Ian Stevenson and his studies on reincarnation.

[George-ananda]

No, I think that people who are interested in these subjects are often gullible and buy crap sold by people intent on exploiting that interest.

Then I take it that you are not at all familiar with the subject of this OP: Dr. Ian Stevenson as I'm sure a reasonable person would not take such a harsh position on this particular individual.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

“When push comes to shove, reincarnation just seems logically contradictory to me.”

I have no problem with this.

“We simply do not show anything close to evidence of having so much inheritance from previous generations.”

The OP is asking “do you think the studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson are credible in their suggestion/evidence for reincarnation? Why or why not?”

Your response is clearly that you do not think it credible. No problem there.

“Far as anyone can honestly tell,…”

Are you implying that those who DO accept Stevenson’s work, as well as the other beliefs in reincarnation/transmigration/etc., are being dishonest? Because they accept evidence that you don’t accept?

“… except _perhaps_ for very freaky occurrences,”

How would we know whether or not any reported occurrences are “freaky” or not, if we do not carefully collect the information and analyze it? Are you saying that the cases that Stevenson and others have collected are just “very freaky occurrences?” On what basis? Unless data is collected and analyzed, we have no real way to know whether or not it is “normal” or “freaky,” and certainly no basis to decide whether or not it is real. How, in fact, can you distinguish between coincidence and a rare real occurrence (this is a problem of science and the use of statistics, btw) without actually collecting data and analyzing it in a deliberate manner?

“… death is indeed final for memories and personalities -…”

You are quite within your rights to believe this, but it’s hardly a “fact.”

Let’s see…when bodies really die (that is, the individuals are not resuscitated), the people that they were can no longer use the body to communicate with others—therefore we lack evidence to know whether or not memories or personalities continue in some form. While it is not an unreasonable assumption to say that memory, personality, etc., does not continue, the lack of communication from dead bodies is evidence not that we don’t continue, but that we don’t, and can’t, know what actually happens to memory, personality, etc. following body death—the normal method of communication is terminated.

Now then, what kind of evidence could there possibly be to suggest that memory, personality, etc., continues on after death? I see three possibilities: 1) reports from people who experience death but are resuscitated, 2) communication from the dead in such a way that their continued existence can be verified, and 3) reports of past-life memories.

These kinds of reports exist—the questions are: are they valid and reliable reports; can they be explained in no other way except continuation of memory, personality, etc? In answer: first, the validity and reliability of such reports can be questioned, because there has to date been no systematic effort to collect and analyze such reports—Stevenson’s work is perhaps the closest to being so, but amounts to no more than the creation of a “natural history” of such claims. What’s more, none of the three (at least as far as I can see) can be validated by impartial observers using experimental methods. Second, can the reports be explained in other ways? Certainly—but the only conceivable way to answer which explanation might be correct is to carefully collect and analyze the relevant data. Again, this has not yet been done.

“…and that is probably for the best as well, since our world would be even more troubled and adverse to social change otherwise. It would certainly be much different.”

Huh??? I’m sorry, but for me this is a leap of reasoning that I just can’t follow. Can you explain, please, how “our world would be even more troubled and adverse to social change?” How so would it be much different?

The people who believe in reincarnation/transmigration/etc. are saying that THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, therefore if it is true, then the world is exactly the way it is because of reincarnation. You seem to be saying that it isn’t true, but if it were, it would greatly change things. How so?

“Those are fairly obvious facts,…”

I don’t agree: those are not “facts.” Those are your beliefs, what you believe to be facts.

“… and taking them into consideration, I just can't figure out why anyone would claim that reincarnation exists,…”

That you believe your assertions above to be facts, and that use them as such in your reasoning is certainly okay with me. But if you understand that not everyone else believes your assumptions, then it should be quite easy to understand that some people might believe in reincarnation/transmigration/whatever you want to call it. You might not agree with them, but some people believe because of personal experience, some because of the reported experiences of others, still others because it is a part of religious culture they were raised in or adopted, and there may be many other reasons.

“… other than as a supernatural occurrence of some sort. A very rare occurrence.”

Clearly, in some belief systems, reincarnation/transmigration/whatever is not advanced as “supernatural,” but rather as a natural part of existence. Whether or not something is natural or supernatural depends in large part on how you define such terms, and your definition is not necessarily shared by everyone else. It appears here that you are equating “supernatural” with “very rare,” which I do not think is a valid equation. The decay of the Higgs Boson in the LHC is a very rare event, but it is hardly “supernatural” in most accepted definitions of the term.

“And then there is the even more important fact that reincarnation is an unhealthy belief. You should take a look at how utterly it ruined the moral core of the Kardecists sometime.”

Again, I do not agree with your belief that belief in reincarnation is unhealthy. That is a personal judgment. And, it seems that you are implying that hundreds of millions of followers of Hinduism, Buddhism and a number of other religious faiths that accept reincarnation/transmigration/whatever are inherently unhealthy because of this belief. Even if your assertion about the Kardecists is valid, generalizing that it is unhealthy to the beliefs and belief systems of millions of others is logically unwarranted. And I’m sure there are some Kardecists—among others—who might disagree with your assessment of the moral standing of their beliefs.

 

[Falvlun]

I really really want reincarnation to be true.

But my biggest block to believing that it is is the fact that most people, and most importantly I, do not have any recollection of a previous existence.

 

[YmirGF]

I really really want reincarnation to be true.

But my biggest block to believing that it is is the fact that most people, and most importantly I, do not have any recollection of a previous existence.

Though I am an ardent supporter of a non-standard variation of reincarnation, even I cannot tell people how belief in reincarnation will help anyone, in any meaningful way. I guess the only proviso is that this life is just one act of a very long play. Even that's not accurate from my perspective though. It's more like this life is one TV channel playing out along side a billion other TV channels. To roast your chestnuts, it's not even the "you" you know yourself to be in all those billion channels, though the essence of what you are is indeed the main actor.

In regards to the OP, I'm not really interested in people who perpetuate the standard reincarnation mythology. All too often they rely on erroneous timeline assumptions of past and present. It's a pretty limited perspective that will reveal equally limited results.

 

[Falvlun]

I've never heard of Dr. Ian Stevenson, so I read the Wiki on him. This seemed a good summation:

Stevenson described as the leit motif of his career his interest in why one person would develop one disease, and another something different.[14] He came to believe that neither environment nor heredity could account for certain phobias, illnesses and special abilities, and that some form of personality or memory transfer might provide a third type of explanation. He was never able to suggest how personality traits might survive physical death, much less be carried from one body to another, and was careful not to commit himself fully to the position that reincarnation occurs.[16] He argued only that his case studies could not, in his view, be explained by environment or heredity, and that "reincarnation is the best – even though not the only – explanation for the stronger cases we have investigated."

This would suggest that, although his work centered on reincarnation, the central concept was that there is unexplained phenomenon, and that reincarnation is just one possible explanation. I don't have any beef with that.

I read through the cases, and it sounds like there were many legitimate concerns about his scientific methods, namely, confirmation bias (not only his own, but those of the family), lack of rigor in confirming claims, and lack of understanding of various cultures.

 

[johnhanks]

I really really want reincarnation to be true.

But my biggest block to believing that it is is the fact that most people, and most importantly I, do not have any recollection of a previous existence.

Yes. If reincarnation were true, it would make sense only if some trace of previous experience were to survive from life to life: otherwise, if every individual develops a brand new personality during infancy with no shred of previous experience showing through, this is for all practical purposes the same as no reincarnation at all.

There is a problem too with populations sizes. It's reckoned that two hundred years ago there were about 1 billion people in the world. Do those who believe in reincarnation hold that those billion people are currently living reincarnated lives today? If so, where have the other 6 billion personalities in the world come from?

 

[StarryNightshade]

There is a problem too with populations sizes. It's reckoned that two hundred years ago there were about 1 billion people in the world. Do those who believe in reincarnation hold that those billion people are currently living reincarnated lives today? If so, where have the other 6 billion personalities in the world come from?

Animals being reborn into ''higher'' beings (people) and new souls coming into existence are an explanation I've heard. Personally, even though I practice Hinduism, I more believe in Rebirth rather than strict Reincarnation, but I guess that's all semantics.

 

[George-ananda]

I really really want reincarnation to be true.

But my biggest block to believing that it is is the fact that most people, and most importantly I, do not have any recollection of a previous existence.

Some of the things I’ve learned is that memory exists at multiple levels.

In my dream state I know I have memory of different dream experiences even from previous nights but in my waking state I seem to have no ability to access those memories.

In my waking state I have memory of only things that happened in my waking state during this physical lifetime.

I also believe that at my Self/Higher Self/Soul/Causal Body level I have memory of all my physical incarnations. We naturally experience this between lifetimes.

However, all our past incarnations contribute to the learning/advancement of our soul which influences us greatly in this lifetime. Some people will be more naturally inclined to higher spiritual impulses than others (some people use terms like old soul/new soul).

Now, I and others (Stevenson) have noticed that cases of knowledge of specific details from previous incarnations seems to exclusively happen in cases where the previous lifetime ended in a sudden tragic event while the person was still in the youth or prime of life and the new incarnation happens very quickly after (kind of like the echos haven’t cleared yet). The echo memories are strongest while the new incarnation is young and fade gradually as the incarnation ages and new life events press hard. In normal cases the previous existence’s experiences are settled and made peace with during the between life state and the echoes damped away.

 

[George-ananda]

There is a problem too with populations sizes. It's reckoned that two hundred years ago there were about 1 billion people in the world. Do those who believe in reincarnation hold that those billion people are currently living reincarnated lives today? If so, where have the other 6 billion personalities in the world come from?

The issue with the above thinking is that it assumes a closed and fixed number of souls in the human reincarnation system. But think about it; at one point in time there was probably just a handful of early humans; and before that, no humans. There are essentially an infinite number of souls in the universe. Only a tiny, tiny sliver can ever incarnate as a human. An increasing human population allows more souls to have the human physical experience; and shorter periods between them if desired.

 

[Shermana]

This is definitely not beating a dead horse (another thread about how unreasonable some fundamentalist biblical belief is, would be beating a dead horse on RF).

I am one who is quite acquainted with the reincarnational work of Dr. Stevenson. I read his book, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, and its quite exhaustive analysis of each case and the entire phenomena in general. One thing I think anyone who seriously reads his work and spends time thinking about it will conclude that no simple explanation will suffice. No standardly accepted ‘scientific’ explanation is satisfactory.

The ‘skeptic’ community will claim dismissal of this and all paranormal-like phenomenon but you must press your nose close to the window to see if their criticisms in this particular case are significant and valid. In fact, Carl Sagan, known as a rather skeptical type, listed Dr. Stevenson’s work specifically as a field worthy of further attention. That’s actually quite a compliment from a ‘skeptic’.

The amount of detail and follow-up Dr. Stevenson puts into his cases is incredible and anyone who would just dismiss it quickly is showing his prejudice on the subject.

I, as a follower of many great eastern/Hindu spiritual teachers, accept reincarnation as a mechanism that is part and parcel of the universe; a cycle of birth/death we work to liberate ourselves from.

I totally believe there's some validity to the research, and I wouldn't take any of the skeptic's naysaying for a second if they aren't able to give a solid, detailed rebuttal to the evidence. Scoffers gonna scoff.

 

[LuisDantas]

The issue with the above thinking is that it assumes a closed and fixed number of souls in the human reincarnation system. But think about it; at one point in time there was probably just a handful of early humans; and before that, no humans. There are essentially an infinite number of souls in the universe. Only a tiny, tiny sliver can ever incarnate as a human. An increasing human population allows more souls to have the human physical experience; and shorter periods between them if desired.

Trouble is, well over half of that scenario is speculative, and the remaining is at odds with observable facts.

- Are there souls at all?

- If they do exist, how do they relate with humans and their memories? Are they usually present? Do they always carry memories? If not, then what does their presence imply, if anything? If they do carry memories, how come it is so very unusual for people to remember past lives?

- Is remembering past lives even a good thing? Does it serve any purpose? How can it be distinguished from standard false memories, dreams and allucinations?

- If souls may come from non-human sources, what does that mean, if anything?

 

[George-ananda]

Trouble is, well over half of that scenario is speculative, and the remaining is at odds with observable facts.

None of it is at odds with any observable facts that I know.

- Are there souls at all?

Certainly this is the great dividing question. My reasons for a ‘Yes’ is my own personal analysis of claims of the paranormal and the respect I’ve learned to place in the teachings of the eastern/Hindu tradition masters.

- If they do exist, how do they relate with humans and their memories? Are they usually present? Do they always carry memories? If not, then what does their presence imply, if anything? If they do carry memories, how come it is so very unusual for people to remember past lives?

I don’t know if you read my post #28 where I answered much of this. Please review this and ask further questions.

- Is remembering past lives even a good thing? Does it serve any purpose? How can it be distinguished from standard false memories, dreams and allucinations?

Remembering details of past lives is not a particularly good or advantageous thing; but it happens in rare cases as explained in post #28. The only way we can tell them from false memories and hallucinations would be knowledge of details that can not be reasonably explained away in a normal way.

The cream/the wisdom the soul retained from the tough lessons of past lives are what are helpful in this life. Some people are born with more of a predisposition to higher spiritual level.

- If souls may come from non-human sources, what does that mean, if anything?

Souls are eternal. All souls have a ‘non-human’ source (as you put it). Humans are just a recent phenomena on one little planet.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I agree with much of what Luis has posted. Personally, I don't accept reincarnation as being plausible, due mainly to the fact that I don't believe we possess eternally existing self identities called souls, or spirits, as the case may be. However, I do think that Dr. Stevenson's work seems to be valid, and his research at least attempts to be objective. The problem with that is, the idea of reincarnation is basically a subjective thing. At least currently, science cannot measure such things, and if they're not real, never will be able to. There does seem to be something supernatural/paranormal going on in some of those cases, as well as others. However, I don't think jumping to the conclusion of reincarnation is the scientific or objective approach. More research needs to be done on these and other cases to see if it can be determined what exactly is going on.

 

[outhouse]

Simply put: do you think the studies of Dr. Ian Stevenson are credible in their suggestion/evidence for reincarnation? Why or why not?

Sorry if this subject is ...

No

Its all his guesses and speculation with ZERO evidence in support

 

[Shermana]

I agree with much of what Luis has posted. Personally, I don't accept reincarnation as being plausible, due mainly to the fact that I don't believe we possess eternally existing self identities called souls, or spirits, as the case may be. However, I do think that Dr. Stevenson's work seems to be valid, and his research at least attempts to be objective. The problem with that is, the idea of reincarnation is basically a subjective thing. At least currently, science cannot measure such things, and if they're not real, never will be able to. There does seem to be something supernatural/paranormal going on in some of those cases, as well as others. However, I don't think jumping to the conclusion of reincarnation is the scientific or objective approach. More research needs to be done on these and other cases to see if it can be determined what exactly is going on.

So what would your explanation be of the current results with or without your confirmation bias of what the afterlife entails and the existence of human souls?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

So what would your explanation be of the current results with or without your confirmation bias of what the afterlife entails and the existence of human souls?

That's a good question, and since we're dealing with the supernatural/paranormal, the answer could be limitless. Of course, none would be provable by science.

 

[George-ananda]

Personally, I don't accept reincarnation as being plausible, due mainly to the fact that I don't believe we possess eternally existing self identities called souls, or spirits, as the case may be.

I personally also agree we don't have as you put it 'eternally existing self identities called souls, or spirits,'.

I believe we have temporary physical bodies, astral bodies and causal bodies/souls. These all must pass before we merge in Brahman/God/Nirvana.

 

[George-ananda]

That's a good question, and since we're dealing with the supernatural/paranormal, the answer could be limitless. Of course, none would be provable by science.

Come to think of it, what human experiences are 'provable by science'?

 

[George-ananda]

No

Its all his guesses and speculation with ZERO evidence in support

Boy, that comment couldn't be more wrong. Anyone who actually knows Dr. Stevenson's work would know he's strong on evidence and light on speculation.

But I'm sure that's your opinion about anything in the paranormal world that you don't know about. As an earlier poster said 'scoffers will scoff, that's what they do'.

 

[satori8]

For reincarnation to be valid, there must be some essence of a soul. I wrote a bit on this earlier in the buddhism section, but Buddhists believe in not self, whereas Hindus and others who believe in reincarnation or an afterlife believe in a self. My own opinion, if we go on, I do not believe the 'little me' aka ego goes on. Because mind is really only a serious of thoughts and emotions. It is a construct we create to deal with the world at large. Buddhism also teaches impermanence and if you check anything, everything dies or eventually 'changes form' in some way. Nothing is static. Even the universe may collapse on itself someday. Maybe. So if nothing is permanent, then there is no permanent self, because how could there be? Buddhists do believe something transfers, but what you are conscious of now wont be it. And even people who believe in reincarnation, do not believe for the most part, the 'personality' survives.

This kind of leads to the premise "why a spiritual path at all" if the persona does not survive. Well, I think because a) we should strive to be good people regardless but b) something does go on, even though it wont be 'us' in the sense of the persona. From that, we should strive to become conscious beings and do good.