Hacker irked by reincarnation • Hacker News Board

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#11

Post by Herring » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:22 AM UTC

cup wrote: post #3

To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science ex…

>I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time

It irritates you because you take it personally. I understand religion plays an important role in your life I really do, but to a nonbeliever one belief without evidence is just like the next. I would also be suspicious if I met a physicist who used Ouija boards. I'd tell him -- and you and the guy referred to in the article -- to collect evidence & write up a convincing argument to a skeptical audience instead of complaining. There are too many weird beliefs around. If we tried to disprove this stuff there wouldn't be time for anything else.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#12

Post by derpmeister » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:22 AM UTC

dhechols wrote: post #6

The "evidence" here is that children "said words" and "did things" that made it seem like they were "reincarnated". Also there are some anecdotal cases of injuries other people had turing into birth defects / birth marks for other people... Can someone please tell me what the science is here? Because my brain is melting reading this "research".

Inception.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#13

Post by emilchacko » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:32 AM UTC

I personally feel that there is no need of any sort of 'scientific' investigations into reincarnation,because these things where already researched by buddists and hindus and several other religions.Just reading their literature can give enough insight on reincarnation.For those interested:

Astavarka Gita : - https://docs.google.com/open?id=1IJWnCEJupB1VHxyheLwnvsnMzxq...

Raja Yoga :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1b9b6uO51isx8fKfuvDC_ftvaatE...

Tao Te Ching :- https://docs.google.com/open?id=1NbIyjE_phiigwpR-jRlOc0u_n1-...

The above books are not directly related to reincarnation.

On reincanation you can read "tibetan book of the dead"

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#14

Post by nodemaker » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:35 AM UTC

dhechols wrote: post #6

The "evidence" here is that children "said words" and "did things" that made it seem like they were "reincarnated". Also there are some anecdotal cases of injuries other people had turing into birth defects / birth marks for other people... Can someone please tell me what the science is here? Because my brain is melting reading this "research".

Not that I believe in re-incarnation, but nonetheless your argument is misleading.

Lets say re-incarnation actually existed....what would its evidence possibly be then anyways?

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#15

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:40 AM UTC

cup wrote: post #9

dhechols wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent…

Well I hypothesis God exists. My experimental method is that I attempt to adher to the principles I understand bring one closer to God. I'll collect my experimental data when I've passed away and determine my conclusion posthumously. I mean this is exactly the issue I'm talking about. My religious beliefs do not impede my scientific work, so why do people get so bothered about it?

[deleted]

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#16

Post by simonh » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:42 AM UTC

dhechols wrote: post #7

cup wrote: post #3

To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science ex…

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent…

I was thinking "Do people really attack you for being religious in that way? Surely not." And yet here we have someone doing just that. How sad.

Human beings believe things without a shred of credible evidence all the time. In fact, taking things on faith is a valuable, even vital intellectual short-cut that allows us to get on with doing stuff without having to work out every detail of our lives from first principles all the time.

I happen to believe that this explains belief in god, i.e. that it's an intellectual short-cut that allows societies to construct functional moral and social frameworks that historically have served a valuable purpose. Frameworks that nowadays are not so valuable because we now have well worked out philosophies of life and morality that render divine fiat unnecessary to leading a healthy, productive and satisfying life. I see religious as being a vestigial social construct that is withering away as it's nolonger required.

However I am also very much aware that I still use all sorts of intellectual short-cuts and assumptions every day. Anyone who thinks human beings are inherently rational logical beings is IMHO delusional. We are primarily emotional, instinctual beings overlayed with thin layer of self awareness and congnition.

Therefore I think there's plenty of scope for sensible people to adhere to religious belief systems if they so choose, as long as they don't expect special rights and privileges for doing so. But can we all agree to at least be civil about it?

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#17

Post by avstraliitski » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:48 AM UTC

Buddha's take: don't believe anything because it is written in your religious texts, handed down by your parents or teachers. Instead, after consideration, should something accord with your own experience, then and only then accept it.

Incidentally, as far as the earliest records we have, the historical Buddha is also known to have taken an approach of dissuading the pondering of unanswerable questions, as a waste of valuable time.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#18

Post by chipsy » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:52 AM UTC

dhechols wrote: post #7

cup wrote: post #3

To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. Furthermore, more often than not, the loudest champions for science are the ones furthest away from the scientific field. I've never seen such hyperbole or purist/fundamentalist views about science ex…

> To speak candidly, I always found it irritating when Atheists and Secular "thinkers" would attack me for being religious and a scientist at the same time, as if my religion must somehow stunf my intellectual capability. I would think so. How can you say, "I'm a scientist, I'll construct experiments and observe results to understand reality," and then go believe that there's a dude in the universe that's omnipotent…

Deductive reasoning may be a powerful tool for discovery, but it can just as easily be hijacked into a means to rationalize emotion and stop useful action. Your argument here, for example, boils down to "why aren't you 100% consistent with rational thought?" But I don't know of anyone who is, so why would you try to justify atheism on that basis? The rational ideal is one you'd have to believe in, just as much as any God.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#19

Post by simonh » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 7:54 AM UTC

nodemaker wrote: post #14

dhechols wrote: post #6

The "evidence" here is that children "said words" and "did things" that made it seem like they were "reincarnated". Also there are some anecdotal cases of injuries other people had turing into birth defects / birth marks for other people... Can someone please tell me what the science is here? Because my brain is melting reading this "research".

Not that I believe in re-incarnation, but nonetheless your argument is misleading. Lets say re-incarnation actually existed....what would its evidence possibly be then anyways?

What Ian Stevenson collected were anecdotes, not evidence. Evidence would be statistically significant instances of characteristics, not transmittable through any other mechanism , verified against a control group. He never even proposed a mechanism for transmission that someone might actually investigate, or even prove or disprove, let alone actually conduct anything resembling a real test or experiment himself.

Re: Hacker irked by reincarnation

#20

Post by yesbutwhy » Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 8:09 AM UTC

The problem with life before birth (edit:you know what I ment) or after death is that I am the sum of my memories, evolutionary quirks and my bodies interaction with the world.

If I don't remember a past life - even in the unlikely event that it was a real thing - that wasn't me, that was someone else.

If you agree with the basic facts used to justify that, but not the conclusion, I'd appreciate any feedback. Likewise if you disagree with the whole thing. Still working on this one.