Therenis NO God

[-Sigurd-]

Buddhism is based on the teachings of a man who discouraged his followers from viewing him as a God and who stated " Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word)."And this by anyone's standards is surely a system of belief which is rational and logical.Furthermore the concept of rebirth which is fundamental to Buddhism is supported by scientific research(see above sources).Christianity meanwhile is based upon a belief in a man who claimed to be a God and a bible which tells us the world was created in six days amongst many other weird and wonderful revelations which are flatly contradicted by science.Christians are required to believe in such teachings in spite of the fact that they are unsupported by science.Therein lies a fundamental difference-Buddhism is based on practice,logic and reason,while Christianity is based on blind,unquestioning faith.No one who has blind,unquestioning faith in anything-even the teachings of Buddha-can ever be a true Buddhist,which clearly sets Buddhism apart from the world's other major religions.

I have seen many apologists for various faiths makes a similar argument - "my religion is genuinely different -in reality not a religion but just plain truth."

It was never said that it was not different in many ways to other religions (all religions have their distinguishing features) but it is still a faith. A genuinely dispassionate read of the available material shows that there is no more support for karma and reincarnation from science than there is for miracles.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-

It is neither here nor there that Spiritualism was a short lived phenomenon. The point was simply to show that it is perfectly possible for large numbers of people (including some scientists) to be wrong. Pointing that out does not make one an extremist. Spiritualism was/is (it still exists in various forms ) just a manifestation of more general beliefs about the existence of an 'other side' - a spirit world populated by the souls of the dead. A great proportion of all the people who ever lived shared this basic belief. A great proportion of all the people who have ever lived have through the ages believed a lot of strange things. Only one thing is certain...most of these people (even supposing one of the major strands of belief is true) were wrong. That may be a sweeping statement but an undeniably true one.As I have been saying, the weath of 'reliable evidence' you cite is not as reliable or compelling as you think. If alternative explanations based on the known exist, then there is no need to place any credence on a competing theory that is based on the unknown. To continue to cling to the belief in reincarnation despite the fact that it violates Occams razor shows again that we are dealing with doctrine not science.

Yet reincarnation differs from other such beliefs in that it is the only one which has been supported by solid evidence having been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation.We are not talking about the evidence from a few dozen cases which have been investigated-in fact Stevenson alone has investigated several thousand.No one from the science community has doubted the integrity of Stevenson-no one has suggested that he is involved in fraud or has not applied scientific methods to his investigation and therefore there can be no argument on this point-the evidence is compelling and no one who wishes to retain an ounce of intellectual credibility would ever simply dismiss such a wealth of evidence out of hand as you are doing.You state that "if alternative explanations based on the known exist then there is no need to place any credence on a competing theory which is based on the unknown" which is a fine sounding piece of wordplay but quite frankly lacking in sound logic.If we adhered to that line of reasoning then the boundaries of scientific research and human knowledge could never be advanced.Surely a far more logical argument would be that if we are confronted by a wealth of evidence which is "suggestive" that any given phenomenon such as reincarnation occurs then it is time to entertain the possibility that it is a fact regardless of any prejudices we may feel towards such a doctrine.I had to look up the dictionary to find out what Occam's razor actually was and I found out that it is a maxim attributed to a fourteenth-century philosopher which states that "in explaining something assumptions must not be needlessly multiplied".Which leaves me perplexed because I'm not aware of any assumptions which I have multiplied so as far as I'm aware I've not violated "Occam's razor".What we are seeing throughout this thread is a constant attempt by you to challenge the evidence for reincarnation by resorting to falsehood and exaggeration.However the only way to effectively challenge the findings of scientists such as Stevenson would be to deal with specific cases and point out where his investigation was flawed which is something that no scientist or skeptic has yet managed.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-
You continue to make these sweeping statements but you never back them up with any textual evidence to support them and until you do they can easily be dismissed as nothing more than your own prejudiced opinions.In fact your above statement is wrong-people have provided alternative explanations for the findings of researchers such as Dr.Stevenson however as to whether these explanations are "more convincing" than Stevenson's argument that the evidence is suggestive of reincarnation is a matter of personal choice.

As I said the onus is not on me to provide proof that mainstream science has not accepted reincarnation.


In any debate when someone makes a definitive statement that something is a fact then the onus is on them to provide relevant evidence to support their argument.You made a statement that scientific consensus was opposed to the idea of reincarnation-where's the evidence?

[-Sigurd-]

Yet reincarnation differs from other such beliefs in that it is the only one which has been supported by solid evidence having been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation.We are not talking about the evidence from a few dozen cases which have been investigated-in fact Stevenson alone has investigated several thousand.No one from the science community has doubted the integrity of Stevenson-no one has suggested that he is involved in fraud or has not applied scientific methods to his investigation and therefore there can be no argument on this point-the evidence is compelling and no one who wishes to retain an ounce of intellectual credibility would ever simply dismiss such a wealth of evidence out of hand as you are doing.You state that "if alternative explanations based on the known exist then there is no need to place any credence on a competing theory which is based on the unknown" which is a fine sounding piece of wordplay but quite frankly lacking in sound logic.If we adhered to that line of reasoning then the boundaries of scientific research and human knowledge could never be advanced.Surely a far more logical argument would be that if we are confronted by a wealth of evidence which is "suggestive" that any given phenomenon such as reincarnation occurs then it is time to entertain the possibility that it is a fact regardless of any prejudices we may feel towards such a doctrine.

This is not about entertaining or not entertaining the possibilty of reincarnation. It is rather about the standards of 'evidence' that we are willing to accept as being 'compelling' and 'reliable' - notoriously low in the case of believers when it comes to the objects of their own faith. As with many other cases for bizarre phenomena, we find that personal first hand accounts are all we have to go on. I don't necessarily doubt Dr Stevensons integrity - people don't have to be liars to be wrong. But his not being an outright liar does not make his evidence compelling. His evidence would only be compelling if there were no other way of accounting for it than by recourse to reincarnation. However this is not the case - there are other, scientifically more palatable explanations.

As for Occams razor - firstly I can assure you that there is nothing in Occams razor that could hold back scientific progress.If you think that then you have misunderstood it. And the multiplication of assumptions is just a way of saying ' with more assumptions'. I will point out your extra assumptions for you, since you are unaware of them :

The phenomena we are trying to account for in the case of Stevensons work is the reports by children of memories of past lives. We have two competing theories here. One - that this phenomenon can be accounted for in everyday terms - is based on what we already know - the tendency of people to act under suggestion, their capacity for self delusion, 'the editing' effect in the transmission and recalling of information, and the way that attempts to locate the actual personages referred to in these stories amounts to 'throwing a dart and then drawing a target around it'. No extra assumptions there - all within the realm of the known.

The other theory - that these accounts are explained by the actual fact of reincarnation - depends upon the assumptions that there is a non physical 'soul' that is immortal and that it is capable of moving from one body to another. Those are huge unknowns. It is clearly an explanation based on unproven assumptions. By choosing it over the explanation based on known phenomena you are violating Occams razor. In science and philosophy, we always favour the theory that both fits the facts and involves the least unproven assumptions. Another example - imagine that you arrange to meet someone at the train station.Upon arriving you find the are not there. Do you think 1) they have been abducted by space aliens, or 2) They have missed their connection?

However the only way to effectively challenge the findings of scientists such as Stevenson would be to deal with specific cases and point out where his investigation was flawed which is something that no scientist or skeptic has yet managed.

Let us not forget here that no one connected with the belief in reincarnation seems to have the slightest clue as to how this is to be reconciled with known physics and biology. How can reincarnation possibly be accepted by mainstream science, given that? As far as investigations are concerned enough cases have been examined in detail to convince me that this evidence is in no way compelling - the same thing that seems to happen in many other first hand evidences of bizarre phenomena happens with these accounts of remembered past lives:

from review of "Reincarnation : A critical examination" by Paul Edwards

http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/reincarnation.html

The evidence, such as it is, is exhaustively examined by Edwards. Much of it comes from seemingly credible witnesses who claim to have seen the projected "astral bodies" of others at the time of the latter's death, or from children who seem remarkably precocious, or who "remember" people, places or events that they seem unlikely to have known about if they had not actually experienced them in a previous life. Edwards shows that the empirical evidence, like the supporting arguments put forth by past-life explorers such as Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, Stanislav Grof, Raymond Moody, and Ian Stevenson are far less compelling than the tabloid headlines would have you believe. As with most anecdotal evidence of this sort, examination reveals that tales retold by the faithful have a way of becoming tidier and more convincing as they pass from mouth to mouth.

As Leonard Angel showed in these pages some time ago (SI, Fall 1994), careful reading of the acknowledged "best cases" for reincarnation, e.g., several from the parapsychologist Ian Stevenson, reveals significant internal inconsistencies in the accounts that throw them into doubt, even before the evidence itself is examined. Edwards notes similar problems in the evidential base and has taken the trouble to trace many other "best" cases back as close to their sources as possible. Along the way, we are treated to some hilarious examples of gullibility among those seized by the will to believe. In attacking the famous "Bridey Murphy" case, supposedly one of the strongest in the reincarnationists' arsenal, Edwards does skeptics the additional service of pointing out that some of the rebuttals that skeptics like to tout (myself among them, until I read this chapter) were themselves the products of journalistic excess and thus not to be relied upon. Edwards finds much else, however, to discredit the evidence for Virginia Tighe's prior existence as Bridey Murphy. In the process, he supplies trenchant critiques of the use of hypnosis and related techniques to "reveal" memories of past lives. Suffice it to say that, overall, the empirical case for reincarnation fares no better than the conceptual, logical, and moral ones.

[-Sigurd-]

In any debate when someone makes a definitive statement that something is a fact then the onus is on them to provide relevant evidence to support their argument.You made a statement that scientific consensus was opposed to the idea of reincarnation-where's the evidence?

How can I put this? Given that reincarnation does not currently feature as a topic in science books,(while featuring in many books on religion), and given that the most prominent figure in the pro-reincarnation camp is the very Dr Stevenson you cite, I can only repeat that you are the one with a case to answer here! The complete absence of reincarnation as a topic of study in science books is proof enough for anyone with common sense to know that the scientific community has not accepted reincarnation. Also reincarnation flies in the face of everything we know about the relationship between brain structure and personality. Sciences stance is that reincarnation is a belief, not a part of scientific orthodoxy. Nothing is ruled out a priori by science of course, it waits for evidence, but the evidence that would convince in the case of reincarnation is just not in. I find it incredible that you are still trying to challenge that, while speaking of 'credibility'. You may choose to believe in it, but to claim that it is accepted by science is nonsense.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Christianity meanwhile is based upon a belief in a man who claimed to be a God and a bible which tells us the world was created in six days amongst many other weird and wonderful revelations which are flatly contradicted by science.

If it were possible to establish that the author of the biblical creation story intended the seven day creation cycle to be interpreted as seven literal, 24 hour days, then and only then would you be justified in claiming that the Bible has been contradicted by science. However, given that the Bible elsewhere says that time is different from God's persepective, and that, in biblical symbolism, the number seven represents fullness/completeness, the onus is on you. Meanwhile, I will have no qualms about simultaneously accepting sceince and biblical innerancy.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Christians are required to believe in such teachings in spite of the fact that they are unsupported by science.

The teleological argument, which is based entirely on science, certainly lends dome credence to the idea of a creator God.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/teleo.html

And if an omnipotent creator God, who had authored natural law, existed, we would expect Him to demonstrate His existence every once in a while by temporarily suspending those laws. We would also expect there to be well documented evidence of such suspensions having taken place. Well, there is abundant evidence in the form of miraculous healings. The Catholic Church, and the medical review boards with which it collaborates, hear thousands of claims to miraculous healings, and they subject each of them to rigorous scientific investigation. If they find that it is at all possible to explain the data without resorting to supernatural interference, thye reject the claim. Only those healings which they can definitively establish to be contrary to medical science and natural law do they count as miraculous.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Therein lies a fundamental difference-Buddhism is based on practice,logic and reason,while Christianity is based on blind,unquestioning faith.

Actually, St. Augustine went so far as to say that blind faith was a sin. Christians are in no way required to believe unquestioningly.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-
Suffice it to say that, overall, the empirical case for reincarnation fares no better than the conceptual, logical, and moral ones.

In your opinion,and that is what it boils down to-opinions and there are scientists such as Edwards who,having examined the facts relating to several cases out of many thousands which have been studied,have formed the opinion that questionable assumptions have been drawn from the available evidence.However the following is taken from a review of one of Stevenson's works by a psychologist,E.Haraldson , "This is a medical monograph written with the thoroughness, clarity, and thoughtfulness that is characteristic of Stevenson. There is extensive documentation of each case, including numerous photographs, tables, footnotes and references, and indexes of cases and names."Two different academics,two different points of view.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/



On the same website,which is devoted solely to the objective investigation of scientific issues, there are arguments for and against reincarnation and many of the issues which Edwards raises have been examined-it is undeniable that in several reincarnation cases which have been investigated the evidence produced has been very flimsy,and as for the Bridey Murphy case I have no argument with the fact that it provides no worthwhile evidence for reincarnation.Nevertheless this must be seen in it's proper context and it is the sheer volume of cases worldwide which lends the case for reincarnation credibility.Reincarnation might seem like a bizzare belief and it's credibility has definitely suffered from being linked to "New Age beliefs".You stated in a previous post that scientists accept the findings of quantum physics however seemingly illogical they may appear to be but this is not strictly true.Not all scientists accept all the findings of quantum physics-there are competing theories and diverse opinions within the scientific community on matters relating to quantum science.The "many universe" theory for example has been dismissed as a bizzare belief and yet it is supported by many eminent scientists such as Hawkings.In his opinion there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the theory has validity however bizarre and illogical this theory may seem to some of his fellow scientists.Likewise in my opinion and the opinion of many others including academics and scientists there is sufficient evidence suggestive of reincarnation to believe that it is a viable proposition.A bizarre belief it may be to some people but at one time believing that the earth was round and revolved around the sun were considered bizarre beliefs.This is not an issue of faith for me-I'm too hard bitten and cynical to have blind faith in anything-it is based on an objective evaluation of the available facts.Other explanations for the phenomena reported may be "scientifically more palatable" but there are scientists who believe the same about the many universe theory,which many of their colleagues defend having an absolute conviction in it's veracity.