Do you believe in Reincarnation?

Quote:

---

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 ?!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddy_caddy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhu

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

: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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhu

: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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhu

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhu

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..

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.