After the discussion and lecture on Friday, I feel obligated to reconsider some of my view of Near Death Experiences. Initially, I saw the Reverend as a biased source, using NDE’s to promote his religion over others, but as the lecture went on, I saw him as a man who was struggling to give voice to a section of the population that longs for some confirmation of their collective experience.
The stories that Reverend Price brought forth were astounding, and although I did not believe many of them, I developed a new understanding of the importance of NDE’s. For example, I cannot believe the stories about men and women who have had NDE’s also having supernatural powers, such as draining IPhone batteries, or diagnosing diseases with a 100% success rate. However, I can believe in NDE’s being such powerful experiences that they give men and women new hope and drive to thrive in our chaotic modern society. I was moved by the Reverend’s story about the boy who was struck with lightning, and who was so affected that he did not speak for over a years before the Reverand himself asked him about his experience. The boy described Angels standing over him, and guarding him from the lightning. I think these are wonderful visions that are further evidence of the link between our brain and religion. Our brain is able to create images and visions that coincide with the beliefs we hold most dear. In Reverend Price’s discussions with non-Christian experiencers of NDE’s many of them stated they had seen their father; or the person that was most loving in their family. Our brain takes what we hold closest to our hearts, and uses those sentiments in our most dire moments, creating visions of parents, Angels, or psychedelic butterfly rides.
I believe there is a link between the charismatic healer phenomenon of Greatrakes, Mesmer, Tribal Shamans, and the lady who was endowed with the ability to diagnose any disease or malady. If you confidently suggest an explanation or cure, you are exerting incredible influence on whomever is suffering from the affliction. I believe the pastor was influenced by the woman’s suggestion of his knee infection, perhaps even more than most, due to his firm belief in NDE’s.
I felt that the pastors use of the Gallup poll of the 1980’s was a bit misleading, as it actually recorded how many Americans had come very extremely to death. It was not asking whether they had experienced an NDE, which is a multistep event, (a tunnel, an out of body experience, a bright light, a life review, an understanding that it is not yet their time, and a return to the body). I cannot disprove any of the Reverend’s stories, nor explain them mechanistically using the physical laws of our universe, thus they lie in the vitalistic realm of “nonsense”. They are unbelievable and often times nonsensical; however, they are so widespread and consistent in nature that it would be foolish to deny them completely. I will satisfy myself with the knowledge that human power of belief far outstretches the limits of modern science, and therefore should not yet be understood mechanistically. These experiences are life defining for men and women across the world, and should be given the due respect that the Reverand has attributed them. Many of these people are just looking for someone to speak with, who can partially understand what they went through, and how significant it was to their life.
I also agree that Rev. Price’s was biased, but you have to take into account what others have said in that he’s not a scientist as well, so it is not in his interests to focus more at the mechanistic ways of explaining NDE’s. When looking at NDE’s and other unexplainable phenomenon, many people feel the explanation must be either 100% scientific or 100% religious/spiritual/etc. However, most things in this world are not 100% accurate, especially in the field of science. Why do most people search for an exact answer that fits on one side of the argument, when most likely it deals with a little bit of both. Rev. Price only covered one side of stories, because those are the people who came to speak with him. If a near death experiencer did not believe their experience was due to some out of this world phenomenon, they probably would not want to call and speak with Rev. Price, therefore, it makes sense he doesn’t have a lot of scientifically based stories to document and ponder. However we cannot get stuck between this divide that future scientist and medical professionals, like ourselves, must stick to one side of the argument and think of the other side as religious foolery, when doctors and neurosurgeons (Alexander) themselves believe in the vitalistic explanation of NDEs. With no 100% correct explanation for NDEs currently, we must consider both sides of the argument with an open mind. There is much to learn about the brain to this day. Could there possibly be a part of our minds that deals with the soul, or a part that is pre-programmed for religion? If so, how or why was it placed there in our minds? If not, why has religion lasted for so many years? Could there be a section of the brain that through mechanistic processes connected vitalistic ideas? These are all questions we must consider and take into account for further research. I agree with Chiraaq in that the point of Rev. Price’s argument was not so much to prove to others or himself his religious views, he was simply attempting to convey that the affects of these seemingly spiritual NDEs can have a major impact on people’s lives usually for the better; and because of this, they are something all people should look further into.
The questions you pose about possible connections between mechanistic processes and vitalistic understandings/ideas are an interesting ones to me. It got me thinking about whether or not there are areas in our brain that are more predisposed to mediate spiritual encounters (such as NDEs). Upon further research, it seems that studies testing sites of activation in the brain like Michael Persinger’s “God-helmet” seem to imply that one can manufacture spiritual experiences. In the case of the “God-helmet”, Persinger stimulated the right temporal lobe with weak magnetic fields of his participants to create the illusory feeling that another being was in the room. Andrew Newberg’s studies, which examined the brain activation of Tibetan Buddhist monks as they meditated, found an increase of activity in the frontal lobe as well as a decrease of activity in the parietal lobe (serves to orient a person in three-dimensional space). These results may suggest that “the decreased activity in the brains of the meditating monks indicates that they lose their ability to differentiate where they end and something else begin” (“Is the brain hardwired for religion?”) which is a feeling often attributed to reaching a state of transcendence. Of course, we are no strangers to the fact that clinical trials have tried to induce certain aspects of NDEs with some success, but we must keep in mind that results for these findings do not have a definitive say on whether or not a higher being does exist despite the fact that certain religious experiences can be “artificially” stimulated. Hopefully, these short articles can provide a bit of insight (with a critical eye in place) and baseline for further research into this matter of a pre-programming of the brain-for religion.
“Are Spiritual Encounters All In Your Head?”: Second section in a five part series: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104291534
“Is the brain hardwired for religion?”: Most likely a less reliable source, but a fun read: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain-religion1.htm
I agree with those who have already said that the Reverend seemed to project a very biased view on the NDE phenomenon. I found it extremely odd that he had never heard of ANYONE seeing a religious deity other than Jesus, when he has been researching NDEs for so many years, and after only 2 minutes of researching NDE’s I have found multiple examples of people seeing other deities. That alone made me distrust a lot of what he said about the phenomena itself. Additionally, when Professor Parsons asked very well thought out questions that were hard to answer and seemed to bring the validity of his narratives into question, Reverend Price seemed to shrug them off without answering. A combination of these things made me really question the validity of the Reverend’s presentation, interesting though it may be.
Again, though, I believe the biggest thing to take away is how these NDE’s affected the person who experienced it. While we can’t prove what someone saw, or whether or not it was “real”, what we can definitely see and have proof of is the type of effect it had on the person. Often people are compelled to change their ways, feel comforted by the thought of death, want to live more moral lives, etc. These are observable changes that, regardless of the reality of the phenomena, make NDE’s very powerful and mysterious.
I can sympathize with a lot of Kelly’s concerns. I definitely agree that Reverend Price’s discussion felt a lot more biased than that of Professor Parsons. That said, I expected this to be the case, due to the differing professional roles they represent: the former is a theologian and the latter is a religious scholar; the former’s job is to inspire religious wonder and faith, while the latter’s job is, as he said himself, to play devil’s advocate. In my opinion, both roles are valuable. The man who inspires religious wonder can prompt us to entertain possibilities beyond our imaginations and beyond empirical science, thus opening us up to a more open-minded view of the expansive and uncharted nature of reality. However, the danger in this theological approach is that, in adhering too strictly to one religious tradition, the opposite process may occur, causing us to see things in a more narrow-minded way. For example, the Reverend focused almost entirely on NDEs where the deity perceived (if there was one) was said to be Christ. Parsons, as a religious scholar, has an academic responsibility to survey multiple cultures and religions, especially in relation to experiences like NDEs which indisputably have at least some cross-cultural similarities. This comparative approach, coupled with an unbiased critical approach, allows us to see more clearly which of these experiences have possible mechanistic explanations and which do not. The danger here is that, in swinging too far to the critical reductionistic side, it is possible to limit our imaginations and hence limit our natural inclinations as human beings to constantly question our own rigid scientific understanding of the world. Personally, I think Parsons manages this balance very well. As he said, he is personally sympathetic to the validity of much of the NDE literature (and mysticism in general, having known many people with professed paranormal abilities/experiences), but he understands that this very sympathetic position toward some experiences is indebted to the critical rejection of other reported experiences.
Kelly: I perceived the reverend’s speech a bit differently. Because he came to speak in a scholarly atmosphere, I began as an avid listener, expecting the same approach to the topic from him as I did Dr. Parsons. However, as his talk went on, his lack of mechanistic proof for a vitalistic explanation bothered me. For example, Rev. Price said that Dr. Gupta clearly didn’t read the accounts by the doctors who experienced NDE’s. Why would this shift Gupta’s frame of mind? His research supports a mechanistic explanation. Reading those accounts should change nothing. He would continue to label those accounts anoxic experiences. The reverend’s argument seemed to be that if we believe enough, we would overcome those mechanistic explanations, as if they were simply a blockade. It is hard for me to agree with that argument any more than a purely mechanistic one, when it is doctors with highly mechanistic world-views that manage to bring us back alive and well from these near-death experiences.
I found myself frustrated by the end of the speech. I felt that, because he was a Reverend, I could not or should not question his beliefs because he held some impalpable authority or esoteric knowledge that would render my challenge foolish (even though I myself am not Christian). Moreover, I questioned whether it was necessary for me to find the mechanistic in the vitalistic. Why did I need to hear the scientific method of unbiased experiments and probability beyond chance in Rev. Price’s qualitative testimonials? Why is it that I found his stories of approaching those with NDE’s a bit contrived or bias (e.g. That he would approach new individuals by asking if they had an experience of seeing the light versus approaching new individuals by having a normal conversation and letting them bring up that experience to him)? It made me see his interviews as the ravings of people who really had had NDE’s, but played them up either due to humans’ poor memory or the desire to be unique. Is it my own resistance to purely vitalistic explanations that makes me the more biased individual here?
The testimonials of enhanced abilities following an NDE were for me the most compelling part of Rev. Price’s talk because they showed the most potential to persist in a case study. Can we disprove a subjective NDE itself? No, but we can disprove someone who claims to predict another individual’s maladies by simply controlling for variables and discovering later whether that individual does indeed have that malady or not. I think by running these kinds of experiments supporters of the vitalistic explanation for NDE’s would see victory and supporters of the mechanistic would have to recognize this phenomenon more officially as beyond mechanistic explanation, at least for now.
I perceived the reverend’s speech a bit differently. Because he came to speak in a scholarly atmosphere, I began as an avid listener, expecting the same approach to the topic from him as I did Dr. Parsons. However, as his talk went on, his lack of mechanistic proof for a vitalistic explanation bothered me. For example, Rev. Price said that Dr. Gupta clearly didn’t read the accounts by the doctors who experienced NDE’s. Why would this shift Gupta’s frame of mind? His research supports a mechanistic explanation. Reading those accounts should change nothing. He would continue to label those accounts anoxic experiences. The reverend’s argument seemed to be that if we believe enough, we would overcome those mechanistic explanations, as if they were simply a blockade. It is hard for me to agree with that argument any more than a purely mechanistic one, when it is doctors with highly mechanistic world-views that manage to bring us back alive and well from these near-death experiences.
I found myself frustrated by the end of the speech. I felt that, because he was a Reverend, I could not or should not question his beliefs because he held some impalpable authority or esoteric knowledge that would render my challenge foolish (even though I myself am not Christian). Moreover, I questioned whether it was necessary for me to find the mechanistic in the vitalistic. Why did I need to hear the scientific method of unbiased experiments and probability beyond chance in Rev. Price’s qualitative testimonials? Why is it that I found his stories of approaching those with NDE’s a bit contrived or bias (e.g. That he would approach new individuals by asking if they had an experience of seeing the light versus approaching new individuals by having a normal conversation and letting them bring up that experience to him)? It made me see his interviews as the ravings of people who really had had NDE’s, but played them up either due to humans’ poor memory or the desire to be unique. Is it my own resistance to purely vitalistic explanations that makes me the more biased individual here?
The testimonials of enhanced abilities following an NDE were for me the most compelling part of Rev. Price’s talk because they showed the most potential to persist in a case study. Can we disprove a subjective NDE itself? No, but we can disprove someone who claims to predict another individual’s maladies by simply controlling for variables and discovering later whether that individual does indeed have that malady or not. I think by running these kinds of experiments supporters of the vitalistic explanation for NDE’s would see victory and supporters of the mechanistic would have to recognize this phenomenon more officially as beyond mechanistic explanation, at least for now.
@Kelly,
I disagree. I thought it was helpful to gain perspective from somebody who is a respected figure within the religious realm of NDE research. I think it was to be expected that a Reverend would bring a wholly vitalistic approach to table. By understanding how religious-minded people perceive and interpret NDEs, I think we can better grasp how the mind in general copes with and attempts to reconcile itself with perceived extra-sensory experiences and information. Bundled up in this concept are the notions of faith and placebo effects. The mechanistic approach to understanding the the causes and effects of NDEs is burgeoning but as of yet unable to satisfactorily explain all related phenomena. Thus, it is only natural that religious people will ascribe these mysteries to supernatural or divine forces. Since these spontaneous sort of healing processes are inexplicable and seemingly originate from the unconscious mind, or a sort of higher intelligence, it is reasonable for someone to describe this as the workings of God or Jesus (just as an irreligious but spiritual individual may describe them as the work of the soul or Higher Self, and an atheist as particular neurological processes).
Granted, the Reverend did not provide any proof for his anecdotes and neither did he discuss any possible mechanistic explanations in detail since he ultimately views NDEs as affirmative of his vitalistic religious convictions and is content to leave it at that. However, if any one of the recanted anecdotes is true, it would be a testament to the healing power of the psyche when properly channeled. Furthermore, I think the essence of his argument was that NDEs may produce what may be labeled “spiritual” experiences that may have very real effects on our physiology and psyche, rather than an attempt to portray such experiences as ‘proof’ for his religious views.
I think it is important to consider the Reverend’s experiences and anecdotes as a facet of NDE-related experiences, and as part of a larger, diverse domain of possible interpretations.
I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly; by the end of the Reverend’s talk, I found myself incredibly frustrated with the man. His unnecessary and immediate dismissal of Dr. Gupta’s research made me question just exactly how open-minded he was, and begged the question as to why he was so insistent on keeping NDEs a vitalistic and mysterious phenomenon. True, Chiraag, NDEs are classified as vitalistic at the moment because they cannot be adequately explained in mechanistic terms; however, that does not mean mechanistic approaches to it should be discounted, just as we apparently have to refrain from dismissing NDEs as entirely vitalistic. But the Reverend’s blunt refutation of any scientific approach did not do his argument any favors.
I believe that earlier in the year, Dr. Brochstein advertised the Reverend as a man who used NDEs to justify his faith, which made me pretty excited to hear the Reverend speak. I was disappointed to hear nothing that strongly supported Christianity. Did it bother no one else but Dr. Parsons and me that no one asked that one lady what Jesus looked like? And one of the guests had an explanation as to why the Buddhists would see their grandparents; it operated according to religion. Therefore, NDEs seem to be defined BY religion, rather than defining it.