As cofty will tell you he has been convinced he was right on spiritual matters on a number of previous occasions and changed his view. There is hope (joke Cofty :)).
Life after death OR Consciousness after death?
by Space Madness 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cofty
The great divide is the change from a faith-based worldview to an evidence-based worldview.
Once you cross that Rubicon a whole lot of things become far less mysterious.
-
GromitSK
I agree with that worldview statement cofty. It does make a difference. Basing one's opinions on evidence is vital.
-
cofty
If you have read Stevenson you should now read Susan Blackmore for some balance.
-
GromitSK
Maybe Willmarite has. Though the extent of Blackmore's actual research seemed somewhat limited to me.
In any event, the argument wasn't that Stevenson's research proved reincarnation, but that it would be unreasonable to conclude that reincarnation was impossible having read it. Purely as a matter of interest, have you read it?
-
cofty
the extent of Blackmore's actual research seemed somewhat limited to me
Decades of full time research. I just typed her name into google scholar and got over 9000 results...
the argument wasn't that Stevenson's research proved reincarnation, but that it would be unreasonable to conclude that reincarnation was impossible having read it.
That is a very low bar for a lifetime's work. It will always be impossible to prove reincarnation is wrong - same goes for teapots orbiting the earth. The onus is on the believer not the skeptic.
I read some of his work many years ago and found it fascinating. That was at the same point in my life that I believed a lot of crazy things.
I made 5 or 6 specific points in my post regarding Stevenson's work on the previous page. Are there any you disagree with?
-
willmarite
All the points that you pulled out of some psuedo skeptic site are simplistic accusations made from a superficial reading of his research.
It may be good for you to realize the difference between a real skeptic and a psuedo skeptic. Try this page: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php
It truly is a waste of time for me to discuss this topic with you cofty. You have a totally closed mind.
-
cofty
simplistic accusations made from a superficial reading of his research
Which of the following is false?
1. Stevenson started with a belief he inherited from his mother and then spent the rest of his life gathering anecdotes that he could use to confirm it.
2. Stevenson belived that some illness cannot be explained by genes or infection but only by reference to past lives. Similarily he postulated that birth marks and defects are signs of wounds sufferd in previous lifetimes.
3. He went to India and other countries where belief in reincarnation was already rife and started interviewing children via interpreters.
4. When children talk about their past lives they are almost always of a higher class and lived and died in dramatic circumstances.
5. Nothing could possibly be allowed to count against his beliefs. Any time a child's story didn't check out it was simply discarded. Any time he found a connection between what a child said and some historical reality, however tenuous, it was marked up as evidence.
6. Stevenson never proposed any mechanism for how injuries experienced in one life could physically impact on the next.
It truly is a waste of time for me to discuss this topic with you cofty. You have a totally closed mind.
Cop-out.
When somebody tells me they reject evolution but they are prepared to ask questions and listen to evidence I would never arrogantly write them off as closed-minded.
-
GromitSK
I am not sure what 9000 hits on google scholar tell you about research she has undertaken and published as opposed to her reviews of other people's research and how recent/relevant it is. incidentally I keyed her name and didn't get anything at all - I must have keyed something wrong.
In any event her research finding 'nothing' doesn't really take us forward in assessing the evidence from other sources of which there is a great deal.
It would be very difficult for Stevenson to 'prove' reincarnation. If one accepts survival may be possible, there are other potential explanations for most reports of reincarnation.
I don't have a particular interest in reincarnation myself but the question perhaps is: are the experiences he relates true or not? Whether he rejected stories which didn't support his ideas seems to me less relevant. He only needed to find one case that couldn't be explained other means. I think he was looking for evidence to support his contention, not conducting a dispassionate analysis of aspirin compared to paracetamol. :)
In that sense was simply bearing witness to the stories he was told and which he tried to validate as far as he could. Was he biased? Almost definitely. Do we have to accept his interpretation of the tales he recounts? No of course not we can read them ourselves and form our own view.
What kind of witness was Stevenson? Difficult to know - I suppose he had a motive to lie if his aim was to prove reincarnation but that doesn't mean he did lie.
Does the fact that he had cock-eyed ideas about disease invalidate the stories he collected? Not necessarily.
Have you read Stevenson's research for yourself Cofty?
-
cofty
Gromit I made the google Scholar link clickable for you. Susan Blackmore is THE expert on the scientific study of paranormal.
As I said I read Stevenson's ideas years ago. Whether I was reading his work or that of others who were promoting his thories I don't remember but it was pro-Stevenson and I found it compelling at the time.
Willmarite has been disingenuous in this discussion. I made 6 specific points in reponse to his question and he refuses to respond but calls me closed-minded. I believe he is hiding from inconvenient evidence.
My challenge remains to point out any of those 6 points that are inaccurate.