It all depends if God is central or peripheral to the research (I am very tempted to take the word in quotes). If the conclusion of the work is waved as the evidence of God - the agenda is clear.
I think you need to put this into context, this site is far removed from a Christian point of view. Very few of us are Christian, and many, such as myself, are pretty hostile to Christianity!
Some are more abstract than others. Some are more testable than others. Check these out: Coronary circulation and its manipulation in ischaemic heart disease. Inflammation cascade in trauma. Consolidation of broken bones. Post-traumatic stress disorder, for less precise example. They are testable and can be both proven and disproven.
Well surely the point is that after a typical NDE moves on from the OBE phase,
everything is subjective except in those rare cases where someone meets a person whom they didn't know had died. If psychologists can discuss subjective phenomena, why shouldn't we? I suppose PTSD is subjective, but nevertheless is assumed to be real - ditto for depression.
I did, and after the guest mentioned that he knows nothing about NDE Alex lost interest, and the interview fogged up. Though the guest could give a ,to of insight about very important and interesting questions.
It sounds as though perhaps you listened to one interview, you might like to sample a few more. However, if you have a guest who claims to be an expert on consciousness and tries to assert the standard materialist line about the brain producing consciousness, isn't it a bit unsatisfactory if he hasn't actually read any of the NDE evidence?
He already mentioned that he presented his findings to thousands of people at churches and was very welcomed.
Well just look at typical NDE experiences - the closest any of them get to judgement (there may be exceptions) is the life review, but the main message seems to be that the person is welcomed 'home'.
That isn't consistent with Christian teaching!
I disagree. Many materialists put up a very good case. But it's not the point. I expect equal objectivity from the interviewer towards everyone. My mistake probably is that I expect Alex to behave like a good journalist, forgetting the fact that this is a private website with private views and agenda. Nothing wrong with this.
Well I wonder if you can find an example from the podcasts (maybe by picking an interview on the basis the guest's other writings), or suggest someone Alex should interview. A lot of people can put up a good argument for materialism if they are not being questioned.
Are you misquoting me or missing the point? Loving God and Love are two different things: the former is a human concept, that latter is a real human emotion. And the fact that it is a concept of human mind is precisely why it should be treated with caution.
Well I think you may be missing the point slightly. A lot of NDE reports contain a sense that the person is being loved very intensely. A smaller number attribute that to God - many just attribute it to the light.
I am more than willing to agree with you that the people in this situation may attach the label 'God' rather indiscriminately, but love is mentioned over and over again in NDE accounts.
This is a different discussion altogether. I could argue that there is a point: for those who survived to tell stories of their visions of eternal life so that others will be less afraid to do risky stuff when necessary for the advancement of their tribe. There are more functions in animal organisms that do not lead to the immediate evolutionary advantage.
Well you could argue that, but I think you would have a hard point justifying the development of special death circuitry on the basis of survival of the fittest! Remember that once you postulate things that can't really be explained by standard evolution, you are starting to slip outside the materialist tent (BTW, I am not sure you are actually in that tent, but you often talk that way).
Once again, I only wish that all guests were treated the same way, independently of their point of view.
I do agree, Alex could usefully try to adopt a more neutral position!
A priori assumption of NDE being proof of afterlife and God is as harmful to finding the truth as the alternative. Long's research demonstrates several things: that people have lucid visions during NDE, these visions share similar qualities and these visions seem very real.
The best you can do as a researcher is to discuss the results, consider various interpretations of the data and discus shortcomings of your study.
However, as I said, this is a private site with private views and agenda, and therefore I am wrong when I question "groundbreaking conclusions" of the study conducted by the person for whom the host has sympathy. Fuck it, I am taking all this way too seriously. The view here is one-sided, and the outcomes of the interviews are determined before the start. No argument against the survivalism is good enough, and because very little is known about consciousness one can come up with any ideas about it, never mind how wild and far fetched. Once again, nothing wrong with it. Unless you pretend to be a researcher looking for the truth.
You are never wrong to question things on Skeptiko (which is just one reason why we are not a religious site - try joining a Christian discussion and asking if Jesus really came back from the dead!). However, you are wrong to swear. Swear words don't worry me personally, but some of the people who come here, really dislike them.
Finally, I would like to point out that everyone listens to the podcasts here and takes on board some ideas and rejects others. A lot of evidence about NDE's comes from interviews with people who have had them, and since they talk a lot about love, and fairly often about god, that has to figure in the results.
Scientists don't just collect data, they also try to speculate about the bigger picture. Nobody was there at the time of the Big Bang (if indeed it ever took place), but plenty of astronomers are willing to discuss it. I would argue that in some areas of science this speculation goes way beyond the data, but some speculation is essential, otherwise how would we ever even know what data to collect?
David