http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
is anybody familiar with ian steveson's work on reincarnation?
i know many of you guys are much more fit to evaluate his work so i'd like to ask you guys. any thoughts on it?
scientific research on reincarnation
Moderator: Moderators
-
ollagram88
- Apprentice
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:33 am
- Location: nj
Post #2
ollagram88 wrote:http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
is anybody familiar with ian steveson's work on reincarnation?
i know many of you guys are much more fit to evaluate his work so i'd like to ask you guys. any thoughts on it?
My impression FWIW is that the man is sincere. However, even by his own admission his "evidence" is very far from being proof, and to his credit he says so:
Many of the glowing reports of his work are perhaps a little over enthusiastic by comparison.Essentially I say that the idea of reincarnation permits but doesn't compel belief. All the cases I've investigated so far have shortcomings. Even taken together, they do not offer anything like proof. But as the body of evidence accumulates, it's more likely that more and more people will see its relevance.
His qualifications seem to me to be insufficient for the type of research and conclusions that he is undertaking. He credentials in psychiatry may be fine, but he really needs some qualifications in genetics, for example, given that he attaches much importance to genetic traits such as birthmarks, deformities, missing limbs and so on.
It is significant that his work has only been published in relatively obscure journals that, like the man himself, have no expertise in science outside of psychiatry and mental disease.
Nonetheless, his work is interesting. If his work has any real significance, and his results can be duplicated by others seeking out and studying similar cases, then I am in no doubt whatsoever that he will become extremely famous, and his work will be accepted. Science is really great in that respect. Initially, Eintein's theories and the quantum mechanics that followed were not accepted by mainstream science, because they required a whole new way of thinking about things. Fortunately science is based on evidence rather than prejudice, and new ideas that can be independently demostrated by evidence and experiment will be accepted.
The bottom line is that if his work has merit, others with wider scientific knowledge will duplicate his results. When and if this happens, the significance of the conclusions will guarantee publication in the 'top" journals such as Science and Nature. When that happens, we will all know about it.
Post #3
Jesus was suposed to be the reincarnation of the Supreme Being into the form of a human male. His function was to sacrifice His life in fulfilment of the law of the blood sacrifice. Therefore it is no longer necessary to commit blood sacrifice. If you allow yourselves to be blood sacrificed then Jesus will loose value with you and His sacrifice will profit you nothing.
Reincarnation theory suggests that life goes through cycles. Therfore it would be wise to treat the children as if they will become you in time. The opposite is the permanance of heaven and hell theory. This suggests life in abundance compared with extinction after death. Both theories have common points, trying to guide us along a healthy path to avoid extinction.
Reincarnation theory suggests that life goes through cycles. Therfore it would be wise to treat the children as if they will become you in time. The opposite is the permanance of heaven and hell theory. This suggests life in abundance compared with extinction after death. Both theories have common points, trying to guide us along a healthy path to avoid extinction.
Post #4
There are a lot of hurdles he's going to need to jump to demonstrate that it's reasonable to believe in reincarnation. However, I am kind of interested in reading some of the different cases he has studied, as they aren't detailed on really any of them in the linked article.
What I find a little problematic is the ammount of cases that show a possibility of reincarnation compared to the most likely large ammount of cases where people show absolutely no signs pointing towards reincarnation.
Our understanding of evolution, neurobiology, etc. would be (in present form) wrong in some respects if we are to accept reincarnation. How do our memories transfer from one body to another? How does reincarnation work from an evolutionary standpoint? Assuming we evolved from other organisms, at what point did reincarnation start? I don't think it makes sense to say that it just always happened or it started suddenly; it seems like it would be a fairly involved and complex process needing of some sort of an explanation that doesn't make huge leaps up mount improbable. Dr Ian mentions that roughly 15 months seems to be the normal time period between someone being killed and then being reincarnated...where exactly are they hanging out during these 15 months? Say our species happens to suffer an extinction event in the near future...are people then queued up for reincarnation? Or if our species doesn't survive after the extinction event, do we start to inhabit other animals...how would that work?
Those are just some problems I can come up with after thinking about it for a few minutes. Instead of hunting for obsure cases, especially when they seem to be so few, he should probably be looking for the mechanism(s) that would even facilitate reincarnation in the first place.
What I find a little problematic is the ammount of cases that show a possibility of reincarnation compared to the most likely large ammount of cases where people show absolutely no signs pointing towards reincarnation.
Our understanding of evolution, neurobiology, etc. would be (in present form) wrong in some respects if we are to accept reincarnation. How do our memories transfer from one body to another? How does reincarnation work from an evolutionary standpoint? Assuming we evolved from other organisms, at what point did reincarnation start? I don't think it makes sense to say that it just always happened or it started suddenly; it seems like it would be a fairly involved and complex process needing of some sort of an explanation that doesn't make huge leaps up mount improbable. Dr Ian mentions that roughly 15 months seems to be the normal time period between someone being killed and then being reincarnated...where exactly are they hanging out during these 15 months? Say our species happens to suffer an extinction event in the near future...are people then queued up for reincarnation? Or if our species doesn't survive after the extinction event, do we start to inhabit other animals...how would that work?
Those are just some problems I can come up with after thinking about it for a few minutes. Instead of hunting for obsure cases, especially when they seem to be so few, he should probably be looking for the mechanism(s) that would even facilitate reincarnation in the first place.
Post #5
Reincarnation suggests that life travels in cycles through time. I know nobody knows where it comes or where it goes. If I were to decide, life cycles would make the most sence. Just like in string theory, if we go backwards in time we come to a common thread that evolved into us. Simular to membrane theory we're all enclosed in membranes, and like dementional theory we all have a different point of view. If we think there is a possibility that we could be born again then it would be wise to take care of the youngest of us, and make the world a better place for us in the future.
Post #6
I have read about this guy before, but I'm not clear as to why he claims he has evidence for reincarnation.
If the data from his studies is correct - and that in itself would need much further testing (other scientists would have to be able to repeat the studies and get a similar outcome) - then it only proves that some children know some details about a particular dead person's life.
There could be many ways a child could get information about a dead person's life. Even if we include 'supernatural' ways, it doesn't follow that reincarnation is the only answer.
I am not sure what would actually constitute proof of reincarnation, but it would probably have to describe - in scientific terms - what is being reincarnated and how.
Those who want to get an alternative view of Dr Ian Stevenson's work might like to read a sceptical review of his book.
If the data from his studies is correct - and that in itself would need much further testing (other scientists would have to be able to repeat the studies and get a similar outcome) - then it only proves that some children know some details about a particular dead person's life.
There could be many ways a child could get information about a dead person's life. Even if we include 'supernatural' ways, it doesn't follow that reincarnation is the only answer.
I am not sure what would actually constitute proof of reincarnation, but it would probably have to describe - in scientific terms - what is being reincarnated and how.
Those who want to get an alternative view of Dr Ian Stevenson's work might like to read a sceptical review of his book.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen Roberts)
Post #7
So let's assume that it happens. I don't think that it has to be 15 months after death. It may be right away in some cases and take years for others and may be never again for some. If we figure out how it happens then we can arrange to leave our inheritance to ourselves in the future. Say to the next and closest successful conception born at least 9 months after we die. What?! It could happen. And then a bunch of gold diggers would start trying to conceive.
