FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Huge Study: Awareness May Continue After Death
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

From independent.co.uk:




Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real
Adam Withnall
Tuesday 07 October 2014


There is scientific evidence to suggest that life can continue after death, according to the largest ever medical study carried out on the subject.

A team based in the UK has spent the last four years seeking out cardiac arrest patients to analyse their experiences, and found that almost 40 per cent of survivors described having some form of “awareness” at a time when they were declared clinically dead.

Experts currently believe that the brain shuts down within 20 to 30 seconds of the heart stopping beating – and that it is not possible to be aware of anything at all once that has happened.

But scientists in the new study said they heard compelling evidence that patients experienced real events for up to three minutes after this had happened – and could recall them accurately once they had been resuscitated.

Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events.

One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life – and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating.

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes.

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

Dr Parnia’s study involved 2,060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria, and has been published in the journal Resuscitation.

Of those who survived, 46 per cent experienced a broad range of mental recollections, nine per cent had experiences compatible with traditional definitions of a near-death experience and two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of “seeing” and “hearing” events – or out-of-body experiences.

Dr Parnia said that the findings of the study as a whole suggested that “the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice”.

Dr Jerry Nolan, editor-in-chief of the journal which published the research, said: “The researchers are to be congratulated on the completion of a fascinating study that will open the door to more extensive research into what happens when we die.”

Additional reporting by PA

The late great Father Seraphim Rose wrote a little book in the late seventies on this topic called The Soul After Death which touches on this topic from a Christian perspective that is sober and free of either scientism or sentimentalism.  It's not that long of a book and not that hard to find but well worth repeated readings. In it he is quite critical of NDE research in general. After all, how can science really get a handle on things like this?

To my knowledge almost every culture in history aside from the modern materialist atheist West has been of the opinion that something survives death. Even with a study like this there will still be the Daniel Dennett types who will find a materialist answer to the supposed survival of consciousness after death for a few minutes even if to us such an answer seems absurd. Science will never get to the bottom of what is at heart a mysterious and spiritual arena.  The materialist will keep digging into his dead matter for the stuff of the spirit.

I can say that there is something "missing" in a dead body, something that you can intuitively sense. I've been present at many deaths both of my own pets at home and with people at the hospital and the body is really just the body after death, it's really as if something leaves that makes one alive that is beyond the material, something I'd call the soul.
Well, this just goes to show you that the mind is immaterial. I just don't understand why they can't grasp that. If our minds were purely material we would not be able to think logically. We would believe things simply because particles in our head happen to have certain configurations. Materialism undermines reason in the worst possible way.
(11-01-2014, 12:39 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this just goes to show you that the mind is immaterial. I just don't understand why the can't grasp that. If our minds were purely material we would not be able to think logically. We would believe things simply because particles in our head happen to have certain configuration. Materialism undermines reason in the worst possible way.


It's because at heart the scientific worldview demands that everything have a strictly material explanation,including consciousness. The standard worldview of of the scientist is atheist and materialist, to brook no compromises with anything that cannot be explained in strictly material, statistical, mathematical and predictable ways.

I guess I'm one of those guys that believes wholeheartedly that science and faith are like water and oil, they don't mix, they cannot. Science cannot in any way shape or form touch upon or give us one shred of insight into our faith and faith, being immaterial and mysterious, cannot in any way shape or form give us scientific insights. They are totally and completely opposed.

Scientists can plumb the depths of matter, build machines and cure disease but they cannot pontificate on matters of life after death.  To do so makes a religious and philosophical worldview out of what must be at heart a souless, sterile, clinical, atheist and materialist way of seeing things.
Man is a unity of body and spirit. It is not that hard to get the semi-Gnostic secularists to believe in a soul, but when they do, they insist on devaluing the body as a mere "vessel," a "shell," a "vehicle," or even "meat." This is especially true for many Christians! Nothing is more shocking to them than the insistence on the bodily resurrection of the dead.
(11-01-2014, 12:48 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: [ -> ]Man is a unity of body and spirit. It is not that hard to get the semi-Gnostic secularists to believe in a soul, but when they do, they insist on devaluing the body as a mere "vessel," a "shell," a "vehicle," or even "meat." This is especially true for many Christians! Nothing is more shocking to them than the insistence on the bodily resurrection of the dead.

Indeed, the bodily resurrection of the dead is something I've found even many Christians scoff at, are embarrassed about or otherwise wish wouldn't be talked about in polite circles.
(11-01-2014, 12:53 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-01-2014, 12:48 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: [ -> ]Man is a unity of body and spirit. It is not that hard to get the semi-Gnostic secularists to believe in a soul, but when they do, they insist on devaluing the body as a mere "vessel," a "shell," a "vehicle," or even "meat." This is especially true for many Christians! Nothing is more shocking to them than the insistence on the bodily resurrection of the dead.

Indeed, the bodily resurrection of the dead is something I've found even many Christians scoff at, are embarrassed about or otherwise wish wouldn't be talked about in polite circles. The Church's distaste of cremation had much to do with the resurrection of body at the Last JudgmenT.
I agree that science is a tool with limtations, but I do believe that there is an overlap between human knowledge and revelation. For example, science just shows how astonishing Eucharistic miracles are, and history shows us that Jesus was not a mythological figure. In my opinion, out of the two, reason and revelation, the latter takes precedence. Human knowledge is fallible.

On the other hand to convert an unbeliever you have to use reason. One of the first things that woke me from my pseudo-skepticism is my realisation that it is absolute nonsense to claim that there is no objective truth. Yet that is the total tosh most people believe.
(11-01-2014, 12:42 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-01-2014, 12:39 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this just goes to show you that the mind is immaterial. I just don't understand why the can't grasp that. If our minds were purely material we would not be able to think logically. We would believe things simply because particles in our head happen to have certain configuration. Materialism undermines reason in the worst possible way.


It's because at heart the scientific worldview demands that everything have a strictly material explanation,including consciousness. The standard worldview of of the scientist is atheist and materialist, to brook no compromises with anything that cannot be explained in strictly material, statistical, mathematical and predictable ways.

I totally disagree with the above. Scientism demands a strictly material explanation for everything, but Science doesn't, and to think otherwise is to concede Science -- a Western Christian thing -- to atheists. Hell no.

Quote:I guess I'm one of those guys that believes wholeheartedly that science and faith are like water and oil, they don't mix, they cannot. Science cannot in any way shape or form touch upon or give us one shred of insight into our faith and faith, being immaterial and mysterious, cannot in any way shape or form give us scientific insights. They are totally and completely opposed.

Scientists can plumb the depths of matter, build machines and cure disease but they cannot pontificate on matters of life after death.  To do so makes a religious and philosophical worldview out of what must be at heart a souless, sterile, clinical, atheist and materialist way of seeing things.

They don't have to "mix" any more than airplanes and subway systems have to "mix," but both are fine and good -- different ways of knowing Truth, and all that is True is valuable to know. They are definitely not opposed; they're totally complementary. Science can be used to show the Truth of the teachings of the Church in thousands of ways.

The problem is with people thinking that unless something is "scientifically proven," it does not exist, is not true, etc. Such an attitude is stupid (ridiculous, really), and increasingly common.
 
Science and Faith must mix, or at least overlap and be inherently consistent, because the both come from the same Mind. The physical and the metaphysical are "parts" of the great reality of "that that IS".

To deny such is to leave the likes of Rene Guenon and his "Traditionalist" fellow -travellers free to claim that the knowledge of "universals" can be completely divorced from physical reality... and it also leaves "science" (Materialism) free to divorce physical reality from metaphysics. So far "scientists" have been very successful in seeming to divorce material reality from the metaphysical realities of observation, and logical interpretation of physical reality.

That there is any physical reality at all demands a metaphysical question... WHY?

More pertinent to the opening post... I recently (within a year or so) read an article from some neurologist who was hoping to confirm that the brain was synonymous with the mind. He did some experiments with people that had their head opened up and their brain exposed to his little electronic probe that could stimulate all sorts of physical reactions (muscle jerks and so on) but was astonished to find that his "patients" would resist, as far as they could, the involuntary stimulations he applied.
Pages: 1 2