home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems

self-knowledge, authentic living, full humanity, continual awakening

 

Reincarnation On Trial

Some of the arguments supporting reincarnation remind me of similar disingenuous reasonings which attempt to support the “many worlds” or “multiverse” theory of the universe. There is no evidence for any of this.

 

 

return to Reincarnation main-page

 

I will endeavor to keep this article short because the concepts herein are discussed elsewhere on Word Gems; however, this information must be pressed into service with new configuration.

You, dear reader, if you’d like to sort out the question under review, will be asked to do a bit of homework.

 

site search

 index

 

I suggest that you conduct a “site search” for the terms “many worlds”, “parallel universes”, and “multiverse”. This will lead you to best related discussion – from notables such as Tom Campbell, Stephen Meyer, and other scientists.

Here’s what you’ll find. “Many worlds” was invented – with no evidence – to countermand the rise of Intelligent Design theory.

In the sphere of the biological evolution debate, materialists were so beaten up by mathematical evidence of “not enough time” for randomness to guide Darwinism that an infinite number of universes was ad hoc posited – because “with the infinite scope of a multiverse, then there’s enough time for anything to happen.”

This is how materialists hoped to win this debate -- no matter the lack of evidence for “many worlds.” Instead, just keep on repeating the lie, beat our pots and pans, create a ruckus, and “we’ll use assertion itself as our evidence.”

“Many worlds” was also harnessed to serve as counter-argument against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics – because the latter can lead one to infer that consciousness, not matter, is primary in the universe. And so materialists want to believe in the “many worlds” theory. It fits their agenda.

This is the kind of sloppy reasoning that Newton railed against in his famous statement,

'hypotheses non fingo'

Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727) vigorously denied the validity of the deductive method. Essentially, he thought it was nonsense (because it was being misused), an antipathy expressed in his oft-quoted phrase, (Latin) “Hypotheses non fingo” – translated as, “I feign” or “contrive” or “construct no hypotheses”; that is, no hypotheses should be entertained unsupported by induction, a rigorous fact-gathering process.

To do otherwise, he would assert, invites personal prejudice, private agendas, kangaroo courts, and hobby-horse riding. And those who go down this road are not scientists but politicians, or maybe religionists of a new faith.

A good deal of materialistic science, especially when it attempts to refute consciousness-based reality or the evidence for the afterlife, falls under the category of "hyptheses non fingo."

It's just made up. They say whatever they want to say and, with a wink, call it science. There's nothing behind their assertions. "Magic oxygen" answering the "Cambrian Explosion" and the "Many Worlds" theory in quantum mechanics are prime examples. These are political statements, not science.

All this mayhem is part of a calculated effort to distract.

In the “clear thinking” writing, we discussed certain dishonest debating tactics:

when the law and the facts do not support your case, then pound the table and vilify the opposing attorney

 

The following proverb, sometimes called “The Last Resort Rule,” was not taught in Civil Procedure class when I was in law school; however, some attorneys do report of professors who mentioned it.

There are different versions of the aphorism, but it goes something like this:

“If you have a case where the law is clearly on your side, but the facts and justice seem to be against you,” advised an old lawyer to a young attorney, “urge upon the jury the vast importance of sustaining the law."

"On the other hand," the old lawyer continued, "if the law is against you, or doubtful, and the facts show that your case is founded in justice, insist that justice be done though the heavens fall."

“But,” asked the young man, “how shall I manage a case where both the law and the facts are dead against me?”

“In that situation,” replied the old lawyer, “talk around it - and, the worse it is, the harder you pound the table.”

a cool and cunning calculation portrayed as shocking outrage

Some variants of this sophistry conclude with, not just pounding the table but, attacking the opposing counsel, or yelling with outrage, or even shouting at the jury.

It's all cool calculation. In other words, when the law and the facts are not on your side – and if you lack any semblance of scruple -- you need to do something fast to divert attention from the poverty and lack of substance of your defense; you need to create a scene, manufacture some theatrical charade of moral outrage, produce your own little one-person “mob rule” incident in order to bully your way into a better tactical position – that is, if you want to have any chance of winning your case, and, again, if you lack any sense of moral rectitude and respect for the rule of law.

wag the dog

The “last resort” ploy reaches for highest expression in a concept known as “wag the dog.” If those intent upon deception, distraction, and cover-up possess great wealth, or political-military capabilities, they might orchestrate a national disaster, a calamity to shut down society, or some false mega-accusation, even a war among nations, all for the purpose of diverting attention from crimes they’ve committed.

This article on “Clear Thinking” will help us better understand the disingenuities, the attempts to divert attention from the law and the facts by “pounding tables” and “vilifying opposing attorneys.”

The most egregious example of “pounding the table” and “vilifying the opposing attorney” is that of making the bold-faced claim that your opponent is guilty of the very crime that you are committing. It's the perfect smoke-screen for malfeasance.

READ MORE

 

When the debate, along with the facts of the case, are not going your way, and if you're unscrupulous, then you simply make things up to grab attention, to break the momentum of the opposing side.

some proponents of reincarnation unscrupulously put forward their defense very much in line with the fairy tale of “many worlds”

They’ve been very beaten up with the objection, “How will I ever find the one I love after 100,000 incarnations? Not only that but countless marriages, and even countless switching back-and-forth of genders!”

But the advocates of “R” would have us believe that there’s no problem with reuniting with the one you love. But this has been a hard sell.

And so the cheerleaders for reincarnation have adopted a more high-tech and modern sales pitch. Now they would assure us, in line with the trendy "multiverse" appeal, that we are multi-dimensional beings, don’t you know, we can live multiple lives all at once, there is no past, present, or future for entities in the reincarnational process, we can be in multiple places at the same time. Well, that's very convenient.

According to this logic, we might adapt reality to our liking, mould it like Silly Putty in our hands, and be with whomever we like, while being elsewhere, as well.

But see the evidence, the full discussion, from the "double slit experiment." Only a wave, not a particle, can be in two places at once. But because reincarnationists are materialists at heart, they buy into the error "we can be in two places at once."

no such thing as a fragmented soul

This is gross nonsense. There is no such thing as a “fragmented soul”, with its countless splinters, journeying through time and space. This is absolute nonsense and propaganda.

‘The Last Resort Rule’ is often used to defend ‘R’

Here’s how it works. Much hoopla and pot-banging distraction is made of past lives, karma, memories of another life, birth marks, etc. However, as we’ve discussed at length on the main-page, this so-called evidence melts into a nothingness under careful scrutiny and better research.

These points of “evidence” are as convincing, to the knowledgeable and objective reviewer, as the assertion, “We see the sun moving across the sky, this means that the sun goes around the earth”, or “If I drop a stone it falls to the ground, this means that the earth is like a magnet”, and “That’s why the center of the earth has to be the center of universe.” People believed these things for thousands of years, but better views have eviscerated this kind of “evidence”.

consensus view does not change what’s real

However, ‘The Last Resort Rule’ would insist, “All of this evidence, the thousands of testimonies, the millions of devotees, the widespread acceptance of ‘R’, has to mean that, in some form, reincarnation occurs.” This is more nonsense. The whole world has often been deluded on many aspects of truth, and consensus view does not change what’s real.

Many Worlds theory, because of widespread promotion in sci-fi movies, has convinced the public that it’s good science, but it’s just more pot-banging, because empty assertion with table pounding is not evidence.

Just as “Many Worlds” denies the primacy of consciousness, so too reincarnation overrides the absolute inviolability, the non-fragmentedness, of the sacred individuality of the soul.

 

 

Editor's last word: