--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq:> I think the most you can say is that "There is no > > evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that > > they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as > > it is to each and every one of us. None of us know > > for sure what happens subjectively when you die, > > and neither does science." > > > > Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than > > "There is too much evidence that past lives don't > > exist?" > > This thread continues to kick ass! This is a very interesting > point. > > I don't think that pointing out that a person's assertion lacks > good evidence is a belief on the same order as the person's belief > being asserted. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the > belief.
Only if that person is trying to convince someone else that his belief is "right." I have never done this with regard to my belief in reincarnation. It may be total hooey, but I'm comfortable with it. I have nothing to "prove" and no way to "prove" it, and no desire to. > So Stu's confidence that there is a lack of good evidence may be > justified IMO and does not mean that he is supporting a dogmatic > belief. I think you need to read what he actually SAID. He didn't just say that there was a lack of good evi- dence; he said: "There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist." As far as I know, that statement is completely false. There may be a host of experiments that failed to confirm someone's claim of remembering past lives, but that does NOT constitute "evidence that past lives don't exist." Such evidence is the thing that doesn't exist, one way or another, AFAIK. > I do prefer your formulation of there being a lack of > evidence to claiming that there is plenty evidence of lack > in this case however. I also prefer this way of expressing > my own lack of believe in any of the God ideas as being more > than ideas of man. Despite the fact that nobody does really > know know what happens after death... No one knows what happens *subjectively* after death. Big distinction. We can be pretty certain from the smell and other things what happens physically. :-) > ...we can be confident that there is a lack of good evidence > for the specific belief in reincarnation. As there is for a belief in God. But people still believe in God, and will no matter how many people do the "scientist fundamentalist rant" and tell them that they are stupid for believing it. That, to me, is *exactly the same hubris* as someone who believes in God telling an atheist that they are stupid and "just don't realize the truth yet." Neither the atheist or the theist "knows" ANYTHING; they just have beliefs. > But as humans we do end up betting on the probability of our > beliefs so none of us are exactly impassive observers of our > POV, we are advocates usually. Not necessarily. Have I ever tried to "convert" anyone here to my lack of belief in God? Have I ever tried to "convert" anyone to my personal belief in reincarnation? Have I even "advocated" it as a "preferable" belief? I don't think I have. > Every belief is not equally valid just because we can't prove > it wrong without taking a dirt bath. I would say instead that every belief IS equally valid when it comes to things that cannot be proved. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with considering them all equally valid, as long as it's only a personal belief. If the believer starts prosyletizing obnoxiously, or starts crusades to forcibly convert others to his belief, then you have a point. But if the person just believes in God, or believes in reincarnation, I don't see either of those two beliefs as any less "valid" than someone who doesn't believe in God or doesn't believe in reincarnation. > We might find alternate explanations for beliefs that are more > satisfying. To whom? :-) > Once we learn how generative our minds can be in unconsciously > creating detailed experiences, we should > lose absolute conviction in them being real at face value. We should? :-) Why not say, "I might lose such conviction." 'Should' is a pretty nasty word, one that you have given others shit for using inappropriately many times. Knowing how inventive our minds are does NOT necessarily invalidate a person's beliefs in something like rein- carnation. In my case, I am more than willing to admit that my beliefs might be totally without basis, but I kinda like them anyway. They "cover more bases" of my own life experience than the "that's just my mind being inventive again" theory does. And as long as I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone else, I don't see that you or anyone else has the right to "should" me about them. > You > expressed this appropriate lack of certainty when you brought > in the idea that there was some outside corroboration of your > inner experiences in predicting what was in a room you had not > been in. I did that for you guys. I knew what was in the next room, and the next, and the next. It was only my friends who didn't. :-) > Since I was not there, I don't know how much confidence I can > put in that as a test. I wasn't trying to *present* it to you as any kind of "test" or "proof." You thinking I did indicates to me somewhat of a trend on *your* part to "sell" what one believes in. I'm really NOT in the business of selling my beliefs to others, or of trying to convince them that my beliefs are "right" or "true." They're just my beliefs. > But it illustrates that these experiences can be > tested to some degree. But NEVER to the point of convincing someone who has already made up his mind that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Just can't be done. So why bother? > Before we could study chemical imbalances in the brain, mankind > attributed mental illness to supernatural forces. Now that we can > correct some of these imbalances does it prove that there are still > no demons at work? Not really. But the usefulness of that > explanation drops off. For some. For others, they may view what you described as having two different explanations for mental illness. The presence of a new one, as you say, does NOT invalidate the other. Believing that it does is just as much funda- mentalism as claiming that the "demon theory" is RIGHT, damnit, and none of this brain chemistry stuff is true. > And despite the fact that the Judy-Stu aspect of this discussion has > broken down a bit, everyone is adding really interesting points in > this thread. This goes to the heart of what we know and how we can > be confident about it. It's not ABOUT "what we know," Curtis. It's about what we believe. You keep assuming that the two are the same. I don't. I don't assume that my beliefs are "true," even for me. They're just what I believe. They may very well be wrong, but I go with them when they present the explanation that covers the most bases of my own personal experience. If they turn out to be incorrect, big deal. I'm not trying to sell them to anyone, and I'm *certainly* not trying to "prove" them to anyone. That's the kind of egononsense that the TM movement dealt in. I just believe shit. I don't try to sell it or prove that it's "good shit." :-)
