Poll: What do you think is the best type of research to support reincarnation?

[Kristopher]

I think children's past life memories is the best. It offers such detailed information from young children that would be unlikely known to them unless they did indeed live another life. I know that hypnosis is a great tool that is hard to ignore, but I feel that it's much easier to argue against hypnosis than it is to with childrens memories.

 

[Truthseeker]

I agree completely. It is much less likely that a child is going to lie about memories because from their perspective there is nothing to be gained from lying about it. Plus they have a much smaller wealth of knowledge and life experience to create a false story.

 

[Shiftkitty]

I'd have to say "Another", because children's "memories" are sometimes the result of adults not being aware of just how much a child can be aware of or how a child's mind might be working, and past life regressions can be directed (and not always innocently).


The first thing I would go for is to empirically prove the existence of the soul. From there we have to determine the nature of the soul. Then, of course, comes the task of tracking one as it leaves its body to see where it goes, if anywhere.

 

[Kristopher]

The first thing I would go for is to empirically prove the existence of the soul. From there we have to determine the nature of the soul. Then, of course, comes the task of tracking one as it leaves its body to see where it goes, if anywhere.

But right now wouldn't you say that children's memories are the strongest evidence we have that reincarnation takes place?


It's rather hard to try and prove the existence of the soul when we have no idea what a soul is and I think trying to prove there is a soul first would be a hard place to start. This reminds me of something Tom Shroder said to me in an email..

If these are truly kids in possession of the identity or memories of a dead person, how did they get them? Saying they inherited the "same soul" isn't very helpful when we don't have any definition for "soul" or any testable hypothesis for how a soul inhabits a given body, or how it transfers upon death

If we do prove that a "soul" does indeed exist inside our bodies, then that still wouldn't directly support reincarnation since there are many religions and belief systems out there. I do think tracking a soul leaving a body may be possible, but once it moves on, I believe it will probably leave this level of existence completely and that would most probably make it untrackable.


Although children's memories can be false for many reasons, I fail to believe that every single case would be due to this. From what sources of research we have at this very time, I would say it's rather impressive.

 

[Tinkerman]

I'd have to vote other also. Although I agree with each of you in some ways. I don't think we can narrow it down to any one line of thought or method. Like here on the froum, we are a collection of stories and memories, from adults to kids, to those who are serious to those who are simply curious. We have people who know and have people who suppose.


Dr. Ian Stevenson dealt with children primarily, Dr Brian Weiss dealt with adults, they each had a unique perspective. Stevenson's method was to gather data and stories in a factual way, Dr. Weiss used hypnoses therapy and regression. Each valid in a sense.


A third course of study would be the theory as based in a historical understanding. What does the global or universal consciousness of man say it is? I believe inside each of us is a wisdom "seed," an innate knowledge of these spiritual, soulful theories. They are ethereal and elusive to most everyone. We can't see it or touch it or taste it... but we know its there. Clues in this line of research are found in religions and ancient mythology. I'm not sure that the empirical proofs could be found or proven.


I think the best type of research is one that is comprehensive and includes all aspects.


T

 

[Mama2HRB]

I think it should be past life memories followed by research to prove or disprove it.

 

[Lady2]

I would have liked the poll to have more options and multiple choice, but of what was there I voted childrens past life memories.

I agree completely. It is much less likely that a child is going to lie about memories because from their perspective there is nothing to be gained from lying about it. Plus they have a much smaller wealth of knowledge and life experience to create a false story.

This is so true. But there are SO many ways a past life can be researched, not just with children. Perhaps that is why so many have found reincarnation impossible to ignore. :thumbsup:

 

[Shiftkitty]

But right now wouldn't you say that children's memories are the strongest evidence we have that reincarnation takes place?
It's rather hard to try and prove the existence of the soul when we have no idea what a soul is and I think trying to prove there is a soul first would be a hard place to start. This reminds me of something Tom Shroder said to me in an email..


If we do prove that a "soul" does indeed exist inside our bodies, then that still wouldn't directly support reincarnation since there are many religions and belief systems out there. I do think tracking a soul leaving a body may be possible, but once it moves on, I believe it will probably leave this level of existence completely and that would most probably make it untrackable.


Although children's memories can be false for many reasons, I fail to believe that every single case would be due to this. From what sources of research we have at this very time, I would say it's rather impressive.

Well, you did ask for my opinion on the best way, not necessarily the most practical!


I am interested in reading children's memories, but I also carry a healthy degree of suspicion largely due to my own experiences. My dad was so desperate to believe that I was the reincarnation of his beloved grandmother that he would make leaps and bounds to interpret anything I said or did as proof of the notion. For example, I had suggested to my mom one night when I was still quite young that some shredded monterey jack cheese melted onto a tortilla in a heated skillet sounded like it would taste good. She tried it and it did indeed become a family favorite. It's quick and delicious and we called it a "cheesie". Cooked to moderate cripness, it's a variation on a quesadilla. The first thing my dad popped up with was to remark that it sounded like the sort of thing his grandmother would have made. Not something that she actually did make, but something that she would have. (Objection! Speculation, Your Honor!) Thus, when reading stories about children's memories where the parents are strong believers in reincarnation, I am more prone to think that the child is doing what young children do, which is trying to please mom and dad. Where the parents are not, I tend to lean towards the lack of credit people give children for what they notice and what they don't notice. (fictional example "How could he know anything about race cars? He was only two when we went to the races and he wasn't paying attention to anything but his juice box!" Do you really know what your kid is paying attention to?) Once I get over these two hurdles, then I put the skeptic hat away. Be assured that I do indeed get over those hurdles, and then I find such stories endlessly fascinating and a good place to start.

 

[Owl]

It's rather hard to try and prove the existence of the soul when we have no idea what a soul is and I think trying to prove there is a soul first would be a hard place to start. This reminds me of something Tom Shroder said to me in an email..


If we do prove that a "soul" does indeed exist inside our bodies, then that still wouldn't directly support reincarnation since there are many religions and belief systems out there. I do think tracking a soul leaving a body may be possible, but once it moves on, I believe it will probably leave this level of existence completely and that would most probably make it untrackable.

It would be a hard place to start but it would be the RIGHT place to start. As I said in several other threads, trying to prove reincarnation by memories, is like trying to prove the existence of the brain by the thoughts that we have. It can' t work that way, we have to open up the skull, take the brain out, and cut it in pieces to prove that the brain exists. Or at least, to prove it to science, since we can prove it to ourselves in any way we would like.


Scientists have already worked with children past life memories, a lot of people got convinced of reincarnation because of it, sure, but is it proved? no, it' s not. So we can get the past life memories of every kid on Earth but it will still not prove reincarnation.


I agree that proving that the soul exist wouldn' t prove reincarnation, but it will be the first step. First to prove it' s existence, second, to see how it works. The "physiology" of the soul is what will prove (or disprove, who knows?) reincarnation, not it' s constitution, but we can' t explain (scientifically) how the brain works without knowing first what the brain is.

 

[Nightrain]

I think that the key word that requires understanding and definition here is "research", which to me means studying credible sources regarding a particular subject. Although it need not be strictly empirical or repeatable, I think it needs to be as credible as possible. So when it comes to the most valuable research pertaining to Reincarnation, it is common knowledge that Dr. Ian Stevenson has done more quality research toward the advancement of Reincarnation studies than anyone else in history. Giving Carol Bowman's work a close second, Dr. Stevenson's work has been the most successful because he has conducted intensive inquiry among children whose conscious memory could not have been as affected by media and technology as those in more developed societies. When you come across a child in a south Asian village who claims to have been a deceased person from an entirely different caste and a village never visited, yet one who knows specific relatives of that previous person, exhibits birth scars that correspond to that previous person, and even knows who killed him; then you have what I would call an extremely interesting piece of evidence, which—when combined with all the thousand or so cases Dr. Stevenson has amassed—gives the strongest evidence for the possibility of Reincarnation.


I would agree with others that there is much more to proving Reincarnation than one form of research, for there is much to be said in support of personal experience, logical reasoning, knowledge of human nature as well as other paranormal research. As most of us already know, there is no way to empirically prove that Reincarnation exists beyond a reasonable doubt. But, when it comes to convincing skeptics that Reincarnation does exist, I think that there is no research more potentially convincing than the research conducted by Dr. Ian Stevenson.


In one sense, it is regrettable that technology has so effectively connected the populations of the world; for it is becoming nearly impossible to find a child, nowadays, who has not been somehow influenced by a myriad of influences that can dilute possible past life memories. When they utter strange comments regarding things they should not know, it is hard to discern whether they acquired such information in this life or in a past life. For this reason, I think it is becoming increasingly difficult to conduct the kind of research that Dr. Stevenson conducted a few decades ago.

 

[Owl]

But, when it comes to convincing skeptics that Reincarnation does exist, I think that there is no research more potentially convincing than the research conducted by Dr. Ian Stevenson.

The problem we' re facing is that the skeptics that would already be convinced by that kind of research have already been convinced. How do we convince the rest?

 

[Nightrain]

How do we convince the rest?

I don't think that we can convince the rest. I even doubt sometimes that we should ever try. Of course, I do believe that much of skepticism is a mixture of ignorance plus a great deal of emotional cynicism; and half of the battle can be won if such people could be encouraged to read the data and expand their minds to accept possibility. So, it is possible that some hard-core skeptics can be won over. After all, I was once a skeptic, myself.


However, I would also say that there is no absolute proof of anything in our world except that we are conscious that we as individuals exist. All the rest is one form of faith or another. So, all that we are left with is evidence that supports the possibility of Reincarnation—certainly none of it that is solid enough to convince everyone.

 

[Gerania]

When broaching the subject of reincarnation with someone whose beliefs I knew nothing about, I tended to fall back on recommending the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson. So therefore, I have voted for childrens' recall on this poll. However, there are many other avenues which the enquiring mind may wander down. For instance I have just finished a book by an American doctor called Allan Botkin who is using EMDR therapy to induce IADCs (induced after death communication) with patients suffering intractable grief (notably combat veterans) with great success. The point of this is: consciousness survives physical death. We are eternal spirits; therefore it stands to reason that we live more than one life in the physical plane. I think it is wonderful that there is now a large body of published research about the nature of human consciousness and human spiritual experience.

 

[Owl]

However, I would also say that there is no absolute proof of anything in our world except that we are conscious that we as individuals exist. All the rest is one form of faith or another. So, all that we are left with is evidence that supports the possibility of Reincarnation—certainly none of it that is solid enough to convince everyone.

Well, if we think that nothing can be proved and knowledge is not possible, why try anything at all then? Not just with reincarnation but with knowledge and science in general?


I think that if the existence of the soul and the way it works is proved scientifically the majority of people that is not blinded by religion dogmas will believe in it as much as they believe that the heart pumping is responsible for blood circulation. The people who believe that nothing exists and knowledge is not possible... well, they just won' t believe in anything, but they are not the majority. Most of the people will have doubts about reality, like we all do sometimes, but then we accept the reality most people consider "real" and go on with our lives.

 

[startswithemm]

I chose other because I think that those two methods (children's recollection of their past life experiences as well as regressions) are both valid research methodologies.

 

[Ghost of Gumby]

I think that science can investigate reincarnation, and make some valid conclusions based on observation contingent on research, but I don't think science, as it exists today, can prove reincarnation. Simply don't have the tools and resources to gauge such things of such immense scale, as the basis of reincarnation may be as colossal as the foundations of the universe itself, which is currently only a topic of debate.

 

[Einsatz]

I think memories and their verification through research is important. A solid base in reality with the memories and verifying with obscure or not very well known information is another way to prove as well. If everyone remembers what is well known out there, then it is easy to say the person's imagination has been tainted by common knowledge, no matter how elaborate or drawn out their account it. But if they can bring up and describe little known facts and can verify it, then I think the person can safely say they are on the right track and aren't relying solely on just feelings and common knowledge.

 

[alienstyle]

With the growth of New Technology, especially the Internet, the new children can tap databases of the past persons more easily than ever before. So to continue the Stevenson-model of Research (the empiric research without hypnosis) we will soon need to use an innovative strategy. We may enlarge the model with MORE emphasis on the emotional & physical aspects (e.g. gesture, posture, face, etc) in the children speaking of a previous life.


In fact, Dr Stevenson worked on these factors too. But this time, more variables may be designed here. It would not be easy to simulate the facial beauty & emotions & voice quality etc of the previous person, on the part of these children subjects in the research.

 

[Sister Grey]

It's going to be very difficult to convince die-hard skeptics. And it is hard to prove anything absolutely. I wouldn’t be able to prove who I am, if someone was determined to not believe me. How does anyone know my birth certificate is mine and not faked or stolen, or that my relatives and acquaintances are not all liars? And yet, here I am, I’m obviously somebody. Right? :laugh:


But it’d be almost impossible for me to prove beyond a doubt who I am, if someone was determined to argue about it.


I find accounts of children’s memories more credible overall than adults’ regressions, but I do sigh when parents say something like ‘how could he know anything about war (or whatever), we’ve never allowed him to watch any war movies on television?’ Yes, okay, but images of war (or of anything) are everywhere - in the news, documentaries, cartoons, video games - how can anyone be certain he didn’t see snippets of any of these things at the grandparents, while the babysitter was doing her homework, on his big brother’s smart phone, in an appliance store while dad was browsing the home theater gear? As to what a child would get from making up stories - for a child creativity is its own reward.


But certainly some of the accounts sound credible to me.


Adults’ regressions are interesting but sometimes are big on emotional drama and sturm und drang while short on substance. There’s an idea that it doesn’t matter if any facts check out, as long as the one who had the regression feels better about whatever issues were bothering him or her. Obviously my complaint there is that there isn’t much there that can’t be explained using conventional psychology.


For me to believe a little more strongly in reincarnation I think more research like that done by Dr. Helen Wambaugh might help. If I remember correctly she regressed large numbers of people and then analyzed the data. And it lined up with historical facts; as one example, more people recalled lives in times corresponding to times and places of greater population. The collective crowd is more convincing than an individual anecdote.