Welcome home! Please contact
lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site.
New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days.
Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Neurosurgeon recants his belief in death
Comments
Sam Harris has not read the literature on NDEs — that much seems obvious to me (I wonder when he was last at University of Virginia talking with Dr. Kelly?). I have plenty of recommendations for him but I seriously doubt he would be interested.
It is not an established fact the cerebral cortex is where matter is transformed into consciousness. It is not even an established fact in biology that there is consciousness since it can't be put on a laboratory table and examined.
When you say he has little or no evidence what do you mean? Is Dr. Eben Alexander on trial? What crime has he been accused of that he has to hand over his evidence to Sam Harris and the other pseudo-skeptics? I find no reason to doubt Dr. Eben Alexander at this point; and I am certain he isn't irrational nor is his belief that consciousness is not of the body irrational either.
This reminds me somewhat of the unprofessional way Harvard handled the study of alien abductions carried out by the late John E. Mack, M.D. The Dean's goon squad investigated the good doctor which tells us that academic freedom doesn't count for much in the U.S.
No, he's not on trail, but his assertions are certainly open to criticism, especially by scientists in the field of neuroscience. Moreover, nobody's doubting his experience, they're simply questioning his assertions about the nature of consciousness and the existence of heaven based upon a vision he had and little else, at least up to this point (refer to the two paragraphs quoted above). Don't see the similarity or the relevance, to be honest.
By the way, this scientist also declared black holes did not exist, which was definitely in his field of study.
This sort of "but THIS authority agrees with me so there!" appeal to authority drives people who understand science nuts, because it proves nothing. Anyone can be wrong. The evidence stands or falls on its own, not on some authority.
It's an interesting analogy, and I agree that there may be more to life than what scientists can currently observe and determine through the physical sciences. That said, science is not only improving its range of observation all the time, but none of this contradicts or really even counters Harris' criticisms of Alexander's assertion. Harris himself states that: What Harris is really criticizing is what he feels to be Alexander's 'lazy reasoning' and apparent lack of familiarity with the subject of how the brain works. And out of the two, I find that Harris simply makes a better case for being skeptical than Alexander makes for believing, on the basis of his vision, that consciousness is independent of the brain, that death is an illusion, and that heaven exists and awaits us all (or at least some of us).
All Sam Harris is doing is pointing out a flaw in what we understand is something Alexander is already claiming to be a rather pivotal fact: that these visions took place when his cerebral cortex was completely shut down. If he cannot prove this, then it is possible that all of his visions were mind-made. Sam Harris also consulted with an expert, Mark Cohen (a pioneer in the field of neuroimaging who holds appointments in the Departments of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Science, Neurology, Psychology, Radiological Science, and Bioengineering at UCLA), who supported Harris' thoughts on the topic.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a critical eye when someone is trying to justify an experience as fact. Of course, we will have wait to see what his book says, but I don't get why some people seem to get so agitated about science when it seems to stand contrary to something involving faith... all the sudden, you're close minded just because you're skeptical? What's wrong with saying, "Well, these points don't add up so I'm not going to put all of my stock in this guy until he can clear up these things that don't make sense..."? Isn't that just being logical?
What if he took it a step further and said he saw God and he told him that no one could enter Heaven unless it was through Jesus? If everything else about his account was exactly the same, would everyone be as likely to put faith in him? Or would more people turn a discerning eye on this guy just because, suddenly, he's saying something that very directly contradicts (most of) our beliefs?
I never expected it would be "proof" of heaven. In fact, my guess is that the publisher insisted on that kind of title in order to sell more books.
But it turns out that most of the book is not about the author's "experience" in heaven during his coma. Most of the book is about his family's experience with his illness. And in that, you learn nothing that most families haven't experienced when a loved one goes through serious illness.
I will say that there are a few passages that might lend themselves to Buddhist thinking. Images of devas and other such Buddhist figures come to mind in several places.