Watch Ric Elias' TEDTalk on the three things he learned while his plane crashed.
Newsweek magazine can always be counted on to give us the latest scientific evidence for God. The cover of its October 7, 2012 issue proclaims, "Heaven is Real." Inside is the story of Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon and son of a neurosurgeon who writes:
"I had always believed there were good scientific explanations for the heavenly out-of-body journeys described by those who narrowly escaped death. ... Although I considered myself a faithful Christian, I was so more in name than in actual belief. I didn't begrudge those who wanted to believe that Jesus was more than simply a good man who had suffered at the hands of the world. I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself."
But then in the fall of 2008, Dr. Alexander spent seven days in a coma and "experienced something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death." He had what is commonly called a near-death experience (NDE) in which an unconscious person whose brain is minimally functioning catches glimpses of what they are convinced is a world beyond -- heaven. Usually they see a tunnel with light at the other end, and often meet Jesus (if they are Christians) or Buddha (if they are Buddhists), and loved ones, dead or alive.
Dr. Alexander claims from his knowledge of the brain that his own glimpses of heaven occurred while his cortex was not just malfunctioning but totally shut down. He does not explain how he knows that his experience occurred during that time and not the period just after losing consciousness, or the period just before regaining consciousness, when his brain was almost if not fully functional. Furthermore, current brain monitoring technology does not preclude some undetected brain activity.
He writes, "According to current medical understanding of the brain and mind, there is absolutely no way that I could have experienced even a dim and limited consciousness during my time in the coma, much less the hyper-vivid and completely coherent odyssey I underwent."
This is nothing more than the classic argument from ignorance, which forms the basis of almost all ostensibly scientific arguments for the existence of the supernatural. The argument from ignorance is a less polite but more descriptive name for the God-of-the-gaps argument. This argument often appears in dialogues on the existence of God or anything supernatural. Basically, it says: "I can't see how this [observed phenomenon] can be explained naturally; therefore it must be supernatural."
The flaw in the argument should be obvious. Just because someone--or even all of science--currently cannot provide a natural explanation for something, it does not follow that a natural explanation does not exist or will never be found. Indeed, the history of science is nothing more than the story of humanity filling in the gaps in its knowledge about the world of our senses. In the case of NDEs, plausible natural explanations do exist (Augustine, 2011).
Despite its worthlessness, the argument from ignorance continues to be the mainstay of religious apologetics. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the argument from design, which goes back to Plato. Commonly one hears today, "I can't see how the eye could have evolved naturally; therefore it must have been designed by God."
Most recently, the argument from design has appeared in the form of the argument from fine-tuning: If the values of the parameters of physics were slightly different, life would not have been possible; thus they must have been fine-tuned by God to make life, and in particular, human life, possible.
According to our best scientific knowledge, the parameters of physics and cosmology are not so constrained that some form of life could not have formed over a wide range of parameters (Stenger 2011a). But even if this were not the case, no one has proven that a natural explanation for the constants of physics is forever beyond our reach.
Near-death experiences have been studied for over thirty years. Almost every year or two a book appears claiming incontrovertible proof of the afterlife based on NDEs. They are usually instant bestsellers. But they never convince anyone except those who want to be convinced because none present anything more than personal anecdotes such as those provided by Dr. Alexander. And, "anecdote" is not another name for "data."
In my own writing on the subject (Stenger 2011b, 2012), I have pointed out that the supernatural interpretation of near-death experiences, if true, can easily be verified scientifically. To provide a specific example, place a target such as a card with some random numbers on it on a high shelf facing the ceiling of the operating room so that it is unreadable not only to the patient on the table but to the hospital staff in the room. Then if a patient has an NDE that involves the commonly reported sensation of moving outside her body and floating above the operating table, she should be able to read that number.
This experiment has been tried several times without success. So have other attempts to provide verifiable evidence -- what researchers in the field call "veridical perception" (Holden 2009, p. 209). The principle is simple and can be applied to anyone who claims to have communicated with another world beyond matter. All that has to happen is a subject claiming such a communication return with some important piece of knowledge she could not have possibly known previously, such as the exact date and epicenter location of the future earthquake that will destroy Los Angeles.
Researchers in the field of near-death studies have honestly admitted that the evidence is still not there. The well-respected NDE researcher Kenneth Ring has written:
"There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests [experiencers] can, at least sometime, perceive veridically during NDEs ... but isn't it true that in all this time there hasn't been a single case of a veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class (as far as we know). Yes, excuses, excuses--I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few such cases at least by now? (Holden 2009, p. 210)."
The way to defeat ignorance is with evidence. After thousands of reported religious experiences of various kinds, including near-death-experiences, no one has ever provided a single item of verified new knowledge.
I will be very surprised if Dr. Alexander gets his observations published in a reputable medical journal. No doubt his book, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, will do well.
References
Augustine, Keith 2011, "Halluncinatory Near-Death Experiences," Secular Web.
Holden, Janice Minor et al., eds., 2009, The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation, Praeger Publishers: Santa Barbara, CA; Denver, CO; Oxford England.
Stenger, Victor J. 2011a, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Us, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
Stenger, Victor J. 2011b, "Life After Death: Examining the Evidence" In The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, pp. 305-32.
Stenger, Victor J. 2012, God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY.
Ideas are not set in stone. When exposed to thoughtful people, they morph and adapt into their most potent form. TEDWeekends will highlight some of today's most intriguing ideas and allow them to develop in real time through your voice! Tweet #TEDWeekends to share your perspective or email tedweekends@huffingtonpost.com to learn about future weekend's ideas to contribute as a writer.
Ideas are not set in stone. When exposed to thoughtful people, they morph and adapt into their most potent form. TEDWeekends will highlight some of today’s most intriguing ideas and allow them to develop in real time through your voice! Arianna Huffington and Chris Anderson invite your participation.
Want to write for TEDWeekends? Learn about future weekend's ideas and contribute as a blogger to TEDWeekends by clicking HERE.
Tweet #TEDWeekends and share your perspective.
thanks for taking this on Vic, albiet arguing logically with someone's belief
system is futile. So thanks, since yours is a generally a thankless task.
We may axiomatically adopt a cause that we cannot quantify or qualify and less so explain. This supposed power of bringing about physical existence,is super-physical and eternal (in the sense of outside time).
As a truth theorem (in the mathematical sense) it is absolute (ie the truth), or perhaps the reason and/or a ground (on which) if you adopt the axiom you may build a physical system of laws that relies on cause and effect. Absent this axiom there is no complete physics. So Occam would apply his razor and cut nothing away -
Thus it is not a god of the gaps but nominally God of the singular gap which science acknowledges. Rather than a desperate argument,it is a choice (akin to the zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics - adopted as it allows us to make some sense of something that otherwise makes no sense - for example entropy.
All axiom based systems eg Mathematics or Physics are built on this rock - ask Goedel. If you follow this argument you must withdraw your assertion - Thank you
Most of those people claim enhanced perspective, freedom from the typical superficial goals of society - money, status, etc. Instead their focus tends to shift toward a greater appreciation of human community over material acquisition, a view of time that transcends the common gridlock that dominates the schedules of ordinary people, and a calm acceptance of setbacks, disappointments, and even their own death when it finally happens for real. These people no longer fear death.
We don't need a scientific explanation to grant that NDE's often lead to an enhancement of whatever remaining years the person has on earth. That broadened perspective can only be seen as a gift, no matter what its cause.
Inverse correlation between the strength of the subjects experience vs their brain's dormancy makes this more likely, and the occasional access to information the subject was not aware of at the time points to the source.
You only need to look at 30 years of experimental research by Albrecht-Buehler to see strong evidence of eukaryote cell to cell organisation via fields.
The god you describe for religion is equivalent in science to still practicing alchemy. I assume you are familiar with Buddhism and Taoism where no anthropomorphic gods are observed. That has caught on in Western religion as well. You would know that if you had bothered to pay attention.
This author's problem is that he "Believes" that God does not exist, and no proof or scientific knowledge will change his mind!
cliff
st. george, UT
i can't help but notice that you didn't....
(oh yeah, since i have no doubt that you're going to do a bait and switch now, let's just stick to the scientific experiments that you are claiming, and not the hearsay and anecdotal evidence that you're going to try and sneak in there instead...)
If atpcliff read anything I have ever written he or she will see that I have said over and over again: "Show the evidence and I will believe."
in that case, does the convenient theory of symmetry breaking qualify as a means to justify something from nothing? this is the position of Dawkins, Krauss and many other even more noted scientists who may have imaginations of their own prior to a pure mathematical possibility... do atheists not occasionally throw a dart and then draw the bullseye? scientists want to define everything to the point of reducing human experience to a fantasyland. the human experience of Dr. Alexander came before his statement of experience which was while his cortex was completely shutdown. He did not throw the dart and then draw the bullseye... strict materialists or atheists are not the only ones playing darts when it comes answering questions about inception, or the hereafter for that matter. as i've said before, science does not define the boundaries of (as your peer Dr. Krauss has said for example) reality....
As much as I despise politicos and religious leaders using religion, "god" and Jesus for their own benefits, I can't help wondering, "Is this all!!!!" (referring to life--not just mine, but everyone's). Got to be more...
That said, I still go by my political handle: "Keep your religious nose out of my secular business!"
But surly, YOU must have imagined a life after death--a more reasonably, civilized, peaceful, existance to the punishing one we now must live, then die?!?!?!?
Consider the gorilla video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo). I never noticed the gorilla because my attention was focused on how many times one of the teams was passing the ball. And the gorilla was right in front of my eyes!
Lets suppose, as you do, that our vision during the OBE is exactly like normal vision (And this is contrary to at least some reports). On discovering that apparently you are out of your body, your attention will be utterly transfixed on your body below. Kinda "OMG I'm dead and I think that's my body!!" Let's face it, the emotions you will experience will be profound. Unless the OBE lasts for some time then it seems to me to be extraordinarily unlikely you will explore your immediate environment and register meaningless numbers.
there are an infinite number of excuses for the lack of evidence, just as there are an infinite number of improbable things to believe in without evidence.
that does not change the fact that without evidence, or even a practical explanation, there is no reason to assume these claims have merit.
I do not regard it as remotely improbable that people are able to leave their bodies. It's only improbable if you assume that brains produce consciousness. But the notion that brains in an appropriate sense "filter" consciousness is more consonant with the evidence and rescues our intuitive conception of an unchanging substantial self. I explain this in an essay I wrote:
http://existenceandreality.blogspot.co.uk/
The other question that I have is why we are evolving (homo sepien) and advancing in civilization, technology--why is our brains advancing (not counting politicos!) if our living isn't something of an importance?
Why didn't we stay one-cell, or 'cave' men/women?
In this case, maybe some patients would have altruistic motives given the enormous significance of both positive or negative results to this experiment.
the post it note they supposedly couldn't see, the conversation they supposedly couldn't have heard, they want to convince us with that and can’t stop talking about it, but they just really don't want any scientists finding out that they saw the card on top of the shelf?