Do you believe in Reincarnation?

[sh_einstein]

Why should some people like The African people be born in poverty, why should some people suffer all their life and others don't.The only explanation that I can think of is REINCARNATION, that we all live many times and our situation in our next life depends on the things we have done in our past lives.But then what would Hell and Heaven mean, if we were about to be punished in our next lives?

[Dodo25]

Why should some people like The African people be born in poverty, why should some people suffer all their life and others don't.The only explanation that I can think of is REINCARNATION, that we all live many times and our situation in our next life depends on the things we have done in our past lives.But then what would Hell and Heaven mean, if we were about to be punished in our next lives?

So what you're basically saying is 'screw those starving children in Africa, they were a******s in their former lives and they deserve suffering?'

That's outrageous. I know you don't mean it that way, but you can't have it both ways.

Some people are going to suffer, others get lucky. That's just what you'd expect if there is no magic, kind-hearted and powerful being that takes care of it. All we can do is be thankful that we're alive, right now, in priviledged circumstances, and then use this feeling of thankfulness to make something with our live and do good, to ease the suffering of those who were born in unfortunate circumstances.

[dizzydoll]

This is a real big subject, but I believe you are correct in considering reincarnation. Its the only thing that makes sense to me too.


So what you're basically saying is 'screw those starving children in Africa, they were a******s in their former lives and they deserve suffering?'

In fact there are several reasons why this might occur but since we on earth know nothing about what happens to us after death, reincarnation makes the most sense. Reincarnation explains that we choose the life we are born into beforehand and we grow from the experience, as do others in compassion and empathy when dealing with the needy. Over and above that, people come back to face good and bad Karma so this makes it all the more important to leave this life with a clean slate, if not... its payback time next time round.

I would be interested to know what other peoples views are regarding condition as quoted by Dodo. Please dont bother with "its just coincidence" you were born in the North Pole and me in Africa, I'm wont buy that.

[MarkBastable]

So two posters suggest that reincarnation is the only explanation that 'makes sense', despite

a) a complete lack of evidence for it and
b) the availability of a much more likely explanation - to wit, that people tend to get born where their mothers happen to be at the time.

I'm prepared to bet* that when asked what evidence there is for reincarnation, someone cites an old book which says that reincarnation is the only explanation that makes sense. But that just pushes the question back a few hundred years.

So, to answer the original query - no, I don't. There's absolutely nothing in the world to suggest that reincarnation happens, and there's not a single apparent purpose for such a system, outside of "Well, it'd be neat because it'd make the world sort of fair."


*I'll bet my next life. And the one after that. Come on - you gotta like those odds.

[Dodo25]

And really, dogmatically insisting on the premise 'the universe must be fair' is not a way that produces any objective or useful results. Neither in science nor in philosophy.

[dizzydoll]

So bring feasible explanations as to why some are born to extreme poverty and suffer and others not? Dont just come with what you dispute, give me a reason for this occurrence? I am waiting....

[MarkBastable]

So bring feasible explanations as to why some are born to extreme poverty and suffer and others not? Dont just come with what you dispute, give me a reason for this occurrence? I am waiting....

Same reason some seeds fall into moist productive soil and and some fall onto the rocks; same reason some antelopes get eaten by lions and some don't; same reason some planets have atmospheres that support life and some are dead rocks.

Dumb luck, and the fact that the Earth doesn't give a damn about anything crawling on it.

[dizzydoll]

Same reason some seeds fall into moist productive soil and and some fall onto the rocks; same reason some antelopes get eaten by lions and some don't; same reason some planets have atmospheres that support life and some are dead rocks.

Dumb luck, and the fact that the Earth doesn't give a damn about anything crawling on it.

Your explanation sounds too much like coincidence for me, you had better come up with something better than that... nothing is a coincidence.

[MarkBastable]

Your explanation sounds too much like coincidence for me, you had better come up with something better than that... nothing is a coincidence.

A coincidence is the significant proximity in time or place of two or more events with no apparent shared cause. So where's the coincidence? What's coinciding?

[sixsmith]

Your explanation sounds too much like coincidence for me, you had better come up with something better than that... nothing is a coincidence.

Given that we have evidence for the kind of 'coincidence' to which Mark refers, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence of reincarnation?

[dizzydoll]

A coincidence is the significant proximity in time or place of two or more events with no apparent shared cause. So where's the coincidence? What's coinciding?

So why are some people born in poverty and suffering and others not? Your previous comment was all about dumb luck, it also smacks of coincidence, there is no such thing in either case.


Given that we have evidence for the kind of 'coincidence' to which Mark refers, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence of reincarnation?

Give me scientific proof that coincidences occur. Nothing is a coincidence in life, your parents were supposed to be yours, and mine mine etc,

[MarkBastable]

... your parents were supposed to be yours, and mine mine et....


Hang on. That's not proof of reincarnation existing. That's an effect reincarnation has if it exists. In order to say reincarnation is working , we need preceding evidence of it. An assumption that it's working is not that.

What you seem to mean is that nothing is random. In which case, you need to demonstrate that. If you think that nothing is just random, just dumb luck, perhaps you could present a hypothesis of how things would be different if things were random. So - that seems the next step in the debating process.

How would the world work observably differently if everything were random?

[Dodo25]

So bring feasible explanations as to why some are born to extreme poverty and suffer and others not? Dont just come with what you dispute, give me a reason for this occurrence? I am waiting....


Your explanation sounds too much like coincidence for me, you had better come up with something better than that... nothing is a coincidence.

For the sake of the argument, I'll grant you that 'coincidence' here means 'dumb luck'. I wasn't aware of the technical definition MB presented either.

Now why isn't it, even in principle, possible that some things have no higher reason than that they just happen, as a product of mindless physical forces acting on mindless matter?

It all comes down to the 'why' game:

Child: "Why is the sky blue?"

Parent: "Because it reflects light in a specific way that our brains interpret as 'blue'"

Child: "Why do our brains do that?"

Parent: "Presumably because it is the most efficient kind of software to navigate in the real world that could evolve. Blue is contrast to the green vegetation and the brown soil. Contrast is important for vision."

Child: "Why did this 'software' evolve?"

Parent: "Because individuals who happen to be born with genes that wire the brain closest to it have advantages in surviving."

Child: "Why do they have advantages in surviving?"

Parent: "I told you already, you're being circular. They have better contrast, hence they are quicker at identifying food or predators, which makes them, on average, live longer."

Child: "Okay but Why are there even predators, or food?"

Parent: "Because once upon a time, actually around 3.5 billion years ago, molecules self-assembled themselves to form a self-replicating macromolecule, a replicator. So this thing made copies of itself, and due to some slight mechanical errors ('mutations'), some copies were slightly better (or worse) at replicating. The ones better automatically became dominant, and the ones unsuited to their environment died out. This process produced all the life there is on earth."

Child: "Why did the molecules self-assemble themselves in such a specific way?"

Parent: "I assume just 'dumb luck'. There are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. Many stars have planets, so there is plenty of room for combinatorial experiments. The forces of physics shuffled them, like marbles in a box, and even though the outcome was in this particular instance we're talking about 'improbable', it almost had to happen somewhere, given that there are so many molecules on so many planets."

Child: "Why do the laws of physics permit this to happen?"

Parent: "Here I'm entering dangerous territory not yet fully understood by science. But I, and many astrophysicists, assume that there are billions of universes as well. In some of them, the laws just happen to be a certain way, and obviously, in ours they were optimal for life, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about it (but similar creatures might be in another universe)."

Child: "Why might there be so many universes?"

Parent: "Because a 'vacuum' isn't completely empty. The concept of 'nothing' is a human construct. There are always tiniest particles popping in and out of existance, matter and anti-matter, normally it annihilates itself if the two appear together. Statistically, this happens every time with almost no exceptions. Big bangs, that create universes, are the exceptions, where matter, for some reason, comes to dominate anti-matter and for some reason starts to expand."

Child: "For some reason? What kind of explanation is that? WHY does it do this?"

Parent: "Stop asking me these questions, some things just happen the way they happen!"


Of course, that was a pretty smart child, luckily enough for most parents, a normal child would give up somewhere along the way because it doesn't understand the answers good enough to know what to ask for next.

Anyway, in the end, you always come down to things that 'just are'. Even the ones who believe in God assume that he 'just is'. The difference between a theistic world view and an atheistic one is just that the atheist is able to explain a lot more things before hiding behind the 'it just is', while the theist postulates the most improbable, complex, intelligent, and even caring and prayer answering being.

I hope I haven't gotten too off topic here. My main point is that even karma, reincarnation or 'god' requires 'dumb luck', and a huge amount more of it than the alternative of an indifferent cosmos.

[sixsmith]

Dizzy,

A coincidence is a concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection. I don't think this is what Mark is referring to. My parents were not supposed to be anything. Certain events transpired: I'm a product of those events. Similarly, the child born into poverty dies because he or she doesn't have enough clean drinking water. Cause and effect.

[dizzydoll]

Cause and effect.

Now we are getting somewhere, why is there a cause and effect? These two terms are most definitely related to Reincarnation.

Dodo, forget the stories my mate. Answer the question I posed, give me scientific proof for your reasoning as to why one child is born in poverty while another isnt.

[Dodo25]

Give me scientific proof that coincidences occur.

I used to think that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle proved this. However, recently someone pointed out to me that it might not, for spacetime exists independently of any particular point in it, and hence independently of any quantum outcome. How then can events be 'truly random', if the factory of space time exists in a certain way anways? My knowledge of physics ends here, can anyone jump in?

Either way, it's not really relevant for this discussion because dizzydoll, the burden of proof clearly rests on you because you're claiming that things exist for there is no evidence (souls, reincarnation). Even if determinism is true, it would still be the default assumption that there is no design or purpose in it, and anyone who thinks differently is asked to provide evidence.

[dizzydoll]

Books cannot teach us the answer to this question I am afraid. Your DNA comes from your parents and my DNA comes as a result of mine, why were your parents not mine and my parents not yours? There should be a simple explanation for this dont you think?

Besides I dont need to give you proof for my beliefs, you came into this thread disputing so you should give proof why you did so, otherwise why bother reading mine or another persons beliefs.

[sixsmith]

Books cannot teach us the answer to this question I am afraid. Your DNA comes from your parents and my DNA comes as a result of mine, why were your parents not mine and my parents not yours? There should be an explanation for this dont you think?

Well, when a mommy loves a daddy... Cause and effect is the [W]hy.

[dizzydoll]

Blah, blah... none of you have the answer. Maybe someone else can provide the proof I require because, as I said on my previous post, you are on this thread disputing our beliefs. Provide proof or leave our beliefs be.

[sixsmith]

Books cannot teach us the answer to this question I am afraid. Your DNA comes from your parents and my DNA comes as a result of mine, why were your parents not mine and my parents not yours? There should be a simple explanation for this dont you think?

Besides I dont need to give you proof for my beliefs, you came into this thread disputing so you should give proof why you did so, otherwise why bother reading mine or another persons beliefs.

I think we are disputing your beliefs because you have no proof to support them. So, enlighten us.


Blah, blah... none of you have the answer. Maybe someone else can provide the proof I require because, as I said on my previous post, you are on this thread disputing our beliefs. Provide proof or leave our beliefs be.

So you require proof to disprove something not based on proof?

[dizzydoll]

I am comfortable with my understanding of the lessons my soul needs to learn in this life to progress to the next, thats all that counts in my life. At least reincarnation answers this question for me [regarding poverty and suffering] and leads me to live a better life as a result of the laws of cause and effect. It also doesnt leave me with such a lack of understand that Mark has chosen:


Dumb luck, and the fact that the Earth doesn't give a damn about anything crawling on it.

I will say it again:

I dont need to give you proof for my beliefs, you came into this thread disputing my views of the reasons for pain and suffering so you should give reasons for this occurrence, otherwise why bother reading mine or another persons beliefs.

[sixsmith]

Sounds great. Thing is, we live on Earth, not in this thread. On Earth, we have no evidence for the kind of afterlife that you propose exists. You are unwilling to furnish us with such evidence. Instead, you simply assert that you have the correct 'answer'. I can do the same: there is no such thing as reincarnation.

[Paulclem]

The focus for proof thus far is scientifically based, and as such there is no proof.

From the Buddhist perspective, the mind is a seperate componant to the brain which is merely the vehicle. It's prescence can't be detected without the medium of the brain, and so logically - from a scientific perspective, there can't be an existing mind without the brain. This is disputed by meditators who have developed meditation techniques to investigate the mind.

The quest for scientific proof has been pursued by researchers such as Professor Stevenson:

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

but I know that scientists may not regard his"evidence" as valid. I'm not disputing that. I don't think it matters.

I do know some Buddhist monks/ nuns who do not believe in reincarnation precisely because they have had no personal proof that it exists. In fact I don't see that there can be external proof, just someone willing to accept the possibility and perhaps attempt to find out.

There is a meditation technique which purports to train the meditator to track back over their life and beyond. It does take a long time, apparently, and would only then provide subjective proof.

The reason I believe in reincarnation? It's meaningless to anyone else, so there's no point in sharing.

One other reason for believing in reincarnation for Buddhists is the veracity of the teachings. If, as a practitioner of Buddhism, you find that the teachings are valid, then this may point to the truth of the other teachings of the Buddha. It's not proof, but a kind of faith which rests on personal findings. It is not blind faith.

I suppose similar reasons could be voiced by Hindu practitioners, though I would not presume to speak for them.

[MarkBastable]

you came into this thread disputing my views of the reasons for pain and suffering.

No, I didn't. I answered the question the original poster asked. And when I got into a conversation with you, I didn't say you were wrong. I simply asked for objective evidence that you are right. That's how debate works. You have a proposition - that reincarantion exists - and I take the contrary view, and we attempt to progress the argument through the application of objective reason.

"I am comfortable with my understanding" is not the application of objective reason - it's a declaration that you don't wish to discuss it further. Which is fine. It's not obligatory to talk about it.

[Dodo25]

The focus for proof thus far is scientifically based, and as such there is no proof.

True, but if we allow 'evidence' too, then there should at least be evidence. The difference is that proof is absolute, and therefore only applies to logic and mathematics. In every other science, what counts is evidence. But that's not restricted to science alone. Why can we convict murderers in trial? Not because of mathematical proof, but because of convincing evidence.



From the Buddhist perspective, the mind is a seperate componant to the brain which is merely the vehicle. It's prescence can't be detected without the medium of the brain, and so logically - from a scientific perspective, there can't be an existing mind without the brain. This is disputed by meditators who have developed meditation techniques to investigate the mind.

And this is a scientific claim. You, or Buddhists, are arguing dualism. There have been convincing papers and books against this position, for it faces lots of internal inconsistencies. It's a scientific claim that requires evidence.

[...]


I do know some Buddhist monks/ nuns who do not believe in reincarnation precisely because they have had no personal proof that it exists. In fact I don't see that there can be external proof, just someone willing to accept the possibility and perhaps attempt to find out.

Believe in something precisely because they have no proof? That makes no sense to me. Since human imagination is the thing that comes up with such concepts, it is of course possible to think of something that 'can't be proven'. If I wanted to believe in something without evidence, I would obviously choose something that is hard or impossible to prove. For example, I wouldn't pick homeopathy, because in double blind studies, one can easily conclude whether homeopathy does equal or better (or worse?) than a normal placebo. Hence no positive evidence automatically serves as negative evidence. It is no accident that religious memes have properties that make them 'avoid detection'.

[...]



The reason I believe in reincarnation? It's meaningless to anyone else, so there's no point in sharing.

I disagree. I'm curious as to why people believe things. And even if personal experience can't count as objective evidence, there is at least something that needs to be explained. For instance, if Buddhist meditation indeed produces some feeling of trance, which may even have a limited beneficial effect on stress level, blood pressure or other things, then there is an interesting neurological aspect behind it which is worth being investigated.



One other reason for believing in reincarnation for Buddhists is the veracity of the teachings. If, as a practitioner of Buddhism, you find that the teachings are valid, then this may point to the truth of the other teachings of the Buddha. It's not proof, but a kind of faith which rests on personal findings. It is not blind faith.

This actually makes some sense. It would be evidence, albeit weak evidence. You'd have to be sure though that the premises aren't flawed to begin with. And also, you can't jump from 'good ethics' to 'true metaphyiscs'.



I suppose similar reasons could be voiced by Hindu practitioners, though I would not presume to speak for them.

Indeed, or practioners of Scientology or even Pastafarianism. The problem with claims that are unsupported by evidence is that you have absolutely no objective reason to favor one over the other. All kinds of religions have believers that claim to have had experiences that proved the veracity of their religion to them. They can't all be right, can they?

[Paulclem]

True, but if we allow 'evidence' too, then there should at least be evidence. The difference is that proof is absolute, and therefore only applies to logic and mathematics. In every other science, what counts is evidence. But that's not restricted to science alone. Why can we convict murderers in trial? Not because of mathematical proof, but because of convincing evidence.
Ok, but what is admissible evidence? Visions? meditations experiences that can only claim to be subjective? Feelings? They are evidence for me on a personal basis, but I can't see a scientist or someone whose perspective is more scientific admitting it has any validity.

And this is a scientific claim. You, or Buddhists, are arguing dualism. There have been convincing papers and books against this position, for it faces lots of internal inconsistencies. It's a scientific claim that requires evidence.
[...]
This is a complex point and refers to the Buddhist conception of reality. It may not be the simplistic dualism I mentioned, but related to reality. To fully answer I would need to look a bit deeper at the teachings, but I may not be able to respond with sufficient knowledge about this.

Believe in something precisely because they have no proof? That makes no sense to me. Since human imagination is the thing that comes up with such concepts, it is of course possible to think of something that 'can't be proven'. If I wanted to believe in something without evidence, I would obviously choose something that is hard or impossible to prove. For example, I wouldn't pick homeopathy, because in double blind studies, one can easily conclude whether homeopathy does equal or better (or worse?) than a normal placebo. Hence no positive evidence automatically serves as negative evidence. It is no accident that religious memes have properties that make them 'avoid detection'.
[...]
No - I said they were Buddhists but did not believe in reincarnation. It is perfectly possible to hold this position and keep an open mind on the matter until it becomes clearer. i think it demonstrates sincerity. The Buddha's instructions were to test the teachings.


I disagree. I'm curious as to why people believe things. And even if personal experience can't count as objective evidence, there is at least something that needs to be explained. For instance, if Buddhist meditation indeed produces some feeling of trance, which may even have a limited beneficial effect on stress level, blood pressure or other things, then there is an interesting neurological aspect behind it which is worth being investigated.
As above - my own proofs are based on my very subjective experience that while they may be interesting, provide nothing like proof. I understand this, and I would never expect anyone to base their belief in something on my own experience.

This actually makes some sense. It would be evidence, albeit weak evidence. You'd have to be sure though that the premises aren't flawed to begin with. And also, you can't jump from 'good ethics' to 'true metaphyiscs'.
As I said there's an element of faith involved in such thinking, but the practice sets out very clear methods and aims for the meditator. for example decreasing ones own tendency to anger. If the method works - then perhaps the other methods work too - such as investigating one's own lifetimes. This practice isn't done much as it does take time, and the focus of buddhism is to solve the problems we are faced with now rather than the past.

Indeed, or practioners of Scientology or even Pastafarianism. The problem with claims that are unsupported by evidence is that you have absolutely no objective reason to favor one over the other. All kinds of religions have believers that claim to have had experiences that proved the veracity of their religion to them. They can't all be right, can they?
This is the problem with evidence. That's why I questioned the value of trying to present subjective evidence especially to one with a sceptical scientific perspective. It is a valuable perspective, as is the scientific view - otherwise we'd still be in the agricultural age, but it is not necesarily a useful tool when dealing with reincarnation.

There's another thread which talks of is it ok to follow an untrue belief? Well a Buddhist would say yes from the perspective that they think theirs is the most valid religion - but hopefully in a humble way, otherwise they would become a member of another religion. But HH The Dalai Lama said that one should stick with the religion one was brought up with unless one has a very strong attachement to Buddhism. The point of this is that he sees value in the ethical conduct of other religions.

Sorry - I've made a mess of the multi-quote thing. :biggrin5:

[dizzydoll]

I agree wholehearted Paul. :biggrin5:

[Dodo25]

That's why I questioned the value of trying to present subjective evidence especially to one with a sceptical scientific perspective. It is a valuable perspective, as is the scientific view - otherwise we'd still be in the agricultural age, but it is not necesarily a useful tool when dealing with reincarnation.


Haha now whose fault do you think that is?

Anyway, I do see your point, especially about the ethical systems and 'tricks' of Buddhism. I wouldn't have a problem with religion as ethical system, what bothers me is that it is often accompagnied by a huge amount of irrational side effects (indoctrinating children, fighting valid science, terrorism, 'pro-life' fundamentalism, 'thinking Africans deserve their misery' etc etc).

For the reasons you stated, I do respect beliefs that are based on personal evidence. I can't challenge them for I have not experienced what these people claim. In the same way, and as you have stated, they can argue their beliefs to others, for their evidence is personal.

[sh_einstein]

So what you're basically saying is 'screw those starving children in Africa, they were a******s in their former lives and they deserve suffering?'.

ofcourse I don't mean it that way, what kind of a person do you think I am? I just think that it's kind of unfair to them.There has to be an explanation for this, maybe something that has'nt been proved YET I just can't accept the Idea of all this being a coincidence


I used to think that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle proved this.

what do you mean, I don't get the relavance between Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and reincarnation, could you pls explain more?

[Dodo25]

what do you mean, I don't get the relavance between Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and reincarnation, could you pls explain more?

dizzydolll asked for a 'proof of coincidences'. By coincidences, I think she meant randomness. Now you should get the link. But as I said, someone pointed out to me that it must not be the case.

[SilentMute]

I believe in reincarnation. While I'm not afraid of dying or death, I'm trying to live as long as possible because I do not want to do puberty again anytime soon.

I also believe in other planes--which may inspire the belief of heaven and hell. I don't believe they are permenant, though.

I believe there are a lot of options for a soul. You don't have to reincarnate right away--you can travel to different planes. You can even be a ghost. I believe, though, that personal growth is always the purpose of souls--and whatever they do, they choose to go where they will learn whatever they need to learn next.

I also believe that souls break apart and reform--so it really is possible that three people could have been Cleopatra.

I, however, was never anyone famous.

Do I have proof that it exists? Nope. I believe in it because I like to believe in it. It helps me get through life. In the end, I think that is the primary function of religion. If people find strength in scientific beliefs--I'm very happy for them. As long as your beliefs don't cause harm to anyone else, more power to you. I have no problem believing in science and the paranormal simultaneously. One gives me facts, the others give me meaning.

[dizzydoll]

Do I have proof that it exists? Nope. I believe in it because I like to believe in it. It helps me get through life. In the end, I think that is the primary function of religion. If people find strength in scientific beliefs--I'm very happy for them. As long as your beliefs don't cause harm to anyone else, more power to you. I have no problem believing in science and the paranormal simultaneously. One gives me facts, the others give me meaning.

Well said Silent Mute, and like you I believe some souls remain earth bound until they are willing to cross over completely. Perhaps they do this because their partner is having difficulty accepting their death but there could be a host of other reasons too.

I believe as we grow we move up to new planes of spiritual growth. So too I believe some souls will delay their progress to their next level if their partner/soul mate has not advanced, via necessary experience, to join them on a higher plane. Only a selfless soul would consider delaying their spiritual progress.

[Paulclem]

Haha now whose fault do you think that is?

Anyway, I do see your point, especially about the ethical systems and 'tricks' of Buddhism. I wouldn't have a problem with religion as ethical system, what bothers me is that it is often accompagnied by a huge amount of irrational side effects (indoctrinating children, fighting valid science, terrorism, 'pro-life' fundamentalism, 'thinking Africans deserve their misery' etc etc).

For the reasons you stated, I do respect beliefs that are based on personal evidence. I can't challenge them for I have not experienced what these people claim. In the same way, and as you have stated, they can argue their beliefs to others, for their evidence is personal.

The main feature of buddhism is that it is very rational within the worldview it has. It doesn't challenge scientific views in favour of religious ones, and in fact was talking about moments of time - 66 moments in a finger snap - and minute particles before physics was invented.

As for the tricks of Buddhism - i'm not sure what you mean. if you are referring to the acompanying list then:

fighting valid science - I've addressed

terrorism - I'm not aware that there are any Buddhist terrorists, in fact HH The Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize for the peaceful conduct of his oppostiton to Chinese rule, and has led by example in this

Pro-life fundamentalism is not a Buddhist concept. In this case Buddhism says that all life - especially human life is precious. But when it was realised in Thailand that abortions would be sought whatever the rules laid down, it was considered that it would be better to save the Mother by providing abortions rather than lose the Mother in ubnhygenic backstreet abortions. It does have a realistic approach to practical problems.

As for the karma view of starving people - this is fundamentally wrong. The fact that we are born on earth means we are subject to the suffering inherent in humans -war, famine, earthquake, floods, etc etc. it is just the fact of being human. It is the same with regard to disbled people etc - it is not the view of Buddhists that they desrve their fate due to their bad karma. It is more that they are born into a fragile human body which is susceptible to illness, damage, external influences like smoking etc. Karma is not deterministic in this sense. The most virtuous person can die in an accident. It is more a state of being human, rather than the karma of the individual.

I've left the indoctrination of children to last, as there was a tradition of sending children to monasteries. Certainly there has been a historical change, and this was a cultural phenomenon, perhaps concerned with economics, as it was in Western Europe. It does still go on, but this again may be linked to economics as they provide schools.

From your list I presume that you are lumping certain religions together. I didn't find that particularly useful in a thread on reincarnation.


I believe in reincarnation. While I'm not afraid of dying or death, I'm trying to live as long as possible because I do not want to do puberty again anytime soon.

I also believe in other planes--which may inspire the belief of heaven and hell. I don't believe they are permenant, though.

I believe there are a lot of options for a soul. You don't have to reincarnate right away--you can travel to different planes. You can even be a ghost. I believe, though, that personal growth is always the purpose of souls--and whatever they do, they choose to go where they will learn whatever they need to learn next.

I also believe that souls break apart and reform--so it really is possible that three people could have been Cleopatra.

I, however, was never anyone famous.

Do I have proof that it exists? Nope. I believe in it because I like to believe in it. It helps me get through life. In the end, I think that is the primary function of religion. If people find strength in scientific beliefs--I'm very happy for them. As long as your beliefs don't cause harm to anyone else, more power to you. I have no problem believing in science and the paranormal simultaneously. One gives me facts, the others give me meaning.

How did you develop your ideas Silent?

[JuniperWoolf]

Since no one really knows anything about this subject, I'll just say this: reincarnation would be friggin' cool if it were true. That would be WAY better than the christian "heaven" idea, much less boring. I hope I come back as a sea anemone.

[Dodo25]

From your list I presume that you are lumping certain religions together. I didn't find that particularly useful in a thread on reincarnation.

Indeed I lumped all religions together. I did that on purpose, because the issue I was addressing had not much to do with reincarnation, I was talking about religion in general, more specificially, whether it would be a good thing to base one's ethics in religious concepts. After looking at my post again, I admit that it was unclearly phrased on my part.

And by 'Buddhist tricks' I meant things like meditation, or in certain forms of Buddhism, martial arts. That too was terribly phrased, I apologize.

Anyway, here's one more (for once well-phrased) thing to think about. If I believed in karma, I would go seek investors with cash and try to convince them of the following idea: Set up a large-scale study that compares things like 'amount of money donated to charity, percentually to income of course' to 'odds of getting cancer', 'odds of unnatural death (like car crash)', 'odds of winning the lottery' etc. Many variables on both sides. Of course, the technicalities would be difficult, there would have to be some math and statistics, and the study would cost money and time.

However, if you do accomplish the goal, and karma actually exists, then the benefit would most likely be the following:

1) A Physics Nobel Prize for discovering a new kind of 'force'
2) A Nobel Peace Prize for making the world a better place by motivating people to do good.

Of course the whole idea is ridiculous, for one reason because 'souls' or karma don't have any selective advantages in biological evolution. I was just making the point that you can demonstrate effects scientifically, even if the phenomen itself may not be open to scientific investigation. And again, lack of evidence in these cases serves as negative evidence.

[Paulclem]

Indeed I lumped all religions together. I did that on purpose, because the issue I was addressing had not much to do with reincarnation, I was talking about religion in general, more specificially, whether it would be a good thing to base one's ethics in religious concepts. After looking at my post again, I admit that it was unclearly phrased on my part.

And by 'Buddhist tricks' I meant things like meditation, or in certain forms of Buddhism, martial arts. That too was terribly phrased, I apologize.

Anyway, here's one more (for once well-phrased) thing to think about. If I believed in karma, I would go seek investors with cash and try to convince them of the following idea: Set up a large-scale study that compares things like 'amount of money donated to charity, percentually to income of course' to 'odds of getting cancer', 'odds of unnatural death (like car crash)', 'odds of winning the lottery' etc. Many variables on both sides. Of course, the technicalities would be difficult, there would have to be some math and statistics, and the study would cost money and time.

However, if you do accomplish the goal, and karma actually exists, then the benefit would most likely be the following:

1) A Physics Nobel Prize for discovering a new kind of 'force'
2) A Nobel Peace Prize for making the world a better place by motivating people to do good.

Of course the whole idea is ridiculous, for one reason because 'souls' or karma don't have any selective advantages in biological evolution. I was just making the point that you can demonstrate effects scientifically, even if the phenomen itself may not be open to scientific investigation. And again, lack of evidence in these cases serves as negative evidence.

No worries.

It's an interesting idea. I've often thought that if insurance or loans companies get onto reincarnation then you could have cross incarnation policies.

From the Buddhist perspective, Karma is not a simple cause and effect force. It propels the being into a particular life, but it is said that actions done in a particular life won't ripen until later, unless it is a very negative or very positive action - like murder or saving someones life. This means that a being wont necessarily see the results of their actions for a long time. So the experiment would serve to disproove karma, when in fact it can't be proven this way.

The other thing is that there is no idea of a soul. This is a common assumption. Instead the teachings say that it is the energy from one life which causes the next - the classical example is of one candle lighting a second, and then the first being blown out. The second candle is not the first, but it is linked by the energy created.

Another thing is that creating good Karma depends upon the motivation of the giver. A giver to charity won't accrue much credit if their motivation is self aggrandizement. Motivation, as we can observe from our politicians, is difficult to discern, and requires the ability to know others minds, which few people have apparently.
(Unless everyone else knows this and they're not telling me!)


Since no one really knows anything about this subject, I'll just say this: reincarnation would be friggin' cool if it were true. That would be WAY better than the christian "heaven" idea, much less boring. I hope I come back as a sea anemone.

Why a sea anenome?

[OrphanPip]

Studies on giving to charity have actually shown that the poorer someone is the more likely they are to give a greater percentage of their income. Turns out happy, content people tend to think less about the well being of others. The caveat to this is the outrageously rich, like Bill Gates, who sometimes give something like 10% of their income to charity a year.

I personally don't believe in reincarnation, or anything supernatural really. Although, I've visited the Vietnamese Pagoda here in Montreal, and the monks were quite nice.

[SilentMute]

My beliefs came about from what I've read, my own experiences, my interpretations, and my dreams. I never offer any of it as proof to those that demand it--because if you are determined to find a flaw, you will probably find it. There could be another explanation certainly.

I believe in the soul--and my belief in it actually comes from an interpretation of an Einstein theory. Einstein said that energy isn't created or destroyed, it merely changes from one form to another. The difference between a corpse and a living person is energy. So if energy isn't created or destroyed and merely changes form--I think that is a good scientific argument for the afterlife and for the soul.

The belief in other planes--that comes mainly from my reading. There were some people's accounts that I did believe, and so I included it into my belief system. I don't want to believe in permenant damnation, since I am all too aware of my own flaws. I want redemption to always be possible for everyone--even the worst of humanity. I believe I have seen ghosts--though they aren't nearly as interesting as they are in movies. That is actually why I believe they are real. If my mind made it up--with my imagination--the experience would be more interesting. Bumping into a ghost is like bumping into someone at the grocery store. And they aren't sad souls usually--I don't think they are stuck here. They have a life--they go about their business. They aren't even that particularly interested in the living.

Other things can split--cells and such--so I don't think it is unreasonable to think a soul can't. I believe some time ago there were some Buddhists monks searching for the reincarnation of one of their elders. They decided that three children all had different parts of this person's soul.

I also believe too that souls don't travel chronologically. You can be in the year 3010, and then jump back to 1895. I'm even beginning to believe you can relive other lives--I constantly have feelings of deja-vu these days. The time jumping is because I've had vivid, detailed dreams about being someone else in a different time--but some of the times clash. I believe these dreams are past life memories because they often have details that I'm not aware of knowing--I wouldn't want to be these people. I dreamed about being a Vietnam soldier--I know nobody who was in the war, and I have always avoided the topic. The reliving lives--these days I often feel like I've had conversations with people before, but I haven't. I really do feel like I'm reliving my life these days.

Of course, I have no proof--and I'm sure my arguments can be torn to pieces.

As far as I know, scientists have not been able to prove definitely that ghosts, God, etc., don't exist. I personally think that considering how wonderfully complex life is, how it is interwoven--I just can't believe all of this came about by chance. I do believe there has to be an intelligence behind it--though it may not be what we think it is.

People act like that religion is responsible for all the world's ills. While it can be, it is because it is abused by people with bad mindsets. I was sexually abused by a preacher--and my grandparents let it happen because they thought I was being blessed by God's son--which he claimed to be. Nobody knows more than I do how religion can be abused. For a long time, I hated religion. I've worked through that. Science can be abused as well. People can look at a culture's gene pool and say they are inferior, and that can lead to genocide. There used to be a respected science where they measured people's skulls, and certain measurements claimed a person was more prone to criminal activity. Some of the greatest minds were responsible for developing the bomb that took out Hiroshima.

I like to believe that souls are learning lessons--and that is why there is suffering. That is why someone is starving in Ethiopia, and I have plenty of food. It does not mean that I shouldn't try to make the world a better place. However, why I like my beliefs is that it gives meaning and hope. The person in Ethiopia is starving now, but in face of eternity--what is the suffering of one life (if the soul exists and is immortal)? Even the worst fate that can happen, in face of eternity, would be even less annoying than a mosquito bite.

I doubt, though, my beliefs are right. I don't think humanity is capable of truly understanding life and everything it encompasses. I am certain that in the end, science and religion are equally ignorant.

[Paulclem]

Thanks Silent - that was interesting.

[BienvenuJDC]

Studies on giving to charity have actually shown that the poorer someone is the more likely they are to give a greater percentage of their income. Turns out happy, content people tend to think less about the well being of others. The caveat to this is the outrageously rich, like Bill Gates, who sometimes give something like 10% of their income to charity a year.

I personally don't believe in reincarnation, or anything supernatural really. Although, I've visited the Vietnamese Pagoda here in Montreal, and the monks were quite nice.

How much do you think the average person gives?

[blazeofglory]

In fact it is very hard not to believe and we love life so much that we want to extend it perpetually and the fact that death mars it dismays us and we love to imagine life beyond death. I am torn between belief and disbelief. I am not resolute about it, in fact no body is under the sun and there is nothing to substantiate the fact that life will not reincarnate itself or the fact that life will after death. Science taught us to be skeptical, to question and never to take things for granted and that is how we have traversed thus far in geological time now and the achievements we have of science and technology are attributable to our reasoning and questioning mind. We loved the whys, the hows and that landed us in a world of sophistication, science, technology and microchips.

I do not want to mystify anybody with doctrinaire garbage. Of course I am always amazed at the mystery of the world and to think in terms of religious theories that there was a benevolent God who created everything and I can not at the same time resist myself from asking an endless string of questions as to who created the God that created the world.

I too can believe in the indestructibility of matter and then life. I have a different idea about it. I do not believe in the soul, for the most part in the individual soul. I believe in the cosmic soul or I believe the fact that everything in the cosmos is interlinked. We all are universally one no matter we look different. All appearances are illusions. We are not different from stones, rocks, rivers, plants, clouds, airs, for we are them in the making of what we appear to be. There is essential difference between what we are and what we appear to be. I look at a small insect and there is total life in that and the whole cycle of life is there. Of course there are degrees of difference in terms of our capacities and sizes and shapes but looking at it from a very subtle standpoint there is no basic difference. I cannot think a bird loves its baby less and the fact that may distinguish us from the bird is the universe or the existence of life does not make it inquisitive. Maybe it is inquisitive but we can never know this subtle truth.

When we die, our body becomes stiff, immobile, but the air that we breathed, the water we stored in our body, the mind we worked with cease to work and they will reintegrate with the universal soul. We will once again live in the universal soul not in bodily forms

[dizzydoll]

The other thing is that there is no idea of a soul. This is a common assumption. Instead the teachings say that it is the energy from one life which causes the next - the classical example is of one candle lighting a second, and then the first being blown out. The second candle is not the first, but it is linked by the energy created.

"Soul" is just another word.... soul, life force, spirit, whatever... one day when proof IS provided I am damn sure they will call it yet ANOTHER WORD. Society just cant help themselves on this score, its called oneupmanship. Nevertheless, the word Soul is convenient for me to express our non-physical self, its the shortest of all words to type also.

Anyway everything is Subjective at this stage, not one of us has been to the other side and come back to report the "reality" of our existence.

Here is one to ponder on: If you were God, Creator, Lord Almighty, Designer... words again, so back to the point. If you were God, would you reveal yourself right now to the world? I think not. The reason is pretty obvious. Why? Because we simply dont deserve to know at this time. We would find a way to murder Him/Her/It... "words again". Apart from that we dont have the aptitude to understand yet.

We are not ready to find out the truth yet. Its so obvious to me why. There are many reasons but here is one: Altho DNA has always been right in front of our eyes, we could not see it until society became computerized. So thousand of years went by with DNA right in front of us, yet we couldnt see it. That doesnt mean it didnt exist as we now know. So the same applies to the Creator of all that we know and all we have yet to discover.

In the meantime everything we read and write is subjective. The only reality is our direct personal experience. We have still so much to learn and I believe we are still at the very early stages of humanity's evolution. We know nothing and yet we shoot our mouths off about what we know, even tho that will change as it always has and always will. lol

[OrphanPip]

How much do you think the average person gives?

Apparently, the average in the US is 2.7% for those making over 100,000 a year and the average amongst the less than 25,000 income bracket is 4.2% of their income.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_11_24/ai_95309979/

Edit: The average amount is $1600 dollars a year apparently, primarily to churches.

[Paulclem]

"Soul" is just another word.... soul, life force, spirit, whatever... one day when proof IS provided I am damn sure they will call it yet ANOTHER WORD. Society just cant help themselves on this score, its called oneupmanship. Nevertheless, the word Soul is convenient for me to express our non-physical self, its the shortest of all words to type also.

Anyway everything is Subjective at this stage, not one of us has been to the other side and come back to report the "reality" of our existence.

Here is one to ponder on: If you were God, Creator, Lord Almighty, Designer... words again, so back to the point. If you were God, would you reveal yourself right now to the world? I think not. The reason is pretty obvious. Why? Because we simply dont deserve to know at this time. We would find a way to murder Him/Her/It... "words again". Apart from that we dont have the aptitude to understand yet.

We are not ready to find out the truth yet. Its so obvious to me why. There are many reasons but here is one: Altho DNA has always been right in front of our eyes, we could not see it until society became computerized. So thousand of years went by with DNA right in front of us, yet we couldnt see it. That doesnt mean it didnt exist as we now know. So the same applies to the Creator of all that we know and all we have yet to discover.

In the meantime everything we read and write is subjective. The only reality is our direct personal experience. We have still so much to learn and I believe we are still at the very early stages of humanity's evolution. We know nothing and yet we shoot our mouths off about what we know, even tho that will change as it always has and always will. lol

There needs to be care with the term soul because it has different connotations for different religions.

Buddhism is different from Hinduism on a fundamental level, and while soul is an appropriate term in Hinduism, it is definately not in Buddhism. Otherwise you get a confusion of meaning. This is important in Buddhism because the idea of no-self and all the implication that has for the practice would be eroded through confusion over the term. It's not just another name but has specific connotations which Buddhism denies. There is enough confusion already.


Studies on giving to charity have actually shown that the poorer someone is the more likely they are to give a greater percentage of their income. Turns out happy, content people tend to think less about the well being of others. The caveat to this is the outrageously rich, like Bill Gates, who sometimes give something like 10% of their income to charity a year.

I personally don't believe in reincarnation, or anything supernatural really. Although, I've visited the Vietnamese Pagoda here in Montreal, and the monks were quite nice.

Do you think it might be because of different attitudes to money - such as an easy-come-easy-go attitude in the poor perhaps? merely speculation I know.

[Musicology]

There are good grounds NOT to believe in reincarnation. Try the lessons of nature. For a start. Every seed brings forth (only) of its own kind. So that rules out a man coming back as a fly or an elephant, for a start. Or vice-versa. I guess the lessons of nature count.

However, there are people in East Germany who believe this giant rabbit (which weighs 23 pounds) was once a carrot -

[Paulclem]

There are good grounds NOT to believe in reincarnation. Try the lessons of nature. For a start. Every seed brings forth (only) of its own kind. So that rules out a man coming back as a fly or an elephant, for a start. Or vice-versa. I guess the lessons of nature count.

However, there are people in East Germany who believe this giant rabbit (which weighs 23 pounds) was once a carrot -

They are good grounds only if you accept biological determinism. This is disputed by Buddhists.

On another tack, HH The Dalai Lama has been the subject of a number of books which detail his successive reincarnation in Tibet.

[Dodo25]

We are not ready to find out the truth yet. Its so obvious to me why. There are many reasons but here is one: Altho DNA has always been right in front of our eyes, we could not see it until society became computerized. So thousand of years went by with DNA right in front of us, yet we couldnt see it. That doesnt mean it didnt exist as we now know. So the same applies to the Creator of all that we know and all we have yet to discover.

In the meantime everything we read and write is subjective. The only reality is our direct personal experience. We have still so much to learn and I believe we are still at the very early stages of humanity's evolution. We know nothing and yet we shoot our mouths off about what we know, even tho that will change as it always has and always will. lol

DNA is not a good example (actually I don't think anything would be a good example for your point). Darwin already recognized the importance of heredity, he knew that 'something' has to be passed on from generation to generation. This was a century before the 3D structure of DNA was discovered. Also a bit later, Mendel indirectly figured out even how DNA gets split and reshuffled, and which genes count and so on (not the details, but the rough process). All this was done without even knwowing what DNA is.

Additionally, saying 'I believe we are still in the very early stages of humanity's evolution' shows a lack of understanding of evolution altogether. There is no goal in evolution. There is only one thing that counts as far as evolution is concerned: gene replication. A 'soul', or anything immaterial for that matter, has no selective advantage. The future of human evolution will most likely be weaker bodies, because many 'mistakes' are nowadays being corrected by medicine, surgery or glasses (in case of bad eyes). So they don't present a disadvantage anymore (which is good), but on the other hand, this will make our species 'weaker'.

So using the world 'evolution' to refer to spiritual development just makes no sense. It's like those quack crystal healers that talk about 'energized quantum states' and 'programming crystals' to 'fix the body's own energy field'. You can buy these (common) crystals for a lot of money at these esoteric New Age shops, but of course all these people actually do is misusing scientific terminology to bamboozle and awe the gullible.

[dizzydoll]

Words -- I am invariably the one who gets them all wrong.

To put my point simply -- I believe we [humanity] still have much to learn.

..


There are good grounds NOT to believe in reincarnation. Try the lessons of nature. For a start. Every seed brings forth (only) of its own kind. So that rules out a man coming back as a fly or an elephant, for a start. Or vice-versa. I guess the lessons of nature count.

However, there are people in East Germany who believe this giant rabbit (which weighs 23 pounds) was once a carrot -

Haha Musicology. I agree I believe humans cannot be reincarnated as a fly or elephant etc.

[Dodo25]

Haha Musicology. I agree I believe humans cannot be reincarnated as a fly or elephant etc.

Dang it. If we go there, why not cute little animals? When I was little, I always wanted to be reborn as a marmot! My parents even let me write a letter to them (why would they be in control of it, hahaha shows how children think). I thought marmots had the easiest life ever. They'd just sleep and eat all day.

At least now I know that they fight too and get eaten a lot. And their habitat is being destroyed by tourism and global warming. Would still be kinda cool though..

[Paulclem]

Words -- I am invariably the one who gets them all wrong.

To put my point simply -- I believe we [humanity] still have much to learn.

..



Haha Musicology. I agree I believe humans cannot be reincarnated as a fly or elephant etc.

But how can you be sure? The evidence - whilst it does not fulfil scientific criteria, may be fulfilled by evidence, as Dodo pointed out, such as testimony. I suppose it depends what credence is given to the testimony. For myself , HH The Dalai Lama has my respect, and what he says I would give credence to.

it's not that I have to accept it on face value, but there are methods to investigate my own reincarnated history.

[JuniperWoolf]

Why a sea anenome?

Just because I can't think of any animal that is as dissimilar to a human being. It would be a bizarre experience for my hypothetically immortal soul.

[dizzydoll]

Dang it. If we go there, why not cute little animals? When I was little, I always wanted to be reborn as a marmot! My parents even let me write a letter to them (why would they be in control of it, hahaha shows how children think). I thought marmots had the easiest life ever. They'd just sleep and eat all day.

At least now I know that they fight too and get eaten a lot. And their habitat is being destroyed by tourism and global warming. Would still be kinda cool though..

You really need to get out of your mind for a bit. Trust me please, allow space between thoughts otherwise you will contaminate your balance.
No need to rush, life is a journey not a destination. Pace it.

[Scheherazade]

Why should some people like The African people be born in poverty, why should some people suffer all their life and others don't.The only explanation that I can think of is REINCARNATION, that we all live many times and our situation in our next life depends on the things we have done in our past lives.But then what would Hell and Heaven mean, if we were about to be punished in our next lives?For me the real issue here is not the reincarnation as it is a matter of faith; if your religious and spiritual beliefs dictate so, you accept the idea of reincarnation even though there are no "scientific" proofs for it.

However, what I take issue with is the so-called justification for the idea of reincarnation as it is put forward in OP and supported by some other members: that someone must have led morally less than acceptable life previously to be punished by starvation and poverty in this life.

I find this notion disagreeable because it also implies that those of us who are not poor or starving right now must have been "good" people earlier, which, I believe, is a very arrogant and insensitive attitude towards those who suffer in many different ways all around the world. Rape or murder victims, people who died in natural disasters, those who are subjected to abuse in many different forms...

Should we tell them, "Sorry, mate! You had it coming for a long time! Should have been good like I was."?

[MarkBastable]

I believe we [humanity] still have much to learn.


Apparently.

[dizzydoll]

Apparently.

For the first time, we have something in common.



I find this notion disagreeable because it also implies that those of us who are not poor or starving right now must have been "good" people earlier, which, I believe, is a very arrogant and insensitive attitude towards those who suffer in many different ways all around the world. Rape or murder victims, people who died in natural disasters, those who are subjected to abuse in many different forms...

Should we tell them, "Sorry, mate! You had it coming for a long time. Should have been good like I was."?

How will we know until we have crossed the line?

[MarkBastable]

How will we know until we have crossed the line?

Well, we won't. And I think that's exactly the point everyone's making. In the absence of any way of knowing, most of us think it's a bit, er, inadvisable to decide that there's a system at work which - as you say - there's no apparent support for.

[Paulclem]

For me the real issue here is not the reincarnation as it is a matter of faith; if your religious and spiritual beliefs dictate so, you accept the idea of reincarnation even though there are no "scientific" proofs for it.

However, what I take issue with is the so-called justification for the idea of reincarnation as it is put forward in OP and supported by some other members: that someone must have led morally less than acceptable life previously to be punished by starvation and poverty in this life.

I find this notion disagreeable because it also implies that those of us who are not poor or starving right now must have been "good" people earlier, which, I believe, is a very arrogant and insensitive attitude towards those who suffer in many different ways all around the world. Rape or murder victims, people who died in natural disasters, those who are subjected to abuse in many different forms...

Should we tell them "Sorry, mate! You had it coming for a long time?"


It is a valid point, and one that Glen Hoddle - the then England Manager - was in trouble for. This view would justify componding the punishment if it were true, and could very quickly lead to subjugation and victimisation.

The Buddhist view on this point is that Karma - the driving force in the reincarnation of a being into human form - establishes the being in a human form. The Buddhist teachings also state that samsara - the world we live in - is a state of suffering - hence the quest to escape through Enlightenment.

A being in a human form is subject to the suffeing of the human state - fire flood famine war poverty accidents sickness ageing and death etc. Anyone can experience these as a human - we have no way of knowing whether our country will remain peaceful, quake free or experience any of the other unfortunate conditions that afflict countries around the world.

In a similar way, a being conceived as a foetus is subject to the conditions of the human form and may encounter infection, accidents at birth, exposure to toxins, violence, etc etc which then lead to a disability or special needs. In fact any one of us could have an accident or contract a virus tomorrow that could severely impair us in some way.

The explanation for this is that it is the human condition - this, and all the other things we have to put up with are part of human suffering. It is our karma to be reborn as a human, but karma is not deterministic in the sense that it lays down the fact that a person will have car crash on such and such a day which results in some impairment and disability. The most virtuous person in the world can have an accident.

So in conclusion, it is not that people with disabilities, for example, are being punished for their past deeds, it is that they have been exposed to the sufferings of the human realm, and, unfortunately, had an accident or contracted an illness or had some genetic disorder passed to them from a parent.

I hope this is clear. :biggrin5:

Just to add - Buddhism states that we have had countless lives and thus accrued lots of good and lots of bad Karma. Every being has a store of both of these. What occurs at a particular time depends upon circumstances where good or bad Karma can "ripen". It is not a linear view - I was good last time so I'll be rewarded this time or vice-versa. It is a circumstantial view - these conditions arise, so that Karma occurs.

[dizzydoll]

Unless you believe we have reached our peak.... then we have a long way to go!

{EDIT}

[MarkBastable]

Unless you believe we have reached our peak.... then we have a long way to go!

Yeah, we do. We need to get beyond making stuff up, for a start.


{edit}

[AuntShecky]

Reincarnation? Hey, I'm as much in favor of recycling as the next
girl, but this is ridiculous.

[Paulclem]

I feel like I've been here before.

:biggrin5:

[Scheherazade]

I feel like I've been here before.

:biggrin5:In this life time or a previous one?

[Paulclem]

In this life time or a previous one?

:biggrin5:

[blazeofglory]

Can I re-embody? Of course I can and that is why everyday new faces turn up from the dead ones. It is all through a process of metamorphoses. I was somebody before this life and that body thawed into natural elements through a process of disintegrations. Generation, degeneration and regeneration all in eternal succession. Few can comprehend this subtlety. I do not think I die for eternity but I love for eternity

[Revolte]

Here's what I think, there is no definitive answer, but at the end of the day I find reincarnation to be more likely then, other religious suggestions. Personally I think we all wander around as ghosts after we die. Sure it isn't as romantic as reincarnation or heaven or whatever else, but it seems to be the only thing with evidence that isn't just written down.

[Paulclem]

Here's what I think, there is no definitive answer, but at the end of the day I find reincarnation to be more likely then, other religious suggestions. Personally I think we all wander around as ghosts after we die. Sure it isn't as romantic as reincarnation or heaven or whatever else, but it seems to be the only thing with evidence that isn't just written down.

In Tibetan Buddhism the between life state s called The Bardo where according to the Teachings - we will assume an etheric type body before being propelled into our next incarnation. There are even instructions for someone who may be in this state, but is unsure. Check by walking through sand - if you leave no footprints, etc etc - then you're dead. Funny to have such practical advice for such a situation. Perhaps it's Tibetan practicality. :biggrin5:

[SilentMute]

There are good grounds NOT to believe in reincarnation. Try the lessons of nature. For a start. Every seed brings forth (only) of its own kind. So that rules out a man coming back as a fly or an elephant, for a start. Or vice-versa. I guess the lessons of nature count.

However, there are people in East Germany who believe this giant rabbit (which weighs 23 pounds) was once a carrot -

I'm a little confused by this analogy. It is sound when talking about the physical, but I think most people who believe in reincarnation believe the soul is an energy source that inhabits physical forms. Once, of course, it is in a physical form, it is confined to the laws of nature.

Unless you believe that energy is stamped as human energy and can only inhabit human bodies...then there is no reason why a person can't be an elephant in one life and human in the next. However, even if the soul can only possess one kind of form, such as human, that still doesn't rule out reincarnation. All it rules out is that you have had lives as a different species.

[caddy_caddy]

Why should some people like The African people be born in poverty, why should some people suffer all their life and others don't.The only explanation that I can think of is REINCARNATION, that we all live many times and our situation in our next life depends on the things we have done in our past lives.But then what would Hell and Heaven mean, if we were about to be punished in our next lives?


I do think we all have our share of suffering . Who said that people who have money do not suffer in their life ?!!
Some lack money , others love . Some lack children others good health . But we all have our share .

No , I don't believe in reincarnation and I don't like the idea .
Once I said , in another thread , that if I can choose I would come back to life again but as the same person not in someone or something else .

[Paulclem]

I do think we all have our share of suffering . Who said that people who have money do not suffer in their life ?!!
Some lack money , others love . Some lack children others good health . But we all have our share .

No , I don't believe in reincarnation and I don't like the idea .
Once I said , in another thread , that if I can choose I would come back to life again but as the same person not in someone or something else .

I agree with you that everyone suffers in some way or other, but you must see that some people - in fact some nations - endure significantly more suffering than others. I don't think you can compare the suffering of some third world coutries with the richer countries in the world. We don't all have our share.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I'm not going to give my opinion on the subject...I'm tired from just reading the other posts, but I will post this link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1209795/Reincarnated-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html). I was reminded of this article when reading the thread.

[Paulclem]

I'm not going to give my opinion on the subject...I'm tired from just reading the other posts, but I will post this link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1209795/Reincarnated-Our-son-World-War-II-pilot-come-life.html). I was reminded of this article when reading the thread.

It's an interesting post, and there have been a number of studies and stories done in the past. The problem is that whilst it's enough for someone who already believes, this kind of story will never satisfy a sceptic.

It does throw up a number of questions such as why wasn't he reincarnated straight away etc.

Interesting link though. :D

[caddy_caddy]

I agree with you that everyone suffers in some way or other, but you must see that some people - in fact some nations - endure significantly more suffering than others. I don't think you can compare the suffering of some third world coutries with the richer countries in the world. We don't all have our share.

If you compare nations within the same period of history you would be right . But throughout history in general ,great and strong civilizations fall and perish while small nations rise and flourish . Everyone has his turn .
I tend to see things as" ignorance versus knowledge" not as" richness versus poverty" . Some know what they have , know how they can benefit from what they have, others do not .
Some use their brain ,others do not .
Poverty is our responsibility .

[blazeofglory]

If you compare nations within the same period of history you would be right . But throughout history in general ,great and strong civilizations fall and perish while small nations rise and flourish . Everyone has his turn .
I tend to see things as" ignorance versus knowledge" not as" richness versus poverty" . Some know what they have , know how they can benefit from what they have, others do not .
Some use their brain ,others do not .
Poverty is our responsibility .

Your words are full of wisdom and of course everyone has his turn. No one or no nation is completely at its zenith all suffers ups and downs in point of fact. This always makes me patient and tolerant. At times it helps me endure great difficulties in life, for we can expect a sunny day after the pour.

[Paulclem]

If you compare nations within the same period of history you would be right . But throughout history in general ,great and strong civilizations fall and perish while small nations rise and flourish . Everyone has his turn .
I tend to see things as" ignorance versus knowledge" not as" richness versus poverty" . Some know what they have , know how they can benefit from what they have, others do not .
Some use their brain ,others do not .
Poverty is our responsibility .

I used nations when really I should have used individuals to disgree with your view. I do not think there is a sharing of suffering in anything like the equal way that you talk about. Yes everyone suffers, but I can travel now 30 mins away to a hostel where the suffering is intense and horrible for the residents with serious mental health problems. Somewhere in this city tonight there will be drug abuse, child abuse, neglect, domestic violence and all the other horrible things that happens to some and not others. I just don't see the suffering being shared out at all.

This is the problem I have with theism - the complete lack of fairness or reason.

[sh_einstein]

If you compare nations within the same period of history you would be right . But throughout history in general ,great and strong civilizations fall and perish while small nations rise and flourish . Everyone has his turn .
I tend to see things as" ignorance versus knowledge" not as" richness versus poverty" . Some know what they have , know how they can benefit from what they have, others do not .
Some use their brain ,others do not .
Poverty is our responsibility .

But this has got nothing to do with people, the country you're living in is a great factor here, some may never have the opportunity to "use their brain", some never even get the chance to explore their talents.All suffer but their suffering is truely incomparable, some are responsible for their suffering but some are born in it, how do you explain that?


I used nations when really I should have used individuals to disgree with your view. I do not think there is a sharing of suffering in anything like the equal way that you talk about. Yes everyone suffers, but I can travel now 30 mins away to a hostel where the suffering is intense and horrible for the residents with serious mental health problems. Somewhere in this city tonight there will be drug abuse, child abuse, neglect, domestic violence and all the other horrible things that happens to some and not others. I just don't see the suffering being shared out at all.

This is the problem I have with theism - the complete lack of fairness or reason.

:iagree:

[caddy_caddy]

and
all the other horrible things that happens to some and not others. I just don't see the suffering being shared out at all

Not others in the actual moment ,but how can one predict what will happen in the future ?
Those who do not suffer now , could you guarantee that they won't suffer in the future ?

That does not mean let them suffer because everyone has his share in life . Life is a labor and a test .First we are asked to work to improve our situations . No one could help you if you don't try to help yourself .Then if you try and you couldn't improve your situation that would be at test of your patience .And you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

For those who do not suffer from the same thing , their sense of humanity is tested .It's your duty to give help to those who are in need and you'll be rewarded for it too.

I would like to add that I'm a muslim not a thesit only . So the afterlife as a reality is an essential principle we explain many things according to it.

This is God's justice . You would say where is the justice because you see the life here as the end of everything .
We see it as the beginning and the end is somewhere else .
There is a meaning and purpose for everything we experience in this transient life . God's wisdom is transcendental .

[sh_einstein]

-so why do we have different paths? why do some people have to be more patient than others, why do some have to experience worse things?

-what if a person commits a crime only because he was born in a bad society, will he be punished in afterlife? maybe he would'nt have committed that crime if he was in a better enviornment.how is this justice?

[blazeofglory]

-so why do we have different paths? why do some people have to be more patient than others, why do some have to experience worse things?

-what if a person commits a crime only because he was born in a bad society, will he be punished in afterlife? maybe he would'nt have committed that crime if he was in a better enviornment.how is this justice?

There are great elements of truth in your post.Of course man is not solely responsible for what he does. I do not subscribe to the Christain dogma that man has always free will that will shape his entire life's journey and he will account for all that happens. It is rubbish. Now all of us know what indoctrination is, and small chidren in their formative years are very gullible to external stimuli and if some dogmas are indoctrinated into their defenseless or unguarded minds they will succumb to the situations. Crimes happen when the environment turns up very vicious. A baby who is born in a state of poverty will be morally blind and his first need is to satiate his intense hunger, at times at any cost. Why people steal? Because there is no proper distribution system and there are great disparites or inequalities in incomes and that compel people to steal. Man is not in every respect accountable for all the crimes that happen in a particular social setup. Of course the social conditions that prevail there account for all that happens there. It is therefore, physical, social, economic, political, global, ethical, religious or cultural conditions that may shape the individual to a great extent

[MarkBastable]

This is God's justice

It's absolutely vital to the concept and administration of justice that it should be transparent. Those who are subject to it must be able to see that it's fair, consistent, proportionate, even-handed and incorruptible. As you say - we can't see that at all, so whatever this is of God's, it's not justice.


God's wisdom is transcendental .

Well, it shouldn't be. It's not fair to construct a universe that operates to a set of rules that transcends - or if you like, surpasses - the understanding of the creatures whom you expect to abide by the rules.

[caddy_caddy]

Originally Posted by sh_einstein
-so why do we have different paths? why do some people have to be more patient than others, why do some have to experience worse things?

-what if a person commits a crime only because he was born in a bad society, will he be punished in afterlife? maybe he would'nt have committed that crime if he was in a better enviornment.how is this justice?

Different paths because He wanted us to follow His path voluntiraly .

It is all a test, everytime I feel that life is non- endurable any more , I think of His promise to those who endure. I regain my strength and remind my self that all the long years we spend here do not equal one moment in the afterlife. That helps me to be more patient and endure my life .
Why do I experience these things while others do not ? I 'm not ego- centric not to see the others . Life is full of misery of everykind . I'm just one drop in the big ocean . You feel it's nothing when you compare it to the ocean . You feel you 're so lucky maybe when comparing and thanks God .

So you don't want to punish who are born in a bad society because it is not their fault .

I 've spent many years in my life saying :It is not my fault , it is not my fault , it is their fault .
I enjoyed the role of the victim and became a slave . Yes I was a slave .
I've known what does mean to be a human being when I stopped saying it is their fault not mine
When I began assuming responsibility , challenging my stituation , trying to improve my self and my conditions . Using my own free will by choosing . At that moment I felt I am a human being . Maybe I did not succeed in everything but at least I tried . I feel ashamed how I spent the most beautiful years in my life being a slave . I did harm to my self much more than others did . And I think this is the most harmful thing a human being could do to himself .
Someone says :" freedom does not mean happiness but being responsible of your own misery ."


It's absolutely vital to the concept and administration of justice that it should be transparent. Those who are subject to it must be able to see that it's fair, consistent, proportionate, even-handed and incorruptible. As you say - we can't see that at all, so whatever this is of God's, it's not justice.



Well, it shouldn't be. It's not fair to construct a universe that operates to a set of rules that transcends - or if you like, surpasses - the understanding of the creatures whom you expect to abide by the rules.

Yes you're right . And because He is just and fair and we cannot grasp the meaning and wisdom behind things easilly ,He explained everything to us in the Qur'an and does not leave us in the darkness .
How could you understand His point if you don't listen to Him/His words?!!!
Have anyone of you read the Qur'an ?!
It is not fair of you to judge before listening to Him .

[Dodo25]

Edit: After reading sherezade's post, I'm deleting my former comment because it would be unfair if I argue against Islam and the person above me is not allowed to answer to my argument (right here in this thread).

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r:
Why should some people like The African people be born in poverty, why should some people suffer all their life and others don't.The only explanation that I can think of is REINCARNATION, that we all live many times and our situation in our next life depends on the things we have done in our past lives.But then what would Hell and Heaven mean, if we were about to be punished in our next lives?Please note that this is a discussion about reincarnation (not about any particular religion) as stated in the OP.

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

[Paulclem]

and

Not others in the actual moment ,but how can one predict what will happen in the future ?
Those who do not suffer now , could you guarantee that they won't suffer in the future ?

That does not mean let them suffer because everyone has his share in life . Life is a labor and a test .First we are asked to work to improve our situations . No one could help you if you don't try to help yourself .Then if you try and you couldn't improve your situation that would be at test of your patience .And you will be rewarded in the afterlife.

For those who do not suffer from the same thing , their sense of humanity is tested .It's your duty to give help to those who are in need and you'll be rewarded for it too.

I would like to add that I'm a muslim not a thesit only . So the afterlife as a reality is an essential principle we explain many things according to it.

This is God's justice . You would say where is the justice because you see the life here as the end of everything .
We see it as the beginning and the end is somewhere else .
There is a meaning and purpose for everything we experience in this transient life . God's wisdom is transcendental .

On suffering - The Buddha's whole path is based upon dealing with suffering as taught in the 4 Noble Truths. But this is not what I had an issue with. You said that the suffering is shared.

I do think we all have our share of suffering . Who said that people who have money do not suffer in their life ?!!
Some lack money , others love . Some lack children others good health . But we all have our share .


It is shared, but rather unequally in my view. How can you compare the sufferings of the rich with the sufferings of the poor and destitute?

I realise that Islam and Christianity have to cope with this inequality of suffering, and that the promise of heaven is central as the idea of a reward. I struggle with the idea of a test though. The thousands who were killed in the Tsunami had no chance - it wasn't a choice they made, or an act that they as individuals committed that resulted in their deaths. I saw a programme after about the beliefs of survivors, and the test theory seemed to sustain them. What that means is that God is willing to kill tens of thousands to test the survivors. I can't see that from a loving and personal God. It is one of the reasons why reincarnation is a more logical belief for myself.

[caddy_caddy]

I answered you Dodo via the private messages .


It is shared, but rather unequally in my view. How can you compare the sufferings of the rich with the sufferings of the poor and destitute?

If you are rich and you have a kid who has cancer and you have your neighbour who is very poor but his kid does not have cancer ; wouldn't you wish to be like him? What if you lost him ,what would your money do to you ?


I realise that Islam and Christianity have to cope with this inequality of suffering
Isn't that equality of suffering ?




I realise that Islam and Christianity have to cope with this inequality of suffering, and that the promise of heaven is central as the idea of a reward. I struggle with the idea of a test though. The thousands who were killed in the Tsunami had no chance - it wasn't a choice they made, or an act that they as individuals committed that resulted in their deaths.
We have no free choice in what concerns death. We are doomed to die in that moment and because of that very thing wether it is Tsaunami or car accident or whatever else . Death belongs to God's will .



I saw a programme after about the beliefs of survivors, and the test theory seemed to sustain them. What that means is that God is willing to kill tens of thousands to test the survivors. I can't see that from a loving and personal God. It is one of the reasons why reincarnation is a more logical belief for myself.

We survive because it is our destiny not to die in that moment . Our moment has not yet come .That's it . Moreover He does not kill to test others . He uses their death , which is destined , to test the others .
There is a big difference .
This is as you know that someone is going to die tomorow so you ask him to donate his organs to others .
We were going to die with Tsunami or without as that patient was going to die whether you used his corpse to help the others or not . You did not kill him , he was doomed to die , but you tried to benefit from his inevitable death .

[billl]

If you are rich and you have a kid who has cancer and you have your neighbour who is very poor but his kid does not have cancer ; wouldn't you wish to be like him? What if you lost him ,what would your money do to you ?



I realise that Islam and Christianity have to cope with this inequality of suffering

Isn't that equality of suffering ?



Caddy, this first quote seems to suggest that, in our Earthly lives, there is an equality of suffering among individuals. Your hypothetical (about the rich and poor men with their healthy or unhealthy children) omits the possibility of there being a rich man with a healthy child, as well as the cases in which the poor have sick children.

You are right that there can sometimes be a balancing out, but there are sufficient examples of people for whom things have gone mostly quite well all of their lives, and people for whom there has been greater than average suffering and unfairness.

[Paulclem]

I agree with Billl about the inequality of suffering. You only have to look around to see many people who suffer inordinately more than the reast of us. Children are abused, have accidents, suffer bullying - adults suffer depression, acidents, illness - how many people have you met who seem to have multiple illnesses?

As for destiny - who sets destinies if not the creator God?

[caddy_caddy]

Caddy, this first quote seems to suggest that, in our Earthly lives, there is an equality of suffering among individuals. Your hypothetical (about the rich and poor men with their healthy or unhealthy children) omits the possibility of there being a rich man with a healthy child, as well as the cases in which the poor have sick children.

You are right that there can sometimes be a balancing out, but there are sufficient examples of people for whom things have gone mostly quite well all of their lives, and people for whom there has been greater than average suffering and unfairness.
I gave that example because paulclem speaks like being rich is everyting in life and like rich are immune against suffering in their life . And because what is emotional is no less important then what is material .

Thx Bill for your comment . You drew my attention to sth wrong I did . I should have said justice not equality . Justice sometimes implies inequality rather than equality .
If you're a teacher , to be just , you cannot give your students equal grades . There should be necessarely difference in grades . Actually God speaks of inequality not equality here and in the afterlife out of justice . He spoke of " preference" , "degrees" , "portions" , and "ranks "among human beings .

He said for instance : We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world , and raised some of them above others in rank that some of them take labour from others " (az-zukhruf:32)

And if Allâh were to enlarge the provision for His slaves, they would surely rebel in the earth, but He sends down by measure as He wills. Verily! He is in respect of His slaves, the Well-Aware, the All-Seer (of things that benefit them). (Ash-shura:26)

In the first example He explained to us that the aim of this " inequality " is to take labour from each other . If everyone was satisfied and does not lack something , we won't labor to get what we lack . As a result movement in life would stop . And labor is the aim of our existence on earth and gives meaning to it . Moreover our relationship becomes complementry . We complement each other in this way and we depend on each other . No one can stand by his own , he needs something , whether great or trivial , that exists in the other and does not exist in him .
It's a must that the muslims give 2,5% of their money every year to the poors
:"And in their properties there was the right of the Sa'il (the beggar who asks)
and the Mahrûm (the poor who does not ask the others." (alshura:18)
God put to law but at the same time he explains to us why He did so and so . He is transparent in what concerns his wisdom.

[Paulclem]

I gave that example because paulclem speaks like being rich is everyting in life and like rich are immune against suffering in their life . And because what is emotional is no less important then what is material .

Caddy - I don't know where you got the idea that I think being rich is everything. perhaps you misunderstood one of my examples. I took issue with your statement that suffering is shared out.

If you read my posts you will see that I agreed that eveyone suffers.

What about my other question about who sets a person's destiny?

In the first example He explained to us that the aim of this " inequality " is to take labour from each other . If everyone was satisfied and does not lack something , we won't labor to get what we lack . As a result movement in life would stop . And labor is the aim of our existence on earth and gives meaning to it . Moreover our relationship becomes complementry . We complement each other in this way and we depend on each other . No one can stand by his own , he needs something , whether great or trivial , that exists in the other and does not exist in him .
It's a must that the muslims give 2,5% of their money every year to the poors
:"And in their properties there was the right of the Sa'il (the beggar who asks)
and the Mahrûm (the poor who does not ask the others." (alshura:18)
God put to law but at the same time he explains to us why He did so and so . He is transparent in what concerns his wisdom.

This makes sense in terms of the Islamic tradition and reflect reflects John Donne's "No man is an island". But it does not explain the ineqality of suffering - sometimes extreme suffering that people experience.

On another point - did I read of a Lebanese sect that believed in reincarnation?

Sorry - I just looked it up. The Druze in Lebanon believe in reincarnation.

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

[caddy_caddy]

Hi Paulclem . I'm sorry . plz accept my apology because I haven't read the whole thread and replies .

And yes there is a whole sect in lebanon who believes in reincarnation . My best friends at the university were Druze but we've never discussed reincarnation or any other thing that relates to their belief . Some are very sensitive to these issues and consider some discussions offensive . So we try to avoid any discussion of this kind .
But here it is a forum, and the very fact of being here means that you are willing to discuss and share your belief with others . I wish you don't consider my discussions offensive .
As a matter of fact reincarnation contradicts the basic principles of Islam , so as a Muslim I cannot accept it ,simply .


In what concerns Destiny . We have like in English another word , I think it's doom . As in the Greek tragedy they said " doomed to his fate .
In Arabic too and in the Qura'n God mentionned both " doom and destiny " .
The doom is the fate that you cannot change because you have not made , you have not chosen ; it is set by God. As a result you are not responsible of your doom face to God .
This is like they said that Oedipus was doomed to his fate .

Destiny is something that will happen in the future , we say my destination . God has a " foreknowledge " of what will happen to you . How would you behave, and what would you do in the future . He has a foreknowledge that you will believe in reincarnation but he did not oblige you to believe in reincarnation . You've chosen this so you will be responsible of this .
So your destiny is the " foreknowledge of God of what will you choose and do ."
He destined something because He knows you will do this very thing but he did not oblige you to do it .

[billl]

Interesting distinction! I never heard of that before.

[Paulclem]

Thanks Caddy - no I wasn't ofended by your posts. It is interesting to see different perspectives As Billl says - it has made the destiny idea clearer fro the perspective f Islam.

I can see why discussion with Druze friends would be difficult, but it's nice to see tolerance of different beliefs by yourself.

Reincarnation is of course the means by which Tibetans have chosen their Dalai Lamas.

The current Dalai Lama - HH The 14th Dalai Lama is a well known figure on the world stage. His figure embodies reincarnation, as it is claimed by Tibetan Buddhists, to be the living embodiment of the Buddha of Compassion.

This system is not hereditary, but relies upon the previous Dalai Lama leaving clues, the insights of Nechung - a protector spirit who advises the Office of the Dalai Lama, the visions from sacred lakes and, once the children are found, tests to establish authenticity.

A bit wild weird and wonderful? The 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas have been exemplary, as anyone who has seen HH The 14th Dalai Lama will understand.

It is also not just the Dalai Lamas who are chosen in this way. The Karmapas, (another spiritual leader in Tibet), are also chosen this way, The 17th in the last 20 years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dance-17-Lives-Incredible-Karmapa/dp/0747571619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275429607&sr=1-1

[Mr Mahmoud]

I agree to this distinction but I'd like to add something about the words "fate", "destiny" and "doom".

The three of them share the meaning that "something that is inevitably destined to happen to a person". But there are shades of meanings that color each word with some particular use.

"Fate" (as an uncountable noun) refers to the power that controls all events in a way that cannot be resisted (He had hoped to become president, but fate decided otherwise); it is almost synonymous with the word "destiny" in this sense (Destiny brought them together).
When the word "fate" is pluralized, it means the future of someone or something as decided by fate (destinies):(They met their various fates.)
Now fatal alone means 'causing or ending in death' (a fatal accident); it also means 'ruinous, ending in disaster' (a fatal mistake, a fatal weakness).

The word "destiny" [ can either be singular or plural, with the same difference in meaning as in the case of "fate". When used as countable noun it also means "something that happens to someone thought of to be predetermined by fate" (It was his destiny to die in a foreign country). So "destiny" or "destinies" are determined by "fate".

The word "doom" seems to me as having a negative implication. It means a "tragic or ruinous Fate" or "an inevitable ruin or destruction" (Their family is doomed), that is, they are miserable, poor, unlucky, ruined, decadent, disintegrated, etc

NB: The works consulted are OED, AHD, and Fowler's Modern English Usage

[billl]

Well, I like how, in this system of distinctions, "doom" is not what the individual chooses ("doom"s negative connotations are quite strong in everyday English) and "destiny" represents what the individual does choose (the word "Destiny" generally has a very good connotation in English).

Unfortunately the addition of "fate" as something that cannot be resisted--and also something that (somehow) can be held as equivalent to "destiny"--sort of makes things a bit confusing. Isn't "destiny", in the earlier post, supposed to represent a course chosen by the individual (but forseen by God)? Rather than something that an individual cannot resist?

[caddy_caddy]

In Arabic language BIll, wich is the language of the Qur'an ,fate is represented in two words only and make the distinctions clear .
That makes the Arabic language referential in interpretation .
When translating to other languages there would be some diffculties as the case here .

I refered to the Greek civilization because they believed that fate is set by gods and goddesses and there is no notion of the free will . In their tragedies they refer to the first distinction in the Qur'an.
In the Elizabethen tragedy , there is the notion of the free will , so fate would be the second one in the Qura'n .

To make things clear , I think we should refer tothe English version of the Qura'an to know which word they used in every case .

[billl]

To make things clear , I think we should refer tothe English version of the Qura'an to know which word they used in every case .

That seems like a good idea, thank you for exploring the issue, and trying to come up with a convenient perspective for me, as an English-speaker.

Does this mean that the distinction between "destiny" and "doom" still holds, as set forth a few posts back (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=903814&postcount=89)? I suppose, in the interpretation according to Elizabethan English, that "fate" would be regarded as "doom"... I appreciate that, from the Arabic perspective, there might be some objection, on grounds of some technicailty, or cultural nuance, of course...

Still, in case you were unaware, the term "doom" has a very negative connotation in English. The word "fate" is also rather frightening (and generally negative), but there are cases in which it has been applied to positive outcomes, perhaps emphasizing that the participants should not take too much credit for their good fortune. "Destiny", however, has a rather strongly positive connotation. It might be possible to use it in a negative context, but the unorthodoxy of such a choice would certainly register with the reader. "Destiny" is usually associated with heroics, and the success of one's best expression of will.

Again, I cannot understand the nuances regarding the two Arabic words which might represent Fate (in English), and so I wonder if something in my preceding paragraph might offer some hint to you about this nuance in translation.

Really, I wonder if we can get anywhere on this, and if PaulClem might soon object to this tangent. ;-)
And I certainly feel some embarrassment at your facility with my language, when I have really none with yours.

[caddy_caddy]

For sure it still holds true . I looked up in the English version and I found out that for the same word in Arabic they do not use destined , or doomed .
Instead they often use " judged " to mean the will of the God that you cannot change . It fascinated me .

I'll see what they use for the other meaning .

[billl]

That is fascinating... Could the judgement really be arbitrary (i.e., based on nothing at all)?

[Paulclem]

Objection your honour! - No Billl not at all.:lol:

[Mr Mahmoud]

Well, I like how, in this system of distinctions, "doom" is not what the individual chooses ("doom"s negative connotations are quite strong in everyday English) and "destiny" represents what the individual does choose (the word "Destiny" generally has a very good connotation in English).

Unfortunately the addition of "fate" as something that cannot be resisted--and also something that (somehow) can be held as equivalent to "destiny"--sort of makes things a bit confusing. Isn't "destiny", in the earlier post, supposed to represent a course chosen by the individual (but forseen by God)? Rather than something that an individual cannot resist?

Applying a "connotative approach",so to speak, helps one to see the bad connotations of the word "doom", both as a noun and a verb, in everyday English. As a native English-speaker, I believe Bill better understands the connotations of such words than learners of English as a foreign language.
I think that I'm convinced that "destiny" is not necessarily a bad thing, like "Fate". For example, birth, marriage, death, success, etc and any course of events in our life is a destiny, not Fate.

In regards to the Arabic meaning of the English "fate", we say "Kadar" (pronounced with a hard /d/). Its meaning in Arabic culture is implied in a classical Arabic phrase we use in our colloquial language, which is equivalent to "the irony of fate" in English. As Muslims, in order for a person to be a good believer, they should believe in and never object to "fate,"- be it good or evil, simply because it is predetermined by Allah (God). This is one of the basic principles of faith ("Iman") in Sunnah. I do not know of something similar in Christianity that suggests this meaning.

"Destiny" is translated as "masir" (pronounced with long /i:/). I think it borders its meaning in English, because we choose the way that results in our "destiny", so to speak.

So what do you think?

[Nikhar]

Personally, I do believe in reincarnation. And I think it would do the world a lot of good if each and every person believed in it too. At least that way people would have a reason to do some good stuff.

[billl]

Applying a "connotative approach",so to speak, helps one to see the bad connotations of the word "doom", both as a noun and a verb, in everyday English. As a native English-speaker, I believe Bill better understands the connotations of such words than learners of English as a foreign language.
I think that I'm convinced that "destiny" is not necessarily a bad thing, like "Fate". For example, birth, marriage, death, success, etc and any course of events in our life is a destiny, not Fate.

In regards to the Arabic meaning of the English "fate", we say "Kadar" (pronounced with a hard /d/). Its meaning in Arabic culture is implied in a classical Arabic phrase we use in our colloquial language, which is equivalent to "the irony of fate" in English. As Muslims, in order for a person to be a good believer, they should believe in and never object to "fate,"- be it good or evil, simply because it is predetermined by Allah (God). This is one of the basic principles of faith ("Iman") in Sunnah. I do not know of something similar in Christianity that suggests this meaning.

"Destiny" is translated as "masir" (pronounced with long /i:/). I think it borders its meaning in English, because we choose the way that results in our "destiny", so to speak.

So what do you think?

This seems like it might be a good explanation. I guess everything falls into one of the two categories (fate or destiny)? Or are there events that are simply "chance" or "not so important"?

I don't know how these words might still be relevant to Bible scholars or in any particular branch of Christianity, unfortunately. The words "doom", "fate", and "destiny" are mostly familiar to me via literature, movies, adventure stories, etc. They suggest something pre-determined, but have different nuances/connotations.

I guess "fate" maybe sort of suggests a "story" that must be fulfilled in one's life, and is usually blamed as cause of some misfortune. "Doom" suggests that there is no hope of escape--really, it might simply suggest being in a hopeless position, moreso than it might suggest predetermination. "Destiny" sounds heroic: I am not familiar with Harry Potter, but I could imagine that he might be on occasion be told that he is "destined" to save everyone, etc.

[MarkBastable]

Personally, I do believe in reincarnation. And I think it would do the world a lot of good if each and every person believed in it too. At least that way people would have a reason to do some good stuff.

So without the threat of coming back as a dung beetle, you see no reason to do good stuff?

[Nikhar]

So without the threat of coming back as a dung beetle, you see no reason to do good stuff?

Lol... I was not talking about me. I was talking about the world as whole. My personal ambition is to help as many people as I can... but that's a different story.

I was referring to those people who live for themselves and themselves alone. Who believe we-get-life-only-once and live-it-as-full-you-can and who-the-hell-cares-about-others.

[Paulclem]

Lol... I was not talking about me. I was talking about the world as whole. My personal ambition is to help as many people as I can... but that's a different story.

I was referring to those people who live for themselves and themselves alone. Who believe we-get-life-only-once and live-it-as-full-you-can and who-the-hell-cares-about-others.

Hi Nikhar - where does that impulse come from? - if you don't mind me asking.
:thumbs_up

[Paulclem]

On the destiny, fate, doom ideas - in Buddhism to be doomed would be to continue to expereince rebirth, and not escape from Samsara -the world.

Fate has to be replaced by Karma which operates according to the mind at a particular time - negative - bad karma rises, good - vice versa.

Destiny - there are some Buddhas who have dedicated themselves to freeing all sentient beings, and so the positive aspect of destiny is that eventually all will be freed from suffering.

[sh_einstein]

As Muslims, in order for a person to be a good believer, they should believe in and never object to "fate,"- be it good or evil, simply because it is predetermined by Allah (God). This is one of the basic principles of faith ("Iman") in Sunnah. I do not know of something similar in Christianity that suggests this meaning.

"Destiny" is translated as "masir" (pronounced with long /i:/). I think it borders its meaning in English, because we choose the way that results in our "destiny", so to speak.

So what do you think?

I know a little bit Arabic, I had to take it in highschool but does'nt "masir" mean return as in "Ila allah almasir" which means everybody's return is to God?

and what does "Ikhtiar" or choice mean if all of this is foreseen? Does that mean that our thoughts and what we are going to do is predictable? That makes sense.

and I always had problem with the difference between "taghdir" and "gadha"? do they mean destiny, like "va ghadara allaho kola shay'en"?

[Nikhar]

Hi Nikhar - where does that impulse come from? - if you don't mind me asking.
:thumbs_up

Of course I don't mind your asking. :)
And I would've answered your question for sure if I only knew what it meant. lol :goof:
Kindly rephrase your question.

PS:- I do feel that I'm such a twit at times. lol :D

[Paulclem]

Lol... I was not talking about me. I was talking about the world as whole. My personal ambition is to help as many people as I can... but that's a different story.

.


:D

Where does your personal ambition come from?

[Nikhar]

:D

Where does your personal ambition come from?


Well, I have seen some very poor people in and around the area I live. Fortunately, I have been blessed with a roof over my head and been provided with some excellent education. When you see people sleeping on roads, children merely 7 or 8 begging for food, and a mother who hugs her 2 months old child tightly to protect her from the cold in the absence of a blanket, I do think that we have come into this world to help those who can't help themselves. The excellent conditions we have been given also gives us a duty to help those who haven't been so lucky.

I know that I want to earn a loooooooot of money and distribute it all. And I guess I'm a bit selfish also. I know I would die happily if I know that I have thousands of hands praying or my safety.

Sorry if that sounds cliched or over dramatic.... but that's just me.

[Paulclem]

Well, I have seen some very poor people in and around the area I live. Fortunately, I have been blessed with a roof over my head and been provided with some excellent education. When you see people sleeping on roads, children merely 7 or 8 begging for food, and a mother who hugs her 2 months old child tightly to protect her from the cold in the absence of a blanket, I do think that we have come into this world to help those who can't help themselves. The excellent conditions we have been given also gives us a duty to help those who haven't been so lucky.

I know that I want to earn a loooooooot of money and distribute it all. And I guess I'm a bit selfish also. I know I would die happily if I know that I have thousands of hands praying or my safety.

Sorry if that sounds cliched or over dramatic.... but that's just me.


In Buddhism there's an aspiration - and a practice - called the Bodhisattva Ideal. The aim is to devote oneself to helping all sentient beings. The ultimate aspect of this aim is to help all beings become enlightened, but easing suffering hs to take place before that can happen. Are you familiar with this idea? It sounds like you have the aspiration anyway.

:D

[Nikhar]

In Buddhism there's an aspiration - and a practice - called the Bodhisattva Ideal. The aim is to devote oneself to helping all sentient beings. The ultimate aspect of this aim is to help all beings become enlightened, but easing suffering hs to take place before that can happen. Are you familiar with this idea? It sounds like you have the aspiration anyway.

:D

Thanks. :)
And no, I haven't heard of Bodhisattva Ideal. But now, I have a one word answer if some one asks about my ambition in life. :D

[caddy_caddy]

That is fascinating... Could the judgement really be arbitrary (i.e., based on nothing at all)?



Objection your honour! - No Billl not at all.:lol:
No it couldn't be arbitrary . Actually in the Judgment Day , although God is omniscent He called for" witnesses" .
He cannot be the Judge and the witness at the same time . Look how many witnesses He called for , how just is He .
The angles
The prophets , every prophet will be a witness on his nation .
The location where I did every deed.
Time when I did every deed.
The scripture where every deed I did is written by the angels .
MY tongue,
MY hands .
MY legs or feet .
My skin .

This is only one verse among many that tackles this issue : On the Day when their tongues, their hands, and their legs (or feet) will bear witness against them as to what they used to do.(Al -Nour :24)


I know a little bit Arabic, I had to take it in highschool but does'nt "masir" mean return as in "Ila allah almasir" which means everybody's return is to God?
Yes it does .

and what does "Ikhtiar" or choice mean if all of this is foreseen? Does that mean that our thoughts and what we are going to do is predictable? That makes sense.
He can predict and foresee what we will choose .

and I always had problem with the difference between "taghdir" and "gadha"? do they mean destiny, like "va ghadara allaho kola shay'en"?

Gadhar is the noun , ghadara with a stressed /d/is the verb.
Yes it is destiny or fate . Doom as they said has always a negative connotation .
We say Doom's Day or Judgment's Day not destiny's day or fate's day . At that day there will be a horrible destruction and ruin on the earth .Fate and
destiny could be both good and bad .
There is a rule in Arabic ;when they come seperately in verses they mean the same thing ;when they come together in one verse , there would be a difference in meaning .

[billl]

No it couldn't be arbitrary . Actually in the Judgment Day , although God is omniscent He called for" witnesses" .
He cannot be the Judge and the witness at the same time . Look how many witnesses He called for , how just is He .
The angles
The prophets , every prophet will be a witness on his nation .
The location where I did every deed.
Time when I did every deed.
The scripture where every deed I did is written by the angels .
MY tongue,
MY hands .
MY legs or feet .
My skin .

This is only one verse among many that tackles this issue : On the Day when their tongues, their hands, and their legs (or feet) will bear witness against them as to what they used to do.(Al -Nour :24)

When you say "will of God, that can't be changed," I assume you are talking about the "judgement," and not the acts that are judged. (I am thinking that, at least in the area of "destiny" the person has some sort of choice about things, with God's foreknowledge being somehow different from predetermination by God).

This is a more commonly used sense of "judgement" in English, I think. I had thought you were referring to an Arabic word for "fate" and/or "doom" and/or "destiny" which some translator was translating as "judgement." I had been suggesting that equating "judgement" with events pre-determined by God (fate, doom) would seem to make the whole thing arbitrary. (e.g. This person shall die as an infant, therefore they are judged as one who should live a short life.) Again, I guess "destiny" is maybe the important category, here.

[caddy_caddy]

They use judged , commanded , ordained for the predetermined. They all different forms of the same word : alkada' . For example,"It's a thing ordained (Maryam : 21)
For the other word : alkadar , the foreknowledge
"And the commandement of Allah is certain destiny "( Al-ahzab;38)
In another translation : and the commandement of Allah is a decree determined .
This is exactly as you are saying

I am thinking that, at least in the area of "destiny" the person has some sort of choice about things, with God's foreknowledge being somehow different from predetermination by God).

[billl]

They use judged , commanded , ordained for the predetermined. They all different forms of the same word : alkada' . For example,"It's a thing ordained (Maryam : 21)
For the other word : alkadar , the foreknowledge
"And the commandement of Allah is certain destiny "( Al-ahzab;38)
In another translation : and the commandement of Allah is a decree determined .
This is exactly as you are saying

Interestingly, this matches the view (in a way) of a prominent atheist, Daniel Dennett. Of course, he doesn't posit a God, but he is convinced of determinism. He also uses the term "free will", but for him, it refers to an individual's relative capacity to consider a variety of choices. He believes, however, that the choice ultimately made is pre-determined (e.g. our thought are just shiftings of chemicals and the mechanistic firings of neurons in our brain).

So, just as in the sense of "destiny" we have been discussing, an individual with free will "chooses" more so than does a single-cell organism that has a more simple and more-easily predictable set of responses. However, it is still, ultimately pre-determined by the preceding course of mechanistic events in the brain. Almost as if the exercise of free will is a mere judgement handed down, from the perspective of the material world and natural laws.

I think Dennett's is an interesting view, but I don't want to suggest that I am convinced by it.

[laidbackperson]

I believe in reincarnation very strongly though I have never had any paranormal experiences about it.

I believed in God from early days but could see lot of anomalies and wrong in the world. This was at times dismaying and a bit perplexing.

Reincarnation concept helps in seeing the turmoil state and God more clearly.
I started believing in reincarnation really after reading Avatar Meher Baba’s work. It fitted well with my logical reasoning.

Seeing the world as it is presently, or as it was at any time, I take it as God’s plan to give a person, repeated lives, to allow him or her to remove one’s imperfections and become a perfectly pure person, without letting the person remember, what happened in previous lives.

Letting the person know what happened in earlier lives or who-is-now-who in the present life would be catastrophic.

However, what we carry forward from our previous life is our karmas, and perhaps our fears, courage, cunningness, smartness etc. I like to think that we are born with an intrinsic nature which we get owing to our previous lives. That is the reason why I think we keep finding some kids completely different in nature from their parents or their environment. We will find brave kids to timid parents, genius kids to average parents, cruel kids to kind and believing parents, God believing kids to atheist parents, and no amount of environment or external methods seems to be working on them. We feel exasperated that why it is so. Kids may slowly change over their lives and parents too may learn something from their kids, and I take all these interactions as a God’s meticulous plan to see that each one of us, through thousands or millions of lives, through ups and downs, through misery and happiness, begin to realize the vanity of worldliness and materialistic life, and becoming free of worldly desires, one just start longing only for union with God.

Probably that is what must have occurred to Gautam Buddha, who was born a prince and renounced everything to know himself. Why don’t all of us also feel that strong urge to know oneself?

There can be few more points.

First, we see a lot of wrong in the world. Being born blind or poor or dying young, is it previous life’s bad karmas. I don’t know. But I take it as a God’s plan to train you to eventually believe in Him. We shout ‘unfair’ because, we see only the present moment, only this life, but try to see God as someone who has seen the present sufferer through more than thousands of previous lives. Someone who has seen the same person as king and beggar, man and woman, deformed and able bodied, beautiful and ugly, fair and dark, killer and victim, and seen all this over and over again. Thus if we too know the full history of this person then we will not crib that why he is born blind in this life. I like to believe in the saying that ‘God loves you more than anybody can love you and will stick with you always’. As you eat and drink, read this or that, sleep, jog, scheme right or wrong things, love and hate God never leaves you for a single moment.

We also see wrong people enjoying life till they die and right people living hard life and dying bad deaths. I take God as keeping each moment’s account of everyone’s deeds, thoughts and action and doing full justice in the new lives.

Now, how many of us really deserve a place in Heaven, if there is really such a place - place with all unimaginable pleasures. How many of us are perfectly pure beings who have not sinned at all and are not affected by jealousy, lust, anger, laziness, greed etc. God, if you decide to become strict, I think only a small rare percentage will get a ticket to Heaven.

Me, definitely not.

So if it is only one life then almost all of us will end up in Hell forever.
I do not expect a benevolent and merciful God, wisest beyond words to do so.
Also, if we have only one life and with so many births and deaths occurring year after year all these years, would not the overall population of dead persons or resulting souls be increasing continuously in Hell ?

With God, who is worshipped as limitless anything can be possible, but I like to think that better explanation is rebirths of the same person again and again. You will say, if it is just recycling then how come our population in earth has increased from what it was say 1000 years ago.

The answer lies probably in what Avatar Meher Baba explained in ‘God Speaks’. Prior to taking birth as a human, a person has gone through stage of taking births in following forms in descending order like animals, bird, fishes, worms, plants, metals and stones. However, once you appear as human in earth, you keep taking births as human, life after life, twisting and untwisting, getting and loosing impressions repeatedly, till you become free of desires in the world and are ready for union with God. You have to take millions of births in human form before you start turning towards God permanently.

That is the reason why I think some people are wired to believe very easily in God and why heart of others are locked in present life. But ultimately everyone will go to God.

Lastly, when I heard about Meher Baba for first time through a colleague, I scoffed at the whole idea, but curious, I started reading His literature.
What He said and what people who were with Him said about Him and their experiences with Him.

I always believed that there has to be only one God for entire humanity.

So I always felt baffled that if God is one then, who amongst Christ and Muhammad and Krishna and Zoroaster and Buddha and others was truer or stronger..

I believed that evolution theory could not be totally discarded.

I believe love has to be uppermost eventually.

Reading Meher Baba, I begin to see things in new light which I could map well with my own reasoning and experiences in the world.

I begin to think God having wild humor and take this world as God’s playground.

[blazeofglory]

In Hinduism there are so many accounts of incarnations. God reincarnates when the need for it intensifies, and when the world loses uprightness and when wretchedness becomes rampant and people become off course then God has to reincarnate or be born. This has beautifully expressed in the Gita. Rama, Krishna and the like were reincarnations of Vishnu

And the majority believes in it in a Hindu country and I am torn between belief and disbelief for my age is like that and I have to listen to both atheists and theists, read science and religion

[Paulclem]

Interesting post Laidback. You seem to indicate a leaning towards Hinduism, as your beliefs don't accord with the Buddhist worldview.

I would also point out that Buddha is not considered a God, by Buddhists, as there is no belief in a creator God.

There are often clear distinctions between those with a scientific outlook, and those witha religious outlook on this forum, and it can be difficult for believers to argue against the empiricists with what is subjective experience versus evidence based views.

Buddhism is often considered to be a philosophy - by non-Buddhists i might point out, but it has the flexibility to accept science, evolution, physics - in fact some of the teachings include descriptions of reality that accord very well with the descriptions by physicists I hear - and can work as a belief - including the belief in reicarnation - alongside science.

[blazeofglory]

In fact amalgamating science with faith is a fruitless endeavor and we live in the age of science and technology at the same time we cannot refuse to accept religions. However at times we absurdly try to fuse the two together. The way they coined Christian Science or the like. They are polar opposites and this incorporation of these two opposite directions does no more than create a mass of confusion. Revisit this

[Paulclem]

In fact amalgamating science with faith is a fruitless endeavor and we live in the age of science and technology at the same time we cannot refuse to accept religions. However at times we absurdly try to fuse the two together. The way they coined Christian Science or the like. They are polar opposites and this incorporation of these two opposite directions does no more than create a mass of confusion. Revisit this

There are plenty of religious scientists, but I think that religion and science deal with different aspects of life.

In referring to Buddhism I was making the point that there is room for science as far as it goes. For example it is demonstrably true that meditation calms the mind; it has been experimentally investigated. Thesame will be true for Hindu meditative practices too.

The other thing is that, although there is a different emphasis on proof, Buddhism encourages investigation and examination which are features of the scientific method.

[caddy_caddy]

Seeing the world as it is presently, or as it was at any time, I take it as God’s plan to give a person, repeated lives, to allow him or her to remove one’s imperfections and become a perfectly pure person, without letting the person remember, what happened in previous lives.

Letting the person know what happened in earlier lives or who-is-now-who in the present life would be catastrophic.


If I don't remember What I did in my past life , how could I correct my faults and be a better person ?!!

[Paulclem]

If I don't remember What I did in my past life , how could I correct my faults and be a better person ?!!

Why do you need to know the past? You know what's wrong with you now, so the Buddha's advice is to focus on those.


Why do you need to know the past? You know what's wrong with you now, so the Buddha's advice is to focus on those.

Just to add- imagine the emotional baggage you may well bring with you from another life. The other thing is that you could be reincarnated from any being - animal, fish, ghost, insect etc There are more classes of being too.

[Mr Mahmoud]

There are plenty of religious scientists, but I think that religion and science deal with different aspects of life.

In referring to Buddhism I was making the point that there is room for science as far as it goes. For example it is demonstrably true that meditation calms the mind; it has been experimentally investigated. Thesame will be true for Hindu meditative practices too.

The other thing is that, although there is a different emphasis on proof, Buddhism encourages investigation and examination which are features of the scientific method.

I think the issue now has moved to the most confusing and controversial question of the relation between science and religion. From what has been said, I observe that Christianity and Science have never been on good terms. I want somebody to rationally account for this clash between religion and science in the Christian world. Perhaps this is due to the fact that some people have shifted their belief from religion to scientific theories, which, they might think, is more reliable and authoritative than religion, because "such a theory, or rather hypothesis, perfectly accounts for so and so", or, "there is nothing better than this proof", and many other (often, illogical) justifications so as to feel more and more satisfied with their convictions.

Actually, I am not trying to impose this view upon the folks here, nor do I want to look like a silver-tongued orator. Our religion, Islam, has a mush more moderate attitude towards science. Science must serve religion in one way or another. Scientific discoveries helps to anchor our religious beliefs and to deepen our faith and good deeds. When we see the globe through a telescope or see our skin under the lens of the microscope we say: "Subhan Allah" (How great Allah (God) is!). It is not a matter of routine to say so, but, having seen this with our own eyes, we realize how creative and powerful Allah is. On the other hand, we never use science in a way that is against religion or religious teaching and ethics. Islam tells us to exploit it for the good of people and soicety. We should employ science and scientific principles in order to make life better and easier: to help resolve the problem with famine and poverty, the problem with housing, contamination and homelessness. Our religion is more flexible than many other religions, even in the way one worships Allah. If one cannot stand when performing prayer, one can pray sitting on a chair or even the gorund, just an example among million others. We are brought up with the belief that religion is everything you do in your life. Even if you think in a scientific way, it must be in accordance with religious beliefs as mentioned in the Koran and the Sunna. If one cannot do so, his efforts must be in vain, because it is Allah Who has all knowledge of His creatures, and He does help us choose our right path which is the way of Islam.
Of course, this issue demands a series of volumes to be adequately discussed and covered. And there need be no contradiction between science and religion.

[Zhu]

I haven't read all the replies, in fact, I only read a small portion of the replies. I'll simply try to answer the original question.

No, I don't believe in reincarnation.

Why are some people born into poverty and others into wealth? I'm sure reincarnation is not the answer to this question.

As far as I know, there's no way to prove I'm right and there's no way to prove you are wrong.

I don't think there's a thing as a soul, though. We simply are our brains. Physiological activities in the brain tissue make up our emotions, thoughts, desires... Awareness, consciousness isn't some part of the brain, it is the brain. Everything that one might label 'human' is a result of the magnificence of our brain.

[blazeofglory]

I don't think there's a thing as a soul, though. We simply are our brains. Physiological activities in the brain tissue make up our emotions, thoughts, desires... Awareness, consciousness isn't some part of the brain, it is the brain. Everything that one might label 'human' is a result of the magnificence of our brain.

What you think is the product of your understanding of man or human capacities only and not beyond and within that small capacity it is not better to be judgmental or jump to conclusions at all.

Maybe you are right, but thinking along only along preset or prescribed lines delimits or narrows our imaginative faculties and rational standpoints.

Man is not all brains and limbs. Man's existence pervades these limitary human predilections

[Paulclem]

It's interesting that in The Buddha's time, there was a lot of debate between the sceptice - who did not believe in a soul, afterlife etc and the eternalists who did believe in a soul and afterlife. Nowadays the debate is between science and religion, but it is essentially the same. I wonder if it is the same people debating through reincarnation.:biggrinjester:

[Zhu]

What you think is the product of your understanding of man or human capacities only and not beyond and within that small capacity it is not better to be judgmental or jump to conclusions at all.

Maybe you are right, but thinking along only along preset or prescribed lines delimits or narrows our imaginative faculties and rational standpoints.

Man is not all brains and limbs. Man's existence pervades these limitary human predilections

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. Could you rephrase that?


It's interesting that in The Buddha's time, there was a lot of debate between the sceptice - who did not believe in a soul, afterlife etc and the eternalists who did believe in a soul and afterlife. Nowadays the debate is between science and religion, but it is essentially the same. I wonder if it is the same people debating through reincarnation.:biggrinjester:

:smile5:

Well, I didn't mean to drag science into this. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion, but they are two completely different things. One might say they have a common goal, namely finding answers to life's questions. I'd disagree with that, religion has more goals, at least I hope so. They might have grown from the same questions, though.

I must confess that I'm not very knowledgeable about reincarnation. I vaguely remember some aspects from a time when I was quite interested in Buddhism. But, I wasn't really interested in those aspects to be honest, I was more interested in its philosophical side. I recently read a work about the Krishna consciousness or the Krishna movement. Followers of these teachings also believe in reincarnation. The soul, which is vaguely described as 'the life force', is of vital importance to the concept of reincarnation, which seems only logical and I suspect the concept of a soul exists in every religion that has reincarnation as one of its tenets.

My question obviously is, what is a soul? How do you define a soul?

[Dodo25]

I agree with most of your views @Zhu, I'd just like to add something about science.


:smile5:
Well, I didn't mean to drag science into this. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion, but they are two completely different things. One might say they have a common goal, namely finding answers to life's questions. I'd disagree with that, religion has more goals, at least I hope so. They might have grown from the same questions, though.

At the risk of getting an(other) off topic warning: First of all, science is always 'dragged into this' when people make wild claims about the universe. Science is the method to form and validate hypotheses. Additionally, in some sense, the two (science and religion) are mutually exclusive. Religion works exactly the opposite way science does. Religion has a dogmatic stance that can't be questioned, while the foundation of science is open-mindedness. Science changes, relgious texts don't. And indeed, religion has 'more goals', because other than just 'truth', religion also seeks to give comfort. This seems like a noble goal, but when the result is hundreds of mutually exclusive, excluding (and wrong) varieties of religion, it kinda backfired..



My question obviously is, what is a soul? How do you define a soul?

That's a great question. And it immediately brings back science, because no matter how you want to define it, the claim 'humans have souls' is a scientific claim.

[Zhu]

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that buddhists don't necessarily believe in a soul.

I don't have much time right now, at least not for another week (well, a short week of two days :D). But I'd be very interested in hearing more about this. Perhaps I should pick up some Buddhist and Zen Buddhist literature again. Feel free to recommend me something.

[Dodo25]

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that buddhists don't necessarily believe in a soul.

I don't have much time right now, at least not for another week (well, a short week of two days :D). But I'd be very interested in hearing more about this. Perhaps I should pick up some Buddhist and Zen Buddhist literature again. Feel free to recommend me something.

I know that there are various forms of Buddhisms, and some are more philosophical and ethical views than actually religion.. Meaning they don't make any 'supernatural' claims and hence don't believe in reincarnation. However, the sorts of Buddhism that do preach reincarnation must have some sort of 'soul' concept, and I'd too be interested in hearing a definition.

I have never studied Buddhism in depth, I've only read some summaries and overviews, and I've had some interesting discussions about free will and morality with a Buddhist, altough he is of the former, non-religious type..

[Zhu]

At the risk of getting an(other) off topic warning: First of all, science is always 'dragged into this' when people make wild claims about the universe. Science is the method to form and validate hypotheses. Additionally, in some sense, the two (science and religion) are mutually exclusive. Religion works exactly the opposite way science does. Religion has a dogmatic stance that can't be questioned, while the foundation of science is open-mindedness. Science changes, relgious texts don't. And indeed, religion has 'more goals', because other than just 'truth', religion also seeks to give comfort. This seems like a noble goal, but when the result is hundreds of mutually exclusive, excluding (and wrong) varieties of religion, it kinda backfired..

Indeed, religions texts don't change, but one's understanding of a religious texts might change and be put into a more worldly (realistic) context. Take, for instance, the views of George Coyne, expressed in the 'documentary' Religulous. He says very plainly that the Christian Scriptures were written somewhere between 2000BC and 200AD. Modern science is a fairly recent things (a couple of hundreds years old). There cannot be science in the Bible. He also adds, by the way, that the previous pope said that the evolution theory is no longer a hypothesis. The point is, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you decide to take the Bible literally, then yes, they are mutually exclusive.


That's a great question. And it immediately brings back science, because no matter how you want to define it, the claim 'humans have souls' is a scientific claim.

Well, in all fairness, the claim 'humans have souls' is also a spiritual one, which can be backed up by spiritual arguments. The question is whether or not these arguments contradict the notions we can prove. At that point, one has to accept that either his spiritual arguments are wrong, or say I know it doesn't make sense and there's no proof... It's simply faith.

I'd like to know how people who believe in the soul define the soul and how they consolidate this with modern science.

[Dodo25]

He also adds, by the way, that the previous pope said that the evolution theory is no longer a hypothesis. The point is, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. If you decide to take the Bible literally, then yes, they are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, unfortunately, that was the previous pope, because the actual one is an ignoramus.. And even then, the papal address, the original text, is phrased very weirdly.. I read it in French and it is not clear at all what he meant. The English translation is not precise, it appears as if the pope indeed accepted evolution, but I wouldn't be sure about it. Either way, many Catholics accept evolution and that's great. Yet the more science you accept, the more the actual believe shifts from a personal God towards Deism.



Well, in all fairness, the claim 'humans have souls' is also a spiritual one, which can be backed up by spiritual arguments. The question is whether or not these arguments contradict the notions we can prove. At that point, one has to accept that either his spiritual arguments are wrong, or say I know it doesn't make sense and there's no proof... It's simply faith.

I'd like to know how people who believe in the soul define the soul and how they consolidate this with modern science.

What is a 'spiritual claim'? My stance is that everything 'spiritual' is nonsense, and the burden of proof clearly rests on the ones who think differently. I think 'faith' - believing without evidence - is a fundamentally irrational and dangerous concept.

I've read 'Finding Darwin's God' by Kenneth Miller. He's a brilliant biologists, and also a devout Christian. I thought the argumentation got very weird when it came to souls, yet he is definitely an example of someone who manages to unify faith and science. I just don't think it's convincing..

[OrphanPip]

The subject of Islam's relation to science is an interesting one. There was a conference held at McGill while I was there on the very subject of Islam and evolution. I don't remember many of the presentations, but the professor I had for evolutionary biology was a Muslim. He was bothered by the tendency in Islamic science to squash dissenting views and to herald any new scientific discoveries as furthering proof of the validity of Islam. A prime example of this is the Qu'ranic embryology propagated by universities in Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I find Islam's attitude towards science that contradicts religion to be even more bewildering than the out right hostility of fundamentalist Christians.

[Paulclem]

I agree with most of your views @Zhu, I'd just like to add something about science.



At the risk of getting an(other) off topic warning: First of all, science is always 'dragged into this' when people make wild claims about the universe. Science is the method to form and validate hypotheses. Additionally, in some sense, the two (science and religion) are mutually exclusive. Religion works exactly the opposite way science does. Religion has a dogmatic stance that can't be questioned, while the foundation of science is open-mindedness. Science changes, relgious texts don't. And indeed, religion has 'more goals', because other than just 'truth', religion also seeks to give comfort. This seems like a noble goal, but when the result is hundreds of mutually exclusive, excluding (and wrong) varieties of religion, it kinda backfired..



That's a great question. And it immediately brings back science, because no matter how you want to define it, the claim 'humans have souls' is a scientific claim.

From the Buddhist perspective, you are incorrect. he instruction of The Buddha was to be a light to yourself, and currently no-one teaches Buddhism as if it can't be questioned. In fact the approach is - this is how to achieve this state - go and try it out.

As for mutual exclusivity, from the Buddhist perspective, investigation is through direct experience in meditation- though of course the result is subjective and not empirical.

I'm not sure what you mean by the soul claim being a scientific claim as you said religion and science were mutually exclusive. To answr Zhu's question from the |Buddhist perpective again, it claims there isn't a soul, but does posit the belief in reincarnation.

I think your post is generally critical of religion, but it does do a lot of good, despite the differences within them.

but when the result is hundreds of mutually exclusive, excluding (and wrong) varieties of religion, it kinda backfired..

This seems to suggest that "religions" are working together, when in fact it seeks to serve the local community.


I know that there are various forms of Buddhisms, and some are more philosophical and ethical views than actually religion.. Meaning they don't make any 'supernatural' claims and hence don't believe in reincarnation. However, the sorts of Buddhism that do preach reincarnation must have some sort of 'soul' concept, and I'd too be interested in hearing a definition.

I have never studied Buddhism in depth, I've only read some summaries and overviews, and I've had some interesting discussions about free will and morality with a Buddhist, altough he is of the former, non-religious type..

It is claimed by some that Buddhism is a philosophy more than a religion, but then you wouldn't get that answer if you asked some of the millions of Buddhists around the world.

Where this comes from is the openness of Buddhism. Anyone can take the tools and ideas and see for themdelves without becoming Buddhist.

Meaning they don't make any 'supernatural' claims and hence don't believe in reincarnation. However, the sorts of Buddhism that do preach reincarnation must have some sort of 'soul' concept, and I'd too be interested in hearing a definition.

There is lots of mysticism in Buddhism, and it concerns things like Hell, Heaven, Supernatural beings, etc etc. I would use the word teach rather than preach - as Buddhism invites the person to investigate rather than swallow on the teacher's say so.

Also Buddhists have no concept of soul. This is part of the Buddha's teaching on the Middle Way - neither eternalism - with a soul, nor annihilation, which would be the scientific/ materialistic view.

[Dodo25]

From the Buddhist perspective, you are incorrect. he instruction of The Buddha was to be a light to yourself, and currently no-one teaches Buddhism as if it can't be questioned. In fact the approach is - this is how to achieve this state - go and try it out.

As for mutual exclusivity, from the Buddhist perspective, investigation is through direct experience in meditation- though of course the result is subjective and not empirical.

Let me clarify, I'm not ruling out all religions by default. My claim should be that 'faith' and science are mutually exclusive. One can of course investigate religious claims with an open mind. So what you're saying sounds reasonable, however, concluding, based on the subjective experience of meditation, that everything else Buddhism claims, i.e. Reincarnation, is true is very problematic, to say the least.



I'm not sure what you mean by the soul claim being a scientific claim as you said religion and science were mutually exclusive. To answr Zhu's question from the |Buddhist perpective again, it claims there isn't a soul, but does posit the belief in reincarnation.

The last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. If there is reincarnation, then something is reincarnated! Normally, this something is called soul, it might not be the Chrisitian soul of course, yet it is definately an 'essence' or whatever that lives on after death.

Your first sentence is the opposite of what I said. Religion (or better: Faith) and science are mutually exclusive because science has a bearing on any religious claim. If there is a soul, what is it made of? When did it enter humans (or Australopithecus, Homo erectus etc.?). Or animals altogether..



I think your post is generally critical of religion, but it does do a lot of good, despite the differences within them.

but when the result is hundreds of mutually exclusive, excluding (and wrong) varieties of religion, it kinda backfired..

This seems to suggest that "religions" are working together, when in fact it seeks to serve the local community.

Yes, my post is critical. As for what this thread is concerned, I don't really care about whether it does good. I only commented because someone else brought it up. What matters in the context of reincarnation is whether it is true, and frankly, it seems to be an absurd concept with no evidence in favor of it whatsoever.

You misinterpreted (or I might have phrased it unclearly) the sentence you quoted in red. I actually was suggesting that religions are not working together, this is one of the biggest problems when it comes to the question whether religion is good or bad (apart from the truth factor). Religion tends to put people into 'groups' and thus support xenophobia and wars. Look at the history of Jerusalem. Again, in this regard Buddhism seems special because its history is much more peaceful.



Meaning they don't make any 'supernatural' claims and hence don't believe in reincarnation. However, the sorts of Buddhism that do preach reincarnation must have some sort of 'soul' concept, and I'd too be interested in hearing a definition.

There is lots of mysticism in Buddhism, and it concerns things like Hell, Heaven, Supernatural beings, etc etc. I would use the word teach rather than preach - as Buddhism invites the person to investigate rather than swallow on the teacher's say so.

Also Buddhists have no concept of soul. This is part of the Buddha's teaching on the Middle Way - neither eternalism - with a soul, nor annihilation, which would be the scientific/ materialistic view.

I agree with everything except the last paragraph. As I said in the post above, what is it that is reincarnated? Again, I'd be interested to hear a definition.

[Paulclem]

The last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. If there is reincarnation, then something is reincarnated! Normally, this something is called soul, it might not be the Chrisitian soul of course, yet it is definately an 'essence' or whatever that lives on after death.



Dodo - I can understand your perplexity, but this is a central tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha's teaching of the Middle way says there is no soul - as this would be eternalism - the survival of something from a person's life -(I think in our romantic ideas of reincarnation we think of a persisting personality). The Buddha also says that there is no annihilation - which would be the sceptical/ scientific/ materialistic view.

Instead he posits a radical view that it is the impetus from one life which causes another through Karma. The classical analgy is of a candle flame lighting a second candle flame. The first is blown out leaving the second flame. Clearly the second flame is not the first - no persisting soul - but it is caused by the first, and so there isn't annihilation.

It is a question which is central to Buddhism and the understanding of Karma and reincarnation. It is a much more subtle idea than our usual take on reincarnation, and requires study and investigation.

There is another thread on reincarnation where we are looking at this idea too.



Yes, my post is critical. As for what this thread is concerned, I don't really care about whether it does good. I only commented because someone else brought it up. What matters in the context of reincarnation is whether it is true, and frankly, it seems to be an absurd concept with no evidence in favor of it whatsoever.


The question of evidence is difficult, because of the definition of what constitutes evidence. Clearly my subjective experience is not evidence for you, and I can't see how evidence of reincarnation can be objectively provided. There is a Professor Stephenson who conducted research into reincarnation cases in children, but these also suffer the same problem. So why should i believe it? I am a rational person brought up very much in a scientific tradition with atheist parents.

One reason is that following a Buddhist path has meant that I have been able - in a minor way - to test out some of the teachings. My thinking is - if this teaching is correct, then perhaps the rest of the teachings are too.

There is also my personal experience that leads me to believe in reincarnation.

Another more general reason is Buddhism's approach to teachings which specifically states that teachings should be tested out. This is to try to stop the charismatic leader syndrome, as well as being an honest and confident approach.

There is also the reincarnation of HH The Dalai Lama. In his case, it is not about evidence, but about the quality of the man.



You misinterpreted (or I might have phrased it unclearly) the sentence you quoted in red. I actually was suggesting that religions are not working together, this is one of the biggest problems when it comes to the question whether religion is good or bad (apart from the truth factor). Religion tends to put people into 'groups' and thus support xenophobia and wars. Look at the history of Jerusalem. Again, in this regard Buddhism seems special because its history is much more peaceful.



I would disagree with your asertion that religion puts people into groups, though I understand where the idea comes from. People put people into groups generally, and the xenophobia and wars are usually conducted for the national/ tribal gain. Anyone can claim God is on their side, but whether that is the motive is questionable. Wars etc are usually fought over land and power with religion as a pretext.

I decided before I was Buddhist that there was no God, and follow the Buddha's teaching on this, but i do have a lot of respect for the good work that religious people do on the quiet, for no self gain.

[Dodo25]

Instead he posits a radical view that it is the impetus from one life which causes another through Karma. The classical analgy is of a candle flame lighting a second candle flame. The first is blown out leaving the second flame. Clearly the second flame is not the first - no persisting soul - but it is caused by the first, and so there isn't annihilation.


I didn't know that, thanks for the explanation. It sounds interesting, yet it's indeed different from what we normally think of when we hear 'reincarnation'.

[MarkBastable]

I was referring to those people...who believe we-get-life-only-once and live-it-as-full-you-can and who-the-hell-cares-about-others.

The first of those hyphenated philosophies is exactly the one I adhere to. The second seems to me to be pretty much a complement of the first, though it needn't be. The third doesn't follow logically from the first or the second, and I can't see any reason to imply that it should.

[Mr Mahmoud]

Frankly, I find Islam's attitude towards science that contradicts religion to be even more bewildering than the out right hostility of fundamentalist Christians.

It's crystal clear that there is big misunderstanding of Islam which leads many non-Muslims to invent and claim things that have nothing to do with the genuine message of the Islamic religion. What I said in the earlier post is perfectly clear. Don't confuse matters people. To know Islam's real attitude towards science, you must first be familiar with Islam. Being taught by a Muslim professor does not necessarily mean you are an expert in Islam. I for myself was taught by a Christian professor, so does this mean I know a great deal about the Christian religion? This is by no means true for my case, at least. And now let's move to the major theme of our talk. You argue that "Islam's attitude towards science that contradicts religion" is "bewildering." Then let me ask some questions:
1. What kind of science do you mean? Do you mean the theories propagating for atheism and the rejection of the notion of the existence of God? (Nietschze's "Godless World," for example)
2. If so, why should we dismiss heavenly religion and believe in such misleading subjective human misconceptions just because they have some proof that many might sympathize with over a period time and then be refuted and prove to be even scientifically false by later scholars and researchers?
3. What do you already know about Islamic views in regards to science?

Though I do not have much time for the moment, I will attempt to tackle the point at issue briefly in the following lines. According to the Koran and the Sunna, Islam's attitude has never been and will never be antagonistic to science. Islamic teachings are by no means a stumbling block to the path of scientific development. On the contrary, it has urged people to learn and increase their knowledge. Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) once said, "The quest for knowledge is a [religious] duty of every male and female Muslim" And in Quran we find so many verses that enhance the importance of science: "Allah will raise in degrees the ones of you who have believed and the ones to whom knowledge has been brought"

But Islam has not left the matter like this. As this religion covers the multifaceted walks of life, Islam has set limits as to what a person should learn and what they should not. Science is extremely valuable as long as it does no harm to the religion and our religious beliefs. In fact, we look at science as a means to some end: something materialistic, something ephemeral, and something that just aids in making our life easier and more comfortable. If it does not fulfil this task, then religion, and religion alone, can give us the power to survive in our life and the next world. We do not need to attach supremacy to some scientific hypothesis which is likely to prove wrong and false later on. And we can mention a wealth of examples:
Darwin's theory of evolution, Skinner's Behaviorism, Biological origin, communism, and even capitalism, but unfortunately my time is up.
The Islamic religion rejects any argument without adequate proof. Muslims are not just followers or imitators of what others have proposed, unless it does not contradict with religion, i.e. Islam. Muslims do not have to embrace any assumptions, opinions, views, beliefs.., etc of any sort as long as they are not fully aware of the right foundations behind such ideologies and tenets.

I think nobody can deny that all sciences are not of one stamp. There are some sorts of science that have been proved useless in this life and the next one, i.e. one's life after death which we call resurrection, not incarnation. For example, the science of magic (I don't know what native-English speakers call it). According to the Islamic law, anyone caught exercising magic is judged to be infidel and must be put to death.

I hope someone understands and never falsifies without ample evidence of what they have to say


That's a great question. And it immediately brings back science, because no matter how you want to define it, the claim 'humans have souls' is a scientific claim.

In Islam, soul is one of the matters of the unknown. It is something that only Allah knows about. We should not bother ourselves with the dimension of definition. It may be essentially enough to know that we have some spiritual needs (call them whatever you like) other than our materialistic needs. Whatever progress and precsion might science arrive at, it will remain short of identifying the nature of soul and how it works. Our soul is something we think that keeps our bodies alive. The word "alive" has many connotations related to life in all its faces. Just think and may you be guided to the right path.

[OrphanPip]

I didn't claim to be an expert on Islam, I was just relaying the opinion of a Muslim scientist on what he perceived as poor treatment of science in much of the Islamic world.

Grouping the opinions of Muslims into a single monolithic structure is not possible, especially with the particularly decentralized clerical structure of the religion. However, taking evolutionary theory as an example, I have encountered views ranging from accepting it for all animals other than humans, to acceptance of it as a means for God to create life, to outright denial. In this way, Islam is very much similar to Christianity in its attitude towards science. However, there is a particularly strong vein of what I would call Koranic science, in the same form as Biblical science. I.e. that is frankly methodologically flawed research that begins with presumptions of proving claims made in holy text. In particular, claims about accurate descriptions of embryology in the Koran are often made as being proof of the faith. Regardless of the fact that much of the embryological knowledge was known by the Greeks and likely would have been available to educated people in the Middle East, and besides the fact that there are huge factual errors.

There just seems to me to be a stronger push in the Islamic world to use science as a means to justify religion, and I find this in many ways to be more of a threat to the integrity of modern scientific methodology and practice than the hostility and obfuscation by Christian groups in the USA.

[Zhu]

Either way, many Catholics accept evolution and that's great. Yet the more science you accept, the more the actual believe shifts from a personal God towards Deism.

Very true, and in my humble opinion, that's not such a bad thing.


What is a 'spiritual claim'? My stance is that everything 'spiritual' is nonsense, and the burden of proof clearly rests on the ones who think differently. I think 'faith' - believing without evidence - is a fundamentally irrational and dangerous concept.

A spiritual claim is simply spiritual. It relates to what you believe or think. It's not religious. Yes, the burden of proof rests on the people making spiritual claims, but I can accept that some people simply do not need proof. And though I agree it's fundamentally irrational, I don't agree that it's fundamentally dangerous. It becomes dangerous when there are agendas involved, when it veers from being a personal belief to a dogmatic world view, when it politicises...

One can say, I believe we have souls i.e. we are more than the sum of our parts. Science says these are the parts we have and that's what they do - to me that's enough, to many it's not.


I've read 'Finding Darwin's God' by Kenneth Miller. He's a brilliant biologists, and also a devout Christian. I thought the argumentation got very weird when it came to souls, yet he is definitely an example of someone who manages to unify faith and science. I just don't think it's convincing..

Indeed, a brilliant mind. Haven't read Finding Darwin's God, but I've seen some of his lectures (mostly on evolution vs. creationism) on the internet.


Dodo - I can understand your perplexity, but this is a central tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha's teaching of the Middle way says there is no soul - as this would be eternalism - the survival of something from a person's life -(I think in our romantic ideas of reincarnation we think of a persisting personality). The Buddha also says that there is no annihilation - which would be the sceptical/ scientific/ materialistic view.

Instead he posits a radical view that it is the impetus from one life which causes another through Karma. The classical analgy is of a candle flame lighting a second candle flame. The first is blown out leaving the second flame. Clearly the second flame is not the first - no persisting soul - but it is caused by the first, and so there isn't annihilation.

It is a question which is central to Buddhism and the understanding of Karma and reincarnation. It is a much more subtle idea than our usual take on reincarnation, and requires study and investigation.

Ah yes, the candle analogy. It's coming back to me. I actually read about that not so long ago in an introduction to philosophy. One chapter was about king Milinda and Nagasena (?) and I believe the latter used the same analogy. But the author didn't really elaborate or explain in detail the Buddhist view.

[Paulclem]

Ah yes, the candle analogy. It's coming back to me. I actually read about that not so long ago in an introduction to philosophy. One chapter was about king Milinda and Nagasena (?) and I believe the latter used the same analogy. But the author didn't really elaborate or explain in detail the Buddhist view.

In actual fact, the Buddhist view is very radical in that it says that rather than the - birth - life - death - reincarnation - birth - life - death divisions, as serial sections, that life is an unending series of moments of mind, and that each moment of mind has this cycle within it. We think of the breaks - death reincarnation etc as sections, but, similar to a film, we don't notice this constant arising and dying of each moment.

How can this be investigated? Through meditation practice. I have heard that one finger snap equals 66 of these moments of mind or dharmas. Clearly the practitioner who can perceived this seems to have a clear focus.

[caddy_caddy]

I didn't claim to be an expert on Islam, I was just relaying the opinion of a Muslim scientist on what he perceived as poor treatment of science in much of the Islamic world.

Grouping the opinions of Muslims into a single monolithic structure is not possible, especially with the particularly decentralized clerical structure of the religion. However, taking evolutionary theory as an example, I have encountered views ranging from accepting it for all animals other than humans, to acceptance of it as a means for God to create life, to outright denial. In this way, Islam is very much similar to Christianity in its attitude towards science. However, there is a particularly strong vein of what I would call Koranic science, in the same form as Biblical science. I.e. that is frankly methodologically flawed research that begins with presumptions of proving claims made in holy text. In particular, claims about accurate descriptions of embryology in the Koran are often made as being proof of the faith. Regardless of the fact that much of the embryological knowledge was known by the Greeks and likely would have been available to educated people in the Middle East, and besides the fact that there are huge factual errors.


Wait , wait , wait , Mohammad (P. B .u .H ) , who said the revelations , was a shephered and illiterate. Now you make him educated .


Keith Moore, head of the department of anatomy, at the University of Toronto, was shown verses of the Koran dealing with the microscopic stages of the human embryo. He was so surprised at what he found that he went back and revised the history of embryology in his standard texts on the subject. The books that Keith Moore authored are used at prestigious institutions like Yale and at universities all around the world. He stated, after being unable to provide an explanation on how microscopic details of the embryo could be accurately described in a book written before the discovery of the microscope:

"It is clear to me that these statements (in the Koran on embryology) must have come to Muhammad from God. This proves to me that Muhammed must have been the messenger of God or Allah." (Rehaili 1995)

Consider yourself an inhabitant of 7th Century Arabia. Society has very little scientific knowledge. Myth and magic control people's thoughts. How far would you go if you wanted to discover the true origin or the universe? How much progress would you make if you wanted to uncover the origin of life? We can move away from Arabia and scan the world scene at that period in history. Nothing in the literature of the world comes even remotely close to the scientific accuracy of statements about the natural world contained in the Koran. In fact some of the information that we come across in the Koran wasn't known till about 40 years back and some of it wasn't known until the day it was read in the Koran by scientists just a few years ago.


http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/asadi-koranscience.shtml

[OrphanPip]

Keith Moore was paid by the Saudi Royals/government to give that statement, which is in direct contradiction to statements he made afterward and to his own anatomy text book. He is an embarrassment to his field.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l R e m i n d e r:
Why should some people like The African people be born in poverty, why should some people suffer all their life and others don't.The only explanation that I can think of is REINCARNATION, that we all live many times and our situation in our next life depends on the things we have done in our past lives.But then what would Hell and Heaven mean, if we were about to be punished in our next lives?Please note that this is a discussion about reincarnation (not about any particular religion) as stated in the OP.

Off-topic posts will lead to thread closure.