TDB: Heaven is Real: A Doctor's Experience With the Afterlife

[KAOSkins]

Interesting to see he goes for the Tucker Carlson look. Bow ties are a gift from Satan so maybe the pink clouds, hot women etc are not heaven but his minds eye view of temptation and brimstone? I don't know, but I do know that one guys experience inside his own head (figurative) does not scientific evidence make.

[alexey]

Looks like Sam Harris felt it was necessary to comment on this as well:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

...
Everything—absolutely everything—in Alexander’s account rests on repeated assertions that his visions of heaven occurred while his cerebral cortex was “shut down,” “inactivated,” “completely shut down,” “totally offline,” and “stunned to complete inactivity.” The evidence he provides for this claim is not only inadequate—it suggests that he doesn’t know anything about the relevant brain science. Perhaps he has saved a more persuasive account for his book—though now that I’ve listened to an hour-long interview with him online, I very much doubt it. In his Newsweek article, Alexander asserts that the cessation of cortical activity was “clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.” To his editors, this presumably sounded like neuroscience.

The problem, however, is that “CT scans and neurological examinations” can’t determine neuronal inactivity—in the cortex or anywhere else. And Alexander makes no reference to functional data that might have been acquired by fMRI, PET, or EEG—nor does he seem to realize that only this sort of evidence could support his case.
...
Again, there is nothing to be said against Alexander’s experience. It sounds perfectly sublime. And such ecstasies do tell us something about how good a human mind can feel. The problem is that the conclusions Alexander has drawn from his experience—he continually reminds us, as a scientist—are based on some very obvious errors in reasoning and gaps in his understanding.

Let me suggest that, whether or not heaven exists, Alexander sounds precisely how a scientist should not sound when he doesn’t know what he is talking about. And his article is not the sort of thing that the editors of a once-important magazine should publish if they hope to reclaim some measure of respect for their battered brand.

It's too bad we had to go through several pages of: "those nonbelievers will just dismiss the evidence" before getting to the bottom of the "evidence."

[PeterMP]

First, let me say that I think efforts to "prove" god via science are likely always to fail. I also think these effort are foolish on the parts of believers and diminish the value of faith. I also think they are illogical in terms of why would a god pick this point in time in history to reveal his exsistance in a completely validated manner.

I also think that none of us have any idea how good the evidence this man has, but given the claim of "proof" through "science", I find it disappointing that he'd go about revealing his evidence in such a poor and uncritical manner rather than a more rigorous reviewed process.

With all of that said, it is disappointing that somebody of Sam Harris' sature and noteriety would take this route in terms of "criticizing" this man and the editors of NewsWeek when addressing the manner, especially in unsoliciated manner, rather than trying to build a constructive and critical review of the evidence by doing something like contacting NewsWeeks editors with his concerns in a thorough and referenced manner and seeing what their response is or reading the book or simply stating the importance that the complete medical records be released to back up his claims.

Harris' critique should have been about 3 sentences and ended with:

"Perhaps he has saved a more persuasive account for his book"

[alexey]

First, let me say that I think efforts to "prove" god via science are likely always to fail. I also think these effort are foolish on the parts of believers and diminish the value of faith. I also think they are illogical in terms of why would a god pick this point in time in history to reveal his exsistance in a completely validated manner.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. I understand that discovering god through science is not the same as having a religious experience, but why would we want to disqualify some ways of looking for god and maybe even finding god?

I think that evidence of god giving us an ability to think is much stronger than evidence of god revealing his infinite wisdom in a single book.

So maybe we can find god by thinking together and working together, helping each other out, and trying to eliminate suffering in the world. Maybe efforts to prove god will succeed as soon as there isn't a person on Earth who is dying from preventable disease or malnutrition.

I also think that none of us have any idea how good the evidence this man has, but given the claim of "proof" through "science", I find it disappointing that he'd go about revealing his evidence in such a poor and uncritical manner rather than a more rigorous reviewed process.

With all of that said, it is disappointing that somebody of Sam Harris' sature and noteriety would take this route in terms of "criticizing" this man and the editors of NewsWeek when addressing the manner, especially in unsoliciated manner, rather than trying to build a constructive and critical review of the evidence by doing something like contacting NewsWeeks editors with his concerns in a thorough and referenced manner and seeing what their response is or reading the book or simply stating the importance that the complete medical records be released to back up his claims.

Harris' critique should have been about 3 sentences and ended with:

"Perhaps he has saved a more persuasive account for his book"

What a shame to print this on the cover of a Newsweek magazine. Let Sam Harris spend his time bashing this, if Sam Harris wants to spend his time that way. I wouldn't spend much time on this, but I'm glad somebody's doing it.

[PeterMP]

This is an interesting way of looking at it. I understand that discovering god through science is not the same as having a religious experience, but why would we want to disqualify some ways of looking for god and maybe even finding god?

Like most things in life I tend to limit myself to things that make sense to me.

If God wanted to let himself be a "known", he could have and could do it at anytime w/ or w/o science.

That he'd select this time through that method seems unlikely. If nothing else, simple probabilities tell me the probability is very low.

What a shame to print this on the cover of a Newsweek magazine.

Doesn't that depend on what the evidence is?

Maybe NewsWeek has his complete medical records and 10 neuroscientists spent 10 weeks combing them, and all 10 of them told NewWeek, 'Hey, there is something really here.'

[CrabR]

I recall a story of a hospital that put stickers on top of some equipment in terminally-ill patients rooms. They were up too high to be seen by anyone in the room, and even the doctors didn't know what the stickers looked like. Several of the patients described floating above their bodies, looking down on the scene, and were able to describe the stickers precisely, after near-death experiences

I read just the opposite of that story years ago;. It was a ER nurse who had put them there and no one ever remember what they said. I forget what magazine it was in