Alex123 wrote:If we all end up freed from one life,then there would be neither much desire nor motivation to really work hard at eradication unwholesome tendencies. Furthermore to hold the idea that "there is no rebirth" IS wrong view.
I could not agree more. There is an unfortunate tendency by some Western Buddhists to explain away rebirth by philosophical argument. These arguments interpret rebirth as a metaphor for natural processes of metamorphosis and transformation, or as a metaphor for abstract processes of cause and effect. Such interpretations are digressive. Rebirth in Buddhism is simultaneously a universal law and a personal reality. Actually, it doesn't get more personal than that.
nathan wrote:...weighed against the complete absence of any personal insight into or experience with the subject that characterizes almost all people, not merely those with a western or otherwise conditioned views, the accounts (all of the accounts ever recorded) continue to be relatively insignificant overall. I again suggest considering the overwhelming absence of accounts in most people's lives.
Let me get this straight. You state that because most people are ignorant (of past lifes), they should not consider the reports of those people who are not ignorant? Is this what you are saying? I doubt this is a valid argument. Consider a similar phenomenon: NDEs. Should we ignore NDEs just because we did not personally have one? Or is it a subject worthwhile of study nevertheless? Is personal ignorance ever a reason for NOT studying a subject? Where would that idea lead us?
nathan wrote:I think it is far more important to get your own evidence.
Unfortunately, your suggestion is a little impractical. We simply don't have the means and the resources to "get our own evidence" for any arbitrary piece of knowledge from quantum physics to reincarnation. It is of course highly beneficial to seek first-hand evidence for any subject matter close to our interest; alas not always possible.
You had the benefit of meditative insight into rebirth (if I interpret your reply correctly). I had the benefit of insight into rebirth through other (involuntary) circumstances in my life. But please consider that not everybody has first-hand experience. My point is that as long as we don't have first-hand knowledge, we need to rely on second-hand knowledge. And since we don't have a choice in that matter, we might as well make sure that our second-hand knowledge has a sound foundation. Empirical research might provide just that.
nathan wrote:While believing in rebirth may constitute right view for some people, believing in things has never contributed to reducing ignorance about anything in my case. [...] I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view...
You seem to suggest that views are intrinsically ambiguous and unhelpful as long as you haven't verified them personally. I can disprove this by a simple thought experiment. Consider two people with opposite beliefs. One believes that it will rain in the afternoon and the other believes that it won't rain. The first person carries an umbrella, the second doesn't. In the afternoon it rains. The person who carried an umbrella stays dry; the other one gets wet and catches a cold. Now, which of those beliefs was more useful?
You are right in saying that a belief does not reduce ignorance, even if the belief is true. However, correct belief certainly helps to make correct decisions. The epistemological problem is not belief, but justification, which is basically about the question: How do we distinguish true from false beliefs?
Cheers, Thomas