IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Rewriting the instructions | Main | Rewriting the instructions, postmortem »

Comments

Hi Michael,

I’m still reading, and you’re welcome! I’m delighted, and somewhat awed, that you’ve not only read the book I recommended to you, but actually changed your mind about reincarnation. This re-confirms what I find most exciting most about your blog. Rather than a statement of position, it’s a journal of your own continuing process of discovery and change.

Several months ago, when you were discussing reincarnation at length here, you and I exchanged some arguments for and against. Frankly, with the weight of the evidence that seems to point to reincarnation, I was surprised at your refusal to admit its existence. I did appreciate, though, that you were refreshingly candid about your bias: you said you simply hated the idea that you’d have to return once again to the earth plane.

It was at that point that I suggested you read the Bowman book. Thanks for taking me up on that suggestion and for today’s entry!

Here’s a link to another case that Carol Bowman helped to develop. It’s as compelling as the accounts in Return from Heaven, maybe even more so. She considers it to be the most impressive American case on record.

http://www.ntcsites.com/acadianhouse/nss-folder/publicfolder/AP/cover_feature_24_3.htm

One more suggestion, Michael. Read Lifecycles by Christopher Bache. Subtitled "Reincarnation and the Web of Life", it's one of the smartest and most elegantly argued books I know on ANY subject. Bache not only demonstrates the logic of the reincarnational scheme, he shows us just how beautiful it is.

Hi Bruce,

Sorry I forgot who recommended the book. Thanks again for the suggestion!

I'll add the Bache book to my reading list, along with Bowman's earlier book. And I've saved your linked article to read offline.

Scott Rogo's book The Search for Yesterday also helped convince me about reincarnation, even though Rogo himself comes to no definite conclusions.

Thanks again!

*
Michel,
Good Day!

Every word that you may publish about reincarnation is very important for the human being. Please, cary on.
Thank you.
Best regards,
*
Leal -66-
Taubaté-SP - Brazil
*

*
Michel,
Please, visit my blog:
http://sinapseslinks.blogspot.com
Tks,
Leal
*

Leal,
By reading your blog you seem to be a Kardecian Spiritist. Correct? If that is the case, you may want to take a look at this website:
http://www.SpiritAndScience.org/

Michael and everyone else,
Please take a look at the references on reincarnation we have here:
http://www.spiritandscience.org/Reincarnation.htm

Happy new year and many blessings to all,
Ulysses Castillo
[email protected]


When I was a very little girl, I used to have frequent nightmares that I was tied to a pole and crowds of people were jeering me. I would wake up terrified. I was told that when I was as young as two that I would wake up screaming 'no no no'.

I have often wondered if these were memories from an incarnation as one who died at the stake.

Belief in something due to purely anecdotal evidence is a common error made by uncritical thinkers. Also, your statement that you never believed in it before because it "never appealed" to you is also very telling. Whether or not an idea appeals to you, its credulousness should rest solely on the evidence that supports it.

And anecdotes, such as the story relayed in this post, don't count as compelling evidence.

Can you imagine if our justice system worked in this manner? Relying entirely on eye witness testimony and ignoring all other evidence? Witnesses lie, they forget, they make stuff up to fill in the blanks (sometimes unknowingly--by allowing their own prejudices and biases to creep into their memories).

Anecdotes may be what sparks your interest in a subject, and indicates that perhaps further investigation, controlled studies, and experimentation are in order... but they shouldn't be what you entirely base your beliefs and convictions on. To say that reincarnation is real based entirely on anecdotal evidence is intellectually criminal.

>To say that reincarnation is real based entirely on anecdotal evidence is intellectually criminal.

Bowman's cases are no more "anecdotal" than any other psychological case histories.

>Can you imagine if our justice system worked in this manner? Relying entirely on eye witness testimony and ignoring all other evidence?

Unfortunately, it's the skeptics who ignore all other evidence.

>your statement that you never believed in it before because it "never appealed" to you is also very telling.

What it tells you is that I try to be open about my biases.

The comments to this entry are closed.