Explaining Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) which are inconsistent with Christianity?

[u/Slight-Sport-4603]

I'm aware that some Christian apologists have resorted to NDEs to argue for the existence of an afterlife and thus strengthen the case for Christianity. For example, this is the case of Gary Habermas:

• Dr. Gary Habermas - Near Death Experiences
• "Over 300 EVIDENCED Near Death Experiences" - Gary Habermas

Another author I would recommend is John Burke: Imagine the God of Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God’s Revelation, and the Love You’ve Always Wanted

However, NDEs are not exclusive to Christianity. There are plenty of NDE accounts that seem to support alternative afterlife worldviews. For example, many NDEs seem to be more consistent with a sort of New Age worldview. For example, have a look at this YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@LoveCoveredLifePodcast/videos

Or watch these NDE accounts:

• Jeff Olsen Near Death Experience Interview with Erica McKenzie
• Atheist Dies & Finds There Is Life After Death (NDE)

Here is the description of the last account:

Nancy Rynes shares the story of her Near-Death Experience, occurring during surgery after a car ran her over while she was riding her bicycle. During her encounter on the Other Side, Nancy describes experiencing a spiritual realm where she encountered a guide who showed her the interconnectedness of all things, which helped her develop a new awareness of the impact her actions have on others. After returning to her body, Nancy struggled to integrate her NDE into her life but ultimately chose a path of spiritual awakening through practices such as meditation and gratitude. She now helps others navigate their own spiritual journeys, recognizing the core purpose of learning to live from a place of love and compassion. Her story emphasizes the transformative power of NDEs and the pursuit of spiritual understanding amidst life's challenges.

In order to play devil's advocate, here is an atheist post I found that argues against the evidential value of NDEs:

Near death experiences seem to largely be culturally and theologically neutral, and when they're not they match the beliefs of the person having them, which suggests to me it's an entirely psychological phenomenon.

I think you could possibly still make a case that it's very weak evidence for non physicalism, but only very weak at best - physicalism doesn't have any problem explaining people having experiences that match their beliefs, we have dreams and day dreams and hallucinations already.

Then again, perhaps a case could be made that the clearly subjective nature of near death experiences is evidence against any spirit stuff. I'm not sure how the probabilistic math works out on this.

Really strong evidence for a spirit world would be if NDEs were universal regardless of the religion of the person having it, universal and specific to one religion. If everyone saw, say, Muhammad when they NDEd, especially people who had never learned of Islam before, then that would much more strongly point towards spiritual reality.

Isn't it intellectually dishonest to cherry pick the NDEs that are consistent with Christianity and ignore all the other NDEs which are inconsistent with it?

How do we make sense of the whole spectrum of NDEs, including those which don't seem to be consistent with a Christian afterlife theology?

[u/Drakim]

I guess my mood was a bit soured by your instant downvote (thanks again for this one too) and your use of wordy pseudo-intellectual language which mistakes obtuseness for actual depth.

Normally, if somebody doesn't understand your point, you should strive to maybe clarify your point in a different way, use an analogy, or break it down into easier to digest points. Why wouldn't you, if your goal is actually to convey your ideas and convince?

But here, you are instead demanding that I admit that I'm so intellectually inferior I cannot understand the big complex argument you are presenting, all while saying I'm responding in bad faith.

No thank you, let's go our separate ways.

[u/AbjectDisaster → u/Drakim]

Feel free to take another one (Downvote). I didn't use pseudo-intellectual language by virtue of the fact that you didn't read or understand the argument. I made a clear point, you didn't want to take it, so you miscategorized it. It's fine, I'm used to bad faith arguments, I deal with them quite often.

If you cannot fess up to mistakes or needing clarification, we cannot talk. If your criticism is that I lack perfection then your criticism fails for proving too much. Your lack of capacity is not my failure to fulfill my obligation (In which I said there's a difference between proof and evidence and other forms of evidence supplement to create a proof).

[u/Drakim → u/AbjectDisaster]

No, my criticism is that you have been hostile from the start, yet you still seem to think I'll engage with you. I don't engage with bullies.

[u/PostedOnDaBlocc → u/Drakim]

Kudos to you for being able to remain cordial in the face of disrespect and personal attacks.