[Updated 5/13/11. I’m more skeptical of NDEs than I was a few years back. I still think that the survivalist interpretation is currently the best fit, but I’m nowhere near 100% confident.]
There several helpful resources out there. I recommend these sources (among others):
-
Carter, C. Science and the Near Death Experience (2010). My Amazon review can be found at the following URL: amazon.com/review/RHBCORMXC5 … &linkCode=
-
Kelly and Kelly et al (2007). Irreducible Mind. This is a very thorough book on the nature of mind and how to best describe it. They talk about NDEs, psychical research, and other areas. Note: This book is not the best overview of parapsychology. For the best treatments on parapsychology, I recommend other sources, including Dean Radin’s two books (his 1997 “Conscious Universe”, which was re-released as “Noetic Universe”, and his 2006 “Entangled Minds”) and Chris Carter’s 2007 book (“Parapsychology and the Skeptics”), among others.
-
Atwater, PMH. Complete Idiot’s Guide to Near Death Experiences. I don’t know about her other books, but this one is a very helpful guide with pretty good rebuttals to the standard skeptical dismissals, although it is also the least referenced out of the ones I’m recommending.
-
Braude, S (2003). Immortal Remains. He doesn’t make much use of NDEs, but he talks about mediums.
I would also include the work of the British and American Societies for Psychical Research (BSPR and ASPR), particularly their work on the trance medium Leonora Piper (for more on Piper, go to tacoseasoning.blogspot.com/2011/ … s-and.html)
In general, NDEs and medium research do not support eternal damnation, but strongly suggest universalism (in some cases via postmortem corrections). It should also be noted that atheists are just as likely as Christians to have heavenly NDEs, and Christians are just as likely to have adverse NDEs. The person’s religious beliefs play little role in whether the experience is blissful, though the majority of NDEs (in both atheists and believers alike) are either blissful or benign.
I should say that I’m not as confident as I used to be, and am actually hesitant to interpret NDEs ad evidence of postmortem survival. However, I do lean in that direction because I think it’s currently the best interpretation. Of course, like many others, I wish the NDE evidence were stronger. (I’m a major parapsychology buff. I wish the NDE data were as well collected as data in other “survival” areas)
So, here’s a brief outline of why I lean towards the interpretation given by most NDErs themselves:
a) This first argument boils down to subjective experiences, but it’s worth noting. Cardiac arrest destroys all measurable EEG activity between 10 and 20 seconds after onset. EEG activity is abolished because cardiac arrest causes a massive decrease in the flow of blood, oxygen, and nutrients. And yet NDEs after the onset of cardiac arrest often include a dramatic increase in cognition – in the speed and quality of thoughts, in control over one’s thoughts, in memory, in visual and auditory acuity, and in the “feeling” of reality itself (i.e. the experience is often “more real” than ordinary waking reality). Why should we expect that to be produced by a fraction of brain activity? Even if future research finds left-over brain activity beyond 10-20 seconds after cardiac arrest onset, it’s not clear that such a finding would support the skeptical position. The question is why a fraction of brain activity after cardiac arrest would increase cognition. On the contrary, this makes sense if the brain receives/filters/constrains an already-existing mind, which in turn experiences one layer of reality through the medium of the brain.
b) Moreover, cardiac arrest NDErs are able to describe the details of their own resuscitations more accurately than cardiac arrest victims who lack an NDE, and some of those cases also involve the dramatic increase in cognition I mentioned above. So not only are they accurately describing things that occurred during a period of flat EEGs, but they also had increased cognition at a time of flat EEGs. (There’s some debate about whether heart massage was causing some continued brain circulation in those cases, which then caused the experiences and sensory perception.)
c) There are some thought-provoking veridical NDEs – i.e. accurate and corroborated observation by NDErs at a time when they shouldn’t be able to hear/see things. I don’t want to turn this into a lengthy debate, so I encourage people to read the sources I listed (if only one, then Carter’s 2010 book). But those that are worth considering are the “missing dentures” case, the Pam Reynolds case, the “flapping his arms” case, and several others. People on both sides of the debate have mischaracterized those cases. But when all of the mistakes are corrected, I believe that those cases are more suggestive than not (although not proof) of postmortem survival.
[Note: There are other cases that may sound more impressive, but they generally have even less external verification. For example, NDEers sometimes encounter loved ones on the “other side” that they think is still alive. So for example, Bill has an NDE and encounters his loved one Dan. Bill gets revived and tells his family “I saw Dan”, and they reply, “well Dan is still alive”. But then they discover that Dan had died shortly before Bill’s NDE. This also happens with pets (NDErs encounter their pets that they think are still alive, but which died relatively shortly before the NDE). These particular examples have not yet been thoroughly documented and remain anecdotal.]
d) It seems to me that all of the models proposed by skeptics have failed. Again, I refer the reader to Carter’s (2010 easy-to-follow summaries. Until Carter’s book came out, I recommended the 2007 book “Irreducible Mind” by Kelly and Kelly et al., which offers a good case for the “transcendental” interpretation of NDEs. But that book is too dry. Carter’s book is more reader friendly.
I readily grant that we need more NDE data. I may end up changing my mind. We need more data. I’ll never object to additional research.
)
