Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[Ben Dhyan]

I can think of no means to determine the veracity of or falsify a subjective experience. All that can be said is that a person can either accept it on its face or reject it for lack of evidence.

A phenomenon has been noted and for lack of a better term it has been labeled as "near death experience". Based on everything I have been made aware of, we have no idea what it is or if it is significant. Many people believe many things about it, but I do not see any information that would compel me to agree with any of those claims. There are known aspects of physiology that may easily explain the phenomenon. There are lots of unexplained phenomena out there and people believe all sorts of conclusions about them that have not been supported with any evidence.

All that can be said is that conclusions and claims based on belief remain unsupported. On the other side of this is the fact that no one can show that someone's believed views are wrong too.

A belief cannot be shown to be true and it cannot be shown to be false. All that one can do is show there is no reason to accept one belief over another for those that do not believe.

Fair enough.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You do not accept that claims require support?

Reference to God was only for example. I am making no claims regarding God and belief in God.

The first was a specific claim about the belief in God. The second was a statement of fact about a person that believes in God. Of course, you have to accept that the person making the claim is correct and you cannot demonstrate whether they really believe or not.

I personally decide whether to accept or not, the veracity of other's claims, I do have an intuitive faculty that I've learnt to have reasonable confidence in.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I personally decide whether to accept or not, the veracity of other's claims, I do have an intuitive faculty that I've learnt to have reasonable confidence in.

My decisions are personal based on my own belief and on evidence. If a person claims that NDE's are a window to the afterlife, I expect to see evidence supporting that claim. I haven't seen any. Maybe they are evidence that beings from another world, time or dimension are trying to contact us. Maybe they are...who knows. Maybe they are a collection of perceptions based on normal physiological activity associated with brain trauma. Concluding they are something spiritual is a based on the bias of what a person believes and not on anything that is sound, objective evidence. People jump to the conclusions supported by their own biases much more than for any evidence they actually have.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My decisions are personal based on my own belief and on evidence. If a person claims that NDE's are a window to the afterlife, I expect to see evidence supporting that claim. I haven't seen any. Maybe they are evidence that beings from another world, time or dimension are trying to contact us. Maybe they are...who knows. Maybe they are a collection of perceptions based on normal physiological activity associated with brain trauma. Concluding they are something spiritual is a based on the bias of what a person believes and not on anything that is sound, objective evidence. People jump to the conclusions supported by their own biases much more than for any evidence they actually have.

As I have had religious experiences for which I can not provide objective evidence, I keep an open mind as to what others may have experienced. It is true that some people are just plain 'nuts' (I don't mean that in the derogatory sense) and so I don't take their claims seriously, but I also don't argue with them. The saying that truth is stranger than fiction is imho quite correct, our minds are gateways to our perception of reality and our beliefs therefore act as filters to exclude any perceptions that are antithetical to these beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I have had religious experiences for which I can not provide objective evidence, I keep an open mind as to what others may have experienced. It is true that some people are just plain 'nuts' (I don't mean that in the derogatory sense) and so I don't take their claims seriously, but I also don't argue with them. The saying that truth is stranger than fiction is imho quite correct, our minds are gateways to our perception of reality and our beliefs therefore act as filters to exclude any perceptions that are antithetical to these beliefs.

The problem with belief is that what we believe may not be true.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem with belief is that what we believe may not be true.

True, reality is forever on the other side of beliefs, all beliefs!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True, reality is forever on the other side of beliefs, all beliefs!

Actually, it is the opposite. If it were on the side of belief, there would be evidence for those beliefs. Lack of a test is on the side of belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

True, reality is forever on the other side of beliefs, all beliefs!

I am not telling a person not to believe. Just that there are limitations to what a person can claim regarding what they believe.

On the question of NDE's, claiming that it is evidence of an afterlife puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim. The limitations are that NDE's have not been characterized. An afterlife has not been established or characterized. It is not surprising no link between the two has been shown to exist.

It is much the same as believing an unverified conspiracy theory and then using that belief to make political decisions. The decision could just as easily have been arrived at by tossing a coin and with as much basis for support for that way as by believing in the conspiracy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, it is the opposite. If it were on the side of belief, there would be evidence for those beliefs. Lack of a test is on the side of belief.

Beliefs are conceptualizations of reality, they may represent a reality but they are not, and never can be, that reality. For example, say you believe in God and I ask you to describe God in detail to me, can you do that? Describe to me precisely what God is?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not telling a person not to believe. Just that there are limitations to what a person can claim regarding what they believe.

On the question of NDE's, claiming that it is evidence of an afterlife puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim. The limitations are that NDE's have not been characterized. An afterlife has not been established or characterized. It is not surprising no link between the two has been shown to exist.

It is much the same as believing an unverified conspiracy theory and then using that belief to make political decisions. The decision could just as easily have been arrived at by tossing a coin and with as much basis for support for that way as by believing in the conspiracy.

There is no burden of proof required for someone who claims there is an afterlife, no more than burden of proof is required for someone who says there is no afterlife. Reality is forever on the other side of the human conceptual mind and endless conceptualizing will never give you true understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no burden of proof required for someone who claims there is an afterlife, no more than burden of proof is required for someone who says there is no afterlife. Reality is forever on the other side of the human conceptual mind!

If a person is just stating their belief it is so. If they are making the claim and moving to or supporting action based on that claim, then there is a burden of proof.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no burden of proof required for someone who claims there is an afterlife, no more than burden of proof is required for someone who says there is no afterlife. Reality is forever on the other side of the human conceptual mind and endless conceptualizing will never give you true understanding.

This thread for instance has included people that make a specific claim and go further to making determinations (actions) based on those claims. The claims and determinations have been offered as some universal truth. That demands that the claims be validated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no burden of proof required for someone who claims there is an afterlife, no more than burden of proof is required for someone who says there is no afterlife. Reality is forever on the other side of the human conceptual mind and endless conceptualizing will never give you true understanding.

In other words, subjective belief is claimed to be universal to objective reality. Without a link (establishing that the subjective is indeed an observation of reality and not merely belief) between the two, the subjective remains undemonstrated and can be ignored if one chooses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In other words, subjective belief is claimed to be universal to objective reality. Without a link (establishing that the subjective is indeed an observation of reality and not merely belief) between the two, the subjective remains undemonstrated and can be ignored if one chooses.

or embraced, if one chooses that path.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This thread for instance has included people that make a specific claim and go further to making determinations (actions) based on those claims. The claims and determinations have been offered as some universal truth. That demands that the claims be validated.

Anyone can make a claim about anything, where does this 'demand' that claims be validated come from, God, the UN, the Constitution? No, take it or leave it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Anyone can make a claim about anything, where does this 'demand' that claims be validated come from, God, the UN, the Constitution? No, take it or leave it.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

There are claims that can be verified and there are those that are purely on the basis of belief. The two are not equal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Anyone can make a claim about anything, where does this 'demand' that claims be validated come from, God, the UN, the Constitution? No, take it or leave it.

I agree that anyone can make a claim about anything. If someone tells me that drinking bleach will stop an infection, should I expect them to back that up or just start swigging bleach? I can drink the bleach or not. What if they tell me that God wants me to drink the bleach?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

There are claims that can be verified and there are those that are purely on the basis of belief. The two are not equal.

If an event is a subjective one, then making demands for objective evidence is unrealistic as it is impossible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree that anyone can make a claim about anything. If someone tells me that drinking bleach will stop an infection, should I expect them to back that up or just start swigging bleach? I can drink the bleach or not. What if they tell me that God wants me to drink the bleach?

So someone makes the claim that there is a God, do you demand objective verification before you believe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe atheists do not reject spiritual knowledge?

Atheists don't even believe there is such a thing.
When you "reject" something, you first need to acknowledge its existence.

So the idea that atheists "reject" god or "spiritual knowledge" or the supernatural or whatever, is rather meaningless.

Do you "reject" santa clause? Or do you simply not believe that there is such a thing?