117 of 128 people found the following review helpful
Skeptics: Don't be so sure of yourselves...,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives (Hardcover)
First, I'd like to take skeptics head-on: you may scoff at the subject matter but you probably have no real knowledge of it. You - we - are part of a primitive civilization and know next to nothing of the nature of existence. For hundreds of thousands of years man looked at birds in flight and dreamed of flying. There are people alive TODAY who were born before man could even figure THAT out, the relatively simple dynamics of flight. So, don't be so dismissive of what you don't understand and assume you 'know' what's possible and impossible. As Plato advised, 'a wise man knows he knows nothing.'
The fact is, this avenue of research is not antithetical to scientific research. Indeed, it cohesively follows the lines of the latest research in quantum mechanics. The double-slit experiment, as important as it seemed years ago, now seems, in the wake of recent discoveries, monumental in its import: the human mind can, in fact, control the physical world, can, in fact, transcend the "laws" of physics. This is now an established scientific fact. The work of the author and his renowned mentor, the late Dr. Ian Stevenson, strongly suggests that the mind (or 'soul') not only transcends minor laws of physics (wave-particle duality) but a major, awe-inspiring one as well: our souls able to return to mortal life in a new physical being.
The author, Dr. Tucker, not only conducts his research with an eye towards quantum physics but strictly follows scientific method as well. While the case histories of the children themselves may seem subjective, with much of it anecdotal evidence from the parents, Tucker is actually highly objective in his findings, relying on otherwise-inexplicable corroborating evidence from other, unrelated sources (often family and friends of deceased persons). The cases presented in the book are compelling and include the most famous American case, that of James Leininger, made famous by the book 'Soul Survivor' and subsequent filmed documentaries.
This is a subject that now deserves to be taken seriously. It is, of course, easy to scoff at the notion that our being, or soul, survives death of our physical body and that we are able to return to life in another body, but if you really look into the work of Tucker and - even more so - Ian Stevenson, you will see that there is no other explanation. This book, especially, explains the scientific bases for this finding as well as offering many compelling and dramatic case histories to illustrate the dearth of any alternate explanation of why these children have intimate knowledge of the lives of deceased people. An important book, in my opinion.
Don't let my emphasis on the science mislead you: the vast majority of the book deals with the truly extraordinary cases of these children, not science. My review is, I suppose, more of a defense of the legitimacy of the subject matter, as such a book will certainly be attacked by pseudo-intellectuals hell-bent on 'disproving' it. However, it's actually a thrilling and engrossing read and one you will not soon forget.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 13 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 12, 2013 5:17:10 PM PST
Why even bother with skeptics? They're non-entities.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 10, 2014 12:37:58 PM PST
Victor Mark says:
Skeptics keep us on our toes and help to avoid readers being taken in by charlatan scientists.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2014 6:06:52 PM PST
skeptics are charlatans paid to harrass decent people in order to uphold a consensus paradigm. If they were so sure of their knowledge, they would have no need to assail anyone else's.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2014 11:30:47 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2014 6:46:48 PM PST
"skeptics are charlatans paid to harrass decent people"
What a brave, public exhibition of your intellect this is. Your statement implies that skeptics get paid to be skeptical and that they are mutually exclusive from "decent people." No.
I'm guessing you wear a helmet.
"If they were so sure of their knowledge, they would have no need to assail anyone else's."
That's not true. I don't need to have a strong opinion on ANYTHING for me to identify spurious evidence or faulty logic.
Michael, that's not what a skeptic is. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the evidence for a certain claim can be called a skeptic.
Being a skeptic is the opposite of being credulous like you.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2014 6:16:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2014 6:23:12 PM PST
Given you won't use your real name only affirms my point, anonymous coward.
Bring it on. I won't shirk from your Ilk.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2014 6:40:18 PM PST
Explain the correlation between my anonymity and your previous point.
You can't, because your previous point was just an ad hominem rant against people who question your flimsy beliefs.
Generally, when people and institutions show hostility against skepticism, it's an indication of their insecurity and fear that their beliefs are wrong.
That's something I learned when I was five and had a mystical out of body adventure in Stalinist Russia. Jk.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2014 8:27:05 PM PST
Your posts are rife with ad hominems. Hypocrite and a coward. A school teacher surfing the net with an anonymous moniker is also a worry. Of course, it could be quite innocent. 'Could' be.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2014 10:58:20 PM PST
Maybe I went too far. Disregard those last comments.
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2014 4:31:27 AM PST
I'm sorry I accused you of wearing a helmet.
(You're clearly not the mountain biking type.)
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2014 12:23:07 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 8, 2014 2:58:01 AM PST
Very clever. I tip my hat to your eloquence.
Nonetheless, I don't resile from my original point.