Proof Against Reincarnation

[seeker_of_God]

I’d like to hear of philosophical arguments against reincarnation.

Of course I do not believe in it myself, but I come from a New Age background and know many people in the New Age. Knowing of such an argument would be quite useful in showing the falsehood of their beliefs.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate in this thread as much as possible. I’ve not seen any watertight arguments so far in my searches on this forum, but I believe that it is possible, so I will be responding as one who did believe, and refuting to the best of my ability any arguments posited.

One argument I’ve heard is an argument of the number of people in the world today — that since the population is growing, there can’t possibly be enough souls for all the bodies.

My answer is that many views on reincarnation hold that the soul begins as a lower lifeform — an animal, a plant, even a mineral — so there are potentially trillions of possible souls to select from, more than enough to incarnate into human bodies.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[EphelDuath]

Considering bacteria and plants do not have the same rational free-willed soul that man does, it would be preposterous to suggest that one can reincarnate into the other with the “same soul”; the soul in question then is completely different in essence.

It would be like suggesting that if you put a car into a trash compactor and turned it into a tiny metal cube, that it would still be a car. Made out of the same material, yes; but the word “car” is fundamentally describing something beyond its matter.

 

[R_C]

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas - one of the greatest philosophers - mentions it - especially the Supplement, Question 79, clarifies that there cannot be a “reincarnation” as the soul taking several different bodies.

In like manner the errors of certain heretics are refuted. Some of them fell into the aforesaid opinions of the philosophers: while others held that souls are reunited to heavenly bodies, or again to bodies subtle as the wind, as Gregory relates of a certain Bishop of Constantinople, in his exposition of Job 19:26, “In my flesh I shall see my God,” etc. Moreover these same errors of heretics may be refuted by the fact that they are prejudicial to the truth of resurrection as witnessed to by Holy Writ.

For we cannot call it resurrection unless the soul return to the same body, since resurrection is a second rising, and the same thing rises that falls: wherefore resurrection regards the body which after death falls rather than the soul which after death lives. And consequently if it be not the same body which the soul resumes, it will not be a resurrection, but rather the assuming of a new body.

However, there’s some more going on. First, every human being who ever lived, even those in hell, will resurrect into his body, so the size of this earth is irrelevant and we will probably not be here. Second, at the moment of conception, God creates a new immortal soul, which means there is no upper limit.

St. Thomas proves these and other teachings through reason in the Summa Theologica (and also in the Summa contra Gentiles). They are worth studying, though they are not light readings - in fact, they have shaped both theology and philosophy for the following 800 years.

 

[mab23]

this is not really an argument but I noticed with reincarnation it doesn’t really explain the beginning of the Universe which we have evidence there was a beginning… what caused the universe in reincarnation???

 

[ChibiViolet]

this is not really an argument but I noticed with reincarnation it doesn’t really explain the beginning of the Universe which we have evidence there was a beginning… what caused the universe in reincarnation???

Reincarnation is not a religion.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Considering bacteria and plants do not have the same rational free-willed soul that man does, it would be preposterous to suggest that one can reincarnate into the other with the “same soul”; the soul in question then is completely different in essence.

It would be like suggesting that if you put a car into a trash compactor and turned it into a tiny metal cube, that it would still be a car. Made out of the same material, yes; but the word “car” is fundamentally describing something beyond its matter.

This is my same thought, but can it be philosophically argued that the soul of a plant is essentially different than the soul of a human? I know we know this through revelation, but is it reachable through natural reason as well?

If so, I think this is one possible route, though not all believe that they started out as lower lifeforms.

 

[seeker_of_God]

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas - one of the greatest philosophers - mentions it - especially the Supplement, Question 79, clarifies that there cannot be a “reincarnation” as the soul taking several different bodies.

However, there’s some more going on. First, every human being who ever lived, even those in hell, will resurrect into his body, so the size of this earth is irrelevant and we will probably not be here. Second, at the moment of conception, God creates a new immortal soul, which means there is no upper limit.

St. Thomas proves these and other teachings through reason in the Summa Theologica (and also in the Summa contra Gentiles). They are worth studying, though they are not light readings - in fact, they have shaped both theology and philosophy for the following 800 years.

Thank you. I am quite familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas. He is my confirmation saint, and I love his work.

I was not aware of this question, so thank you for pointing me to it. I do not think the passage you quoted is so convincing, because it is not really the topic under discussion. But a few lines before, he says:

This opinion arises from two false sources. The first of these is that they said that the soul is not united to the body essentially as form to matter, but only accidentally, as mover to the thing moved, [Cf. I, 76, 1] or as a man to his clothes. Hence it was possible for them to maintain that the soul pre-existed before being infused into the body begotten of natural generation, as also that it is united to various bodies. The second is that they held intellect not to differ from sense except accidentally, so that man would be said to surpass other animals in intelligence, because the sensitive power is more acute in him on account of the excellence of his bodily complexion; and hence it was possible for them to assert that man’s soul passes into the soul of a brute animal, especially when the human soul has been habituated to brutish actions. But these two sources are refuted by the Philosopher (De Anima ii, 1), and in consequence of these being refuted, it is clear that the above opinion is false.

Emphasis mine. This cuts to the core of the issue of incarnation, and indeed these were my thoughts as well. If it can be reasoned that the soul is essentially united with the body, then it cannot be said that the body can be simply switched out for a new one upon death. It would be preposterous.

 

[seeker_of_God]

this is not really an argument but I noticed with reincarnation it doesn’t really explain the beginning of the Universe which we have evidence there was a beginning… what caused the universe in reincarnation???

Depends who you ask. New-Agers will say that God wanted to learn about Himself, and thus split into innumerable souls, and over many lifetimes aimed to experience every possible thing.

Hindus, again depending who you ask, but some will say that Brahma (essentially, God) is all that exists, and the idea of the world, of multiple lives, is an illusion of māyā. We experience multiple incarnations to work out our karma that attaches us to this illusory world, and once it is worked out, and we realize who we really are, then we will “reunite” with (though they say we were really never apart from) Brahma.

Dualistic Hindus, such as the Vaishnavites, will say that Vishnu/Kṛṣṇa created them, but again instituted reincarnation until they overcome their karma.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I’d like to hear of philosophical arguments against reincarnation.

I don’t know about philosophy, but I do know what Scriptures say:** And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:** So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation. Hebrews 9:27, 28

 

[seeker_of_God]

I don’t know about philosophy, but I do know what Scriptures say:** And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:** So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation. Hebrews 9:27, 28

Yes, very true, but what good is it to a non-Christian? You cannot use something that they do not recognize as an authority, even if it is an authority to you. This is why we have to begin with philosophy — an appeal to the natural reason.

 

[EphelDuath]

This is my same thought, but can it be philosophically argued that the soul of a plant is essentially different than the soul of a human? I know we know this through revelation, but is it reachable through natural reason as well?

Yes, read Aristotle’s De Anima or St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the same work.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yes, very true, but what good is it to a non-Christian? You cannot use something that they do not recognize as an authority, even if it is an authority to you. This is why we have to begin with philosophy — an appeal to the natural reason.

I get what you are saying, and it reminds me of Aquinas and his proofs of.he existence of God. I am also reminded of Augustine who said, “Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” Good luck on your quest. I have never found anything that proved to me that reincarnation does not exist; I believe it does not, because the Church and Scriptures teach it.