In the last few posts, I have referred to the idea of being reborn in varying bodies as “The Reincarnation Hypothesis.” I’ve given brief overviews about the evidence, objections, and alternative explanations, and argued that the reincarnation hypothesis is the most likely one for the over 2,500 recorded cases of children who were able to give validated information concerning a deceased person who was unknown to them. However, I have not given a specific statement of the reincarnation hypothesis.
Reincarnation as an idea has been around for a while. It is well-known that it is a central tenet of the Vedic worldview, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and other Dharmic religions. Even in religions that originate outside the Indian subcontinent, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there has historically been discussion of reincarnation, even if today the doctrine is not widely accepted. Some movements within Western esotericism also ascribe to the idea.
These views on reincarnation are varied, and thus much of the criticism received from skeptics is due to a confusion on what is actually being argued from the case evidence. Depending on the version, ideas such as karma, the threefold law, the akashic records, and others are linked with the idea of reincarnation. While some of these ideas may have merit (and many don’t), they are logically distinct from reincarnation itself.
In order to gain clarity on what exactly we are talking about, I will state what I will call the Minimal Reincarnation Hypothesis:
There is an essence that is central to our identity, independent of the body and brain, and is able to be transferred from one body to another after death. This essence can carry with it memories of its life beyond death.
This form of the reincarnation hypothesis is what is supported by the empirical evidence compiled by DOPS and other researchers. This, perhaps with some additional side remarks about birthmarks or similar phenomena, is all that most reincarnation researchers commit to when they discuss the phenomenon.
Personally, I will go one step further in my language than the reincarnation researchers. This “essence” has the properties of post-death survival, centrality to our identity, and independence from biology. Given that these are some central characteristics of the soul in almost all major philosophical traditions, I see no reason to not call it one. While this might seem like a metaphysical leap, it is not—the properties implied by the minimal reincarnation hypothesis are consistent with the historical and philosophical uses of the term “soul” and thus we are justified in using it.
It is understandable that Stevenson, Tucker, and others shied away from this language, given that they were writing primarily for an audience that would unfairly reject any such notion if presented with it explicitly. But I feel that specificity in the language is more advantageous in our attempts to understand what we are talking about.
Some opponents of the reincarnation hypothesis argue that it is at best incomplete, since no mechanism has been identified. For example, many of the arguments advanced by moral philosopher Paul Edwards in his book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination reduce to this claim. Until we explain how a soul moves from one body to the other, these critics argue, the hypothesis is ill-formed.
However, similar to other criticisms we have dealt with, this applies one standard to research that the critic likes, and another standard to the research that he doesn’t. For example, one popular hypothesis claim that consciousness is a product of the brain. While there is sufficient evidence to reject this hypothesis (which I will hopefully cover in later posts), it is commonly held to be scientific to accept it. Even worse, it is claimed to be unscientific to disbelieve it. However, there is no clearly explained mechanism for how collections of neurons turn into thoughts. If someone wishes to reject the reincarnation hypothesis for lack of mechanism, they would likewise have to reject the claim that the brain is the cause of consciousness.
In fact, such a critic, if logically consistent, would be forced to reject the majority of modern physics. The most common approach to quantum mechanics is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation. This relies on a classical measurement collapsing a quantum system from a superposition to a definite state. For example, a Geiger counter might measure the decay of a radioactive particle. However, the Geiger counter is also made of electrons, protons and other objects described by quantum mechanics.
What separates the classical measuring device from a quantum system? This is never defined, and a mechanism for how a superposition collapses is not even discussed. Yet, quantum theory is still considered not just a scientific theory, but one of the most successful ones in history. Thus, the reincarnation hypothesis, even in its minimal form, is a valid scientific statement.
The minimal reincarnation hypothesis is strongly supported by the data. There is little reason for a scientifically minded person to disbelieve it. Different researchers and thinkers may add extra hypotheses to it. For example, reincarnation researcher James Matlock argues that the assignment of souls to situations has many degrees of freedom, and the soul has a large degree of control over which family he gets reincarnated into. Another view, which I am more sympathetic towards, is the more traditional view of karma, which I believe can be defended philosophically. But, these are extra hypotheses, beyond the minimal reincarnation hypothesis, and are matters of interpretation from the data and other sources. The minimal reincarnation hypothesis itself doesn’t rely on them.
The reincarnation hypothesis has staggering implications. The largest of these is that it provides a scientific argument for the existence of a soul. This has far-reaching implications. The reincarnation hypothesis invites us to re-evaluate our views of biology, anthropology, theology and almost every field of human endeavor.
It has the potential to spur a revolution that can alter the course of history just as much as the scientific revolution did. All that is required now is for scientists, philosophers, and other intelligent people to take up the challenge and follow the evidence where it leads.
Are you in?
Leave a Reply