The Boy Who Lived Before - Documentary about a childs memories of another life

[Tyger]

What is the nature of this profound integration on a spiritual level and how is this connected to the lived experiences of unique identities? I'm curious about your line of thinking here. What's the model you are proposing, Tyger?

I should emphasize that I am a student of the subject - like I am a student of history and a student of archaeology and music and art. There have been periods in my life when I have read voraciously on the topic - and I have subsequently found myself drawn into certain esoteric streams for deeper study. The result is an amalgam of many viewpoints regarding this idea - which is far more universal than it is unique, not just across the current time-line of the world, but throughout history.

Anyway, obviously, anything I may say is solely my distillation of what I've gleaned - as well as my understanding of what I've gleaned - where all the usual caveats therefore apply.

What is the model? As usual, a simple question requiring context.....and epic run-on sentences.......

First and foremost, that the physical universe is but the outermost 'sheath' of a many-layered existence. I've talked about the four lower sheaths (or bodies): the physical body (or sheath) that draws it's elements from the physical universe; the life-body - energy body - also called the etheric body in certain streams (the Immune System first described in the early 1980's as a result of the AIDS epidemic is viewed as the first main-stream medical science identification of some of the dynamics of this sheath - and a total off-the wall: I know people that view the abductee phenomenon as occurring at the etheric level, in fact - 'honey-movement' dead give-away in their view); emotional body, or notoriously known as the astral body, formed from the astral 'stuff' of that universe; and lastly, the mental body - the nexus point between the lower, concrete mind and the loftier abstract, imaginative and intuitive mind - a sheath also made from the mental 'stuff' of that universe. The upper mind begins the sheaths of the spiritual world.

Embedded in all these sheaths - both developed (physical, life/etheric, emotional/astral and lower mental) and in the process of development (higher mind and beyond/spirit - resides the Ego (not the Freudian ego), the directing force and the over-arching Individuality that 'sends forth' the impulse to incarnate in successive movements. It is to the Ego that we are gathered back to after death - it is the Ego that holds all the identities. It is the Ego that gathers the sheaths for an incarnation according to 'laws' detailed in countless texts around the world.

Vision your hands steepled with fingers of each hand touching like a clam-shell - this is the human being's time-line: birth into the physical universe is actually a 'death' in the spiritual universe, a going to sleep in the spiritual world - yet still the child has 'memories' of that glory, as spoken of in William Wordsworth's "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood": 536. Ode. Intimations of Immortality. William Wordsworth. The Oxford Book of English Verse

Whither is fled the visionary gleam?
Where is it now, the glory and the dream?

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

Imagine God not as a personality but as a universe - from which we come, sent forth by our Ego, to yet again traverse the physical universe for purposes and reasons mysterious to us now. But it was not always mysterious according to the chroniclers. We knew - and we also knew that a day would come when the spirit would be denied and humankind would live with the glass ceiling, in a tape-loop, yet desperate to get out.

Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature's priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.

Earth fills her lap with pleasures of her own;
Yearnings she hath in her own natural kind,
And, even with something of a mother's mind,
And no unworthy aim,
The homely nurse doth all she can
To make her foster-child, her Inmate Man,
Forget the glories he hath known,
And that imperial palace whence he came.

The story goes - and I've read the prognostications from as recent as the turn of the 20th century - that humanity would begin to deny the very existence of the spiritual universe. There are esoteric streams that even identify a particular god-head that is causing this ultra-materialism - and indicate that we are entering a civilization that will be materialistic in the extreme. However, simultaneous with that, it was indicated at the beginning of the 20th century by certain esoteric authors that human beings would begin to 'cross the threshold' before death, while still in the physical realm, and without being 'prepared' (as in being initiated first). As a result, all manner of problems would result from people entering universes/worlds they were not prepared to see and experience. I think we are actually seeing that occurring - if one is using this world-view.

Anyway, when we 'die' to the physical, we are being 'born' back into the spiritual universe where we begin our long (or short) trek back to our Ego. The whole of a human life is from a full 24 'hour' clock - 12 'hours' of physical existence and 12 'hours' of spiritual existence. Night/Day. Those Egos that have successfully learned greater and greater skill in incarnating manifest lives as adepts in physical life - capable of Yogi-like command of body and mind, to the point of the advanced so-called initiations where the physical body is a vehicle of manifestation at will. But at that level we are dealing with mere story and the sketchiest of information.

It has been suggested by some teachers in this area that the reincarnational cycle is or has been disturbed and that reincarnations are taking place far more rapidly than in the past. This would impact souls being able to return to the Ego - it could also mean that the Ego is having the synthesis of the life just lived take place within the new life rather than in the spiritual world. One rather significant occult teacher from the early 1900's indicated that within 100 years (so in our time) people would begin to have memories of previous lives as a regular experience. This is part of the 'threshold' being crossed in our time.

So there you go - a model, of a kind. Not to be held too tightly - but lightly - with humor and ease - because simply the rendering of one person, colored by my mind's prism. The point of tension will always be with those who see humanity as a physical being and no more - glass ceiling - possessor of a soul (if that) but no more - and those who see humanity as a spiritual Individuality that comes from elsewhere to be here for a while on this 'darkling plain'. I will say that in terms of 'logic' the spiritual Individuality holds more of the cards when it comes to evidence. The physical is clearly a temporary gig.

 

[Tyger]

I said, "The concept of past lives ..." not, "the idea of reincarnation"

Then an even more egregious error on your part. If you are being that exact in this discussion, then you know that a concept is formed over time, with experience. Stating so emphatically that your idea of past lives is at the conceptual level is perhaps premature?

 

[Randall]

Then an even more egregious error on your part. If you are being that exact in this discussion, then you know that a concept is formed over time, with experience. Stating so emphatically that your idea of past lives is at the conceptual level is perhaps premature?

How does you not quoting me accurately become an error on my part? Perhaps when you respond to a post of mine, you might also consider addressing the issues I've raised with something other than qualitative judgments e.g. "simplistic" or "premature". For example pick an issue like how does the concept of past lives relate to personal identity by explaining how it's possible for someone in the present ( like a boy ) to have been someone else in the past ( someone who lived before ). If these are such simple concepts I'm sure you must have some really clear insight on them. Please share.

 

[Randall]

I should emphasize that I am a student of the subject - like I am a student of history and a student of archaeology and music and art.

Then as a student I'm sure someone must have told you that reincarnation is a mix of religion, mythology, mysticism, and philosophy set against various cultural and historical backgrounds rather than established facts about the way things actually are. Right?

First and foremost, that the physical universe is but the outermost 'sheath' of a many-layered existence ...

Reading through you model and trying to interpret it using the standard definitions of terms I am familiar with, it makes no sense to me. It would really help if you would define the following words individually in the context that you mean them to be used:

• Universe
• Existence
• God
• Physical
  
• People ( whole persons )
  
• Energy
  
• Spiritual
  
• Ego
  
• Soul
  
• Mental body
  
• Emotional Body

After I see how you are looking at the above, perhaps I can make more sense out of what you are saying.

 

[Burnt State]

ufology, i love your penchant for the lexicon, and the creation of a common language for communication, but i'm not sure if you would have done well in the mystical era of the romantic poets and the mutability of the word.

 

[mike]

OK.

Agreed. But it doesn't hurt to have a diversion now and then. Thanks for posting that. It would make a good addition to the other thread I mentioned to Tyger: REINCARNATION, past life evidence, PART 1 | The Paracast Community Forums

As im sure the regulars well know, for me everything is a mechanism, from the universe itself down to the sub atomic and everything in between.

Now i dont pretend to know what mechanism is at play in the following video, but something (if its not a hoax) is happening

Might what we assume is reincarnation simply be an extension of this demonstration ?

The remote viewers say they can see across both universal axis. that is both distance and duration

A Mind technology that can teach anyone how to access accurate information about any person, place, thing, or event anywhere in time

The Ultimate Remote Viewing Information Center

What we have here is a demonstration of a (perhaps not fully understood) mechanism that could explain every example of alleged "reincarnation"

The mechanism may be the holographic universe theory and here we start talking about spooky action at a distance and quantum entanglement

If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.
Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The Holographic Universe

Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of "Spooky Action At a Distance" | MIT Technology Review

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.

At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

Im confident we will eventually find an explanation for "reincarnation" that doesnt invoke the supernatural or a model where information from one life is passed to a new body in a chain localised contiguous transfers.

The person in that demonstration isnt reliving a personal memory, shes (allegedly) Taking input from a set of co-ordinates other than the normal personal sensory inputs

 

[Randall]

Might what we assume is reincarnation simply be an extension of this demonstration ( remote viewing news report )? The remote viewers say they can see across both universal axis. that is both distance and duration.

Let's examine this video and the assumptions made. The story starts out with the topic being the remote viewing of airline accidents. The helicopter accident happened in 1998 and was shown on television by UPN News. It also became the subject of an ongoing public lawsuit, and the details of the crash reconstruction are posted on YouTube. The remote viewing session was also done by UPN news within a year of the accident. It also seems that the topic, "Is it possible to determine the cause of a plane crash having never visited the crash site" was decided in advance. So the "target" may not have been so "blind" after all. For example how hard could it be for someone who is contacted by a news channel to do an RV session on airline accidents to come up with phrases like "curving down" and "rotating" and draw some vague bits and pieces that could be interpreted as wreckage on a sheet of paper? Even if no specific target was picked, it's still so nebulous as to fit pretty much any air accident.

But what if ( unlikely as it seems ) that the specific topic of the story wasn't decided in advance and this was a totally random remote viewing test? Without the possibility of foreknowledge of the topic we might be tempted to think the results are pretty impressive. But then again how hard would it be for a TV news team to come up with an archived news story that matches phrases like "curving down" and "rotating" and vague drawings of bits and pieces that could be interpreted as wreckage? Without specific parameters they no doubt have many matching stories to choose from.

Even given the most favorable of conditions here, where the remote viewer was somehow kept in the dark about both the topic and the target, the fact that the story had been all over the news within that year and covered by the same news agency that was doing the piece, and that news agencies typically cover and prominently feature accidents, the chances of the remote viewer having been exposed to that news story and then writing vague phrases like "curving down" and "rotating" and drawing some bits and pieces that could be interpreted as wreckage on a sheet of paper, still isn't that convincing.

So this example of remote viewing has some serious problems. If remote viewing is really as good as its proponents claim, then they need to come up with more convincing evidence, and therefore with respect to the question you're asking, might what we assume is reincarnation simply be an extension of the kind of thing we see in this remote viewing news report? Absolutely. I have no doubt that a lot of assumptions are being made in both examples without any substantial evidence to back them up.

On another level, if your proposing for the sake of discussion that the flimsy evidence for both reincarnation and remote viewing actually is connected to something more mysterious, then both involve some unexplained form of information retrieval. I think that is about as close as we can get to making any assumptions about any genuine phenomena. Going beyond that into the realm of disembodied souls, spirits with various energy vibrations in multiple layers of existence is stepping off the ledge into religio-mystical gobbledygook.

Now that being said, perhaps there is still the possibility for a grain of truth here and there, particularly with respect to the idea of multiverses, which is not a mystical or religious concept. But if we are to determine what the real truth about that is, first we need to discard all the nonsense, which is what I've been trying to do here ( without much success ) .

 

[Tyger]

How does you not quoting me accurately become an error on my part? Perhaps when you respond to a post of mine, you might also consider addressing the issues I've raised with something other than qualitative judgments e.g. "simplistic" or "premature". For example pick an issue like how does the concept of past lives relate to personal identity by explaining how it's possible for someone in the present ( like a boy ) to have been someone else in the past ( someone who lived before ). If these are such simple concepts I'm sure you must have some really clear insight on them. Please share.

Oh dear. Have I offended you? Not my intention, of course. I really do think your view of reincarnation is very simple - that's a fact, not a statement meant to be disparaging - and as I've stated, I've never come across such a literal interpretation as you are suggesting. Perhaps you can indicate from where you have gotten this impression of reincarnation?

Given how simple - or rudimentary perhaps is the better word - your understanding is, it makes sense to me that your referring to your idea about reincarnation as a concept is somehow 'too soon'. You have a lot more study yet to do - if you are so inclined. You also need more experience of the phenomenon. Why does this disturb you? I'm sure there are oodles of topics - like UFOs and UAPs - in which you far outstrip my understanding, experience and knowledge. Should I be unsettled by that? I think not.

As for the rest of your post, I think I have exhaustively delineated 'how' it's 'possible for someone in the present ( like a boy ) to have been someone else in the past ( someone who lived before ).' However, to repeat one last time - the boy himself was not someone else, and I'm not aware that that is ever suggested - though that is usually the simple or rudimentary way of seeing the phenomenon. Because headlines resort to the quick and easy sensational aspects of superficial understanding doesn't mean that's the 'truth' about the event.

It's also not such a simple concept - as you are proving. I have answered as best I can - and it's obviously not easy to grasp - as you keep claiming I am not answering your questions, when I have done my best to do so. Keep in mind - people were killed for thinking these thoughts. During the 30 years war you could be killed for being a Catholic in the city of Ulm, for example - and for centuries after, all Catholics were actually tracked in that city. You had to register. And Catholics weren't any more friendly to these ideas - that survived in esoteric societies - under peril of the Inquisition in Catholic territories. I mention all this as an example of how powerful (and scary) ideas have always been viewed. The mechanistic way of thinking is the direct result of mass slaughter (power struggles between economic elites). Not Science, capital S. Not Truth, capital T.

 

[mike]

Im satisfied all the RV'er had was the random numbers, unless this story is out an outright hoax.
Thats the standard protocol, and ive seen other examples using this same blind protocol.

As to whether it was pure luck as to the "hits" i dont know.

I dont see any mechanism for reincarnation myself.

I think the holographic universe theory is a better (but not proven) explanation for the so called evidence for reincarnation

 

[mike]

The idea that far distant particles can somehow 'talk' to each other worried Einstein so much that he called it 'spooky action at a distance'.
Having confirmed its existence, scientists today are learning how to use this 'spooky action' as a helpful tool. Now a team of physicists at the University of Bristol and Imperial College London have harnessed this phenomenon to shed light on another unusual and previously difficult aspect of quantum physics - that of distinguishing between two similar quantum devices

There does appear to be some process where information is exchanged in a strange way.

The chinese even claim to have measure the speed of transfer as being 4 times the speed of light

Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of “Spooky Action At a Distance”
Einstein railed against the possibility of spooky action at a distance because it violates relativity. Now Chinese physicists have clocked it travelling more than four orders of magnitude faster than light

Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of "Spooky Action At a Distance" | MIT Technology Review

But thats a lower order measurement

They say the results are clear but do not measure the speed of spooky action directly. Instead, the results place a lower bound on how fast it must be. The answer is that it is at least four orders of magnitude faster than light, and may still turn out to be instantaneous, as quantum mechanics predicts.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing.
The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity, the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

Holographic Principle

At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

So to me some aspect of the holographic universe may be the answer to what looks like reincarnation.

But as i alluded to in an earlier post its analogous to reading a page in a book, not being the books author

If it turns out the Universe is holographic in nature, if the predictions in quantum mechanics are correct and that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

Then such mystic belief systems such as the akoshic records, may be simplistic reflections on the actual reality

Whether we are talking quantum physics or akoshic records it amounts to the same result.

Personally i prefer the detailed explanation of quantum physics over the mystical mumbo jumbo associated with akoshic records.

But they both seem to describe the same thing

 

[Michael Allen]

The Premise behind the Concept of Past Lives & Reincarnation

The logical reasoning for saying that past lives can be ruled out is based on the premise contained in the subject itself. Specifically, the phrase "past lives" implicitly states that a living subject ( person ) in the present is the same person as some deceased person in the past. To reinforce this further, reincarnation believers typically use the same or similar terminology e.g. "past lives, The Boy Who Lived Before, past life regression ... etc." all of which suggest that the subject in the now ( let's call him Bob ) is the same person as some deceased person in the past ( let's call her Alice ). This can be stated as a purely logical expression using equal to ( = ) and not equal to ( ≠ ) symbols. So assuming that reincarnation, past lives and the like as defined above is true then it follows that:

living Bob = dead Alice.

If we have agreement on the above, then we can proceed to the next step. If we do not have agreement on the above then the only remaining choice is that living Bob ≠ dead Alice, in which case living Bob's life ≠ dead Alice's life, which means that Bob's assumption that his memories about dead Alice represent a "past life" is false. Furthermore, if you disagree with the premise as defined, then we're no longer talking about "past lives" and therefore whatever evidence is presented in support of it is actually evidence for another topic altogether.

There are some problems with this, only because the notion of the "subject" is suspect from the very start. Most cultures that have beliefs in reincarnation simultaneously hold that the "self" (little "s" self) is not the same as the capital "S" Self. In particular, Buddhists (esp. Zen Buddhists) can be said to disregard the notion of the "ego-self" altogether. Of course we can always impose the notion of an unchanging underlying substance on what we consider as "our self" and try to make logical predictions based on that formalization--still the results of the logic are only as good as the correspondence of the formulation. Adding the "predicate" subject to your own patterns of self-reference and self-reflection actually belie the real changeable nature of that thing you call "the here and present now self." Are you the same "self" as you were when you were 10? An infant? Sperm? Egg? Are you even in possession of the tools and intuition pumps that would allow you access to such a notion when the very existence of your "self" is nothing more than a static picture of your customs and habits at any given moment.

Far be it necessary to impose the rest of your argument, you've already won when you finally apply reductio to the "substance self"--hoisting it on its own petard.

Now once this is done of course the next step is to ask the right question: how in the world did that little boy end up with the memory content of someone who is long dead and probably had no relation (to the boy)?

 

[Randall]

There are some problems with this, only because the notion of the "subject" is suspect from the very start. Most cultures that have beliefs in reincarnation simultaneously hold that the "self" (little "s" self) is not the same as the capital "S" Self. In particular, Buddhists (esp. Zen Buddhists) can be said to disregard the notion of the "ego-self" altogether.

Sure, I can agree with that, but that's also another discussion. This one is framed around those notions of reincarnation that involve "past lives" which as is implicit in the thread's title and in numerous other generic examples I've encountered, makes the assumption that a person who is alive now ( such as a boy ) is someone else who has lived in the past ( who lived before ) as evidenced by claims of memories that correspond to those associated with the person in the past. If we want to get into the myriad other versions of reincarnation that don't require equivalency of personhood, then we're into religion, mysticism, mythology and philosophical considerations that require additional analysis. But this one has been so draining that I'm just not that interested. The essential question has already been shown to be built on an entirely faulty premise. Therefore I don't need to know if my present social status has anything to do with the behavior of some other person in the past because it's not possible for who I am now to have been someone ( or something ) else in the past.

Now once this is done of course, the next step is to ask the right question: how in the world did that little boy end up with the memory content of someone who is long dead and probably had no relation (to the boy)?

Absolutely. That's what I've been saying all along.

 

[mike]

Im always fascinated by these comparrisons too

In eastern mysticism we have

References to the Akashic records, or the eternal Book of Life, date back to antiquity. References in the Old Testament and beyond give us the sense that there is a collective storehouse of knowledge that is written on the fabric of reality.

The Akashic records are like the DNA of the universe. They are the soul's journey over time, so every thought, word, and deed is registered in the Akashic records. Each soul has its own Akashic record, and there are collective records of all souls or all journeys.

there is a field of energy created to record every thought, word, emotion, and action generated by that experience. That field of energy is the Akashic Records. Akashic because it is composed of Akasha, (the energetic substance from which all life is formed); and Records, because its objective is to record all life experience.

In the level I class you will learn to read the Akashic Records for yourself. In the level II class you learn how to open and read the Akashic Records for others

In Quantum mechanics we have

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.

At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

The premise is essentially the same, all information is recorded/encoded into the fabric of the universe, and given the right tools that information can be retrieved

 

[Tyger]

Then as a student I'm sure someone must have told you that reincarnation is a mix of religion, mythology, mysticism, and philosophy set against various cultural and historical backgrounds rather than established facts about the way things actually are. Right?

Hmmm, interesting idea but not one I subscribe to. "Someone must have told you..." I don't think so. I pretty much think for myself - or try to. I give it the old college try. When I say I am a student I mean that I do not pretend to be an 'authority' on the subject - just an enthusiast. Not brilliant, just a dogged jobber with ideas.

You have a very strong belief system going there, Ufology. I'm sure the idea of reincarnation is exactly as you say at certain times in certain locales. In fact, I know that is the case - but to go so far as to say that that fact under some conditions is all it is "rather than established facts about the way things actually are" is a limiting way of addressing the situation imo. How does anyone really know 'the way things actually are'? It's comforting to think we can have that surety - and in many ways materialistic science supplies that surety (rock solid nuts'n'bolts one can depend upon) - in the same way that religion can make the world understandable and a secure place for some people. There's very little difference imo. But to play with the ideas - to be willing to have one's pet suppositions dislodged in a blinding moment and still walk on with equanimity and good humor - that's my goal, anyway, personally. I have fun with all kinds of ideas - that's what makes me like my physicist friends - or the one's I value as friends - no possibility is off the table. As the old adage goes: there is a grain of truth in everything - it's a matter of discerning it, turning the rock until the light shines brilliant for that split second and one sees.

Reading through you model and trying to interpret it using the standard definitions of terms I am familiar with, it makes no sense to me.

Given that, how then can you be so certain about your beliefs against repeated earthly lives when you have had so little exposure to the full complexity of the concept? That makes no sense to me.

It would really help if you would define the following words individually in the context that you mean them to be used:

• Physical
• Universe
• Existence
• Energy
• Spiritual
• God
• People ( persons )
• Ego
• Soul
• Mental body
• Emotional Body

After I see how you are looking at the above, perhaps I can make more sense out of what you are saying.

Ufology, I am going to suppose you are sincere in this request but I am not on a mission to 'convert' anyone, convince anyone or otherwise tangle with anyone about reincarnation. You don't 'believe' in it - cool. You don't cotton to a spiritual universe that is the directing impulse to everything we see physically - blessings to you on your way. I have not used any words in any radical way - though occasionally I have spoken more colloquially in order to be better understood (huge miss on that effort, obviously, with you). The terminology is pretty generic - and there is scads upon scads of literature on it all. Be wary but the pure of heart will see through the crap.

P.S. Have you ever talked with a Scientologist? I have. They have a fetish about words and stuff - in a very intense way. They use words and their meaning to pretty much corral the unwary person. This discussion has reminded me of my occasional ill-advised conversations with Scientologists. Why is that?

 

[mike]

and in many ways materialistic science supplies that surety (rock solid nuts'n'bolts one can depend upon) - in the same way that religion can make the world understandable and a secure place for some people. There's very little difference imo.

I disagree .There is a HUGE difference, science gives us better answers than religion.
One is tested data the other a rabbit plucked out of the hat of ignorance

That you would posit there is very little difference between materialistic science and religion is absurd

 

[Tyger]

That you would posit there is very little difference between materialistic science and religion is absurd

I was comparing the sense of comfort the two categories can derive from their belief systems - that is all. Believers happen in both camps.

But I'm not into religion - except as an anthropologist and (personally) except where it is 'mystical' - then we're onto something interesting - and that is similar to UFOs et al. It all shows up but in different guises. There really is very little new under the sun. It's a rabbit-out-of-a-hat only because you do not allow for the existence of other rationales. Certain folks don't 'permit' themselves to think outside very prescribed limitations - happens in religions, happens in science, happens in cultures and societies.

Art is the key to the parts that are puzzling - the parts where all the apparent distinctions fade away and we can understand something like the following because it is is universally human, transcendent with 'something' -

LINK:

Art is the key. The language of this other half is complex, metaphorical, illusive - but no less exacting in it's way. For the one who takes the inner discipline (and it is never sold - 'the true teacher appears when the student is ready' is the truism - and it is always free though not without it's rigors).

LINK:

As for slavery, and all the horrors that humankind's errors inflict - you forget the message repeated without variance across the world: we are free. Within that is the answer to your question. It's in our hands - and our heavens and hells are self-created. Nothing to do with 'God'. The either/or of your poster is false. Science has created as much suffering as religion. The problem has been - and will continue to be - the belief in authority - be it a religious tenet or a scientist 'permitting' an avenue of thought like the High Priest in one of the ancient temples. Authority is what is the root of all that your poster rails against. Do your own inner work - find out for yourself.

 

[mike]

What you said was

in the same way that religion can make the world understandable

Thats the intrinsic difference between science and religion, science does it, religion does not.

Why do chickens stop laying eggs when they moult their feathers.

Ask Moses and he would say because thats what we observe them do, and it must be part of the divine plan
Science tells us its because the chicken needs the protein for feather production and cant spare it for egg production

Ask moses what an egg is, and he would say its something that comes out of the back end of a chicken and has a shell a white and a yolk (or embryo if fertilised)

Science tells us its a calcium carbonate shell enclosing albumin

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Albumin - Wikisource, the free online library

And a yolk

Containing Proteins, cholesterol, fats, vitamins, minerals, sugars, sulfur.

Its science that makes the world understandable, religion has tried but failed utterly to do so.

Its primary function has been to plug gaps in actual knowledge with guesses, which science continues to prove wrong in every avenue

Religion has only ever provided simplistic ignorant guesses, which only makes the world understandable, if you are simple and ignorant too

The poster is spot on in that it addresses your absurd claim that religion makes the world "understandable"

Thats utter BS

Religion was never going to tell us a chicken egg was


water: 73.7%
protein: 12.9 g
fat: 11.5 g
carbohydrate: 0.9 g
calcium: 54 mg
phosphorous: 205 mg
iron: 2.3 mg
sodium: 122 mg
potassium: 129 mg
thiamine: 0.11 mg
riboflavin: 0.30 mg
niacin: 0.1 mg
food energy: 163 Calories (large C=kilocalories)

Science does.

 

[mike]

in the same way that religion can make the world understandable

So as the poster asks

Which statement is most likely true...

Science gives us a better understanding of the world

Or

Religion gives us a better understanding of the world

The truth is

The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena


The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

• There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
• Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases.

Religion has stymied our "understanding" of the world, just ask Galileo
Science advanced our understanding

in the same way that religion can make the world understandable

What utter nonsense, History says otherwise.
Scientific fact trumps superstitous nonesense every time, when it come to "understanding" the world

 

[Tyger]

Thats the intrinsic difference between science and religion, science does it [makes the world understandable], religion does not [make the world understandable].

We do need to make a distinction between religion (which is a system of belief often/usually accompanied by a social structure for obvious reasons because like-minded folks generally do congregate together and thus create societies) and spirituality (which is a bit more over-srching and free form, though not without it's world-wide similarities). However, I will float with using the term religion right now for simplicity sake.

Science and religion/spirituality make the world understandable but in different ways.

In a tribal society a grove of trees is treated with enormous respect because that is where the 'ancestors abide'. The tree grove cannot be altered by 'religious injunction' (except perhaps by the shaman) with the result that the water source there stays pristine and all the animals there thrive, never facing the risk of the hunt, thus ensuring the food supply as the animals routinely exit the tree grove to find homes elsewhere, etc. Fruits and nuts stay available for all. In this scenario, the tree grove exists for centuries undisturbed because it is the home of the ancestors. In the scientific scenario, the tree grove is not off-limits, and scientists enter the grove, cut down trees for study, divert the stream for irrigation, level the hilly places for farming, and so on. The scientist comes to understand about the nature of 'tree grove stream system' and plants and animals protected from disturbance for centuries as well as the richness of such soil for farming, and so on. The population also can expand and more people are able to live in the area because the tree grove is no longer off-limits and scientists can 'create' the conditions of the tree grove for everyone. [I'm not even introducing the notion of ownership - when a place is 'owned' by the ancestors and one's descendants - and when 'ownership' is possible by one person 'in the flesh' to dispense with as one wills - a rationale often working in concert with the scientific mind-set - though I am not suggesting they go hand-in-glove or that one 'created' the other.]

The two approaches both explain the world and make it understandable in their unique ways. I won;t - as a scientist - put a value-judgement on either of them. The jury is out whether or not 'our' way - the scientific way as it has evolved - has been the better path chosen in the wood.

Why do chickens stop laying eggs when they moult their feathers.

Ask Moses and he would say because thats what we observe them do, and it must be part of the divine plan.

Science tells us its because the chicken needs the protein for feather production and cant spare it for egg production

Ask moses what an egg is, and he would say its something that comes out of the back end of a chicken and has a shell a white and a yolk (or embryo if fertilised)

Science tells us its a calcium carbonate shell enclosing albumin.

This is not saying that much. It is simply a more refined way of describing the egg. Science is simply the microscope and the telescope. It is looking at the physical universe in micro and macro detail. That's it - though a pretty significant 'it' to be sure and one I enjoy immensely (generally), as both the beneficiary and participant.

Its science that makes the world understandable, religion has tried but failed utterly to do so.

Science makes the physical world understandable. Nothing else. It's a one-trick pony - albeit a particularly powerful one at the moment. The religious/spiritual has been the source of science and is the backdrop to the whole kaboodle.

Its [religion's] primary function has been to plug gaps in actual knowledge with guesses, which science continues to prove wrong in every avenue.

Pretty comprehensive statement - bound to be wrong therefore. Religion is science by another name. They are both describing the universe - science only the physical, however. Religion is hazarding a description of far more than just the physical. [There is as many 'bad' religions, I'd wager, as there is 'bad' science out there - how many times has 'science' told us pretty god-awful stuff - like all that eugenics stuff at the beginning of the 20th century, Freud talking about women, and when it comes to that, a lot of stuff gender and racially based that came out of 'science' - not to mention that for every germ-theory home-run in medicine we continue to deal with some pretty scary stuff that 'science' is claiming about the human body.]

Religion has only ever provided simplistic ignorant guesses, which only makes the world understandable, if you are simple and ignorant too.

I am aware you are trying to make a broad point - and generalizations are very tempting - but this is patently untrue. (Also a tad dismissive). Part of the problem is that we are using religion as a term to refer to something I would prefer to call spiritual. Religion - or rabid and distorted calcified belief systems - and that can include science btw in certain instances - are always scary - and yes, ignorant, but most everyone falls prey to such at one point or another. It seems to me be human nature.

There is a saying I came across very early in my career that I think holds for many things: 'The moment one feels anger, one has ceased to argue for the truth, and begun to argue for oneself.'

The poster is spot on in that it addresses your absurd claim that religion makes the world "understandable".

Whew! Science makes the world more understandable in certain ways - in other ways it fails miserably, as does religion, too. Calling an egg an egg or calling it calcium is simply a difference in degree. I see the tree grove - from a distance it only has trees. On detail inspection I discover it has far more than trees - and that means I do know more about the physical universe in that area. My world has expanded by leaps and bounds. But that does not discount or replace the statement made by other scientists (but of the spirit) who indicated that it was a place of significant 'spirit'. Materialistic science cannot 'explain' that - and so ignores it, says it doesn't exist until it can measure and weigh and quantify it as though it were part of the physical universe (which it isn't so the game is at check).

Thats utter BS

Religion was never going to tell us a chicken egg was


water: 73.7%
protein: 12.9 g
fat: 11.5 g
carbohydrate: 0.9 g
calcium: 54 mg
phosphorous: 205 mg
iron: 2.3 mg
sodium: 122 mg
potassium: 129 mg
thiamine: 0.11 mg
riboflavin: 0.30 mg
niacin: 0.1 mg
food energy: 163 Calories (large C=kilocalories)

Science does.

Science certainly does. That's not in dispute. That's all it tells us. In that, it is limited.

 

[Randall]

Ufology, I am going to suppose you are sincere in this request but I am not on a mission to 'convert' anyone, convince anyone or otherwise tangle with anyone about reincarnation. You don't 'believe' in it - cool ...

Actually, I'm making a real effort to understand where you are coming from. The problem is that I have no way to understand what you are talking about until I understand what those words mean to you. After all, this is a discussion forum, and therefore words are all we have here to convey meaning. I could post what those words mean to me, but that hasn't gotten us very far. So let's try one concept at a time. I hope you don't mind if I ask questions for clarification. Can we start with what you mean by the word "Universe"?

If you think it would help, my view of the word is posted here: Topics In Ufology - Universe