By Angela Bonavoglia (A)theologies, Front Page May 14, 2014
Debating Death: Is It Really the End?
Death is not final.
Last week, four scientific big thinkers settled into their seats on stage at NYC's Kaufmann Center to debate this provocative proposition for NPR's Intelligence Squared. They would be discussing this proposition from a purely scientific, not a religious point of view, wrestling with the fundamental question of whether or not consciousness is totally contingent on a functioning human brain.
And if it is not, so the logic goes, then the demise of the brain does not deal a fatal blow to consciousness—therefore, death is not the end.
Variations of this conversation are breaking out all over, from the fascinating argument between Jeffrey Kripal and Jerry Coyne (Coyne declared Kripal to be a "science-basher" for wanting to widen the field of human knowledge to include mystical experience) to lively discussions around Barbara Eherenreich's newest book, to the recent attack by Cardinal Gerhard Müller on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
In this instance, the cardinal attacked the sisters for daring to invite unapproved, heretical speakers to its annual conference, specifically that maven of "conscious evolution" Barbara Marx Hubbard, who spoke in 2012. In response, the National Catholic Reporter's Thomas C. Fox wrote an impassioned defense of LCRW's choices as reflections of Pope John Paul II's commitment to ongoing efforts to reconcile science and religion. And Hubbard herself followed up in NCR with a strong argument for what she sees as the essential relationship between conscious evolution and Catholicism.
On the night of the "death" debate, in an extremely civil conversation—the hallmark of these Oxford Style debates, tightly moderated by NPR's John Donvan—neurosurgeon Eban Alexander, author of the best-selling Proof of Heaven, issued the first salvo. He recounted his journey into the afterlife while in a week-long coma, from a gloomy, muddy locale, where he had nothing but an "earthworm's eye-view," onto the wings of a blue butterfly with a beautiful blonde girl into the gorgeous Gateway and finally the Core, where he met Om, or God. His story became Exhibit A, the night's live example of consciousness that persists independent of a functioning brain.
Supporting Alexander's position was physician-philosopher Dr. Raymond Moody, author of Life After Life (in which he coined the term "Near Death Experience"). Not only did Moody bring tidings of his thousands of interviews with people who had NDEs; he also claimed that he has come to know hundreds of people who have had similar experiences to the person having the NDE, even though they themselves were nowhere near death.
All of the elements that we think of as a near-death experience, getting out of the body, going into this light, seeing a panoramic review of one's life, seeing apparitions of the deceased occur very commonly, not just to people who almost die and are brought back, but rather to the healthy and uninjured bystanders at the bedside of someone else—shared death experiences, I call them."
Challenging Alexander and Moody was Sean Carroll, physicist, cosmology researcher, author of The Particle at the End of the Universe. He pointed out how prone we humans are to believing what we want to believe—like stories of mystical experiences. He's never seen anyone bring back from one of those experiences something valuable that we didn't know, like a cure for Alzheimer's, for example. And these experiences are widely observed to be culturally conditioned:
When Christians have near-death experiences, they often say they've met Jesus. When Hindus have near-death experiences, they meet Hindu deities. There was a little girl who had a near-death experience, and she met a portly man wearing a red cap. She met Santa Claus.
His argument was bolstered by his co-panelist, Dr. Steven Novella, academic clinical neurologist at the Yale School of Medicine, host of podcast "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe." Novella argued that "our brains are narrative-generating machines." Our brains construct our reality; damaged brains distort it. "The mind is a process of the brain itself," he said. "Everything that you think, feel, believe, is something that's happening inside the brain, demonstrably."
Carroll and Novella dismissed NDEs as experiences that can be duplicated with drugs and oxygen deprivation. But what about those shared death experiences, mediums and other paranormal phenomenon?
While acknowledging that evidence exists for and against such things, Carroll said,
The kind of remote seeing or telepathy or telekinesis or clairvoyance that is being talked about here is in utter and complete violation of everything we understand about the current laws of physics, the fundamental way that matter and energy work.
That demands that the evidence for such things must be "amazingly good," he added, and today, "the evidence in favor of psychic phenomena comes nowhere near that standard."
"My response is that the evidence for things like telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, out of body experiences, past life memories in children, the after-death communications is overwhelmingly positive evidence, that it exists and is real," insisted Alexander in reply.
Each side made a strong case, but each side also got its comeuppance. The sharpest poke in Alexander's story—which comes on the heels of Luke Dittrich's devastating Esquire piece that presented Alexander as an unreliable narrator—concerned what Alexander claimed was the timing of his journey into the dark world of Om. The renowned neurosurgeon claimed that it occurred during the middle days of his coma, when his neocortex was not functioning. But how does he know that? asked Novella. How does he know it didn't occur in the first hours of his coma or when he was coming out—when arguably his brain would have been more functional?
Try as he might, Alexander could not put that question to rest.
The statement that set Novella to stammering came from Alexander, who repeatedly asserted that "there is no neurosurgeon on the planet who can say where consciousness comes from." Novella made a valiant effort to swat away that reality—
we don't know exactly how the brain generates consciousness…not knowing the mechanism is not the same thing as saying it's not possible…we're certainly not all the way there in understanding exactly what it is…it's not a black and white thing.
Without admitting so directly, his equivocation suggested that Alexander had it right.
After two hours of jousting, it was time to declare a winner. At these debates, everyone in the audience has a keypad attached to their seat where they can vote on the proposition before the debate begins, and after it ends—do they agree with the proposition, disagree with the proposition, or are they undecided. The side that creates the greatest change in positions wins.
When this audience started out, 37% accepted the proposition that "death is not final," 31% rejected it, and 32% were undecided. At the end of the debate, there were only 12% undecideds. Those who believe that death is not final increased by 5% to 42%. But the winners—if you can call it that—were the skeptics who believe that death is indeed final; their numbers increased by 15% to 46%.
It's true that 42% and 46% are not that far apart. It may be that Moody offered a bridge between the two sides.
Summing up the "death as final" side, Carroll said:
The question is not, Is it conceivable that there are other realms? The question is: Is the evidence in favor of that other realm so overwhelming that it causes us to dismiss the enormous successes of physics, chemistry, biology and neuroscience?
To him and to likeminded others, of course, the answer is no.
Moody at first agreed, leading to premature jubilation from the other side. "No, it doesn't require you to dismiss the findings of science," he said. "Yet," he added,
I think it's entirely conceivable that there's some other domain of existence over this that some people gain access to sometimes.
What I am suggesting is that the solution to the afterlife question is not going to come initially from science, but rather from the whole area of critical thinking and logic. In my opinion, we really are on the verge of breakthroughs in the genuine—and I will underline genuine—rational investigation of the question of life after death.
braincardinal gerhard mullercatholicdeatheban alexanderintelligence squaredjeffrey kripaljerry coynelcwrnear death experiencenprraymond moodysciencesean carrollsteven novella
Angela Bonavoglia
Angela Bonavoglia is the author of Good Catholic Girls: How Women Are Leading the Fight to Change the Church andThe Choices We Made: 25 Women and Men Speak Out About Abortion (foreword by Gloria Steinem). Former Ms.contributing editor, Bonavoglia's work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, The Nation, Salon Cosmopolitan, Newsday, the National Catholic Reporter, and more; she blogs at the Huffington Post. For more, go to:www.goodcatholicgirls.com
Latest Posts By Angela Bonavoglia
Why Go to Church If You Don't Believe Anymore?
Barbara Ehrenreich's 'Wild God' is Not Here to Help
Previous articleWas Prof Wrong to Ask Students to Not Thank God?
Next articleBlack Mass Hysteria at Harvard: The Real Story
East Lansing Demonstrates How Not to Respond to Anti-LGBT "Christian" Businesses
A New Book Explains How the Christian Right Has Gotten Selective Denial Down to a Science
NPR Largely Misses Critical Distinction on Religious Freedom vs. LGBTQ Rights
Smknws says:
Death is the end of the life of the body .. not the spirit ?soul/ image of God in which we are ALL created.. God is forever
oop's lost it …Death is the end of the life of the body .. not the spirit /soul/ image of God in which we are ALL created.. God is forever and is recreated in every new life .
cranefly says:
Near-death experiences are not death experiences. If science can actually answer the question of whether there is consciousness after death, it would probably not bode well for religion, especially if the answer is "yes."
That's why they call them NDE.. I had one 30 years ago I'm glad it was only a NDE or I wouldn't be able to tell you about it. Of course I had never heard of a near-death experience at that time so I thought it must have an hallucination and kept it to myself for a very long time.
Then I saw on Oprah a woman who had written a book about her near-death experience and t I realized there was quite a lot in her story that jolted my memory back to the time I was there.
I never thought to write a book, but I did write 14 years of journals as my memory became very clear. Well you know how it goes, all the skeptics would say I was crazy if I told my story , my family knows of the story and a couple of close friends and they are quite impressed. I doubt very much if science can prove it . But a near-death experience is when your spirit goes to the other side and comes back into your body. … When you die your spirit goes to the other side and stays there..
I can tell you there is a lot going on on the other side you know when they say rest in peace when someone dies ..there is no resting but there is perfect peace I am not afraid of dying because I have seen where I am going and yes all your loved ones are there.. even the unloved ones I was quite surprised to see people there that I never expected would get there..
back then i used to believe in hell .
But then it was explained to me, all the souls of the dead come back to God because that's where they started before they were conceived. I believe it because I saw it.
to bad no camera's allowed .. 🙂
if i close my eyes i can see it like it happened yesterday
cantabman says:
That was an enjoyable debate. I've enjoyed listening (via imported cassette tapes) to the UK's Intelligence Squared debates long before they came to the US.
I must say, though, that the winners' arguments reminded me a bit of one of xkcd's great cartoons:
http://xkcd.com/638/
"The world's first ant colony to achieve sentience calls off their search for us."