Do you believe in Reincarnation?

[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/atheis...nscience.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.