Eorl wrote:These are all claims, not evidence per se.
Merely the fact that each of these would contain claims that would be scoffed at by some or all of the others, renders each of them unreliable.
The fact that they have one aspect in common no more proves the existence of a soul, than the fact that many religions believe in more than one god proves that there are any gods at all.
They are claims based on internal experiences. They are not objective evidence. That is the difficulty with knowledge based on subjective experiences. If, for example, someone claims that they are feeling angry, or in love, or bored, we are forced to take their word for it because there is no way to objectively verify (aside from observing possibly misleading behavioral cues). However, there are a few ways in which to seek supportive evidence of subjective experience:
1) Can the experiences be replicated in others? Are they reproducible or fleeting?
2) Are the descriptions internally consistent, and not in contradiction with what we know about the world?
3) Do the descriptions help explain phenomena that are otherwise mysterious? Is there an alternative explanation that has more credibility?
The alternative to considering subjective, intuitive knowing is to restrict all understanding to objective knowledge. The question posed in this thread was about the nature of the soul. I don't know of any way to approach this question except through the experiences of myself and others.
These reference were chosen so that they would not "contain claims that would be scoffed at by some or all of the others". For the most part, the view of these authors are in agreement. There may be some differences in detail or emphasis, but the world-view described are basically the same. There exists non-physical planes in which the soul resides before and after death. These planes can be experienced with sufficiently developed psychic capability, or through a near-death experience in which consciousness temporarily dissociates from the physical body. I have read these books and I don't recall any substantial disagreements.
Since the soul is consciousness itself, it cannot be proved with objective means. Consciousness is awareness, knowing. It is not what is known. It can, however, know itself. That is the experience of self-transcendence, pure consciousness, or Presence.
