Am I misunderstanding, or does it seem or feel “misleading” to imply the examples he’s shared are two people experiencing NDEs and interacting? What it sounds like to me is one person dying and another experiencing a NDE. These accounts don’t appear to be any more objectively reliable than recounting seeing a deceased loved one.
Now, I’m not saying this is ultimately unconvincing or this data is inadmissible, but it feels oversold.
The terminology is often not precise. The example technically gives one NDE and a shared death experience, as you said. Though I have no reason to deny the testimony of the one who returned. Anyone who comes back from death and is able to say anything about things the rest of us can’t access is valuable information in my book.
For sure… but perhaps you’d agree it’s slightly less “scientifically viable” testimony than, say, if both parties had returned and were able to offer corroborating details.
Yes I would say there is a hierarchy of persuasion, and the woman coming back to corroborate as two testimonies would be inherently more valuable than one. I also think a neuroscientist atheist materialist dying and coming back completely changed is more valuable than, say, a Jewish or Christian person dying and coming back to say how great it is that the afterlife conforms to their denominational distinctives with no surprises lol.
Fascinating.
Am I misunderstanding, or does it seem or feel “misleading” to imply the examples he’s shared are two people experiencing NDEs and interacting? What it sounds like to me is one person dying and another experiencing a NDE. These accounts don’t appear to be any more objectively reliable than recounting seeing a deceased loved one.
Now, I’m not saying this is ultimately unconvincing or this data is inadmissible, but it feels oversold.
The terminology is often not precise. The example technically gives one NDE and a shared death experience, as you said. Though I have no reason to deny the testimony of the one who returned. Anyone who comes back from death and is able to say anything about things the rest of us can’t access is valuable information in my book.
For sure… but perhaps you’d agree it’s slightly less “scientifically viable” testimony than, say, if both parties had returned and were able to offer corroborating details.
Yes I would say there is a hierarchy of persuasion, and the woman coming back to corroborate as two testimonies would be inherently more valuable than one. I also think a neuroscientist atheist materialist dying and coming back completely changed is more valuable than, say, a Jewish or Christian person dying and coming back to say how great it is that the afterlife conforms to their denominational distinctives with no surprises lol.
Copy that, copy that. 😅