Scientific Proof of Life After Death?
Afterlife exists says top brain surgeon – Telegraph.
Dr Eben Alexander, a Harvard-educated neurosurgeon, fell into a coma for seven days in 2008 after contracting meningitis.
During his illness Dr Alexander says that the part of his brain which controls human thought and emotion “shut down” and that he then experienced “something so profound that it gave me a scientific reason to believe in consciousness after death.” In an essay for American magazine Newsweek, which he wrote to promote his book Proof of Heaven, Dr Alexander says he was met by a beautiful blue-eyed woman in a “place of clouds, big fluffy pink-white ones” and “shimmering beings”.
He continues: “Birds? Angels? These words registered later, when I was writing down my recollections. But neither of these words do justice to the beings themselves, which were quite simply different from anything I have known on this planet. They were more advanced. Higher forms.” The doctor adds that a “huge and booming like a glorious chant, came down from above, and I wondered if the winged beings were producing it. the sound was palpable and almost material, like a rain that you can feel on your skin but doesn’t get you wet.”
Dr Alexander says he had heard stories from patients who spoke of outer body experiences but had disregarded them as “wishful thinking” but has reconsidered his opinion following his own experience.
via Pew: 6% Percent of Atheists and Agnostics Pray Every Day | CNSNews.com.
(CNSNews.com) – A survey by the Pew Research Center discovered that 2.4 percent of Americans say they are atheists and 3.3 percent say they are agnostic.
Among the atheists and agnostics, however, 6 percent said they pray daily.
Another 11 percent of the atheists and agnostics concede that they pray only weekly or monthly.
“About eight-in-ten atheists and agnostics seldom or never pray (82 percent),” said Pew in its analysis of its survey.
Hat Tip: AH
Thank you for posting this.
The book will out in a few days and it will be very interesting.
Well, no, it’s not. It’s certainly evidence that the brain does odd things when normal metabolism ceases, but if you come back, that’s a sign you were very very sick, not dead.
He was only mostly dead.
I’m not dead. I’m getting better!
Proof of the afterlife? No. Proof that even doctors will capitalize on statistically improbable near death experiences to tap into that lucrative market that panders to people who believe in Cosmic Tinkerbell and a talking snake.
Follow the money.
For the sake of argument, let’s say he apparently died and saw wonderful beings and then came back to life remembering. OK, fine. Other people from time to time have reported having similar experiences. For me, the take away is: let’s examine his experience and try to determine what exactly happened. Did he really die, or not? Did all physical functions measurably cease, or not? How long was he “dead” or “nearly dead” or whatever? Things like that. We might then learn something relevant for the rest of us.
Instead, we have our fundamentalist Christian friends immediately claim justification for their particular version of reality. The guy doesn’t claim he saw Jesus or Saint Peter and a pearly gate. Yet, presumably, his alleged experience of consciousness after physical death validates the Christian religion. Why? Maybe it validates Buddhism, or Hinduism, or the Aztec religion. Or nothing.
Assuming he had something more than a near death experience where his imagination started to ease him gently into the great void of death, it doesn’t necessarily validate any religion. It might just be evidence that we don’t understand life very well at all yet.
Maybe consciousness can survive the death of the body somehow, in some manner or some circumstance. How does that validate anything other than that consciousness can survive death?
Um, I wouldn’t call this scientific proof (unless there something in his book not mentioned here) – but it’s certainly interesting.
What I find interesting is the deeply held need by skeptics to shut (or rather shout?) down anyone who does have religious beliefs.
I mean, it’s not like a person believing in God and an afterlife is going to cause some sort of harm to the skeptic.
If there is any impact at all it will be positive for the skeptic if that believer tries to live their own lives according to Judea-Christian values.
You know, the believer not engaging in things like murder, rape, robbery, adultery, etc. – especially since those activities not being engaged in by logic can therefore not be directed towards the skeptic, and therefore the skeptic’s life is that much more secure and pleasant as a result of the believer’s faith.
Then you have the fact that, at some point, we ALL have to face the prospect of death one day.
Even if you have all of your loved ones surrounding you at that final breath, you still have to experience that finality in the most absolute of loneliest terms.
Whether there is a God or an afterlife or not (I happen to believe there is both), such faith calms those final thoughts of most believers, and indeed also helps those who loved the now deceased to get through that transition and get on with their lives with no harm the skeptic.
Why would someone be against comforting those about to die, and comforting those who are left to mourn them?
Why is it someone having such a faith causes such a rise in atheists??? Instead of a simple debate of beliefs, the actions of skeptics seem more in line with someone who feels threatened.
So why in the world would such a belief system be a threat to a skeptic?
I read some of the reader comments following the article at Newsweek, and only rarely have I read anything this soul destroying hateful. So unpleasant was it that I stopped reading. Let’s face it, there is a frightening number of people out there to whom the mere suggestion of anything religious triggers torrents of aggression and abuse. People to whom concepts like “awe,” “curiosity” and “being challenged” are anathema.
I mean, I’m profoundly skeptical as to whether NDEs suggest anything beyond the body, or even something religious, but the mere fact that these experiences do occur and seem to defy scientific explanation is a source of endless fascination to me. All else being equal I’m pretty sure that possessing the ability to be fascinated and being willing to be challenged suggests a richness of experience that these neo-neanderthal atheists lack.
Everyone dies. And when we die, either the atheist or the person of faith will be right. At that point, it’s not like either will be able to rub the fact into the face of the other, so what’s the purpose of spending so much time trying to browbeat someone else into believing exactly as you do? I have my belief, and you have yours. Go be secure in your choices and leave me alone.
When it comes to morality, I get so tired of people telling me about all the horrible things that were done in the name of my faith. They intentionally miss the point. Those things were solely caused by human evil which will use any excuse to justify itself from religion to secularism to plain old it feels good or it’s fun. Behaving in a moral way is in everyone’s best interests, and no, it doesn’t take religious faith to be moral, but it helps because religion explains the reasons why we need not be mere animals in our actions and behavior toward one another.
Most sensible opinion. We don’t know, and we probably can’t know until we die – and if the atheists happen to be right, not even then because then we cease to exist. But if you cease to exist it doesn’t really matter what you believed while alive, at least as long as that belief doesn’t include the requirement that you should try to cram it down the throats of other people during your lifetime (or subdue or kill them if they don’t accept that…). Believe what works for you, let other people do the same.
And if there is something – I have faith in God/Goddess/whatever, even if there would be some particular faith which actually is the only right and true one I don’t think He will reject good people just because they happened to be born in the wrong family or wrong country or wrong time period and so ended up practicing a ‘wrong’ religion. There seem to be some general rules most humans see as good, and others most of us see as bad, so I believe that as long as you try to live by those and obey your conscience you are probably doing the right thing.
Consider this….
If the believers are right, then our behavior on this plain of existence (life) will have ramifications on the next plain of existence (the afterlife).
That being the case, it behooves us to behave.
A strong argument can be made that certain moral beliefs remain constant no matter the era of human history or where on the planet a society may be found.
Those morals tend to be the foundation of civilized conduct, and society tends to look up to, and remember positively, those who behave in a morally upright manner while looking down upon those who acted in a negative and self-serving manner.
Even if the believer is mistaken and there is no God and no afterlife, they still leave a positive legacy behind when they die, that they will be remembered by.
Did I suggest the added bonus of the afterlife being more positive as a result if the believers are right?
Now, consider the position of the atheist who does not believe in God or an afterlife.
What is underpinning their behavior, moral or otherwise?
No God, no ramifications in the afterlife – why NOT go ahead and steal that which belongs to another? Why NOT kill that man who you dislike so vehemently if you think you can get away with it and not get caught? Why NOT rape that woman you desire? Why NOT abuse other people simply because it makes you feel superior?
In short, why NOT do all of the things that result in personal enjoyment and gain, with the only limitation being that you try not to be caught?
When the atheist dies, if they are right, then there are no ramifications of an afterlife and no judgement by God.
But the memory of that person lives on with those who still live.
Does anyone really want to be remembered as a liar, thief, rapist, and/or murderer? Will they even care what society’s memory of them will be?
Oh, and then there is the fact they could very well be quite mistaken in their own belief that there is no God and no afterlife.
After all, ‘belief’ is nothing more than evidence of a particular act of ‘faith’….
I suggest that the intellectual sort that wishes to denounce articles of faith by believers should maybe reconsider how vehemently they seek to tear down another’s belief system.
There is only an upside for the believer, and only a downside for the atheist.
Scott said:
“If the believers are right, then our behavior on this plain of existence (life) will have ramifications on the next plain of existence (the afterlife). That being the case, it behooves us to behave. … There is only an upside for the believer, and only a downside for the atheist.”
I’ll open by disclosing that I am an agnostic who leans towards deism and not an atheist. I reject blind faith as a basis for selecting religion (yes, I am guilty of being a self styled scientific type). Having said that, I’m compelled to point out that Scott’s conclusion is incorrect because he neglects to consider that our time alive is limited. In theory, a devout Christian should be spending all of Sunday in religious activity thus wasting 1/7 = 14% of his lifespan on pointless ritual and superstition (yes, that is what it is). The atheist who spends all of his time engaged in meaningful activity is making best use of his limited lifespan.
Key point: The game is finite and there is no escape from death. Make best use of the limited time that you have.
Also, Dr Eben Alexander’s statement about life after death is mildly irritating because his observations were presented as “scientific” evidence for religious belief. No doubt his oxygen deprived brain provided him with a wonderful experience that he felt was religious. As a Harvard-educated neurosurgeon, he should have immediately understood this and not tried to make a religious statement out of it.
I believe you are arguing against assertions I didn’t make.
Who suggested “blind faith” or selecting a religion?
While I do reference the Judea-Christian value system, I hold that there is a difference between being ‘religious’ and having ‘faith’. I simply believe the Judea-Christian value system has provided man with a far richer spiritual environment than any other that has been tried in human history.
Whether that is by happy chance or by divine intervention is a matter of personal opinion.
You state as fact that my conclusion is incorrect – yet it is only to be considered incorrect if one shares your personal view of what matters in life are to be pursued as important activities.
Take as an example the 14% of time a Christian is, according to you, supposed to be “wasting” in church – I hold that a practicing Christian who truly believes in what they are professing most likely will also rather enjoy that time of companionship with fellow believers and consider it anything but a waste.
Quite the contrary, it could be the happiest, most enjoyable day of the week for them.
That time in church will build stronger faith, build stronger friendships between like minded individuals, build stronger communities, and create a more robust social order that is far more capable of supporting and comforting the poor, sick, and elderly, or responding to local catastrophe, than any government program.
How is this to be considered a “waste”?
You see, what you would look at and consider “wasting” time, is likely anything but a waste of time to a Christian.
Think of it as a matter of priorities.
As such, your assertion that my conclusion is incorrect is not a statement of fact, but rather nothing more than a statement of your opinion.
As to the validity of the neurosurgeon’s own personal road to Damascus conversion regarding life after death – I’d suggest a neurosurgeon probably has a better handle on differentiating between drug induced hallucinations and experiences that he believes had no physiological basis.
But you are certainly free to disagree with his conclusions.
When you have your own near death experience and thus have a basis for comparison, please feel free to criticize his conclusions.
“No doubt his oxygen deprived brain provided him with a wonderful experience that he felt was religious. As a Harvard-educated neurosurgeon, he should have immediately understood this and not tried to make a religious statement out of it.”
I suggest you read the full article at Newsweek. He does indeed “understand” this, the point being that due to his brain being infected by meningitis it was entirely shut down. No neurons firing, no brain activity, nada. Thus, there was absolutely no way that “his [...] brain” could provide “him” (notice your dualism here!) with anything whatsoever.
I’m skeptical myself, but this is extremely intriguing, and if you read the article you will see that this neurosurgeon had not overlooked anything this fundamental.
No completely subjective, one-time experience can be considered “scientific proof” of anything, even if the experience was had by a scientist.
It might be closer to scientific if you killed and resuscitated a hundred people a hundred times each in exactly the same way and compared their reported experiences. Problem is, as Charlie Martin implies above, these subjects would have to be REALLY dead – as in brain dead. No brain activity allowed, otherwise you can just say the NDE was a dream or hallucination. Of course, the trouble with resuscitated brain dead people is that they can’t report anything.
You’d also need a control group. Who are they? Live people? Doesn’t quite work.
Finally, you could invalidate the “life after death” hypothesis by inducing the same experience in a healthy person in some “non-spiritual” way – which I think has already been done using ketamine and other drugs.
No science involved. Just more anecdotal evidence, same as UFO stories, ghost stories, and AGW stories.
P.S. – I’m not saying the Judeo-Christian narrative about what happens to us after we die isn’t true. I’m just saying believers should stick to believing and leave science to the scientists. I think Matthew 7:6 covers it pretty well.
Unfortunately, I don’t think a vocal percentage of self styled “scientific” types want to leave matters of faith to believers, but too often denigrate those believers as ‘superstitious’.
I agree, and it’s sad.
Religion is a fetish to atheists, like guns to gun-controllers. A symbol for all the bad, backward thinking and behavior they wish people would leave behind. They think they’re attacking the source of all the great historic atrocities, of all ignorance and all superstition and all irrationality – everything that’s wrong with us and keeps us from “progressing.” And they claim that humans can be just as good, moral, and sociable without religion as with it.
But it’s obvious to me that if we don’t need religion to make us good then we also don’t need it to make us bad – any more than we need guns to make us kill each other. Barbarity is in our genes. No amount of high-level social or technological tinkering will “fix” it once and for all. We have to struggle with it every day.
And like taking away a man’s gun will leave him defenseless, taking away his religion will cut him off from vast realms of humanness. No atheist will ever create a Chartres Cathedral, a Divine Comedy, a Great Pyramid, or a Lascaux cave painting. When they attack religion, they are attacking the motivation for some of the greatest achievements of the human species. If these go hand-in-hand with our greatest atrocities – well, that’s human nature. Deal with it.
I generally agree, but only quibble over the reference to “religion” instead of faith.
As I noted in a response above to another, I believe there is a difference between religion and faith.
Religion is nothing more than the trappings and rituals that build up around faith – and that faith is where religions derive their strength from.
But if you will allow me to paraphrase and then agree with you, yes – if you take away a man’s faith he crumbles, and yes – that innate faith man has expressed over thousands of years have resulted in the most lasting and beautiful monuments history will ever see.
Mere humanist efforts don’t even come close.
Anyone read the Myth of Er at the conclusion of Plato’s Republic lately? Dr. Alexander’s account has a striking similarity to some of that classical Athenian’s thoughts on the cosmos and the soul. But human beings have written of these things since human beings have written anything. How exactly is this new evidence? It is a very old story- only new to the contemporary scientific materialists who are surprised to find that they have a soul.
Bugs said:
“… taking away his religion will cut him off from vast realms of humanness. No atheist will ever create a Chartres Cathedral, a Divine Comedy, a Great Pyramid, or a Lascaux cave painting. When they attack religion, they are attacking the motivation for some of the greatest achievements of the human species.”
So based upon your argument, detaching a Taliban from Islam will cut him off from the “vast realms of humanness”? Some humanness is best detached from.
I’m glad the Chartres Cathedral and Great Pyramid were made (toured both of them) and suspect that some atheists were quietly toiling away in the work crews (a man needs to make a living). There were many Einstein quotes where he mentioned God but it is generally believed that Einstein died an atheist (quantum theory was incompatible with Einstein’s original religious beliefs). It is my humble belief that Einstein was incorrect in adopting atheism. As a good physicist, he should have died as an agnostic.
I leave it to bugs to respond more directly to your comments, but did want to point out a couple of things.
The reference to Einstein is clearly an appeal to authority.
However, since it has been made, I’d like to point out that Einstein himself flatly rejected the label of “atheist”, and indeed elaborated many times over his life as to what he believed.
Those views, in my opinion, did seem to fluctuate, with some comments leading the reader to draw one conclusion while other comments would lead to other conclusions.
The best I would hazard as to explaining Einstein’s view of the concept of God, is to note that he did seem to hold Spinoza’s views in high regard on the matter.
Spinosa’s views, in turn, also evolved over time as well, plus there is disagreement even as to what he espoused, so one has to be careful in allocating to Einstein very specific ideas Spinoza is perceived to have held.
Which brings us right back to where we started….
Scott said,
“The reference to Einstein is clearly an appeal to authority.”
While appealing to authority, I was also providing a counter-example to Bugs comment:
“No atheist will ever create a Chartres Cathedral, a Divine Comedy, a Great Pyramid, or a Lascaux cave painting. When they attack religion, they are attacking the motivation for some of the greatest achievements of the human species.”
Arguably, Einstein was one of humanity’s greatest achievers but also widely believed to be an atheist, refer to:
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm
Again, I believe Einstein was in error when he adopted atheism. I suspect his adoption of atheism was an emotional reaction to the scientific success of quantum theory which contradicted his earlier religious beliefs.
An example of a significant achiever who was an unambiguous atheist is Samuel Clemens.
Ahem…..do you really expect any of us to take your assertion seriously that Einstein was an atheist based upon an article by…….drumroll please……atheists?
Especially when Einstein can easily be quoted as disputing that assertion?
That’s like taking at face value the DNC’s assertions that Obama is doing a great job – ya gotta consider the source.
Regarding Samuel Clemens, will his name and his efforts still be noted 1,000, or even 2,000 years from now in a widespread fashion and where everyone will know his name and what he accomplished?
Doubtful.
so the nice man had an experience about like any old testament prophet? and he’s scientific, and they are not? Despite all evidence that they were hard-headed men of substance as well? He’s a nit, to be polite. I sincerely hope he introduces himself to the major prophets of the old testament, so he can compare notes with them. they all sort of agree about the indescribable, overwhelming, praising things with wings. Since he’s now been in the vestibule, may we hope he enters the church or synagogue with some humbleness.
Honestly, it’s about like a peasant finding out that the French have run their country on nuclear power for decades. It’s not just unconfirmed rumors about shiny, heating rocks generating power while the rocks are underwater. He thought it was a foolish myth about sleeping dragons- unreal, illogical-and yet, here are people conversant with the whole process, taking it for granted.
The doctors experience is worthless.
The fact that he makes the assertion, that it is somehow, scientific…leads me to conclude that some brain damage must have occured.
No, the brain does not “shut down” during meningitis. Just a ridiculous statement.
Not one person who has been beheaded, has ever come back to tell cute stories, I observe.
By they way, the next person who sees Heaven, can you please bring back something useful? Some advancement of some kind? Because we got BOATLOADS of cutey, heartwarming stories down here already.