• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reincarnation

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
That is the question isn't it? I personally think it is the stream of consciousness.

But what are the components of this stream? Or is it a process of some sort, set forth by certain components? If so, are these components dependent on the human brain, or do they somehow transcend it?

IOW, what is the nature of this stream? What is the reason for using the word "stream"?
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
I think you should read the works of Sir Charles Penrose, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, Ian Stevenson, Bruce Greyson, McTaggart, and Paul von Ward just to name a few.

I think you should provide some sources showing evidence that reincarnation is the most plausible scientific explanation before making such claims.
Because as far as I know we have NO evidence indicating that reincarnation is in any way real.
 

Otherright

Otherright
I think you should provide some sources showing evidence that reincarnation is the most plausible scientific explanation before making such claims.
Because as far as I know we have NO evidence indicating that reincarnation is in any way real.

This is something you obviously haven't studied then. I implore you to educate yourself on the subject to see what is being said. This is going to take more than you reading the reincarnation wiki, you are going to have to do some serious reading into what various religions call reincarnation, and what quantum physicist are proving in labs.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Didn't he do that by directing you to some authors?

He told me the name of a royal navy officer, a Dr. Stuart Hameroff in whose works I can find no mention of reincarnation, an MD (Ian Stevenson) whose work has been described as pseudoscience while Bruce Greyson is connected to the same type of work, and a 19th century philosopher (McTaggart).
Of these the only one with -some- credibility is Paul von Ward, and his ideas about the "soul genome" seems very unfounded and questionable.

Not a lot of hard science here... :sarcastic
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
This is something you obviously haven't studied then. I implore you to educate yourself on the subject to see what is being said. This is going to take more than you reading the reincarnation wiki, you are going to have to do some serious reading into what various religions call reincarnation, and what quantum physicist are proving in labs.

Well then feel free to enlighten me.
Are there any peer reviewed papers supporting this notion of reincarnation?
Are there any books that are actually supported by evidence?

The names provided earlier came up kinda empty on those accounts.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
He told me the name of a royal navy officer, a Dr. Stuart Hameroff in whose works I can find no mention of reincarnation, an MD (Ian Stevenson) whose work has been described as pseudoscience while Bruce Greyson is connected to the same type of work, and a 19th century philosopher (McTaggart).
Of these the only one with -some- credibility is Paul von Ward, and his ideas about the "soul genome" seems very unfounded and questionable.

Not a lot of hard science here... :sarcastic

Gotcha.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you think about the possibility of reincarnation?


It is a hallmark of Eastern religions. Science tells us it may be the most scientifically plausible possibility. Many very serious researchers are looking into evidence of its existence. Kabbalism even speaks to it.

What do you think about it, and the directions it is taking in our culture?

I doubt it... Unless there is an explanation on how our souls find the path to a newborn body not the ones that have died...
 

Otherright

Otherright
He told me the name of a royal navy officer, a Dr. Stuart Hameroff in whose works I can find no mention of reincarnation, an MD (Ian Stevenson) whose work has been described as pseudoscience while Bruce Greyson is connected to the same type of work, and a 19th century philosopher (McTaggart).
Of these the only one with -some- credibility is Paul von Ward, and his ideas about the "soul genome" seems very unfounded and questionable.

Not a lot of hard science here... :sarcastic

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.

Stuart Hameroff (Born on July 16, 1947, Buffalo, New York) is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his scientific studies of consciousness, and his theories of the mechanisms of consciousness. From 1975 onwards, he has spent the whole of his career at the University of Arizona, becoming professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology and associate director for the Center for Consciousness Studies, both in 1999, and finally Emeritus professor for Anesthesiology and Psychology in 2003.

Ian Pretyman Stevenson, MD, (October 31, 1918–February 8, 2007) was a Canadian biochemist and professor of psychiatry. Until his retirement in 2002, he was head of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, which investigates the paranormal.[1]
Stevenson considered that the concept of reincarnation might supplement those of heredity and environment in helping modern medicine to understand aspects of human behavior and development.[2] He traveled extensively over a period of 40 years to investigate 3,000 childhood cases that suggested to him the possibility of past lives.[3] Stevenson saw reincarnation as the survival of the personality after death, although he never suggested a physical process by which a personality might survive death.[4] Stevenson was the author of several books, including Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1974), Children Who Remember Previous Lives (1987), Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect (1997), Reincarnation and Biology (1997), and European Cases of the Reincarnation Type (2003).

Bruce Greyson is Chester F. Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and the division director of The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS),[1] formerly the Division of Personality Studies, at the University of Virginia. He is also a Professor of Psychiatric Medicine in the Department of Psychiatric Medicine, Division of Outpatient Psychiatry, at the University of Virginia.

Jim Tucker is medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic, and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia.[1] His main research interests are children who seem to remember previous lives, and prenatal and birth memories.[2] He is the author of Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives, which presents an overview of over 40 years of reincarnation research at the Division of Perceptual Studies.[3] Tucker, a board-certified child psychiatrist, worked for several years on this research with Ian Stevenson before taking over upon Stevenson’s retirement in 2002.[4][5][6]


Lynne McTaggart (born 1951) is an American journalist, author, publisher, lecturer, and spokesperson.[1] According to her author profile, she is a spokesperson "on consciousness, the new physics, and the practices of conventional and alternative medicine".[2] McTaggart is co-executive director of Conatus and is the author of six books, including The Intention Experiment and The Field.[2]


John Hagelin was a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management. He has conducted research into unified field theory and the Maharishi Effect.
 

Otherright

Otherright
You didn't even manage to get these people's credentials, in two cases even the people right. Its obvious you aren't going to read what these peoples' works.
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
You didn't even manage to get these people's credentials, in two cases even the people right. Its obvious you aren't going to read what these peoples' works.

Well, since you only gave me their names (just last names in some cases) without any links to their work I went by what I had.
Admittedly I got the naval officer and the journalist wrong.

However, I didn't so much question their credentials as I questioned the state of evidence in favour of reincarnation and while their titles and degrees are perhaps impressive, that doesn't make the lack of evidence any more compelling.
Having a PhD, even a relevant one, is no guarantee of being right, and in science we rely on evidence, not titles.
That would be argument from authority, a well known fallacy.

So, any evidence in favour of reincarnation?
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
Personally speaking, I would love it if there was evidence for reincarnation. I remember reading a book called Beyond the Ashes which was by Rabbi Yonassan Gershom. It was about the souls of Jews who perished in the Holocaust and were being reincarnated. While I loved the idea and enjoyed the book, Rabbi Gershom presented no hard evidence for reincarnation. He presented evidence that, at best, was anecdotal. I was unconvinced but I remain open to the idea. But since it is an idea that I'm very fond of, that is a good reason to be especially skeptical of it. It's the ideas that we like the most that we should try our hardest to test, debunk, and apply rigorous skepticism to, in my opinion. The easiest people to fool are ourselves; the more we like an idea, the more we are likely to let our guard down with regards to skepticism, in my judgment.

However, if there was evidence for reincarnation, we would have to have a clearly defined concept of a "soul" or "spirit" or whatever it is that gets reincarnated. It would also have to explain facts from neurobiology that atheists and other skeptics cite in favor of physicalism and against any kind of mind-body dualism.

So far, I know of no evidence for reincarnation and, despite loving the idea, I would be lying if I said I wasn't personally disappointed that there is none that the scientific community considers credible.
 

Otherright

Otherright
Well, since you only gave me their names (just last names in some cases) without any links to their work I went by what I had.
Admittedly I got the naval officer and the journalist wrong.

However, I didn't so much question their credentials as I questioned the state of evidence in favour of reincarnation and while their titles and degrees are perhaps impressive, that doesn't make the lack of evidence any more compelling.
Having a PhD, even a relevant one, is no guarantee of being right, and in science we rely on evidence, not titles.
That would be argument from authority, a well known fallacy.

So, any evidence in favour of reincarnation?

You read any of their works yet?
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
So far, I know of no evidence for reincarnation and, despite loving the idea, I would be lying if I said I wasn't personally disappointed that there is none that the scientific community considers credible.

Doesn't phase me. I'm aware of no credible evidence for reincarnation. But the scientific community is based entirely on evidence because it's the most reliable method for obtaining truth. Part of that method is assuming something is false until it can be demonstrated that it's true.

But who says us non-scientists have to apply that kind of thinking to everything?
 

Otherright

Otherright
Here, I'll make it a little easier for you. Before you read what they are saying, watch what they are saying.
Now you are going to have to do a little searching here. Not all of the videos are going to be about nature of consciousness and reincarnation.


Hameroff has 243 videos. YouTube - ‪stuart hameroff‬‏
Roger Penrose, you know, the guy that wrote the Emperor's New Mind, has 341.
YouTube - ‪Roger Penrose‬‏

Just keep searching the names. But keep in mind they aren't going to go into the depths of their research on youtube, you have to read the books. Well, Hameroff will with the Quantum Mind. You've got several hundred hours of video to watch before you get to the books so you better get started.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I don't have that kind of time right now.

What's wrong with just posting a few paragraphs from one of the books?
 

Otherright

Otherright
Now Stevenson. I disagree with some of what he is saying because Orch-OR doesn't necessarily support the exact things he is claiming, but Orch-Or is newer and maybe it will find evidence further down the road. But if you read the man's books, and look at the method he used in his research, it is impressive.

YouTube - ‪Ian Stevenson reincarnation‬‏

Jim Tucker has picked up where Stevenson left off.
YouTube - ‪Ian Stevenson reincarnation‬‏

The thing about their research is that they claim that memory can transmigrate, at least partially. But that the children they study, and its always children, always forget by the ages of 5-7. The interesting link the believe is that in developmental Neurology, 85% of the neural network is composed by the ages of 5-7, and that being rooted into this new mind, dissolves the residual that was left over.
There are a couple of proposed explanations for that.
 

Otherright

Otherright
Perhaps it might be a good idea to give us some samples.

Do you really think that will persuade or dissuade you? If I give you a summary without you seeing the evidence yourself. I can give you summaries all day long. If you support it, you'll support it. If not you, you won't. It won't be until you look at the evidence for yourself that you can draw your own conclusion, and since that conclusion is going to drawn on what you glean from it, it is best you learn as much about it as you can.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Do you really think that will persuade or dissuade you? If I give you a summary without you seeing the evidence yourself. I can give you summaries all day long. If you support it, you'll support it. If not you, you won't. It won't be until you look at the evidence for yourself that you can draw your own conclusion, and since that conclusion is going to drawn on what you glean from it, it is best you learn as much about it as you can.

Summaries can give me an idea of what to expect. I have a huge summer reading list as it is, and in a few months, I'll be back in college. Not to mention, I'm broke, so unless I can get these books at my local library, or at Half-Price Books for less than 10 bucks, chances are, I won't be able to read them.

It's not about persuading or dissuading. It's about incentive.
 
Top