire chapter to claims of corroboration,
dealing especially with Sabom’s research. In essence, she suggests that Sabom’s
patients, although deemed unconscious, could possibly hear and feel more than
Sabom thought, thus enabling them to construct visuals of their resuscitations.

I’d
argue that a close examination of Sabom’s work would yield Blackmore’s
explanation unlikely; but she suggests that survivalists need to find NDEs
where there’s stronger proof that the patients couldn’t have constructed
visuals from data gathered from other senses. She traced down a few reports of
the congenitally blind reporting seeing during NDEs, but concluded they were
all dead ends. Yet, six years after Blackmore published her book, Ring and
Cooper published their report of the congenitally blind reporting veridical
perception. If these reports hold up to scrutiny, they provide strong evidence
against Blackmore’s hypothesis.
(25)  

10. She
accuses the afterlife hypothesis of making no significant predictions, making
her hypothesis the preferred one due to making actual predictions that could be
tested. 

Yet,
it seems to me that the afterlife hypothesis makes significant predictions,
many of which have proven accurate by 35 years of near-death studies. Here are
some examples:

Prediction
#1
- People born deaf might report hearing, since an out-of-body auditory experience
wouldn’t be dependent upon physical ears.

Prediction
#2
- People born blind might report seeing, since an out of body visual experience
wouldn’t be dependent upon physical eyes.

Prediction
#3
- If people claim to be very much alive outside their bodies while clinically
dead, we’d expect to occasionally find confirmation of events they witnessed
(details of the operating room, etc.)
 

Prediction
#4
- If God were involved in these events, we’d expect the experience to exhibit
some purpose, which should be evidenced by subsequent life changes.
 

Prediction
#5
- We would expect vivid experiences even when the brain is verifiably not
capable of producing consciousness, although the memory of these experiences
might be dependent upon variables such as what drugs the doctors administered.
 

Prediction
#6
- We would expect elements of the event to possibly include relevant,
meaningful (as opposed to random dreamlets with no meaning) subjects such as,
a) whether or not to return, b) how you lived your life, c) whether or not you
need a mid-life tweaking.
 

Prediction
#7
- We would be more likely to encounter people who had died rather than
currently alive. We might even see some people we weren’t aware were deceased.
 

Prediction
#8
- The experience should make sense as a unified whole rather than consisting of
random memories or random hallucinations. It would likely have closure, rather
than an abrupt, mid-sentence ending. 

Prediction
#9
- The experience would likely feel real, since it would indeed be real.

All
of these predictions are borne out by NDE studies.

Appendix #6
Dr. Kevin Nelson’s
Spiritual Doorway in the
Brain

Dr. Nelson
teaches neurology at the University of Kentucky. While the book encompasses
spiritual experience beyond NDEs, they are central to his thesis and at the
forefront of his discussions. Why does the book warrant treatment in an
appendix? 

·
        
It’s
a recent book (2011), which has received coverage in the popular press.

·
        
It’s
one of few book-length attempts to explain NDEs naturalistically. 

·
        
He
claims to offer fresh insights from his specialty of neurological science.  

·
        
From
beginning to end, Nelson takes bold, brash, patronizing shots at other
researchers: 

“I watched with wry amusement and professional concern as cardiologists, radiologists,
and cancer specialists speculated wildly about brain activity during near-death
experiences. I was dismayed when their misuse of science led to what I knew
were misunderstandings and myths: people returning from brain death
miraculously intact, or near-death experiences that
proved
God exists
and we are all headed for an afterlife.”
(1)  

“Under the guise of science, researchers
have claimed that near-death and out-of-body experiences ‘prove’ that mind
exists separate from the physical brain. Such a claim is the most extraordinary
in all of science, surpassing even the dramatic assertion that other
intelligent life exists in the Milky Way, our galaxy.”
(2)

Strengths

·
        
Nelson
writes with clear and lively prose, making relevant neurology accessible to the
rest of us. I loved his descriptions of the marvelous workings of the brain.
 

·
        
I
appreciated his humility to admit that we’re far from a complete understanding
of how the brain works.  

“…neurologists
inhabit domains isolated by their insights into the anatomy, chemistry, and
physiology of an organ whose depths may be as unfathomable as the astronomer’s
void above.”
(3)  

·
        
Nelson
brought relevant research to bear on spiritual experiences that’s not typically
considered in NDE discussions, such as insights by respected intellectual
William James, author of
The
Varieties of Religious Experience
.

·
        
Nelson
defends his own unique hypothesis that NDEs occur when “part of the dreaming
brain erupts in a brain already awake. And blending REM with waking consciousness
creates experiences that are realistic and memorable.”
(4)  

Weaknesses

Caught
in a Paradigm?

Nelson
appears to have begun his study with his naturalistic conclusion pretty well
set. As a neurological intern, he encountered his first NDE in one of his
patients: 

“I
knew that the brain that fuses Monet’s strokes of color to perceive a water
lily was also responsible for the hyper-realistic image Joe saw when he was
close to death.”
(5)  

So,
how did Nelson
know
this so assuredly before even studying NDEs? He
seemed to never seriously consider that the patient might have experienced
something outside his body. Rather than purposing to objectively weigh the
evidence for the out-of-body experience, he purposes to deconstruct the natural
brain processes that he assumes are responsible for the experience.
(6)  

While
researchers such as Moody, Sabom, and van Lommel also began their studies with
a naturalistic bias, their exposure to NDEs caused them to question that
paradigm. The tone and content of Nelson’s book indicate that he never
seriously considered that the experiences might have been true encounters with
God and heaven. 

Now
it may sound fanciful for me to consider that a trained neurologist’s
scientific objectivity could be swayed by his own paradigm. But Thomas Kuhn’s
influential
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
revealed a strong
tendency among scientists to resist evidence supporting rival theories. Many
can’t objectively evaluate competing theories, even when the evidence mounts to
the point that it should be compelling.

My
evidence for suggesting that Nelson is unduly influenced by his naturalistic
paradigm? Besides the description of his first encounter with NDEs, and his
dismissive and demeaning attitude toward NDE researchers who disagree with him,
note the following weaknesses in his research.  

1.
His fresh study of NDEs seems sensationalized and flawed.

In
his prologue, Nelson claims that he and his team of neuropsychologists
“collected one of the largest numbers of research subjects with near-death
experiences ever compiled and compared their sleep experiences to the
experiences of other people matched by gender and age. What we found intrigued
the scientific community and sparked international media attention.”
(7)
Compare
this description with his actual study: 

·
        
He studied 55 subjects that he contacted through Dr.
Long’s NDERF site.(8)
So why is he trumpeting his study as so
large, especially for a retrospective study? In comparison, Dr. Long has
collected over 3,000 NDE experiences, doing an extensive analysis of 613 of
them. Dr. Fenwick studied 300 NDEs, Dr. Moody 150, and Dr. Ring 102. What’s so groundbreakingly
huge about interviewing 55 people who were already collected by Dr. Long?

·
        
His survey questions failed to distinguish experiences
before and after their NDEs.
Research has found that
after having
NDEs, many claim to have ongoing paranormal experiences
that they didn’t have prior to their NDEs.
(9)
Thus, we’d expect to find
many more NDErs claiming to, for example, have experiences where they see or
hear things that others can’t see or hear. To ascertain whether certain people
are predisposed to NDEs by their tendency toward such “paranormal” experiences,
Nelson would need to ask if they had these experiences
prior to
their
NDEs. He doesn’t indicate in his book that he made that distinction, thus
invalidating his conclusions.
(10)  

   
2. He fails to reveal contrary evidence.
 
Example: Nelson explains the NDE tunnel experience by referring to the tunnel
vision experienced by pilots.
(11)
Is he aware of the extensive
criticisms that have been leveled at this explanation over the past 35 years?
(12)
If so, shouldn’t an objective scholar at least mention why serious NDE
researchers typically reject this as a sufficient explanation?
(13)  

3.
His reporting of research can be sensational.

Example:
Nelson sees “enormous” implications from a study by Dr. Thomas Lempert that
compared the symptoms of fainting to the elements of NDEs. This intrigued me,
as it appeared to represent a new line of evidence.
Nelson reports:

“Lempert’s team compared the experience of their subjects to Moody’s
descriptions of the near-death experience. Surprisingly, they found “
no real
difference
[emphasis his] between the two types of experience.”
(14)  

This
is quite a claim. From Nelson’s description, Lempert has practically reproduced
NDEs with induced fainting.

Yet,
a perusal of Lempert’s study shows significant differences in almost every
respect. Review Moody’s elements. Compare Lempert’s study. None of Lempert’s
subjects reported experiencing such common NDE elements as a life review, meeting
a being of light, talking with deceased relatives, an impression of “realer
than real,” distortions in time and space, approaching a border, a decision to
return, ineffability, changed lives, etc.
Even the characteristics deemed similar were, upon closer inspection, vastly
different: 

·
        
Lempert
noted that 17 percent of his fainting subjects reported “appearance of light,”
compared to 14 percent of NDErs. That sounds pretty similar, until you realize
that the “appearance of light” in the fainting subjects consisted of seeing
“gray haze, colored patches, or bright lights.” This is wildly different from
the unearthly, exceedingly bright point of light that NDErs are drawn to, can observe
without squinting, and are convinced is a personal entity.

·
        
Sixty
percent of the fainters heard “audible noise or voices,” which “ranged from
rushing and roaring noises to screaming or talking human voices, but never contained
intelligible speech.”
(15)
Hearing unintelligible speech is worlds apart
from NDE reports of clear, effortless, easily-recalled communication with
deceased relatives and celestial beings.

·
        
Fainters
reported “visual perceptions,” which appear much like dreams. Yet the quality
and content of these perceptions appear radically different from NDEs.

How
could someone possibly conclude from this study that “they found
no real
difference
between the two types of experience”? This claim is akin to
saying, “I sometimes throw utensils in the kitchen and professional
quarterbacks throw balls on a football field. Therefore, the two experiences
are strikingly similar – no real difference at all.”
Lempert’s study did find some fainters reporting feelings of being out of body
and a tunnel experience, but he describes neither of these in detail. Often in
studies of this nature, once we have more detail, we find more dissimilarity
than similarity. A feeling of being outside the body can refer to everything
from a vague sense of disconnectedness to dreaming of an experience with a
bird’s eye view, both very different from the out-of-body experience of an
NDEr.
(16)  

4.
When he occasionally mentions opposing research, it’s often misrepresented.

·
        
He
castigates van Lommel for claiming that his cardiac arrest patients had been
“clinically dead,” claiming, “The brain is nowhere near physically dead during
near-death experiences. It is
alive
and
conscious
.”
(17)
He
goes on to argue that brain death occurs when a cell ruptures and “there is no
putting it together again.”
Yet, Nelson here blurs the common distinctions between “brain death” and
“clinical death.” “Clinical death” is typically defined (for example, in the
authoritative Oxford Dictionary of English) as the cessation of heartbeat and
respiration, which is precisely how van Lommel used the term.

·
        
Next,
Nelson attacks the Pam Reynolds case. First, he has “no doubt” that Pam “awoke
during surgery,” although he admits that this happens in only 0.18 percent
(almost two in a thousand) of patients.
(18)
Yet, he fails to mention
that her state of consciousness was being constantly monitored via EEG and
brain stem response – with much greater safeguards in place than a more typical
surgery. 
Second, he argues that she overheard conversations while they thought she was
unconscious. But how could she possibly hear with the loud clicking in her
ears? Again, he failed to mention that. His explanation makes one wonder if he
ever read the original report as detailed by Sabom.
(19)  
    

5.
He fails to grapple seriously with the positive evidence. 

After
finishing the book, I had a déjà vu from when I finished the last episode of
the TV series LOST. There were too many loose ends. If NDEs can be
naturalistically explained as special dream states, then:

·
        
Why
do they differ so dramatically from dreams?

·
        
Why
do they consistently exhibit closure?

·
        
Why
do people who are born deaf report hearing and those who were born blind report
seeing?

·
        
Why
are there such consistent elements in a story line that makes so much sense and
has such meaning to the experiencer?

·
        
How
do you explain the 100+ corroborated out-of-body experiences reported in
professional studies?

·
        
How
do you explain shared experiences, where people who are neither depleted of
oxygen nor in fear of their own death, experience the same NDE simultaneously?