Reincarnation

[LuisDantas]

Then it isn't making a statement about reality.

Of course it is. Theology makes lots of statements about reality.

Scientific evidence doesn't apply to them and they are therefore essentially impossible to prove in any objective way. As a consequence, they may also be freely rejected. But they are still statements about reality, even if objectively one can fairly say that they are arbitrary, subjective and/or unreliable.

It is hell to decide if there is any truth to them, but they are statements about reality all the same.


Now, having said that, I must also say that I don't think reality is much about reality at all. If it were, it would inevitably seek scientific support, since that is where reliable findings are to be found. Theology is instead all about the aesthetics of belief, not the factual reliability of same. When used constructively, it addresses the emotional and existential aspects of belief without falling prey to the delusion that it is "true".

Theologies seek to build beauty and inspiration, not to discover the truth except perhaps by a stroke of luck (or divine guidance, I guess - but it is dangerous to pay such a tempting belief much attention).

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Would you disagree that the brain "lies" to itself, or that you can experience things that aren't really there?

Yes but that is more of a mental chloroform. True spiritual experiences are much much more vivacious and as a result unmistakably real to the one experiencing them.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, but you'd be wrong to say that it was true, since you're essentially believing it to be true because you want it to be true, not because there is evidence for it.

Yes, as it would equally be wrong to declare it untrue.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm saying that it's possible to test these things as people are already doing it.

Yeah never wanted to watch it. Most if not all supernatural things are not atcually scary. Most are just normal beings lost in between here and afterlife.

Well, I scare REALLY easily. ^_^

 

[atanu]

Common mistake, but still very much a mistake. Most of the core concepts of Buddhism (such as Anatta, Interdependent Origination) are in fact specifically incompatible with the idea of reincarnation.

I do not think so. Even Theravadas have concepts on re-incarnation. At one level re-incarnation of egos do take place. At another level no one is born but ideas.

What makes aggregates combine the first time -- (if there was any first time)? What combines aggregates is desire and changing/evolving desire keeps aggregates combine again and again.

The desire was before me and it gave rise to me. As per both Hindu and Buddhist scripture, the desire will rule again, if the desireless core is not recognised.

 

[PolyHedral]

Of course it is. Theology makes lots of statements about reality.

Scientific evidence doesn't apply to them and they are therefore essentially impossible to prove in any objective way. As a consequence, they may also be freely rejected. But they are still statements about reality, even if objectively one can fairly say that they are arbitrary, subjective and/or unreliable.

I'd argue that if they cannot be tested, they aren't making a meaningful statement about reality. The statement, "A is true," logically implies, "not-A is false," and so we can go looking for the consequences of A as opposed to not-A. If A and not-A lead to the same implications, or are even the same thing, we might as well be saying, "Curious green ideas sleep furiously."

Yes, as it would equally be wrong to declare it untrue.

I declare it probably untrue, just to be safe.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think they are testable.

Some of the claims could conceivably be tested.
Like prayer, for instance, which has been tested on several occasions, and found to be not working as intended.

Ghosts have been proven.

Really?
Provide some links to peer reviewed papers that confirm this claim and maybe we'll have a conversation.

Have you ever watched Ghost hunters?

I suppose you think Peter Popoff actuall heals people too?

People do that stuff for real all the time.

Correction: People fake that stuff all the time. Or lie. Or delude themselves.

Also people need air to live.

Granted.

If a Yogi goes breathless for hours and then comes back fine what would that indicate?

Again, peer reviewed papers confirming this?
Also, they could always contact James Randi.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If only I had a quarter for everytime I've heard this argument. The fact remains most atheists will never believe until they experience things for themselves. Even then they might pinch themselves and not believe their eyes.

Well, this atheist will believe it when we have solid scientific. objective and empirical evidence for it.

I'm an empiricist first and an atheist second.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes but that is more of a mental chloroform. True spiritual experiences are much much more vivacious and as a result unmistakably real to the one experiencing them.

Really?
About 18 months ago I nearly died, ending up in a coma for about a week.
When I emerged from that coma I had some really vivid hallucinations that I KNOW logically was hallucinations. And yet, they were vivid enough at the time that they were, to me, completely indistinguishable from reality.

Trust me, I know both first hand, and from the scientific literature, that the mind is VERY capable of fooling us.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes, as it would equally be wrong to declare it untrue.

Then you cannot declare that my claim that I have an invisible blue goblin living under my kitchen sink is untrue.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes but that is more of a mental chloroform. True spiritual experiences are much much more vivacious and as a result unmistakably real to the one experiencing them.

We can do nigh-perfect realism already, even without switching off all the brain's reality checks. It feeling real is completely disconnected from how real it is.

 

[Penumbra]

Oh, I wasn't trying to convert you! :sorry1:

Just making conversation.

It should, but I believe such memories are either cries for attention or delusion.

Ah, ok. I thought you were saying something stronger.

I didn't perceive it as a conversion attempt. I was just answering the question for conversation.

I know that's why I'm saying real life experiments where scientists can be there to test it.

I'm saying if scientists took the time it is testable. I'm not saying the TV and stories are proof. I'm just saying they all are testable if they only cared enough to try.

Science has taken the time. A scientist would make a huge name for herself if she could present solid peer reviewed evidence of something supernatural.

There's even the Randi Foundation- they offer $1 million as a prize to anyone who can prove supernatural abilities, but in decades, none of the hundreds of applicants have gotten through even a preliminary test.

 

[Storm]

I didn't perceive it as a conversion attempt. I was just answering the question for conversation.

OK, good.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not think so.

I guess you can call rebirth reincarnation if you insist. I do not see the point, personally. Then again, I don't quite know the point of the Hindu concept of reincarnation either, so maybe you are right in some way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd argue that if they cannot be tested, they aren't making a meaningful statement about reality. The statement, "A is true," logically implies, "not-A is false," and so we can go looking for the consequences of A as opposed to not-A. If A and not-A lead to the same implications, or are even the same thing, we might as well be saying, "Curious green ideas sleep furiously."

Beliefs and purely subjective statements are unreliable, but they do have meaning. Motivational meaning if no other kind.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sometimes I just get confused on this forum. I didn't realise earlier that this was the debate section. I think I thought it was the DIR section. I'm not into debating, and should never have posted. Moderators, feel free to delete any of my posts in this thread. Stating one's beliefs really isn't open to debate. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then you cannot declare that my claim that I have an invisible blue goblin living under my kitchen sink is untrue.

Yes I can, actually. Because something with color cannot, by definition, be invisible.

Besides, there is a thing called "discrimination." Wild and silly claims by average joes are not equal to testimonies of Sages. While what they say isn't necessarily true, I place more faith in what they say (based on what they say about other things which are not based in the supernatural) than in the wild whims of worldly-minded people who know as much about such matters as I do.

With the goblin thing, however, let's say you don't call it either blue or invisible. Then, you are correct: I cannot necessarily declare it untrue, but neither would I accept it just because you said it, and neither to I automatically accept the words of the Sages just because they said it. At the same time, however, what benefit is there in accepting a silly claim like there's a goblin living under your sink? (Besides, how would you keep such a thing fed? How would you keep it placated? Goblins are nasty little creatures, and according to all the Monster Manuals, hate all things human.) For one who is easily scared such as myself, faith in the words of the Sages can at least keep my mind calm so I can function well enough to improve my mental faculties.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes I can, actually. Because something with color cannot, by definition, be invisible.

Which is no more logically incoherent than many religious claims, which is exactly why I included it.

Besides, there is a thing called "discrimination." Wild and silly claims by average joes are not equal to testimonies of Sages.

And how do you know that I am not a 'sage'?
What makes someone a 'sage'?

Also, even if we accept that some people are 'sages', that would still be an argument from authority and thus a fallacy.
Richard Dawkins may be an authority when it comes to evolutionary biology, but his claims still have to be logically coherent and supported by evidence before they can be regarded as factual. Sure, I'll listen more carefully to what he'd have to say than most people, but I don't expect anyone to take his claims on authority alone.

While what they say isn't necessarily true, I place more faith in what they say (based on what they say about other things which are not based in the supernatural) than in the wild whims of worldly-minded people who know as much about such matters as I do.

What do you mean by "such matters"?

With the goblin thing, however, let's say you don't call it either blue or invisible. Then, you are correct: I cannot necessarily declare it untrue, but neither would I accept it just because you said it, and neither to I automatically accept the words of the Sages just because they said it.

All I was trying to show was that if one starts accepting baseless claims on the merit that they cannot be effectively proven wrong, there is no end to the amount of claims one would have to accept as valid.
That is, if one aspires to be somewhat consistent as a person.
If on the other hand, on accepts certain claims because they make you feel good, then it is down to personal opinion, which is to say it is a claim on the same level as saying you prefer vanilla ice-cream over strawberry ice-cream.
But you cannot make the factual statement that vanilla is better than strawberry (apart from for you personally), and you cannot claim that as being universally true.

At the same time, however, what benefit is there in accepting a silly claim like there's a goblin living under your sink? For one who is easily scared such as myself, faith in the words of the Sages can at least keep my mind calm so I can function well enough to improve my mental faculties.

The feeding habits of goblins aside, if people believe in something because it makes them feel comfortable, that is all fine and dandy, as long as they don't claim that their beliefs are in any shape or form factually a part of reality.

The best tool we have come up with for defining reality is science.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is, in my opinion, either ignorant or delusional.
Thus, all claims about reality should adhere to the same rules as scientific claims, since that is what they in essence are.

In other words, when making claims about reality; evidence or GTFO.

 

[Shermana]

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?

John the Baptist was the Soul of Elijah Not the same being, but the same soul.

 

[Riverwolf]

Which is no more logically incoherent than many religious claims, which is exactly why I included it.

But not the ones I try to abide by.

And how do you know that I am not a 'sage'?
What makes someone a 'sage'?

A high degree of wisdom(that is, the ability to use knowledge for good), intimate knowledge of the Self and of others, all-encompassing and unconditional love for all things, detachment from the fruits of actions, etc.

There are other conditions that are spoken of, but as far as I'm concerned, they're sectarian in nature.

Understand that Sages are not infallible, and frequently disagree with each other.

Also, even if we accept that some people are 'sages', that would still be an argument from authority and thus a fallacy.
Richard Dawkins may be an authority when it comes to evolutionary biology, but his claims still have to be logically coherent and supported by evidence before they can be regarded as factual. Sure, I'll listen more carefully to what he'd have to say than most people, but I don't expect anyone to take his claims on authority alone.

Which is what I do with the claims of the Sages.

What do you mean by "such matters"?

Matters of the Self and spirit.

All I was trying to show was that if one starts accepting baseless claims on the merit that they cannot be effectively proven wrong, there is no end to the amount of claims one would have to accept as valid.

Which I say is nonsense. Discrimination can be a good check.

That is, if one aspires to be somewhat consistent as a person.
If on the other hand, on accepts certain claims because they make you feel good, then it is down to personal opinion, which is to say it is a claim on the same level as saying you prefer vanilla ice-cream over strawberry ice-cream.
But you cannot make the factual statement that vanilla is better than strawberry (apart from for you personally), and you cannot claim that as being universally true.

Quite true.

The feeding habits of goblins aside, if people believe in something because it makes them feel comfortable, that is all fine and dandy, as long as they don't claim that their beliefs are in any shape or form factually a part of reality.

The best tool we have come up with for defining reality is science.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is, in my opinion, either ignorant or delusional.
Thus, all claims about reality should adhere to the same rules as scientific claims, since that is what they in essence are.

In other words, when making claims about reality; evidence or GTFO.

I don't necessarily think we're in complete disagreement, here. I just don't necessarily think that all people who make claims about reality MUST adhere to the scientific method. (After all, sometimes such people make for GREAT entertainment. ^_^) After all, sometimes things just need to be taken with a grain of salt before the truth can be found, at least for now. The scientific method is great for determining reality because its cautious, which is great 99% of the time(I'm talking about caution, not the method). However, there is that 1% of the time where caution can be detrimental to progress, and a leap of faith must be made to go forward. For the individual on a spiritual journey, that leap must be taken.