Books about experience of heaven

[jerryxplu]

I am very skeptical of people writing books of like near death experience and they either went to heaven or hell or whatever. It can be a grown man/woman or some children that claimed these events.

I am just wondering what you guys especially Christians think of such books. I remember recent one of such book was the "Boy who came back from Heaven" now saying he didn't die nor did he went to heaven. So I guess it is safe to say that it was all a bunch of lies.

I am fine with people having faith in their religion be it christian, muslim, hindu etc. but when someone claims of supernatural events I am always skeptical of it. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Obviously people love this idea which is why books like the boy who came back from heaven or heaven is for real can be so popular best sellers.

So what do you guys feel/think when you come across such books?

[Difflugia]

Why not?

Because, combining the two [religion and aliens] one can read in such pre-television stories, similar testimony.

How similar is "similar?" You've asserted that the experience "cannot" be the brain reworking something that's already been seen, but haven't justified why anyone should think that's true. You've asserted "similar testimony," but unless "similar" includes things like alien greys and flying saucers, you're just making the case that human brains worked the same way then as they do now, not that the supernatural is real.

Instead of "aliens", one has gods/angels/demons/religious mythological icons...

Yes. When the brain gets weird, people frame their experiences within a familiar fantastic idiom.

The Santa Clause analogy isn't useful in this regard as we are only speaking about gifts left behind - which can be explained - we are not talking about folk experiencing and engaging with Santa. We are not even talking about a warm fuzzy joyous thing...

It's absolutely apt. Dr. Clancy explains through the course of the book commonalities between subjects and presents known psychological phenomena as explanations. So far, you've simply denied them. Personal incredulity is the same evidence that I presented for Santa Claus.

From my own experiences and subsequent study, I lean toward Jung relating such experienced imagery to what he referred to as the Archetypes...

Depending on how you read Jung, I might agree with you. If the Jungian Archetypes of the collective unconscious are expressions of how our brains have evolved as humans, then I'd agree, but that's just saying that our human brains share ways of reacting to similar kinds of stimuli. If you believe as Jung himself did that there's a sort of active connection between all members of humanity, then you haven't really offered any reasons for thinking that such a connection actually exists.

[William]

Because, combining the two [religion and aliens] one can read in such pre-television stories, similar testimony.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #31]

How similar is "similar?"

Very. The imagery may be different, but the subject matter is - overall - similar.

You've asserted that the experience "cannot" be the brain reworking something that's already been seen, but haven't justified why anyone should think that's true.

I haven't asserted that at all. The brain obviously has something to do with the process, but to what degree isn't really know because it isn't really well understood. Certainly not as well understood as some individuals assert, from their various positions of belief on such matters.

You've asserted "similar testimony," but unless "similar" includes things like alien greys and flying saucers, you're just making the case that human brains worked the same way then as they do now, not that the supernatural is real.

Who asserted 'supernatural'? I myself avoid using the word.

Instead of "aliens", one has gods/angels/demons/religious mythological icons...

Yes. When the brain gets weird, people frame their experiences within a familiar fantastic idiom.

What we know about the brain is that it - in all cases - does not see the world as it fundamentally is, and inserts interpretations of what it is experiencing [through its nervous system] into the consciousness connected to that.

The consciousness connected to that, has started become aware of this process and the connotations therein. The brain is just telling it like it believes it is experiencing it [reality] and consciousness just eats it up as if it were the truth...things are changing...

GM: [The Truth
Well defined yet scantily supported opinion]
{SOURCE}

We [rightfully] question what the brain tells us about the experiential reality.

The Santa Clause analogy isn't useful in this regard as we are only speaking about gifts left behind - which can be explained - we are not talking about folk experiencing and engaging with Santa. We are not even talking about a warm fuzzy joyous thing...

It's absolutely apt.

I am not convinced.

Dr. Clancy explains through the course of the book commonalities between subjects and presents known psychological phenomena as explanations. So far, you've simply denied them. Personal incredulity is the same evidence that I presented for Santa Claus.

I have not denied anything. I have pointed out that the analogy of Santa Claus is not what appears is being implied by Dr. Clancy. Are you saying that in her book she makes this analogy herself?

Even if she does, the analogy is based upon the idea that the brain creates the mind, which is something that has not been established as anything other than well defined, yet scantily supported opinion.

From my own experiences and subsequent study, I lean toward Jung relating such experienced imagery to what he referred to as the Archetypes...

Depending on how you read Jung, I might agree with you. If the Jungian Archetypes of the collective unconscious are expressions of how our brains have evolved as humans, then I'd agree, but that's just saying that our human brains share ways of reacting to similar kinds of stimuli. If you believe as Jung himself did that there's a sort of active connection between all members of humanity, then you haven't really offered any reasons for thinking that such a connection actually exists.

I do however acknowledge that brains are not reading reality as reality fundamentally is. That is a known fact.

∴ one cannot conclude that what the brain is telling us or how we are choosing to interpret that telling, is anything other than than well defined, yet scantily supported opinion.

Jung may have it correct while graphing with how to present a largely invisible reality to a largely visible one.

How are we to tell if we are 'minds within a mind'?

I would say, we best not leave it entirely up to the brain to inform us - since the brain is as Lost In The Thought Of It All anyway...