Recently the University of Virginia magazine published an article entitled The Science of Reincarnation.
This is my response:
I would like to comment on the article entitled the Science of Reincarnation and the subsequent comments by your readers.
My name is Bob Good and I wrote the book, The Science of Reincarnation. For verification go to www.thescienceofreincarnation.org.
What is lacking from the article and the subsequent comments is context.
Studying children who remember past lives is only one area of study. Others include past life regression and near-death experiences. Your readers could argue that none of these have been proven as fact and they would be right.
But other areas of study that are considered to have been proven are remote viewing (Stanford) the universal human ability to influence remote systems (The intention experiments, Princeton) and clairvoyance (the University of Toronto).
These six areas or disciplines are not the only disciplines within the science of reincarnation, which encompasses the study of non-local consciousness. It was outlandish 40 years ago to think remote viewing was possible. Yet when all these manifestations of non-local consciousness are looked at as a group the real possibility exists that reincarnation may be our reality.
Dr. Tucker’s work needs to be supported by UVA. But a greater analysis needs to be done incorporating other disciplines and I would hope UVA would join with UNLV, the University of Miami, and the University of Toronto to create a joint database for near-death experiences, past life regression, and clairvoyance as well as the work Doctor Tucker is doing.
Is not too early to begin discussions about the geopolitical, cultural, gender, social and religious ramifications this new science engenders. This science, like all sciences, treats us equally and removes any arguments for a radical or conservative position. In short the logic behind radical fundamentalism will collapse. Again context; this isn’t about anybody who is living, it is about leaving future generations a fact based logic driven view of reality. This cannot be done without work like Dr. Tucker is doing.
Your readers rather than criticizing the University for supporting this research should take pride in what is being done at UVA and realize that all science is interrelated. That means Dr. Tucker needs to draw on even more resources not just for his primary research but also to correlate his findings with the work done at other institutions. An important aspect is to create a joint curriculum with these other institutions. Until that is done misimpressions will abound.
I hope my short note adds clarity and context to this discussion.
Very truly yours,