Can you believe in certain things without being religious?

[GaSSPaNiCC]

What do you mean getting sloppy? If you could point me to a source where this mentioned, i would love to hear it, or maybe elaborate a bit further. Look just because this is controversial, it does not mean the research is invalid which is what i think your suggesting...

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, is there any sort of peer review process in place for paranormal research?

[/ QUOTE ]

...Anyone?

Or tell me in what journals the results are published?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean getting sloppy? If you could point me to a source where this mentioned, i would love to hear it, or maybe elaborate a bit further. Look just because this is controversial, it does not mean the research is invalid which is what i think your suggesting...

[/ QUOTE ]

4th attempt -
What is GaSSPaNiCC's evaluation of the quality of the science done in the work in question?
A - top notch. No finer research has ever been done in any field.
B - excellent with minor quibbles on ....
C - ok, some rough edges.
D - definitely flaws in the ...
E - shoddy in a lot of areas.
F - gawdawful.

There, it's down to one letter for you. ( mine was F).
If you're not going to on the forum much it doesn't matter, but I like to know whose links and references are worth reading and whose aren't. ( it's related to the thread on 'respecting opinions'.)

luckyme

[willie24]

for a person to qualify as "reincarnated," must he have memory of prior lives? if so, then what we know about the body/brain would seem to be inconsistent with the idea.

however, if no memory of past life (or premonition of future life) is required, then "reincarnation?" becomes philosophical rather than factual.

"what is the nature of conciousness?" is a question that no one here can put to rest. neither can anyone tell you (accurately) that your answer is wrong.

science is fallible, because it is based on human perception. it does a tremendous job of describing/explaining the mechanisms that seem to make up the world we percieve, but it does not prove reality (because the perception it is based on could be flawed)- unless it is taken as given that what we percieve IS reality. well, if that is true, then what about when different people percieve different things? can there be different realities?

there are many different logical paths you can consider, as falcanelli posted earlier.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
*sigh* i guess no one is familiar with the reincarnation research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson and is now contuining to be investigated by Dr. Jim Tucker. And concerning atheism, it is a belief ststem, one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural realm using the current scientific methodology. I think it is important to remain agnostic and in the true spirit of science, not let our beliefs blind us from what might be the truth. Whether it means God exists or He doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research

[/ QUOTE ]

Step 1: Use words with scary connotations like "belief system" or "dogma"
Step 2: Assert atheism is such.
Step 3: Victory!

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Ok so since i'm the idiot and your the genius, WHY is it reincarnation research should be avoided? Of course some of the cases aren't perfect, and it's hard to draw a conclusions, but there is enough data there to suggest something is going on. It is research like this which challenges the modern scientific viewpoint, and to be honest a lot of skeptics and scientists are uncomfortable because it does just that. So of course the only the way around it, is to berate the research that way it's easier to ignore. Which is essentially the case here, for some unstated reason i'm a crackpot because i support this research. Anyways i doubt i'm going to get an explanation, but if i do, i'll gladly admit i'm wrong, but of course it has to be valid one.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so since i'm the idiot and your the genius, WHY is it reincarnation research should be avoided? Of course some of the cases aren't perfect, and it's hard to draw a conclusions, but there is enough data there to suggest something is going on. It is research like this which challenges the modern scientific viewpoint, and to be honest a lot of skeptics and scientists are uncomfortable because it does just that. So of course the only the way around it, is to berate the research that way it's easier to ignore. Which is essentially the case here, for some unstated reason i'm a crackpot because i support this research. Anyways i doubt i'm going to get an explanation, but if i do, i'll gladly admit i'm wrong, but of course it has to be valid one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't discomfort but disbelief. There's an university research department basically practicing pseudoscience trying to prove that people are reborn?

That's far out of the realm of practical science and the research is diverting funds that could go somewhere more valuable to medicine or science that has the potential to contribute to day to day life.

Even within the field, you could allocate the man-hours or funding to researching how memory works instead of reincarnation, which may be a dead end. And that would basically accomplish the same goals.

So it isn't that scientists are uncomfortable with the idea that this may be valid research, it's just that it is likely to yield any practical use.

If you want to challenge modern science, focus on how the process of memory works instead, and if reincarnation is valid, a more focused research approach would yield it as a matter of course anyway.

[GaSSPaNiCC]

Why not try to objectively observe this phenonema to our greatest abililty? This is what stevenson did, and is still being pursued to this very day. I mean if these children are proclaiming to have recollection of a previous life, why not investigate it? It may seem unconvential, but that does not make it pseudoscience, and does not mean we cannot pursue the greatest objective truth of reality as we can. If it is objectively observable, i don't see any problem with resarch being conducted, especially if positive results are accumulated. Also research like this can sway the way in which most of us view the world, which i think is a most necessity at this point. You don't have to worry about it getting funding either, it doesn't get enough already as it is, which i think is absurd and is not being scientific. I understand that it is obviously hard to consider a mechanism for something like this, but i feel that this research serves a greater purpose then that.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
however, if no memory of past life (or premonition of future life) is required, then "reincarnation?" becomes philosophical rather than factual.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that "philosophical" deals with desires or nice sounding things that border on reality but are not ever it then I'll disagree. "Philosophical" deals with truth or better yet "wisdom" and is not a carnival side show.As the word states it speaks to the "love of wisdom". This really comes to the individual and not some broad abstraction as "philosophy".

Reincarnation and Karma speaks to Morality.Man's destiny is a moral tone poem whose essence is Love.

When space, time and other scientific abstractions are treated as the "only real" then concepts such as "big bang" progressing to a death of "only heat" obfuscate the reality of the Moral. Without the Moral Man is a "fifth wheel" , watching the universal progression without being a part of the same.

We are "within nature" and if you consider yourself in any way involved with "morality" then a good logical conclusion is that "nature" is also involved with "morality". Around you is "nature" which is your karma. Your position and place on earth, your family, clan, nation and race, all karmic. Your very body is karmic and related to destiny.

Love frees one from earthly karma and in this Man becomes free, new and nobled. Karma is not a burden to be shunned but a great joy to be greeted and transformed, for in this comes the renewal of Man.

As an addition, yes, you planned your karma. What man can complain he is only a "atom of infinity" when he planned his house and now lives in it? Karma is Morality redeemed and is a boon to mankind.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It is research like this which challenges the modern scientific viewpoint, and to be honest a lot of skeptics and scientists are uncomfortable because it does just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a strange view of science. (as suspected earlier).

There isn't a scientist alive who wouldn't give their right testicle to prove Relavity, say, wrong. You could summarize science as 'the attempt to disprove what we think we know.' and not be far off.

Unlike religion, science isn't about maintaining the status quo but trying to get beyond it.

luckyme