What Evidence Would Be Sufficient To Prove Reincarnation?

[Rodney]

Believers in reincarnation will not accept those criteria, because it would require them to give up their beliefs, because those beliefs are not true

"The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible in the run-up to the Wright brothers' flight is too large to count. Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that 'heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later." See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111147

 

[Rodney]

There is evidence, from a Pittsburgh newspaper for a start, that the boy had had access to the information in perfectly normal ways.

Do you have a link?

 

[Illiadus]

Well, Sadhatter, I believe that the existing so called "evidence" for reincarnation that we've all heard of -- hypnosis, the pilot boy, Stevenson, et c -- that none of it is conclusive/worth ****, but a lot of people take it as being scientifically valid.

However, if me or anyone is going to convince said people that they're wrong, I need to be able to say: "This would convince a skeptic, not what you have now."

If I tell them, and yes I talk to woos, that the skeptical community requires talking babies composing operas in the womb, or that it can't be proven at all, then the dialog is over. Do you understand? It's not about convincing anyone here about anything! Do you understand that I don't believe in reincarnation? Am I getting through at all?

 

[Third Eye Open]

If reincarnation were true, the vast majority of people in existence would remember one or more past lives, in as great of detail as you remember your current life. It would be common knowledge, a trivial fact acknowledged by everyone. Any 'new souls' would have to accept it because of the vast majority of people talking in great detail about all their past memories.

Otherwise, if you don't remember your past life, how can you even be said to have lived it? How can it be called reincarnation if you don't remember?

How is it meaningful to say that 'I' used to be someone else, if I don't remember it? What does that even mean?

 

[Illiadus]

Third Eye Open, there is no evidence that reincarnation exists, so how can you possibly know how it would work if it did? It's ridiculous.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Third Eye Open, there is no evidence that reincarnation exists, so how can you possibly know how it would work if it did? It's ridiculous.

What I'm asking, is if you don't remember your previous life, how can you call it reincarnation?

What would it mean to be 'reincarnated' if you don't remember anything, how could you be said to be the same person in any way at all?

How is it different than death followed by oblivion?

 

[Bikewer]

As Third Eye Open notes....Whence reincarnation if you don't have some opportunity to "learn" from your past lives? Seems rather pointless....

In her book "Spook, Science Tackles the Afterlife", Mary Roach profiles an Indian researcher who admittedly wants desperately to prove reincarnation. He's investigated hundreds of cases and interviewed large numbers of people with "past life" memories.
Alas, even though he's a devout Hindu, he's also a trained scientist and his academic discipline makes him approach these cases with rigor.
He's not found a single one credible...
A couple of well-publicized cases (one involving past-life memories of Roman-era life in Britain around the time of Hadrian) showed that the individual had access to the information as youngsters. In the case of the "Roman" individual, she was (apparently in good faith...) virtually quoting from a book of historical fiction that research showed she'd checked out of the local library as a young girl.
All too typical.
So, proof? How would you exclude the possibility that the "past life" information had not been obtained by the person in perfectly normal ways, even as a young child? Even very young children can absorb information like sponges; a TV documentary playing while the toddler is apparently absorbed with his coloring book....Relatives talking about dear old uncle Mort while the child is on someone's lap....
Almost impossible.

 

[Illiadus]

Third Eye Open, I don't believe in reincarnation, which I have to state in every post now due to a few ******** around here, but if it was a real phenomenon then science would need to investigate it. If it works in a way that we find bizarre, so be it.

What's the use of reincarnation if blah, blah, blah? Well, what's the use for us with black holes? Who cares! That's not why we have science. We have science to find things out, whether they have practical consequences for us here on earth or not.

 

[Illiadus]

Bikewer, just so I don't misunderstand you, what would then be your answer to the question: "What would prove reincarnation?"

In a sentence or a few, if that's alright?

 

[Marduk]

Reincarnation experiences are totally subjective, enough to be utterly convincing to the subject and utter nonsense to everyone else.

 

[Illiadus]

Marduk, what is it that you want? Why are you posting here? Nobody, and I mean nobody (well, maybe that last guy who came in, I'm not sure) here believes in reincarnation. I don't. You don't. Nobody posting seem to.

What do feel that you're adding?

 

[Illiadus]

Can't you people read? Why do you come into this thread and throw out general statements about reincarnation when it's not a thread about whether reincarnation is real or not? Who is it for?

 

[Giggywig]

Bikewer, just so I don't misunderstand you, what would then be your answer to the question: "What would prove reincarnation?"

In a sentence or a few, if that's alright?

Babies being born with the full knowledge and memories of a deceased adult. They come out of the womb talking and walking and able to explain who they were and how they died, with all the detail you would expect from an adult.

 

[Rodney]

In her book "Spook, Science Tackles the Afterlife", Mary Roach profiles an Indian researcher who admittedly wants desperately to prove reincarnation. He's investigated hundreds of cases and interviewed large numbers of people with "past life" memories.
Alas, even though he's a devout Hindu, he's also a trained scientist and his academic discipline makes him approach these cases with rigor.
He's not found a single one credible...

" . . . the book was disappointing for several reasons. The first is that Mary Roach professes to know very little about the subject and, modest or not, it's pretty clear after reading it that she does in fact know very little; and that further more, she did very little more than surface investigations for this book. See Nick Carr review -- http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Science...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278796650&sr=1-1

 

[Marduk]

Marduk, what is it that you want?

To offer my expertise on a subject I have studied in depth

Why are you posting here?

Another poster recommended it to me after noticing my correct sceptical approach to woo claims on another forum.

Nobody, and I mean nobody (well, maybe that last guy who came in, I'm not sure) here believes in reincarnation.

There are a large proportion of different believers here, perhaps you are merely thinking that because none of the reincarnation believers want to post in a thread which has (had) a racist and negative op. Seeing as the largest religion which has reincarnation as a tenet of its faith is Hindu, attacking Indians is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot as regards anyone who believes in reincarnation

I don't. You don't.

Assumption !

Nobody posting seem to.

I have already explained why

What do feel that you're adding?

I was responding directly to your op

My hope for this thread is to have as many people as possible state what criteria would satisfy their need for evidence to accept reincarnation as real. The purpose is to find a common ground, the smallest common denominator, if you will, of what is to be considered objective repeatable evidence in the field of reincarnation research, which is a rapidly growing enterprise.
.

You don't see how my post answers your question, getting down to the nitty gritty of reincarnation beliefs the first thing you need to understand that is anyone who has had what they perceive to be a genuine reincarnation experience will totally believe its real. You will not be able to sway that belief by questioning them rationally. Reincarnation like religious belief is a matter founded on faith, if you don't understand that, you'll get nowhere. Its not a case of people making it up and you calling them on it, its a case of them believing in something they perceive as real and your attempts to call them on it will just be insulting. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect isn't even part of the story.

I have had a reincarnation experience myself. The first three years after it happened I totally believed everything about it, the next three years I started to doubt it had happened. Then I discovered that my experience was a result of my subconscious attempting to build for me a new origin story so that I could easier forget the trauma of childhood sexual, physical and emotional abuse which I had forgotten due to childhood traumatic amnesia. My brain apparently did this in order to protect me and to stop me getting recall of my childhood memories which were quite psychologically damaging. Two years of intensive therapy followed. It was extremely difficult to have to come to terms with the fact that I was actually who I was and was not someone else reincarnated who had not suffered my specific childhood abuse

you see my point, in my case the reincarnation experience was something that protected me, I admit that quite easily, but if someone had tried to tell me I was wrong at the time I would have reacted angrily, I needed that delusion for a little while as it allowed me to slowly come to terms with what had happened in my early life. Which is why reincarnation experiences are subjective. Theyre not imagined for nothing, everything we think has a reason. Do you think you have a right to dismiss something which you apparently have no personal experience of. Sounds a bit dangerous to me, not to you of course, but to the people who you are about to unload all over. What they are doing with their belief is harmless after all. Reincarnationsists don't tend to be evangelical, unless theyre funded by fraudsters out to make a quick buck off of their compulsory delusion



I would also have thought that someone asking for sincere information would take all the responses as sincere unless obviously otherwise. I also notice you have a clear negative bias (both in approach and attitude) towards the subject you have raised, a scientific approach (which you have stated you are taking) would be neutral.
also in case you didn't read it already, this site has rules, the first one states

Be civil and polite

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744
do you feel that you have been abiding by this rule ?

I also believe that your op was formulated because you are currently having a dialogue with reincarnationists somewhere else, would it be too much to ask for you to link to that discussion, I presume its on another forum and you are looking for help here because of this forums sceptical nature.

thanks

 

[Third Eye Open]

Third Eye Open, I don't believe in reincarnation, which I have to state in every post now due to a few ******** around here, but if it was a real phenomenon then science would need to investigate it. If it works in a way that we find bizarre, so be it.

What's the use of reincarnation if blah, blah, blah? Well, what's the use for us with black holes? Who cares! That's not why we have science. We have science to find things out, whether they have practical consequences for us here on earth or not.

Umm... I thought you wanted to know what would convince people it is real? I am telling you: if it was real, people would remember past lives. Which they don't.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Its interesting to note that the only culture to truly believe in reincarnation just happened to be on with an immensely stratified social system in which those born in a lesser position would literally never be able to raise themselves.
But don't worry, if you are nice and good and do what your betters say, then *next* life you'll be born in a better position. Now go back to shoveling manure and quit complaining about your lot!

Its like heaven for most other religions, except it claims even more that your social betters are also your spiritual betters.

So I have no doubt that there will never be evidence for reincarnation, as the whole concept was just dreamed up as a palative for those less well off.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Lord Kelvin is probably the best-known. In 1895 he stated that 'heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible', only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later...

As a brief off-topic aside, it would be interesting to know why Kelvin thought heavier than air flight was impossible. Did he explain his reasons? I'm sure he must have calculated that the task was impossible - he was just that kind of guy. Just like he rejected geologists claims of how ancient the earth was because he calculated how long it would take a molten earth to cool (but he was then unaware of heating due to radioactive decay). Did he actually say flat out that it was fundamentally impossible, or did he actually say that it couldn't be done given the power to weight ratio of available engine technology?

 

[Illiadus]

Marduk, I apologize for being rude and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Let me say right away that I'm very sorry about the things you have been put through. It makes me angry, but mostly very downhearted.

I have read what you said carefully and I promise I'll give it some good thought the next couple of days, to begin with.

Be well,

Thomas the new guy

 

[Illiadus]

Third Eye Open, thank you for your comment.
Duly noted.