What arguments for or against reincarnation do you find convincing?

Well, none of the ones *for* or I'd be a believer! Arguments against: I've never seen any evidence of a "soul". Many of the people who believe in reincarnation that I have known are complete nutcases or those highly liberal middle-class hippy types that tend to have lots of airy-fairy beliefs. Everyone claims to have been Cleopatra, Elizabeth Ist, Alfred the Great, etc. in a past life. There's always some great event or huge scandal involved in one of their past lives. I've seen people under hypnosis and I think that they can be easily influenced to make up stories about their "past lives" without feeling like they are making it up at all. More and more people are being born - the current population of the world is about 6 billion - so are a whole load of people being born without a soul or are the souls getting chopped up into smaller and smaller pieces, or what? What would be the evolutionary advantage of having a soul/the soul being reincarnated? What is the purpose of reincarnation if people don't remember their past lives?

That will probably do for now!

For: none.
Against: it's completely unprovable.

reincarnation mostly seems wishful thinking to me. I've never heard a vaguely convincing argument for believing in it that didn't equate to "I'd really thing to work like this".

None. I don't believe in reincarnation.

I've always thought that Joan Grant's "Far Memory" cemented my belief in reincarnation.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
That it is unfair to judge how a person spends eternity based on their behaviour of a couple of decades.
That karma makes the most logical sense in so far as judgement and learning - and the pursuit of the goal - to become one with the universe.

Despite all this I'm still a little sceptical about those that go to past life therapists. A lot of their answers seems a little to do with their own unconscious wishes.

http://www.asitis.com/2/12.html
Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized

TEXT 12

na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param

SYNONYMS
na--never; tu--but; eva--certainly; aham--I; jatu--become; na--never; asam--existed; na--it is not so; tvam--yourself; na--not; ime--all these; jana-adhipah--kings; na--never; ca--also; eva--certainly; na--not like that; bhavisyamah--shall exist; sarve--all of us; vayam--we; atah param--hereafter.

TRANSLATION
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

PURPORT
In the Vedas, in the Katha Upanisad as well as in the Svetasvatara Upanisad, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work.

That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity.

Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord, can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.

nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam
eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman
tam atma-stham ye 'nupasyanti dhiras
tesam santih sasvati netaresam
(Katha 2.2.13)

The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge.

The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna, and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield, are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned as well as in their liberated situations.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord's eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual, eternal persons.

It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons.

Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption.

Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone.

The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krsna, the supreme authority.

Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein.

Krsna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanisads, will continue eternally.

This statement of Krsna is authoritative because Krsna cannot be subject to illusion.

If individuality is not a fact, then Krsna would not have stressed it so much--even for the future.

The Mayavadi may argue that the individuality spoken of by Krsna is not spiritual, but material.

Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Krsna's individuality?

Krsna affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also.

He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him.

Krsna has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gita has no value as authoritative scripture.

A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing.

The Gita is above such literature.

No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gita.

When one accepts Krsna as an ordinary man, the Gita loses all importance.

The Mayavadi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body.

But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned.

After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Krsna to place a conventional proposition on the body again?

Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great acaryas like Sri Ramanuja and others.

It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gita that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord.

Those who are envious of Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature.

The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the Gita is something like bees licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle.

Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gita can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book.

Nor can the Gita be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord.

Therefore, the Mayavadi explanation of the Gita is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth.

Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Mayavadis and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Mayavadi philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gita.

If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord.

The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.

Hare Krishna!

Why are different people attracted to different things -- for instance, two kids from the same family (like my sister and me) might be as different "as night and day." (She is attracted to rural England and I to Lisbon, Portugal, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). Or why does a person see a film or foto of a certain city he/she's never been to and instantly feel a deep attraction to it, like he/she has "come home?" Or someone is out walking in an area they've never been before and suddenly gets a strong, emotional deja vú experience that they've been there before, enuff to bring tears to the eyes...? (Buddhists believe in reincarnation....and karma.)

The scientific ones against

none, but i can spew a ton of inconvincig ones:

for: 1) some guy remebers his past after getting hit on his forhead, 2) some website tells me that i can find out who i was in my past life

against: 1) the population is rapidly increasing and there are more people today alive than there are dead.

Do you really want to come back to another life? Not me.

I don't know, why don't you tell me some and I'll evaluate them for you...

Oh good. This might be more fun than I thought.

1. "I've never seen any evidence of a soul."

Have you ever seen something that was alive, and then dead? Did you notice a difference? Things that have souls are animated. They move around. Things without souls tend to be a drag at parties. Isn't that evidence?

2. "Many of the people who believe in reincarnation that I have known are complete nutcases or those highly liberal middle-class hippy types that tend to have lots of airy-fairy beliefs."

Does that describe me? How about Richard?

3. "Everyone claims to have been Cleopatra, Elizabeth Ist, Alfred the Great, etc. in a past life. There's always some great event or huge scandal involved in one of their past lives. I've seen people under hypnosis and I think that they can be easily influenced to make up stories about their past lives without feeling like they are making it up at all."

I'd have to agree with you on that one. I'd call those people flaky New Age losers. Past life regression is a hoax, right up there with Satanic Ritual Abuse and Facilitated Communication.

4. "More and more people are being born - the current population of the world is about 6 billion - so are a whole load of people being born without a soul or are the souls getting chopped up into smaller and smaller pieces, or what?"

This argument assumes a number of things that are not a part of any religious philosophy that believes in reincarnation (at least that I'm aware of). There is not a finite number of souls. New ones can be created at any time. Souls are created in the spiritual realm. Some of them come here, to the material realm. Some of those return to the spiritual realm. All life in the entire material universe has a soul, not just humans on this planet. At death, the soul can go into a human, animal, plant, any life form, anywhere in the universe.

5. "What would be the evolutionary advantage of having a soul/the soul being reincarnated?"

The concept of "evolutionary advantage" does not constitute a part of this philosophy. So it isn't seen as something that requires an explanation.

6. "What is the purpose of reincarnation if people don't remember their past lives?"

In order to address this question, I'm going to have to give you considerably more background. I'll be speaking from the Hindu perspective, because it is something I'm more familiar with. Buddhist would probably disagree with some of the things I'm about to say.

Souls are created by God in the spiritual realm, where each of them have a personal relationship with God. They all have free will. The material realm was created for those who choose to reject God, and live apart from him (that's why His presence is so difficult to detect). But God loves us and wants us to return, so He has provided a number of ways to escape this realm and return. Souls which thoroughly reject God move deeper into the material existence, becoming lower and lower animals with less consciousness. Otherwise, the natural inclination is to move upwards. The human body is the only one in which a soul can escape from the material realm, provided that they don't degrade themselves with too much bad karma and such. One must make an effort. Otherwise they just return to an animal body again. So, to answer the question, it wouldn't serve any purpose for us to remember enumerable lives spent as slimy little creatures wallowing around in the mud. Besides, most of us have trouble remembering what we had for breakfast!

Science can neither prove, nor disprove a logically valid and purely philosophical concept. Science is a tool that can help us to understand the material universe. Science deals with physical reality, things that can be tested. Religion and Philosophy deal with things that exist outside of the realm of Science. Sometimes they overlap a little, and there's lots of arguing, both sides tend to get a little irrational, but that's because someone has overstepped their boundaries.

In order for a theory to be considered "scientific", it has to be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to design a test which could prove your theory wrong. This is very much the essence of Science. It imposes an incredible limitation on what Science is able to deal with.

I just get up and log into SC for a few minutes, and here you are waiting! Ok, here I go.....

"Have you ever seen something that was alive, and then dead? Did you notice a difference? Things that have souls are animated. They move around. Things without souls tend to be a drag at parties. Isn't that evidence?"

It's evidence if what you're calling the soul, I am calling the central nervous system and brain. When something dies, the nervous system ceases to function (due to a lack of gas exchange and the circulatory system I'd assume) and that's what makes the animal less than perky. It's just chemistry.

"Does that describe me? How about Richard?"

I had you in mind when I wrote "many" (ie. not all). The support of intelligent, clear-thinking people for a particular concept is of-course a plus But at the same time, the people who *are* nuts and support reincarnation only damage the argument for it. A lot like I often wish militant feminists and vegetarians would just shut up and go away

"This argument assumes a number of things that are not a part of any religious philosophy that believes in reincarnation (at least that I'm aware of)."

True.

"There is not a finite number of souls. New ones can be created at any time. Souls are created in the spiritual realm. Some of them come here, to the material realm. Some of those return to the spiritual realm. All life in the entire material universe has a soul, not just humans on this planet. At death, the soul can go into a human, animal, plant, any life form, anywhere in the universe."

Where is the evidence for any of that? How do you know there is not a finite number of souls and that they can be created at any time? Do souls consist of any energy? It seems like a way of getting around the second law of thermodynamics to say that they are created in the "spiritual realm" rather than the material one (which I'm guessing is the only one where the laws of physics apply).

"The concept of "evolutionary advantage" does not constitute a part of this philosophy. So it isn't seen as something that requires an explanation."

Again, that's only because it's possible to side-step it by claiming that the spiritual realm is governed by different rules to the material one.

" Souls which thoroughly reject God move deeper into the material existence, becoming lower and lower animals with less consciousness."

So why aren't I a mosquito or something? Or is that just th next step? It's just too strikingly similar to Glenn Hoddle (former England football coach or manager) claiming that disabled people's souls were being punished for their actions in a former life.

"So, to answer the question, it wouldn't serve any purpose for us to remember enumerable lives spent as slimy little creatures wallowing around in the mud. Besides, most of us have trouble remembering what we had for breakfast!"

Of course it would. It would be convincing evidence of either mass psychosis or the reality of reincarnation. It would mean that more people would believe in reincarnation and therefore in God which would then mean that they would become closer to him, which is what you said he wanted.

And just to jump into your conversation with mandy, if I may:

"In order for a theory to be considered "scientific", it has to be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to design a test which could prove your theory wrong. This is very much the essence of Science. It imposes an incredible limitation on what Science is able to deal with."

Obviously as a scientist, I'm somewhat biased towards it but it's perfectly possible to come up with falsifiable statements regarding reincarnation: "There is no such thing as a soul", "Nobody has ever been reincarnated" are both examples. If you are saying that there will never be any solid evidence of souls or reincarnation that will falsify those statements, then the statements will stand.

The central nervous system and brain don't leave the body when someone dies. So it isn't just semantics. When a person is alive, they are "that person". When they are dead, they have very little appeal. That person is gone from the body. You aren't going to be much interested in hanging out with them any more. "Them" being a big piece of meat. We can perceive our own existence. We know that we are inside this body. What is it that we recognise as the self? It is not our body. We could lose all of our limbs, various body parts, and we wouldn't feel any less "self". We are aware of our minds working, but we aren't always in control. Our minds are often dragged around by our senses. Our thoughts often go places we don't wish to. There is something else which is the "self".

I can't say that this is irrefutable evidence, but it certainly suggests evidence to me.

I agree with your feminist/vegetarian comment. Don't you just hate it when stupid annoying people agree with you?

Okay, next bit where you ask about evidence, thermodynamics and physics etc.. Basically, I'm all for Science. I don't have a problem with Science, but the fact is; Science isn't equipped to deal with the entire range of human existence. Science is something which only applies to a narrow range of phenomena.

So you think you can design an experiment that could falsify either of those statements?

It's getting late. I'll have to continue this in the morning, over coffee.

Goodnight!

I haven't really thought about reincarnation enough to have an argument for or against, I'd say I'm knda up-in-the-air about it.

The CNS and brain may not leave the body at the instant of death but they do cease to function. I see no reason why very soon after death, if the body is stimulated in the right way (ie, pumped with the right chemicals, cpr being carried out, artificial respiration, etc.) the brain should not continue to function and the person be themselves. In fact, doctors often bring back patients who have "died" (ie, their hearts have stopped and they aren't breathing) using those methods. Does the soul shoot out and then climb back in again as some kind of out of body experience?

I spent a long time pondering the "self". I was a member of a Youth Theatre that was very strict and our director was very keen on Eastern philosophy. She ran a class for some of us. It was all very interesting and I certainly experienced many of the things she put down to the "self", but I don't believe that my experiences were anything that could not be entirely down to body or mind.

"So you think you can design an experiment that could falsify either of those statements?"

Hmm, it would be tricky of course. That's only because people who believe in souls can always deny that they have any material presence so they can't be measured. It's very similar to fundamental Christian creationists who believe that the world was created in 7 days. We have the evidence that shows that it couldn't possibly of been, but they turn around and say "but God is omnipotent and He can do anything". I suppose if God reaaly does exist and *is* omnipotent then scientists are screwed, so I kind of get your point.

Enjoy your coffee

I can't think of any arguments for or against reincarnation. I just don't believe in it.

That's a good question. Some people describe these "near death" experiences. You've probably heard about that. Skeptics say that they weren't really dead, and that they were hallucinating. I don't think that there is any way to evaluate these experiences objectively. I think we have to put a big question mark next to that one. I think it is interesting that everyone who has had these "near death" experiences seems to describe very similar visions. From what I've heard, they tend to become very spiritual afterwards, in a mellow non-judgmental sort of way. I haven't heard of anyone becoming a rabid intolerant fundamentalist wacko.

I'm sure you know that I don't agree with the fundamentalist Christians with their wacky ideas like "God hid dinosaur bones to test our faith". However, I wouldn't put it past Him to hide dinosaur bones because it would be a great practical joke! (I don't really believe that, but given the choice...)

I am enjoying my coffee. Thank you!

The only way you *could* study out of body experiences would be to know in advance that they were likely to happen and stick someone in a brain scanner/measure their brain waves as it did. If we wanted to be nice and unethical we could go about killing people in the hope that they had one. Of course, we'd have to bring them back again so that we knew whether they experienced anything so it wouldn't be *that* unethical I don't really see teh similarity between people's experiences as being evidence that they aren't down to simple brain chemistry. As far as I'm aware, they almost always occur after the heart has stopped. A lack of oxygen delivered to the brain for a certain length of time could well have pretty much the same effect in everyone.

Oh my word - God hiding the dinosaur bones! That one always makes me laugh A practical joke maybe, or perhaps just to give paleontologists something to do

For: none
Against: dead is dead. And I don't believe in the concept of the soul.

Someone made a movie about that. I didn't see it. I think it came out of Hollywood a few years ago. It was about a group of young doctors who decided to induce near death experiences in each other. I just saw a preview.

So do you feel like a bag of chemicals? I know I don't.

Flatliners? About 10 years old.

Thanks! That was it. Older than I thought. 1990 actually. I just looked it up here:

http://www.allmovie.com/

"So do you feel like a bag of chemicals?"

The scary thing is, that I really do

So did I before I stopped taking the drugs.

Hebrews 9:27
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.

So the Bible says you only live once.

I don't even like to think about reincarnation - I don't want to be around when the world ends.

Very well said.

I think i like Zang's mind theory,i never thought of it like that before.:/

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what I said which constitutes my "mind theory", but I'm glad you liked it and it made you think.

I just read over my discussion with Biggles for the first time in quite a while. That was over two years ago! Biggles hasn't been around for quite a while. She's a very bright young woman and I used to try to encourage her to get into more of these sort of debates to improve her mind. She's studying at a very prestigious university to become a scientist.

Yeah people always point to that verse to prove that reincarnation is wrong.But i also agree with what hebrews says on the other hand.:)