Death398x239 Illustration by Thomas James

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

If consciousness is just the workings of neurons and synapses, how do we explain the phenomenon of near-death experience? By some accounts, about 3% of the U.S. population has had one: an out-of-body experience often characterized by remarkable visions and feelings of peace and joy, all while the physical body is close to death. To skeptics, there are more plausible, natural explanations, like oxygen deprivation. Is the prospect of an existence after death “real” and provable by science, or a construct of wishful thinking about our own mortality?

  • Alexander90px


    Dr. Eben Alexander

    Neurosurgeon & Author, Proof of Heaven

  • Moody90px


    Dr. Raymond Moody

    Psychologist, Medical Doctor & Author, Life After Life

  • Carroll90px


    Sean Carroll

    Physicist & Writer

  • Novella90px


    Dr. Steven Novella

    Academic Neurologist, Yale School of Medicine

    • Moderator Image


      John Donvan

      Author & Correspondent for ABC News

See Results See Full Debate Video Purchase DVD

Read Transcript

Listen to the edited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Listen to the unedited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to the Podcast

For The Motion

Dr. Eben Alexander

Neurosurgeon & Author, Proof of Heaven

Eben Alexander, M.D., is a renowned academic neurosurgeon. A transcendental near-death experience (NDE) during a week-long coma from an inexplicable brain infection completely changed his understanding of how the brain worked. He has spent the years since his NDE reconciling his rich spiritual experience with contemporary physics and cosmology. His book about the experience, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife (2012), has spent more than a year atop the New York Times non-fiction bestseller list and is contracted for publication in over forty countries. Alexander has taught at Harvard Medical School, and has authored or co-authored over 150 chapters and papers in peer-reviewed academic journals. A pioneering scientist and thought leader in consciousness studies, he has been a guest on Dr. Oz, Oprah, and many other national and international media programs.

Learn more


For The Motion

Dr. Raymond Moody

Psychologist, Medical Doctor & Author, Life After Life

Raymond A. Moody, Jr., M.D., PH.D., is a psychologist and medical doctor. He is the best-selling and award-winning author of twelve books, including Life After Life (1975) in which he coined the term “near-death experience” (NDE), as well as numerous articles in academic and professional literature. His research into the phenomenon of NDE had its start in the 1960s, and the New York Times has since hailed him as "the father of the near-death experience." In the three decades since receiving his M.D., a PH.D. in philosophy, and a Ph.D. in psychology, he has lectured for audiences all over the world and has appeared on hundreds of television and radio programs. In addition, he trains hospice workers, clergy, psychologists, nurses, doctors, and other medical professionals on matters of grief recovery and dying.

Learn more


Against The Motion

Sean Carroll

Physicist & Writer

Sean Carroll is a physicist and author. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1993, and is now on the faculty at the California Institute of Technology. His research focuses on fundamental physics and cosmology, especially issues of dark matter, dark energy, and the origin of the universe. Carroll is the author of The Particle at the End of the Universe (2012), From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time (2010), and Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity (2003). He has written for Scientific American, New Scientist, and The Wall Street Journal. He frequently consults for film and television, and has been featured on television shows such as The Colbert Report, PBS's Nova, and Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman.

Learn more


Against The Motion

Dr. Steven Novella

Academic Neurologist, Yale School of Medicine

Steven Novella, M.D., is an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine. He is the founder and current executive editor of Science-Based Medicine, as well as the president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society. Novella is also the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, and the author of NeuroLogicaBlog, a daily blog that covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, the philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society.

Learn more

Declared Winner: Against The Motion

Online Voting

About This Event

Event Photos

PrevNext Arrows
    PrevNext Arrows


    • Comment Link Shirley Ryan Thursday, 08 May 2014 12:29 posted by Shirley Ryan

      Debating publicly is a very difficult thing to do, I concede that it is challenging. However, I was somewhat disappointed in the group's debate from both sides. The "pro" side, with whom I have the utmost respect, targeted the debate from their singular perspective of NDE, rather then working with the topic from many angles, and a more global perspective. There are many different routes to the afterlife, and tied together, more compelling arguments. I did my dissertation on consciousness, the "routes to the slip stream of consciousness" aka, the afterlife, which I am turning into a book. On the "con" side, their main thrust was that no one has proven that the Afterlife exists to their satisfaction. I believe they really "want" to believe. The tired examples they offered, was a perfect segue into challenges that were never met. (I agree, hard to think on your feet, not my strength either) Unfortunately, the pro side, while Dr. Moody alluded to it, didn't provide topics outside the paranormal box that would tie up the topic. Eg. Studies show through EEG's and other tests that consciousness resides outside the brain. Look for my book, Bridges to the Afterlife coming soon. Shirley Ryan, PhD, CCHt

    • Comment Link Shirley Moulton Thursday, 08 May 2014 12:25 posted by Shirley Moulton

      Attended the debate last night... good one. I stay open and believe that anything is possible in this mysterious and 'unknowing' life. The more I know the less I know. We really don't even know how we got the world began, so how can we say there is no life after death. All things are possible!

    • Comment Link Justin Thursday, 08 May 2014 12:23 posted by Justin

      Eben is willfully deceptive on the Carl Sagan quote and misquotes that passage. Here is the passage that immediately follows his suggestion that past life experiences might be possible (which right in the passage he says might only be possibly true.

      "I pick these claims not because I think they are likely to be valid (I don't), but examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least, some, although still dubious, experimental support."

      Its clear Eben has a bias to see what he wants to see and will accept spurious data to support his very natural wish to have an after life.

      Eben refers books as scientific evidence last time I checked books are not peer reviewed.

    • Comment Link August Goforth Thursday, 08 May 2014 11:55 posted by August Goforth

      Why make the transition of life into a debate, or a problem? Wait and see; maybe expect to be surprised. Live now as you can, and you will live now, always.
      August Goforth & Tim Gray, authors, "The Risen: Dialogues of Love, Grief & Survival Beyond Death"

    • Comment Link Dee Thursday, 08 May 2014 11:55 posted by Dee

      I had a NDE or whatever you care to call it. A doctor witnessed it. For years I could not bring up the subject. It scared many. I though it would be a comfort for others but not so.

      The for and against debate was nothing more than a nasty attempt to discredit comments made by the "for" side. Those's stuck in a small square with limiting beliefs also limit their quality of life.

    • Comment Link The Barking Unicorn Thursday, 08 May 2014 11:21 posted by The Barking Unicorn

      "Is there life after death?" is an unfortunate question to debate. Neither side can prove its position. Anyone who is convinced by either side is swayed by mere opinion.

      "Is it beneficial to believe there is life after death?" would be a more useful question.

    • Comment Link Sue Fox Thursday, 08 May 2014 10:31 posted by Sue Fox

      I have real difficulty in understanding why people don't believe in this. I recommend you go and find - "seek and ye shall find"

    • Comment Link Peter Thursday, 08 May 2014 08:27 posted by Peter

      I attended the debate last night and it was enjoyable. As a psychiatrist (in NYC to attend the American Psychiatric Association convention) but also having experienced an NDE 12 years ago and read widely on this topic and spoken to patients with NDE like experiences - it is a topic that fascinates me.

      The awareness in my NDE was the same as right now - if not more clear - in stark contrast to the awareness in a brief hallucinatory phase and then confusional phase as I was recovering from the concussion and "loss of consciousness" (whilst to me there was no loss of my awareness/consciousness - I was just somewhere else - initially in a dark void and then in a tunnel moving at vast acceleration with what looked like stars whizzing by outside the translucent tunnel wall and I was accompanied by a loving protective guide - both of us had spirit like "bodies" that were far from the "blobs" that Dr Carroll jokingly referred to them as).

      This was my subjective experience, it was of a completely different quality of conscious being-ness to having a dream.

      I felt that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella were tactically far better debaters than Dr Alexander and Dr Moody. Dr Alexander and Dr Moody would have benefited in a much longer forum to fully expand their argument. Dr Moody's focus on philosophy was eloquent but I think went over the heads of many in the audience.

      Yet Dr Moody is correct that the materialist "scientific" position that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella so skilfully defended - breaks down in the realm of philosophical reasoning. The question/comment I wanted to ask was - MATERIALISM WITH ITS INHERENT EPI-PHENOMENALISM IS ACTUALLY MORE "SUPERNATURAL" THAN BELIEF IN AN ONTOLOGICAL REALITY TO CONSCIOUSNESS THAT IMPLIES EXISTENCE OF A "SOUL". The "Soul" perspective does not need an inexplicable gap as to how consciousness arises from non-conscious matter such as subatomic particles, atoms, cells and neural tissue.

      The trouble with the "naturalism" that Dr Carroll and Dr Novella were promoting as scientific is it requires this super-natural gap and leap of faith to say your sense of being you (awareness and intentionality/free-will) arises from total non-aware matter by some kind of magical means. This is obscured to many who don't know their philosophy of mind by calling the essential part of you and i an "epiphenomenon". Dr Moody and Dr Alexander don't need you to believe in this super-natural philosophical leap of faith.

      Dr Alexander pointed out there is much research in science and philosophical discourse to support their position on this issue and I felt Dr Novella and Dr Carroll were overly quick (but clever from a tactical perspective) to shut this part of the debate down.

      There is a book written on this by a group of scientists called "The Soul Hypothesis". Essentially they argue cogently that the materialism put forth by Drs Carroll and Novella is dead.

    • Comment Link Thursday, 08 May 2014 07:32 posted by

      I could believe that consciousness is separate from the brain because it is plausible that the consciousness is experiencing a real phenomena but when the brain interprets it after coming back after an NDE into this reality it seems cultural. So to say that there is only one real world as the debaters for the against the motion believe has not been proven scientifically.

    • Comment Link anna Thursday, 08 May 2014 04:50 posted by anna

      to colin kline,
      to the proposition,
      death is not final,
      where exists any fact based evidence to support this claim.
      where is the evidence that it is final.
      those of us who have experienced it ,
      can never convince those who havnt.

    • Comment Link Chris foote Thursday, 08 May 2014 03:44 posted by Chris foote

      Death being final sucks. IWhen you see how strongly people want to survive, it makes me wonder if so many people really believe in an afterlife. That being said, I think there will be a natural bias in people because they want there to be something after. It would be nice but there is no evidence for it. Its probably the oldest fairytale told because death of a loved one or one's self sucks so very very much.

    • Comment Link Kevin Williams Thursday, 08 May 2014 02:48 posted by Kevin Williams

      The list of evidence supporting the survival of consciousness after death is long and you can read some of the evidence here:

      ++ Scientific evidence suggestive of an afterlife:

      ++ Evidence from quantum theory supporting the survival of consciousness after death:

      ++ Evidence of an afterlife from near-death research:
      Near-death experiences (NDEs) offer the best scientific evidence suggestive of an afterlife. But skeptics and materialists like to dismiss NDEs as being caused by brain anomalies – even though it doesn’t matter WHAT mechanism causes NDEs when determining whether NDEs are real afterlife experiences or not. Nevertheless, brain anomalies have already been ruled out (see A.) Also, the materialists’ so-called “CAUSES of NDEs” are actually only the SIDE-EFFECTS of having an NDE.

      And if NDEs are nothing more than a final hallucination before total oblivion (as claimed by materialists), then they need to examine ALL the evidence such as:

      (1) Studies that show NDE experiencers can have verified out-of-body perceptions where they see and hear very detailed events and conversations sometimes hundreds of miles away. Read: and Google:“veridical”+”near-death”

      (2) A study shows that people born blind (or color blind) can see correctly for the first time in their lives during a NDE. Read Vicki Umipeg’s NDE at:

      (3) One study shows that memories of NDEs are more real than normal memories. Read:

      (4) A study by Dr. Jeffrey Long shows that the level of conscious alertness during NDEs are usually greater than that experienced in everyday life – even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. Read Dr. Jeffrey Long’s “Nine Lines of Evidence” here:

      (5) A vast number of NDEs occur while the NDE experiencer is under general anesthesia – at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. Read:

      (6) The NDE “life review” provides the NDE experiencer with a perfect playback of real events which previously occurred in their lives – even if the events were forgotten or happened before they were old enough to remember. Read Dr. Jeffrey Long’s “Nine Lines of Evidence” here:

      (7) NDE experiencers bring back important scientific discoveries. Read this press release: and

      (8) NDE experiencers report seeing visions of the future which actually occur as foretold. Read:

      (9) Studies show that children’s NDEs, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. Read:

      (10) Studies have shown that NDEs are remarkably consistent around the world and across many different religions and cultures. Read: and and

      (11) Studies have shown that NDE experiencers encounter people who are virtually always deceased and are usually relatives of the NDE experiencer including relatives who died before the experiencer was even born. Read Dr. Jeffrey Long’s “Nine Lines of Evidence” here:

      (12) Studies also show it is common for NDE experiencers to have powerful, life-enhancing, and long-lasting major life changes and aftereffects after having an NDE. Read:

      (13) Studies show that NDE experiencers themselves are practically universal in their understanding that their NDE was a real afterlife experience. Read:

      (14) Studies have shown that NDEs are drastically different from hallucinations. Read: and

      (15) NDEs have been documented throughout history including ancient times. Read: and

      (16) Dr. Norma Bowe described a patient who successfully read a 12-digit number while out of their body:

      (17) Other research related to veridical (verified) perception exists, such as:

      A. Veridical out-of-body experiences – Read:

      B. Veridical deathbed visions – Read:

      C. Veridical dreams – Read:

      D. Veridical after-death communications – Read:

      E. Veridical remote viewing – Read:

      F. Shared death experiences – Read:

      Too many skeptics and physicalists who draw materialistic conclusions about NDEs have simply not done their homework. Skeptics also claim that all anecdotal evidence is unscientific which is not true. Science uses anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence every day in the field of evidence-based medicine. More about this can be read here:

      Kevin Williams

    • Comment Link Bob Askew Thursday, 08 May 2014 00:47 posted by Bob Askew

      One can argue veracity in regards to both propositions. The truth is still beyond us. However the materialistic view (which is also our intuitive perception) seems to be gradually loosing ground to science based arguments for the primacy of consciousness.
      Tom Campbell gives the best advice which is "one needs to be both open-minded AND skeptical"
      In this case both arguments are plausible but none can be confirmed as the truth (yet!).
      Maybe the emergence of artificial intelligence will help provide some answers (or soon to be released) AWARE study results of Sam Parnia.

    • Comment Link Bill Thursday, 08 May 2014 00:25 posted by Bill

      In the same way that you can't run your favorite applications and pursue your unique data on a computer whose hardware has been fatally damaged, you can't remember, think and emote in the unique character of "you" without your intact brain. After I die, my tongue will not go on tasting, nor my stomach go on digesting, nor my kidneys go on filtering, nor will my penis go on procreating in some ethereal realm. Your brain is no different. The study of damaged brains have demonstrated that when you damage/modify brain structures and chemistry in specific ways, you modify the behaviors, feelings, character and the subjective experience of the individual. Restoration, when possible, restores the changes to the original state. Whe the brain dies, we return to the oblivion we were in prior to bring born. As Mark Twain said "I don't fear death, I had been dead for millions of years before I was born and it never caused me the slightest inconvenience." See you all on the other side...NOT.

    • Comment Link John Lambert Thursday, 08 May 2014 00:11 posted by John Lambert

      I am interested in the debate and want so badly to believe. But I know better than to run off with the charlatans who would channel my grief into their collection plates.

    • Comment Link Jay Tyson Wednesday, 07 May 2014 23:45 posted by Jay Tyson

      Maybe a person is like a computer after all. When the hard drive goes, everything is lost, right?....except on my computer, since, in addition to recording everything on the hard drive, I automatically have a back-up copy made. I do this because I know that sooner or later, the hard drive will fail.

      When do I do this? Every nighttime, while I'm sleeping.

      Where is this other copy stored? In "the cloud" of course.

      Sounds familiar?

    • Comment Link Jered Schaugaard Wednesday, 07 May 2014 22:32 posted by Jered Schaugaard

      Interesting. Some will call this an ad hominem; however, perspective, in this case, seems relevant.

      Sam Harris does a great job of intelligently laying out the facts here:

    • Comment Link steve Wednesday, 07 May 2014 22:14 posted by steve

      Sorry skeptical trolls. You are dead wrong. Used to be blind like you until started researching myself. Consciousness is separate from the brain like a radio does not produce radio waves. Anyone who would like to discuss further, you can find use on FB at MIA paranormal.

    • Comment Link Roger Shuffield Wednesday, 07 May 2014 21:39 posted by Roger Shuffield

      Why aren't we studying the Pineal? I have a sneaking suspicion it has more to do with all this than anyone can imagine. Yet, no one seems to be able to crack that nut. I think it has been made taboo through time to even consider its mystical/alchemical/extrasensory properties. I think it is linked to extra-dimensional realms.

    • Comment Link william Wednesday, 07 May 2014 21:18 posted by william


      moody should have sit at the table of the skeptics. he tried to come off as a great philospher. phd intellectualism thing.

      eben's only strong points was his summation.

      determining the winner was joke. skewed research to the nth degree.

    Leave a comment

    Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.