Proponents of the existence of souls and an afterlife like to claim that their ideas are supported, in part, by an absence of scientific explanations for near-death experiences. Is it really the case, though, that there are no natural explanations for these experiences and, if so, that an absence of any natural explanations right now mean that supernatural explanations are made more reasonable, plausible, or credible?
The truth is that there are lots of potential causes of these experiences, all of them natural. Before people start insisting on supernatural causes they should eliminate the natural options first. Moreover, the absence of a natural explanation right now doesn't suddenly validate supernatural beliefs.
Life & Death: