Michael Sudduth's critique of the Leininger case as reincarnation or psi evidence

Why would it be supernatural to believe in 2 or more lives, but not just the one life?

With what good reason -- or any reason at all -- do we have to reject reincarnation?  If we have reasons to suppose the brain creates consciousness, then yes. But if we accept that the brain is unlikely to create consciousness, I cannot see any good reason to reject reincarnation.

I wasn't talking about rejecting anything, just not jumping to conclusions concerning what anecdotal evidence proves or disproves, simply because of your personal preference.  I reject reincarnation on the basis of my faith.  Some reject it because on unbiased examination, the evidence is full of holes.  You can't see any good reason to reject it because you prefer to only see what you want to see.  Of course, if you have had your own personal experience that convinced you then I fully understand, but "this person in this book says so, so it must be true" simply won't do as proof of anything!

It's the same you that reincarnates.  The reason why people don't think it's you that reincarnates is because they've been indoctrinated into an acceptance of the materialist's conception of personal identity.  For example, many materialists assert that memories are a crucial ingredient for a person at time T2 to have been the very same person at an earlier time T1. 

This is a thoroughly materialist conception of personal identity.  One that has highly counter-intuitive consequences.  For example, if you had been born to someone else, then your current memories would be wholly different, hence you would quite literally be a different person. I mean different in the sense as you and I are different.

It seems to me the materialist conception of personal identity rules out any persisting self whatsoever. See this blog post by me where I explain why this is so.

As for personal identity and what survives, see my The self or soul as a mental substance.

I don't know what a "super-self" is and how it differs from a normal self.  But a substantial self is all that is required for me to reincarnate, and it to be me in any afterlife realm.

A few thoughts on this. I think the issue can, possibly at least, be resolved by the unpleasant and unpalatable conclusion (simply based on logical reasoning and the evidence of experience and investigation) that if reincarnation is true (and there is very abundant data to indicate that), what survives from life to life and learns and grows from the experiences and struggles, is definitely not our common sense intuituive notion of ourselves as being a combination of personality and personal memories going back to childhood, and instinctive identification with our particular bodies. This latter being is the human self and it must be temporary. I don't think this is an indoctrinated materialistic viewpoint - I think it is an instinctive and intuitively arrived at human viewpoint. The soul self with its accumulation of wisdom and memories of very many past lives necessarily has to be considered from the perspective of this human self to be something at least somewhat alien - another being entirely, with a different composite "personality" and vastly expanded consciousness.

Therefore in the long run, according to this simple reasoning based at least some evidence, there is not true survival of physical death, due to the fact of reincarnation. I'm not comfortable with this reasoning, of course. And it really just opens the can of worms of the metaphysical problem of defining what  the "self" really is. It is easy to at least on the surface conceive of a process (as channeled by psychic channeler Ron Scolastico for instance), where after physical death at some point in the process the human personal self's consciousness "opens up" so to speak and progressively expands in vision and understanding and knowledge, into the soul consciousness state, all through the whole process somehow never losing the sense of "I am me". In that respect mirroring our own experience of growing up through childhood and adolescence to maturity to old age, essentially in the process becoming rather different beings in some ways, though while retaining continuously, our sense of "I am me". But I really don't think I am the same person as my 12 year old persona, for instance. Naturally, I am at least related in some ways. A mystery.

Another somewhat related mystery "out of left field" so to speak - there are cases of severe stroke causing profound changes in personality. Can the "self" after this transformation induced by brain damage still be considered to be the original "self" just distorted, or is it really another? If it is another entire self, is it really a case of possession or takeover?

Then there is the notion that the true "self" is divorced from our everyday consciousness, a transcendental something not tied to personality and personal memories at all, something touched upon sometimes in deep meditation and other altered states of consciousness. But such a thing is not "me", at least to my present physical being. And it goes on. We have a lot to learn.

[Ninshub]

In that respect mirroring our own experience of growing up through childhood and adolescence to maturity to old age, essentially in the process becoming rather different beings in some ways, though while retaining continuously, our sense of "I am me". But I really don't think I am the same person as my 12 year old persona, for instance. Naturally, I am at least related in some ways.

Yes to this. Good post.

I reject reincarnation on the basis of my faith.

The problem with that statement is, your faith is substantially based on the choices/preferences (some anyway) of men, more than 1500 years ago. Those teachings of Christ which can be authenicated with confidence, are not that many, and do not deal with reincarnation.

I wasn't talking about rejecting anything, just not jumping to conclusions concerning what anecdotal evidence proves or disproves, simply because of your personal preference.  I reject reincarnation on the basis of my faith.  Some reject it because on unbiased examination, the evidence is full of holes.  You can't see any good reason to reject it because you prefer to only see what you want to see.  Of course, if you have had your own personal experience that convinced you then I fully understand, but "this person in this book says so, so it must be true" simply won't do as proof of anything!

How does what I "want to see" detract from any of my arguments? What I might or might not want is wholly irrelevant to such arguments. But this is what materialists say to me on occasions, suggesting they've either haven't read my arguments, or simply fail to understand them.

If verifying a child's memories by systematic research is "anecdotal", then how would it ever be possible to ever obtain non-anecdotal evidence for reincarnation?

I provide philosophical arguments, here, here, and here.  I do not appeal to what anyone says in a book, I like to advance my own arguments.  I don't even bother reading much of the research into reincarnation.  Why bother unless someone can advance reasons to suppose reincarnation is a priori unlikely?

If there is an afterlife, then it is highly likely there's a "beforelife" too.  But, in that case, why would people be born once only?  What type of mechanism or process operates that could possibly only allow an individual to be born once and never again?  Do you actually have any reasons whatsoever to reject reincarnation?

If there is an afterlife, then it is highly likely there's a "beforelife" too. 

I'll bite!

I'm not so sure that the point you made is logically coherent.  Why would an afterlife logically posit a "beforelife"?  I get that reincarnation evidence might suggest as much, but I don't see how an afterlife leads you there.

nbtruthman

[W]hat survives from life to life and learns and grows from the experiences and struggles, is definitely not our common sense intuituive notion of ourselves as being a combination of personality and personal memories going back to childhood, and instinctive identification with our particular bodies. This latter being is the human self and it must be temporary. I don't think this is an indoctrinated materialistic viewpoint - I think it is an instinctive and intuitively arrived at human viewpoint.

Well, as I have made clear, I entirely disagree with all of this.  If my conception of the self is problematic, then people would need to advance arguments showing where it errs. 

But if you accept such a materialist's conception of personal identity, then you also wouldn't persist after a few alcoholic drinks, as this can have a significant effect on one's personality. Although, of course, your original self would snap back into existence when you wake up sober the next morning. Personally, I've never felt I am literally a different person when I am drunk compared to when I was sober.  Nor do I feel I cease to exist and am replaced by a different self when a bad mood is suddenly transformed into a good mood on hearing some good news. Nor even my present adult self compared to when I was a child.

In regard to brain damage caused by a stroke or whatever, which radically alters one's personality.  This is something the vast majority of us haven't experienced. We would need to ask those who have undergone such brain damage, i.e "do you feel you suddenly sprang into being at the moment you had your stroke"?  OK, that's a bit flippant, but they would need to feel that they literally only came into existence, that there is no link whatsoever to their previous self.

Then there is the notion that the true "self" is divorced from our everyday consciousness, a transcendental something not tied to personality and personal memories at all, something touched upon sometimes in deep meditation and other altered states of consciousness. But such a thing is not "me", at least to my present physical being. And it goes on. We have a lot to learn.

I think our lives and the Universe are wholly mysterious, that I know virtually nothing.  But, I don't feel the same way about what the self is.  To be honest, the choices seem to me to be between my conception of the self, or the materialist's conception that a persisting self is an illusion. If the self is intrinsically linked to current memories and personality, then it seems to me that there cannot be an afterlife in a meaningful sense.

I provide philosophical arguments, here, here, and here.  I do not appeal to what anyone says in a book, I like to advance my own arguments.  I don't even bother reading much of the research into reincarnation.  Why bother unless someone can advance reasons to suppose reincarnation is a priori unlikely?

Good stuff - I feel like the Population Argument against Reincarnation is just laughable on its face. Why would this be the only world souls can incarnate in & out of? It's just odd that people who are willing to swallow the Multiple Worlds Interpretation or any other Parallel Universe claim can put this argument forward as a reasonable objection.

I am glad you brought up in-between lives though.

Sudduth's "falsifiable" criterion also just seems like a sad person trying to win on a technicality. Even if everyone person on earth could confirm details of past life memories one could still bring up this non-argument. As you note:

In order to appreciate how silly this is let's consider the following analogy. Let’s say I claim to have an apparent memory of going to a party a week ago. Other people remember me being there and more or less corroborate what I said and did that night. I also remember accidentally knocking into a table and having a bruise on my leg in that specific location the next day. Now what fact(s) would disconfirm that I was actually there?

I do think the final critique you address, that of cultural expectations, is probably the best argument out of the three you mention. However I think this doesn't work in all cases, like that of Burmese children identifying as Japanese invading military:

‘One rather pathetic child was caught by the villagers and burned alive,’ Stevenson said. ‘And not only are these children born into Burmese families who want nothing to do with a Japanese child, they frequently long to ‘go back to Tokyo,’ think the Burmese food is too spicy, the climate too hot. They complain all the time: ‘I want raw fish and sweets and want to dress like a Japanese.’ ‘ “[48,p.120]

Also it isn't clear where reincarnation influences culture and culture influences reincarnation.

All that said, I do think it's a challenge to look at all the varied Survival descriptions from NDEs, mediumship, in-between lives, and spirit journeys and try to make sense of it. To me it seems that there is perhaps more complexity in the afterlife than there is in this life, which I think is disconcerting/disappointing to many...sometimes myself included...but it probably is possibly more liberating as well when we consider that we might be immortal "transphysical" persons who have exist forever.

How does what I "want to see" detract from any of my arguments? What I might or might not want is wholly irrelevant to such arguments. But this is what materialists say to me on occasions, suggesting they've either haven't read my arguments, or simply fail to understand them.

If verifying a child's memories by systematic research is "anecdotal", then how would it ever be possible to ever obtain non-anecdotal evidence for reincarnation?

I provide philosophical arguments, here, here, and here.  I do not appeal to what anyone says in a book, I like to advance my own arguments.  I don't even bother reading much of the research into reincarnation.  Why bother unless someone can advance reasons to suppose reincarnation is a priori unlikely?

If there is an afterlife, then it is highly likely there's a "beforelife" too.  But, in that case, why would people be born once only?  What type of mechanism or process operates that could possibly only allow an individual to be born once and never again?  Do you actually have any reasons whatsoever to reject reincarnation?

Easy. The "powers that be" might have desired and so contrived reality such that human spirits exist indefinitely in a spiritual realm afterlife, after one and only one physical life in the physical realm. Therefore avoiding the inevitable snuffing out of the unique previous individuality resulting from the previous of many unique and different lifetimes. Of course, this is just a hypothetical - the reality appears to be, as derived from the evidence, from the data, that reincarnation is a fact, regardless of ancient scripture and acquired faith in religious dogma. 

It's interesting that apparently both Islam and the Bahai Faith also firmly reject reincarnation. The Bahais strongly believe, based on direct utterances of their founder (who they believe to have been the "cap of the prophets", of the manifestations of God in the human sphere) - that the human spirit is closely related to the human personality and absolutely never loses its unique human qualities and characteristics, no matter what spiritual realms are encountered. Would that that actually be the case.

Why would an afterlife logically posit a "beforelife"

Because if the indestructible "soul" (that entity that exits the brain/body during near death experience) didn't come from somewhere else (to the body) to experience another life, where did it come from? Surely brain cells (which are just cells after all) cannot produce something which is immaterial and by definition immortal, they are just cells.