Argument against reincarnation

[John Bunyan]

Does anyone know how could I argue against reincarnation? Any kind of argument against any kind of reincarnatory doctrine is welcome, although my intention is to argue against reincarnatory kardecism (various lives, everyone goes to heaven in the end, weak view of karma) and the hindu view of reincarnation (various lives, one with everything, strong view of karma).

 

[rbcbob]

I would argue biblically.

"It is appointed unto man to die once; after this the judgment."

 

[John Bunyan]

I was thinking against arguing against reincarnation with a hindu or a kardecist. For example, by showing that reincarnation is unfair or makes the world into a fatalist place. I would quote scripture to christians (although anyone who says he's a christian and believe's in reincarnation is not really a christian).

 

[JohnGill]

It sounds like your wanting an argument against hinduism and not just reincarnation. If you get Dr. Bahnsen's series on Practical Apologetics from cmfnow.com he covers how to easily refute hinduism. In doing that you refute reincarnation.

 

[Tim]

I would quote scripture to christians

I think you should quote scripture to those who are not Christians as well. Isn't the Word of God the only effective power by which people are converted and turn to the truth?

 

[jwright82]

I would start with proof. Is someone trying to get you to argue why it is wrong or are you just curious about it? How would one prove reincarnation? It seems to me that no solid argument can be given for its truth. Although this grossly oversimplifies the situation, Eastern philosophy is a very complex beast to work with. Their philosophy/religion is very self referential in the sense that karma proves reincarnation proves karma type situation. So I would doubt the whole project, why accept their entire worldview at all?

 

[JohnGill]

I would start with proof. Is someone trying to get you to argue why it is wrong or are you just curious about it? How would one prove reincarnation? It seems to me that no solid argument can be given for its truth. Although this grossly oversimplifies the situation, Eastern philosophy is a very complex beast to work with. Their philosophy/religion is very self referential in the sense that karma proves reincarnation proves karma type situation. So I would doubt the whole project, why accept their entire worldview at all?

Somebody of the hindu religion would say that is your problem. You're so steeped in the western mindset and think that there is a separation between you and everything else that you can't experience the oneness of being and see the truth of reincarnation. True truth cannot be proven, only experienced. Pardon me whilst I bang my ahead into the wall.

Pushing the Antithesis covers it some starting here. The Myth of Neutrality video series on Youtube also covers how to deal with it I think. The self-defeating nature of hinduism lies in samsara and nirvana. I'll listen to Bahnsen on it tonight and try to type up some notes.

Hinduism - Religion of Transcendent Mysticism (Religions which go beyond human experience and can only be contacted in a super-rational or mystical way.)

Brahman is everything. It doesn't appear that way is because Brahman goes beyond our experience and the only way to get right with god is through contemplation such as yoga.

If it goes beyond rationality or human experience then how can you know about it?

Such mystical claims are therefore arbitrary.

Our problems arise because we believe in distinctions but according to hinduism, in this world of maya (illusion) we draw distinctions when in reality there is only one thing. You are me, and I am you and we are all together. (Beatles)

Everything is the same, there is no difference between you and me, the trees, etc. All is one. Once you are enlightened through yoga, the drop of water that is you will be spliced back into to the shoreless ocean of being. There will be no more distinctions.

Since Hinduism claims to be beyond human experience, how can it use all these sentences which are based in human experience?

Brahman revealed it. How, since Brahman is not personal?

You're in maya not nirvana and until you enter nirvana you will continue to be reincarnated.

I haven't entered into nirvana yet because I draw distinctions? Right.

Then I claim to already be in Nirvana since you claim there is no distinction between maya and nirvana. Since all is one, therefore I must already be in nirvana since there are no distinctions.

Hindu response - well that's your problem because you're committed to logic, but our religion is beyond logic.

Well if you tell me that your religion rejects logic, then it doesn't. All who reject logic allow for P and not-P. You say you reject logic, then I affirm you don't reject logic. The hindu cannot then call foul because of a contradiction, because in so doing he rejects Hinduism.

 

[jwright82]

I would start with proof. Is someone trying to get you to argue why it is wrong or are you just curious about it? How would one prove reincarnation? It seems to me that no solid argument can be given for its truth. Although this grossly oversimplifies the situation, Eastern philosophy is a very complex beast to work with. Their philosophy/religion is very self referential in the sense that karma proves reincarnation proves karma type situation. So I would doubt the whole project, why accept their entire worldview at all?

Somebody of the hindu religion would say that is your problem. You're so steeped in the western mindset and think that there is a separation between you and everything else that you can't experience the oneness of being and see the truth of reincarnation. True truth cannot be proven, only experienced. Pardon me whilst I bang my ahead into the wall.

Pushing the Antithesis covers it some starting here. The Myth of Neutrality video series on Youtube also covers how to deal with it I think. The self-defeating nature of hinduism lies in samsara and nirvana. I'll listen to Bahnsen on it tonight and try to type up some notes.

Hinduism - Religion of Transcendent Mysticism (Religions which go beyond human experience and can only be contacted in a super-rational or mystical way.)

Brahman is everything. It doesn't appear that way is because Brahman goes beyond our experience and the only way to get right with god is through contemplation such as yoga.

If it goes beyond rationality or human experience then how can you know about it?

Such mystical claims are therefore arbitrary.

Our problems arise because we believe in distinctions but according to hinduism, in this world of maya (illusion) we draw distinctions when in reality there is only one thing. You are me, and I am you and we are all together. (Beatles)

Everything is the same, there is no difference between you and me, the trees, etc. All is one. Once you are enlightened through yoga, the drop of water that is you will be spliced back into to the shoreless ocean of being. There will be no more distinctions.

Since Hinduism claims to be beyond human experience, how can it use all these sentences which are based in human experience?

Brahman revealed it. How, since Brahman is not personal?

You're in maya not nirvana and until you enter nirvana you will continue to be reincarnated.

I haven't entered into nirvana yet because I draw distinctions? Right.

Then I claim to already be in Nirvana since you claim there is no distinction between maya and nirvana. Since all is one, therefore I must already be in nirvana since there are no distinctions.

Hindu response - well that's your problem because you're committed to logic, but our religion is beyond logic.

Well if you tell me that your religion rejects logic, then it doesn't. All who reject logic allow for P and not-P. You say you reject logic, then I affirm you don't reject logic. The hindu cannot then call foul because of a contradiction, because in so doing he rejects Hinduism.

I think that Ravi Zacharias said it best when he was having lunch with a psychologist and a philosopher who proclaimed to be an eastern thinker. The man accused him as being western in his thinking, he was raised Hindu BTW, because he looked at the world from an either/or logical paradigm instead of a but/and paradigm. The professor of philosophy insisted that he must look at it from an eastern point of view. At this point Ravi responded this way “so what your saying is that I either look at it your way or I am not looking at the right way?” That is paraphrasing it but you get the point. The philosopher responded with this “it does seem that the either/or paradigm comes up here”, the psychologist mentioned that it seemed Ravi was right.

 

[VictorBravo]

I would quote scripture to christians

I think you should quote scripture to those who are not Christians as well. Isn't the Word of God the only effective power by which people are converted and turn to the truth?

Right.

I was raised in a "New Age" home. I believed in reincarnation through my adolescence.

Then I heard a preacher quote that verse while I listened on the tractor radio. It caused me to think long and hard why one should accept reincarnation as truth. Not much later I went from New Age to atheism. In the long run, it was an improvement, because that other verse, the one about what fools say in their heart, came up a few days later. . . .

 

[gmalloy]

Hi John,

Here is one that I have come across:

1) If the soul is eternal it has had an infinite amount of times to achieve the goal of reincarnation (moksha) and would have reached it by now.
2) The soul has not achieved the goal.
3) Therefore, the soul is not eternal.

Let me know what you think.

I would also affirm the suggestion of utilizing scripture, even with one who did not accept its authority yet.

 

[J. Dean]

Use it all. Start with Scripture to define the differences between Christianity and reincarnation/transmigration/Hinduism.

Then, from there proceed to other arguments.

Just remember that Scripture is the core and base of your argument; apologetics and rational arguments are supplemental additions.

 

[John Bunyan]

Use it all. Start with Scripture to define the differences between Christianity and reincarnation/transmigration/Hinduism.

That's what I do. I would usually start pointing what I believe are problems in a given worldview and then state my own christian view, which solves such problem (either by don't creating it, or by answering any given fact in a sound way).

Hi John,

Here is one that I have come across:

1) If the soul is eternal it has had an infinite amount of times to achieve the goal of reincarnation (moksha) and would have reached it by now.
2) The soul has not achieved the goal.
3) Therefore, the soul is not eternal.

Let me know what you think.

I would also affirm the suggestion of utilizing scripture, even with one who did not accept its authority yet.

I have also thought of that, and I believe this is a good argument, but it is more against the compatibility between reincarnation and eternal souls. There is a minority religion in my country, for example, which blends christian themes (as monotheism, Jesus' moral teachings and parts of the gospels) with eastern reincarnatory ideas and western spiritualism, so it is not impossible to one of them (or New Agers) to simply say "But I don't think souls are eternal, so whats the problem?".

I would start with proof. Is someone trying to get you to argue why it is wrong or are you just curious about it? How would one prove reincarnation? It seems to me that no solid argument can be given for its truth. Although this grossly oversimplifies the situation, Eastern philosophy is a very complex beast to work with. Their philosophy/religion is very self referential in the sense that karma proves reincarnation proves karma type situation. So I would doubt the whole project, why accept their entire worldview at all?

Mere curiosity. I was trying to creat a positive argument against reincarnation itself, and other two to show that reincarnation creates internal problem to given beliefs (I cited hinduism and brazilian kardecism as examples, the first believing in a panentheistic Everything, eternal souls, cosmic justice and the "illusion of being" and the other in a unitarian God, divine justice, universalism and free-will).
I'm only looking for a way to argue against reincarnation (like, "if I loose all my memories, my body, my history and everything else, am I even I?"), to possess the metaphorical "higher ground" of the debate or something like that.

I would quote scripture to christians

I think you should quote scripture to those who are not Christians as well. Isn't the Word of God the only effective power by which people are converted and turn to the truth?

That would be the positive case for christianity. I would usually make my case for christianity after pointing inconsistencies and difficulties in other views. Is the other way better?

All the "evidence" or non-Scripturally based arguments in the world will not convince a man. Just consider the whole evolution debate or the preposterous idea that there are no absolutes. Such foolishness folds in on itself and yet that doesn't keep even the most "brilliant" of men from believing such malarkey. Only by God's Word and Spirit will a man be sufficiently and effectually reveal God unto man for his salvation. My point being, that I'm not sure how beneficial any other kinds of arguments except for Scriptural and/or Scripturally Philosophically based would even be.

I'm also shocked that some people believe in self-refuting propositions like "There are no absolute truths", but I believe that someone less against logic can see how inconsistent their view is and abandon it. Can't God convince people through any method he prefers? Some might be convinced, by God, through arguments.

p.s.: Can anyone tell me where can I find free material (audio, articles, videos) on this subject on the internet?