Oh, I wasn't.
My upbringing sounds very similar to your own. Understanding my parents' thinking better now, (in my more advanced years), helps me to understand more about the 'hows' and 'whys' of my introduction to religion. I have no intense regrets or misgivings about any of that nowadays. Its more like amusement, actually. There's no book on how to raise children .. although the local priest seemed to have everyone in my neighbourhood, (when I was a kid), thinking that there
absolutely was! He had a leaning towards the hell/fire/brimstone approach but he also managed to keep that pretty well under control.
This is the crux of my curiosity.
I'm not entirely sure how people make the leap from holding beliefs and then transitioning them into their physical reality. (Its a lifelong inquiry I have running there). IMO, at the moment, its pretty clear that emotional intensity accounts for the leap they make there.
You almost sound like a
@Mountainmike there .. as in:
'here are the books .. now go and read for yourself'.
I find that as being completely unsatisfying because I don't want know what those authors' opinions are .. the question is directed at the individual (in this case: yourself .. and in @MM's case: himself).
More callously, the individual just isn't that important for me to spend hours reading what they've read .. and for me to read into that, what they might have been thinking when they read the same material .. too many variables and too much scope for misinterpretations there, for me to get to the answers I'm pursuing via the inquiry.
Trolls can occasionally be fun .. but fanatics are definitely never fun.
The authors are scientists doing science, It’s why I want you to read them
- be it cardiologist Pim van lommel ( and many others ) on longtidunal studies of nde in cardiac arrests.
- or serafini cardiologist reviewing the scientific evidence ( and many others) on Eucharistic miracles.
Not liking their conclusions is no basis to discount them. Or even not to read them.
The point is - Dont take my word for it, Try to find holes in the arguments!
You will see it is the sceptics like woerlee and Blackmore who are using badly researched unsupportable pseudoscientific nonsense, which demonstrates they refuse to even study the cases . Any nonsense pseudoscience is good enough for skeptical inquirer,
So Just as woerlee refused to demonstrate his farcical nonsensical argument on how pam Reynolds” heard ”
it was frankly ridiculous , but also the best sceptics have ever come up with!! -
so also The shroud fake advocates ( including the daters) have refused £1m to demonstrate they can reproduce chemistry of the shroud, which they know they cannot, indeed the dater in chief , date result fiddler in chief , tite now admits it is chemistry of a real crucifixion victim.
It’s a shame he misled the entire world for 20 years first.
The only way you will find out this stuff is to read it and study it. Both sides of the argument.
Same as quantum physics, there is no shortcut to knowledge.
My introductory challenge on NDE , is study Pam reynolds and pim van lommels dentures man.
Try to explain them. You can’t.
then read the longitudinal studies that prove anoxia, length of unconsciousness, drugs, beliefs , gender , condition, even prior knowledge of nde , have no effect on the stats.
