Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point

Hey Alex. Thanks for Skeptiko. Don't let the interviews with folks like this guy get you disheartened. It seemed to me he quickly decided he couldn't get off the phone soon enough. I thought you were very polite and I'm still not sure where the hostility on his part was coming from- just because you had a disagreement or hadn't been able to read his entire book? Maybe it's just mis-perception on my part. Anyway, keep doing your thing- it's great and Skeptiko is the best show of its kind.

Another one that hasn't read the research. Of course he said he has, but you can't read Sabom's Recollections of death and come to 'that' conclusion. You can only propose fraud. So it seems an unholy alliance exists… neither the church nor acamdemia want to hear about the dreaded NDE………scary !

thx ST… I was a little surprised by his reaction as well.

yea, the strange bedfellows thing applies here

I'm really glad you're doing these interviews. I was raised in a hard-core religious environment and I find it interesting that so many religious folks have such issues with NDE's. For me they were actually a source of comfort precisely because the experiencers were coming back describing something that was so often at odds with the frightening religious experience and indoctrination I had had.

yea… very sad… and very revealing about what Christianity means to some.

Well I'm listening to the interview right now and he doesn't seem to understand that it is precisely that memories (and highly lucid and vivid ones at that) are forming during a time when there's no (or at least far below normal) brain function. That's the crux of the situation here. His argument is a preformed one. If there's a memory, it's because the brain recorded it, even if there was no brain activity! It's a tautology. the brain is recording these memories, even if the brain isn't active, therefore the brain must be active, don't bother me with the fact that the brain isn't active. So very interesting. And also, the brain is quite active during dreams, so there's no comparison here.

Wow, this interview is certainly triggering some things for me. He's claiming, if I am hearing this correctly, that description of godly encounters in the Bible are what constitute 'true' and 'valid' experiences whereas NDE's aren't? Hmm. You could just pull in mammoth arguments about the validity of biblical translations, etc. within the context of this argument given this. Now, what really has me scratching my head is that he says that these ancient descriptions are essentially ineffable and vague, which therefore validates them. Whereas, according to him, NDE accounts are in 'technicolor' and overly vivid so they can't be real. What? So he clearly hasn't really paid attention to people's NDE reports because over and over people describe the fact that words simply are unable to effectively describe what was experienced. This is precisely a point that Pim Van Lommel makes in his book on NDE's.

I think Michael Marsh would enjoy studying this particular NDE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw3oaNUR1iI
http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/i…

In fact, Alex, I think what he's saying is what the “NDE-metaphysics” will eventually turn out to be when they start researching it, when the evidential part of the discussion has calmed down a bit and we collectively move on to discuss what the implications of the NDE are.

And I agree, Neal Grossman's prediction of the “strange bedfellows” still holds true

Thanks for a great episode – it was fun to hear a Christian speak about this matter for a change

I just listened to it again. Dr Marsh thinks the book of revelation is to be taken seriously…….but shucks… how do we know that John didn't make it all up ? I wasn't impressed with his reasoning at all… The NDE can't happen because the brain isn't working(SUMMARY)…..well, Dr Marsh, that's kinda why we are all interested. ' There's no evidence for it '…..well read Sabom's six star cases and there it is…. NOT ONE but SIX. Unless of course you are going to suggest they were lying and in cahoots with Sabom. Which is fair enough, of course. I don't believe it, but I would say that, wouldn't I.

Please note. Apologies to all for hammering on about Sabom's study. I'm aware that it was criticised but for me it was unfair.

I happened to like his memory based critiscism. Memory is physical, beyond a doubt, experiments have been done where memories are selectively “erased” with chemicals(in mice for obvious ethical reasons). So since memories are physical it leads one to think how it could be that something non-physical could affect it, or that if the non-physical can affect it then there is something “real”, something objective that could be studied instead of the inherently unreliable testimony of people claiming an NDE.

Is the Sabom stuff online, and likewise, is the critique of it online? I would love to delve into it, but I'm not exactly rich enough to buy a couple of books.

Maybe the 'real' mind is an undiscovered entity.
Please at least have a look at the data. Try and explain the data(Sabom -my favourite) pathologically. How can someone observe their own open heart surgery from a vantage point over their doctor's shoulder ? ? ?

Have a read and then try and work out who is lying- who is trying to gain some kudos by making up these OBE stories.

But Alex, it *is* true because the book of Revelation is true because the bible says it is true. Haven't you heard of the book of Revelation? What aspect of this perfect logic do you not understand?

I think it is good to show that perspectives like this exist. But someone who thinks this way is not interested in reality in any sense other than how it fits into their interpretation of the bible. Everyone knows people like Dr. Marsh. This is funny to me, and a bit sad.

Alex, good job. I was shaking my head all through the interview. The religious fundamentalists are harder to take than the scientific fundamentalists.

Mike

Hi Hjortron,
I don't think you can read it anywhere on the web unless anyone else knows better. Near death.com has some statistical information on the study. You can pick up a copy on Amazon.com for half a dollar plus postage or you can buy a copy at Amazon books UK for literally -one penny(£0.01) plus postage.
It's well worth a couple of quid just to really study the autoscopic(as Sabom defined them) OBE observations which are so specific with detail, they defy rational explanation…unless it was all a hoax.

Right, but are Dr. Marsh's argruements really that different than Dr. Pigliucci's?

Good show.

I miss Marilynn Hughes (episode #75 hereabouts) — a devout Catholic OBEer who knows *all* about how this stuff works. You don't need to be religious to OBE, and in studying therapy I couldn't believe how many people are screwed up by the church, but there are good people in it too and she is one.

Hughes has had experiences of Christ and she's had OBEs, she's not just a reader but a genuine practitioner. Marsh has academic cross-referencing but not experience.

People who OBE deliberately (that is, they train for it) tend to respect each other, whether they are religious or not. Robert Monroe has a great moment in 'Far Journeys' where he encounters a Christian group… I won't spoil it for you.

Personally I used to get very angry when someone said, “I know all about how communication with the divine occurs, I've read all about it”… not any more. It's pointless trying to explain! He's got it all worked out. There are *huge* numbers of Catholic saints who OBEd… but there's no making the connection for some people. That happened in a proper Christian book, so it's not the same.)

The key to what you were talking about towards the end there is: There's a lot more to the 'afterlife' than what the Christians talk about dogmatically, and not all of it is Christian.

Marsh is not comparing like with like when he talks about experiences of being 'communicated with by God' and compares them to OBE. No-one is saying they are the same thing. But plenty of Christian mystics have done both and continue to do both. You see, people who have NDEs are mostly not saints going all the way to the God or to Christ or to enlightenment — they are just ordinary people. But that doesn't mean what they experience isn't real!

There are multiple zones in the non-physical (and they have always been described in the traditions that understand this stuff — even Paul seems to refer briefly to them), and lower zones are more earth-like. The 'perfumes flowers and winds' is that 'astral' stuff, a relatively low level compared to Ultimate, however you vision that (Tao/God etc), but it's real, and it's where the vast majority of decent people will find themselves after death. (I believe they'll then come around for another pass, but most Christians don't of course. And they can be very dogmatic about that too. ^_^)

If you are not a Christian, or even if you are, you might communicate with all sorts of beings during an OBE or and NDE — even the most wonderful experience doesn't have to be Christ, or Zarathustra, Lau-tzu, Unkul Unkulu, Aphrodite or anyone else. It's a big non-physical world, and IMO there is far more to discover in it than we have yet discovered.

Such medieval journeys through 'hell and heaven' as Marsh describes are by no means as different from modern experiences as he says IMO. Again, I suggest Marlilynn Hughes as a source on that, since she (like Waldo Vieira and many others) has experienced multiple 'hells' and 'heavens' — I add scare quotes because I find this mythological terminology a tad imprecise. But she is a proper, thorough explorer of the non-physical, not am accidental OBEer or NDEer. There's a big difference!

She, and many others, have written literally volumes on the cross-cultural stuff here, and it's nowhere near as clear-cut as Marsh makes it. Yes these experiences change over time — but it's hard to say how much is cultural, how much literary, how much content, etc. Only actual experience can give you clarity on this. There are certainly different cultural influences, but why should that invalidate the experiences? The simple fact is that non-physical breezes, perfumes and flowers are a heavenly experience (esp. compared to earth), but not complete 'enlightenment', sainthood, etc., which is quite another matter. This has been gone over by many people before, eg. William Buhlman.

And BTW non-physical worlds with earthlike features *are* recorded in multiple spiritual traditions. There's more to know about all of this than, is it Christ or isn't it Christ? ^_^ Thomas Campbell would be good to have on — an OBEer who has a rigorously-defined scientific theory on how these multiple worlds actually work. (He's a physicist I think, and also worked with Robert Monroe and has had numerous OBEs.)

Come to think of it Alex, since you already have a relationship with Marilynn Hughes, why not get her back on here to talk about the stuff Marsh is saying? I'm sure she would be extremely interesting. I'd be fascinated in particular to know what she thought of the idea that OBE has nothing to do with moral self-improvement! (Clue: she wouldn't agree with it.)

I recommend as well, it's time for you to go to talk to someone like Paul Rademacher over at the Monroe Institute. He's a great interview and will bring in a new perspective of OBE w/out NDE. He left off a career as a Christian minister when he had an OBE to work at the Institute. And maybe Alex, you should go on one of their weekend courses and have an OBE yourself. You must be curious by now?

Keep up the good work.

—————-
BTW (+ @Derek Dadey) Waldo Vieira in his 1,200-page opus 'projectiology' shows in detail how out of body memory works. Robert Bruce has interesting details too.

Hi Alex,
A brilliant interview. Well done. It would be interesting to hear how Dr Marsh would try to explain Dr Ken Rings study of blind people or Pam Reynolds NDE.
I am a Priest in the UK and use NDE evidence lots in my ministry. And have just wtitten a book with Dr Caroline Wilkins for those that are bereaved and NDE evidence has a great healing potential.
Keep up the Good work.

Allright. Well, one day I will probably when I've got the money, but I'm _really_ poor atm. What about the critics? Do you know if people wrote long books criticizing Sabom's work, or merely a few (albeit perhaps long and extensive) articles?

I really want to see both sides to every debate and finding.

Peace!

Hey Alex!

Have you heard of the new term (I think?) called 'Shared Death Experiences'?

I found out about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvNDrZv8HwE

If you can interview some people about this phenomena, or know where you can find more info on it, that would be interesting and perhaps relevant to your podcast.

I actually had one of those when my grandfather died 400 km away from me in the night. Pretty cool stuff to feel a kind of a presence like that.

Peace

Yea, I heard Raymond Moody on Coast to Coast… interesting… although not sure it's totally new… seems like we've heard accounts like this for a while.

Cool about your grandfather.

cool… I really can't imagine why spiritual folks of all traditions would not embrace this evidence… then again, I don't understand why spiritual folks are not passionate about discovering truth wherever and however it manifestes itself.

I'll try and get the Hughes episode back up… it was causing my feed to fail so I had to take it down.

As to the Monroe Institute, I'd like to connect with some folks there for an interview, but have not had time.

Must say that some of the lingo and other stuff from the Monroe Institute seems a little strange.

Hi Mike… I kinda agree… especially given the dominant influence Christians still have in our society… would be nice to see a little more humility.

Bloody hell, Hjorton, you must be hard up(bless you) : )

Look if you can give me a PO BOX address or some place I can post to, without compromising your indentity or real address, I will send you a copy (free) wherever you are in the world. No problem.

Some sticklers like Glen Gabbard (with the eyes of the mind) have criticized Sabom's study but couldn't explain how the patients were able to report the observations they made. I believe they put it down to fraud.

Sue Blackmore obviously realising the trouble that Sabom's book would cause, famously dismissed it with a simple piece of indifference…. “If Saboms right then I 'm wrong(meaning of course, how can.. ' I '… be wrong ? ' I '…. am not the one making these preposterous claims !

And guess who was believed…..(not Sabom)

Want to run that lingo by me? Mind you I wasn't trained there so I don't always know… if it's the 'focus' stuff, that's merely the result of Monroe trying to use neutral-sounding terms for definite brain states (which they induce with hemi-sync I think.) As opposed to 'samadhi' etc.

If you think their lingo is bad read this sometime!:

http://www.amazon.com/Projectiology-Panorama-Ex…

I agree with Alex, nice to see a priest with an interest in this work.

I would be interested to know just how much of a debate there is about it in the church itself? Does the denomination make a difference? Is there prejudice against taking this kind of thing seriously?

Just curious, not grinding an axe. I'm in the UK too.

Yeah, awesome to read

And btw, concerning Pam Reynolds, I recently discovered this: http://www.ajc.com/news/pam-reynolds-lowery-not…

And I can't say I'm sad

Hi P_Synthesis,
Good to hear from you. Sadly most Churches are unaware of all the evidence thats out there. I have been studying NDE for the last 30 years.
In fact it was a big factor and reason for me going into the Church. NDEs make so much sense and also help explain much of the Bible. Check out my site. type in to your search engine Bereavement Rescue New Forest.
Its using NDE evidence to help the bereaved.We have had brilliant results using this method.
Blessings

Haha awesome, and thanks. I shall check around regarding that PO BOX address and see if I can fix something! Lovely that you are so generous ;')

And yeah, Blackmore is just wonderful

“If this and that study is correct, I am wrong. …. There is no good evidence whatsoever. Where is the evidence?”

It actually makes me smile very hard

Spot on Alex. Jesus said the truth will set us free. We must keep searching for the truth, there is nothing to fear from the truth. This is a great opportunity, the Church must embrace what NDE are teaching us.

Alex,

I'm certainly far from sold on a scientific concept of the mind being separate from the body (NDEs as a legitimate out-of-body experience being included in that category), but even so I found Dr. Marsh's theological arguments very weak and easily countered. I personally am functionally an atheist (though in truth I am an ignostic), so I don't believe that there is any reason to think that there is a spiritual Jesus to greet us when we are close to death, but I used to be very Christian and was very interested in theological debates when I was younger. It seems to me that the simple answer to why NDEs either aren't consistent with each other in their image of Jesus and Heaven or consistent with older recorded NDEs images of Jesus and Heaven is that the true natures of Jesus and Heaven are supposed to be beyond human comprehension. It stands to reason that either when presented with something incomprehensible our minds interpret that information into something it can process, or Jesus has decided to assume the form most relatable to each person (kinda like in Contact : ) ). Also, while I understand a non-religious person's reluctance to depend on the testimony in the Bible, it seems to me to be perfectly internally consistent for a Christian to rely on it; if the Bible isn't true then what is a Christian to base their beliefs on? The best theological point I can think of against NDEs being actual communication with a religious figure is that different cultures all see their own religious figure-heads. This of course is depending on whether your religion excludes other religions from being true (which most do), but if I were a Christian and I thought NDEs were visits to the afterlife, then I would expect people whose faith has nothing to do with Jesus to see him or some other Christian figure in place of their god(s). If they don't and NDEs are really visits to the afterlife then what does that say about my religion?

Hjorton,
Thanks and best wishes(don't forget to let me know where to send it, if you can)

How great!

It's funny that you went into the Church because of it, when as I mentioned to Alex a while back, Paul Rademacher of the Monroe Institute left the church when he had his OBE! Same with other famous OBE-ers — Marilynn Hughes became a much more devout Catholic as soon as she began OBE-ing, Robert Peterson instantly stopped going to church… one can never tell what the reaction will be.

I'm glad you're making good use of the research — here's hoping you can get others interested in it too.

“He's claiming, if I am hearing this correctly, that description of godly encounters in the Bible are what constitute 'true' and 'valid' experiences whereas NDE's aren't?”

No he's not claiming that. He's talking about two studies of Christian experiences of Christ, and he's claiming (correctly) that NDEs don't follow the same pattern as those experiences. He extrapolates from that to the idea that they are not necessarily Christian experiences, and from that to the fact that some Christians would not believe they were real spiritual experiences.

But actually his argument against their spiritual truth is really the standard materialist-sceptical argument.

The concrete flower-wind-scent info people bring back from NDEs and most other forms of OBE is indicative that these experiences come from a certain non-physical level, and most heavy-duty mystics (religious or not) will be able to go deeper than that level, to more abstract places, unlike most ordinary folks having an NDE. But that doesn't mean NDEs aren't real of course. If you accept contact with Christ and a spiritual reality it's pretty laughable not to accept the reality of OBE. But who needs reality when you have scripture right?

Except, there are signs that Saint Paul himself was well familiar with astral travel, eg.:

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

… indicating understanding of multiple heavens and OBEs such as you find in esoterica the world over, including in the west, and in all modern OBE exploration too. But don't look to people like Marsh for things like that! A person of this kind is not going on a quest.

Yes you are right. Howard Storm returned after his NDE and became a Christian Minister. Thanks for your support. I am really pushing the NDE evidence within the Church.

What I'm saying is that the reports of people experiencing NDE's are inherently unreliable(specifically the time accuracy and the more subjective elements like “feeling outside my body”), not that I'm saying they're lying but that eye witness testimony is to me almost never enough to establish the reality of a phenomenon. I want something physical. If tommorow 10000 people showed up at my house and told me they'd all just seen a UFO land in the park near my house then take off again without leaving any physical evidence behind I wouldn't take that as evidence of a UFO either. It would be evidence that something wierd happened , but without something objective, something tangible I don't hold much stock in personal reports and can't see any reason why I should.

I agree… the details of this kind of theological reasoning fall apart pretty quickly… but what if their basic tautology is right!?

sample:
“Then comes the story of the first retrievals that came his way, and his awakening to who he was at many levels. He describes how he met inner guidance and how he learned how much more than his physical body he was. He describes H Band noise and M Field interaction, and who he really is, including his relationship to INSPEC. He describes a long trip all the way to “the emitter” that establishes and maintains physical-matter reality. (This was for me the emotional peak of the book, though tastes will differ.) He shows that we are one, and that we are re-uniting, and he talks about the park in Focus 27 and the Lifeline program. “

' What I'm saying is that the reports of people experiencing NDE's are inherently unreliable '

There not though. That's the whole crux of the matter. People claim(absolutely 100% adamantly) ***please..no bigfoot UFO- loch ness comparisons) to have actually(NOT VIRTUALLY OR DREAMILLY OR DRUG-ILLY)….. seen..their physical bodies while they are dead. This can't happen scientifically.
The people themselves are totally convinced by their experience. They were there. They know what they saw. That's why they believe and are satisfied and change their lives on the basis of what they experienced.(please leave UFO's aside for the time being)

The studies undertaken from cardiologists have confirmed that their observations and memories while temporarilly dead are indeed correct.
This is the evidence. Over and over and over again.

Please go and talk to one of these NDE'rs and ask them… was it a dream, hallucination, wish fullfillment etc…they will tell you.. NO !

Mind models by the way were a desperate skeptical explanatory invention for NDE. If you think the mind model covers the data, ask yourself this…Why don't people believe they've played quarter back for Chicago Bears or married Kim Basinger(still my favourite) etc after a period of temp brain death..why is it always viewing the grisly scenes of their own unpleasant circumstances ?

Looked at what I could find about “projectiology” and so far as i can tell it's series of bold assertions backed up by vague feelings. I couldn't find anything I'd call evidence, it might be out there but every search I did seemed to end up at some unaccredited institution selling seminars in astral projection.

Ah, right! Yes this is right out of Monroe's writing. They are throwing that at you assuming you've read his books. As I said, he came up with all sorts of shorthand terms, always trying to avoid using 'spiritual' terminology.

I remember some of them. “H Band noise” is an emotional 'noise' or interference that's put out by human beings which you mostly don't notice until you find a way to shut it off. “INSPEC” stands for 'intelligent species' I think, meant to contrast joshingly with humanity. 'The Emitter' would be a complex one to explain…. 'Focus 27' is, like I said, one of the mental states he learned how to reach repeatedly and to get others into. The 'Lifeline program' I think has to do with escort the newly deceased into places where they need to go. FWIW!

I'm sure you'd find Monroe's books entertaining, esp. the 1st two, but if you interviewed someone there about the lingo they could explain it too. Of course it's the experience that's more interesting. They seem to know how to inculcate it.

Yes it's connected to the IAC which sells lessons in astral projection in about 30 countries I believe. (Who would accredit them? ^_^). If the very thoroughly-considered experiences of intelligent people who regularly have OBEs at will doesn't interest you or constitute evidence for you, then this will not be your thing.

This will take you right to my review of the actual book, “Projectiology”:

http://www.amazon.com/Projectiology-Panorama-Ex…

… which will tell you what you need to know about whether it would be useful or 'admissible evidence' for you. But 'vague feelings', it ain't. It's direct and considered systematic observation backed up by a good deal of medical knowledge and scholarship in the field of OBE. If you're not open-minded enough to accept something of that kind as interesting or useful (not automatically correct of course!) in thinking about how memory could work aside from the brain, then of course, don't bother.

Checked out the link, interesting but to me it all still seems very subjective. People say they've left their bodies, people say they've experienced this or that, but to me it's just self report. People say lots of stuff and any evidence that is at root just that(self report) wiil never convince me. What I'd like is the classic “seeing inside a locked box”, but every time I see a version of it done the experimenters are willing to accept such tenuous connections as to be laughable.

“Please go and talk to one of these NDE'rs and ask them… was it a dream, hallucination, wish fullfillment etc…they will tell you.. NO !”

You're faith in the reliability of human memory and perception astounds me. I'm not saying they're lying, I'm not saying that they don't feel it to be 100% real, what I saying is that personal testimony isn't evidence. It's a nice story perhaps suggesting further research if that's your bag( it's not mine). As for why people don't hallucinate more outlandish things my guess would be that they're not expecting it. If you have a beleif in the afterlife it will steer your perceptions of an NDE, nobody expects to see live people in the afterlife, people expect a variation on the standadrd hollywood account (tunnels, dead relative, etc…) and guess what, that's what they see.

Derek, your giving the brain characteristics and powers it just doesn't have.
Assuming your eyes are now open, you are looking at a computer screen. Your not dreaming or hallucinating or imagining anything, you are seeing reality. Now shut your eyes and bring up the memory of the computer screen image. The difference is enormous. Anybody can see that.
When people say they've seen themselves or they've seen Grandma in heaven, they have an unshakable conviction. It isn't the product of imagination. That is why death bed visitors persuade the dying to accompany them..NOW.. with a smile on their face. A terrorist holding a gun to your head does not produce this acceptance.

If you are going to reject the claims of NDErs you have to come up with some plausible explanation as to how people see reality when they are temporarily dead.

'nobody expects to see live people in the afterlife'

Why ?….if the brain is creating these incredibly complex images to fool itself into thinking it is immortal, it would surely select and dwell on the living…BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY.. It doesn't matter what people expect ETC when the brain is down, nothing should happen at all…full stop. Amen.

You didn't deal with the accurate descriptions of patient's own resuscitations.

This doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately, our religious institutions are basically inept. They're primarily based on dogma, not spiritual experiences. And for this reason, they're not amenable to change.

I'm unsure the method of collecting personal memories of experiences has been substantially transformed by the scientific revolution, to render comparisons with medieval records of experience worthy of the scorn you treat Dr. Marsh's examples.

As to why religion doesn't embrace NDE….Churches must necessarily maintain possession of the definition of their deity – and by extension its teaching. If they admit the validity of NDEs, they admit the right of NDEs (and indeed all OBEs) to define and alter those teachings. A person may receive a message from Christ which would have implications for the entire ministry. The concept of Christ would become solipsism, and the church would be an absurdity. No?

Alex. you are a pateint man…

Alex, I recommend interviewing Keith Augustine on NDEs

There's definitely something in what you say there. Interestingly many Christian mystics *have* indeed gone against Church doctrines. Sometimes the church would prosecute, sometimes not — usually the more of a following the person gained, the more likely the prosecution. Some (eg. Dame Julian) could promulgate massively unorthodox teachings with impunity.

The difference now is that people who have NDEs aren't necessarily religious, don't necessarily believe in anything, but have a real experience. The same goes with modern OBE training which doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. Consequently, people are able to get their own spiritual answers and they don't need the hierarchy. This really does scare people who need to 'own the truth', of which the Church has many. Often those people don't even realize that is what they believe.

A very uncomfortable read.

A few things: It is completely clear that the environment represents a form of shared memory, therefore, someone participating in this environment, clearly has access to nonordinary memory assets. This can be directly demonstrated by, amongst other things, some of the current research in Epigenetics.

Another thing that bothers me is that this is, again, an pseudo-eliminative materialist perspective on reality — one shared by many scientists, but not all. The idea that we understand what our brain is and does, is functionally absurd. We do not even properly understand the few variables our catastrophically reductive necessities have so very generously endowed us with access to. People who wish to claim that they understand the brain well enough to delimit its nature and function to us are, in my perspective, boldly and dangerously confused. Most of the extant research in no way validates the models that dominate common scientific consensus today, which is rapidly growing into a strange techno-religion. This is neither brain science nor theology.

Those things said, the book could prove an interesting read.

Excellent idea for a riot.

I also would LOVE to have that episode

However, I'm doubtful that Keith is the kind of person that can (and wants) to respond to things in real time. He seems to prefer having time to think and lay out his arguments in his own time.

Just a guess. But if he's up for it, let's have him on big time!

I invited him a while back and he declined… please send him an email and see if he's interested.

?! Marsh is a materialist-christian. It is the first time I meet that specie…

I just listened to this episode, and all I have to say is… Wow.

I may have never heard such incoherent, muddied thinking coming out of the mouth of a professional academic in my life… And that's saying something. Before my Dad died in 09, he suffered his whole life from Celiac Sprue, a disease to which Dr. Marsh supposedly contributed much in the way of understanding. But when it comes to theology, consciousness, and issues of the afterlife? Um, I think Dr. Marsh should leave that to the “big boys”…

Does Marsh really not even realize that he is dogmatically wedded to 2 mutually exclusive worldviews?!

1. He claims to be a Christian – a worldview that entails notions like “spirit”, “soul” and (unless he's a Lutheran or Calvinist) “free will”. And if you believe in true “free will”, then you *necessarily* have to believe that MIND DOES NOT EQUAL BRAIN (as brains, being physical, are fully-caused things). So why the heck is Marsh so insistent and dogmatic that mind equals brain? And, really, how does he not get Alex's point that NDEs directly challenge that assertion? Instead, Marsh just “argues” from a tautology. He completely ignores the countless veridical stories from NDEs. It's lunacy.

2. He claims to be a scientist – espousing a very *materalistic* view at that – but then essentially declares some modern translation of an ancient religious text as not only being valid and true (despite the clear paper trail of how the Bible came to be written/compiled/mistranslated/etc), but as being the final word on what an afterlife must be like (even though the Bible never draws a clear picture of what one would look like). He not only again argues from a tautology: “Well, those NDEs don't sound like what the Bible says, so they must be false.” – but is espousing a worldview that directly contradicts his first worldview!

And he utterly fails to grasp the concept of the thought-responsive aspect to the (for lack of a better word) spiritual realms to explain why some people see “Jesus” and some see other religious figures and others see “beings of light” and some see just deceased relatives and some don't see any other entities at all.

And did he basically says that true divine contact is (supposed to be) vague, and therefore lucid experiences – like NDEs – are to be held suspect? What?? And did he really poo-poo the “beautiful colors and technicolor vistas, and music and perfumes (that made me laugh) and soft winds”? I'm like, “That sounded good to me! What would *your* 'heaven' be like? Harps and clouds? NO THANK YOU!”

He also has apparently never heard of the 15-20% “negative” NDEs.

And then – and then – and then: DID HE ACTUALLY SAY that NDErs rarely report being transformed by their experiences?!?! WHAT?!?!?

This is one very confused man…

LOL… yea, made me laugh until I cried… well, I was actually crying at

the thought of folks like this (and there seem to be many) being a position

of influence/authority.

It's such an outrageous series of claims/assertions that I kinda feel a

little bit silly tearing it apart… you did a nice job though

Wow. I am a Christian and when it causes me to shake my head when I hear another Christian who can't come to a point, back up the one he is making, whatever that is, or deal with contradictory evidence by dismissing it instead or dealing with it.

yea, being “Christian” means different things to different people

I love this site and the fact it looks into phenomena like near death and after life experience in a scientific way. As I think its the only way to find a way through dogmatic and anecdotal views. Here's what I think- just another opinion.

 I think any phenomena that occurs in the world does so as it obeys the laws of science, it has to really if you think about it. Therefore near death experience is a part of the material, or the physical i.e. it obeys quantum physics. Its just we don't understand how it works. Now I'm not saying it doesn't come from god, or what we conceive as spiritual, for I interpret him/her (god) as “an intelligent matrix of conscious matter or being” in the universe.

Now I was brought up agnostic, and really I haven't read much on formal religion.- although I have done a paper in eastern religions, but not Christianity. Which I find a blessing in a way, as I think of spirituality as a personal thing and not attached to a religion. The problem with Dr Marsh's ideas I feel, are they are based on restrained concepts of religion and fail to look at what humanity is experiencing all around him now. The bible for example, like other religious scripts, are written by humans, swayed by their opinions and based in a particular history or time. There are problems with this, the Buddas text for instance was written a year after he died, once again by peoples interpretations and remembrance's. Long before books came along, there was only an oral history, and of course peoples memories are fallible, and are often embellished over time. Thailand for example does not know much of its early history, as a written history came late to Thailand. They have to rely on the Chinese who wrote script earlier and traveled though out the country. Therefore books are always going to be human beliefs, and have human failings.

Well, that's just what I think… but I am open to suggestions. Cheers

thx… lotta good points… you should post in forum and see what others think… here's mine:

- agree we need science on this one… really need science

- agree that NDE are in our physical reality, but not sure it has to fit into our limited/evolving/current understanding of QM

- love your points about the veracity of the “holy” books… they're great for personal inspiration, but why the heck do we need to turn them into a religion/cult

Not only did i have a near death experience, i can explain exactly what NDE is.
Check it out on youtube…  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGi2WLPLUdc

This man certainly seems guilty of wielding what I would call a ‘logic of convenience.’  Forget his stance on NDEs, his view of the continuum or lack thereof regarding pathology and divine revelation is incoherent and seemingly based entirely on blind faith.  To dismiss any modern non-ordinary experience baring a religious theme as a symptom of brain disease denotes some serious dodgy thinking, and backpeddling simply to toe the line of his particular preference for dogma.  I fear this man is fooling himself.