Reasons to doubt reincarnation

I received an email from David M. who didn’t like my review of Ian Stevenson’s “Children who remember previous lives” that was published three years ago in Skeptic Report. Specifically he objected to part two of that review, “The apparent belief system of Ian Stevenson”. He ignored my detailed explanation of the alternative prosaic explanations for what Stevenson had seen, and focused in on something he claims I invented, namely:

To state that cultures with specific beliefs, the change of sex, no gap between birth and death etc. never show evidence of these things is a complete fabrication.

He is referring to the fact that (according to Stevenson), reincarnations appear to coincide with the cultural beliefs of the society in which they are reported. For example, in cultures where they believe that you cannot change sex in a reincarnation, they don’t report cases of changed sex reincarnation. To me, these are indications that the children and/or the adults observing them are (knowingly or subconsciously), applying their pre-learned cultural beliefs to make the stories fit. In other words, this is a reason to doubt reincarnation. David claimed I had made this up.

Well, it was three years ago, and memory is flawed, so I went back to my review, and checked my notes against the book, and this is what I found. The paragraphs in bold below are from my original review.

Other trends are noted. For example, in cultures where:

They believe that you cannot change sex in a reincarnation, they report no cases of changed sex reincarnation. Where they do believe reincarnates can change sex, this is sometimes reported.

Was this a “complete fabrication”? I’ll quote Stevenson:

The proportion of (sex change) cases varies greatly among cultures; it ranges from 50 percent of all cases among the Athabaskan of the Canadian Northwest Terrorities to the complete absence of such cases in Lebanon and among tribes of southeastern Alaska…

When I questioned the informants in countries where sex-change cases occur, they told me that sex-change from one life to another is possible, but when I questioned the informants of cultures where such cases do not occur, they told me it is impossible.

(Page 178 – my bold.)

So if this is a “complete fabrication”, it must be Stevenson who is doing the fabricating. What about the next one:

They believe that there is no gap between death and rebirth, they always report no gap, usually with the device of a poorly remembered "intermediate life".

Stevenson says:

The Druses… believe that when a physical body dies its soul becomes immediately attached to a newly born physical body, that is, to the body of an infant just delivered to its mother. The Druses acknowledge no exceptions to this rule, and if an interval – even of a day – occurs between the death of the previous personality and the subject’s birth, they assume that an “intermediate life” filled the gap

(Page 176 – my bold.)

So that was Stevenson again. How about this:

They believe that there is no gap between death and rebirth there are no "announcing dreams", because rebirth is instantaneous. These dreams occur regularly where they believe there can be a gap.

Stevenson writes:

The absence of announcing dreams in the cases among the Druses of Lebanon accords with the Druse belief that reincarnation occurs instantly at death.

(Page 175 – my bold.)

What about this:

They have a matriarchal society, the prior lives are more likely to be linked through the mother’s side of the family. The converse is true in patriarchal societies.

Stevenson again:

Among same-family cases of the Tlingit, I found a distinctive feature… in about 75 percent of the cases they are related on the side of the subject’s mother. This accords with the matrilineal organization of the Tlingit society…

Among… the Igbo of Nigeria… I have found the opposite… The Igbos have a patrilineal society

(Page 175 – my bold.)

Last one:

They believe the spirits reside in a "discarnate realm" between lives, the children more frequently remember these "discarnate realms".

Stevenson tell us:

…different cultures show marked variations. I refer to memories of experiences the subjects claim to have had in a discarnate state…

(Page 177.)

Stevenson goes on to speculate how this might correlate to certain Buddhist beliefs. (Admittedly he doesn’t make a hard connection so possibly I overreached marginally in this point – but not by much.)

So none of my points were fabricated. I wonder if David actually read the book. Strangely, David also claimed these points of mine (even though “fabricated”), didn’t matter because:

Children at two years of age and slightly older (which are almost always the subjects of Stevenson's work) are unable to apply cultural beliefs to the commentary they give regarding a past life.

I call bullshit on this point in two ways. First, if the reincarnation claims do not fit the cultural beliefs of the parents, the parents will likely repress these obviously “false” memories of their children, and they will reinforce the “memories” that do conform to the cultural beliefs. So it hardly matters what the child is capable of at this age.

Secondly, in hardly any of Stevenson’s cases did he become involved with children so young. In the 14 cases covered in this book, Stevenson was only involved with one when the child was only two years old. The others were all older: one child was three, three children were four, one was six and seven ranged in ages from 9 to 21 before he even met them! (Stevenson doesn’t tell us how old his fourteenth case was when he met the child.) So who knows what these children really remembered?

And this was my main criticism of Stevenson – the book represents nothing but anecdotes. And as I think I demonstrated, Stevenson is credulously predetermined to believe reincarnation stories he is told.

Stevenson’s work is often quoted as being some of the best evidence there is for reincarnation. (It is because I was told this that I read his book.) Well, if Stevenson’s work really is the best evidence there is, we have no reason to suppose reincarnation occurs.

Comments

Hi Richard,
When you wrote:

"reincarnations appear to coincide with the cultural beliefs of the society in which they are reported. For example, in cultures where they believe that you cannot change sex in a reincarnation, they don’t report cases of changed sex reincarnation. To me, these are indications that the children and/or the adults observing them are (knowingly or subconsciously), applying their pre-learned cultural beliefs to make the stories fit. In other words, this is a reason to doubt reincarnation."
In my opinion, this quote basically summarizes the bulk of your blog. Your conclusion is based on your seeming belief that the process of reincarnation or what ever is occurring, should conform to some set of rules that you judge valid. It is premised on your expectations of how you believe reincarnation should work. Since it doesn't perform the way you expect, you regard these differences as reasons to doubt. It is such an unclear subject that it is equally possible that cultural beliefs influence the death experience. In cultures with a belief in God some children report seeing God between lives and in Atheistic cultures that experience is almost unheard of, as well as many other culturally distinct experiences. Based on the evidence it is a reasonable suggestion that cultural beliefs influence the reincarnation experience because that observation is consistent in all of the cultures in which the phenomenon is observed.
My main issue with your review (and many "skeptical" critiques) is that it seems evident that you were on a mission to debunk the evidence prior to even collecting it. You state in your blog that an open mind "must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false". This requires nothing less than absolute neutrality. Based on your decisive conclusion and your limited knowledge of the work of Stevenson (and The Division of Personality Studies at The University of Virginia), you do not appear very neutral on the subject. In fact, it is not a stretch to say that reading a book about 14 cases does not even begin to grasp the scope of a subject such as reincarnation and it certainly isn't enough insight to conclude;

"Stevenson’s work is often quoted as being some of the best evidence there is for reincarnation. (It is because I was told this that I read his book.) Well, if Stevenson’s work really is the best evidence there is, we have no reason to suppose reincarnation occurs"
Logically, it is just a bad conditional argument. If your skepticism (or doubt) is so easily quenched then perhaps your methods are no better than those of an individual who concludes the opposite with such limited insight. Skepticism and doubt are not the same. From a position of doubt belief is much harder to achieve. You come across as a doubter. Bias does a great disservice to the truly skeptical and has no place in methodical science.
Sincerely,
David M

[GRW]

David M, I'm no expert in reincarnation. Are you suggesting that our beliefs dictate what happens to us after we die? Interesting. I'm not sure how you can prove that. I've always figured I'll find out what's beyond after I die. If we're all reincarnated, then we'll be reincarnated. I don't see how that can change from culture to culture. If there's a Christian God, atheists and non-Christians are hooped. And so on. If some children from Christian cultures report seeing God "between lives", that, to me, says more about their thinking than it does about the true existence of said God. And likewise the kids from atheist cultures. If there's a God, s/he should be seen by kids of any culture. No? What am I missing here?

[Schmitt.]

It is such an unclear subject that it is equally possible that cultural beliefs influence the death experience.

I don't think you know what the term 'equally possible' means. Creating a scenario wherein consciousness somehow survives death and is somehow transplanted into a new body, in many different - even contradictory - processes which neatly reflect the ideologies and beliefs of whichever culture the 'reincarnated' individuals come from, for reasons you can't explain, for example, doesn't conform very well to parsimony.

You have shown quite conclusively that reincarnation beliefs are untestable, though. Evidence happens to exactly fit the skeptical viewpoint? So what, right? You have ad hoc explanations completely removed from the evidence to fall back on.

This requires nothing less than absolute neutrality.

No, it doesn't. Why should we ignore all other relevent evidence that has been gathered by humanity when we look at a phenomenon? Because some people happen to believe fervently in it and don't appreciate it being pointed out that there are far simpler explanations for such beliefs? Because they think it's fair or more unbiased to look at evidence in their terms; because they think open-mindedness constitutes the acceptance of (usually their own) unscientific ideas? Holding evidence to some standards of reliability, accuracy, repeatability, testability, parsimony and relevence has proven rather useful over the past couple of centuries and has generated a huge surge in human understanding.

If the conclusions we make based on previously gathered data are wrong or incomplete then more evidence will eventually swing our ideas over to the more accurate explanation. Until then, all we can do is base our ideas on the evidence we have. This would constitute the 'bias' you accuse Mr Rockley of; that of not wiping his mind clean of reality every time he opens a new book.

-Schmitt.

[Skeptico]

David: your points below in bold.

In my opinion, this quote basically summarizes the bulk of your blog. Your conclusion is based on your seeming belief that the process of reincarnation or what ever is occurring, should conform to some set of rules that you judge valid.

Yes, it’s called critical thinking, the basis for the scientific method. If you have a better one please tell us what it is, with evidence that it is better.

It is such an unclear subject that it is equally possible that cultural beliefs influence the death experience. In cultures with a belief in God some children report seeing God between lives and in Atheistic cultures that experience is almost unheard of, as well as many other culturally distinct experiences. Based on the evidence it is a reasonable suggestion that cultural beliefs influence the reincarnation experience because that observation is consistent in all of the cultures in which the phenomenon is observed.

Let’s say we have two possibilities:

1 Reincarnation doesn’t happen, and cultural beliefs are applied to make the stories fit, or
2 Reincarnation does happen, and cultural beliefs actually change what happens during reincarnation.

And you think these two are equally possible? You need to check out and try to understand Occam’s Razor. Option (1) above fits very well with the observed facts, and doesn’t require us to make-up and accept the extremely extraordinary claim of reincarnation. Option 2 is, frankly, absurd.

My main issue with your review (and many "skeptical" critiques) is that it seems evident that you were on a mission to debunk the evidence prior to even collecting it.

Wow you must be psychic if you know what my state of mind was before I even read the book. You were wrong about the statements in the review being “a complete fabrication”, and you are wrong about this. I was told the book was very convincing and I approached it with an open mind. Unfortunately, as I stated at the beginning of the review, the book turned out to me much less than I had expected.

But here’s the thing. If the book had been convincing, with evidence that wasn’t obviously merely anecdotal, then it wouldn’t have mattered what my “mission” was – I wouldn’t have been able to debunk it so easily. But it was just very poor and actually hard not to debunk – you would have to be fairly credulous to think the book amounted to much.

You state in your blog that an open mind "must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false". This requires nothing less than absolute neutrality.

Neutrality to start with, yes. But that doesn’t mean you have to stay neutral when the evidence points one way or another. As I stated, your mind has to be open to the possibility that something might be true or false. The book is very poor.

Based on your decisive conclusion and your limited knowledge of the work of Stevenson (and The Division of Personality Studies at The University of Virginia), you do not appear very neutral on the subject. In fact, it is not a stretch to say that reading a book about 14 cases does not even begin to grasp the scope of a subject such as reincarnation

I have read Stevenson’s best 14 cases and they were very poor. I have also read detailed reviews of some of his other books. Why would I need to read any more? What would be the point?

Despite what you may think, Stevenson is quoted most often by believers as having the best evidence there is for reincarnation. My point stands – if this is the best evidence for reincarnation we have no reason to suppose reincarnation happens. The burden of proof is upon those who claim it does happen. Anecdotes are not data.

The futility of this argument is boring. It is a waste of energy especially when you utilize an oversimplistic tool such as Occam's Razor which leaves no room for revision of previously held beliefs. Many of the theories and discoveries in Physics that have developed over the last century would been dismissed immediately and regarded as nonsense based on the requirements of that "tool". It is laughable that any intellectual would look at the history of invention and believe that the understanding of how something works must preceed the creation it. The pomposity of you and your friends leads me to believe that you find more value in contemplating possibilities than actually creating anything!

The futility of this argument is boring. It is laughable to watch you selectively reply to things and disregard other points that are beyond argument. It further illustartes how you approach "Science". The pomposity of you and your friends leads me to believe that you find more value in contemplating and negating possibilities than actually creating anything! You must exist in a sterile mathematical environment completely within the boundaries of human understanding and comprehension.
Enjoy!

[Skeptico]

Oh dear. We have another woo in meltdown. Didn’t take long did it?

Re: The futility of this argument is boring. It is a waste of energy especially when you utilize an oversimplistic tool such as Occam's Razor which leaves no room for revision of previously held beliefs.

Which shows you do not understand Occam’s Razor: it just means you don’t make things up.

Btw, this is a fallacious “Appeal to Occam’s Razor is simplistic” – a fallacy I will add to my list of fallacious woo arguments (like “be open minded”), soon.

Re: Many of the theories and discoveries in Physics that have developed over the last century would been dismissed immediately and regarded as nonsense based on the requirements of that "tool".

This is a fallacious “Appeal to scientists were wrong before they are wrong now” – ditto above.

Re: It is laughable that any intellectual would look at the history of invention and believe that the understanding of how something works must preceed the creation it. The pomposity of you and your friends leads me to believe that you find more value in contemplating possibilities than actually creating anything!

Straw man.

Re: The futility of this argument is boring. It is laughable to watch you selectively reply to things and disregard other points that are beyond argument.

“Selectively reply to things and disregard other points that are beyond argument”?! You are describing yourself here. I asked you in my last post:

If you have a better (method than critical thinking) please tell us what it is, with evidence that it is better.

(Sound of crickets.)

We’ve heard all this before David – it’s nothing more than “be open minded” dressed up in a borrowed lab coat with added insults for good measure. Your posts are lame and add nothing to this discussion. If you ever think of any valid arguments please present them.

[RockstarRyan]

You must exist in a sterile mathematical environment completely within the boundaries of human understanding and comprehension.

BWAHAHAHAHA! WTF does this guy exist in? Some Shang-Ri-La outside human comprehension?

Go back to sleep, David. I won't wake you from your dream. But I do have some Magic Beans to sell you. I got them from a guy named "Skeletor"...

[BronzeDog]

It seems that woos can only think outside the box when they're coming up with ideas. When defending their unsupported ideas, they

1) Go straight for the largely imaginary anti-imagination pseudoskeptic straw man,

2) Whine about critical thinking without presenting any real criticism thereof,

3) Misuse occam's razor, usually mistaking occam's badly-thought-out-chainsaw for occam's razor.

4) Complain about our alleged lack of open-mindedness, despite the fact that they tend to be very tight-lipped about presenting evidence, or even cogent arguments. In my time as an online skeptic, believers have never even attempted to present evidence. The closest was that Doug guy referencing a 404'd document.

5) Ad homenim, usually involving some conspiracy to cover up the evidence they can't present because of the cover up, despite the fact that just about anyone can perform and replicate experiments.

Any other patterns I missed? If it weren't for the rapier wit and sharp tongues of other skeptics, all the repetition of millenia-old (and still fallacious) arguments would bore me to death.

[GRW]

I'm fairly new to the on-line skeptics movement (but love it). I'm wondering what a 'woo' is. I think I get its pejorative connotation, but what's the etymology?

[Rockstar]

"woo-woo" is a term coined by James Randi to describe pseudoscience. We've expounded on that so "woo" is basically a Bleever (believer).