Why We Believe

We need to be careful when we talk about objective reality. Einstein proved that nobody knows what that is. Einstein's theories prove that time and space are variable, that is, they change depending upon where you are in the universe, how fast you are going, and the strength of the gravitational field in which you are. The author of this article is talking about empirical evidence and objective reality as being in the here and now, that is, as being defined by time and space. How can the true definition of existence and the true nature of reality, that which is absolute and unchanging, that which is the underlying factor of the universe from which all things are born, be defined by that which is variable, changing depending on where you are in the universe? It cannot. The true definition of existence and the nature of reality extend far beyond the 4D spacetime in which we are trapped. It defines time and space, not the other way around. What the definition is though, no one knows. We have been trying to figure this out ever since Man could think and write. And this is where science, empirical evidence, and all logic and reasoning break down and fail, and where belief, religion, and faith succeed. We cannot *know*, as a fact, the true nature of reality. We can only believe.

Maybe Dr. Semkiw is a DESCENDANT of John Adams and that could explain all the genetic similarities and even speak for preferences and mannerisms. As far as the belief in the supernatural, it is presumptious and arrogant for humans on the planet earth to believe they are the only life forms when we have scientific evidence of many, many galaxies beyond our relatively small universe. "Ghosts" may be other intelligent life that is able to mutate and take the form of a familiar figure in order to communicate with us. It's possible!

It is dicusting, one-sided articles like this, that make people distrust the media and these actions will eventually put like writers out of work, when no one will grant them an interview. It is obvious the authors of this poorly written and researched article TARGETED the Dr. for ideals the writers had in mind already without the Dr. being aware of the out come. How deviant and misleading, you two should be ashamed of yourselves, Newsweek needs to fire you and hire someone respectable. Is Newsweek really that hard up for writers? This article SUCKED!

From what I see, this is just a long-winded version of "People see what they want to see, and that is why they believe in supernatural phenomena." The plain and simple truth is that there IS more to this universe than the banal, material world. It is extremely arrogant of humans to believe something does not exist simply because they cannot perceive it. The only real question left is what that "more to the universe" consists of, which is something that will be debated until Judgment Day.

From the article -- "No matter how many times neuroscientists assert that the mind has no existence independent of the brain, "we still think of our essence as mental, and of our mind as being independent of body," " -- Ah, I see now that neuroscientists have come to an absolute conclusion about this, which means they also must have been able to discover, say, the root cause of mental disorders and such, and have discovered the cures for them as well. Wait, what? You mean neuroscientists have not, and countless numbers of people continue to suffer from such disorders despite receiving treatment? You mean neuroscientists still have a difficult time wrapping those fantastic minds around things such as perception, emotion, memories, dreams -- and how those thing precisely effect the other systems in our bodies -- and there is still only at best a feeble understanding of how the chemicals in our brains work?

No self-respecting scientist ever states that something is absolutely true when it comes to something as nebulous as the mind. They would always leave the possibility open that they could be wrong.

This line is hilarious: "It was all so persuasive, thought Semkiw, who is now a doctor at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in California, that as a man of science and reason whose work requires him to critically evaluate empirical evidence, he had to accept that he was Adams reincarnated."

I trust that was satire, but just in case it wasn't, here's the thing:nothing Semkiw cites as evidence is anything more than coincidence, and pretty lame coincidence at that. He says he can be "passionate"? So does everyone! Even people applying for pizza delivery jobs are expected to be "passionate" about their work these days.

Furthermore, the principle of Occam's Razor would require a scientist to reject the supernatural as an explanation for anything that can be explained more simply. And EVERYTHING Semkiw says can be explained without recourse to reincarnation.

Are you really sure he's a doctor? Good thing the article mentions where he practises -- I'll make sure nobody I care about ever goes there.

a

Education and, to some extent IQ, are negatively correlated with the belief in supernatural, paranormal, etc. That is not to say that there are not exceptions.

I'm a very open-minded person & I feel I dont have any right to hurt anybody's beliefs, but I wud like to have answers to few simple questions before I can even think of beleiving such phenomenon.

My questions are: Why is it that American is reincarnated as an American and not some poor Somalian or Bangladeshi for instance? And if there are ghost or an after-life, where does the soul/spirit of all animals, insects and birds go? If humans are God's children, so are animals and insects, right? Does an cockroach reincarnates as an cockroach or as an ant or as a Army general????

We shud not forget science is an very strong subject, it stands for what it speaks and since it provides empirical evidence it has some basis as opposed to such theories which are baseless and nothing more than "games of mind".

People my advice & my religion is "Beleive in Science, Science is our saviour" :) Thanx

We have the scientific method (hypothesize, test, conclude, review) for a reason: the method keeps us from believing any old thing we desire and from accepting at face value perceptions of the world that may not reflect reality. The scientific method requires that we test our hypotheses of how the world works and that we generate reproducible data to support accepting or rejecting our hypotheses. Because much of paranormal experience is difficult to subject to the scientific method, scientist tend to remain skeptical of the claims of paranormal experience. The strength of paranormal claims is further reduced when we CAN find testable, reproducible explanations for those experiences in how our brains function and interpret the data coming from our senses. In this sense, we scientists are skeptics: we choose not to believe a claim unless at least some reproducible, reviewable, supporting evidence is available. Being a skeptic has nothing to do with being close minded; it has everything to do with attempting to build a realistic view of the universe.

I am a paranormal investigator who has seen a few things that are unexplainable. It is true on many levels that the subconscious can guide you into believing an idea that you may have been conditioned to out of religion or popular opinion of those around you your whole life. The ultimate question is what you personaly believe. If you believe only facts and figures than you will never have enough evidence to prove to you that there is a spiritual world. If you only believe only in the spiritual world then many times you will jump to conclusion over any unexplained activity as a ghost. You have to keep an open mind and an open heart to all aspects of life, spirituality, and in yourself. So what do you believe? If you want to learn more about us check out our myspace pages at www.myspace.com/paranormal_nights and www.myspace.com/ghost_cincy Keep your faith in yourself and be ready for the unimaginable.


Greg Pollitt