near to death episodes (Endings)

by dhw, Thursday, February 14, 2008, 07:44 (5910 days ago) @ Peter P

I'd hoped to stay out of the George & Peter love affair, but David Turell's contribution, George's quotes from the "guide", and his schoolmasterly pat on the head as he tells us agnostics to "grow up" and accept his version of "the truth", compel me to join in the fun. - Peter P. in his wonderfully forthright manner seems to me to have identified the crucial point here. What do we regard as evidence? The same subject was raised in the later contributions under Teapot Agnosticism. George writes: "All of the published accounts are anecdotal and thus unscientific." I can only gasp in admiration at George's comprehensive reading (personally I don't even know the titles of all the published accounts), but in any case "unscientific" does not necessarily make them untrue or "not worth considering". A witness giving evidence at a trial can only describe what he or she saw. The question then is not whether the account can be proved scientifically, but simply whether we do or do not believe the witness. If the store detective sees you shoplifting, try telling the judge that the evidence is only "anecdotal". In accounts that I've read, we have the testimony of the person who "died", and we have confirmation from the other people present that the events he describes (but could not have seen) did take place. I would be reluctant to draw any conclusions from this about an afterlife etc., but George's "stressful situation" provides no explanation at all. - 
May I suggest that David Turell selects the most convincing, best authenticated experience from his repertoire, and then we can judge for ourselves if it does or does not constitute evidence. Perhaps George will even give us a simple, natural explanation to set our immature minds at rest. At least it will make a change from abiogenesis.