The Afterlife

HowStuffWorks.com has published an interesting article on the latest scientific research into NDE's and OBE's. It is interesting stuff, but I can't help but think about the implications...

Out of Body Experiences (or OBE's), on the surface, indicate that there is a separation between our physical bodies and our immortal souls. Most of the time, these two very different things occupy the same space, and our flesh acts as a container for our souls. I should point out that there is no science behind those statements...

Anyway, the science suggests that Near Death Experiences (or NDE's) are actually REM Intrusions, and occur in the brain stem--even though the brain itself isn't functioning (the patient is brain dead). The brain stem is a much lower order of intelligence and can operate without generating brain waves. Basically, the brain stem 'wakes up,' and finds that the rest of the body (including the brain) is still 'sleeping.' It 'hallucinates' that it has been separated from the body because it cannot sense--or get any response from--any other part of the body.

Out of Body Experiences (OBE's) seem to be triggered by something in a part of the brain known as angular gyrus, in the temporal parietal junction. This cannot be explained as easily as the NDE's, since the TPJ is part of the brain itself, and not the brain stem, and therefore cannot function during brain death. Is it possible that, under certain circumstances, an NDE can cause the brain stem REMI to hallucinate an OBE? I don't know. I suppose it's possible, but at least some of the people who have experienced NDE OBE have been able to accurately describe things that were happening in the room while they were clinically dead. That's a pretty incredible hallucination.

To be honest, even the Bible doesn't really tell us a whole lot about the afterlife. I am sometimes surprised at people that will read a passage of scripture, and, to them, it says something completely different than what it says to me. Sometimes that is simply a matter of misreading. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, "...then shall I know, even as also I am known." I have had people tell me that the verse tells them that we will look the same in Heaven. What? How do you get that? "It says right there: 'I shall be known, even as I am known.'" No, it says that I shall know, even as also I am known. God knows everything about us. The Bible tells us that even the hairs of our head are numbered. He knows how many cells are in our bodies. He knows every thought we've ever had (except for the ones that have been separated from us as far as the East is from the West). Once we get to Heaven, we will have that kind of detailed knowledge (although not about each other).

Some people believe that when we die, we go straight to Heaven (or somewhere else). Others believe that there is a time of rest (often referred to as Abraham's bosom) to await the judgment. Really, a case can be made for either viewpoint. I believe the latter, personally, but I don't think it matters too much what one believes in this regard; if I die and go straight to Heaven, it will be a welcome surprise. In support of the former, Jesus told the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." I feel I must point out that Jesus can't have been talking about a literal 24-hour day, for three days later, He told Mary Magdalene that He had not yet ascended... Another point is in John's vision of Heaven, the martyrs asked the question, when shall we be avenged? If they had to wait until the judgment to enter Heaven, then they had been avenged. I don't really have a good answer for that, except to say that there is an interesting juxtaposition of time here, in that, John is seeing something that hasn't happened yet (in fact, may not have ever or will ever actually happen), but is a representation of things to come. At the time of his vision, the saints had not yet been avenged. In other words, he saw them in a place where they were not yet, and yet having concerns that they would no longer have once they arrived where he saw them. I don't expect that explanation to satisfy anyone who believes in death leading immediately to one's final destination, I'm just throwing it out there. Now, as for those of us who believe in the rest before the judgment, let me point out that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Jesus said that Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom. This does not appear to be Heaven (although, certainly an argument could be made that it was, particularly since this was a parable, and not an actual event. It seems to me that if Jesus had meant 'Heaven,' he would have said, 'Heaven'). Also, Apostle Paul wrote that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and we that are alive and remain shall arise to meet them in the air. Notice he didn't say that we would meet them in Heaven, he said that we would meet in the air, presumable on the way to Heaven.

Again, though, I think that we are free to believe what we like on this matter--it doesn't really matter as long as we continue to breathe.

Computers, Death, and God

There's a bumper sticker out that says, "We are Microsoft. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." When things like this and this show up in the news on the same day, I really think that bumper sticker is not so funny. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want ads in my applications, even it does allow me to get free Wi-Fi access.
We now have a computer that can play checkers (draughts in the UK) and never lose, and a car with AI.
I'm curious as to how a goddess can sin. Shouldn't their goddess being telling her priests what is, or is not, a sin?
Meanwhile, a couple of thought-provoking things in Newsweek: I See Dead People, and Rabbi Marc Gellman's take on near death experiences. Rabbi Gellman postulates that research into NDE's is dangerous from both a religious and a scientific standpoint. I have read his arguments, and I have to disagree. I don't see any danger to either. Quite frankly, I do think that it is a waste of time and money, but I fail to see the danger. I don't expect that the research will ever find definitive proof one way or the other about the afterlife. That is a matter of faith. There is the idea of placing objects in the ER out of sight of the clinicly dead individual, to see if said individual remembers seeing them in their recollections of their out-of-body experience. Interesting thought, but a good number of NDE'rs don't report seeing the ER from the ceiling, and most of the ones that do are focused on their own bodies, with some attention given to the medical team attempting to revive them. If someone does get revived, and then recalls seeing the number for Dial-A-Prayer written on the top of the ER room light fixture, is that sufficient proof that they had an out-of-body experience? It would be quite a stretch to consider that proof of life after death. I must admit, I have a certain amount of curiosity as to whether the experiences reported by NDE'rs are real, or simply elaborate hallucinations, but, IMHO, it really only matters to the people who went through it.
I do appreciate the fact that Rabbi Gellman states that Genesis tells us why we are here, while Darwin tells us how we are here, and goes on to say that they do not conflict. I'm not entirely sure that they don't conflict, but they can co-exist. The bottom line is that religion tells us that God made the universe, and then made man; science attempts to explain the process by which God did that. I do think that people on both sides tend to get a little too serious. There has been some discussion as to whether the 6 days mentioned in Genesis are literally six twenty-four hour periods of time. It seems to me, that since God didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth day, that isn't talking about a day in the sense of sun-up to sun-rise. Also note that in 2nd Peter 3:8, the scriptures tell us that, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So, am I saying that creation actually took 6,000 years, instead of six days? No, I'm saying that time, with God, is pretty insignificant, even though, with us, it seems vastly important. 6 days, 6,000 years, 6,000 millennia; it's all the same to God. At the same time, the evolutionists insist that mutations happen randomly, but when a random mutation happens to benefit the species, then the mutant strain becomes dominant. If the mutation is not beneficial, then it quietly fades away. They readily admit that most mutation are harmful. That makes evolution a painfully long process, doesn't it? Quite frankly, the odds against humanity evolving by the process of natural selection would seem to be astronomical, and yet, the evolutionists tell us that this must be the case. Look, it's a theory. Granted, right now, that's the most plausible scientific explanation for how we came to be here that anybody has been able to come up with so far, but it is a long way from being considered scientific fact. Don't get all in an uproar if some people challenge its veracity. I can understand that some people are still upset that Galileo Galilei was placed under house arrest by the church for suggesting that the earth orbited the sun (even though I still haven't found any scripture that contradicts him), but that was a long time ago, by people that didn't like having their beliefs challenged. You should be able to empathize with that.