How can you possibly believe in a benevolent God

[partialderivative]

Once more, acts of 'god' have left communities blown apart.

Does any one really feel these vilages deserved it?

God's a bit of a cunt at times.

this is what I am talking about. In his scientific understanding he shouldn't have had that experience, but then tries to explain it without using any science. - because he can't use science! That's why no one else can either. It's a challenge.

The way you seeing Alexander as using his science background to enhance the liklihood of his experience (which I don't think he did, he would ruin his career to do so) is the same as I think Harris shouldn't use his to discredit it.

The experiences need further investigation, in the fields of medicine, neuropsychology, philosophy and neurology true but that's not what's happening when Harris and others come with pseudo explanations. That halts progress by discrediting actual experience and makes people who understand nothing about the brain claim that NDE's are brain activity.

But Alexander used his scientific background and credibility as the basis for stating that there was in his view no realistic scientific explanation of his experience and that we are 'more than our brains' is a 'fact'.

So he was trading on his scientific background and describing things in scientific terms. So he should be unsurprised by scientific challenge - if nothing else, any scientist worth their salt should be accustomed to the peer review process.

BigDorrit - you mean when we hear hoofbeats, we shouldn't assume zebras?

Good point.

For want of a better word OH for the Love of GOD!!

Nobody is arguing with this. However, given that there is not one single instance of anything supernatural being proved to have happened, I would suggest that that is probably not the first assumption one should jump to...

SUPERNATURAL IN THIS CASE MIGHT JUST BE NATURAL EXPLANATIONS BEYOND OUR SCOPE.

He may or may not have stated that we are 'more than our brains' as 'fact'. Others have suggested this, not stated it as FACT but instead proposed studies. Usually they are marginalised by those that assume that IF consciousness does have the ability to transcend the brain then this would somehow be a supernatural and crazy. It is this view that is damaging. It's no better than the view that supernatural things can be explained with demons, goblins and fairies.

SUPERNATURAL IN THIS CASE MIGHT JUST BE NATURAL EXPLANATIONS BEYOND OUR SCOPE.

Again, no. That would be a natural explanation we do not or cannot understand. It would be within the laws of nature, even if those laws are beyond our understanding. It would not be outside nature, and therefore not supernatural.

The words I quoted (the 'fact' quote) I've seen attributed to Alexander's book, and thus I assumed them to be his.

The definition is from the dictionary not me.

So you are saying that no one is attributing NDE's to supernatural causes. Of course you're not. I'm saying those so called supernatural causes may (probably do) have a natural cause that we have not discovered.

Therefore pseudo explanations from natural causes (bending them to fit) will not help to discover what those causes are.

A definition you keep using to apply to 'things we don't currently understand' based on a misunderstanding of natural laws. Your application of that definition is incorrect, because the definition isn't 'current understanding of the laws of nature'.

Supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive. Natural laws include things we don't understand yet that have natural causes.

is the same as I think Harris shouldn't use his to discredit it.

why not? when someone's claim is essentially personal, refuting that claim because it lacks any scientific credibility is a scientific claim. Harris is doing fine science by trying to give the simplest and easiest refutation of extraordinary claims. if someone claims they can fly without the aid of technology, I don't have to dig any deeper than the reason no known human has ever done this to refute that claim. That's it. My assertion that the claim is likely false is simple and scientifically based. The burden of proof is not on me.

Think of Alexander's claim if it wasn't an NDE. Somebody just claims to have seen god or heaven. Why is that claim (or experience as you wish to refer to it) any less credible? it isn't. they are both equally credible (i.e. zero).

I suppose the medical staff could look at Eben Alexander's medical notes and work back from the point of waking, looking at any minute changes in his condition that could indicate his coming back to reality and may coincide with his vision.

Chiggers, there appear to be some disagreements between Alexander and his caregivers over the nature of his coma and his level of brain activity at the time...

Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose give a fascinating possible explanation into NDE's and how they may manifest themselves near death.

Sorry folks, I meant "here's the video that gives the best explanation of super-positioning, ORCH and general quantum mechanics.

That should be ORCH OR

I suspect that there may well have been some neuro-electrical activity on very low levels that were too low to detect. All the medics involved in his care are only able to go by what they could detect, depending on the level of calibration of the machines IYSWIM.

In quantum physics, and especially quantum entanglement, we may have an explanation for how Alexander was aware of being in hospital as well as out of his body IYSWIM.

Anyway, must go and take the mad mutts out for a walk , but will be back tomorrow.

Take care all you good people

Glad some of you looked at the quantum theory. As I stated pages ago, that is the theory that I personally think is the most interesting and plausible. It's interesting, there is so much further to go.

Likening Alexanders experience to someone claiming to fly is exactly the sort of attitude I was arguing against.

Likening Alexanders experience to someone claiming to fly is exactly the sort of attitude I was arguing against.

then you missed my point entirely. I wasn't likening his experience to someone claiming to fly. I was saying that refuting extraordinary claims is easy to do scientifically as the burden of proof doesn't lie with that person. Any plausible explanation suffices.

I was saying that refuting extraordinary claims is easy to do scientifically as the burden of proof doesn't lie with that person. Any plausible explanation suffices.people can't fly, physics proves that. There is no neurological theory for NDE's. So totally different.

people can't fly, physics proves that. There is no neurological theory for NDE's. So totally different.

I repeat I wasn't claiming those two claims are analogous. I was responding to Harris being "unscientific" by giving a simple reason to explain what happened. the two claims are very different because of exactly what you say (one is easily refutable, the other isn't). My point, however, was about Harris response.

Harris' response was unscientific. www.c4chaos.com/2012/10/sam-harris-vs-dr-eben-alexander-on-nde/