Has science explained life after death?

Has science explained life after death? I say no.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/science-life-after-death.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
Has science explained life after death? I say no.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/science-life-after-death.htm

Since there is no life after death, this appears to be one of your lead-in's to another preaching episode.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Since there is no life after death, this appears to be one of your lead-in's to another preaching episode.

This reference is about science, not preaching religion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Has science explained life after death? I say no.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/science-life-after-death.htm

Well since the source you reference says nothing whatsoever about life after death (other than the title) what is your real point? Where you really talking about near death experiences? If so, I would agree, science has not yet explained all of them fully (though as the article states, some of them have been explained). But this is hardly surprising considering that these near death experiences are relatively rare, and quite difficult to study (since they are psychological phenomena and thus not directly observable).
What we cannot conclude, is that science cannot explain them, or that their existence somehow proves something religious.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Has science explained life after death? I say no.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/science-life-after-death.htm

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, science hasn't explained life yet. This is a good thing, if everything had been explained already we'd have to find something else to occupy enquiring minds.

Originally posted by Kepler
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, science hasn't explained life yet. This is a good thing, if everything had been explained already we'd have to find something else to occupy enquiring minds.

It all depends on what people want to understand by the term "explain" and also what they think are the boundaries of "science."

One role of scientific thinking is to clarify and define the topic in terms that make research possible. So for example, the notion of "life after death" is rather hard to do experiments on as it stands, but out of body experiences (OBE) and near death experiences (NDE) are reasonably specific and can be studied more systematically.

While both are subjective experiences that does not make them unavailable for research. We can narrow down conditions under which such experiences are reported and investigate those. For example, a standard test of OBE is to place a distinctive object or image somewhere out of sight, say on the ceiling of an operating theatre, and find out if the people reporting OBEs can describe the hidden objects. (Never - is the result).

Brain studies reported in the linked article establish what the central nervous system is doing during one of these reported expriences. It suggests that OBE and NDE each have quite distinctive patterns of brain activity.

Psychological studies investigate characteristics of people reporting thse experiences and studies also look at the type of people and the contexts in which people choose to believe in them and the way they use these reports to support other belief systems.

Scientists do not dispute that people have these experiences. Indeed, they take their reports seriously and investigate to learn as much as possible about them. What they have learned as a result by systematic research tells us a lot about how the human mind functions while of course the field will permit a lot more work in the future. Of course these results are often concerned with describing and defining, not necessarily explaining in a full sense. But then, for much of what happens in the natural world, description is the primary goal so that we know what we are discussing and often that is more than sufficient.

Religious people want to use the reports as evidence supporting other claims, such as life after death, but of course the support is not actually there in the evidence. We have fairly good evidence, for example, that OBEs are not out of the body at all, but entirely internal, psychological phenomena. Anecdotal claims to the contrary do not survive scrutiny.

Originally posted by finnegan
It all depends on what people want to understand by the term "explain" and also what they think are the boundaries of "science."

One role of scientific thinking is to clarify and define the topic in terms that make research possible. So for example, the notion of "life after death" is rather hard to do experiments on as it stands, but out of body experi ...[text shortened]... ternal, psychological phenomena. Anecdotal claims to the contrary do not survive scrutiny.

How about Lazarus being raise from the dead after 3 or 4 days by Jesus and Jesus raising himself from the grave? These are historical reports of the time that brought a big change in the attitude of many people of that time that has continued on to our time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well since the source you reference says nothing whatsoever about life after death (other than the title) what is your real point? Where you really talking about near death experiences? If so, I would agree, science has not yet explained all of them fully (though as the article states, some of them have been explained). But this is hardly surprising consi ...[text shortened]... is that science cannot explain them, or that their existence somehow proves something religious.

It is true that these may be classified as near death experiences, even though they are considered clinically dead, because they were not in that state for very long like Lazarus, who Jesus raised form the dead or Jesus Himself. However, these things that happen to these poeple are strange occurrances and seem to point to the fact that a part of man may live on after the death of the body, just as the Holy Bible seems to suggest also.

So the question asked in this article on science seems to probe into that life after death issue, just as the title also suggests.

Originally posted by finnegan
It all depends on what people want to understand by the term "explain" and also what they think are the boundaries of "science."

One role of scientific thinking is to clarify and define the topic in terms that make research possible. So for example, the notion of "life after death" is rather hard to do experiments on as it stands, but out of body experi ...[text shortened]... ternal, psychological phenomena. Anecdotal claims to the contrary do not survive scrutiny.

I think we still need more than just fairly good evidence to dismiss these occurrances as solved. That is still in the realm of belief and not science. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is true that these may be classified as near death experiences, even though they are considered clinically dead, because they were not in that state for very long

Clinically dead simply means "cessation of blood circulation and breathing".

However, these things that happen to these poeple are strange occurrances and seem to point to the fact that a part of man may live on after the death of the body, just as the Holy Bible seems to suggest also.
No, it doesn't point to that in any way. All it points to is that the brain may continue to function to some degree albeit poorly even without adequate breathing and blood flow.

So the question asked in this article on science seems to probe into that life after death issue, just as the title also suggests.
No, it doesn't. If anything, as finnegan has pointed out science has already proved that these experiences are illusions that take place entirely within the persons mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clinically dead simply means "cessation of blood circulation and breathing".

[b]However, these things that happen to these poeple are strange occurrances and seem to point to the fact that a part of man may live on after the death of the body, just as the Holy Bible seems to suggest also.
No, it doesn't point to that in any way. All it points to i ...[text shortened]... roved that these experiences are illusions that take place entirely within the persons mind.[/b]

The article did not seem to agree that it has been proved. Perhaps it needs some peer review.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about Lazarus being raise from the dead after 3 or 4 days by Jesus and Jesus raising himself from the grave? These are historical reports of the time that brought a big change in the attitude of many people of that time that has continued on to our time.

I'd hesitate to say that the Lazarus account is historical. Where and what is the primary source? No, sorry, the bible does not count as it is at best a rather poor secondary source. We need the account of Lazarus himself in his native tongue not a mistranslation of a miscopied, badly edited and shockingly redacted collection of middle eastern writings.

Originally posted by Kepler
I'd hesitate to say that the Lazarus account is historical. Where and what is the primary source? No, sorry, the bible does not count as it is at best a rather poor secondary source. We need the account of Lazarus himself in his native tongue not a mistranslation of a miscopied, badly edited and shockingly redacted collection of middle eastern writings.

Well, that still leaves Jesus of whom we have the empty tomb, as well as the burial cloths used at his gravesite with a supernatural image on one of them that scientists are unable to explain.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, that still leaves Jesus of whom we have the empty tomb, as well as the burial cloths used at his gravesite with a supernatural image on one of them that scientists are unable to explain.

😴

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about Lazarus being raise from the dead after 3 or 4 days by Jesus and Jesus raising himself from the grave? These are historical reports of the time that brought a big change in the attitude of many people of that time that has continued on to our time.

The historical evidence for a single man called Jesus is very flimsy.

And you reckon there is historical evidence for Lazarus?
Give us a break.