1

Testimonies of astral projections, out-of-body experiences (OBE) and near-death experiences (NDE) abound, both within and outside Christianity. Many interpret these experiences as evidence that consciousness persists after a person's spirit departs from the body. Of course, this cannot be the case if Christian mortalism (a.k.a. 'soul sleep') is true.

Question: How do 'soul sleep' adherents make sense of the abundant reports of astral projections, out-of-body experiences (OBE) and near-death experiences (NDE) both within and outside Christianity?

Some examples:

Related questions:

How do 'soul sleep' adherents explain reports of personal experiences with deceased saints, friends and relatives by Catholics and other Christians?

How do soul sleep adherents make sense of Jesus' acknowledgement of the existence of disembodied spirits and ghosts?

  • 2
    This is opinion based, taking in vast numbers of claimed experiences by all and sundry, none of which can possibly be proven. – Nigel J Jan 12 '22 at 09:22
  • @NigelJ - the Bible if full of claimed experiences. Can they possibly be proven? –  Jun 29 '22 at 15:55

2 Answers2

4

How do atheists and other skeptics explain reports of astral projection, etc.?

Given that there is no scientific evidence of the reality of such events other than as a neurological effect, why should anyone, whether a believer in 'soul sleep' or not, need to explain them?

One might as well ask how Anglicans explain the reincarnations that Hindus and Buddhists experience.

Ray Butterworth
  • 8,441
  • 1
  • 13
  • 40
  • If we should use the epistemology of atheists and skeptics in order to derive beliefs about reality, shouldn't we all be atheists and skeptics then? Are you an atheist and skeptic? Are you skeptical of the resurrection of Jesus, for example? (EDIT: the downvote was not mine btw.) –  Jan 14 '22 at 00:35
  • My point was that since there is no reason to believe that these experiences have a supernatural cause, there is no reason that anyone needs to explain them, whether they are atheists or Christians. ¶ If science and a specific denomination both agree that some phenomenon is not supernatural, why should that denomination feel any need to explain why they don't believe in it. Scientists, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and Anglicans do not believe in reincarnation, so why should anyone expect that Anglicans should have to explain anything about it? – Ray Butterworth Jan 14 '22 at 02:14
  • My point was that since there is no reason to believe that these experiences have a supernatural cause - 1) This is a claim. What is the basis for this claim? 2) Atheists do not believe in the supernatural, then why should they have any need to explain miracle claims from the 1st century? –  Jan 14 '22 at 02:22
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator, but OBE, NDE, etc. are claimed to be happening today, and are explained away without religion ever being a consideration (e.g. the effects of oxygen deprivation on the brain). ¶ If science says X is a fact, why would one wonder why some religions also believe that X is true, much less expect them to explain why they believe it? ¶ Cherokee believe that mountains and valleys were originally created by the flapping of a buzzard's wings. Science says that's nonsense. Baptists don't believe it either, but would anyone question how Baptists explain their disbelief? – Ray Butterworth Jan 14 '22 at 03:30
  • If science says X is a fact, why would one wonder why some religions also believe that X is true, much less expect them to explain why they believe it? - First of all, instead of saying "science says X is a fact", it would be more accurate to say that "most scientists tend to agree that experience X can be explained away by Y", leaving room for the possibility of minorities of scientists who disagree with the mainstream explanation for some exceptional cases. –  Jan 14 '22 at 04:29
  • Secondly, you face the same problem with the resurrection of Jesus. Most scientists do not believe in Jesus' resurrection, and most pagan religions do not either. So why bother evangelizing people from other religions if 1) they don't believe in the resurrection and 2) most scientists do not believe in the resurrection either? If pagans and scientists agree in not believing in Jesus' resurrection, then they can be as entitled to dismiss Christianity as 'soul sleep' adherentes are entitled to dismiss testimonies to the contrary, right? –  Jan 14 '22 at 04:29
  • By the way, a fascinating testimony: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/neuroscientist-sees-proof-heaven-week-long-coma/story?id=17555207 –  Jan 14 '22 at 04:44
  • 1
    @RayButterworth " ...are explained away without religion ever being a consideration". This is what science does. It is the only thing it can do since it does not incorporate the possibility of the supernatural. The very existence of God is unnecessary for the explanations of science. – Mike Borden Jan 14 '22 at 13:58
  • @MikeBorden, If a denomination and science agree on some point, why would the religion need to justify that belief? How many Christian denominations explain why they don't believe in Xenu, or why they ignore reports of sightings of the Spaghetti Monster, or how they explain claims of reincarnation? These claims go against science and what is generally accepted by society. Christians don't need to explain reports of astral projection anymore than they need to explain claims that the Earth is flat. Compare with some denominations that do need to explain evidence that the Earth is old. – Ray Butterworth Jan 14 '22 at 14:39
  • 1
    @RayButterworth Every Christian denomination explains why they don't believe in a multiplicity of Gods. Here is a Trinitarian apologetic against astral projection: https://reasonsforjesus.com/statement-of-faith-and-doctrine/ You can easily find similar regarding reincarnation, ghosts, etc., from many Christian denominations and theological positions. Atheists produce apologetics against the existence of God, "The God Delusion" for example and they certainly think they are in agreement with science. Everybody's doing it! :) – Mike Borden Jan 14 '22 at 14:53
  • @RayButterworth, what are your thoughts on this article https://magiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Science_Medicine_and_NDEs.pdf ? –  Jan 29 '22 at 14:26
  • 1
    "Given that there is no scientific evidence of the reality of such events other than as a neurological effect" I think this answer is correct as a basic description of belief among atheists, but it would be stronger by couching the language as a belief and then linking that claim to actual claims by soul-sleep adherents. – Only True God Jun 29 '22 at 14:03
  • "Given that there is no scientific evidence of the reality of such events other than as a neurological effect" How important is the word 'scientific' here? Would you hold that there is no evidence of the reality of such events? – Only True God Jun 29 '22 at 18:25
  • @OneGodtheFather, isn't testimony of personal experience considered evidence? Many people will sincerely report their supernatural experiences. The problem is, they are testifying about their own interpretation of the experience, not what actually happened. (Compare with witnessing a professional magician and reporting that he made an elephant disappear, levitated a car, and could read your mind. That is your true testimony, but it isn't truth.) ¶ By "scientific evidence" I mean evidence that would be accepted by most scientists. – Ray Butterworth Jun 29 '22 at 19:37
  • @RayButterworth - doesn't this line of reasoning undermine the credibility of Christianity as a whole? Christianity is founded upon trusting the alleged eyewitness accounts of a few individuals, recorded in written form. Even if we grant that they recorded sincere reports, they still could've misinterpreted their experiences. If you say that we need "faith" to believe in Christianity, I fail to see why you would not also use "faith" to believe in modern reports of NDEs, unless you endorse some sort of epistemological double standard. –  Jun 29 '22 at 19:50
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator, in both cases, once could trust that the people are sincerely telling what they believed to be the truth. If you see someone killed by a professional executioner (not as part of an act), and then talk to that person a few days later it's simpler to accept it as true than try to explain it away. If you are near death and recover, remembering strange things, it's simpler to attribute it to hallucinations caused by brain chemicals than to accept those possible hallucinations as representing reality. The answer that raises fewest new questions is the easiest to accept. – Ray Butterworth Jun 29 '22 at 20:48
  • @RayButterworth "it's simpler to attribute it to hallucinations caused by brain chemicals than to accept those possible hallucinations as representing reality" Can you say more about this - why is it 'simpler' to accept these experiences as hallucinations than as veridical? People who themselves have NDEs often are changed significantly, including changed beliefs about the reality of a life-after-biological-life and the existence of God. Do you think this isn't as simple an explanation, but they opt for it anyway? – Only True God Jun 29 '22 at 23:16
  • @OneGodtheFather, the use of drugs such as LSD or magic mushrooms (under strictly controlled conditions) is becoming recognized as a legitimate treatment for some mental problems, such as PTSD, as they can induce significant personality changes that can be directed by the medical person administering it. But no one believes that whatever the patient experiences during this therapy represents reality. Under uncontrolled conditions, people may very well experience things that they later prefer to regard as true. But that doesn't mean that they are. – Ray Butterworth Jun 29 '22 at 23:56
  • @RayButterworth Right, but you said "if you are near death and recover, it's simpler to attribute it to hallucinations". Here, you're switching to third-person. For the person themselves in an NDE, do you think it's 'simpler' to believe it's an hallucination? – Only True God Jun 30 '22 at 00:18
  • @OneGodtheFather, no, to them it was very real, and it might be very difficult for them to ever believe otherwise. To a disinterested observer though, it's difficult to believe that it was real. – Ray Butterworth Jun 30 '22 at 00:24
  • 1
    "To a disinterested observer though, it's difficult to believe that it was real." OK, but I think this is going to vary. To me, it's quite straightforward and meshes with my overall worldview. Knowing the particularities of NDEs, it doesn't seem plausible at all to me that people who have no detectable brain activity are also having vivid hallucinations where they claim greater consciousness than regular everyday consciousness. So I think to some observers this is right, because they have beliefs that make them disinclined to believe it. – Only True God Jun 30 '22 at 13:35
2

Demons tricking people.

Simply put, spiritual phenomena are either from God or His messengers (angels), or they're not. If they're not from God, and they are genuine spiritual phenomena rather that humans deluding themselves or experiencing mundane hallucinations, who would they be from? Satan and His demons.

Satan is called the "Prince of Lies" for a reason; if he can lead someone astray by giving them an experience of astral projection, near-death experience, or the like, he'd happily do so.

Even if a vision seems to be of God, Heaven, or angels, it's content needs to be examined against the Bible to determine its origin. Satan and his minions leading people astray by pretending to be God and spouting false doctrine is nothing new either.

nick012000
  • 1,053
  • 6
  • 12
  • 2
    This very well may be a common belief among soul-sleep adherents, but I think this answer could be made more convincing with links from actual, prominent soul-sleep adherents who claim this. – Only True God Jun 29 '22 at 14:04
  • What is your view on how people who didn't yet have the Bible were expected to discern between that which came from God and that which came from the devil? – Hold To The Rod Jun 30 '22 at 00:13