I’m
going to discuss some objections to NDEs (and OBEs).
I.
Theological objections
i) One
objection is that it’s illegitimate to use extrabiblical information to make a
case for postmortem survival.
In
response, I’d say that depends.
a) It
would be improper to cultivate NDE or OBE type experiences as a way of
discovering the reality of an afterlife. That’s like dabbling in the occult.
On the
other hand, if an unsolicited experience simply happens to you, there’s nothing
wrong with assessing the evidential value, if any, or logical implications, if
any, of your experience. Same thing with evaluating the reported experience of
others.
b) We
rely on extrabiblical information for many things we believe in. We also use
extrabiblical information to help interpret the Bible or to defend the Bible.
Although justified belief in Scripture is not dependent on corroborative
evidence, God made the world as well as the Word. Providence is a divine source
of information. The world is a divinely created object of knowledge. History is
a divinely guided object of knowledge.
It would
be wrong to test biblical claims by other sources of information, but we can
supplement our knowledge from other sources, as long as Scripture remains the
standard.
ii)
Another objection is that the content of reported NDEs (and OBEs) is sometimes
unorthodox. I’ll have more to say about that momentarily, but for now I’d like
to draw a quick distinction:
a) If
the Bible teaches dualism, if the Bible teaches the survival of consciousness (i.e.
the intermediate state), then we’d expect “decedents” to have a postmortem
experience. When they “die,” it doesn’t go black. When they “die,” their mind
(soul, consciousness) is detached from the body. Their experience is no longer
filtered through their body.
Seems to
me that Christian anthropology predicts for something like NDEs or OBEs when
the conditions are right. When patients talk about “popping out” of their
bodies, isn’t that consistent with traditional Christian anthropology? Indeed,
isn’t that implicit in traditional Christian anthropology?
b)
That’s distinct from what specifically they saw or heard, thought they saw or
heard, or say they saw or heard.
c) I’ve
put some terms in scare quotes, for we’re dealing with borderline conditions.
Technical, medical definitions of “death.”
There’s
nothing in Christian anthropology that precludes resuscitation. Christian anthropology doesn’t say you
can’t temporarily “die,” and be resuscitated a few minutes later. There may
well be a transitional stage between expiration and the afterlife, before the
vital organs become too damaged, where it’s possible to go either way. Before
death becomes irreversible. And in that state, it may be possible to perceive
both worlds. I don’t see that Scripture rules that out.
In fact,
Scripture itself records some miraculous resuscitations (e.g. 1 Kgs 17:17-21; 2
Kgs 4:18-35; Mt 9:18-25; Acts 20:9-10). This suggests that, to some degree,
life and death lie along a continuum. Depending on how long they were dead and
the degree of necrosis, miraculous resuscitation would involve healing the body
as well as reuniting body and soul.
By the
same token, it may be that up to a certain point, medical science can revive
people who, in the past, could only be resuscitated by a miracle. Of course,
someone like Lazarus would fall beyond the threshold of medical resuscitation.
Likewise,
visionary revelation is sometimes depicted in OBE terms. That sensation may be
phenomenological, or it may be metaphysical. We can’t rule out the latter.
II.
Philosophical objections
Philosophical
objections to NDEs and OBEs parallel philosophical objections to the argument
from religious experience. These are summarized by Kai-Man Kwan. Cf. “The
argument from religious experience,” The Blackwell Companion to Natural
Theology, W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland, eds. (Wiley-Blackwell 2012),
503-07. I’m going to adapt those objections to NDEs and OBEs, then respond:
i)
There’s a logical gap between an objective experience and the subjective conviction
that produces. Take a hallucination. So we need independent corroboration to
prove that our psychological experience (e.g. NDE or OBE) corresponds to an
extramental reality. Put another way, we need that external check to establish
the veridicality of the NDE or OBE.
But that
argument either proves too much or too little. For that parallels sensory
perception. There’s a logical gap between what we perceive, and what there is.
Take a hallucination.
ii)
There’s the theory-ladenness objection. How subjects interpret their NDEs or
OBEs is, to some extent, culturally conditioned by their varied religious
background, or lack thereof. So the experience lacks objective content.
But that
argument either proves too much or too little. Once again, sensory perception
is also theory-laden. To take some examples:
a) If I
see the back of somebody’s head, I infer that that’s a human being. I assume
the person has a face. A front, as well as a back, although I can only see them
from behind. Of course, it could be a cardboard cutout.
b) I’ve
read that when “primitive” jungle tribes are shown photographs for the first
time, they can’t recognize what those 2D images stand for. When we look at
photographs, we perceive more than we see. We perceive 3D objects. We subconsciously
grasp the representational character of the images.
c)
Suppose I hear four successive tones. I look around for the source of the
tones. I see a clock tower. I conclude that it’s four o’clock.
I didn’t
see the tones emitted from the clock tower. The tones are invisible. I didn’t
even hear the tones coming directly from the clock tower. It’s not like there’s
a series of dots leading straight from the clock tower to my ear. My hearing is
more diffuse.
Rather,
I associate the tones with the clock tower. I know from experience that it’s
the only object in the vicinity which could produce that sound.
Likewise,
I didn’t actually hear the clock strike four o’clock. All I really heard was
one tone after another. Four tones in a row.
But I’ve
conditioned to interpret that as code language for the time of day. If you
didn’t belong to a culture with grandfather clocks, and other suchlike, you
wouldn’t perceive the same auditory event.
Although
NDEs and OBEs are theory-laden, so is ordinary sensory perception. We’re so
used to unconsciously interpreting sensory input that we’re generally unaware
of how much our conceptual framework is constructing what we perceive.
d) By
analogy, NDEs and OBEs could be objective events, even though the experience is
in some measure observer-relative. The perception could be unorthodox even
though the core experience is orthodox. A misimpression.
iii)
There’s the privacy objection. Like dreams and hallucinations, NDEs and OBEs
reflect privileged access. An outside observer isn’t privy to your reported
experience.
But this
argument either proves too much or too little. To paraphrase Kwan:
In what
sense is a sensory experience public? My experience of a chair occurs
essentially in my mind–it is every bit as private as other experiences in this
aspect. I cannot directly experience how you experience the chair and vice
versa. What makes a sensory experience public is that verbal reports of
different persons can be compared. However, reported NDEs and OBEs can also be
compared.
While I think intentionally experimenting in Astral Projection or Remote Viewing is dabbling in the occult, I'd be interested in knowing if there are documented cases of proven astral projection or remote viewing where people have been able to gain information that could only be explained by non-natural means.
ReplyDeleteOne can't predict or set up a NDE, but people have been intentionally participating in astral projection and remote viewing for decades. I'm just ignorant of whether there is credible literature on the phenomena.
Mario Beauregard, in Brain Wars, presents documentation for remote viewing.
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve. Just checked, and there's a copy in my local library. There's also some interviews on YouTube like THIS ONE.
Delete