Why do I feel threatened?

The door was slammed shut and bolted on 'God', souls, psi hundreds of years ago. As Peter Fenwick said, they are afraid of the return of magic and superstition.

For the New Atheist types sure, but people like Greyson, Parnia, and Braude? Each of them seems to accept the Survival Hypothesis yet each also seems to hedge against it from an academic standpoint?

Maybe they also fear ushering an age of superstition, or mass increase in suicides where people think they go to a better place. (I personally think we have some reason to suspect suicide can have disastrous consequences for the soul but that's probably a conversation unto itself.)

I wonder if this is really the case.  Mind you, I don't have any data behind my questioning, but here's my thinking:

...

My two cents.

I think, as Gabriel said before me, that Shermer and Harris are grifters who saw the writing on the wall earlier than most. I don't think any of the New Atheists are doing much atheist advocacy nowadays, most of them seem to have gone into politics which is where you get those patrons who pay to hear their own thoughts echoed back to them.

But this shift away from atheism has been useful to the culture at large, as you note academia is not a monolith and thus there are a range of views coming to the fore that range between religious theism and religious atheism.

I sometimes question Kastrup's "hardliner" Idealist stance, but at the same time I think his own ardent commitment to his views and unwillingness to back-bite early supporters like Chopra has pushed the conversation in a positive direction. Just by asking "What as this Atheist-Physicalist position really brought the world?" forces a lot of academics to reflect.

Just read a passage in chapter 5 of Greyson's book (well, had it read to me by Audible). He goes into exactly what we are discussing here - the threat to his credibility as a scientist, the challenge from sceptics and the perception that religion is the motivating factor.

He describes the threat he felt when some data analysts asked to review his methodology when compiling his now well-known NDE Scale (we may know it as the Greyson Scale). He knew that feeling threatened was irrational for a scientist and a self-proclaimed sceptic, so he handed over his data. Apparently it took months during which time he fretted that they would find something he had missed and his credibility as a scientist would be shot. To his relief and elation they did not, even though it was clear that the intention was to discredit the data. They confirmed all his findings.

Then he describes his first paper on NDEs in a foremost medical journal. He co-authored the paper with Ian Stevenson and Greyson describes it as his "coming out" to the academic community. Again he worried about his credibility but was thrilled that the paper was at least published in such an esteemed journal. His elation was short-lived, however, when the letters to the editor started coming in. One, from a senior hospital doctor, said that such a paper should be confined to religious publications as it was not science and had no place in a scientific journal.

Actually, it is turning out to be a better book than I expected. I can recommend it so far.

Just read a passage in chapter 5 of Greyson's book (well, had it read to me by Audible). He goes into exactly what we are discussing here - the threat to his credibility as a scientist, the challenge from sceptics and the perception that religion is the motivating factor.

He describes the threat he felt when some data analysts asked to review his methodology when compiling his now well-known NDE Scale (we may know it as the Greyson Scale). He knew that feeling threatened was irrational for a scientist and a self-proclaimed sceptic, so he handed over his data. Apparently it took months during which time he fretted that they would find something he had missed and his credibility as a scientist would be shot. To his relief and elation they did not, even though it was clear that the intention was to discredit the data. They confirmed all his findings.

Then he describes his first paper on NDEs in a foremost medical journal. He co-authored the paper with Ian Stevenson and Greyson describes it as his "coming out" to the academic community. Again he worried about his credibility but was thrilled that the paper was at least published in such an esteemed journal. His elation was short-lived, however, when the letters to the editor started coming in. One, from a senior hospital doctor, said that such a paper should be confined to religious publications as it was not science and had no place in a scientific journal.

Actually, it is turning out to be a better book than I expected. I can recommend it so far.

He was also given access to Eben Alexander's medical records, along with another two doctors. Over (edit not three), six hundred pages, apparently.
Sceptics have tried to suggest that it was an administered drug that put him into a coma in the ICU, thereby attempting to contradict Alexander's claim that his severe bacterial meningitis was the cause. Greyson and his colleagues have refuted this.

For the New Atheist types sure, but people like Greyson, Parnia, and Braude? Each of them seems to accept the Survival Hypothesis yet each also seems to hedge against it from an academic standpoint?

Maybe they also fear ushering an age of superstition, or mass increase in suicides where people think they go to a better place. (I personally think we have some reason to suspect suicide can have disastrous consequences for the soul but that's probably a conversation unto itself.)

"yet each also seems to hedge against it from an academic standpoint?" 

I think they have to until Parnia (or some other group) moves the debate along further.

He was also given access to Eben Alexander's medical records, along with another doctor. Over three hundred pages, apparently.
Sceptics have tried to suggest that it was an administered drug that put him into a coma in the ICU, thereby attempting to contradict Alexander's claim that his severe bacterial meningitis was the cause. Greyson and his colleague have refuted this.

He does mention Eben Alexander in the Webcast and I was a little surprised that he seems to have a high regard for Alexander. I have always been somewhat dubious about Alexander. I thought his account was a little too trippy for me and his eagerness to get published a little too pushy. These are just feelings about the guy, I don't have anything concrete to level against him. I am also concerned that if his story does have holes, they will be exposed and that could do a lot of damage to the kind of research that Greyson and others have been doing.

I wonder if this is really the case.  Mind you, I don't have any data behind my questioning, but here's my thinking:

You may well have a point, probably a few points. There may well be scientists that believe there is indeed ‘something more’, and maybe the general anti ‘religion’ feeling is more about the ‘the abrahamic variants’ than other types. I just wish people could more openly express what their thoughts on this sort of thing really are, and not be (justifiably) afraid or at least hesitant to do so.

There are indeed lots of top scientists in the past that have definitely not been atheists, but I am hard pressed to think of a popular well known UK presenter in the public eye that are open minded about psi and other such ideas. Professors Brian Cox and Alice Roberts are two that definitely come across as anti. Sunday morning we can find Christian presenters interviewing interesting people, but we’ll never in a month of Sundays see the likes of David Icke or anyone similarly controversial being interviewed, This is what the BBC mainstream channels deem acceptable, which of course over time sinks in to those watching. BBC radio is much more open imo, but still won’t invite Icke (for example).

I consider myself an agnostic even though I may appear to be convinced about the existence of some form of God. I’m almost a theist, but not quite. 

He does mention Eben Alexander in the Webcast and I was a little surprised that he seems to have a high regard for Alexander. I have always been somewhat dubious about Alexander. I thought his account was a little too trippy for me and his eagerness to get published a little too pushy. These are just feelings about the guy, I don't have anything concrete to level against him. I am also concerned that if his story does have holes, they will be exposed and that could do a lot of damage to the kind of research that Greyson and others have been doing.

You would be in agreement with several others on here, Dave. Not me, though. I didn't like the commercialisation aspect of his NDE but the NDE itself doesn't contain any holes as far as I can tell by what he's reported. Of course we only have his word for it. I also respect the verdict of those that are not happy that he may have done something wrong (the medical records incident) without going back over the details again. Whilst others may wish to make the point again, Robert and Suzanne Mays refuted the journalist responsible and what he was inferring, and that satisfied me personally.

Professors Brian Cox and Alice Roberts

Maybe I'm a grumpy old git but I can't stand either of them.

Maybe I'm a grumpy old git but I can't stand either of them.

Maybe?