When a pastor can’t keep the faith

44 Comments

1. Ryan Bell’s statement on leaving the church to become an atheist:

   I understand that over 1000 pastors leave their position every day. I’ll get into that more at the end of this post. Below, I will site the section from the above post and speak to it. I hope you get a lot out of this.

   THE STORY IN BRIEF: Ryan thought that GLBT was OK, and his beliefs caused his church to dismiss him. The Bible is quite clear on what God thinks about this, and how wrong it is in the eyes of God. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this sin. Verses such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19, and Romans 1:24 tell us that such behavior will cause us to be sent Hell on Judgment Day, if we do not change our ways and ask for forgiveness. Please keep in mind that this, like all sins, can be forgiven if we turn away from them and turn back to God! It is never too late, as long as we are drawing breath here on this earth.

   [The middle section of this comment was removed because it was over-long.]

   NEXT STEPS FOR RYAN: He said that you don’t have to a Christian to do good and loving things for others, and he is so right. It’s not that we love more or do more good, because lots of Christians do not love and care for others! The difference is in our eternal destination. I am a sinner just as much as a murderer, an adulterer, or a homosexual. So, what’s the difference? The difference is not that I am perfect and that they are not, not at all. The difference is that I am forgiven my sin by the atoning blood of Jesus on the cross, and I realize me sin. I try not do keep doing it. I ask for forgiveness when I sin. Sin makes me ill; I know when I do wrong, and I want to please God, and not just me!

   PASTORS ARE LEAVING their position and “calling” at the rate of over 1000 per day! Why? My opinion is that it’s only a job for them. If they only followed this simple plan – DO WHAT JESUS DID. It is so simple, isn’t it, but it takes a lot of time and caring. Jesus worshipped in the synagogue, or the Temple in Jerusalem, every Sabbath, day 7 of the week, Friday evening at sundown to Saturday at sundown. The rest of the six days of the week, he was out with his disciples healing, loving, caring, performing miracles, feeding the thousands, visiting them, helping them, and caring for them physically as well as spiritually. Yes, it is a simple plan, and it is not a job that should only be done a few hours on Sunday and Wednesday. That is the problem. They aren’t doing it as Jesus did. I try the best I can, and when I fail God, I ask for forgiveness and try to do more of what Jesus did.

   IN CLOSING: Don’t give up on God; He will never give up on you!

   AN EASY RECIPE FOR AN AWESOME LIFE HERE AND NOW AND FOR ALL ETERNITY: Love! Pray! Read the Word of God! When Jesus was asked what one must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus gave three commands: 1) repent of your sins – turn away from your sin and back to God, 2) believe in Jesus and you will be saved, and 3) be baptized (it was when Jesus was baptized by John in the River Jordan, that the Holy Spirit of God came upon Him and dwelt within Him. It was then that a voice from Heaven, from God his Father, said, “This is my beloved Son, with Whom I am well pleased.” Jesus did what pleased his Father. He kept all the commandments. Jesus tells us to do the same in John 14:15, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Simple isn’t it, yet we try to get closer to the image and the person of Christ more perfectly every day of our lives. Well, that’s it. Be blessed and please turn your life to Jesus. I guarantee that you will never be sorry – if you do it his way! Love and peace to you all in 2015 and for all eternity! Dave

2. Having debated with atheists for a number of years, I have become acquainted with all the main arguments supposedly in favour of atheism. Not one of them is logically coherent and convincing.

   The argument from suffering is probably the least weak, but even that is incoherent. A revulsion at suffering, oppression and injustice presupposes that there exists an objectively valid concept of justice, otherwise to what is one appealing when expressing one’s concern about evil in the world? Where in the philosophy of naturalism / materialism do we find this objective moral code?

   The claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God is based on special pleading in favour of the philosophy of naturalism. Evidence is defined entirely empirically, even though the scientific method itself does not rely exclusively on such evidence. Inference is central to science, which goes beyond the merely empirical. Science seeks explanations for empirical phenomena, but those explanations themselves may not be empirically verifiable. In fact, even empirical evidence relies on the operation of certain assumptions, which are themselves not empirically verifiable, such as the uniformity of nature and the consistency of cause and effect. There are certainly strong arguments for the existence of God if we allow the evidence of inference, by which we construct explanations for different aspects of reality, such as, for example, explaining free will, morality, consciousness, complexity and the validity of reason itself.

   The burden of proof and “you cannot prove a negative” claims are also spurious. This claim is based on a serious category error, in which a non-trivial concept (i.e. a concept with profound implications) is conflated with trivial concepts, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell’s Teapot. The non-existence of an intelligent, personal, first cause of the universe has implications, whereas the non-existence of the above trivial concepts does not. Atheists prove this point just every time they debate their position, because most of them (certainly in my experience) strangely feel the need to defend the philosophy of naturalism. Why would they need to do this if the non-existence of God has no philosophical implications? Why assume the truth of a philosophy, which is built on explanations that specifically exclude God? If ‘God’ is a totally trivial and superfluous idea, then there should be no need to find ‘alternative’ explanations. It should be possible to say, for example, that all creatures (including aliens within the universe) were intelligently created, but not by ‘God’, in much the same way that one could claim that one’s life would be entirely unaffected whether the invisible pink unicorn was prancing round his lounge or not. But clearly no atheist states such a thing, because he knows that the non-existence of God requires a different way of thinking about reality. Thus the idea of God is non-trivial and has deep and serious implications for our fundamental view of reality. The denial of God is thus a ‘positive’ claim about reality, on which there is therefore a burden of proof.

   The argument from other religions is irrelevant. The debate is essentially not about identifying the Creator with a particular religious book or tradition, but the concept itself. Does reality require the existence of a personal, conscious, intelligent Supreme Being, yes or no? The concepts that are inherent in the definition of God are what we are debating. Once we are satisfied that such a being does exist, or does most likely exist, then we can enter the more specific realm of theology to try to learn more about this being. The atheist’s claim concerning the multiplicity of religions is tantamount to saying that if different people have different views and interpretations of some aspect of reality, then that constitutes evidence that that claimed reality does not exist. How absurd.

   The idea that science has done away with God is about the most nonsensical argument of the lot. The scientific method presupposes a particular view of reality in which the universe is considered ordered, consistent and intelligible. It also presupposes an objective view of truth, in which reason itself has genuine validity. None of this makes sense within the philosophy of naturalism, in which reason is merely an emergent property of natural selection, and has developed for purely utilitarian reasons, namely, as an aid to survival. The argument that the “idea of God” is merely a human invention could also be applied to the idea of the philosophy of naturalism. To suggest that one metaphysical idea (God) must be a human invention, but that another (the claim that we can explain everything in reality simply by recourse to physical laws) is objectively true, is intellectual hypocrisy. If all ideas are the product of the purely physical evolutionary process, then all ideas have the same epistemic status, and thus there is no rational basis for the claims of atheism. Within that paradigm theism and atheism go down together.

   There are many more spurious arguments presented by atheists, but that will do for now.

3. “Ryan thought that GLBT was OK, and his beliefs caused his church to dismiss him. The Bible is quite clear on what God thinks about this, and how wrong it is in the eyes of God. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this sin. Verses such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19, and Romans 1:24 tell us that such behavior will cause us to be sent Hell on Judgment Day, if we do not change our ways and ask for forgiveness. Please keep in mind that this, like all sins, can be forgiven if we turn away from them and turn back to God! It is never too late, as long as we are drawing breath here on this earth.”

   Have you ever considered that you may be wrong about homosexuality itself being a sin?

   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rk-tHUCf60P_-u1sz9e6Dy1CocxTB4N5OISvGtEOzW4/mobilebasic

   https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL042B69B994891C91

4. Thanks for comments so far.

   Hi David, thanks for your thoughts. I agree with many of them, though I have edited some out to keep your comment at a readable length.

   G’day Alistair, yes I agree with most of what you say here. I guess Ryan saw things differently. But I would be interested to see his summary of the arguments he considered.

   Hi Terrell, how are you going? Yes there are two views on this among christians. David has presented the most common and “traditional” one, but there is an alternative approach. I presume Ryan, when he identified as a christian, accepted the alternative view.

5. “Again, I can’t argue against his experience. But I wonder whether he considered the claims of millions of other people ”

   Over the years thousands of people claimed to have gone to heaven and returned too . Does this mean it is so ? Any comments on the latest recant ?
   Alex Malarkey, ‘The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven,’ Admits He Made It All Up

6. Hi Ken. Do you really think “thousands” of people have claimed to have returned from heaven? I haven’t heard that many stories, but maybe you’re right.

   I hadn’t heard of the Alex Malarkey story either, but with a name like Malarkey, people should have guessed! (Do you have that word where you live? In Australia, years ago at least, “malarkey” was a slang word for “rubbish” or “nonsense”.)

   I don’t see how anyone could verify such a story, even if it was true, so I’m doubtful any such stories could be fully believed. But if a person is physically healed, or is physically and measurably dead for a period of time and recovers, or if a person sees and hears things while they are in a brain dead state (as apparently happens with some NDEs), these things can be verified sometimes and become compelling evidence.

   So we are left with either denying verified evidence or coming up with an explanation. Divine healing is one plausible explanation, the existence of life beyond the physical is another.

7. “Hi Ken. Do you really think “thousands” of people have claimed to have returned from heaven? I haven’t heard that many stories, but maybe you’re right.”

   I think my claim of thousands is as believable as your claim of millions.

   “Again, I can’t argue against his experience. But I wonder whether he considered the claims of millions of other people ”

   Is there a book with the names of these millions of people you refer to ?

8. It’s been some time. How have you been? Happy New Year by the way!

   “I find this reason curious. Does the multitude of different approaches to philosophy make all philosophical conclusions invalid (including his own)? It seems more likely to me that all that belief is based on something, and the question is how to determine where truth might be.”

   Philosophy is not a single specific being like God so I find this comparison between God claims (which are very specific philosophical claims) and philosophy lacking. It seems like the more specific a thing is then the more likely claims about that specific thing will be false. If people are giving conflicting accounts about a specific something then one is warranted in doubting that specific something regardless of what that specific something may be. For example, in a court case, if there are multiple witnesses that give contradicting accounts about a particular suspect’s whereabouts during the supposed time the crime was committed, then the evidence suggests that the suspect was not where this supposed suspect was suspected to be. Similarly, if people make a claim about one specific being that conflict with one another then a person is warranted in doubting that beings existence if it is the existence of the being that is in question. The difference is that we all can agree that there is actually a suspect that actually exists in the former example whereas the existence of the being in the latter example (God) is what is in question. It is likely that belief in God is based on something but it may be the case that widespread belief in some God is not based on an actual omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being literally existing. Maybe it is a byproduct of some psychological adaptation that we have gained through evolution coupled with cultural influences in history and in different regions of the world. Maybe it’s something entirely different besides an actual God existing or besides anything I have put forth.

   Allistair, you seem to complain that the argument from the multiplicity of religions is irrelevant since the debate is about the existence of a personal, conscious, intelligent Supreme Being yet I believe you fail to realize that conflicting religious claims are literally arguments and assertions about the very God concept trying to be established. Just because the claims are religious does not take away from the fact that they are ultimately particular and conflicting philosophical claims about the same particular being or God concept. In other words, the argument from the multiplicity of religions is about the concept of God though it does use religious claims as a resource. You may be mistaking the utilization of religious claims for the argument itself. The fact an atheist utilizes the observation that there are a multiplicity of conflicting religious claims does not mean that one is simply arguing against a particular religion while conceding that a some sort of God exist. That is far from the truth. Your criticism may be correct of some atheists but those atheists and you have simply misunderstood the argument in my opinion.

   Furthermore, all worldviews assume uniformity, intelligibility, objectivity in some form and etc. Otherwise no one would be able to get their worldview off the floor. One could try and argue that God somehow accounts for objectivity of truth in some form, uniformity, intelligibility, and etc. but you would have to assume those things to even make such an argument which is circular reasoning. We all make these assumptions and no one can justify them without assuming them. Reason in its abstract form is not an emergent property of natural selection on naturalism. However, our ability to reason is gained through evolution if naturalism is true but our ability to reason is not reason itself just as our ability to do mathematics is not mathematics itself. The idea of God is literally a human invention being that ideas are literally human inventions. You could say that ideas are created by God as well but that would be begging the question because the existence of such a being is what is in question.

   Allistair, you also argue that the non-existence of Russell’s teapot is trivial as if the argument regarding Russell’s Teapot is about how trivial it would be if God existed or not. The argument highlights how unfalsifiable the claim that God exists is and thus makes claims about that God’s existence (or whatever) are difficult to substantiate. One need not agree with this argument but that is what the argument is about. This talk about how trivial the existence of Russell’s Teapot would be if it did exist is a red herring and doesn’t address the argument being made. There are other response I would like to make to your comment but I’ll stop here for now.

   “That being so, I can’t help feeling Ryan’s year without God was almost inevitably going to lead him to where it did.”

   Perhaps he could have come out with his faith strengthened. I question whether his deconversion was inevitable. Perhaps Ryan could have been more balanced in his approach by mingling in both atheistic and theistic communities/literature/etc. Then again, rarely do anyone of us have this “balanced” approach when it comes to the question of God’s existence.

   “Yet he isn’t as hard-edged about his atheism as you might think – he feels atheism is ‘an awkward fit‘”

   I can sympathize with Ryan. Then again, I look back on much of my beliefs and I feel that they are awkward as well (even those that I held while an atheist though I have been one for a short amount of time). I also look back and feel that I have been “hard-edged” about a lot of things that I am not so “hard-edged” about now.

   Perhaps Ryan will have a change of heart. Perhaps I will have a change of heart. Perhaps you will have a change of heart. There is still time for change.

   P.S. I have been searching your blog for your views on hell but I have come up short. I’m wondering if you can point me in the right direction or if you can elaborate on what you feel hell is in a future post if you even believe that such a place/state of being exists. Perhaps you believe in annihilation? If you do not believe such a state of being/place exists or if you have some other view of hell then I would appreciate it if you could inform me and the rest of your readers on your view. Hope to hear from you. Take care.

9. “…if a person sees and hears things while they are in a brain dead state (as apparently happens with some NDEs)”

   How would someone know if they or anyone else were having this experience while in a brain dead state? Sounds like a very questionable inference.

10. “I think my claim of thousands is as believable as your claim of millions. ….
    Is there a book with the names of these millions of people you refer to ?”

    Hi Ken, I am happy to accept this little challenge.

    Yes, there is a book that I would refer to – “Miracles” by Dr Craig Keener (not a medical doctor but a NT scholar). In it he uses statistics of the percentages of Pentecostals, charismatics and other christians who claim to have experienced or observed a healing miracle, and the numbers of each type of christian in the world, to arrive at an estimate of somewhere above 300 million christians who claim to have experienced or observed a miracle. (Such a statistical estimation is similar to that used in political polling and in much scientific data collection.)

    So my comment was based on good data. Of course millions of names cannot be given, but hundreds, perhaps thousands, of case studies are referenced (it is a long book – close to 1200 pages over 2 volumes).

    You can read more in More healing miracles.

11. Hi Terrell, happy new year to you too!

    Yes, of course it is true that belief in God could be caused by many factors apart from him actually being there. But my point was simply that I think the argument that many religions implies God doesn’t exist is a poor (i.e. illogical) argument.

    Take your court case example. If 5 witnesses agree that they saw someone shoot the victim with a handgun, but they each describe the murderer differently, surely the police and the court would agree that the man was shot, even though they didn’t have a reliable description of the assailant. So the logic of many religions surely doesn’t diminish the likelihood of God existing, though it equally surely raises questions about what that God is like. So whatever we believe about whether God actually exists, I can’t see how that argument works.

    “I can sympathize with Ryan.”

    Yes, so can I. I agree with many of your comments at the end. I thought my narration of the events was quite sympathetic to him. I didn’t accuse him of anything, I didn’t criticise him, I simply reported and made a few mild comments.

    “I’m wondering if you can point me in the right direction or if you can elaborate on what you feel hell is in a future post if you even believe that such a place/state of being exists. “

    Yeah, perhaps I should write something about this here. I have written extensively on it on a second blog I have which is aimed more at discussing with other christians – see Hell – what does the Bible say?. I suppose my view is similar to “annihilation”, but I hate that word as a description. I would rather sum up by saying we all get one life then die. Some of us will receive life in the age to come, but some will not. I think that is closer to what Jesus would have said.

12. “How would someone know if they or anyone else were having this experience while in a brain dead state? Sounds like a very questionable inference.”

    In Brain Wars, neuroscience researcher Mario Beauregard recounts the story of a woman who underwent a complex brain operation which required her to be clinically dead for some time. Her eyes were taped shut and speakers were placed in her ears emitting high pitched noise (about the volume of an express train). Her life systems were all monitored by medical equipment. She was cooled down to a low temperature, her heart stopped and no brain activity was recorded by the equipment. All her blood was drained from her body.

    After the operation (which was successful) her blood was returned and she was revived. But what is interesting is that she was later able to recount some of the conversations of the medical team and describe some of the medical equipment, despite the fact that her eyes were taped shut, she couldn’t hear any external noise, her heart had stopped and there was no brain activity and no blood in her body.

    Beauregard gives other examples. So that’s how they know people have experiences in a brain-dead state.

13. unkleE, here is one Episcopal pastor and former hospital chaplain in Houston who has personally interviewed 237 people who claim to have had near death experiences, many which included visits to heaven. I think if one used the same estimates your Dr Craig Keener did, one could easily come up with thousands of people worldwide.

    “An Episcopal pastor and former hospital chaplain has released a book titled Revealing Heaven: The Christian Case for Near-Death Experiences, which chronicles over 200 near-death experiences that people have shared with him. The accounts describe both heavenly and hellish experiences, some of which challenge conservative Christian beliefs.

    The Rev. John W. Price, 74, who continues to serve at Palmer Memorial Episcopal Church in Houston, shared in an exclusive phone interview with The Christian Post that he has spoken to more than 237 people who have had near-death experiences, despite his initial reservations.”

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/revealing-heaven-episcopal-pastor-details-hundreds-of-near-death-experiences-backs-rob-bell-93115/

14. “Her eyes were taped shut and speakers were placed in her ears emitting high pitched noise (about the volume of an express train).”

    “All her blood was drained from her body.”

    What medical reason would a Doctor and a medical facility give for intentionally causing hearing loss to a patient during a medical procedure ? I would think the “volume of an express train ” directly in her ears would cause this.

    AND “all her blood was drained from her body ” Really ?????? Are you serious ???

    This story sounds like a lot of “Malarkey” to me ! 🙂

15. @ Unkle E

    I would have to agree with Ken. To be honest, the claim that they drained all of her blood and placed speakers on her ears that emit a sound rivaling an express train sounds very extraordinary let alone the claim that she heard and saw what was going on during such a bizarre surgery. This would have to be one of the most dubious examples of someone making an inference that one was conscious while in a brain dead state.

16. Hi guys, I think your scepticism is interesting, particularly, Ken, in view of the link you posted.

    The author of Brain Wars, Mario Beauregard, is associate research professor at the Neuroscience Research Centre at the University of Montreal. My report of his account is brief but I think accurate in each detail. The complex operation and draining of the blood were required because of the danger of a brain aneurysm bursting.

    References for this story are:

    The book Light and Death by cardiologist Michael Sabom.

    The surgeon for the operation, Robert Spetzler has verified the basic facts.

    The story is also told on a BBC documentary, The Day I Died.

    Ken, your reference talks of people having visions of heaven and hell. I’m not sure if any of them claim to have actually visited those places or not. But the account says more against your scepticism and in favour of what I have been saying.

    ” This would have to be one of the most dubious examples of someone making an inference that one was conscious while in a brain dead state.”

    Terrell, can you explain please how a person with the blood drained from their body, heart stopped, brain flatlining, eyes totally covered, ears filled with monitors and speakers emitting 100 dB sounds, and events verified by expert surgeons, is a “dubious example”?

17. Terrell:

    Philosophy is not a single specific being like God so I find this comparison between God claims (which are very specific philosophical claims) and philosophy lacking.

    But a “God claim” is not a single specific being like God either. A “God claim” is an idea, and as with any idea, it should be analysed and appraised according to both the correspondence and coherence methods of verification: does it correspond to the data of reality and is it internally coherent?

    It seems like the more specific a thing is then the more likely claims about that specific thing will be false.

    That is a completely incoherent statement. The proofs of pure mathematics are specific. Does that therefore make them false?

    If people are giving conflicting accounts about a specific something then one is warranted in doubting that specific something regardless of what that specific something may be.

    This statement is based on a serious category error. The bare concept of God as the personal, intelligent, first cause and creator of the universe is generally not in question. The question of the existence of God concerns the truth or falsehood of this fundamental idea. It is possible to argue for the truth of this idea, while accepting that people have differing views about, for example, the name of God, the means by which he has revealed himself to man (if at all), how he relates to man in terms of compassion and justice and so on.

    Your courtroom example is therefore a false analogy. Witnesses may differ in their testimonies, but it doesn’t follow from that that all the testimonies must be false, and it is possible that there may be a common theme or agreement among the testimonies despite the differences. As it concerns the question of the existence of a Supreme Being, this is a theme throughout different religions, even within polytheism. A useful study is that conducted by the missionary Don Richardson in his book Eternity in Their Hearts: Startling Evidence of Belief in the One True God in Hundreds of Cultures Throughout the World.

    The difference is that we all can agree that there is actually a suspect that actually exists in the former example whereas the existence of the being in the latter example (God) is what is in question.

    Just because an idea is questioned does not make it false or doubtful. Am I seriously to accept that the mere existence of atheists in this world constitutes proof for the non-existence of God?! Come off it! On that basis one could just as easily say that the existence of theists calls the alleged truth of atheism into question. Where does this end, I wonder?

    It is likely that belief in God is based on something but it may be the case that widespread belief in some God is not based on an actual omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being literally existing. Maybe it is a byproduct of some psychological adaptation that we have gained through evolution coupled with cultural influences in history and in different regions of the world. Maybe it’s something entirely different besides an actual God existing or besides anything I have put forth.

    By your own reasoning (see above) this hypothesis is unlikely on the basis that not everyone will accept it. Of course, this claim is pure speculation, for which I notice you have not provided any evidence whatsoever.

    Furthermore, if the metaphysical idea of God is likely to be “the byproduct of some psychological adaptation that we have gained through evolution etc”, then, in the interests of rationality and moral consistency, the same rule should be applied to all other metaphysical ideas, including the idea of the philosophy of naturalism, by which you are constructing this argument. And this proves that this approach is self-refuting and therefore incontrovertibly false (given that no concept which refutes itself can possibly be true).

    I may respond to the rest of your post later.

18. “But a “God claim” is not a single specific being like God either. A “God claim” is an idea, and as with any idea, it should be analysed and appraised according to both the correspondence and coherence methods of verification: does it correspond to the data of reality and is it internally coherent?”

    I agree God claims are not like God but they are claims about God which is the being in question. Something being internally coherent does not account for the conflicting claims against any supposed internally coherent claim. Furthermore, philosophy is far broader than a very specific God claim so I fail to see how the comparison Unkle E made with philosophy and God claims holds.

    “That is a completely incoherent statement. The proofs of pure mathematics are specific. Does that therefore make them false?”

    I’ll clarify this issue by stating that I am talking about a supposed being with casual powers, a mind, and etc. I’m talking about that sort of specific being. Compared to mathematics, such a being is far more specific.

    “This statement is based on a serious category error. The bare concept of God as the personal, intelligent, first cause and creator of the universe is generally not in question. The question of the existence of God concerns the truth or falsehood of this fundamental idea. It is possible to argue for the truth of this idea, while accepting that people have differing views about, for example, the name of God, the means by which he has revealed himself to man (if at all), how he relates to man in terms of compassion and justice and so on.”

    The existence of God is in question in my argument so I don’t see how this response applies. It is possible to accept the truth of that idea but my argument does not assume the truth of that idea. I’m not merely limiting myself to religious claims. I thought I implied that I am talking about the vast majority of conflicting claims about any God (including bares bones God like the one you describe) when I stated that religious claims are ultimately philosophical claims about God. In other words, the conflicting arguments put forth to justify the idea or concept of a God all count as God claims as well since they literally and ultimately are claims about God.

    “Your courtroom example is therefore a false analogy. Witnesses may differ in their testimonies, but it doesn’t follow from that that all the testimonies must be false, and it is possible that there may be a common theme or agreement among the testimonies despite the differences. As it concerns the question of the existence of a Supreme Being, this is a theme throughout different religions, even within polytheism. A useful study is that conducted by the missionary Don Richardson in his book Eternity in Their Hearts: Startling Evidence of Belief in the One True God in Hundreds of Cultures Throughout the World.”

    I believe I addressed this in my alien example I afforded to Unkle E. My courtroom example was about denying the guilt of a suspect due to conflicting accounts of the suspect’s whereabouts. Multiple and conflicting eye witness accounts that state that the suspect was not where he was suspected to be while these conflicting eye witness accounts also give conflicting locations of this man’s whereabouts is sufficient to completely justify the denial of the suspects guilt and the suspect’s guilt is what was in question in my example. Besides, I was merely giving an example where something very specific is doubted (such as the whereabouts and guilt of the suspect) completely due to very specific and conflicting accounts. That’s all. I think I confused some things in my example so I apologize for that.

    “Just because an idea is questioned does not make it false or doubtful. Am I seriously to accept that the mere existence of atheists in this world constitutes proof for the non-existence of God?! Come off it! On that basis one could just as easily say that the existence of theists calls the alleged truth of atheism into question. Where does this end, I wonder?

    Again, my argument states that the very specific and conflicting claims are evidence that the existence of a God is probably false. I am not arguing that my argument is some sort of proof. I never argued that the mere existence of atheist is proof that God does not exist nor did I make an argument that is similar or analogous to such an argument.

    “By your own reasoning (see above) this hypothesis is unlikely on the basis that not everyone will accept it. Of course, this claim is pure speculation, for which I notice you have not provided any evidence whatsoever.

    Furthermore, if the metaphysical idea of God is likely to be “the byproduct of some psychological adaptation that we have gained through evolution etc”, then, in the interests of rationality and moral consistency, the same rule should be applied to all other metaphysical ideas, including the idea of the philosophy of naturalism, by which you are constructing this argument. And this proves that this approach is self-refuting and therefore incontrovertibly false (given that no concept which refutes itself can possibly be true).

    First of all, I was talking about belief in God. That is not the same as the metaphysical idea of God. The fact that everyone will not accept my explanation is irrelevant to fact that the explanation I give is a logical possibility which is all I was arguing. Furthermore, I was responding to Unkle E’s statement that belief in God is based on something. That’s all he said and all I was doing is giving a possible explanation. I was not arguing for any supposed reasoning you thought I was applying to the idea of God.

19. unkleE, I am not a Doctor. But according to articles I have read, your heart or an artificial device has to pump blood throughout your body or your body, especially organs begin to decay within minutes.

    According to Dr Parnia, “Using a technique called an ECMO, the blood of the deceased is siphoned out of the body, put through a membrane oxygenator and pumped round again. This buys the time needed to fix the underlying problem that caused the person to die in the first place. If the level of oxygen to the brain falls below 45% of normal the heart will not restart, Parnia’s research shows. ”

    So in the case you mentioned earlier, they may have removed all the blood from the body, but they surely put it immediately back in again. That appears to be the flaw in whoever made the statement you are quoting.

    You can read more from Dr Parnia at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/06/sam-parnia-resurrection-lazarus-effect

20. unkleE, my original comment was about 1000’s of people claiming to have visited heaven. You are the one who questioned this.

    I’m not arguing whether millions of people have claimed to have witnessed miracles or that people claimed to have visited heaven. You wanted to make it an argument by doubting whether 1000’s have visited heaven. Rather trivial in my opinion.

    But then again, YOU always have to win , no matter what. It’s your blog, so if it makes you feel better, I will in the future acknowledge that you are the winner before I even make a comment.

    I hope this will suffice. 🙂

21. “I think my claim of thousands is as believable as your claim of millions. ….
    Is there a book with the names of these millions of people you refer to ?”

    “Hi Ken, I am happy to accept this little challenge.”

    I think this proves my point, but of course you will have the last word and again prove me wrong (in your own mind) 🙂

22. @ Unkle E

    “Hi guys, I think your scepticism is interesting, particularly, Ken, in view of the link you posted.”

    Mine an Ken’s scepticisim is interesting. However, I don’t believe things told to me over the internet that seem dubious to me without doing some sort of research into what I am being told so forgive me if I don’t buy stories that seem implausible at first glance. It seems entirely rational to be doubtful of anything said to me over the internet before doing some research or if I have insufficient knowledge of that matter beforehand.

    “The author of Brain Wars, Mario Beauregard, is associate research professor at the Neuroscience Research Centre at the University of Montreal. My report of his account is brief but I think accurate in each detail. The complex operation and draining of the blood were required because of the danger of a brain aneurysm bursting.
    References for this story are:
    The book Light and Death by cardiologist Michael Sabom.
    The surgeon for the operation, Robert Spetzler has verified the basic facts.
    The story is also told on a BBC documentary, The Day I Died.”

    I’d have to take some time looking up all this information even if I can afford to get a hold of it all or if I can find it for free somewhere.

    “Terrell, can you explain please how a person with the blood drained from their body, heart stopped, brain flatlining, eyes totally covered, ears filled with monitors and speakers emitting 100 dB sounds, and events verified by expert surgeons, is a ‘dubious example’?”

    I’m no physician but I could try to explain what happen provided that I grant that this bizarre operation even occurred in the way Dr. Beauregard and you have presented it. A lot of questions come to mind and I am not merely going to grant that the event happened the way it is claimed to have happened without looking into it. For instance, how long was her blood completely drained from her body if it was done so? Were they simultaneously pumping her blood back into her body as they drained it or did they pump her blood into her body shortly after they started to drain her body as Ken seems to suggest? Why were speakers placed into her ears while emitting sound that rivals that of an express train? Did the speakers damage her hearing afterwards? Why was her eyes taped shut? These are only a few questions of the many that come to mind.

23. Hi Ken, I’m sorry I seem to have upset you again. But you needn’t have worried. If you check back my first comment on stories of visits to heaven was: “Do you really think “thousands” of people have claimed to have returned from heaven? I haven’t heard that many stories, but maybe you’re right.” That hardly sounds like a dogmatic statement to me! Or an attempt to make an argument. It sounds exactly like a question to me.

    I am aware of many stories of NDEs, and if I had realised that was what you were referring to I would have agreed with you, for they are well documented. But undocumented claims of actual visits to heaven are a different thing.

    “YOU always have to win , no matter what. It’s your blog, so if it makes you feel better, I will in the future acknowledge that you are the winner before I even make a comment.”

    Ken, this has happened several times before. I write a blog post. You are not forced to read it, or comment on it, or disagree with it, but sometimes you choose to. And apparently when you disagree, that isn’t you wanting to “make it an argument” or “YOU always having to win” or “having the last word” or “proving me wrong (in your own mind)”. But when I disagree back or defend my post, suddenly all those things are true of me? Can you please explain how that works?

    You are welcome to visit and comment, regardless of how much you disagree, as long as you are polite, but don’t you think we could do without these occasional allegations?

    Thanks.

24. “unkleE, I am not a Doctor. But according to articles I have read, your heart or an artificial device has to pump blood throughout your body or your body, especially organs begin to decay within minutes.”

    Neither am I a doctor, I am just reporting what other doctors have observed. And I have reported them as accurately as a brief account can do. Initially the blood was drained, cooled and returned, but it seems (if I have understood the account correctly) the blood was drained a second time and remained out of her body for maybe 30 minutes so the aneurysm collapsed harmlessly and could be clipped off and the blood vessel rejopined. It sounds strange to me also, but that appears to have been what happened.

    I have read some of Dr Parnia’s stuff, but I don’t know if he performs this sort of operation.

25. “I don’t believe things told to me over the internet that seem dubious to me without doing some sort of research into what I am being told so forgive me if I don’t buy stories that seem implausible at first glance.”

    Hi Terrell, I think the response you make here is eminently reasonable, and I would doubtless respond similarly. But that wasn’t what you and Ken said before. Ken said: “Really ?????? Are you serious ??? This story sounds like a lot of “Malarkey” to me !”, which is not a statement about wanting more information, but outright disbelief or incredulity.

    Then you said: “I would have to agree with Ken. … sounds very extraordinary … bizarre surgery. This would have to be one of the most dubious examples …” That too sounds more like incredulity than what you say now.

    So that was why I commented. You both seemed to be prejudging the case, not seeking more evidence. But now you want more evidence, we can put that aside. I can tell you a little, but not answer all your questions ….

    As I said to Ken, I think the blood was drained, cooled, returned (to cool her body) then drained again for about 30 minutes while the delicate operation was done, then returned again. I don’t know why her eyes were sealed, but I think to cut out sensory input that might awaken her brain at the wrong time. Likewise the ear speakers, but the high pitched noise (clicks) apparently helped her brain to kick start again.

    One of the reasons I thought your initial incredulity was notable was that amazing medical procedures are being developed all the time – heart transplants, genetic manipulation and cloning, re-joining severed limbs, etc – so we ought to be used to such wonders by now. I wonder if you would both be sceptical if told of other new procedures? Or was it only is one that seems to have implications which may not be congenial to you? I feel that selective scepticism is common these days – doubtless I do this too (at any rate I am accused of it often enough), but surely we ought try to be consistent?

    Thanks.

26. “Hi Terrell, I think the response you make here is eminently reasonable, and I would doubtless respond similarly. But that wasn’t what you and Ken said before. Ken said: “Really ?????? Are you serious ??? This story sounds like a lot of “Malarkey” to me !”, which is not a statement about wanting more information, but outright disbelief or incredulity.
    Then you said: “I would have to agree with Ken. … sounds very extraordinary … bizarre surgery. This would have to be one of the most dubious examples …” That too sounds more like incredulity than what you say now.
    So that was why I commented. You both seemed to be prejudging the case, not seeking more evidence. But now you want more evidence, we can put that aside. I can tell you a little, but not answer all your questions ….”

    I think you are splitting hairs here and I have to admit that it is quite annoying because I am compelled to defend myself despite also feeling that the fact that I am incredulous about things is sort of off topic. The fact that I didn’t give you a whole explanation of why I am incredulous about the story you presented exactly when I stated that it was very dubious in my eyes does not mean that I was being unreasonably incredulous at that moment. It’s not my fault you can’t read my mind. Similarly, it’s not your fault either. The fact that I agree with Ken’s skepticism does not mean I was being unreasonably incredulous, unwilling to look further into the matter (incredulity can also mean that I simply can’t voluntarily bring myself to believe something no matter how much I investigate something), or implying that I agree with Ken calling the story “Malarkey”. I can’t give you a methodical response explaining everything I mean or everything I agree and disagree with every time I post so please give me the benefit of the doubt next time. I also can’t research every single story I hear. In regards to incredulity, I believe there is reasonable incredulity and unreasonable incredulity. For instance, the fact that I can’t bring myself to believe that 1+1=3 is an example of my incredulity but that does not mean I am being unreasonably incredulous nor does it imply that I am unwilling to investigate the matter. Furthermore, it’s hardly a voluntary action if I simply just can’t believe something. I don’t control my beliefs. I either find something convincing or not. I can’t force it. All this is beside the point and you are willing to put it aside anyways so I don’t know why you even brought up our incredulity toward the nature of NDE’s.

    I don’t apologize for it seeming like I was prejudging the case (we all prejudge everything so I don’t see why it is worth you commenting on it when I do it). Perhaps it was your incredulity towards NDE’s or incredulity towards your dealings with some atheists that influenced your perception of what Ken and I were doing. Perhaps you shouldn’t have assumed that I wasn’t looking for more evidence in the first place. Perhaps you should have given me benefit of the doubt. It seems like your incredulity got in the way as well. Then again, maybe I am being ironically unreasonable about this whole matter of incredulity.

    Anyways, 30 minutes without blood is impressive. Was her body cooled during that time? Again, I question why they would use noise that could damage her eardrums. Was this noise used at the moments when they wanted to kick start her brain or was it continuous? Would the noise being used at the times when they wanted to kick start her brain be just enough to not damage her hearing despite being pretty loud? It seems to me that this story just raises more questions than more answers for me. However, I’ll try to find the sources you cite because it is very interesting.

    “I wonder if you would both be sceptical if told of other new procedures? Or was it only is one that seems to have implications which may not be congenial to you? I feel that selective scepticism is common these days – doubtless I do this too (at any rate I am accused of it often enough), but surely we ought try to be consistent?

    Again, I ask that you give me that benefit of the doubt. I’m just genuinely not knowledgeable of these procedures (the many questions should make that obvious) and I was suspicious of NDE’s during a time when I believed there was a God as well so I believe one could hardly say my skepticism is selective in this particular case though I’m sure my skepticism is selective in other areas. I can’t speak for Ken.

27. Hi Terrell,

    I had already decided before I saw your reply that I had been a little harsh, and I apologise. I overstated my comment.

    You have explained how you feel, which I appreciate, and I will explain how I feel. I put a lot of work into this blog. I have spent many hundreds of dollars on books on history, philosophy, neuroscience, cosmology and theology to get a good grounding in the best information available, and I search topics and authors out on Google quite extensively. I try to distinguish between facts (as determined by reputable experts) and opinions, and I try to present the facts fairly and allow them to be the basis of my thinking. I criticise people who won’t accept clear “facts” but I try never to criticise people for beliefs.

    Yet despite all this, I find many non-theists who claim to be evidence-based are very selective about which evidence they accept, and on this very poor basis criticise the facts I present and claim them to be faith-based opinions.

    I try to remain good-humoured about all this, but sometimes I feel the questioning of inconvenient facts merits comment. That was how I felt this time, for I was quoting well qualified experts who (I believe) merit a more cautious response than either of you gave. But I think I wasn’t completely fair in my response. Again, I’m sorry about that.

    As far as NDEs go, I am neither a believer or a disbeliever. In accordance with the above approach, I accept that NDE experiences occur and some of them cannot be explained by current science. But I am not committed to any particular explanation, certainly not that people actually go to heaven and meet loved ones or anything like that. But I think the evidence, like the evidence for healing miracles, shouldn’t be denigrated nor a naturalistic explanation insisted on when it clearly distorts the evidence.

    As for the details, I know little more. When the blood was drained the second time, her temperature was 60F instead of 98.4F – at this low temperature her brain could last longer without blood. I understand that the noise was playing the whole time, but I don’t understand why, except to remove external stimulus. Perhaps the pitch was changed when they wanted to kick start the brain, perhaps not.

    But I would just say again that I think understanding is different to accepting the truth of. If three doctors and the patient all report the same story, then surely we should accept it until and if we find good reason not to?

    I intend writing a post soon about levels of scepticism and God belief, so I won’t say any more now. Thanks, and I hope we can move on positively from here.

28. “You are welcome to visit and comment, regardless of how much you disagree, as long as you are polite, but don’t you think we could do without these occasional allegations?”

    I think I have tried to always remain civil. I don’t call you names, etc or else you would have already banned me like you have others who have disagreed with you.

    What you fail to mention is that I am not the only one who has made these allegations. After a while, wouldn’t it occur to you that maybe there could be truth to these allegations since several people have made them ?

    Of course you will ask who these other people are. Nate, Ark, John Z are but a small few. The list does goes on.

    I only bring this up in hopes that some day you will realize that you may not always be right . Others have given up and totally discount everything you have to say.

    I happen to believe you actually say some things that are totally right. Surprised ? But you are not always right ! And those who disagree with you are not always wrong.

    As I have stated many times before , this is not a game and you need to stop keeping score.

    Just my observations . And as I have stated many times before, thank you for allowing me to comment on your blog.

29. “I had already decided before I saw your reply that I had been a little harsh, and I apologise. I overstated my comment.”

    Apology accepted. We all have our moments. In fact, I remember criticizing you too harshly as well.

    “You have explained how you feel, which I appreciate, and I will explain how I feel. I put a lot of work into this blog. I have spent many hundreds of dollars on books on history, philosophy, neuroscience, cosmology and theology to get a good grounding in the best information available, and I search topics and authors out on Google quite extensively.”

    The hard work is appreciated, Unkle E! Greatly!

    “I criticise people who won’t accept clear “facts” but I try never to criticise people for beliefs.”

    I feel that one should not be so critical of people who won’t accept “clear facts” especially when someone has only heard any given “clear fact” for the first time or if the person who won’t accept a “clear fact” doesn’t have enough knowledge about the “clear fact” at hand despite merely hearing about any given “clear fact” on multiple occasions. Don’t get me wrong, I have been guilty of the same thing. I’m very aware of that. However, it’s far harder to get someone to accept a “clear fact” by criticizing them too harshly.

    “Yet despite all this, I find many non-theists who claim to be evidence-based are very selective about which evidence they accept, and on this very poor basis criticise the facts I present and claim them to be faith-based opinions.”

    I agree with you on this point. We all suffer from selective skepticism and we all try to diminish each other’s position regardless if we are theists or non-theists.

    “I try to remain good-humoured about all this, but sometimes I feel the questioning of inconvenient facts merits comment. That was how I felt this time, for I was quoting well qualified experts who (I believe) merit a more cautious response than either of you gave. But I think I wasn’t completely fair in my response. Again, I’m sorry about that.”

    Again, apology accepted. However, I feel I did give cautious responses. I don’t feel like I ever dismissed the story despite it seeming very dubious to me. I feel I am warranted in being very skeptical given my background knowledge and my beliefs. I’m not coming from the same position you are and I don’t have the same information you do.

    “As far as NDEs go, I am neither a believer or a disbeliever. In accordance with the above approach, I accept that NDE experiences occur and some of them cannot be explained by current science. But I am not committed to any particular explanation, certainly not that people actually go to heaven and meet loved ones or anything like that. But I think the evidence, like the evidence for healing miracles, shouldn’t be denigrated nor a naturalistic explanation insisted on when it clearly distorts the evidence.”

    I believe NDEs occur as well but I do not believe that people are literally seeing and hearing things while in a brain dead state or are literally outside of their body looking at their self as I have heard from some have reported their NDEs. I simply don’t have enough information about these events to be able to confirm these stories so I remain skeptical until I at least have a decent amount of knowledge to at least make a tentative conclusion regarding NDEs. Furthermore, I feel that you are insisting that the evidence is as you present it. However, Ken and I have no idea if you are reporting us this story accurately. Therefore, we remain skeptical and retain that a naturalistic explanation is more plausibly since we are certain that naturalistic explanations have been the most plausible explanations to us up to this point. I don’t see a problem with putting question marks on anomalies despite others claiming it is evidence for their position.

    “As for the details, I know little more. When the blood was drained the second time, her temperature was 60F instead of 98.4F – at this low temperature her brain could last longer without blood. I understand that the noise was playing the whole time, but I don’t understand why, except to remove external stimulus. Perhaps the pitch was changed when they wanted to kick start the brain, perhaps not.”

    I’d rather not comment on this story any further (though I do have some comments I would like to make) until I can read about it myself as to avoid being criticized for not accepting something I am really not familiar with. No offense but I just think that too much frustration has resulted from this topic so I will not even risk it happening again and leave this topic alone for now. All this is not worth the stress in my opinion so this will probably be my last time commenting on this topic until you create another article on this topic if you decide to do so.

    “But I would just say again that I think understanding is different to accepting the truth of. If three doctors and the patient all report the same story, then surely we should accept it until and if we find good reason not to?”

    If the story is reported the same way by three doctors and the patient then I feel that I would have more questions than anything due to my lack of knowledge regarding NDEs. I’ll remain skeptical until I feel I have enough knowledge to draw a tentative conclusion.

    Anyways, talk to you some other time, Unkle E. Take care.

30. “After a while, wouldn’t it occur to you that maybe there could be truth to these allegations since several people have made them ?”

    Ken, the allegation is: “YOU always have to win , no matter what. …. you will have the last word and again prove me wrong (in your own mind) “

    Now can you explain this to me please? Two people discuss a serious topic (say the existence of God) at length, and fail to agree. Yet somehow one person (e.g. me) is never willing to admit they are wrong, and always wanting to win, while the other person (e.g. you) is free of those dastardly emotions and behaving very admirably.

    As I asked you before, how does that work? Why can’t we draw the same conclusion about BOTH protagonists?

31. Hi Terrell, thanks for your response. I think we have gone as far as we can go for now, and I hope you are able to find the information you need to assess these claims. Best wishes.

32. @ Ken @ Unkle E

    The link below seems to be a much more plausible and naturalistic explanation to the NDE talked about in the comment section that I would like to share. Perhaps I’ll bring this up in your next post on NDE’s.

    http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html#pam

33. Hi Terrell, sorry to be slow in replying, but I just returned yesterday from a week’s holiday when I had only occasional internet connection.

    Thanks for the link. It is an interesting analysis, I don’t know how fair or accurate, but it seems thorough. But if this “explanation” is right, why did the surgeon who performed the operation (and wasn’t making any religious or NDE claims as far as I can tell) say he couldn’t explain what had happened?

    So it is at least possible that this “explanation” starts with an assumption of naturalism and then finds what it needs to support that assumption. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it certainly seems possible. And it would be a pity to miss some useful evidence because of one’s binding assumptions!

    Anyway, you are right, we may discuss further if I write more on NDEs, when I’ll certainly include this reference. Thanks.

34. Surely the author of the explanation has some bias just as the surgeon, Mario Beauregard, and you have some bias. Perhaps your raising this talk of the possibility of one finding evidence to support one’s assumption of naturalism to warrant your assumption of supernaturalism in light of a contradictory explanation of Pamela’s NDE. Seems like a possibility. Either way it does nothing to refute a response and the best way to lessen the possible dissonance our assumptions may bring is for us to discuss the details rather than bring up the seemingly obvious fact that we all have our assumptions.

    Despite the author’s bias he does concede that one of Pamela’s auditory accounts was accurate. Such a concession seems to be evidence that the author was being fair as possible. Furthermore, Pamela’s auditory account seems to be accurate but how could she have been mistaken on her visual accounts as Michael Sabom (a Christian who seems to be in favor of NDE’s) points out?

    “Pam’s description of the bone saw having a “groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle” was a bit puzzling…. [T]he end of the bone saw has an overhanging edge that [viewed sideways] looks somewhat like a groove. However, it was not located “where the saw appeared to go into the handle” but at the other end.

    Why had this apparent discrepancy arisen in Pam’s description? Of course, the first explanation is that she did not “see” the saw at all, but was describing it from her own best guess of what it would look and sound like (187). “

    Seems like the discrepancy is more in line with the thesis that her mind/consciousness/self (or whatever you want to call it) was not literally floating outside of her body observing her operation. This is only one line of evidence in favor of a natural explanation of Pamela’s experience but a strong one in my opinion.

    Anyways, I’m still not sure if we are even talking about the same NDE because you claimed that the person’s body was drained of blood but the NDE I am talking about states that only the blood in her head was drained. Then again, the account I linked and the one you talked about both talk about the patient’s eyes being shut and speakers being placed in her ear so I’m assuming that you were simply mistaken about the patient’s whole body being drained of blood which brings me to another point. If you are using an account to argue for your position then one would think that you should at least report the details of the account accurately especially when it comes to a sensitive case where the details are important. Otherwise, people like me will continue to think that the type claims as you have presented are dubious as I have though in first place. I’m not saying you are being dubious or you are purposely reporting falsely. I’m simply saying that the claims are dubious.

    Lastly, I have no idea why the surgeon cannot explain Pamela’s NDE. Take that up with the surgeon. The surgeon’s lack of explanation seems to be a fault of the surgeon rather than evidence that Pamela was literally observing her operation over the shoulders of those conducting the surgery.

35. Hi Terrell, I think you have misunderstood my position.

    When I write a post, I research both sides of the question and try to present the consensus as fairly as possible. But in this case I didn’t write a post on NDEs, and I didn’t bring the subject up – Ken mentioned them first. I simply responded with some information I had come across without ever claiming it was comprehensive.

    I have stated my position quite clearly – “I am neither a believer or a disbeliever”. I have no axe to grind. I can believe NDEs are evidence of God, or that they are evidence of some natural faculties that we haven’t discovered yet, or I can believe that they are a purely natural phenomenon explained in terms of neuroscience. At present I haven’t made up my mind, and haven’t even really investigated.

    But it seems to me that a committed naturalist/physicalist is not in that happy position, but is pretty much forced towards the naturalist option, and would find it difficult to honestly consider the other options. My feeling was that Ken and you might be on the horns of that dilemma, and my only point was to urge you both to be more open to the options.

    I’m not sure that you are ready for that, but like you suggested, let’s leave the discussion until and if we both do more research and I write a post on it, shall we?

36. “When I write a post, I research both sides of the question and try to present the consensus as fairly as possible. But in this case I didn’t write a post on NDEs, and I didn’t bring the subject up – Ken mentioned them first. I simply responded with some information I had come across without ever claiming it was comprehensive.”

    It doesn’t matter who brought it up. You asked me to explain Pamela’s account multiple times from my perspective and at the time I was not familiar enough with the event you proposed to respond. I became a little bit more familiar with what you were talking and I found naturalistic response of which I found plausible and linked it.

    “I have stated my position quite clearly – “I am neither a believer or a disbeliever”. I have no axe to grind. I can believe NDEs are evidence of God, or that they are evidence of some natural faculties that we haven’t discovered yet, or I can believe that they are a purely natural phenomenon explained in terms of neuroscience. At present I haven’t made up my mind, and haven’t even really investigated.
    But it seems to me that a committed naturalist/physicalist is not in that happy position, but is pretty much forced towards the naturalist option, and would find it difficult to honestly consider the other options. My feeling was that Ken and you might be on the horns of that dilemma, and my only point was to urge you both to be more open to the options.
    I’m not sure that you are ready for that, but like you suggested, let’s leave the discussion until and if we both do more research and I write a post on it, shall we?”

    My response regarding bias was to point out that everyone has bias and I doubt that you bring no bias to the table despite being unsure about NDE’s. Keep in mind that you did ask me to how I would explain some of the details of the NDE and I offered another author’s explanation that pretty much lines up with how I would probably respond. I know that I said I would respond another time but I was annoyed and upset that you were questioning me while you didn’t even have the story straight yourself which seems to me to be the real dilemma. I felt compelled to push the conversation further despite saying that I wouldn’t. Furthermore, a person can only be as open to the options as they possibly can. I admit that it is hard to honestly consider other options especially when the one presenting the story can’t get the details of the NDE straight and I can’t help the fact that I find that Pamela’s experience seems dubious because her own testimony seems to contradict what a Christian neuroscientists says about the details of her visions. It is still possible that people can somehow still be conscious in a brain dead state or that a person can survive without a brain but it seems that the story you presented doesn’t support that notion. That’s about as open as I can be when it comes to this particular event until further notice.

37. Terrell, we haven’t established that I, or Mario Beauregard, got the details wrong, only that you have found a source that says differently. I don’t know who is right and wrong here, and since Beauregard is a well-respected neuroscientist reporting in a published book, I think it is reasonable to think he may have got it right.

    I have no objection to your discussing as you have done, but I don’t have a lot to add just yet. But if we are agreed that there are some unanswered questions and we both should be governed by the evidence and not by our preconceived viewpoints, then we have a good basis for future discussion when we each may have better information.

38. “Terrell, we haven’t established that I, or Mario Beauregard, got the details wrong, only that you have found a source that says differently. I don’t know who is right and wrong here, and since Beauregard is a well-respected neuroscientist reporting in a published book, I think it is reasonable to think he may have got it right.”

    You stated that the patient’s whole body was drained of blood. However, I have read and listened to multiple accounts of this NDE and I have not ran into any other account that states that her whole body was drained of blood. Even a documentary about Pamela’s experience states that her head (not her whole body) was drained of blood. The link is below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k#t=3m23s\

    Are we even talking about the same NDE?

    “I have no objection to your discussing as you have done, but I don’t have a lot to add just yet. But if we are agreed that there are some unanswered questions and we both should be governed by the evidence and not by our preconceived viewpoints, then we have a good basis for future discussion when we each may have better information.”

    Sure but I feel that Pamela’s NDE is poor evidence for discussion or at least Pamela’s experience has been presented poorly. I don’t know how Mario presents the NDE but my gripe is with what you seem to affirm that her whole body was drained of blood when other accounts affirm otherwise which is why I am wondering if we are talking about the same NDE. Are we or are we not? It seems that we both at least have to know that we are talking about the same event. In other words, can we once and for all establish if you have gotten a detail wrong about the NDE in question?

39. Hi Terrell, I checked Beauregard’s book and it says they “drained the blood from her body”. I looked up Sabom’s book on Amazon “Look Inside” and it says “the blood [was] drained from her body” and later says “warmed blood began to be reinfused into Pam’s empty body”.

    That is exactly what I have said. Neither I nor they said (as you have said here) “her whole body” – that is your inference. I don’t know whether they meant the whole body or not, neither do I know if the body could be partially drained or not. I just repeated what they both said.

    So let’s recapitulate:

    1. Ken mentioned NDEs and I referred to this one – it is obviously the same one you are talking about.

    2. You and Ken expressed strong scepticism about the details and credibility of the whole story.

    3. You seem to now accept the general details, but dispute one detail which I am at this stage unable to clarify.

    4. That detail makes no difference to the claim that something strange happened – how strange is a matter of opinion.

    So why are you pressing this matter? You are now apparently less sceptical than you were, because the reports back up most of the details I mentioned. So the discussion has achieved something, but I’m not sure it can achieve much more at this stage.

    Can we put it to bed for now do you think?

40. I find it curious that neuroscientists would not be specific about the details of an event that they seem to be presenting as evidence for the mind floating outside of the body in some way. Michael Sabom’s statement that “Pam’s empty body” was pumped with blood sounds a lot like saying her whole body was drained. You never seemed to dispute that her whole body was drained so I was not sure if that was the case. It still seems that you are still unsure. Do you think her whole body or just her head was drained? Mario seems to not have been rigorous in his presentation of the case as well. This lack of detail and the presentation of these details as if they are strong evidence for the mind existing without the body is why I am dubious of this case if these neuroscientists are presenting it as evidence of the mind existing without the body. Not to mention that Pamela was mistaken about the details of the operation that she supposedly viewed. Apparently, Michael Sabom states that Pamela was mistaken about the details of the drill that was used for the operation that she supposedly saw. How could someone be so sure (sure enough of make a documentary about it with claims of God) that they were viewing their operation over the shoulders of a doctor in the operating room yet be mistaken about what they viewed? To me it seems like evidence against her literally viewing her operation outside of her body. These are not the only things I have a problem with.

    I may or may not accept the general details. I think talk of “general” details is misleading because it is the specifics that matter. I disagree that the detail or details I mention makes no difference because the one presenting this case as if one should be puzzled to explain the event without being specific about the details is misleading regardless if it was intentional or not. You are mistaken that I am less skeptical. It seems that the more information I find about Pamela’s experience, the less convincing the case is. I am pressing this matter because I am frustrated with the apparent lack of detail given to this case by those who present this case as if one should be hard pressed to explain this event and I was looking for some clarification which you still seem to not be able to offer being that you are “unable to clarify” a detail which to seems to be a very important detail about the operation. The blood being drained from the head only and the blood being drained from the entire body seems to be significantly different details. The details of what this person supposedly saw during the operation seem to be important as well. Given these details, I am unsure which detail you are unable to clarify. Which detail are you talking about? This lack of specificity and the desire to get some clarification is why I push the matter forward.

    It is also frustrating that you present a story yet you seem to not be able to clarify the details of the story you present. I feel like your presentation of this case was premature. It now seems like you are the one who is unsure rather than me.

41. Hi Terrell, I don’t think there is anything new I can add. I feel you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels (to quote Jesus) and have ignored the ways you have been mistaken, and kept focusing on the smaller and smaller island that is still unexplained. So I am going to summarise and then quit this discussion.

    1. Ken raised the matter of a NDE and I said there was some interesting evidence, and referenced the case we have been discussing. You and Ken were both highly sceptical, not just of the possibility of someone seeing and hearing things while brain dead, but of the basic facts of this case such as the eyes being taped, the noise in her ears and the draining of blood. Ken said “Really ?????? Are you serious ??? This story sounds like a lot of “Malarkey” to me !” and you said “I would have to agree with Ken.”

    Yet now, apart from whether the whole body or just the head and neck were drained, you have now confirmed the details. So my reference was correct and both your scorn was misplaced. Yet I haven’t seen you acknowledge this yet.

    2. You queried the “whole body” being drained, when I and my references never used that phrase. We just said the body was drained – which may mean the whole body or it may not mean 100%. Again, I was able to show that I had correctly quoted the references. I take it to mean that her body was drained by gravity and I suppose there was some blood left, but not much, but that is just a guess.

    3. You make much of my not being able to confirm some details (principally whether the whole body was drained), yet the details we have both confirmed are quite sufficient to show some strange events that demand an explanation. For goodness sake Terrell, we have confirmed the lady had her eyes sealed shut, she had a 100dB noise in her ears, she was first unconscious and then her heart and brain were totally inactive. Yet she apparently heard and saw things! And you are worrying about whether her whole body was drained!? Or that while she got several of her “observations” right, she also got one or more incorrect?

    And even if the draining was critical to the case (which it isn’t, it is just icing on the cake), what does it matter if it was her whole body or just her head? The important thing is that it was definitely drained from her head. That’s what affects the brain, not whether it was drained from her toes. 🙂

    4. You have talked of bias, even though I have said several times that I have no firm opinion on how these events should be explained. All I say is that your and Ken’s initial scorn was misplaced and there is definitely something here that is difficult to explain.

    5. Finally, I cannot see why you are making such a big point about my not knowing everything you want to know about this case. I have pointed out several times that I will be likely writing this up in more detail later. This was only a brief reference to respond to your and Ken’s comments. Google is available to you to research the matter further, as it will be to me when and if I do more research.

    So I conclude that I have been justified in all my references while you have been mistaken in some of yours. You have ignored the several criticisms you made that turned out to be mistaken, and just keep zeroing in on minor details that are not germane to the main point. The case is indeed difficult to explain, and your questions about details are irrelevant to that fact, which was my original point. I’m sorry, but I really think such an approach is leading nowhere and I think the discussion has gone on long enough. So I will bow out and leave you to your own thoughts and research on this matter.

    Best wishes.

42. Hi Terrell, I don’t think there is anything new I can add. I feel you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels (to quote Jesus) and have ignored the ways you have been mistaken, and kept focusing on the smaller and smaller island that is still unexplained. So I am going to summarise and then quit this discussion.

    I only presented two lines of evidence that could be explained in naturalistic terms. That does not mean that I do not have an explanation for the rest of the details. After being so critical of me I find it hypocritical that you would turn around and state that I am “straining at gnats and swallowing camels”.

    “1. Ken raised the matter of a NDE and I said there was some interesting evidence, and referenced the case we have been discussing. You and Ken were both highly sceptical, not just of the possibility of someone seeing and hearing things while brain dead, but of the basic facts of this case such as the eyes being taped, the noise in her ears and the draining of blood. Ken said ‘Really ?????? Are you serious ??? This story sounds like a lot of “Malarkey” to me !’ and you said ‘I would have to agree with Ken.’”

    I agreed with Ken’s skepticism. That does not mean I think the case was “Malarkey”. I simply believe the whole truth was not presented. The fact that I found the case incredible and dubious at first glance does not imply that I was somehow displaying some sort of negative attitude towards this supposed NDE, some sort of unwillingness to look further into the matter, or scorn. I am not saying that you are accusing me of such (except for scorn) but I just want to make myself clear. I also dispute whether she was in fact brain dead during her NDE. It seems that her NDE began a little over 2 hours before she was brain dead and it does not seem like her NDE was one long continuous experience. It seems likely that her experience only occurred or could have only occurred during the times while she had or could have had brain activity. Her brain stem was only flat lined for probably a little more than half an hour.

    “Yet now, apart from whether the whole body or just the head and neck were drained, you have now confirmed the details. So my reference was correct and both your scorn was misplaced. Yet I haven’t seen you acknowledge this yet.”

    I still don’t agree that what you presented was completely correct. I feel that what you presented was ambiguous despite that you did report what your references reported. If there is any scorn (perhaps frustration if anything) it is because you were critical of me yet what you have presented does not seem to be thorough enough to warrant you being critical of me in the first place and when I am being critical after gaining more knowledge of the incident you seem to dismiss what I say. If my scorn is misplaced then I apologize but I do not see that it was nor do I see that there was any scorn. I have confirmed the details and the details do not seem to support the notion that her mind was floating outside of her body.

    2. You queried the “whole body” being drained, when I and my references never used that phrase. We just said the body was drained – which may mean the whole body or it may not mean 100%. Again, I was able to show that I had correctly quoted the references.

    I admit that the references did not explicitly state that her whole body was drained but the fact that the reference you cite could have meant whole body, not her whole body, or just her head is a lack of rigor and misleading regardless if it was intentional or not.

    “I take it to mean that her body was drained by gravity and I suppose there was some blood left, but not much, but that is just a guess.”

    Your guess is wrong, E. Only her head was drained of blood. There was still plenty of blood throughout the rest of her body.

    “3. You make much of my not being able to confirm some details (principally whether the whole body was drained), yet the details we have both confirmed are quite sufficient to show some strange events that demand an explanation. For goodness sake Terrell, we have confirmed the lady had her eyes sealed shut, she had a 100dB noise in her ears, she was first unconscious and then her heart and brain were totally inactive. Yet she apparently heard and saw things! And you are worrying about whether her whole body was drained!?” Or that while she got several of her “observations” right, she also got one or more incorrect? And even if the draining was critical to the case (which it isn’t, it is just icing on the cake), what does it matter if it was her whole body or just her head? The important thing is that it was definitely drained from her head. That’s what affects the brain, not whether it was drained from her toes. :)”

    If you read the link I provided then you would know that there is an explanation of her auditory and visual experience. The point about her whole body or just her head being drained is only one dispute I make. It does not mean it is the only one. Also, I have presented a line of evidence that she was mistaken about what she saw. As vivid as her testimony seems at first glance, she was still mistaken about the details of the drill she says she saw despite the fact the she claims that her visions were “brighter and more focused and clearer than normal vision” during her OBE. As the author states:

    “And it is telling that the one visual observation that Pam (almost) could not have known about other than by leaving her body was the very detail that was not accurate.”

    Even Sabom notices the discrepancy:

    “Pam’s description of the bone saw having a “groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle” was a bit puzzling…. [T]he end of the bone saw has an overhanging edge that [viewed sideways] looks somewhat like a groove. However, it was not located “where the saw appeared to go into the handle” but at the other end.

    Why had this apparent discrepancy arisen in Pam’s description? Of course, the first explanation is that she did not “see” the saw at all, but was describing it from her own best guess of what it would look and sound like (187).”

    She also reports seeing that her hair being partly shaved which the author in the link explains:

    “First, there is the observation that only part of her head was shaved. Perhaps she could have guessed this at the time of her experience, but there is no need even for this in order to account for the reported observation. Surely Pam would have noticed this soon after awaking from general anesthesia—by seeing her reflection, feeling her hair, or being asked about it by visitors. And she certainly would have known about it, one way or the other, by the time she was released from the hospital. Indeed, if her hair had been shaved presurgery, or at any time prior to her general anesthesia, she would have known about it well before her OBE. And patients undergoing such a risky procedure are standardly given a consent briefing where even the cosmetic effects of surgery are outlined—if not explicitly in a doctor’s explanation, then at least incidentally in any photographs, diagrams, or other sources illustrating what the procedure entails. So Pam may have learned (to her surprise) that her head would be only partially shaved in a consent briefing prior to her experience, but ‘filed away’ and consciously forgot about this information given so many other more pressing concerns on her mind at the time. That would be exactly the sort of mundane, subconscious fact we would expect a person to recall later during an altered state of consciousness.[21] And although we are not given the exact date of the operation, Sabom reports that the procedure took place in August 1991 (38). He later tells us that he interviewed Pam for the first time on November 11, 1994 (186). That leaves over three years between the date of Pam’s NDE and Sabom’s interview—plenty of time for memory distortions to have played a role in her report of the experience. So there is nothing remarkable about this particular observation.”

    As far as her auditory experience, she was correct about a detail that she reports she heard. She stated that she heard doctors state that her veins were small. However, after looking into the matter, it seems that it is possible for auditory information to be processed even with the type of speakers used in her surgery as the author of the link I provided explains:

    “ Sometime after 7:15 AM that August morning, general anesthesia was administered to Pam Reynolds. Subsequently, her arms and legs were tied down to the operating table, her eyes were lubricated and taped shut, and she was instrumented in various other ways (Sabom, “Light” 38). A standard EEG was used to record activity in her cerebral cortex, while small earphones continuously played clicks[20] into her ears to invoke auditory evoked potentials (AEPs), a measure of activity in the brain stem (39).

    Sabom considers whether conscious or semiconscious auditory perceptions were incorporated into Pam’s OBE imagery during a period of anesthesia awareness, but dismisses the possibility all-too-hastily:

    ‘Could Pam have heard the intraoperative conversation and then used this to reconstruct an out-of-body experience? At the beginning of the procedure, molded ear speakers were placed in each ear as a test for auditory and brain-stem reflexes. These speakers occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing (Sabom, “Light” 184).’

    But is this last claim really true? Since Sabom merely asserts this (and has an obvious stake in it being true), we have little reason to take him at his word—especially on such a crucial point. What is the basis for his assertion? Does he have any objective evidence that the earphones used to measure AEPs completely cut off sounds from the external environment?

    Since Sabom does not back up this claim in Light and Death, I did a little research and discovered that his claim is indeed false. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as a matter of procedure, a patient who is monitored by the very same equipment to detect acoustic neuromas (benign brain tumors) “sits in a soundproof room and wears headphones” (NINDS). But a soundproof room would be unnecessary, of course, if the earphones used to measure AEPs ‘occlude the ear canals and altogether eliminate the possibility of physical hearing.’ It is theoretically possible that the earphones used in 1991 made physical hearing impossible, whereas the earphones used today do not. However, it highly unlikely, as it would be far cheaper for medical institutions to continue to invest in the imagined sound-eliminating earphones, rather than soundproofing entire rooms to eliminate external sounds. As Gerald Woerlee points out, ‘earplugs do not totally exclude all external sounds, they only considerably reduce the intensity of external sounds,’ as demonstrated by ‘enormous numbers of people … listening to loud music played through earplugs, while at the same time able to hear and understand all that happens in their surroundings’ (Woerlee, “Pam”).”

    Furthermore, she was not “brain dead” during the time the doctors made the comments about her veins. The comments were made before they began to cool her body and she had brain activity at that moment. Lastly, her NDE began a little over two hours at around 8:45 a.m. which is well before her brain stem flat lined at around 11:25 a.m. This leaves plenty of room to experience her NDE.

    4. You have talked of bias, even though I have said several times that I have no firm opinion on how these events should be explained. All I say is that your and Ken’s initial scorn was misplaced and there is definitely something here that is difficult to explain.

    I am offering an explanation. It does not seem too difficult to explain in naturalistic terms after the specifics are brought to light. Of course it is difficult if one just presents the NDE ambiguously. I still do not agree that my supposed scorn was misplaced if there even was any which I doubt.

    5. Finally, I cannot see why you are making such a big point about my not knowing everything you want to know about this case. I have pointed out several times that I will be likely writing this up in more detail later. This was only a brief reference to respond to your and Ken’s comments. Google is available to you to research the matter further, as it will be to me when and if I do more research.
    So I conclude that I have been justified in all my references while you have been mistaken in some of yours. The case is indeed difficult to explain, and your questions about details are irrelevant to that fact, which was my original point. I think the discussion has gone on long enough, and so I will bow out and leave you to your own thought and research on this matter.

    I have done research. I’m trying to see whether you have done yours on this particular NDE. I have told you that I am making this point about the details because it is the specifics that matter and I feel frustrated by the lack of thoroughness in regards to the details of the NDE you have presented. I will admit that I was mistaken but that does not excuse the lack of rigor of the references you cite. It seems to me that the reason I was mistaken was because of this lack of thoroughness.

    Lastly, I would like to make a comment about my supposed scorn regarding this matter. I feel that such an accusation is ridiculous. Just because I am being critical of you does not mean that there was any sort of contempt. I was simply returning the favor. I see no problem with being critical towards one another but when it appears to me that you have not presented the story thoroughly enough to warrant you being so critical of me it will frustrate me. However, frustration does not equal scorn and I have made myself very clear that I was only frustrated.

43. Hi Terrell,

    Thanks for that. As I said, I won’t be responding again. I will just clarify one thing. I don’t mind you writing critical comment, my problems were as outlined in my last comment.

    Thanks.

44. No worries. Just wanted to make sure you knew where I am coming from. Take care.

Comments are closed.