The comments of some of my readers about my post on the tension existing between spirtualism and reincarnation, has motivated me to think about a possible way to solve this debate on empirical grounds.
I'd suggest the following: To try a series of controlled experiments in which reliable mediums try to communicate with the spirits of the dead who, apparently, are reincarnated in children with past life memories.
Let's to expand this proposal:
1-We need contemporary "reliable" mediums like John Edward, Suzane Northrup or David Thompson (I mention these just because they're widely known and for illustrative purposes alone. You can think in other currently practizing mediums).
2-The mediums need to have access to the best current documented cases of children with past life memories (specially of cases in which the death of the person whose soul is supposedly reincarnated now is recent and well documented).
3-And several, properly double blind controlled experiments with the mediums need to be carried out (for reasons of experimental design, obviously the mediums cannot know in advanced that the identity of the dead person whom they are trying to contact seem to correspond with the past memories which the children are remembering now).
Possible results and conclusions:
1)If the reincarnation hypothesis is true, then we'd expect that the mediums CANNOT contact in the afterlife with the same person who died (and is believed to be reincarnated now). The reason is that such a person is not in the afterlife anymore. This would provide strong evidence that chidlren who remember such memories are actually reincarnated.
2)On the contrary, if mediums DO contact with the same person who died (and is now supposedly reincarnated), then the reincarnation hypotesis is false. In fact, I'd consider this evidence as a knock-down argument against reincarnation.
If this second result is the case, whatever strong evidence is gathered in cases of children who remember past lives cannot be considered as evidence for reincarnation anymore, and has to be explained in terms of, for example, paranormal access to fragments of memories of a dead person (or by any other hypothesis not related with reincarnation).
Possible objections of a defender of reincarnation:
Confronted with the scenario 2, the defender of reincarnation will have to attack mediumship itself. He'll have to argue that mediumship in general, or the mediums of the experiments in particular, weren't reliable, and hence their communications cannot be believed.
Unless he can provide good evidence for this conclusion, I think the defender of reincarnation would be trapped against a corner. This would reveal that his commitment to reincarnation is not rational but pure wishful thinking.
Another defense by the defender of reincarnation would be appealing to the hypothesis of "group souls" mentioned by Michael Tynn in my interview with him, and defended by some spiritual teachers like Silver Birch according to which "there are what you call ‘group souls,’ a single unity with facets which have spiritual relationships that incarnate at different times, at different places, for the purpose of equipping the larger soul for its work."
Obviously, this is a purely speculative possibility, and the defender of reincarnation which takes this idyosincratic view has the burden of proof that such a "group souls" exist and that this provide the explanation for reincarnation cases.
In any case, the experiment with mediums mentioned above could include specific questions about the existence of such a "group souls" and whether they can explain the cases suggestive of reincarnation. The communications received will have to be considered in order to evaluate the plausibility of the "new position" of the defender of reincarnation.
I think this kind of experiments, if carried out competently and replicated, would provide an almost definitive answer regarding reincarnation.
I'd suggest the following: To try a series of controlled experiments in which reliable mediums try to communicate with the spirits of the dead who, apparently, are reincarnated in children with past life memories.
Let's to expand this proposal:
1-We need contemporary "reliable" mediums like John Edward, Suzane Northrup or David Thompson (I mention these just because they're widely known and for illustrative purposes alone. You can think in other currently practizing mediums).
2-The mediums need to have access to the best current documented cases of children with past life memories (specially of cases in which the death of the person whose soul is supposedly reincarnated now is recent and well documented).
3-And several, properly double blind controlled experiments with the mediums need to be carried out (for reasons of experimental design, obviously the mediums cannot know in advanced that the identity of the dead person whom they are trying to contact seem to correspond with the past memories which the children are remembering now).
Possible results and conclusions:
1)If the reincarnation hypothesis is true, then we'd expect that the mediums CANNOT contact in the afterlife with the same person who died (and is believed to be reincarnated now). The reason is that such a person is not in the afterlife anymore. This would provide strong evidence that chidlren who remember such memories are actually reincarnated.
2)On the contrary, if mediums DO contact with the same person who died (and is now supposedly reincarnated), then the reincarnation hypotesis is false. In fact, I'd consider this evidence as a knock-down argument against reincarnation.
If this second result is the case, whatever strong evidence is gathered in cases of children who remember past lives cannot be considered as evidence for reincarnation anymore, and has to be explained in terms of, for example, paranormal access to fragments of memories of a dead person (or by any other hypothesis not related with reincarnation).
Possible objections of a defender of reincarnation:
Confronted with the scenario 2, the defender of reincarnation will have to attack mediumship itself. He'll have to argue that mediumship in general, or the mediums of the experiments in particular, weren't reliable, and hence their communications cannot be believed.
Unless he can provide good evidence for this conclusion, I think the defender of reincarnation would be trapped against a corner. This would reveal that his commitment to reincarnation is not rational but pure wishful thinking.
Another defense by the defender of reincarnation would be appealing to the hypothesis of "group souls" mentioned by Michael Tynn in my interview with him, and defended by some spiritual teachers like Silver Birch according to which "there are what you call ‘group souls,’ a single unity with facets which have spiritual relationships that incarnate at different times, at different places, for the purpose of equipping the larger soul for its work."
Obviously, this is a purely speculative possibility, and the defender of reincarnation which takes this idyosincratic view has the burden of proof that such a "group souls" exist and that this provide the explanation for reincarnation cases.
In any case, the experiment with mediums mentioned above could include specific questions about the existence of such a "group souls" and whether they can explain the cases suggestive of reincarnation. The communications received will have to be considered in order to evaluate the plausibility of the "new position" of the defender of reincarnation.
I think this kind of experiments, if carried out competently and replicated, would provide an almost definitive answer regarding reincarnation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment