Reincarnation

Definitions re·in·car·na·tion /ˌriɪnkɑrˈneɪʃən/ [ree-in-kahr-ney-shuhn]–noun 1. the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form. 2. rebirth of the soul in a new body. 3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.

An example

Dr Ian Stevenson Well into reincarnation

Dr. Ian Stevenson October 31, 1918–February 8, 2007 Born Montreal, Canada Canadian biochemist and professor of psychiatry. Until his retirement in 2002, head of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, which investigates the paranormal. He travelled extensively over a period of 40 years to investigate 3,000 childhood cases that suggested to him the possibility of past lives.

Stevenson considered that the concept of reincarnation might supplement those of heredity and environment in helping modern medicine to understand aspects of human behaviour and development. Stevenson saw reincarnation as the survival of the personality after death, although he never suggested a physical process by which a personality might survive death. Stevenson was the author of several books, including: Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1974) Children Who Remember Previous Lives (1987) Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect (1997) Reincarnation and Biology (1997) European Cases of the Reincarnation Type (2003).

Robert Almeder Almeder is a professor of philosophy at the University of Georgia He has written his own books on reincarnation: Beyond Death (1987), Death and Personal Survival (1992) Almeder argues that Stevenson’s research is not only valuable but is so compelling that it would be “irrational” not to accept the possibility of reincarnation as the best fit explanation Others have agreed that Stevenson’s research is so scientifically rigorous that it has to be taken seriously The next clip outlines Almeder’s reasons for finding Stevenson’s work so convincing

Robert Almeder On Stevenson’s work

Interesting comments by Almeder Some people reincarnate [not necessarily all] Stevenson claims reincarnation is a ‘best-fit’ explanation but Almeder goes further, claiming it is irrational to disbelieve such a commanding argument that is also difficult to refute

The implication of accepting that some people reincarnate is that it means human personality is not reducible to statements about biochemical states, brain states or biological properties produced by brain states [i.e. the position taken by physicalist and materialist approaches to the mind] It also means that pyschology-as it stands-will not be able to explain these kinds of cases or other mysterious phenomena regarding human nature

Possible criticisms of these case studies FRAUD Almeder uses the analogy of 100 people falling off the Empire State Building and 5 walking away unharmed He argues that even though 5% is a small percentage it still needs to be explained as it is “statistically deviant” Is there any problem with Almeder’s analogy and does it actually respond to the criticism? NO PROCESS We may not know the process but we know the events still occur. [Just because we don’t know or understand the mechanism by which reincarnation works, does not necessarily rule out the possibility of there being such a mechanism]

John Hick On Stevenson’s work

Two main concerns: Most of those claiming spontaneous memories of former lives are children This could mean that children simply remember past lives better as they are closer to the death of their previous incarnation. However it could also mean that children are more open to persuasion and to fantasising. 2. Most of the cases occur in countries where the doctrine of reincarnation is generally accepted and commonly held This could mean that people are more likely to report such cases as it is taken seriously as a doctrine. Alternatively, it could be socially desirable to claim such experiences and be encouraged by the cultural context.

Hick’s alternative explanation “This is the theory that after bodily death a mental ‘husk’ or ‘mask’ of the deceased person is left behind and is telepathically accessible under certain conditions to living persons Such a ‘husk’ may consist of mere fragments of memory, emotion or habit – analogous to isolated pieces of tape recording” Hick’s alternative explanation

“It is perhaps worth noting…that most, or perhaps all, of the more impressive cases of reported memories of former lives-including all of Ian Stevenson’s selected cases- the remembered life was the most recent one, with a gap of no more than a few years between its end and the beginning of the reported memories. Likewise the ‘spirits’ who communicate through mediums have usually only fairly lately died. The recency of the material in each case might be expected if the phenomena have a common origin in persisting psychic traces or ‘husks’ which presumably gradually fade or decay with the passage of time.”

The role of culture Hick notes that mediums use trances to construct a personal environment that will allow them to pick up these ‘husks’ He argues that in those cases where the doctrine of reincarnation is generally believed in, the culture itself acts as the environment that allows them to pick up the ‘husks’ Remember Almeder thinks it irrational not to believe in reincarnation. Does Hick provide a sufficient reason to believe otherwise?