Arguments for Reincarnation (RE)
The moral argument
The argument from prodigies
Knowledge of past lives. Ian Stevenson’s book.
Law of karma is basic and physical laws are derivative.
Arguments against RE
Problems of personal identity
Law of karma is empty of explanatory power.
How is karma administered? Herman (2): 133
Negative moral and social implications
Tertullian’s Objection: for your mid-term.
Objection from evolution. Recent appearance of conscious life.
The population problem
Edwards’ Mistakes
No scholar dates the Gita as early as 500 B.C.E.
The Gita is after Buddhism, not before as Edwards claims.
Nirvana is a Buddhist, not a Hindu term, although it is mentioned occasionally in Hindu scripture. Edwards should have used moksha here instead.
Nirvana is Absolute or Cosmic Consciousness in some later Buddhist schools. None of these mistakes mitigates the force of his arguments.
The law of karma
The moral equivalent of Newton's Third Law of Motion: for every action there will be a equal reaction. But there is no "opposite" reaction only good for good and evil for evil.
Good action returns rewards and evil action results in more karmic debt.
The other way of looking at karma is to see it as an extension of the law of cause and effect to the area of the mind and morality.
Weaker version: every action has consequences.
Connection between RE and karma
No necessary connection? RE without karma and karma without RE?
God(s) could have ordained RE for their own reasons.
Administration of karma done at the end of one life with a Last Judgment.
Last Judgment as self-judgment. See this article.
Zoroastrian and Buddhist examples. Near death experiences.
The problem of personal identity
Same person regardless of innumerable bodies?
Does the purusha spirit have personal identity? Isn't it essentially empty of content?
Can the purusha or atman carry karma?
A pure spiritual substance could not have anything to do with sin and karma.
THE MORAL ARGUMENT (The short form)
1. There are great injustices in the world.
2. In any one generation there seems to be an inequitable distribution of injustice among good people and evil people.
3. There are no reasons in this one life for this inequitable distribution of injustice.
3. The law of karma is true.
4. Therefore, these people must have lived a previous life in order to have "earned" their karma.
THE MORAL ARGUMENT (The long form)
Done by Masao Matsuoka, Student, Spring, 1995
1. There are injustices in the world
a. Humans are born into very unequal conditions
b and c
2. There are three ways we can explain those injustices
a. "mere chance"
b. "God’s plan"
c. extension of c/e (cause and effect) to the spiritual domain
3. reject 2-a == no explanation of anything
4. reject 2-b ==God should not be responsible for injustices because all God does is just
5. accept 2-c == because it is the only reasonable explanation
== spiritual domain is also ruled by the law of c/e
6. 1 and 5 ==> injustice is due to the result of prior causes
7. 6 and 1-a ==> cause must exist prior to birth
8. the same body did not exist prior to birth
9. 7 and 8 ==> the same body cannot be the cause
10. a person has only one body at any given time
11. 9 and 10 ==> the cause must be spiritual (== non-body, non physical)
12. In order for 11 to be true we must "affirm ‘the pre-existence of souls [spiritual ‘something’].’"
13. Thus injustices are due to the prior spiritual causes.