Is There Valid Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation?

[Ryan_m_b]

Like a USB port at the back of the neck? In all seriousness, though, what are you looking for? What is memory? What is the "medium" from which it will travel from one "brain" to another?

We have a good understanding that the brain holds memories. Indeed in many types of brain surgery it is necessary to keep the patient talking about a particular subject (such as dates) to make sure the surgeon isn't damaging their memory. If reincarnation were true (thats a huge IF) then these memories would have to transmit from one brain to another, or to some memory bank. Since we have absolutely no evidence of this that is another indication that reincarnation isn't true.

We just established earlier that most humans don't remember their past lives. Why would we expect animals too, and well enough to pass on life lessons to the next life? How are you going to know where and when said animal reincarnates?

We have not established anything about past lives except that there is no evidence for them. Again if reincarnation were true we would expect it to not be solely human, this could be one attempt to examine the phenomenon. If you cannot test it then there is no point speculating it.

But, it is an interesting point. We all come with certain predispositions, temperaments, talents. Back when they started the human genome project, seemed like they expected to find 100,000+ (or was it 200,000+) genes to account for everything they were thinking about. They only found like 20,000 something, IIRC. So, are all our behaviors passed on via heredity? Or are some from prior lives? Who knows.

We have 30,000 genes but over 100,000 proteins due to mechanisms such as alternative splicing, polyadenylation etc. Gene number does not correlate to behaviour. Our behaviours can be attributed to biologically inherited behaviours (smiling, laughing, walking, running etc) and socially inherited behaviours. There is no need to invoke magic to explain this! As for "who knows" this is an argument from ignorance, the fact that an issue is not 100% explained does not mean that we can shunt ideas with no evidence into the gaps.

Reincarnation is a taboo subject in the West. Most parents in the West, when they here their kid talking about past lives, would send them to the psychiatrist to get doped up on Ritalin. It's typically not be encouraged, nor "advertised". I found out after the fact that this happened with a friends family. The little girl was apparently saying some amazing stuff. They told her she was imagining things, to never talk about it again and discouraged it as much as possible. Of course, they can't remember the specific details now either. Now, at age 12, she has no memory of any of it. A lost case right there.

Nitpick but the West does not equal the US, there are other places in the developed world and we don't have quite the same attitude towards psychiatry as the US might. I always find it odd that people assume that children are not making things up, as a child myself I made up series of past lives that I lived in. Children are highly imaginative and highly suggestive.

Interestingly enough reincarnation was a common belief around the time of early Christianity. Why it lost favor is an interesting study in psychology, in and of itself.

Are you sure? I'd like a citation for that please, it sounds far too much like an urban myth.

If you do any reading on comparitive mythology, or psychological studies of religion, you'll realize for the most part: God=Krishna=Jesus=Yahweh=Allah, etc.

God is a symbol for something transcendent of concepts and language. Each culture dresses up the symbol in ways that pertain to that culture and their view of the world.

If you're interested, try Joseph Campbell - he's one of the better compartitive mythologists out there. He'll give a clear, succinct and academic viewpoint on the topic.

To simplify all religions as same thing that transcends language is ridiculous. There are drastic differences between concepts of a deity between cultures. I was referring to the interesting fact that no-one experiences anything outside of their own real world experience.

This isn't true at all when you say "all accounts". Granted many are like that and many cases are very weak, but they have over 20,000 cases. Did you really look through all of them? UoV is constantly seeking out cases, specifically in the America these days. I personally found some of the "anecdotes" somewhat convincing, as 3rd part members are involved, etc. The figher pilot guy Peter mentioned above is one.

I personally find some of the NDE cases more impressive, and harder to dismiss.

The fact that they are seeking out reincarnations means that they are going to encounter people who have already announced a belief in it. It doesn't matter if you have 20,000 cases or 200,000. This is not science.

I'm afraid you're going to have a long wait. Despite all this, it sounds like you have done a fair amount of investigating and thought about it a bit, which is better than just dismissing it to fit in with the "norm".

Thankyou. I am not waiting for anything however, if reincarnation were real then we would already have seen a variety of phenomenon in the world to corroborate it.

 

[dm4b]

We have a good understanding that the brain holds memories. Indeed in many types of brain surgery it is necessary to keep the patient talking about a particular subject (such as dates) to make sure the surgeon isn't damaging their memory. If reincarnation were true (thats a huge IF) then these memories would have to transmit from one brain to another, or to some memory bank. Since we have absolutely no evidence of this that is another indication that reincarnation isn't true.

We do NOT have a "good" understanding on most aspects of the brain ... including memory. No mechanism for memory storage has been conclusively proven, one way or the other. To make definitive claims about the topic is premature.

Absence of evidence implies the absence of evidence and that's it. Yet, you make a definitive conclusion - reincarnation is not true. (this would be akin to me claiming that String Theory is not true, since we have zero evidence to back it up) When it can be just as likely we just don't understand how reincarnation actually works.

This doesn't seem very objective to me. I'm not going to make a definitive claim either way myself, because I cannot offer convincing evidence either way, nor can I (or anybody else) successfully explain away all the "anecdotal" observations.

I think the only honest thing one can say, is reincarnation seems more unlikely than likely.

Besides, for reincarnation to be true, the brain would have to be a vehicle of consciousness and NOT the source of consciousness. In other words, what you said above would be like claiming by damaging an antenna (i.e. brain) you destroyed the EM waves (i.e. consciousness/memories). Or, after watching an antenna "light up" (MRI images of brain), start claiming that the antenna is the source of the EM waves, when may really just be the receiver.

We have not established anything about past lives except that there is no evidence for them. Again if reincarnation were true we would expect it to not be solely human, this could be one attempt to examine the phenomenon. If you cannot test it then there is no point speculating it.

I apologize. I mistook Peter's comments above about lack of memories in childhood, etc, to be your comments. None the less, Peter has a good point.

If you don't speculate about something, you won't figure out a way to test it, especially if it is difficult to test. Kinda like with String Theory, you know ;-)

We have 30,000 genes but over 100,000 proteins due to mechanisms such as alternative splicing, polyadenylation etc. Gene number does not correlate to behaviour. Our behaviors can be attributed to biologically inherited behaviours (smiling, laughing, walking, running etc) and socially inherited behaviours.

Once again, it has not been conclusively proven where all ( or even close to that ) of our behaviors, talents, temperaments come from. The above is more of an assumption.

There is no need to invoke magic to explain this! As for "who knows" this is an argument from ignorance, the fact that an issue is not 100% explained does not mean that we can shunt ideas with no evidence into the gaps.

Dude, you're reading into stuff I never said. All I meant was: "who knows"="Nobody knows for sure at this current point in time"

Nitpick but the West does not equal the US, there are other places in the developed world and we don't have quite the same attitude towards psychiatry as the US might. I always find it odd that people assume that children are not making things up, as a child myself I made up series of past lives that I lived in. Children are highly imaginative and highly suggestive.

Imaginative dreaming cannot be backed up by 3rd parties and corroborated with external events as many of the case studies have been. In that regards, that makes, at least some of their cases, more than "anecdotal", and constitutes a form of evidence, even if it is weak.

Are you sure? I'd like a citation for that please, it sounds far too much like an urban myth.

Start with the Bible, where hints of it still remain. There are two passages in the NT (Matthew 17:10-13 is one) where John the Baptist is said to be Elisha. Also, look into the passage about the reason for the man being born blind (John 9:1-3). Hard to imagine committing a sin that would cause you to be born blind, unless of course that sin was committed before birth. If that idea was so anathema, why didn't Jesus rebuke his disciples for suggesting it?

Simply read history for the rest.

To simplify all religions as same thing that transcends language is ridiculous. There are drastic differences between concepts of a deity between cultures. I was referring to the interesting fact that no-one experiences anything outside of their own real world experience.

well, it's a pretty well established fact within psychology and comparative mythology that the differences are on the surface only. This is basic knowledge of how symbolism works. In fact, Christianity has very few unique elements, or symbols, as most of the symbolism and stories are essentially borrowed from pagan myths, right down to Noah and the Flood, Moses and the Ten Commandments, Virgin Birth, a resurrected savior, etc. The parallels between all religions is pervasive.

I would think you might like the academic ideas on why this is thought to be so, since it jives up with your statement on behaviors above. It's thought it potentially genetic, and/or biological inherited behaviors. Basically, we're all "wired" the same, share the same set of emotions, and at a fundamental level our psyches are similar. So, why would we not expect our myths to also be similar at a fundamental level. After all, that's all a myth is - an image to help us get along in the world, given our current worldview and state of our psyche/consciousness. It's also been shown that as consciousness evolves, so do our symbols and our myths.

God does not have to exist for this to be true. It can be regarded in a simply academic way.

In fact, Eastern religions have no problems recognizing the same truths in their religions to be present in Western religions. Only in the West, is the problem so pervasive. Only in the West, do you see religions claiming, so pervasively, to be the soul owner of the "truth".

Once again, all a result of working/thinking under a paradigm.

So the simple statement that all this "is ridiculous", seems uninformed, at best.

The fact that they are seeking out reincarnations means that they are going to encounter people who have already announced a belief in it.

Wrong. In many cases, the parents came from traditional backgrounds where they did not believe in reincarnation at all. see the fighter pilot case that Peter mentioned. This is also why they are actively seeking out cases in America.

if reincarnation were real then we would already have seen a variety of phenomenon in the world to corroborate it.

Once again, that's a definitive claim made off only assumptions, without any conclusive material to back it up. I mean it's okay to have an opinion, but be aware that's all it is ... an opinion based on your own line of thinking and not backed up by evidence. You may be right, but you may be wrong.

 

[JaredJames]

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Just answer the OP's question:

No, there isn't any scientific evidence for reincarnation and due to its nature there is nothing science can say about it. Until such a time there is more than just anecdote on the table, there is no scientific view on the matter - there's nothing to form one with.

You cannot prove a negative so there's no way for science to say "it does not exist", so it's a pointless debate.

I think the OP's question has been answered many times over, not sure what is being discussed here anymore and to what purpose.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Listen friend, you really need to stop taking anything I say as some absolute statement! When I say things like "its not true" I am making the statement that to the best of our knowledge and evidence this is not true.

I chose my words with great care when I said we had a good understanding that the brain holds memories. I did not say complete, I did not say we have a complete understanding of memory coding I said we had a GOOD understanding that the BRAIN HOLDS MEMORIES. Let's take the two ideas that A) the brain is the seat of consciousness and B) the brain is an antenna for consciousness. Whilst those two things may be hard to distinguish we have no indication that consciousness can be held outside of a brain nor that the brain transmits/receives anything. Occams razor applies here.

Regarding the "assumption" I apparently made that our behaviours stem from biology/sociology. It is not an assumption, it is an observation based on the available evidence. You seem to think that because there is no 100% explanation for something that all bets are off and no statements can be made. Far from it.

The reason that 3rd party accounts are not evidence is because they cannot be verified. Consider this case

Person A claims to have memories of events and people in a place that person A and person A's family claim they have never been to. Person B who is one of the people in these claims later agrees that person A's claims are true of events that happened 20 years before.

This is not evidence because it is impossible to verify if person A, their family and person B are telling the truth, intentionally or otherwise.

The reason as to why it is ridiculous to suggest that all religions are same **** different name is because I still stand by the fact that it is. I think you've misunderstood me, I was responding to your statement that God=Jesus=Allah=krishna, I was not commenting on the parallels between religion.

Once again, that's a definitive claim made off only assumptions, without any conclusive material to back it up. I mean it's okay to have an opinion, but be aware that's all it is ... an opinion based on your own line of thinking and not backed up by evidence. You may be right, but you may be wrong.

Again you really haven't understood the nomenclature that I am using. I am not making absolute statements, I am making statements in light of all available evidence. Whether or not I am correct is different to whether or not I am right. My statement that "if reincarnation existed we would expect corroborating evidence" stands because that's true of everything in nature.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Just answer the OP's question:

No, there isn't any scientific evidence for reincarnation and due to its nature there is nothing science can say about it. Until such a time there is more than just anecdote on the table, there is no scientific view on the matter - there's nothing to form one with.

You cannot prove a negative so there's no way for science to say "it does not exist", so it's a pointless debate.

I think the OP's question has been answered many times over, not sure what is being discussed here anymore and to what purpose.

I concur

 

[dm4b]

This thread is getting ridiculous.

getting? It's been a fairly uninformed discussion from the start ;-)

 

[dm4b]

Again you really haven't understood the nomenclature that I am using. I am not making absolute statements, I am making statements in light of all available evidence. Whether or not I am correct is different to whether or not I am right. My statement that "if reincarnation existed we would expect corroborating evidence" stands because that's true of everything in nature.

ryan, we're just talking in circles at this point.

How about we just agree to disagree on this topic? ;-)

 

[ShotmanMaslo]

I would like to know your opinion about the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Cases_Suggestive_of_Reincarnation"

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1165"

 

[JaredJames]

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1165"

Well there's no evidence there for a start.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would like to know your opinion about the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Cases_Suggestive_of_Reincarnation"

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1165"

Reporting on anecdotal claims is not science and it certainly doesn't count as evidence. If I gave you a book I just wrote with 1000 transcripts of conversations i'd had with people who claim to have seen unicorns would that prove unicorns for you?

It doesn't matter how many claims you have in a book because we have no way of knowing if the claims are real, if the people were telling the truth etc etc

 

[ShotmanMaslo]

Reporting on anecdotal claims is not science and it certainly doesn't count as evidence. If I gave you a book I just wrote with 1000 transcripts of conversations i'd had with people who claim to have seen unicorns would that prove unicorns for you?

It doesn't matter how many claims you have in a book because we have no way of knowing if the claims are real, if the people were telling the truth etc etc

Thats not a fitting analogy, since unicorn claims cannot be verified or falsified and are therefore unscientific.
But those children just starting to speak were telling detailed descriptions about the past lifes which they have no way to know, and which were verifiable, and matched the actual realities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html?nav=hcmodule

The evidence he did provide in abundance came not from past-life readings or hypnotic regressions but from using the techniques of a detective or investigative reporter to evaluate claims that a young child, often just beginning to talk, had spontaneously started to speak of the details of another life. In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he hunted with -- all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.

Here is an opinion of such sceptic as Carl Sagan:

But in 1996, no less a luminary than astronomer Carl Sagan, a founding member of a group that set out to debunk unscientific claims, wrote in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World": "There are three claims in the [parapsychology] field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study," the third of which was "that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

Here is a reevaluation of one case study:
http://www.webcitation.org/query?ur...lawar-revisited.html&date=2009-10-25+02:57:03

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thats not a fitting analogy, since unicorn claims cannot be verified or falsified and are therefore unscientific.
But those children just starting to speak were telling detailed descriptions about the past lifes which they have no way to know, and which were verifiable, and matched the actual realities.

It doesn't matter if their account is verifiable because the mechanism by which they have this information is unknown and unverifiable. This is why anecdotes like this are not evidence. The child could have been coached (intentionally or otherwise), the authors could have been lying etc. It seems harsh but if we started taking anecdotes as evidence we would end up believing a wealth of things that are wrong.

It is not scientific to take an anecdote and assume that there is no other way they could have the information other than reincarnation.

 

[ShotmanMaslo]

It doesn't matter if their account is verifiable because the mechanism by which they have this information is unknown and unverifiable. This is why anecdotes like this are not evidence. The child could have been coached (intentionally or otherwise), the authors could have been lying etc. It seems harsh but if we started taking anecdotes as evidence we would end up believing a wealth of things that are wrong.

Dr. Stevenson recognised this:

But Dr. Stevenson himself recognized one glaring flaw in his case for reincarnation: the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body.

It is not scientific to take an anecdote and assume that there is no other way they could have the information other than reincarnation.

It was not assumed to be true, quite the opposite, the null hypothesis was standard skeptic explanation you speak of:

In interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents, Dr. Stevenson searched for alternate ways to account for the testimony: that the child came upon the information in some normal way, that the witnesses were engaged in fraud or self-delusion, that the correlations were the result of coincidence or misunderstanding. But in scores of cases, Dr. Stevenson concluded that no normal explanation sufficed.

Only after failure of the null hypothesis to sufficiently explain the observed Dr. Stevenson turned to alternative theories. And even then he seems to agree that it is certainly not a 100% proof since there is still a possibility he has overlooked natural causes, and also there are many other parapsychological theories than just reincarnation that can explain it (such as universal knowledge etc.). Hence the term suggestive of reincarnation.

The problem is his research has been ignored without being refuted or explained, while it shows evidence of unexplained phenomena.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Dr. Stevenson recognised this:




It was not assumed to be true, quite the opposite, the null hypothesis was standard skeptic explanation you speak of:


Only after failure of the null hypothesis to sufficiently explain the observed Dr. Stevenson turned to alternative theories. And even then he seems to agree that it is certainly not a 100% proof since there is still a possibility he has overlooked natural causes, and also there are many other parapsychological theories than just reincarnation that can explain it (such as universal knowledge etc.). Hence the term suggestive of reincarnation.

The problem is his research has been ignored without being refuted or explained, while it shows evidence of unexplained phenomena.

Having the hypothesis;

"Personalities and memories transfer after death to another newborn person"

In spite of any indication that such a thing could occur is bad science. Trying to test that hypothesis by matching up anecdotes to history is not valid. Deciding that the hypothesis must be true because no other explanation has been found is bad science, talking about 100% proof is bad science.

It doesn't matter if an anecdotal case has not been explained. The onus is on the proponents of a claim to provide evidence for it. Stevenson may or may not say he acknowledges that he cannot explain why some children have knowledge of past events but he clearly does not actually acknowledge it because he keeps providing an answer with no evidence!

I'm struggling to see why you can't grasp this. Accounts of children having passed knowledge is not evidence for reincarnation, it is evidence that somehow children are receiving this knowledge. Figuring out how they got this information has not been done and there is no evidence for how they got it. Jumping to a supernatural claim is plain crackpottery