What are the proofs for reincarnation accepted by mainstream scientists?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
in our journey of spiritual evolution What are the scientific proofs for reincarnation that are accepted by the body of scientific researchers answer rather than proofs we can focus on evidences now evidences are those which contribute to a proof its like in a court case evidence is presented and then it is for the judge to decide whether that evidence is what is the strength of that evidence and whether it constitutes proof of complicity or criminality or whatever be the particular legality involved so there is the conclusion which is to be had is ultimately within the individual head and heart and that’s why we can’t talk about proofs for the existence of soul is to make a overstatement what we can say is that there are evidences and whether those evidences prove the existence of the soul in terms that mainstream science will accept that is something which is the jury is still out for that so now after clarifying this difference between evidences and proof now when we look at evidences also we have to understand that what evidences will be acceptable in the court of science so as of now science tries to operate on the principle of naturalism so naturalism refers to the principle that natural phenomena should have natural explanations and this most scientists consider to be the cornerstone of science and the essential requirement for scientific progress so for example in the past when say medieval ages when Europe was having the black plague so there were some people who believed that the black plague is caused by some evil spirit infecting people and tormenting people now if that belief is accepted by science then science cannot find out science will be able to work only when they find a natural cause this particular disease, this plague is caused by this germ and we find out the natural cause for that and after finding the natural cause then we come to a conclusion that yes this natural cause gives this particular result so what mainstream scientists argue is that if we start accepting supernatural causes or non-natural causes then we stop the progress of science so scientists often think that by scientists I am using the mainstream body of science not necessarily all scientists that we should operate on the principle of naturalism and that’s why scientists are extremely sceptical about any non-natural explanations for any phenomena so therefore because the whole concept of soul is non-natural in general when in the scientific circles the word natural is used it is equated with material so in that sense because the soul is a non-material entity the scientists are usually sceptical about accepting the evidence for the soul because they feel that no matter how much is the evidence available still we should look for some natural explanations because if we start accepting some supernatural explanations then that may stop the progress of science so that is why in general the evidence for reincarnation whatever is available that is subjected to a greater degree of scepticism than is the evidence in other fields of science so for example consider theory of evolution often the evidence even if it is not very strong it is accepted because it offers a natural explanation for phenomena and this is an unfortunate bias within the scientific method within the scientific community at present that any evidence for non-natural phenomena is subjected to a greater degree of scepticism but still even within that what evidence so how can we work towards explaining or providing evidence for reincarnation then whatever cases are there we have to see whether all natural explanations for those can be exhausted and when no natural explanation is left then the supernatural explanation that is the explanation of the soul as the source of consciousness as the explanation of the particular phenomena that will become accepted and then this acceptance we can also show how this leads to the progress of human knowledge not the stoppage of that progress so let’s look at this one by one science broadly has two distinct limbs there is theory and there is experiment so with respect to theory basically there is some attempt to explain the observed phenomena and this refers to general observed phenomena for example say there is objects which are released from a height they fall this is general observed phenomena and for this Newton had the theory of gravitation so similarly if we look at the observed observation what we see is there is consciousness we humans have consciousness and other living beings also have consciousness let’s focus for the time being on consciousness as is manifest in human beings now as well as even if you consider other living beings also the point is where does this consciousness come from although researchers have studied exhaustively the brain despite studying for decades even centuries they have not been able to find out any one point which is in the brain which is the source of consciousness so now here we are focusing on theoretical aspect but this also becomes related with the experimental aspect but I will focus on this answer as a summary I will get into specific evidences later but the point is within the theoretical framework the material explanation of consciousness or explaining consciousness from material perspective has failed and is continuing to fail so from the theoretical perspective definitely there has been a substantial depiction of correlation yes that there are certain emotions which are induced in certain areas of the brain are activated but this is correlation this is not causation causation and correlation are not the same thing correlation simply means that one phenomena is associated with another phenomena causation means that one phenomena is caused by the second phenomena so what is the difference between the two so the simple example is that suppose someone is happy and now that happiness expresses itself neurologically as secretion of certain chemicals in certain parts of the brain and physically it exposes itself as a smile or as a laugh so now there are three things there is a feeling of happiness there are the activation of certain chemicals in the brain and then there is the expression of a smile on the face so now the activation of certain chemicals in the brain is correlated with the smile on the face but it is not exactly caused the feeling of happiness is in and of itself a distinct phenomena from the secretion of chemicals in the brain the secretion of chemicals in the brain alone does not make one happy researchers who have tried in psychiatry to try to identify which specific chemicals need to be secreted for a person to say overcome depression they found that this does not that just pumping those chemicals into the brain does not lead to a person being able to permanently counter depression yes it just temporarily does counter depression just as a person who is unhappy that person artificially puts on plasters of smile on one’s face that person might temporarily feel better but that is not a long term result you cannot carry on a facade of happiness for a long time through physical expressions if there is no real feeling of happiness within similarly just injecting some chemicals into the brain or taking some pills that increase the presence of a particular chemical in the brain does not lead to happiness it may temporarily give you a good feeling but it doesn’t last for long so the point is that from the theoretical point of perspective researchers have been able to find correlation but not causation so the correlation between say the emotions that we have and the corresponding areas of the brain that are activated that is well documented but correlation should not be mistaken for causation in fact from the theoretical perspective there is a spectacular missing link in how that which is how matter can somehow produce the ability to experience matter how matter say my tongue is matter and if I eat a gulab jamun, the gulab jamun is matter it is made of the same essential elements so how can the tongue experience taste of gulab jamun if I keep the gulab jamun on the table, the table is not experiencing the taste put it on my tongue, I experience the taste so how does matter develop the ability to experience matter from a theoretical perspective also there is absolutely no satisfactory explanation and although many researchers do indicate that the brain is correlated with emotions but the correlation is not causation the point which I am making is even from the dawn of the advent of materialism in science so one of the prominent followers of Darwin was Thomas Huxley and he is called the bulldog of Darwin who campaigned for the theory of evolution on Darwin’s behalf but even he said that how consciousness can emerge from matter, from brain substance is as miraculous as inexplicable as a jinn appearing in the story of Aladdin by doing something such as lighting a lamp or calling a name or rubbing something so it is just an inexplicable phenomenon and similarly there are Nobel Laureate neurosurgeons Dr. Wilbur Penfield Sherrington John Eccles these are all ordinary neurosurgeons, neuroscientists they are Nobel Laureate neurosurgeons and they have after many years of study concluded that consciousness requires a non-material explanation so for example Dr. Wilbur Penfield said that the brain is like a computer but its programmer is somewhere outside similarly Rogers Ferry is another eminent physicist another eminent neuroscientist and he said that we have to look for in consciousness rather than merely looking for upward causation going from matter to consciousness we also have to look for downward causation that consciousness is a distinct entity which produces which interacts with matter and which creates matter the feeling that it is a sensation of being alive the appearance of being alive rather so anyway this is from the theoretical there is no satisfactory explanation of how matter can produce consciousness and within theory if we consider non-material source of consciousness then the explanation of consciousness becomes much more intelligent now going to experiment in science we can do experiments where the object is under our control but when the object say for example if a stone is falling then we can throw a stone up and we can make the stone fall but if suppose the benchmark for verifying Newton’s theory of gravitation was that because Newton’s theory says that the way objects move on the earth is similar to the way the objects move in the space so if the benchmark for that theory had been made that Newton should be able to control the movement of the planets or the movement of the satellites and if say by increasing the force applied to say the moon the moon will move faster if that sort of benchmark for observation had been made then Newton’s theory would not have been verifiable even now the point is that experiments can be done on those things which can be controlled so if some things cannot be controlled then experiments can’t be done and then when experiments can’t be done alternative methods have to be used so now with respect to reincarnation the soul moving from one body to another we can’t control the subject to do an experiment controlling the subject means that we can’t control that okay this person is going to die and this person is going to incarnate over here this person should be able to remember this set of facts we can’t control this phenomenon similarly with respect to outer body experiences also we can’t put a person artificially to a situation of near death and then see whether that soul gets projected outside or something like that so experiments are not possible in this and this does not mean that this necessarily has to go out of the arena of science because when we look at the past there are many areas in science also where knowledge is not acquired using experimentation for example with respect to generally theories of origins and theories of the past so much of for example we say that the universe the mainstream accepted scientific theory is some variant of the big bang theory super string or whatever might be further developments but the big bang theory is largely accepted as a theory of the origin of the universe nobody can conduct an experiment to replicate that theory and similarly with respect to say many other tectonic plate theory that the earth was say one tectonic plate earlier then it has split and that’s how different continents have come about when we go back to history there are many theories in science which are not on which we cannot do experiments to verify them and that alone should not be made as a ground for rejecting those theories so therefore here a different method is to be used we cannot just use experiment in the sense of controlling an environment and making certain things happen in a certain way because these are the moment of the tectonic plates or the origin of the universe these are events which are not repeatable and controllable by us so what can be done in such situations? science uses a different method it is called as IBE it is Inference to Best Explanation so we try to make as careful and as rigorous an observation as possible and after that observation after the observation is made we try to find out the best explanation for that observation by eliminating all other alternative explanations this is something like who done it? investigative novel in which if a crime has been committed person has been murdered then who could have done that crime? what are the ways for coming into that house? what are the ways in which this person could have been killed? investigator tries to eliminate various explanations still the most intelligible explanation remains and that is accepted so similarly with respect to either so the evidences for reincarnation are not in terms of experiment but in terms of observations and then inferences to best explanation based on that observation so what is the evidence? there are certain people who are able to remember their past lives now there are certain people who are able to remember their past lives now the various alternative explanations need to be taken into consideration could it be that this person didn’t remember but it is just a coincidence that both the memories came together so Stevenson and subsequent scientists developed a scale of credibility and scale of evidence how many points does a person remember? and what are the correlations in their memories? so I will answer about the credibility of past life memories in a separate question and similarly with near death experiences but the point is that there are multiple evidences the sheer number of memories that are recollected the number of things that are recollected the commonality or uncommonality of those particular memories so there is a scale on the strength of evidence it is not just a chance and further there are past life behaviours which are continued in terms of certain phobias then there are birthmarks which are there and there are overall the cultural acceptability and unacceptability all those factors come into the picture and that way so if that person had no contact with that other person and no possibility of contact the number of things that are remembered are so many that it is unlikely to have come about by chance by chance or by guesswork then the credibility increases so the point is with respect to scientific research or scientific evidence for reincarnation the evidence has to be in terms of inference to best explanation and that is gradually being accepted as initially the research for reincarnation is treated with scepticism but that is the way all scientific breakthroughs do happen but gradually as the broad conceptions are made clear the methodology is made clear and how is this a progress that is explained how is this a progress the progress is in terms of actually how the understanding of the human person deepens who we are and what is it that is going to bring meaning and purpose in our life how that understanding deepens and how life the quality of life and the satisfaction of life improves this and our own understanding of the human person increases so bringing a scientific spiritual dimension into science is not going to restrict knowledge it is rather going to expand knowledge expand scientific knowledge when this understanding is presented properly then the reinventiveness for reincarnation will be accepted so there is a gradual change that is happening and even now as compared to 30, 40, 50 years ago when Stevenson started the research the acceptability of reincarnation has increased much more and this will keep increasing as more and more research is done and more and more evidence bounds and more and more the limitations of sticking to an exclusively naturalistic approach are recognized by scientists and once they are recognized then non-natural explanations will be more open-mindedly explored so when we present evidence what we should focus on is it’s not necessary for some evidence to be accepted by the entire body of scientists or even the mainstream body of scientists as long as it stands the test of intellectual scrutiny as long as that evidence is acquired according to methods that are similarly used in other fields of scientific inquiry and as long as there are credible scientists even if they are in the minority who accept the evidence for reincarnation we have to understand that every culture operates under a certain bias and the mainstream scientific community presently operates under the presumption which often becomes a bias of naturalism or reductionism and because of that they are not yet open-minded but we don’t have to necessarily accept that presumption or bias and by staying open-minded to the evidence and open-mindedly evaluating that evidence and presenting that evidence open-mindedly we can actually help in the scientific increasing the scientific acceptability of reincarnation thank you