--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> > Is this what you are accusing me of? Ho ho, does she think > > poetry can prove reincarnation? > > Yes and no and neither do I. And neither did Wordsworth. Can > you imagine that - writing verse about something that *can't be > proved*? What a waste of time! Why bother? Erm, it was you who brought the subject up and even warned me to avert my eyes. > Do you think that only what is provable is a worthy candidate > for what we might suppose to be the case? (I suspect that very little, > if anything, is provable) Well if you are going to hamstring yourself like that... Try assuming that some things do exist and are provable and then see what is worth considering. The way I look at unprovable things like reincarnation is by seeing what we'd have to throw away by accepting something that contradicts what we are rather sure about. For any sort of life after death it seems to me that an awful lot of useful and well tested explanations have to go in the bin, including some of my favourites. I'd be a bit annoyed to have to jettison Darwinism because people decided en mass to teach Dr Eber instead because it's more romantically satisfying. What do we gain in return? A bit of comfort? Of course, the world could be stranger than anyone can imagine and heaven and hell exist and even reincarnation at the same time, or maybe Ron Hubbard is right. Seems that a lot these ideas fit a similar meme and come from the same emotional place and thus fit into the same section of the venn diagram where they will stay. At least until everything we base our rather well sussed view of the world has turned out to be crap or at least shown how it could co-exist with this stuff. Which seems the less likely option to me, but here's hoping! It'd be quite a paradigm shift.... . If you do think that, or something like > it, is that belief in itself provable? Or should that faith of yours > be consigned to the Venn diagram of unproveable bollocks (religious > bollocks presumably)? I have no faith. There is merely what is most likely given current knowledge. By all means add to it.
