In a very good book written by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, titled The Spiritual Brain, (I would give it five stars, if I rated books with stars at my website) there is a chapter called “The Strange Case of the God Helmet” which describes a physical device that “scientists” place on their head so that low-powered magnets can stimulate the temporal lobes of the test subject.
Seriously. The tin-foil hat crowd now has legitimate competition.
Only a person who doesn’t believe God exists and has apparently become desperate to prove it would deliberately try to artificially simulate the effect that belief in God has on people of faith.
About neuroscientist Michael Persinger (co-inventor of the God helmet) Beauregard wrote:
Echoing Dawkins, Persinger has called religion “an artifact of the brain” and a “cognitive virus.” (page 81)
Speaking of Richard Dawkins, he had to try the helmet 
himself, of course, but he didn’t experience any of the hallucinations the helmet can allegedly sometimes cause.
Persinger attributed the failure of Dawkins to “experience God” using the helmet was due to his “well below average” score in temporal lobe sensitivity to magnetic fields, whatever that means.
Of course, Persinger had to publish the results of his 2002 “study” in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders. Beauregard (and O’Leary) wrote:
Persinger concluded two things: that the experience of a sensed presence can be manipulated by experiment, and that such an experience “may be the fundamental source for phenomena attributed to visitations by gods, spirits, and other ephemeral phenomena. The first conclusion is a research result that should be able to be replicated if it is valid. The second is, of course, an opinion. (page 84)
Persinger is far from the only atheist looking for the scientific explanation for religious experience. Though he claims his work is agnostic, Dean Hamer has been looking for God in our genes. Hamer was quoted by Beauregard and O’Leary as saying:
I think we follow our basic law of nature, which is that we’re a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag. (page 48)
This is why atheism can be such a hard sell — that’s not exactly a cheery outlook on life, is it?
Probably he best two chapters (my favorites) in The Spiritual Brain were called “Are the Mind and Brain Identical?” and “Toward a Nonmaterialist Science of Mind.”
Beauregard gets to the heart of why the famous account of corroborated veridical information learned during the neurosurgery of Pam Reynolds, known as “Operation Standstill.” He writes,
Pam’s case is unique for two reasons. First, she had the experience at a time when Jaswantnagar she was fully instrumented under medical conditions and known to be clinically dead. Clinical death is the state in which vital signs have ceased: the heart is in ventricular fibrillation, there is a total lack of electrical activity on the cortex of the brain (flat EEG), and brain-stem is abolished (loss of the corneal reflex, fixed and dilated pupils, and loss of the gag reflex.) Second, Axum she was able to recall verifiable facts about her surgery that she could not have known if she were not in some way conscious when these events were taking place. [emphasis added] (page 155)
How can a person be conscious and clinically dead at the same time?
There seems to be only two alternatives: either liars have conspired to perpetrate a fraud for no discernible benefit, or Pam’s experience defied natural law.
Why on earth would anyone strap a helmet on their head designed to alter their brain waves with magnetic forces to force a fake hallucinogenic effect as a false religious experience?
Sincere prayer is a much more effective means of making a real connection with God.
It may interest your readers to know that at least one of Persinger’s experiments has been replicated: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2582896
I have written a book about this line of science. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Y3TVSS (I hope this is not considered a spam link). I studied under Persinger, and done some work on my own. I agree with you about prayer. Yes, that makes me an atheist who prays (a contradiction in terms for may, but not for me). I believe that prayer is (and develops) an alternate “cognitive style” – a different way of thinking. Whether prayer fills someone with the presence of God or not, it builds up a different and non-linear way of thinking about the things in our lives. That second way of thinking is essential to human beings. We don’t all do it to the same extent, and we’re not all equally prone to feeling its effects. It is, I believe, part of our evolutionary strategy.
Our relationship with God (real or not) may have to do with the nature of consciousness, or our existence outside our bodies and such things, but these pale in importance next to the question of faith in our daily lives. When threats or opportunities appear in our lives, when important desires come to our mind, our prayers give us a way to respond, and lifts us out of the sterile helplessness I imagine waits for me should I ever fall into the radical atheist’s view of the world.
Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, no one offering up a truly heartfelt prayer will give two cents to know whether or not clinical death precludes consciousness. There is no epistemology in intensive care wards.
So, you actually study neurotheology yourself…most interesting.
The phenomena related to the topic of NDEs that interests me so much is what is usually called corroborated veridical NDE information (or perceptions, etc.) is the nature of consciousness creating new memories of accurate and verifiable information that the subject did not previously know.
Examples include Pam Reynold’s ability to describe the bone saw and recall details of a conversation between her neurosurgeon and cardio-vascular surgeon as the latter attempted to tap her femoral artery.
The best way I can think of to describe this ability is “quantum consciousness”, which clearly seems to demonstrate that the spiritual “mind” and physical brain are separable entities. What does your research suggest in regard to this phenomena? I have other examples that don’t include near death or trauma, if you’re interested in learning about them.
I’d like to know your opinion on the information presented in the article below, from several years ago.
http://www.examiner.com/article/astral-travel
To whom does an atheist pray, out of curiosity?
How is an atheist’s prayer to nothing any different than transcendental meditation?
We don’t pray, silly; it is a complete waste of time.
My question was directed to Professor Murphy, who clearly said he is an atheist who prays.
Thanks for your answer, just the same. I’ll keep it in mind that YOU don’t pray.
Who I pray to is not important to me. What matters is how much I can be absorbed in it. “”And so I urge you, go after experience rather than knowledge.” (The Book of Privy Counseling). I do not know who I pray to, nor do I care to be clear about it. I *think* I’m praying to an aspect of myself, but I *feel* I’m praying to something that exists outside of myself. I like the Lakota name for God: “Wakan Tanka”, usually translated as “Great Spirit”. “Tanka” means “great”, and “Wakan” can mean “spirit”, but it can also mean “mysterious”. Thus, it can mean “great mystery”. I like that. I don’t need to know who I’m praying to. In fact, I’m okay with (as many theologians have suggested) letting the God of my prayers reveal itself through my prayers, but in all fairness to the mystery, I should say that I never pray for God to reveal himself to me.
The transformative and uplifting power of prayer remains no matter who one’s chosen (or inherited) deity may be. I do not believe in God, but I do believe in prayer. Having a name for god is convenient, but not essential. One of the reasons why “new age” philosophy (if it can be called that) keeps repeating that all gods are one (“many paths to the same center”) is that it frees its adherents from having to be loyal to any one conception of divinity. I’m not a new age person, but I understand its appeal. Navigation towards “the sacred” by dead-reckoning allows a freedom that doctrinaire loyalty to one scripture will never permit.
One teacher (Osho?) said “I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in Godliness”.
The power of prayer lies in the person who is praying, not in the God who hears their prayers.
The more effectively I can pretend that there is a God to hear my prayers, the more absorbed in it I can become, and the more good it does for me.
In the west, the phrase “thou shalt have no other gods before me” encourages people to believe that you can have only one god, you should know his name, and you have to get rid of all the others. In Asia, which has never been polluted with this view, you can have all the gods you want, and the gods even pray to each other. Its okay not to know, and even the Gods are ignorant.
“Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.” (Rig Veda)
As I write this, I feel I’m meandering a bit. That may be because I’m trying to say something about both intellectual conviction and the ‘sense’ of faith. The former goes into words easily, and the latter does not. I can say that I am not consistent, and I reject the common atheist demand that one’s opinions not contradict each other. Einstein once said that “consistency is the bugaboo of small minds”. Jesus said “when giving alms, let not the right hand know what the left hand is doing”. That quote cuts to the heart of the point I’m trying to make here.
“When praying, let not the right hemisphere of the brain know what the left hemisphere is doing”.
In asking who I pray to, you are asking for a left-hemispheric description of a right-hemispheric process, and tacitly implying that I should not contradict myself.
I think humans did not evolve to know the truth. Rather, we evolved to hold beliefs and points of faith that facilitate and motivate adaptive behavior. In this way, faith in prayer is not in conflict with belief in Darwinian evolution.
I hope all this is clear. Of course, I don’t expect self-appointed protectors of truth to agree with me. Modern theology and science will both say I should have only one paradigm, and that my thoughts and my sense of things should be in agreement.
They are not, and that’s because I have a mind that reflects our evolutionary heritage. For the first couple of hundred thousand years of our existence, there were no scriptures that we had to agree with (lest we fall into heresy), and no science to try to dovetail with subjective experience.
Most scientists will accept that romantic love is a matter of brain activity (endorphins, etc), but that the way to find romantic fulfillment is to forget all that, and abandon one’s self to the experience.
That’s the way I feel about religion.
The “truth” has nothing to do with it.
I beg to differ…the truth has everything to do with it.
Quid est veritas? It is a very important question. Prayer is defined in the dictionary as a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.
So I repeat my question — are you familiar with transcendental meditation? I’m curious why you call what you do “prayer” when that clearly seems to be what you aren’t doing.
I’d like to offer you a free electronic copy of my book “Counterargument for God”, Professor Murphy. With all due respect, I believe you’re having difficulty seeing the forest for the trees, in other words what I call “The Big Picture.”
Neuroscience and scientific evidence related to that subject is but one aspect of the Big Picture. You say you don’t believe in God, but you like concept of the Great Spirit. It sounds to me like what you really mean is that you don’t believe in my God.
I personally don’t care if you call the force responsible for this universe and the origin of life God, the Great Spirit, Thor, or the flying spaghetti monster. In fact, I suggested in my book that you can call this entity the ambiguous term “supernatural intelligence.” The important point is that you realize the alternative to this entity is not Darwin, it’s literally nothing, or unbelievable good luck that frankly is inconceivable (and that word does mean what I think it means.)
Frankly, the truth has everything to do with it.
If you’ll accept the free electronic copy, let me know you’re preferred format (PDF, epub, or mobi) and I’ll send it to the email address my website has for you, unless you prefer an alternative.
Thanks for your comments. I do especially enjoy feedback from people that know exactly what I’m talking about.
No, I don’t do TM. I address words to a deity.
Mr. Deity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUFK0SrbaZs
Pam’s case is unique for two reasons. First, she had the experience at a time when she was fully instrumented under medical conditions and known to be clinically dead. Clinical death is the state in which vital signs have ceased: the heart is in ventricular fibrillation, there is a total lack of electrical activity on the cortex of the brain (flat EEG), and brain-stem is abolished (loss of the corneal reflex, fixed and dilated pupils, and loss of the gag reflex.) Second, she was able to recall verifiable facts about her surgery that she could not have known if she were not in some way conscious when these events were taking place. [emphasis added] (page 155)
“How can a person be conscious and clinically dead at the same time?”
Because she wasn’t. Those were two non-simultaneous conditions and you KNOW that.
John, I know you’ve been corrected on the Pam Reynolds story and you keep repeating the primary error (You’ve tagged Pam Reynolds, so I can see you’ve repeated this misinformation often). Her verdical reported experiences were NOT from when she was in the stand-still state. When she gets to that close to that state she describes going into the light and meeting “dead relatives”. None of that can be considered veridical by ANY criteria. Even is that DID happen, there is NO way to distinguish it from a hallucination. That tunnel vision is the biggest clue she was passing out. Also, she was in no position to distinguish where she was on the timeline so we do not know if she had that experience before, during or after. So we are left with her other descriptions. She describes the sawing of her head. The bone saw was used while she was under general anesthesia, so she was not in the flatline state. Her physical description of the saw is not remarkable. She felt a localized buzzing and it’s not unreasonable for her to imagine it as vaguely like a small handheld instrument. Same with the box that held the saw blades. Her descriptions are just vague enough that it could fit anything. Then there’s her description of the doctors saying her veins were too small for the blood bypass machine. That clearly indicates that she was not yet under the cooling conditions that brought about the standstill state. As to how she heard these conversations with the clicker in her ear, there is NO report of when that was actually started. They only needed it when she was being operated on, so it might not have even been running at that point. Also, we don’t know if it completely blocked her hearing. It was only designed to give a regular stimulus so her brain state could be monitored. In any case, it’s a very weak point on which to hang an argument., especially after the rest falls apart.
You claim to “know” I’ve been corrected about the details of the Pam Reynolds story before…and you’re merely repeating false information to buttress your argument, which won’t make it true.
The problem is that I actually listened to the interview with Dr. Spetzler as he described the surgery, and your claim that she was merely under general anesthesia is quite laughably untrue, as the video below demonstrates with actual testimony from eyewitnesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R654H_qOvA
The bone saw was not used until all the blood had been drained from her head. It couldn’t have been — otherwise, she’d have bled to death. There was zero metabolic activity, according to the monitors used. And if the monitors had been incorrect, Pam wouldn’t have survived the surgery.
Dr. Spetzler, Dr. Sabon, and Dr. Beauregard all have made videotaped statements that strongly suggest you’re wrong. They are experts. No offense, but I have no idea who you are.
People who have a vested interest in proving me wrong will continue to insist that my information about the Pam Reynolds case is misleading and wrong. Yet as the video above clearly shows, licensed doctors who have actually been involved in her case or examined the medical records from her surgery have offered a far different interpretation of the evidence than you.
From a medical and naturalist standpoint, her experience is completely inexplicable. To quote Dr. Spetzler: “I don’t know how it’s possible for it (her new memories to form) considering the physiological state that she’s in…” As her attending surgeon, he’d know her condition better than anybody, and certainly far better than speculation from someone who wasn’t in the room.
If you actually paid attention to my argument, it doesn’t hinge on the case of Pam Reynolds. There is also the examples of Colton Burpo and Michaela Roser, just to name a few. So this is not the case on which my argument hangs. It is one of many. And for your interpretation of the evidence to be true, all of them have to be based on lies.
To be crystal clear, there absolutely IS a way to determine whether the experience was real or a hallucination — the accuracy of the alleged new memory, the specific corroborated veridical NDE evidence Pam’s case allegedly offers.
For example, Colton Burpo was only four years old when he claimed to have met a baby sister in heaven who died of a miscarriage.
Michaela Roser was in surgery to repair a severe diffuse axonal injury when she claimed to hear a conversation between family members taking place in the hospital cafeteria.
You have to force yourself to believe a lot of people have concocted ridiculous stories with absurd claims; that they must be telling deliberate lies. You can’t give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are simply mistaken about a hallucination because of the nature of the information reported.
Eventually the psychology of the situation ought to come into play — what would cause so many people who suffer traumatic injuries to make ludicrous claims about “near death experiences”? What caused them to become habitual liars? And more importantly, what led credible physicians, nurses, family members, and friends to go along with the deliberate lie, pretending to “verify” information the sufferer claimed to learn while incapacitated. That seems to be the million-dollar question.
Conversely, your motive for attacking the credibility of my sources seems painfully obvious. You can’t afford for it to be true.
However, if you really had checked my previous writings about this phenomena
I see. Instead of responding and admitting you were wrong, you just delete my comment.
I’m tired of arguing about information that is public record, easily reviewed by anyone.
You disagree with my analysis of the Pam Reynolds case. I accept that you don’t believe the story is true. I just don’t care enough about convincing you that you’re wrong to continue the argument. I have things to write for (theoretical) profit.
John, whether I believe it or not is irrelevant. You presented as evidence a video and then made factual errors on what was reported in the video. Not to mention that the video skirts on dishonesty itself in how it presents its information.
// John, whether I believe it or not is irrelevant
I strongly disagree — the problem is known as “confirmation bias.” It seems my atheist friends assume that it only exists in theists, when they are often even more guilty of it than me.
For the very last time, I made NO factual errors in what I reported on the video.
Pam’s ears were plugged and eyes were taped shut, and she was heavily sedated prior to being wheeled into the OR for the surgery — that was according to the attending surgeon, Dr. Spetzler.
Unless your name is Spetzler, or you can prove you were in the room, I’m not going to give your opinion more weight than the guy who was actually there.
Now if you see something in the video that contradicts what I said, specifically state the time at which it occurred. Once I review the video and see the “contradiction” or error in reporting, I’ll publish a retraction, along with an apology specifically to you, and anyone else offended.
Until then, please stop wasting my time, and don’t expect to see your future comments published unless they specifically document the timestamp of when this egregious reporting error occurred.
That’s all I ask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R654H_qOvA
You might have watched but you did not pay attention.
That is not how brain surgery works. Because of the precarious position of her aneurism they had to use this special technique for her. Usually, brain surgery is performed with the patient awake! They do not drain the blood from the head to open the skull. There’s not that much blood between the skull and the membrane that holds the brain. Also, they only had an hour with her in that standstill state. They did not want to waste it on sawing her head open, since that can be done ahead of time. Her body temperature and heartbeat were normal at this time and she was on the respirator. At 4:40 in the video, he mentions what you are saying about the zero metabolic activity. He is talking about what WILL happen when she is in the standstill state. But then at 5:00, he goes into the preparation for the operation. (This is something you said that was false)
In the video, Pam Reynolds is on screen. Behind her there is a desk and a chair with a picture on the wall. As she gets to the line, “After that…nothing,” the background fades into a graphic of a heart monitor flat lining. This is to mislead the viewer into thinking she’s dead at this point. This is where you get the impression there was zero metabolic activity, not from anything anyone said. <
5:26 Pam: “I don’t remember an operating room. I don’t remember seeing Dr. Spetzler at all. I was with a fellow…one of his fellows was with me at that time. After that…nothing. Absolutely nothing…until the sound. (High pitched whirring) And the sound was unpleasant. It was guttural. It was reminiscent of being in a dentist’s office.”
The first part somewhat contradicts Dr. Sabom’s book.
“Pam had been awake when brought into the operating room at 7:15 that August morning in 1991. She remembers the IVs, “so many of them,” followed by a ‘loss of time’ as the intravenous penthathol worked its calming magic on her.”(in Light & Death)”
So, she was put under sedation and was unconscious until “the sound” of the drill woke her. She was familiar with a dentist’s drill and said this reminded her of one. The drill used in this procedure is nearly identical to a dentist’s drill. They use the drill to create holes in the skull so they can then use the bone saw (which is like a miniature reciprocating saw), just like you would do if you were cutting into drywall. So, her describing this instrument is not very impressive.
Pam continues: “And I distinctly remember hearing a female voice saying, ‘We have a problem. Her arteries are too small.’ [male doctor replying] ‘Try the other side.’…”
Meanwhile, they are again showing the flatline graphic behind her, misleading the viewer into thinking she’s already flatlined herself.
But they had not connected her to the blood bypass machine yet! They do not say there was no metabolic activity. They are still preparing her for the operation. No metabolic activity at this point would mean DOA! You are jumping ahead. This is a distortion or false fact.
Well, they are making statements, but the editing is misleading the viewer on what they are talking about.
Dr. Spetzler: “At that stage of the operation, nobody can observe, hear in that state. And I find it inconceivable that your normal senses, such as hearing, let alone the fact that she had clicking modules in her ears, that there was any way for her to hear those through normal auditory pathways.”
Again, they are showing the EEG flatline graphic, giving the viewer the false impression that he’s talking about the flatline state when he’s in fact talking about her being under general anesthesia. Remember, they still have not hooked her up to the blood bypass machine. He’s under the impression that she’s completely knocked out and does not realize she has awakened. Either he is unaware of anesthesia awareness or trying to avoid culpability by not admitting to it occurring here. Regardless, he’s NOT talking about the standstill state. Watch the video again. At 4:20, they mention and explain Operation Standstill. They then keep showing this flatline EEG graphic at inappropriate times leading a less observant viewer to associate the onscreen dialogue as referring to the standstill when they are actually talking about the preparation. So the doctors are talking about something else and the viewer is ASSUMING they are talking about her when she’s in the flatline state. It doesn’t help that Dr. Sabon is speculating like MAD. He’s jumping right to ESP or OBE.
She reported hearing this conversation. Humans have ears and can hear. We have established that she was awakened by the drill and saw and was now conscious. It’s not an unreasonable inference that she simply heard this conversation. No floating out of body consciousness required. What about the click in her ear? This is not designed to block all hearing. It’s just supposed to deliver a stimulus they can measure. The doctor assumes she can’t hear, but has he tried it himself? How many doctors do you think go into the operating theater and try out all the equipment on themselves? Plus, he’s assuming she’s knocked out. He’s not really reporting on what an awakened person might be able to hear with the earplugs in. Plus, she seems to indicate the conversation was happening simultaneously with the bone saw whirring. Could they have perhaps spoken louder? These are perfectly reasonable explanations.
Actually, the video clearly does NOT show what you think it does. The doctors’ statements are presented about as misleadingly as is possible. They are talking about her being under general anesthesia and the filmmaker keeps showing that flatline making it look like they are talking about her “deathstate”.
He did not say “new memories to form”. Here you are again presenting false information, like the Oprah video. He’s doesn’t ever comment on her “heaven” experience that supposedly happened during the standstill state. He is still talking about her remembering the pre-op conversations when she was presumably under anesthesia. You have to keep in mind how these things are shot and cut together. He’s not necessarily commenting on the narrative.
We’re not talking about them. We are talking about Pam Reynolds. “My interpretation” does not affect those other cases at all. Her case can be completely debunked
I said the part where she was with her dead relatives could not be verified so that it is NOT verdical. Verdical means that which can be verified, such as her hearing the doctors’ conversations. Her verdical experiences were from before and after the standstill state. She reports in another interview that it was almost immediately after Dr. Spetzler told Dr. Murray, the cardiothoracic surgeon, to try the other side that she saw the point of light and went into it. So in a seven hour operation her entire verdical experience was five to ten minutes and it was two hours before her standstill state. There was plenty of time after she went unconscious for her to dream her “heaven experience”. Seeing as none of us are privy to what happens “on the other side”, there is NO possible way to verify her “heaven” experience, even if it DID happen.
We are not talking about them. The experience they had is NOT evidence for Pam’s experience. My whole point it this: When science comes across a data point that turns out to be invalid, they discard it. They don’t trot it out for 20 years still claiming it as evidence. Her case is not what it is made out to be. Dr. Sabon doesn’t deliberately lie, but he does speculate rather recklessly and he allows the misperception of the conflation of events. Every article I’ve read about this keeps repeating the same mistakes. Your own article does this (http://www.examiner.com/article/operation-standstill-the-nde-of-pam-reynolds). They conflate her reports of conversations prior to the surgery with the brief period where she was in the flatline state. The filmmakers of this documentary are sneaky. They never actually do that, but they keep showing the flatline graphic making the viewer think that’s what they are talking about.
This is a red herring. We’re not talking about those cases or NDE/OBE in general. I’m not claiming this debunks all OBE/NDE. We are talking about Pam Reynolds and only Pam Reynolds. The only relevance to the other cases is this: If her case, which can be debunked so easily by using a little common sense and paying attention to the facts and not getting distracted by opinions and agendas, is presented at the most remarkable because it is so documented under strict observation, then what are they missing in those other cases? This is why this case needs repudiated. By stubbornly sticking to this case as valid, then I have to call into question the other cases.
I have merely presented the facts. The primary sources, such as the video and Dr. Sabon’s book, are misleading if one isn’t paying attention.
I did check them and in Pam’s case you have presented some outright factually incorrect information.
This is your text from the previously mentioned article.
Considering the conversation was about hooking up the blood bypass machine to begin with, she obviously wasn’t clinically dead yet. Watch the video again. He’s clearly talking about her not being able to hear normally because of the anesthesia not the standstill state.