The Problem of Evidence

We ought not pass on from this topic without mentioning the scientific study of reincarnation so-called. The attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of rebirth “scientifically” can be summarized as scant anecdotal evidence amounting, in a very few instances, to a weak prima facie case that upon examination quickly collapses. In answer to the standard question, “How do you account for so-and-so’s vision, memory, ability, information?” I refer readers to the standard reply, that on a case-by-case basis it is in practice always possible to find a more plausible alternative hypothesis. Countless books and articles have been written about the inadequacy of the “proofs” of reincarnation. I will not recapitulate their contents here.

I will, however pause long enough to draw your attention to one interesting feature of the problem facing advocates of karma-theory whenever they try to explain an individual’s apparently impossible knowledge. The central nervous system of the human being is a powerful, convincing and occasionally deceptive generator of extraordinary and even impossible events. We have abundant evidence of compelling and yet utterly subjective “experiences.” The data are derived from the study of dreams, drug-induced states, advanced visualization techniques, schizophrenia, and sensory deprivation.

For most people, most of the time, it is possible to distinguish dreaming from waking life. It is even possible for the insane to sometimes discriminate hallucinated objects, voices and persons from those that are physically present, as the mathematician John Nash taught himself to do. It is unclear, to say the least, what criteria might be used to distinguish experiences of the astral plane from, let us say, spontaneously arisen visions due to prolonged fasting and dancing, or excessive intense concentration, or the unwitting ingestion of hallucinogenic bread mold. How, for that matter, are we to judge whether an unconfirmed verbal report is based on recollection of a past life, demonic possession, or acts of imagination? If most of us vastly prefer the latter explanation, it is because it requires far less in the way of groundless speculation and dovetails better with what we know to be relatively certain about the world.