Another point here: If I could manipulate someone's brain into feeling like their hand was cut off, that would not mean that nobody ever lost a hand. It doesn't mean that people do go out of body either, just that it is not conclusive evidence either way.

Like the discussion so far.

I think it'd be great to continue this thread, just to educate others about neuroscience and psychology. The two are pretty obscure and fresh (not to mention new) areas of science, so I wouldn't be surprised if people had a lot more questions, but didn't want to ask.

It wasn't a manic response, but it was very much his conscious brain's attempt at 'grasping at strings'. Which sort of falls into the definition of hysteria?

Or he could have died and came back.

One of the great things about believing in a god and afterlife is that you don't have to prove ... anything, really. It doesn't mean it's not real or true, it's just not proveable.

I can understand man's desire to rationalize everything, and it's entirely possible that his frontal lobe-whatever did fritz out, but don't discount everything because you MIGHT have a rational explanation.

(I get the concept of Occam's Razor, but it's not always true. Sometimes the wierd, off-the-wall explanation is the right one.)

The problem with the belief you're describing (the belief that he was resurrected, not the spiritual belief you described) is that it has no raison d'être. There is no necessity for a superstitious explanation in this case. It's analogous to believing that the moon is held in orbit by an invisible giant hand. Sure, that belief has no real burden of proof. It's not proveable one way or the other. It is, however, completely unnecessary. We already have gravity to explain that, and gravity is very well documented and totally reliable. But the effects of interference with the parietal lobe are also well documented and totally reliable.

I understand what you're saying, and it makes perfect sense. If I were not religious, I might share that same opinion, but I do believe in an afterlife. I do think there is a heaven and hell, so it's not difficult for me to think that someone might have went there, and came back.

Shrug. I understand and freely admit that my ideas are probably not in-sync with logic, and as such, not the opinion of many people here. I'm also not saying I'm right and you're wrong (that's the problem with so many religious people out there -- they seem intent on forcing what they believe on others). I'm only saying that I will not toss out his assertion just because it's not the most logical.

Faith is not proveable one way or another. It makes no difference to those that have it.

As do the non-religious, to a very great extent, ComicsFan. Their religion (or, ozymoronically, areligion) is slashed around with great enthusiasm, and becomes quite tiring after a while. Maybe as many wars have been fought over the question of how we got here as have been fought over land, taxation, racial subjugation and other reasons - makes little sense, if any.

Nor to those that don't.

Completely agree with you. It would be a much better world for both the religious and athiest, if they would simply, as my grandmother used to say, let be.

Occam's razor applies to scientific models, not life. In real life entities do multiply needlessly, and most seem to take a great deal of joy in the process. Given that there was nobody setting up teh accident to trigger certian portions of his bran, if we were going to really be scientific about it, the next question would be what are the odds of those sections being triggered randomly in an accident.
But the fact is this isn't a scientific expiriment, it is a non-replicatable event, and sometimes perception can be more real than science from a humanocentric perspective.

Consider this however - if everyone believes in your 'weird theory', perceptions would shift. Suddenly the weird is sane, and it is considered simple since everyone understands it (it effectively, shapes understanding). And because of that, it falls under Occam's Razor.

So in other words, it applies to principles, which are used to understand and sort out chaos?

So it kinda... y'know. Does apply, I guess? xD

The only reason they don't though, is because *some* members of either side feels threatened in some way. And others get involved to referee and fail their diplomacy checks and then another heated debate gets started and people get angry all over again. Social entropy is another thing that can be explained with psychology.