Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point

156. Closer to Truth Host, Dr. Robert Kuhn, Skeptical of Near-Death Experience Science

December 20th, 2011 Alex

Interview with Dr. Robert Kuhn reveals why he’s reluctant to accept evidence for near-death experience (NDE) science.

Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Robert Kuhn, host of popular television show Closer to Truth.  During the interview Kuhn discusses the evidence for survival of consciousness after death:

Alex Tsakiris: Let’s talk about survival of consciousness a little bit — life after death — and in particular near-death experience research. It’s a topic we’ve covered a lot on this show.  If there’s consciousness with no brain, then the mind/body debate is really over. Why isn’t this an area you’ve dug into?

Dr. Robert Kuhn: That’s a legitimate question and obviously we’ve touched on it because we do deal with life after death in terms of the religious expressions of it. So that’s something I can focus on, because it’s not a question of physical fact as NDE would be, which I am very skeptical of.

Alex Tsakiris: Who would be someone you would point to as being an NDE skeptic?

Dr. Robert Kuhn: To me, the number of people would be legion. The burden of proof is on the other side.

Alex Tsakiris: The burden of proof of what? The NDE evidence is pretty clear.  For example when they’ve studied this in the cardiac ward they know there’s no brain electrical activity and yet there’s this conscious NDE experience. I mean, that’s really the crux of the mind/body issue.

Dr. Robert Kuhn: I would find that not compelling at all if that’s the evidence.

Alex Tsakiris: What do you mean?

Dr. Robert Kuhn: I personally believe that there is more likely than not a need for something beyond the material world as we understand it today to explain consciousness and mind. I would not, though, use as evidence for that the existence of the NDE.

Closer to Truth Website

Play It:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3 (41:00 min.)

Read It:

Alex Tsakiris: Let’s talk about survival a little bit. Life after death. It’s a topic we’ve covered a lot on this show because the evidence for it really cuts to the core of this argument we’ve just been talking about. If there’s consciousness when there’s no brain, then it’s really debate over. And that, of course, brings…

Dr. Robert Kuhn: Well, I don’t necessarily agree with that but to be very rigorous in the analysis it does not follow that if there is more to consciousness than the brain, it does not follow that there has to be a guaranteed life after death. It can follow; it is not excluded, of course. It is a fact in that direction…

Alex Tsakiris: Let me be clear. What I was saying is that if there’s consciousness with no brain, then the mind/body debate is really over because you don’t have a body anymore and you do still have a mind. That debate is over. I agree with you; survival of a personal consciousness that exists, reincarnation and all the rest, is a whole other leap as you said that requires some gaps.

But I think the topic that we’ve dug into because it directly addresses these issues is the near-death experience. I was very interested to read a blog post of yours titled, “Is There Life After Death?” If I can, I want to read you a quote from that and chat about it a little bit. You say, “As for NDEs, I’ve never given the claims credence. They seem more like stress-induced brain physiology caused by lack of oxygen or other such chemical insults or trauma brought about by whatever has caused the near-death in the first place.”

Tell me about that because I’ve got to tell you, I’ve interviewed some of the world’s leading NDE researchers, physicians, researchers at leading universities, and boy, none of them are saying that. It seems to me like all the evidence points in the other direction. So tell me what you’re thinking there.

Dr. Robert Kuhn: Well, I don’t claim to be an expert. I’ve not done any personal research myself, but from what I’ve observed and from my knowledge of brain science in general, to me a great deal of the NDE data has similar kinds of characteristics but they all have their own cultural affectations. So it just seems to be dream-like activities that are affected by one’s personal state. And there are similarities. People talk about lights and all of that.

I can’t claim to be an expert; I just don’t find from what I’ve read to be terribly compelling that there’s something there that is provable. I would think that life after death and survival of consciousness is such an overwhelmingly powerful and fundamental aspect of reality that if it were true, we’d see much more obvious representations of it.

So the arguments I’m giving you are not knock-down arguments but they do inform my own thinking. I can see mechanisms of how NDE can occur without some fundamental reality and just on brain trauma affected by cultural aspects of the individual life. I can see why people like to see that.

Then on the other hand, if there were NDE and there were independent spirits that survive death and hover around or however you define that, I would think that the evidence of that, because it would be such a powerful part of how the universe is constructed, would be a lot more.

Alex Tsakiris: I don’t want to push this too far because you are admitting and being upfront about not having dug into it too far, but really all those topics that you’ve mentioned have been pretty thoroughly investigated. We’ve had many, many experts on the show.

Hypoxia, as you mentioned, the lack of oxygen has pretty thoroughly been addressed. The cultural data that has come in—and there’s been some good research on that—actually concludes the exact opposite of what you’re saying, that there’s really no way to explain the similarities of the experience across culture.

And the differences you see in terms of if you’re Christian you might see Jesus and if you’re Buddhist you might see Buddha, are really the kind of fine-tuning small points as the differences go. The overwhelming majority of the experience is similar across cultures. We can go on and on but…

Dr. Robert Kuhn: Well, human brains are similar. Everybody has hippocampuses and thalamuses and…

Alex Tsakiris: Right, but we wouldn’t expect to see the same narrative over and over again played in that way. Again, this isn’t my personal conclusion; it’s the conclusion of the folks who have done the research. Moreover, there just isn’t any research that really contradicts any of that. Certainly no clinical research.

And the stuff that gets thrown up there, I mean, you look at Sue Blackmore who published something 20 years ago. We had her on the show. She admits, “I’m not current on the research. I’m not an expert to speak on it.” And yet people keep drudging up her stuff. Thoroughly, thoroughly addressed.

I guess the only question I can ask since you’re not familiar with the research is, why isn’t this an area you’ve dug into more? And what would make it not something that you would really be that interested in pursuing from a Closer to Truth kind of angle?

Dr. Robert Kuhn: That’s a legitimate question and obviously we’ve touched on it because we do deal with life after death in terms of the religious expressions of it. I do like exploring from religious traditions that believe in life after death what that would mean. So that’s something I can focus on, for example, because it’s not a question of physical fact as NDE would be, which I am very skeptical of, but people’s opinion if there is life after death.

So we give them that; we assume there’s life after death because then we don’t have to deal with the argumentation of whether there is. I assume there is to explore what that would mean. And that to me is very interesting. It deals with a lot of philosophical theology, the different religions, and how they see life after death, the implications of that. To me, that’s fascinating; to me, that’s much more interesting than a trying to prove it.

All I can say is that if the evidence were as obvious as you say it is, then the overwhelming number of people in the world would believe it, in terms of people who study things. And it’s quite the opposite, certainly for science as you mentioned one psychiatrist. There are many who don’t.

Alex Tsakiris: Again, we could dig into it and I’m happy to explore it. I tell you, I have talked to a lot of the leading people in that area. I don’t know–who would be someone you would point to as being an NDE skeptic?

Dr. Robert Kuhn: To me, the number of people would be legion. The burden of proof is on the other side. To say why…

Alex Tsakiris: The burden of proof of what? I mean, I think you’re jumping into the survival/life after death thing and I’m just saying what the medical researchers are doing and it’s established now. You won’t even hear anyone argue the phenomena. NDEs happen…

Dr. Robert Kuhn: Oh, if you want to say that there are those experiences, sure. Sure, people have…

Alex Tsakiris: During a time. But the important thing is during a time when…

Dr. Robert Kuhn: If you’re saying that NDEs, that there are people who go through trauma that they almost have died and didn’t and then came back to life or didn’t come back to life, came back to consciousness and had some feelings of different lights, that’s for sure true. I mean, no doubt about that.

Alex Tsakiris: But let me be clear. With the research, the evidence suggests pretty clearly in cardiac wards, Dr. Pim Van Lommel, in the Netherlands who’s the leading cardiologist over there, studied it for 25 years, published in The Lancet. I mean, this is not small potato stuff.

Dr. Robert Kuhn: Well, what are you saying? I’m still not sure.

Alex Tsakiris: In the cardiac ward, they know there’s no brain electrical activity and yet there’s a conscious experience. I mean, that’s really the fulcrum point where this swings. We can deal with life after death later. But we really have to deal with the fact that there’s…

Dr. Robert Kuhn: What you’re saying is the brain is dead but there is consciousness at the same time. You’re not saying there’s life after death. Is that your claim?

Alex Tsakiris: I’m saying that’s really the crux of the mind/body issue. If we do have this conscious experience…

Dr. Robert Kuhn: You’re saying that—I would find that not compelling at all if that’s the evidence. I think the question which is a very strong one, and I may think your conclusion may be right, but I would not cite your evidence as reason for it.

Alex Tsakiris: Unravel that for me. What do you mean?

Dr. Robert Kuhn: Well, I mean I personally believe that there is more likely than not a need for something beyond the material world as we understand it today to explain consciousness and mind. So in that sense, I likely agree with your conclusion.

I would not, though, use as evidence for that the existence of the NDE experience where some cardiologists don’t record brain activity at contemporaneously with an experience of a phenomenal experience that the person later reports. I think the physiology of that, even if they don’t detect brain waves, is that the brain wasn’t dead.

How can you say it was dead? People have been underwater for 20 minutes or things that don’t seem rational or who knows what? There may have very well been activity. If the person has unrecordable brain activity it doesn’t mean–if they came back to life I assume that the brain wasn’t dead.

Alex Tsakiris: Right, but again, I don’t know how far we can really push this. We’ve interviewed one of the leading EEG experts, and the guy’s a skeptic. The EEG is really a pretty good indicator of what we’ve correlated with conscious activity so we can’t really appeal to that argument… that maybe there’s something going on deep inside the brain. That’s an argument that skeptics have brought up that really doesn’t hold water. From everything we know about the brain…

Dr. Robert Kuhn: So what are you saying? The brain was dead and then it came back to life?

Alex Tsakiris: The brain was dead at the same time the person was experiencing a vivid, hyper-conscious experience.

Dr. Robert Kuhn: So then how did the brain if it was dead get back to life?

Alex Tsakiris: That’s the question, isn’t it? I mean, that’s really the jumping off point for a whole bunch of questions that we might ask.

Dr. Robert Kuhn: Look, I understand the view; it’s just not something that I personally would put a lot of stock in, in terms of I don’t base my belief or hope that there is something beyond the material brain. I don’t base it on NDE. I mean, that’s just full-stop. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I don’t think so.

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Share
Bookmark It

Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook
Add to Google Bookmarks Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon
Add to Technorati Add to Twitter Add to Yahoo My Web

Hide Sites

posted in consciousness research, near-death experience | forum discussion | Email Me



« 155. Buddhist Meditation Teacher Shinzen Young on the Role of God in Meditation
157. Spirit Medium August Goforth Skeptical of Reincarnation »
  • Enrique Vargas

    Alex, I’m not sure what this interview was all about. It could be reduced to a single phrase: “I’m dr. Robert Kuhn, I don’t know the first thing bout NDE’s or NDE research, I’m completely ignorant on the subject, still I will render my opinion based on nothing: NDE’s are perfectly explainable”… The arrogance, the blind dogmatism, the quasi -religious orthodoxy of those so-called scientists…. That’s probably what you wanted demonstrate in this interview….

  • Rodwalton46

    Hi Alex, A great interview as always, I think you summed it up when you  intimated a very clever man who has a blind spot. That was exactly what I was thinking when you made that statement.

  • Bernardo Kastrup

    You can get around the question of whether the brain was dead or not (we don’t really have a strong definition for “dead”) by just saying: the brain was inactive, and that is measurable. This is, in fact, everything you need to establish: A major conscious experience occurred without correlated brain activity. That breaks the current paradigm. You need no more.

  • Smithy

    I could not agree more, Bernardo!

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    Hi Enrique… well, interviews are a funny thing… I didn’t know he would draw such a hard line on NDEs… strange.

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    Yes Rod… I kinda understand it… but it’s still surprising to see it come from someone steeped in science/critical thinking

  • Enrique Vargas

    Yeah, I know, a good interview is always unpredictable, I was just stunned that somebody who is calls himself a scientist would render a very, as you said, hard-line opinion o a subject they don’t know anything about. 

  • AnduinX

    I don’t understand how Dr. Robert Kuhn can supposedly have such a
    great life-calling interest into the subject of survival and
    consciousness, and know so little about the NDE.  You would think his
    interest would drive him to thoroughly learn about the subject.

    Anyway, Alex, technically the brain is not dead during this time.  It’s
    inactive.  Dead cells don’t spontaneously return to life, I think that’s
    what Robert was hung up on.

    For all effective purposes there is no difference though.  Even if the
    brain cells are not dead, if they’re not communicating with each other
    and experience continues, then materialism goes out the window.

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    right… then again, there’s something to be said for keeping terms  as simple as possible. clinical death occurs within seconds of cardiac arrest — these NDErs were DEAD.

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    I think we’re all saying the same thing… NDE a minute or two after cardiac arrest violates mind=brain.

  • Ant

    Given that the good Doctor has a PHD in brain research you would think that he would have undertaken some reading on the latest NDE findings. How can he claim to have an interest in consciousness if he is not familiar with research which has a crucial & fundamental implication for our understanding how it operates. Opinions based on ignorance are worthless.

  • Robert Perry

    Did Kuhn know ahead of time that he would be interviewed about NDEs? Looking at his bio on his website, he doesn’t seem to have gone anywhere very near to that subject, even though he has danced all around it. But at any rate, I would have appreciated hearing “That’s not something I’ve looked deeply into, but based on what you are saying, it sounds like the implications might be quite significant and I look forward to exploring it more fully.” Instead, what I heard was “Well, I don’t really know a lot about it, but since consciousness comes from the brain, then we have to assume that, regardless of the apparent state of the brain at the time, it must have been generating consciousness.”

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    Hi Robert… he’s published on it (I read the quote on air) and covered “life after death” on his show.

  • http://lightningoak.wordpress.com Jason Wingate

    I like hearing you stick to your line Alex, fruitfully or no. There’s always a feeling that you didn’t let anyone get away with it. Deep down they know it.

    Visionary experience need not be based on cultural expectation — people experience things totally different from their prior beliefs; a *lot*. Check out this underrated book for example:

    http://www.amazon.com/Transcendent-Sex-When-Lovemaking-Opens/dp/0743482174/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324481307&sr=8-1-fkmr0

    This is how conversion experiences happen. Visionary experience running counter to life beliefs results in change of latter. St Paul is not a bad example.

    As far as the cutting edge of life after death check out my current blog post if you are open-minded:

    http://lightningoak.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/so-where-are-you-going-later/

    … goes a bit further than most, with even a little evidential backup (thanks to IONS)!

    Good to insist on the psycho-social nature of the skeptic movement and its fundamentalist nature. But we didn’t really get anywhere this time around. “I would find that not compelling at all” is pretty much Kuhn’s whole counterthrust. His show is probably marshmallow but maybe I’ll look at it.

    Not your fault though Alex of course. On we go…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Davide-Pintus/100001076837093 Davide Pintus

    No argument on the meaning of atheist/agnostic yet? I’m shocked.
    Interesting as always Alex.

  • Ant

    You stated it well Robert. I think Dr.K was just spouting the default position of current brain researchers, the brain is the only thing creating consciousness therefore since these NDers were not really dead then at some deep unmeasurable level their brains somehow generated conscious lucid type experiences. I have never seen any evidence that a non functioning brain (dead or not) can create lucid experiences – EEG measurements are extremely sensitive to cortical electrical activity which is well documented to correlate with awareness. At the very least to be so dismissive about it really surprised me.

  • TheSurvivalIndex

    I like Kuhn and his shows greatly. I was disappointed that he said NDEs were dreamlike, because the experiencers consistently say they were not dream-like. After listening to scores of experiencers and reading through many hundreds of accounts it struck me at some point, after hearing the same thing over and over and over again, that something real is going on with NDEs which does not lend itself to trite materialist explanations. Unfortunately for academics like Kuhn, I don’t see them taking the time to do the work that would give them a chance to be persuaded. The attitude is always just that it can’t be so, and that’s that. No need to look.

  • Manlyguy34

    You should have this guy on, if you havn’t already:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

  • Ant

    Indeed & if NDEs were just dream like fantasy creations then you would expect many differing accounts unique to those individuals, not the core type experiences which is well documented. He might respond with , well our brains are the same so they respond to the same traumas in the same way. Certainly true but the content, imagery & symbolism would not be so similar, universal & cross cultural. This to me suggests a shared glimpse of another reality beyond the physical. Impossible to prove but impossible to ignore.

  • tim

    Dr. Robert Kuhn: So then how did the brain if it was dead get back to life?

    This is the classic ..’there’s no answer to that’…. sceptical get out. When all else fails drop this in…. “How could they be dead if they didn’t die” ?

    What struck me (right in the gonads) was how little this guy knows about the literature. I swear my wife knows more than him and she won’t even look into the evidence…her position is… life after death is horseshit…don’t insult me by trying to show me to the contrary.

  • tim

    Just a further point about ‘evidence’

    There is oodles of it, filing cabinets crammed with perfectly good, consistent reports, verified. Exactly the right kind of evidence one would want to see, corroborated OBE’s, movement from one reality to another, dead relatives in their prime, heavenly vistas and changed personalties.

    How can one interpret such phenomena any other way. It’s absurd.

  • tim

    That’s very amusing, Enrique. Love it. :-)

  • RR

    Alex, I suggest you Henry Stapp, phd in physics, to be one of the next guests.

    Here’s a interview with him on Closer to Truth: http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Henry-Stapp/99

  • Me

    I don’t know the guy and his show but his classic skepticism gave a classic interview. Looking for more than this here. I know you can’t control your guesst but I could feel from the start that the interview would go this way,,, But like a lot your show Alex!!!  It is just a little critic…

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    you might want to check out Closer to Truth… good show… not Skeptical nonsense.

  • Greg

    I always think these discussions are interesting.  They tend to get caught up on the first or second question, but I think it just goes to show the interviewees mindset towards a subject.

    With that being said, I’d like to add an  interesting observation regarding these topics. My background is in business, so that’s where my parallel comes from.  I see both sides of a topic like the true meaning of NDEs, as two competing corporations.  Both want their product, in this case, opinion on NDEs to win out.  They both bring in experts, other scientists that share their opinions. But yet we get no closer to the truth in the debate.  Both groups like corporations fear losing support. If proven wrong, they will lose money, their livelihoods, prestige within their surrounding communities. 

    Materialists especially, they have built careers on materialism.  They will do whatever they need to, to keep things going. They are willing to give those media sound bits that are so popular today regarding their beliefs.  They aren’t these rational giants, they so badly desire us to believe. They are people who don’t want to lose their jobs, and have their life’s work seen as pointless.  Regardless of what the evidence shows, they’ll find other data to support themselves. 

    In business it’s taught consumers do not make rational decisions.  No human is capable of being truly rational, understanding ever single possibility. It’s not science’s duty to be completely rational. 

    It always puzzles me why scientists whom claim to be rational, drive cars.

    Cars are 20-30% energy efficient, and definitely do not contain the most efficient engine ever developed. Yet you don’t see materialists using their logic to fight against irrational gasoline engines. They are biased. They could truly care less about the many illogical things encountered on a daily basis. Instead they feel they have to go fight a completely irrational battle against spirituality, survival of consciousness; knowing full well they won’t be able to convince those who believe of anything different.

    So if they are the gate keepers of reality, I call BS.  They need to stop forcing their non-beliefs down people’s throats. I believe many people have the same problem with arrogant skeptics, as they do with religious fundamentalists.

  • tim

    “They are people who don’t want to lose their jobs, and have their life’s work seen as pointless.  Regardless of what the evidence shows, they’ll find other data to support themselves.”

    That’s so true, Greg.

  • Anonymous

    Makes me think, on listening, how far away Dr. Kuhn is from some of the physical phenomena (lights etc.) seen during seances – not trying to go off topic : – ) but once you’ve kind of gone that extra mile, then NDEs are just a part of whole afterlife thing. Data in all directions.
    But scientists have a real hang up with this stuff.
    His shows can really open this all up though – what an achievement.

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    agreed… it really amounts to a worldview thing… the data (really by any measure) is overwhelming… but so is our ability to overlook/ignore/obfuscate.

  • http://occultview.com/ David

    I’ve seen only one of Dr. Robert Kuhn shows on PBS, his God show.  From this one show I saw, he was thoughtful and brought a balanced viewpoint.  However, he did not explore the cutting edge.  He seeks truth, but from a limited materialistic viewpoint.  We who walk the cutting edge, traveling the razor’s edge discover new truths. Dr. Kuhn is too polite (timid?) to walk the razor’s edge.  Timidity cannot walk the edge of a blade.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabe-Dupuis/100003187097706 Gabe Dupuis

    Hey Alex, just recently I started reading a book by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, “The Spiritual Brain”. It’s a great read, and Beauregard really covers all the bases when explaining the dead ends of materialism, the influence of consciousness on the brain, and mystical experiences (He is a neuroscientist as well, which I found interesting). Ah, I’m not excellent at explaining things, but if you haven’t read it yet, I think you would definitely enjoy it. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabe-Dupuis/100003187097706 Gabe Dupuis

    Well put David, I’ve watched his show quite a lot, and to me he always seems to agree with non-materialists, I find that he has some opposing feelings… Yet he never voices them, or really tests them enough.

  • ewfwefwe

    ..the rhetorics

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    Hi David… I might quibble… don’t think we should consider ourselves on the razor’s edge or fringe… I mean, I know that’s where we’re portrayed, but when you really examine the evidence, it’s the other side that stretching the limits of reason.

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    Hi Gabe… interviewed Denyse awhile back… while I agree with the overall conclusions of the research/book (i.e. God/love/connection), I can’t buy into the strong Christian angle… I’m ok with Christians, just don’t think there research supports Christian dogma.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabe-Dupuis/100003187097706 Gabe Dupuis

    I sensed that as well when reading the book, but overall I was just pleased to see work like this getting out there. The main thing I enjoyed was how he took on evolutionary psychology. On a side note, have you read Charles Tart’s book, “The End of Materialism”? I was thinking of picking it up, but I wasn’t sure, I’ve heard a lot of mixed reviews (Any other books you’d like to recommend would be welcome also).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabe-Dupuis/100003187097706 Gabe Dupuis

    Oh wow, I just noticed how old that book is now (I just recently found it at the bookstore, so I thought it was more recent).

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    I think Tart’s book is very good. There is a book recommendation thread on the Skeptiko forum… I don’t get around to reading many books… listen to a lot of interviews and podcasts though :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabe-Dupuis/100003187097706 Gabe Dupuis

    Oh okay, thanks, I’ll check that out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ross.jeffries1 Ross Jeffries

    I think his point was clear.  He is saying you are conflating consciousness having an aspect that is not dependent on or a function of the brain, with survival after death. He is saying that the former could well be possible WITHOUT the latter being a fact.  Perhaps, for example, consciousness has a quantum aspect that is non-local.  That doesn’t mean it continues after the death of the body/brain, or that it continues forever. 

    In that respect, he makes a good point.  And he may also be implying that we just don’t know enough about how consciousness works to clearly define “death”.  

    But what do I know? I’m only a pick-up girls Guru.  But I’ve got that down to a science!  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=14001669 Daniel Spoor

    Alex, I just want to repeat what someone else said and ask that you please consider interviewing Henry Stapp.

    For everyone else, I have followed both Alex and Robert Kuhn’s work for a very long time. I am disappointed by Robert’s lack of knowledge about NDE’s and the position he takes on it, but I do hope this doesn’t discourage you from looking at the closer to truth site. There are a lot of amazing interviews that’ll help progress you understanding of the ‘big questions’ and what modern science, philosophy, and theology have to say about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=14001669 Daniel Spoor

    Alex, I just want to repeat what someone else said and ask that you please consider interviewing Henry Stapp.

    For everyone else, I have followed both Alex and Robert Kuhn’s work for a very long time. I am disappointed by Robert’s lack of knowledge about NDE’s and the position he takes on it, but I do hope this doesn’t discourage you from looking at the closer to truth site. There are a lot of amazing interviews that’ll help progress you understanding of the ‘big questions’ and what modern science, philosophy, and theology have to say about it.

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    will do… just might take some time.

    agree re Closer to Truth.

  • Robert Perry

    I just saw a quick video in which Kuhn interviews parapsychologist Stephen Braude about the evidence for the afterlife:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YJ-T8XudfsE

    Kuhn is quite upfront about his biases, which are largely theoretical. He doesn’t seem to be thinking on the level of the evidence, but rather on the level of larger concerns like, “How could such important evidence be restricted to such isolated cases?” It’s a very telling interview; in this case, about the interviewer.

  • http://www.skeptiko.com/ Alex Tsakiris

    I agree… it was a very telling interview… you could see that he was struggling with the info and the implications for his worldview.

  • Pages

    • Home
    • Past Shows
    • News Releases
    • About


    • Alex Tsakiris facebooktumblrtwitter








powered by WordPress theme by Blog Oh Blog