Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

The best thing is to read Greyson's work for yourself.

Christian Apologetics has very little to do with NDEs or parapsychology in general.

I'd be curious to see which Christian Apologists have promoted Bruce Greyson. Please link to some sources.

Which is why I'm eager to acquire After. 

Of course, which is why like I said I reckon the guy jumped to conclusions and didn't do any thorough research on him at all. I think it's funny that he claims he's linked to Christians but when you go on his website it literally shows an image of him meeting what appears to be the Dalai Lama. 

This comment did not reference any examples or sources at all (he didn't even mention the term NDE in any way), but all I've seen is that some of the people reviewing/promoting his recent book. He's probably referring to Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Michael Murphy and a few others. So yeah, it's likely he pulled that claim out of his a*s and assumed they were Christians. Additionally, he's been cited in and even co-authored articles with skeptical points about NDEs. I'm not sure how the commenter would have been able to find out the current religions of his colleagues either, or any of the co-authors.

On a more 'positive' note, here are some more positive reviews of Greyson's new book I found on his site that I think are worth mentioning:

“Dr. Greyson brings to near-death experiences what the Kinsey report established for human sexuality. He has used a systematic thoroughness to reveal a new sector of human experience that has been the subject of popular fascination but scientific taboo.   [b]Reading his research and the compelling stories of the experiencers themselves will no doubt transform the lives of readers and their understanding of the very nature of reality.”[/b]—Lisa Miller, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Education, Columbia University, [i]New York Times[/i] bestselling author of [i]The Spiritual Child, [/i]Editor of [i]The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality[/i], Editor of [i]Spirituality in Clinical Practice[/i]

Her Wikipedia article is quite funny to read. Someone apparently tried to label her a parapsychologist (which the editors seem to imply makes someone less credible) but this (surprisingly) wasn't permitted. The claims she was involved in the controversial show Psychic Kids to a degree are also all unsourced/lacking citations, though she might have been?

“Bruce Greyson is undoubtedly one of the world’s foremost authorities in the field of near-death experiences.   Where some have limited themselves to opinions without scientific experimentation, Dr. Greyson has patiently and thoroughly applied a scientific and systematic approach to exploring and unraveling the mystery of near-death experiences.   Now after four decades, Dr Greyson shares his tremendous knowledge and insights, which have been gained through his work as a professor of psychiatry and the study of near-death experiences, with the wider public. [b]His work in engaging, appealing, and thoroughly informative. An absolute must read for anyone who has ever contemplated the question of what happens when we die.”[/b]—Sam Parnia, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Critical Care & Resuscitation Research, New York University Langone Medical Center, author of [i]What Happens When We Die?[/i]

This is the full Parnia review, which I have updated in the Bruce Greyson Interview thread. 

“What makes Bruce Greyson’s work and approach so unique and special is — next to its intellectual integrity – that he approaches the topic of NDEs in a truly scientific spirit, and thereby shows that a synthesis of spirituality and science is possible even, or especially, if one does not start out by presupposing spiritual truths, but rather when one follows the evidence where the evidence leads to.   For such a book will appeal both to those interested in a something refreshingly new within the NDE field and to those who are interested in accessible treatises on brain, cognition, mind, and psychology, but so far have been pushed off by the often New Agey or spiritual undertone of typical NDE literature. It is for this reason that I’m convinced that [b]Bruce Greyson’s book has the potential to become a major international book of lasting value.”[/b]—Alexander Batthyany, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy and Psychology, International Academy of Philosophy, Liechtenstein, Director of the Viktor Frankl Institute, Vienna, Austria, author of [i]Mind and its Place in the World[/i]

Nice to hear from Batthyany again.

“Bruce Greyson takes us on a fabulous tour of near-death experiences in a completely new and engaging way. This information is absolutely essential for anyone interested in the most important experiences people can have with profound implications for understanding the meaning of life and death. [b]A must read for anyone regardless of their religious, spiritual, or scientific background.”[/b]—Andrew Newberg, M.D., Professor of Emergency Medicine and Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, author of [i]The Mystical Mind[/i]

Apparently this guy is a leading neuroscientist with interest in mystical and spiritual experiences. 

“In [i]After,[/i] Bruce Greyson—widely considered the leading expert on near-death experiences (NDEs) world-wide—set for himself the challenge of simultaneously introducing readers to NDEs, conveying what he’s learned over forty years of meticulous investigation, and sharing the personal and institutional obstacles he faced in trying to understand an aspect of human experience that many people approach with skepticism.  Dr. Greyson is clearly up to the challenge, and he achieves his objective through riveting vignettes of experiencers, tackling his colleagues’ incredulity, and facing his own struggles trying to study scientifically a phenomenon that seems to defy scientific examination. Through these fascinating vignettes and Greyson’s personal revelations it becomes clear that this renowned scientist is also a sensitive clinician and someone not afraid to challenge his cherished assumptions about life, death and consciousness. [b]Both lay readers and investigators will surely come away from this book challenging their own assumptions about the meaning of life and death.”[/b]—Howard Tennen, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut, Editor of [i]The Handbook of Psychology: Personality and Social Psychology[/i]

No idea who this guy is but that's a glowing review if I ever saw one.

Michael Murphy?

From Esalen?

When has he ever done Christian Apologetics?

Michael Murphy?

From Esalen?

When has he ever done Christian Apologetics?

The original commenter probably meant Christian sympathisers now that I think about it, as in Christians or theologians who 'defend' Christianity. Anyone connected with theology he must have thought meant a religious bias. I myself interpreted that he may have been referring to those who had religious backgrounds in their bios on the list of reviews, and they were the 'Apologetics' who didn't rant about Christianity like he did. 

(Needless to say, I wasn't thinking calmly when I made that post about the comment. I just can't stand almost slanderous accusations like that of Greyson).

The original commenter probably meant Christian sympathisers now that I think about it, as in Christians or theologians who 'defend' Christianity. Anyone connected with theology he must have thought meant a religious bias. I myself interpreted that he may have been referring to those who had religious backgrounds in their bios on the list of reviews, and they were the 'Apologetics'.

This seems like a lot of conjecture born out of a Youtube comment.

Isn't this a sign that Youtube Comments are a waste of time, it's like bad gossip about Greyson if there are no actual examples of text & criticism.

This seems like a lot of conjecture born out of a Youtube comment.

Isn't this a sign that Youtube Comments are a waste of time, it's like bad gossip about Greyson if there are no actual examples of text & criticism.

Well it's like one minute I agree with you there Sci, but then I'll see a YT comment I actually agree with/support and it makes me feel like a hypocrite agreeing on disregarding them all...except the ones I 'like'. 

Maybe I should just ignore those too then?

Well it's like one minute I agree with you there Sci, but then I'll see a YT comment I actually agree with/support and it makes me feel like a hypocrite agreeing on disregarding them all...except the ones I 'like'. 

Maybe I should just ignore those too then?

It's more that there's little point to quote them here, like the one about Greyson.

They do tend to get to me though and distress me because they feel like almost personal attacks even though they aren't. 

I was able to think critically however about two comments I recall seeing from two (obviously militant given the channels they followed) atheist commenters claiming to have both had NDEs but remained unconvinced of a genuine experience.

The first guy gave an anecdote about going into cardiac arrest and claimed to have an NDE. All he described however was 'seeing his grandmother who comforted him'. That's it IIRC. If that wasn't suspicious enough, he brought up that point because it aligned with what another skeptic said about NDEs being 'coping mechanisms' for a dying brain or something. Of course his comment got a bunch of likes and he remarked that there's no evidence to prove he was lying...

Well to me, the sheer convenience of this, as well as the lack of detail and extreme simplicity of the account, means to me he either a) had a different experience that was not an NDE, e.g. a deathbed vision or b) really is just lying (as I have noted before, I have encountered more than one instance where a skeptic claiming to have had an NDE has either been confirmed to have lied or is likely to have done based on how they react). 

The second one may have been tongue-in-cheek-he just claimed to have seen Egyptian Gods in his claimed NDE. He may have been joking, but again, this specifically aligned with a claim a skeptic made prior to that comment. 

Have there actually been any recorded/documented NDEs where the experiencer wasn't convinced by their NDE that can be considered more credible than random YT comments, or that one from Psychology Today I quoted a while ago? If there have, they must be extremely rare anomalies in that regard.

Moving on, I was made aware of a story about the SPR that I could use some further details on:

Apparently there was a 'bet' of sorts among some leading SPR members that whichever one of them died first would try and communicate through a medium ASAP to verify it was them and it was possible, but this apparently never ended up being verified by those who outlived the one who died, much to their disappointment. I feel like Oliver Lodge was among those involved in this 'bet'.

However, I also recall a story about how someone in the SPR spoke to a medium they were convinced was genuinely channeling another member and friend with great accuracy. When asked about the meaning of life and whatnot, the supposed spirit or consciousness or whatever responded with "The mysteries of existence are no more answered in death than they are in life.", implying that learning either restarts or continues on the 'other side'. 

Are these related in any way and are they as I described?

Probably the Cross-Correspondences.

Myers being the most prominent of communicators in that case. Read Chris Carter's books.

Apparently there was a 'bet' of sorts among some leading SPR members that whichever one of them died first would try and communicate through a medium ASAP to verify it was them and it was possible, but this apparently never ended up being verified by those who outlived the one who died, much to their disappointment. I feel like Oliver Lodge was among those involved in this 'bet'.

That rings a bell. The hidden message was a piece of music if I recall. I did a bit of searching and it doesn't seem to involve Lodge but I could be wrong. I'll try and dig something out tomorrow.