Debate | Is There Good Evidence for Reincarnation? Hosted by
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 12. 2021
- This is a repost of a debate I participated in about evidence with reincarnation. It was hosted on @CapturingChristianity
Seth Hart is a PhD student in science and theology at the University of Durham. He holds masters in theology from Oxford, Regent College, and Johnson University. His current research delves into whether the field of biology and its fundamental concepts are built upon theistic foundations, arguing that terms like “adaptation”, “organism”, and “fitness” all entail the existence of God. Seth is also a regular contributor on the Capturing Christianity blog.
Arjuna is a Hare Krishna, electrician and CZcamsr. He runs the CZcams channel Theology Unleashed, which seeks to bring Hare Krishna (Caitanya Vaishnava) perspective to the philosophy of religion CZcams dialogue. He lives in New Zealand with his wife and 2 young boys.
Discord - / discord
/ theology.unleashed
/ theologyunleashed
My other videos • Reaction + Video Essays
Seth and I did an interview on this debate which I'll be publishing soon. You can watch it early here czcams.com/video/XSQmd_L1qIY/video.html
If we're discussing data and coming up with theories that it supports or fits into (such as reincarnation, morphic-resonance, or ESP, etc), can we also accept an ancient body of literature which explains one particular theory as the reason, as supporting evidence??
I'm thinking of a court-of-law example: there's crime scene investigators piecing together evidence to come up with an explanation.. nearby they find a letter supposedly written by a witness, explaining what happened at the scene. They would focus on the letter first, rather than speculate what else COULD have happened.
Of course the letter could contain false/misleading information, but it would be ridiculous to dismiss it.
We don't just have data suggesting evidence of reincarnation (or another theory). We also have wisdom handed down from a civilization, proven to have knowledge well beyond what we previously assumed possible, stating reincarnation as the culprit, and explaining its mechanism intricately. Worth a look, right?
Very well summarised
Not according to Stevenson. He surmises it is because we have *cases* of supposed previous life memories that early civilizations postulated reincarnation. Thus, it was an interpretation to explain the evidence. Consequently, one cannot then turn this around and say its presence is *evidence* for the interpretation. That would be reasoning in a circle. Unless there is some other feature that supports their interpretation (reincarnation is a more obvious one to arrive at before the gift of modern science, which is exactly why I brought up Morphic Resonance and the A-field), the claim amounts to saying you hold to their interpretation because they held to it first.
An analogy would be to geocentrism and heliocentrism. There was a point the two interpretations were empirically equivalent. What helped boost heliocentrism in front was its simplicity (no need for epicycles), not the empirical evidence itself. But geocentrism had a longer tradition where individuals used it to explain a multitude of evidence. However, citing this as a tradition of what people had earlier interpreted of a given phenomenon (a parallel to your own argument) is obviously of little support for the idea.
Now, you might reply that the kid's testimony itself nevertheless gives it additional warrant. Why doubt what they claim to experience? Again, this is just like the geocentrism argument (I "see" the sun rising in the morning). and it is a bad usage of evidence, one that psychologists, criminologists, and philosophers all disregard in their collective disciplines. We look to the phenomenon itself--not to how cultures interpret it. Interpretation skews evidence more often than it assists it. Thus, if you explain the memories (which is the based level experience free of interpretation), there are no strata of evidence left unexplained. And if you do so in a way that is simpler and/or with greater explanatory scope, you arrive at a superior explanation.
Perhaps a good analogy to the one you posed is if the letter from the "victim" was written in fresh ink (after the victim's death) and not in the right handwriting. Additionally, suppose the letter claims it wasn't the victim's friend who did the crime but was rather a suicide, yet the handwriting is a match for this person. We have two competing hypotheses: 1.) the friend wrote it, and 2.) the victim wrote it. As you can see, explanation 1 explains a lot more than explanation 2 (greater explanatory scope). Now, suppose also the method of death required some feat of strength, yet the victim was likely incapable of this. Suppose the friend, by contrast, did not have this restriction. While I could add a hypothesis to save explanation 2 (say, the victim had help or took some substance to make the victim capable of the feat), it is already more complex than explanation 1. Thus, it would be foolish from this evidence alone to conclude that 2 is more likely correct. For reasons of both simplicity and explanatory scope, explanation 1 is clearly the superior one. THAT would be a closer analogy to what I presented in the debate. The only difference was that in the debate I presented 4 explanations that all explain the evidence in a superior manner given the only two criteria I used (it would get worse for reincarnation were I to add additional factors). As such, just as in the analogy, one would be wrong to reincarnation is the most likely explanation.
All of this additionally ignores the flaws in the evidence itself. But that's another story (part 1 of my opening salvo). All told, the reincarnation hypothesis is unlikely *even given* the reality of such cases documented by Stevenson and Tucker.
I agree
In the James fighter pilot case, there was no exibhit relating to the battle where he had previously died.
Seems very strange to hear a Christian use the arguments atheists use to criticize biblical accuracy, only against another belief.
To me this really highlights why validation is so important to robust epistemology. We need more than just a model that seems to fit a particular data set.
He's aware of the dilemma of bringing too much skepticism and loosing the resurrection. He think he can find the right balance.
@@TheologyUnleashed it isn't balance, it's special pleading. I know the resurrection isn't on trial here, I just found it interesting.
Imo, the case for reincarnation warrants further investigation, but isn't conclusive yet.
@@uninspired3583 there is a balance. When using skepticism in arguments against competing world views you need to make sure that a consistent application of the same skepticism isn't equally devastating for beliefs you defend.
@@TheologyUnleashed agree, that's exactly my point. He spoke accurately about Occam's Razer and scientific rigor. The christian world view doesn't hold up better against the same points.
There’s been plenty of individuals who have compared the argument for the resurrection to these studies. I don’t think the analogy holds, at all. In fact, I think the resurrection argument succeed in just the places that I fault Stevenson and Tucker.
1.) As Wright has exhaustively pointed out, the resurrection event occurred in a culture hostile to a singular resurrection prior to the end of the world. Thus, it cannot be chalked up to prior expectations or witness credulity.
2.) There was active hostility toward the movement and social/physical risk in believing in the resurrection. In fact, many of the apostles were killed for their proclamation of the event. The exact opposite is the case for these children. Quite often, they emerge in cultures friendly toward the belief, generate positive buzz, or are socially beneficial for either the child or the family. This is not universally the case, but no case comes close to the resurrection. Paired next to one another, not a single case comes close. This speaks to something radically transformative occurring to convince men and women to sacrifice everything for the sake of some perceived truth-a truth foreign to Jewish thought and quite subversive of it!
3.) The resurrection hypothesis surpasses the other hypotheses in explanatory scope and, occasionally, simplicity. The entire second half of my argument was why reincarnation failed on just this account.
All told, the claim that my argument cuts equally both ways shows either a misunderstanding of my argument or an unfamiliarity with the resurrection argument. So no, the two arguments are not the same, and one is perfectly rational in accepting the arguments for the resurrection and being skeptical of Stevenson and Tucker.
Matthew ch.17 verses 10-13 Jesus talks of Elijah being John the Baptist. Right out of Jesus's mouth read it line by line the apostles understood it. Jesus said that Elijah has come already but they knew him not knew who not Elijah why because he was John the Baptist. You say the Bible says once a man lives and dies one time. Yes you do you will never be that person again. The Bible says if a man ask for forgiveness forgive him 70 ×7 in one day. If a person is given chance after chance to repent life after life until judgement day the cycle stops and you see all your lives and you never ask Jesus in your heart. I say that because no demons or devil's in hell why judgement day hasn't came to be judged. The man with 2000 demons in him among the tombs the demons said to Jesus why do you come to torment us before our time. Before what time judgement day until judgement day the demons and devil will walk hear here and fro upon the earth. We us people will keep coming back until judgement day. It's not a wrong or right answer if you believe either way you won't go to hell reincarnation is a nonsalvational issue what's important is you ask Jesus to save you so you will have everlasting life.
Akasha is literally Sanskrit. It’s detail whereas Arjuna gave general info but Seth is wrong for claiming his alternative hypotheticals as alternative
There is a reason Jim B Tucker looks at American cases, it takes the cultural aspect out.
I think the additional credibility people give to American cases is illogical. The far our features of these children provides evidence regardless of what people believe.
Would the existence of ghost disprove recarnation or could they co exist?
Ghosts are also described in the vedas. Sometimes meter a limbo state rather then a new destination. Eventually ghosts reincarnate.
That's a good question. I suspect that these ghosts are vital formations and not the psychic being (soul), which is the thing that reincarnates. It's also possible that in some cases communications may come from the psychic being that is on the psychic plane between lives.
Hi ... you gave me a link (I think?) on the Apostate Aladdin's stream just a while ago, but I closed the chat so I lost it. Can you sent it again? Something about God's love
I don't think that was me. What was the link for?
@@TheologyUnleashed It was to a video I think about how God loves everyone I think. It's fine it if wasn't you
@@QuranicIslam I referred you this Channel .. Because Exclusivism was being discussed and this channel has debates about Religious Exclusivism
czcams.com/video/s6DhF1nWpCQ/video.html
3:25
The morphic resonance theory is interesting when applied to reincarnation but I don’t think it really accommodates it. Seems desperate to me for the reasons you stated (morphic resonance seems to apply to group behaviors on a general level, is it really the same as far more specific telepathic connections or alleged reincarnation cases?). But I don’t know ultimately.
I think it if you look at parapsychology etc, you get a fairly good idea that the standard materialist narrative is probably false. But interesting it all into one generally narrative is tricky.
The Vedic world seems to account for it all fine
@@TheologyUnleashed I tend to agree that the eastern religions (really generalizing here) accommodate it all better as well.
The bible teaches us to keep our mind under subjection, so any thought that is outside of it is demonic (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Can you please explain what that means in this context?
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Someone tell this guy his hat is facing the wrong way
“Lets get to meat of debate”. No time to introduce guests.
Proceeds to blather for more than two minutes, mostly jacking off to praise his own self.
😂
Demons could have planted false memories of biblical events?
An idea this daft is used as part of a "reasoned argument"?
I wonder if it was encountered in one of the virtual reality games these people like to immerse themselves in, instead of investigating real life phenomena for themselves?
You're missing the dialectical context.
I covered this hypothesis under spirit possession and explained why it appeals to the same mechanism that Stevenson does for outlier cases. The agent is different, of course, but that isn't enough to treat it as an independent hypothesis since the mechanism is identical.
Demons can have done alot with tampering the bible from the beginning.
@@M-i-k-a-e-l what's ur logic behind it when Egyptians was the first to learn how to write ✍️ and Moses learned from them, and he was the only writer of the Bible in the beginning. Also during that time if u sinned God would have killed u right where u stood
@@filmzfilmz Dunno brother.
Bernardo Kastrup has a good high iq rant about reincarnation in one of his video's. I wish I could remember which one it was.
What's his view?
@@TheologyUnleashed rather than there being a soul that goes somewhere and then enters a new body, Bernardo has the 'channeling' or Akashic record view. So the memories the reincarnated person has is coming from the place where memories are stored. Bernardo used logic and his high vocabulary and sounded very persuasive
@@moesypittounikos he thinks individual identities don't exist which is absurd. It's odd for him to argue for s view like that when one of his arguments for consciousness being fundamental is that it's epistemically prior. Individual identities are as epistemically prior as consciousness so the same logic takes us there.
@@TheologyUnleashed yes I agree. Bernardo is similar to advaitins in a way. He is also very dismissive about DMT entities. But no mind can be a genius dualist and also a genius non-dualist.
@@moesypittounikos Caitanya Vaishnavism teaches simultaneous Oneness and difference.
Seth should apply this logic to his own beliefs. Post hoc rationalizations of biology to justify his death cult? Cmon Seth. Be a scientist, not a witch.
There’s the question of whether Stevenson and Tucker can stand up to rigorous review (I think not). But then I think about all the scores of people I’ve known who believed this or that about reincarnation and it’s obvious in every case it was based on intuition (=nonsense). So, I’d say most people believing in reincarnation are likely believing for faith/nonsense reasons. That’s my opinion. But, I think of the really noxious moral consequences of believing in this doctrine based on nonsense. That’s just leaving aside the people looking at birthmarks with magnifying glasses. That’s large populations of people making moral judgements based on strong assumptions they were raised to believe. That’s awful.
Can you explain negative moral implications from believing in reincarnation? I'd think the opposite is the case, belief in reincarnation will take the wind out of the sails of racism, sexism and speciesism because have lived in various bodies in the past and might live in a variety of bodies in the future. If you add karma to it then we can believe we're culpable for our actions even if we don't get caught.
@@TheologyUnleashed just like the punishing god of theism doesn’t lead to more moral behavior in Christian countries, the same can be said for societies wherein reincarnation is a widely held belief. Belief in reincarnation simply hasn’t produced more moral behavior. I wonder if there’s any research into this question? It’s an interesting question. I’m interested in broadening it out: what other kinds of behavior are associated with a belief in reincarnation? As far as morality, we’ve had the question somewhere else I think. It’s a deep question but I can just go on my own anecdotes while trying to remain open-minded. I did believe in reincarnation for a period. I suspect that people generally use it to rationalize what they want to believe. They certainly aren’t believing things about their own past lives or the past lives of their acquaintances based on the kinds of criteria that Tucker laid out. Mostly, I heard/hear a bunch of rationalizations, wishful thinking, and moral dismissiveness. I find it to be quite immoral to give ultimate meanings to suffering. Immoral and unwise. But it’s an interesting conversation and I’ll keep following to see if there’s a reason to believe otherwise.
@@begshallots Giving meaning to suffering is the only psychological tool which has ever worked for dealing with it. Any psychological worth their salt knows this fact. Reading stories of horrific events such as are contained in the Gulag Archipelago and 'Man's Search for Meaning' show this very clearly.
We may be able to know reincarnation is the case but it doesn't follow from that that we could know what past lives we it people we know have lived, and there can be benefit in knowing the category without knowing the particulars.
I'm not sure social science can answer the question of whether a particular belief such as reincarnation is beneficial. If we refined the types of beliefs and accounted for accompanying beliefs then we could get somewhere. It's definitely possible to believe in reincarnation and hold accompanying beliefs which have bad consequences. Since I already know this showing this happening with social science wouldn't establish anything. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. The same can be said about any sort of knowledge.
In the absence of good social science which has sufficient nuance we can fruitfully discuss causal links between beliefs and consequences. Even with good social science we should discuss the causal links. That way we could discover reincarnation is a beneficial belief when accompanied by a particular understanding of God and karma but harmful when thought of in another way.
Simple belief is actually not so interesting when it comes to personal transformation and benefit. People can believe in God and still misbehave the same way people can believe in the existence of police and still break the law. What really matters is the quality of our hearts.
@@TheologyUnleashed Thanks for taking the time to respond so extensively. I think I'll go over this and try to respond later to more of your points. I would say that I strongly disagree with your assertion that suffering must have an explanation. I specifically said "ultimate" meaning. Which is a little different. Maybe I should have said "explanation" as well or instead of. What is the explanation and meaning of the holocaust in your opinion? Christians will say it's part of god's plan. Maybe Hindu's and some Buddhists might say it's karmic. And even if you reject those explanations or ultimate meanings, I think many get the idea from the respective doctrines. It's unavoidable in either case. Perhaps I can find examples of people widely offering such pat explanations for all manner of tragedy. To me, it's a bankrupt ideology. The "meaning" of suffering is how accept the realities in life and reflect connectedness and love. There may be something of Buddhism in this or Advaita, minus the pat answer that lays a simple system of more rewards and punishments as the answer to everything.
@@begshallots good questions and a tough conversation. I'd just like to go back to a previous point about comparing beliefs with moral outcomes. Stephen Pinker used a method in "Better Angels of Our Nature" that I think has merit.
The worst crimes are typically documented fairly well. As such, he compared murder rates, and death rates in war, across time to build a case around moral progress. The analysis was western, but the same methodology could be used if such things were documented in reincarnation dominant cultures.
I tend to agree with Arguna here, provided there is no victim blaming or hand waving away of suffering, my intuition is that a reincarnation belief has better potential than a salvation belief, and on par with secular humanism, to produce a moral culture.
I'll have to dig on that later, research time is going to another project atm.
Jesus said: "This generation will not pass until all is fulfilled."
Mic drop.
Explain ……????
@@eugene3484 Just read the passage.
@@pjdelucala it just says this generation will not pass until …… how does that have anything to do with reincarnation?
@@eugene3484 Have those things happened yet? We are that "generation." Passing means to move on beyond physical reality. Sort of like graduating from high school. :)
@@pjdelucala you could have misinterpreted that verse.