What Evidence Would Be Sufficient To Prove Reincarnation?

[Akhenaten]

Never say Never if you are a true skeptic.

A true skeptic would Never try to use an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Your kilt needs adjustment.

 

[dafydd]

A good response laca, but needs more bold 36-point red text. And maybe a blink tag or two.

When you see the different sized fonts and the colours,then you know that the thread has kicked the bucket.

 

[caniswalensis]

Hi All,

I have some additional thoughts, although the temperature in this kitchen is running high enough that I question whether I can take the heat.

On "anomolous information:"

With a little more thought, I have adapted my view on this. Even if someone can objectively prove beyond doubt, that they hold anomolous information, it still does not specifically prove reincarnation. There are other, perhaps equally far-fetched hypothesis that could predict anomolous information. A few spring to mind: racial memory, thought transference across time, and possesion. Each of these ideas also predicts anomolous information. I am sure we could all think of more that are both fun to believe in and unfalsifiable.

On "talking babies:"

While the absence of talking or otherwise talented babies may seem to falsify any theory or reincarnation, there may be a reason why can not depend on this as evidence against. I believe there are actual physiological reasons why an infant could not speak words or perform other complicated actions like painting. An infant or toddler may not have the muscular strength or motor control nessesary to do these things. Think of someone that has had a stroke. They know how to speak, but have lost a lifetime's worth of practice at doing so. Their motor skills have been wiped out and they must relearn them. Not sure if this applies or not. I am hoping that someone with more knowledge of such things will chime in on this. A common belief about reincarnation is that the older one gets, the less they will be able to remember of their past life, so it could be said that by the time one has the physical ability to speak and paint or whatever, they have lost the knowledge of how to do so.

On "what's the point:"

It would seem rather pointless to reincarnate if you don't remember anything and can't learn from it. There are problems with making this argument to believers though. The idea is that the learning is not for you in this lifetime. In fact, we are probably only here now because we need to learn more. A common belief is that it is your soul that must learn form all its lives. When your soul is disincarnate, many people believe that it is fully aware of and fully remembers all its lives.

It is easy to see how carefully honed this belief is against being falsified. Since reincarnation is undetectable and to an extent undefined, it is unfalsifiable.

As others have said in this thread, to prove reincarnation would first require proof of the existence of the soul. Then perhaps some sort of "soul fingerprint kit" could be developed. Probably won't happen in this lifetime.

I think the best way to discuss this topic with a believer would be to introduce the concepts of "evidence vs. proof" and "objective vs. subjective" to them if they are not already familiar with them. Then rather than telling them what sort of evidence could prove it scientifically (which will probably be unreasonable in their mind) Discuss with them why they believe in it. When they outline their evidences, demonstrate the subjectiveness of them by offering alternative paranormal hypothesis for each one. By doing that, you will show them that they are making assumptions based on their personal bias. Let them do the math themselves and it is a much easier pill to swallow.

Example: B: "I believe in reincarnation because there's a kid that has detailed knowledge of a WWII pilots life that he has no way of knowing." S: "Perhaps that kid is actualy psychic and touched an object that belonged to that pilot. How do we know which is the answer."

Now, chances are the story of the kid is not true anyway, but instead of just denying their "evidence" it is better to show them why it does not prove anything. Needless to say, this dialogue needs to be a friendly & respectful discussion if it is to have any positive effect on the believer.

Regards, Canis

 

[PixyMisa]

Illiadus, please ignore the "you're wrong" insults that dominate this forum (which is why i rarely participate).

Insult? Are you serious?

Illiadus has repeatedly misrepresented what people have posted in this very thread. That's what he's wrong about.

" I am not saying, I have never said, no-one here has ever said, that we would not accept the evidence if it were provided. We are saying that the evidence will never be provided."

This is not skepticism, it's close-mindedness, pure and simple.

That's not a response, that's baloney.

We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen, in the same way that we know perfectly well that the world isn't flat, and that babies aren't delivered by storks. It simply isn't true. There's no need to hold back here. It's not true, it never will be true, and no evidence will ever be presented that will change these facts.

It's not me who's closed-minded here, it's the reincarnationists, desperately rejecting every part of reality to cling to this irrational belief.

 

[fromdownunder]

I assume that everyone who has responded to this thread is familiar with the Bridey Murphy case, which has been falsified to my, and most people's satisfaction.

This case of "reincarnation" is probably as famous as it gets, and has been pretty well debunked. So, if nothing better than this can be brought to the table, it really is all over.

I think the key word, as many have stated is "evidence", There is none.

Norm

 

[Pup]

To answer your question, i'd have to go with the anomolous info group for a start. Im not familiar with the case, but for example if the person who showed the archaeologist the undiscovered info had been accompanied the whole time by a team of independent skeptics who closely scrutinized the process from start to finish, that would be a small start. There would have to be a bunch of other cases to build on that. I dont think the idea that "this doesnt necessarily prove reincarnation--could be mediumship or remote viewing etc etc" is valid since obvioulsy the person giving the info is not claiming any of those alternative theories.

I don't think it's as simple and straightforward as going with the person's claim, though.

Concerning archaelogical/historical stuff... Got a story for you.

Let's say a person is shown a one-of-a-kind, hand-made dress made by an ordinary (not recognizably famous) seamstress from the mid 19th century. They've never seen the dress before, and they're no closer than 15 feet.

Let's say the fact they never saw it before can be proven--don't know how, but let's take for granted that they really never have. Let's say we can also prove they've never seen any other dress by the same dressmaker and they have no other information about the dress or the dressmaker. There's no slight of hand or mirrors or trickery or collusion.

The person claims to be the reincarnation of the dressmaker and remembers making that dress. Their proof is they can tell the color, fiber and weave of the lining, what stitches were used on the inside, and all the interior construction details like which way the seam allowances were ironed, whether there's any boning and what material the boning is made of--without ever seeing anything but the outside of the dress from across the room.

After that's all told, everyone examines the inside of the dress. The answers aren't 100% correct but they're way, way better than chance, up there around 90%--well within the range of what a real dressmaker could remember about a dress she made a couple years ago.

If, hypothetically, we could prove all the above facts were true, would you consider that an example of good evidence for reincarnation? Is it primarily evidence of reincarnation (and not something else) because the person making the claim says they lived before as the dressmaker, and that's why they can do what they did?

Because I did that.

The only thing I didn't include was the claim to be a reincarnation of the dress-maker, but that would have only required another sentence or two and some acting ability. I could also have switched the claim to remote viewing or mediumship, with a different sentence or two and equal acting ability.

 

[Rodney]

We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen . . .
It's not me who's closed-minded here.

 

[PixyMisa]

Suitably inane.

We know perfectly well that reincarnation does not happen because (a) it contradicts the entirety of scientific knowledge, and (b) there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

As I keep pointing out, it's impossible and does not happen, and these are two different statements.

I'll state it again: We are not being closed-minded in categorically rejecting the notion of reincarnation and inferring that, since it is impossible and does not happen, no evidence supporting reincarnation will ever be presented.

The people being closed-minded are the ones who reject all contrary evidence to cling to their belief in reincarnation. That's the very definition of closed-mindedness.

This ridiculous trope that skeptics are closed-minded because they don't allow sufficient wiggle-room for someone's pet imbecility is nothing more than intellectual laziness.

 

[Aepervius]

You know very well what was meant with that. I have YET to see a believer be open to their pet woo being inexistant. Like for example, some of them being open to the idea ganzfeld is utter bunk.

@caniswalensis I brought the same argument about motor skill on the tongue, but that argument do NOT hold for motor skill of the hand. Baby could manipulate cubes with letters on them or at least point and wave the arm toward them, and form a compelte sentence or even, an essay on what their past life was.

But that is never what is proposed as "evidence" for reincarnation.

I have to go with pixymisa here, there is no evidence of reacincarnation because reincarnation DO NOT exists, and if it did, the whole world would be different.

The only way around that is to pretend the reincarnated one lose all his/her memory, and then at that point you could as well say you start from a clean slate is about as logic as reincarnation.

 

[manxman]

A three-year old in a sweet little lispy voice providing the Swiss bank account number in which we find the trillion dollars he stole in his previous life time.

Wont that require bush senior or chenney expiring firstly.

 

[Sun Countess]

I agree with Iaca's statement that there can be no "precise and specific definition that will satisfy most skeptics" without a clear definition of reincarnation.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve that issue or is that impossible?

Why do I need a clear definition of reincarnation anymore than I need a clear definition of Yahweh or homeopathy? It's all utter nonsense, and from where I see the believers in any of those three things have definitions which vary considerably amongst themselves.

Go to a reincarnation board if you want a definition. Does it all boil down to moles and birthmarks or some ill-defined personality traits being passed from one person to another? Is there a genetic component? Who knows? Who cares? The people concocting these theories are grasping at invisible straws. There's no credible evidence of reincarnation at this point in time. Absolutely none.

If it were happening in a way that actually impacted people, we would have evidence of it by now. It's either not happening at all, or it's happening in a way that can't be measured.

The more you protest, Illiadus, the more I get the sense you'd like to find a way to prove reincarnation is really really true, but those meanie skeptics aren't even willing to help you with your homework. Sorry if I've mischaracterized, but I wonder why you care about such a silly topic so darn much.

 

[caniswalensis]

@caniswalensis I brought the same argument about motor skill on the tongue, but that argument do NOT hold for motor skill of the hand. Baby could manipulate cubes with letters on them or at least point and wave the arm toward them, and form a compelte sentence or even, an essay on what their past life was.

Good thinking! That essay would take a lot of blocks, to be sure.

Believers might answer this by saying that people are not normally born with a complete memory of their past life, though.

In the end, the lack of babies that compose block essays is not enough to disprove reincarnation.

Regards, Canis

 

[PixyMisa]

True enough. If ever you get a coherent definition and point out that by that definition, the claimed event does not happen, the Retreat to Unfalsifiability kicks into gear.

 

[sadhatter]

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?

Just as i thought a thinly veiled " your asking for too much proof" thread.

As a skeptic, what would convince you of reincarnation then? What would be valid scientific proof to you? If you are indeed a skeptic, why in the heck do you need our opinion of what constitutes proof? That doesn't make sense, that would be like if a black friend asks me " what does a white guy think of the show the boondocks?" and i then proceed to have to call other white people and get their views on the show.

Within the claims made bby reincarnation a child of a few weeks old talking is perfectly reasonable. The concept is that memories and a soul are transferred, why are these memories never speech? Or math, or engineering? But wait, they sometimes are. But only when a child would be able to learn them. If that doesn't reek to high heaven of flim flam to you, i doubt your skepticality.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Wont that require bush senior or chenney expiring firstly.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few other candidates.

 

[Le Jab]

Speaking as a Hypnotist....

As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse.
I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story !
My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !)
Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse.
I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story !
My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !)
Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game.

Welcome to the Forum Le Jab.

Nice post and I have nominated it for its direct experience.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As a hypnotherapist, I can honestly state that in my experience, that recall under hypnosis is notoriously unreliable. False memory syndrome puts a huge question mark after any statement made during regressive therapy. I have done very little past life regression, but I know from my practice that information provided about previous experiences has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Freud gave up on repressed memory hypnosis as a disproportionate number of subjects were claiming sexual abuse.
I use hypnosis with sports people, and whilst under hypnosis, I asked an athlete to re-live an experience of when he was successful. He went on to tell in me in explicit detail about winning a national title at 14 yrs, and even described the cup and his acceptance speech for 'athlete of the year'. So theres me getting him to 'anchor' those feelings of success in order to re-experience them at points in competition when needed, only to find out that it was a completely fabricated story !
My past life regression attempts have had the normal stuff - Tutenkhamen's body guard etc. (When asked to speak in his native tongue, he spoke English with an Arabic-type accent !)
Hypnosis regression is fun, and no more than an elaborate parlour game.

Welcome to the Forum Le Jab.

Nice post and I have nominated it for its reporting based on direct experience.

 

[jakesteele]

I would accept reincarnation as real if Illiadus and Sledge are reincarnated as each other...

That's cruel and heartless.

 

[Marduk]

What about Jesus, if he comes back does that prove reincarnation,
or just reincarnation for divine entities
once again it's one rule for us and another for them