Darkness

[Samwise21]

Hello, I’m a first timer here and have for a few days been trying to come a desicion on that great equalizer: death. Or, to be specific, whether to believe certain accounts regarding it.

Anyone who’s Googled “life after death” probably has happened upon this article one time or another:

express.co.uk/news/science/713799/life-after-death-afterlife-heaven-dead

This guy claims to have died twice (clinical death, I’m guessing) and both times awoke from complete nothingness with a memory lapse, having to be informed by doctors that he had ‘died.’ This is not an isolated case either, I’ve been finding accounts like these all over the Internet in an attempt to come to a conclusion that doesn’t weaken or otherwise eradicate my faith. Of course, this calls to mind the Near Death Experience phenomenon, with the general consensus from this crowd being that anyone who’s ever had one was simply hallucinating and these guys are true testaments to death’s finality. I’m finding it hard to come up with a decent rebuttable toward these atheistic claims of theirs.

At first I thought “Maybe they just saw an extension of Hell,” then I thought “These guys were probably never truly dead in the first place, clinical death is not the same as being 100% dead.” I’m just looking for some closure on this complicated matter, and was wondering as to the thoughts of my fellow Catholics.

And so I ask, what do you guys think of this?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Near death experiences, by definition, are not death. The person was never brain dead. We cannot know what these experiences really are. They are not Divine Revelation.

 

[friardchips]

Hello, I’m a first timer here and have for a few days been trying to come a desicion on that great equalizer: death. Or, to be specific, whether to believe certain accounts regarding it.

Anyone who’s Googled “life after death” probably has happened upon this article one time or another:

express.co.uk/news/science/713799/life-after-death-afterlife-heaven-dead

This guy claims to have died twice (clinical death, I’m guessing) and both times awoke from complete nothingness with a memory lapse, having to be informed by doctors that he had ‘died.’ This is not an isolated case either, I’ve been finding accounts like these all over the Internet in an attempt to come to a conclusion that doesn’t weaken or otherwise eradicate my faith. Of course, this calls to mind the Near Death Experience phenomenon, with the general consensus from this crowd being that anyone who’s ever had one was simply hallucinating and these guys are true testaments to death’s finality. I’m finding it hard to come up with a decent rebuttable toward these atheistic claims of theirs.

At first I thought “Maybe they just saw an extension of Hell,” then I thought “These guys were probably never truly dead in the first place, clinical death is not the same as being 100% dead.” I’m just looking for some closure on this complicated matter, and was wondering as to the thoughts of my fellow Catholics.

And so I ask, what do you guys think of this?

I don’t know about anything particularly useful to say to an atheist but in response to the subject of Near Death Encounters: they make sense, both physically and spiritually; reason being, that the closer we are to physical death, the closer we are to Heaven, because (if on the way there) we only go there when we die!

This makes sense too because God often is experienced in a closer way when people suffer. And suffering is associated with a kind of dying.

In this way, the natural and supernatural are combined, because while physical suffering causes us to be less self-reliant and nearer to the stage of physical death, spiritual suffering is also a kind of death, because it is dying to one’s worldly aspirations. The two are often combined.

So if a person experiences Heaven, it is because they are literally closer to Heaven, in those moments, both physically and spiritually.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It. Comes back to faith in Jesus. Doesn’t it? He either survived death or not. It is a matter of faith. Believe the GOOD NEWS.

 

[NeedImprovement]

If not classified as such, NDE’s would still be a very close cousin of Private Revelation:

PRIVATE REVELATIONS.
Supernatural manifestations by God of hidden truths made to private individuals for their own spiritual welfare or that of others. They differ from the public revelation contained in Scripture and tradition which is given on behalf of the whole human race and is necessary for human salvation and sanctification. Although recognized by the Church and, at times, approved by her authority, private revelations are not the object of divine faith that binds one in conscience to believe on God’s authority. The assent given to them, therefore, is either on human evidence or, when formally approved by the Church, on ecclesiastical authority according to the mind of the Church. Private revelations occur as supernatural visions, words, or divine touches. Often it is impossible to distinguish the three forms in practice, especially since they may be received simultaneously.

MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY ; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Some more posts on the topic of NDE’s on another CAF thread from a few years ago :
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=549503&page=2

 

[Tyrel]

Hello, I’m a first timer here and have for a few days been trying to come a desicion on that great equalizer: death. Or, to be specific, whether to believe certain accounts regarding it.

Anyone who’s Googled “life after death” probably has happened upon this article one time or another:

express.co.uk/news/science/713799/life-after-death-afterlife-heaven-dead

This guy claims to have died twice (clinical death, I’m guessing) and both times awoke from complete nothingness with a memory lapse, having to be informed by doctors that he had ‘died.’ This is not an isolated case either, I’ve been finding accounts like these all over the Internet in an attempt to come to a conclusion that doesn’t weaken or otherwise eradicate my faith. Of course, this calls to mind the Near Death Experience phenomenon, with the general consensus from this crowd being that anyone who’s ever had one was simply hallucinating and these guys are true testaments to death’s finality. I’m finding it hard to come up with a decent rebuttable toward these atheistic claims of theirs.

At first I thought “Maybe they just saw an extension of Hell,” then I thought “These guys were probably never truly dead in the first place, clinical death is not the same as being 100% dead.” I’m just looking for some closure on this complicated matter, and was wondering as to the thoughts of my fellow Catholics.

And so I ask, what do you guys think of this?

First of all, there doesn’t seem to be anything here which challenges one iota of the Catholic faith, even in principle, so I’m not sure where your struggle comes from. However, I’ll happily share some of my thoughts with you if it might help alleviate some malaise.

First, as others have already noted, near death experiences don’t qualify as experiences of death.

Second, if near death experiences are largely (or wholly) the result of brain activity, then it seems entirely plausible that some people would have vivid dream-like memories, whereas others would not remember anything. Some people have vivid dreams - I, on the other hand, do not dream (or, at least, if I have any coherent dreams at all, I have absolutely no recollection of them at all, and am convinced that I do not dream coherently). Perhaps the different experiences of near-death can be accounted for in some similar way.

Third, suppose that some near-death experiences really authentically involve out of body experiences (and the like) - why assume that everyone would have these experiences in a medical close brush with death? What if God, in his providence, has orchestrated events such that only some people have these experiences, for reasons best known to God? That seems entirely plausible to me, in principle.

Fourth, supposing that all near-death experiences really involve out of body experiences (and the like) - why assume that everyone would have some recollection of those experiences, instead of having a totally blank inaccessible memory (like the person who has amnesia, perhaps those who say they experienced nothing simply cannot access any memories about it, the same way I have trouble accessing any memories about any dreams I may be having while asleep).

Fifth, consider what a flimsy argument this would be for anything like Atheism: some people nearly died, and during their near-death experiences, or at times when they were declared clinically dead, they had no experiences (which they can remember) at all. Therefore, God does not exist. Can you imagine how incredulous atheists would be if theists gave them an argument that full of holes? The argument doesn’t even establish that there is no life after death, let alone that Christianity is false. Why would anyone be moved by such a preposterous line of reasoning?

 

[Samwise21]

Some of my struggle comes trying to wrap my head around how these people, with their accounts of blank nothingness and oblivion, seem so sincere and certain in how they tell their story. It could just be that I’m feeling a bit thin skinned lately, but at the same time for months I’ve been dusting up on apologetics to try to increase my faith, and when I happen upon stuff like this that tells me it’s all for naught it depresses and terrifies me because it’s not the same as when some follower of scientism posts a thought piece, this is people talking about the things they have been through. Some of them said they were at one point Christians but have become gnostic atheists based on what happened to them.

I’m just looking for some reassurance, I guess. That these guys are full of garbage without them knowing it.

 

[Tyrel]

Some of my struggle comes trying to wrap my head around how these people, with their accounts of blank nothingness and oblivion, seem so sincere and certain in how they tell their story… for months I’ve been dusting up on apologetics to try to increase my faith, and when I happen upon stuff like this that tells me it’s all for naught it depresses and terrifies me…

I’m just looking for some reassurance, I guess. That these guys are full of garbage without them knowing it.

My main point was this: even granting these people the veracity of their accounts, nothing of relevance follows. Why, then, would you think it’s all for naught if their stories are true? Think it through - what, really, does it prove, to have been clinically deceased for a time before being resuscitated, and have had no near-death experiences?

I can imagine being clinically deceased for a time before being resuscitated, and having no near-death experiences, and I can’t imagine it would bother my faith at all. It wouldn’t even occur to me to take that as any kind of evidence that the historical Jesus of Nazareth didn’t rise from the dead, or that God is not a trinity, or that transubstantiation doesn’t occur in the Eucharist, or that God does not exist, or that the soul survives the death of the body, or that there is a heaven and a hell. James Bedford is frozen right now, and has been cryogenically preserved since January 12, 1967. Functionally speaking, he is dead. If we get the technology to do it, and unfreeze him successfully (and effectively reanimate him), should we expect him to have stories about heaven or hell? I wouldn’t have those expectations at all. Why would you?

 

[Samwise21]

God bless you, Tyrell. That’s just what I needed to hear.

 

[ericc]

Hello, I’m a first timer here and have for a few days been trying to come a desicion on that great equalizer: death. Or, to be specific, whether to believe certain accounts regarding it.

Anyone who’s Googled “life after death” probably has happened upon this article one time or another:

express.co.uk/news/science/713799/life-after-death-afterlife-heaven-dead

This guy claims to have died twice (clinical death, I’m guessing) and both times awoke from complete nothingness with a memory lapse, having to be informed by doctors that he had ‘died.’ This is not an isolated case either, I’ve been finding accounts like these all over the Internet in an attempt to come to a conclusion that doesn’t weaken or otherwise eradicate my faith. Of course, this calls to mind the Near Death Experience phenomenon, with the general consensus from this crowd being that anyone who’s ever had one was simply hallucinating and these guys are true testaments to death’s finality. I’m finding it hard to come up with a decent rebuttable toward these atheistic claims of theirs.

At first I thought “Maybe they just saw an extension of Hell,” then I thought “These guys were probably never truly dead in the first place, clinical death is not the same as being 100% dead.” I’m just looking for some closure on this complicated matter, and was wondering as to the thoughts of my fellow Catholics.

And so I ask, what do you guys think of this?

There are websites dedicated to NDEs. There are many similarities and cultural differences among those that experienced NDEs. There are many claims about who/what they saw. Obviously it is hard for them to prove what or who they saw was really true. One claim seeing Jesus. Obviously if one has never met Jesus previously, the skepticism would be how do you know you didn’t get the wrong guy? Some may claim “I just know”. If one has never been to heaven or hell, how is he able to identify it correctly? Based upon some presupposition what it should be?

Real death could be defined as permanent separation of body and soul for those who believe we do have souls. Others may cite a medical definition of death which is as good as current technology and knowledge of identifying death. Next century, it may well be different. They didn’t experience real death, so it is hard to say what kind of experience is that. Is it just bodily chemicals creating all kinds of effects that simulated flashes of light, darkness, blank outs, suppressed images etc? Can’t tell. However, out of body vision is very difficult to discount. People seeing things which they have no physical possibility of knowing. Stuff on roofs and such. All I can is there is something out there. Ignore at your own peril. It is also possible that there is something out there and there are also chemicals in the brain that may trigger those experiences. It could be 1 or 2 or both. Some may experience 1 , others 2 etc. Could it be hallucinations? Unlikely if in the ICU recording machines of all vital signs are functioning and recording nothing i.e flatlined. Probably someone will invent a new category of hallucinations where no signs are detectable so that there is a nice place for them just so to prove NDEs unreal.

Whatever the experiences, some diehards against the afterlife may reconsider their position. Some may become religious. But I’d believe that people on the brink of death and given second chances do value the rest of their remaining lives. I think there are accounts that show a mellower person after the NDE.

 

[friardchips]

First of all, there doesn’t seem to be anything here which challenges one iota of the Catholic faith, even in principle, so I’m not sure where your struggle comes from. However, I’ll happily share some of my thoughts with you if it might help alleviate some malaise.

First, as others have already noted, near death experiences don’t qualify as experiences of death.

Near Death Experiences are Near death experiences.

Anyone who does not have a near death experience is someone who hasn’t experienced a near death experience i.e:- people who have not experienced anything or who just recalled a mixture of past memories have obviously not been as close to death as thought or for some reason were not able to remember.

Second, if near death experiences are largely (or wholly) the result of brain activity, then it seems entirely plausible that some people would have vivid dream-like memories, whereas others would not remember anything. Some people have vivid dreams - I, on the other hand, do not dream (or, at least, if I have any coherent dreams at all, I have absolutely no recollection of them at all, and am convinced that I do not dream coherently). Perhaps the different experiences of near-death can be accounted for in some similar way.

This concerns dreams, not true NDEs.

There are also dreams called Holy Dreams.

It is probably easy for an individual to know the difference.

While one isn’t obliged to believe in private revelation, it is also the case that they are tested rather than simply disregarded.

Third, suppose that some near-death experiences really authentically involve out of body experiences (and the like) - why assume that everyone would have these experiences in a medical close brush with death? What if God, in his providence, has orchestrated events such that only some people have these experiences, for reasons best known to God? That seems entirely plausible to me, in principle.

While the end part is plausible doesn’t mean to say that all people who are close to physical death, spiritually, would not receive in some manner, on some level, an NDE.

People who do not experience anything that are close to death obviously can’t remember for some reason.

Fourth, supposing that all near-death experiences really involve out of body experiences (and the like) - why assume that everyone would have some recollection of those experiences, instead of having a totally blank inaccessible memory (like the person who has amnesia, perhaps those who say they experienced nothing simply cannot access any memories about it, the same way I have trouble accessing any memories about any dreams I may be having while asleep).

NDE is not just a memory or a dream. An NDE is an NDE.

If a person is physically unable to relive in their minds something of a spiritual nature then maybe that is an answer, or maybe they are spiritually incapable of being able to experience anything until they are dead. Or for some reason that we are not made aware of. However, one remains open to the possibility that many people if truly close to death, would experience something.

Maybe it is that those who are particularly close to God anyway, on earth, are more likely to experience an all-out NDE when close to death. I think this is most likely. There will be meaning behind these events.

Fifth, consider what a flimsy argument this would be for anything like Atheism: some people nearly died, and during their near-death experiences, or at times when they were declared clinically dead, they had no experiences (which they can remember) at all. Therefore, God does not exist. Can you imagine how incredulous atheists would be if theists gave them an argument that full of holes? The argument doesn’t even establish that there is no life after death, let alone that Christianity is false. Why would anyone be moved by such a preposterous line of reasoning?

No NDE then no NDE. It is as simple as that.

 

[fhansen]

Just as a sidenote, not all atheists believe that life ceases after we die.

 

[friardchips]

Just as a sidenote, not all atheists believe that life ceases after we die.

That would be a contradiction in terms.

 

[fhansen]

That would be a contradiction in terms.

Not at all. An atheist mentioned it to me in fact. If we think we don’t need God in order to explain this life, then we don’t need Him to explain the next life
either. Many people, whether because of NDEs or their own sense that life can’t cease simply because the body is no longer capable of supporting it, tend to think life may well continue on. And they happen to be right!

 

[friardchips]

Not at all. An atheist mentioned it to me in fact. If we think we don’t need God in order to explain this life, then we don’t need Him to explain the next life
either. Many people, whether because of NDEs or their own sense that life can’t cease simply because the body is no longer capable of supporting it, tend to think life may well continue on. And they happen to be right!

If an atheist proposes any kind of afterlife, then this is basically, not being an atheist.

An atheist does not believe in a soul that is in anyway supernatural.

So if a person says that he or she is an atheist but also states that they believe in life after death, then they are saying that the human soul has a supernatural identity, and are mistaken in their self-proposed title of atheist i.e:- even if they don’t know it, they are arguing on the side of reasoning that points to the existence of God.

A lot of people who call themselves atheists, probably believe in ghosts - as in, the haunted house on Freeview, type ghost - and the only reason they don’t reason things out is because they haven’t thought about things with a Catholic viewpoint, which could be demonstrated to them, with the use of attained Catholic knowledge, from any Catholic that is willing to do so.

 

[fhansen]

If an atheist proposes any kind of afterlife, then this is basically, not being an atheist.

An atheist does not believe in a soul that is in anyway supernatural.

So if a person says that he or she is an atheist but also states that they believe in life after death, then they are saying that the human soul has a supernatural identity, and are mistaken in their self-proposed title of atheist i.e:- even if they don’t know it, they are arguing on the side of reasoning that points to the existence of God.

A lot of people who call themselves atheists, probably believe in ghosts - as in, the haunted house on Freeview, type ghost - and the only reason they don’t reason things out is because they haven’t thought about things with a Catholic viewpoint, which could be demonstrated to them, with the use of attained Catholic knowledge, from any Catholic that is willing to do so.

I tend to think that a lot of atheists actually have some kind of faith, whether they acknowledge it or not, in the basic goodness and meaning of life at least. And I think it’s easy for people to shake their fists at the God they claim not to believe in. All in all many people are really agnostics; we simply don’t know without revelation and grace.

But unbelievers can still be awed by this universe and with life, and can think everything has a natural explanatiion, including souls or some basic life source etc.

 

[friardchips]

I tend to think that a lot of atheists actually have some kind of faith, whether they acknowledge it or not, in the basic goodness and meaning of life at least. And I think it’s easy for people to shake their fists at the God they claim not to believe in. All in all many people are really agnostics; we simply don’t know without revelation and grace.

But unbelievers can still be awed by this universe and with life, and can think everything has a natural explanatiion, including souls or some basic life source etc.

Going by this post, we are on the same page. In how you see things. I think it is probably as you said.

So you are taking the debate out of the court of strict term usage and instead trying to understand others.

Strict Atheists are normally militantly so. Yet, who are we to bear down with judgments upon them. Life can be a cold and cruel world without belief in God. Certainly lacks meaning with a whole lot of questions to be answered. Atheism is a title which many probably give themselves without realising the true extent of all that they are claiming by calling themselves ‘atheist’.

As you said, most people will have some kind of hope or desire for something more, will see glimmers of hope and sometimes walk towards it, even if they can’t understand what it is, or where it is coming from.

That said……if someone claims to be ‘an atheist’…while we are to take people where they are, and try to understand others, we don’t have to read their minds and write their life-stories for them. If they are someone who says they are an atheist then that is what they are saying. And if such a person says they think that humans have souls with some kind of afterlife, then this is an opportunity to chime in joyously and explain a few things, maybe beginning with: “Well, with that view, maybe you are not so far from the truth…etc…”

 

[friardchips]

…following on, I didn’t mean to sound antagonistic. I was making the point that either atheism has some meaning, or it doesn’t. You seem to be suggesting that it doesn’t really mean anything. I am saying that while I can see your point, if we take a term for what it means, in this case ‘atheism’: that an individual is not giving a conscious ascent of faith and/or knowledge that God exists, and even opposing the idea, while claiming to be an ‘atheist’; this is what they are. And I think to acknowledge this and accept what they say, even if you know more, is respectful to that individual. That doesn’t mean that we have to sum up such a person as this or that. Or even apply a title to them.

Similarly, ‘agnostic’ means to maybe or maybe not believe in God - to be unsure, and so they refer to themselves as agnostic, or can be referred to as this.

Just a matter of terms. This takes nothing away from understanding that all people, even those people who refer to themselves as atheists, might still find goodness and be examples of goodness on some level, still, and might well find beauty in the world around them.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

If an atheist proposes any kind of afterlife, then this is basically, not being an atheist.

An atheist does not believe in a soul that is in anyway supernatural.

So if a person says that he or she is an atheist but also states that they believe in life after death, then they are saying that the human soul has a supernatural identity, and are mistaken in their self-proposed title of atheist i.e:- even if they don’t know it, they are arguing on the side of reasoning that points to the existence of God.

Not necessarily. We see many levels of existence even here on our level of material existence. What we call a soul can simply be a more subtle material entity.

 

[friardchips]

Not necessarily. We see many levels of existence even here on our level of material existence. What we call a soul can simply be a more subtle material entity.

Hi. My response is the same as to the other poster (posts 17 and 18).