Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How can rebirth exist when it goes against scientific laws?
Religion: Insight into reality relates to truth which we practice via symbolism, ritual and meditation, and using something we might broadly call intuitive thought. One might use the word "meaning" to express this rather than "insight."
Science: Information about objects relates to facts which we establish provisionally through theories and using discursive thought.
They do not necessarily contradict one another, but neither do they hinge on one another, and they may even to some degree overlap. And even where religion and science coincide, without practice, without integration into one's own life, religion doesn't amount to more than intellectual chatter.
Scientism (not science, mind you) also gets fact and truth mixed up. The only truth lies in facts.
Fundamentalism arises when religion becomes insecure thinking that science poses a threat. Truth and fact get mixed up. As as result they chase after truth in what they think as fact (even if it means self-deception). As if truth only requires assent.
But Augustine didn't even think the creation story in Genesis as factual. The significance lay in its expression of God as the source of all existence, and Genesis provides a poetic rather than empirical account. Even Augustine knew better than some Christians in the 21st century!
Scientism and fundamentalism both confuse fact with truth, information with insight. The insight ends up the loser in BOTH.
A simple example by way of literature: In Aesop's Fables, we know with a high degree of (factual) certainty that foxes, rabbits, crows, lions, and turtles do not talk. And yet the stories contain truth. The beauty of many of those stories lies not in this blatant non-factual depiction of animals who behave like humans, but in truths about human nature.
Not so sure that's true. We haven't had any Spanish Inquisitions lately.
Religious persecution is alive and well in many countries, including the U.S. of A.
Yeah I was at an American Inquisition just last week. It was terrible! Government sanctioned witch burnings should be outlawed!
It's interesting to me how the definition of certain terms have changed over the years. For example, when I was child, bullying meant significant harassment, usually physical. Nowadays, if one child says to another, "I don't like you," it's called harassment.
The scientific method doesn't rest on theories, that's only one of the first steps. If a theory proves unviable it won't become a scientific law. Religion is different because religion serves different needs. If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful, it doesn't need to be true.
I suppose some people take this approach. Then they can believe in any old thing that suits them. Personally, I would say that religion is concerned with discovering truth while science is concerned with creating theories. At any rate, I could never be content with a religious doctrine that I think is not true, and cannot see how an untrue doctrine could ever be meaningful.
Hence my earlier claim that in religion, Truths must always be True.
Religion: Insight into reality relates to truth which we practice via symbolism, ritual and meditation, and using something we might broadly call intuitive thought. One might use the word "meaning" to express this rather than "insight."
Indeed, something doesn't need to be true to be meaningful.
Indeed, the "insight into reality" for many is ātman, for others it's anātman. Both can't be true, and it doesn't make the least bit of difference. ātman believers are no more wise, moral, or happy than anātman believers.
Science: Information about objects relates to facts which we establish provisionally through theories and using discursive thought.
It would be wrong to think that science, or rather scientists, don't use intuitive thought, if that's what you're suggesting.
An overlap? People use their intuition and rational thought rather ubiquitously.
In the context of science, the bottom line comes down to rational thought. Intuition may play a role in looking at something from a new angle, but the scientific method makes science science.
An overlap? People use their intuition and rational thought rather ubiquitously.
In the context of science, the bottom line comes down to rational thought. Intuition may play a role in looking at something from a new angle, but the scientific method makes science science.
Science is not concerned with MEANING, if that's your point. Also, intuition is not simply looking at something from a new angle. I'm curious about exactly what you think intuition is.
In the context of science, the bottom line comes down to rational thought
Actually, for science, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Science is driven by funding, and not rational thought. The science that is done is the science that is paid for , so those who write the checks determine what science gets done. Science has never addressed subjects like rebirth because no one is willing to pay for that research. Because science hasn't really investigated it, it has nothing to say on the subject.
Science is driven by funding, and not rational thought. The science that is done is the science that is paid for , so those who write the checks determine what science gets done. Science has never addressed subjects like rebirth because no one is willing to pay for that research. Because science hasn't really investigated it, it has nothing to say on the subject.
In order to investigate something it has to be there. If you want to raise the funds you have to have a plausible idea for a start. Science could address the subject of confabulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation At least the subject of study is there; and so funds can be raised.
If someone would find a way of disproving the idea of rebirth, as a contribution to scientific theory, that could earn him some credit; but actually disproving the idea is not going to shock the scientific community; no-one believes it anyway.
As much as you say don't have to believe in it to be Buddhist I do not feel you can reject rebirth and be one considering how such a huge part of Buddhism is about Rebirth as the ultimate goal of it is to escape it which is pretty much the whole point of it. I mean the wheel of rebirth showing the different realmsis often used to represent Buddhism as a whole.
In order to investigate something it has to be there.
There's this thing called discovery. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's finding something that was thought not to be there in the first place. In order to find it, one must investigate.
If you want to raise the funds you have to have a plausible idea for a start.
Idea presentation is not inherently plausible. A grant proposal needs to be crafted. How well it's crafted largely determines it's plausibility.
But ultimately, the two necessary criteria for funding can't be made in any event - can money be made and can it be used as a weapon - so the chances of legitimate scientific study of rebirth are nill. That said it doesn't change the fact that science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject. It can't say that rebirth exists or doesn't exist.
If someone would find a way of disproving the idea of rebirth, as a contribution to scientific theory, that could earn him some credit; but actually disproving the idea is not going to shock the scientific community; no-one believes it anyway.
Really now? Can you list, by name, scientists (all of them) that don't believe in rebirth? To say that "No one believes" is a fairly broad and sweeping generalization - something science tends to eschew - so it requires some support to be credible.
It is ironic that the word "belief" is the all important word in accepting either the phenomena of rebirth, or reincarnation. Children believe in Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy. Some Muslims believe they will go to paradise if they kill themselves and many infidels with them. The Christian believes that they will go to heaven because they believe in God as Jesus, and they are not sure what will happen to "good" people when they die, except some believe they will go to an eternal hell. Belief is absolutely useless, and dangerous. Rid yourself of belief completely because it is wishing for imaginary phenomena.
@Chaz “But ultimately, the two necessary criteria for funding can't be made in any event - can money be made and can it be used as a weapon - so the chances of legitimate scientific study of rebirth are nill.”
If it were possible to keep the information we learn in one life intact when we enter the next one, the economic advantages would be immense. Instead of wasting time in Kindergarten we would send our kids to university right away; just to freshen up their memory and then to deepen their understanding. On their first job-interview they could brag about their many years of experience. Nobody would be making all those costly beginners mistakes ever again.
The costs of education would be much smaller or the moneu spend would pay off a lot better.
@Chaz “But ultimately, the two necessary criteria for funding can't be made in any event - can money be made and can it be used as a weapon - so the chances of legitimate scientific study of rebirth are nill.”
If it were possible to keep the information we learn in one life intact when we enter the next one, ...
THAT my friend has nothing to do with rebirth. We don't keep information from previous lives. At death, the skandhas dissolve so all that could be included in a perception of "we" is, according to Buddhist teachings, impossible.
Remembering previous lives is possible. It is one of the siddhis. Isn't that where they idea of rebirth came from in the first place? People thinking they remember previous lives?
The scientific method doesn't rest on theories, that's only one of the first steps. If a theory proves unviable it won't become a scientific law. Religion is different because religion serves different needs. If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful, it doesn't need to be true.
I suppose some people take this approach. Then they can believe in any old thing that suits them. Personally, I would say that religion is concerned with discovering truth while science is concerned with creating theories. At any rate, I could never be content with a religious doctrine that I think is not true, and cannot see how an untrue doctrine could ever be meaningful.
Hence my earlier claim that in religion, Truths must always be True.
Yes. Nobody could make sense of the idea that a truth does not have to be true.
Did you really mean to say 'If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful'. It would represent a very odd idea of religion. How could any kind of truth be false? There never has been a case of a religious truth being falsified.
The scientific method doesn't rest on theories, that's only one of the first steps. If a theory proves unviable it won't become a scientific law. Religion is different because religion serves different needs. If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful, it doesn't need to be true.
I suppose some people take this approach. Then they can believe in any old thing that suits them. Personally, I would say that religion is concerned with discovering truth while science is concerned with creating theories. At any rate, I could never be content with a religious doctrine that I think is not true, and cannot see how an untrue doctrine could ever be meaningful.
Hence my earlier claim that in religion, Truths must always be True.
Yes. Nobody could make sense of the idea that a truth does not have to be true.
Did you really mean to say 'If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful'. It would represent a very odd idea of religion. How could any kind of truth be false? There never has been a case of a religious truth being falsified.
Well, for example, many people in the world believe in anātman, but probably more believe in ātman. Both cannot be true, but as I mentioned earlier that doesn't make the least bit of difference. This fact doesn't prove that one view is false and the other is true, but it raises a significant question: why doesn't it matter?
But it does matter. It would be the entire point of the practice to separate truth from fiction. It would only be our uncertain beliefs about the truth that don't matter.
The fact is, beliefs about what if anything we experience after death are always included in a culture's religious tradition along with how many gods are up there and what they want from us. It's part of how a culture justifies believing it's special and different from other cultures it might be enslaving or taking land from. Every one of those billions of people throughout history held the firm conviction their particular beliefs were the true ones.
Developing a clear mind means among other things, understanding that you are no different from anyone else in many, many ways including how your mind works. One person's divine revelation is another person's ignorant superstition.
We do have sciences that deal with a given culture's set of religious beliefs. It's called sociology and archaeology. Even psychology, for the study of why an individual develops such deeply held beliefs.
A Christian or Muslim is as deeply convinced we all go to a Heaven or Hell after a final judgement as you are that you're going to be reborn as a baby something out there. The Vikings believed good warriors were going to a giant kegger where they'd feast and slap the waitress' butt for eternity, and had the same justification for that belief. Mostly that their sacred literature (oral stories in this instance) said that was what happens and I'll bet a few of their people had some interesting near death experiences on the battlefield where they saw old Uncle Thor waving a horn full of mead around.
What I mean to say is, rebirth or reincarnation is not an imponderable and obviously fascinates us (mostly for the wrong reasons) but it is a distraction if you get caught up in wanting to prove it, as people have pointed out already.
In the context of science, the bottom line comes down to rational thought
Actually, for science, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Science is driven by funding, and not rational thought. The science that is done is the science that is paid for , so those who write the checks determine what science gets done. Science has never addressed subjects like rebirth because no one is willing to pay for that research. Because science hasn't really investigated it, it has nothing to say on the subject.
Overstated. Being a geosciences major, I knew any number of professors that worked on and published about topics that got no significant funding. It is true that the big money goes to the financial bottom line, but there's lots of science out there that isn't about energy production or pharmaceuticals, etc.
But it does matter. It would be the entire point of the practice to separate truth from fiction. It would only be our uncertain beliefs about the truth that don't matter.
If you know that it matters you should be able to say how it matters. So how does it matter?
People who believe in ātman, for example, are no more wise, moral, or happy than people who believe in an anātman. What else really matters?
@Nevermind, devils advocate: why wouldn't anatman be important for wisdom? Isn't that the whole point of the dharma?
I didn't say that anātman is not important for wisdom. But on this tack, why wouldn't ātman be equally (or even perhaps more) important for wisdom? If they are equally important for wisdom then it wouldn't seem to matter which is believed in, in regard to developing wisdom.
@TheEccentric Buddhism is a practice for a reason. You can practice without holding a belief in rebirth. What happens after we die is really of little consequence compared to how we live right now. I realize the ultimate goal is to be reborn favorably and eventually to not be reborn at all. But that hardly has to be the focus of your practice. If you practice regularly you will no doubt witness your own beliefs about many things evolving.
I don't think that is true, @Nevermind. Religions require that their followers accept certain things as truths. That doesn't make them universal truths. Christians believe without a doubt that if they are the right kind of good person, they will go to heaven and if they aren't, they will go to hell. That doesn't make it a truth. But they believe it as such. I think most people would be hard pressed to denied the first 3 noble truths, as truth. It is the 4th that hangs people up, which path is the path to non-suffering. The funny thing is, all the religious paths when the gunk is removed, are basically the same.
A truth, by definition, can only be a truth if it applies equally to every being in every situation. When people say things like "your truth is not my truth" that makes some sense in our minds, but it really cannot be true, in my opinion anyhow. Whatever happens when we die, is truth. We don't know what the truth is, but I think it is the same process for every human being. This comes up a lot in the abortion debate, too. People of some religions consider the embryo to be a living being at a certain point, when others do not. What is the truth? What makes something a living being? We all have our ideas about what the truth is, but that doesn't mean we know because science cannot definitively prove it one way or another. Religious beliefs do not equal Truth.
But it does matter. It would be the entire point of the practice to separate truth from fiction. It would only be our uncertain beliefs about the truth that don't matter.
If you know that it matters you should be able to say how it matters. So how does it matter?
People who believe in ātman, for example, are no more wise, moral, or happy than people who believe in an anātman. What else really matters?
My view would be that what matters is the truth. If we want to simply believe in stuff that makes us feel better that's fine, lots of people prefer to do this, but we're in for a big disappointment down the road. The Buddha asks us to discover the truth, not to construct a shaky edifice of unverified beliefs. The atman/anatman thing is a red herring. That lots of people believe in one or the other, or neither or both, has no bearing on what is true. As @Karasti says, religious beliefs do not equal truth. Knowledge is required for truth, not speculation. We can point at religious beliefs and note that they are often not true and are subject to change. But truths are true and never change. Otherwise they are not truths.
Why does truth matter? Do you really mean to ask this? What would be the point of Buddhist doctrine, or any doctrine, if it is not true?
I agree that the truth of atman/anatman is irrelevant, but my question was: why is it irrelevant?
Why does truth matter? Do you really mean to ask this? What would be the point of Buddhist doctrine, or any doctrine, if it is not true?
Again the question is why doesn't the truth matter. The point is meaning, essentially, and that's why the truth doesn't matter. Truth is of course very meaningful, but as we are all well aware, something doesn't need to be true to be meaningful.
It seems to me that in many matters, both inside and outside of Buddhism and religion, we should seek the truth but also be aware that in many cases we will never realize the truth.
But it does matter. It would be the entire point of the practice to separate truth from fiction. It would only be our uncertain beliefs about the truth that don't matter.
If you know that it matters you should be able to say how it matters. So how does it matter?
People who believe in ātman, for example, are no more wise, moral, or happy than people who believe in an anātman. What else really matters?
My view would be that what matters is the truth. If we want to simply believe in stuff that makes us feel better that's fine, lots of people prefer to do this, but we're in for a big disappointment down the road. The Buddha asks us to discover the truth, not to construct a shaky edifice of unverified beliefs. The atman/anatman thing is a red herring. That lots of people believe in one or the other, or neither or both, has no bearing on what is true. As @Karasti says, religious beliefs do not equal truth. Knowledge is required for truth, not speculation. We can point at religious beliefs and note that they are often not true and are subject to change. But truths are true and never change. Otherwise they are not truths.
Why does truth matter? Do you really mean to ask this? What would be the point of Buddhist doctrine, or any doctrine, if it is not true?
Traditionally anatman is one of the dharma seals. If anatman is not taught then it is not a Buddhist teaching.
Yes. I wasn't suggesting that anatman might be a false teaching, or that it doesn;t matter whether it's true. I was suggesting that if some people believe it is a truth and some people don't, then this has no bearing on whether it is a truth. So the fact that some people believe and some don't does not cause a problem for the idea of truth. We cannot falsify a religious truth, we can only discover that it is not a truth.
It is odd that in a religion which believes in no inherent existence the TRUTH should be elevated to a permanent status. Odd, but not surprising.
I see no problem here. Why cannot lack of inherent existence be a truth? Do you see a logical problem?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Existence cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form. These forms have no abiding self as they are comprised in part by everything else which is in a constant state of change.
Rebirth may not be scientific but it in no way goes against scientific findings.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Science is driven by funding, and not rational thought. The science that is done is the science that is paid for , so those who write the checks determine what science gets done. Science has never addressed subjects like rebirth because no one is willing to pay for that research. Because science hasn't really investigated it, it has nothing to say on the subject.
In order to investigate something it has to be there. If you want to raise the funds you have to have a plausible idea for a start. Science could address the subject of confabulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation At least the subject of study is there; and so funds can be raised.
If someone would find a way of disproving the idea of rebirth, as a contribution to scientific theory, that could earn him some credit; but actually disproving the idea is not going to shock the scientific community; no-one believes it anyway.
Disproving theories is mostly what science is concerned with.
As soon as there is a viable theory, there is a multitude of scientists out to disprove it. To be viable, a theory has to be testable or it isn't scientific.
Personally, I think most look at it wrong and miss the obvious but until we can point to something and say "yes, that's us exactly", rebirth will not be testable.
What is it that evolves the continuance of instinct?
I was suggesting that if some people believe it is a truth and some people don't, then this has no bearing on whether it is a truth. So the fact that some people believe and some don't does not cause a problem for the idea of truth.
Because a religious truth doesn't need to be true, it only needs to be meaningful.
Well, @Nevermind, it seems to me that of course a religious truth needs to be true. The clue is in the name. If you mean that some people find religious beliefs meaningful and useful even where they are not true, then this is clearly the case. I presume this is what you mean. But in this case they are beliefs, not truths. A truth is a truth.
There is only one truth in any and ALL religions: LOVE. And I'm not talking about romantic love, between two or more people. I'm talking about LOVE-- Real, true, LOVE; cultivated within until it actually permeates one's entire consciousness.
LOVE - in all it's manifestations, but especially as COMPASSION - conquers: Ego; Selfishness; Hopelessness; Prejudice; Beliefs and Disbelief; Mistrust; Personal Doubts; and every other negative aspect of Life.
Every single religion teaches LOVE/COMPASSION on some level - and yet humans always seem to overlook that one, simple, profound TRUTH ..... and instead focus on rules, dogma and differences.
I think what you two are describing is relative versus absolute truth or reality. They don't necessarily conflict. The absolute reality of a rock is that it is mostly space. To a neutrino, rock hardly exists at all. That's absolute truth. But to a person, a rock is a hard thing with a solid surface. That is relative to a human being. It is also true.
Well, @Nevermind, it seems to me that of course a religious truth needs to be true.
A religious Truth needs to be true... for a believer.
The clue is in the name.
The clue is in the dogma.
If you mean that some people find religious beliefs meaningful and useful even where they are not true, then this is clearly the case. I presume this is what you mean. But in this case they are beliefs, not truths.
Science: Information about objects relates to facts which we establish provisionally through theories and using discursive thought.
Thanks for the mini disquisition! I would just add to what you've posted by saying the main difference between religio-philosophy and science is first person evidence vs third person evidence. Science completely ignores the first while the first can embrace the latter.
@Nevermind. I cannot grasp the logic of your view of truth and religion. It would render religion a load of nonsense. Perhaps you feel it is a load of nonsense, If you do, it may be because of your ideas about truth. Either way, apologies, but I cannot post her again for a few days, so we'll have to leave it for another time.
@Nevermind. I cannot grasp the logic of your view of truth and religion.
Nonsense, I've stated my views quite plainly. Religion is about meaning, essentially, and something doesn't need to be true to be meaningful.
That is true. In another thread there is a discussion about relics of Buddha's body in temples all over Thailand. We know they're not (all) real. But they had meaning to the people.
Comments
Religion: Insight into reality relates to truth which we practice via symbolism, ritual and meditation, and using something we might broadly call intuitive thought. One might use the word "meaning" to express this rather than "insight."
Science: Information about objects relates to facts which we establish provisionally through theories and using discursive thought.
They do not necessarily contradict one another, but neither do they hinge on one another, and they may even to some degree overlap. And even where religion and science coincide, without practice, without integration into one's own life, religion doesn't amount to more than intellectual chatter.
Scientism (not science, mind you) also gets fact and truth mixed up. The only truth lies in facts.
Fundamentalism arises when religion becomes insecure thinking that science poses a threat. Truth and fact get mixed up. As as result they chase after truth in what they think as fact (even if it means self-deception). As if truth only requires assent.
But Augustine didn't even think the creation story in Genesis as factual. The significance lay in its expression of God as the source of all existence, and Genesis provides a poetic rather than empirical account. Even Augustine knew better than some Christians in the 21st century!
Scientism and fundamentalism both confuse fact with truth, information with insight. The insight ends up the loser in BOTH.
A simple example by way of literature: In Aesop's Fables, we know with a high degree of (factual) certainty that foxes, rabbits, crows, lions, and turtles do not talk. And yet the stories contain truth. The beauty of many of those stories lies not in this blatant non-factual depiction of animals who behave like humans, but in truths about human nature.
Similar to Daozen's definition of persecution.
Indeed, the "insight into reality" for many is ātman, for others it's anātman. Both can't be true, and it doesn't make the least bit of difference. ātman believers are no more wise, moral, or happy than anātman believers. It would be wrong to think that science, or rather scientists, don't use intuitive thought, if that's what you're suggesting.
Science could address the subject of confabulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
At least the subject of study is there; and so funds can be raised.
If someone would find a way of disproving the idea of rebirth, as a contribution to scientific theory, that could earn him some credit; but actually disproving the idea is not going to shock the scientific community; no-one believes it anyway.
Yes, but a strong argument can be made.
But ultimately, the two necessary criteria for funding can't be made in any event - can money be made and can it be used as a weapon - so the chances of legitimate scientific study of rebirth are nill. That said it doesn't change the fact that science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject. It can't say that rebirth exists or doesn't exist. Really now? Can you list, by name, scientists (all of them) that don't believe in rebirth? To say that "No one believes" is a fairly broad and sweeping generalization - something science tends to eschew - so it requires some support to be credible.
I'll wait.
On their first job-interview they could brag about their many years of experience. Nobody would be making all those costly beginners mistakes ever again.
The costs of education would be much smaller or the moneu spend would pay off a lot better.
THAT my friend has nothing to do with rebirth. We don't keep information from previous lives. At death, the skandhas dissolve so all that could be included in a perception of "we" is, according to Buddhist teachings, impossible.
Why bring it up?
Did you really mean to say 'If a religious truth is proved false it doesn't matter, because religion only needs to be meaningful'. It would represent a very odd idea of religion. How could any kind of truth be false? There never has been a case of a religious truth being falsified.
Developing a clear mind means among other things, understanding that you are no different from anyone else in many, many ways including how your mind works. One person's divine revelation is another person's ignorant superstition.
We do have sciences that deal with a given culture's set of religious beliefs. It's called sociology and archaeology. Even psychology, for the study of why an individual develops such deeply held beliefs.
A Christian or Muslim is as deeply convinced we all go to a Heaven or Hell after a final judgement as you are that you're going to be reborn as a baby something out there. The Vikings believed good warriors were going to a giant kegger where they'd feast and slap the waitress' butt for eternity, and had the same justification for that belief. Mostly that their sacred literature (oral stories in this instance) said that was what happens and I'll bet a few of their people had some interesting near death experiences on the battlefield where they saw old Uncle Thor waving a horn full of mead around.
What I mean to say is, rebirth or reincarnation is not an imponderable and obviously fascinates us (mostly for the wrong reasons) but it is a distraction if you get caught up in wanting to prove it, as people have pointed out already.
People who believe in ātman, for example, are no more wise, moral, or happy than people who believe in an anātman. What else really matters?
Buddhism is a practice for a reason. You can practice without holding a belief in rebirth. What happens after we die is really of little consequence compared to how we live right now. I realize the ultimate goal is to be reborn favorably and eventually to not be reborn at all. But that hardly has to be the focus of your practice. If you practice regularly you will no doubt witness your own beliefs about many things evolving.
I would say you can be wise and believe in either, but one or the other must be the superior method and truth.
A truth, by definition, can only be a truth if it applies equally to every being in every situation. When people say things like "your truth is not my truth" that makes some sense in our minds, but it really cannot be true, in my opinion anyhow. Whatever happens when we die, is truth. We don't know what the truth is, but I think it is the same process for every human being. This comes up a lot in the abortion debate, too. People of some religions consider the embryo to be a living being at a certain point, when others do not. What is the truth? What makes something a living being? We all have our ideas about what the truth is, but that doesn't mean we know because science cannot definitively prove it one way or another. Religious beliefs do not equal Truth.
Why does truth matter? Do you really mean to ask this? What would be the point of Buddhist doctrine, or any doctrine, if it is not true?
Rebirth may not be scientific but it in no way goes against scientific findings.
As soon as there is a viable theory, there is a multitude of scientists out to disprove it. To be viable, a theory has to be testable or it isn't scientific.
Personally, I think most look at it wrong and miss the obvious but until we can point to something and say "yes, that's us exactly", rebirth will not be testable.
What is it that evolves the continuance of instinct?
And I'm not talking about romantic love, between two or more people. I'm talking about LOVE-- Real, true, LOVE; cultivated within until it actually permeates one's entire consciousness.
LOVE - in all it's manifestations, but especially as COMPASSION - conquers: Ego; Selfishness; Hopelessness; Prejudice; Beliefs and Disbelief; Mistrust; Personal Doubts; and every other negative aspect of Life.
Every single religion teaches LOVE/COMPASSION on some level - and yet humans always seem to overlook that one, simple, profound TRUTH ..... and instead focus on rules, dogma and differences.