Last week, I discussed common criticisms levied against the work done by reincarnation researchers, and explained how these objections, when scrutinized, are not defeaters of the reincarnation hypothesis. However, these are different than another class of objections, which accept that the reincarnation researchers are picking up an actual phenomenon—that is, that the data they collected are accurate and truthfully reported—but that reincarnation is not the best explanation. This week, I will detail some of these and show how they are not as well supported by the evidence or standard scientific principles of reasoning as the reincarnation hypothesis.
Cryptomnesia
Imagine that many years ago I read a mystery novel. The plot concerns a woman who is killed and her daughter who goes missing. While the prime suspect is her creepy coworker, the actual culprit ends up being her next door neighbor. I read this novel so long ago that I have forgotten the major plot points and many other details. When I decide to write a mystery novel of my own, I sit down and find myself coming up with a plot that is eerily similar to the novel that I read, perhaps down to the names. Since I don’t consciously remember the original novel, I congratulate myself on a job well done, not realizing that all that I did was rehash the original work from my unconscious memory.
This phenomenon is called cryptomnesia. It is different from out-and-out plagiarism, since my intention was not to copy the previous novel; I genuinely thought it was my own idea. While this phenomenon might seem strange, it is known to have occurred, and even prominent thinkers like Nietzsche, Lord Byron and Hellen Keller fell victim to it.
In connection to reincarnation, the alternative hypothesis being raised is that these children learned these stories from other means. They may have read a book, seen an exhibit at a museum or saw something on a TV show. They then forgot how they learned this information, and mistake it for their own memories. For example, a few weeks ago I discussed the case of James Leininger. Paul Kurtz, a philosopher who founded the Committee for Skeptical inquiry, suggested that James gained his knowledge of WWII planes by overhearing his parents conversations or talking with his friends. Kurtz, despite repeated and impassioned defenses of the idea that one shouldn’t believe any claim without evidence, gives none to back up his idea. Other critics have pointed to the Cavanaugh Flight Museum, which the Leiningers visited shortly before his memories surfaced.
Like many criticisms and alternative hypotheses, this understates the strength of the evidence presented. It is logically possible that James picked up some information about a corsair aircraft while at the museum. But it is highly improbable, as the museum confirmed none were on display at the time. More importantly, it fails to explain the detailed knowledge of other aspects of the biography of his previous life. He gave the name of the ship, specific military details, was able to identify someone known in his previous life by his voice, and knew details of his previous life’s family. It is difficult to see how he could have gathered all of that information by the age of two. And I am sure that most parents of two-year-olds will assure you that such young children, even if given all such information, would have trouble synthesizing it into a full-blown story without anyone else picking up on it.
James’ previous life was a WWII pilot. While heroic, he was not exactly the type of person that could be found in every history book (and even if he was, I doubt that he was found in books targeted to the reading level of two-year-olds). Many other reincarnation cases also involve people who were far from celebrity status. It is difficult to see how the children could find such varied and detailed information while keeping it hidden from the parents.
Normal Means
A common alternative hypothesis is that the child learned the information by normal means, but unbeknownst to the parent. A common claim is that there was a person known to both the child and the deceased individual. This person told the child about the deceased. Then the child, either through fantasy, confusion or cryptomnesia, identified himself with the person. Those who argue for this hypothesis say that this can explain the accurate reports while maintaining a naturalistic framework.
Like most critics of reincarnation studies, those who advance this hypothesis have not done their homework. Researchers took great care to discount normal channels as an avenue of information. For example, if both the child’s family and the deceased person’s family lived in the same village, even if they were not friendly or had associated socially, that case was not considered. It should be also noted as well that this argument isn’t actually substantive —the critics have never provided an argument from the case evidence of this actually happening or even where it was possible in a significant number of cases, making the claim purely speculative.
Additionally, the amount of information the child repeats is usually substantial, and it would have taken our hypothetical informant several sessions, at least, to impart. This would produce a patten in which the child would start with a small fantasy that grows over time. However, The case evidence suggests that these memories come on suddenly, substantially weakening this alternative hypothesis.
Cultural Shaping
Many cases of reincarnation are found in Asian cultures, where belief in it is widely held. Skeptics argue that because such cultures encourage discussion of previous lives, they over-attribute knowledge to the child, making more out of the connections than is actually there. Sometimes, critics even allege that the family of the child wish to financially exploit the family of the previous life, and so encourage these recollections in order to guilt the latter to help maintain the child.
It is unclear how those who hold this hypothesis explain the factual correspondences between the reports of the child and the life of the deceased person. If it was simply the result of a cultural willingness to believe in reincarnation, we should expect that the correspondences would be no better than those from an educated guess. However, especially in the stronger cases, there are specific correspondences that are objectively testable, which implies some means of actual information exchange.
Moreover, as argued by Stevenson in European Cases of the Reincarnation Type, these phenomena occur even in cultures and families who do not believe in reincarnation. Sometimes, as in the case of the Leiningers, they were actively against the idea. And in the years since Stevenson wrote the above book, there have been hundreds of such cases found in cultures without widespread acceptance of reincarnation. There is no explanation other than the reincarnation hypothesis that attains the level of agreement.
It is well known to developmental psychologists that if a child is listened to and encouraged to speak, they will talk more. Conversely, if they are discouraged or told their memory is imaginative, then they will be less likely to share in the future. This is enough to explain the gap between the number of Asian and non-Asian cases.
Extra Sensory Perception
The last alternative that I will consider today is that of extra sensory perception (ESP). ESP is a phenomenon where a person can sense things or gain information through a means that bypasses the normal operation of the senses. More generally, it has been suggested that ESP, morphic resonance, ghostly possession or some other non-reincarnation paranormal phenomenon is responsible for giving these children information concerning deceased individuals.
It might seem strange to some of my readers that those who are reticent to accept reincarnation, which is rejected by the worldview of institutional science, would fall back on other phenomena that are similarly rejected. However, in my experience those who advance this claim are usually adherents to religions that reject the possibility of reincarnation, making them open to an extra-physical layer of reality, but closed to the idea of multiple lives.
If this hypothesis were true, then we would expect the children to exhibit ESP or other paranormal abilities as well. In the majority of cases, the children remember only information that could be linked to the previous life. They do not have the ability to see distant places, hear conversations going on across the city or other such fantastic feats. While this form of explanation could possibly fit the data, the most parsimonious explanation is the reincarnation hypothesis.
These are the major alternative hypotheses to reincarnation. Most of them rely on a misunderstanding of the case data, and do not hold up under scrutiny. The best explanation for the scientific data gathered is that these children had a previous life and are recalling it.
Leave a Reply