Reincarnation about the extinction of animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anhphan

Guest
Some buddhist said "nowadays, many animals are on the verge of extinction while the population is growing. It must be reincarnation:. What do you think about it?
 
Well, given that I think reincarnation is nonsense, I would say that his argument is nonsense. I would also say that the loss of animal species is likely not equivalent to the growth of humanity.

He is making an assertion. A completely unverifiable, baseless assertion. It is something which cannot be proven, so people who accept reincarnation will look on it as a type of evidence, and people who don’t will look at as a bunch of silliness. Assertions are not a valid basis for belief. Unless they can provide a scientific / philosophical proof for their assertion, I wouldn’t worry about it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think it’s nonsense too. But I want to prove that his argument is wrong and prove there’s no reincarnation.
 
anhphan said:
were they using fallacy?
Click to expand...
It’s a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn’t flow from the premise. He wants this to be evidence for reincarnation because he wants reincarnation to be true. He ignores the more likely answer that human impact has had a negative effect on certain species, and that is why one population seems to be rising while the other is falling. (In actuality, I doubt the loss of one and the growth of the other are commensurate.)

There is really no way to prove him wrong because it’s more of an emotional assertion than a rational one. He is invested in the concept of reincarnation, and so he will try to bend facts to suit his belief. This is not unlike Christians who misuse certain bits of scripture to support a faulty notion they hold.
 
Last edited:
As much as it would be nice to believe in reincarnation, it is a tool of Satan and we aren’t to have anything to do with his deceptions.
 
It’s not an easy position to argue against because it’s an unverifiable assertion, like most beliefs regarding the afterlife.

As Christians, we reject it because Jesus made it explicitly clear that we only get the one life, and one judgment.

Philosophically, I reject it because it removes the stakes from life. If it’s true, then I don’t really have to worry about anything, because any state after death, positive or negative, is temporary. Sure, I should maybe be working towards nirvana or whatever, but it’s not pressing because I can do it next time around. Reincarnation removes any concern or requirement to be good.

In terms of the so called “evidence” for it. I’ve never seen a trial done in clinical circumstances which gives any evidence to reincarnation, and even if such a trial did occur I, as a Christian who believes in supernatural forces, could not exclude the possibility of demonic influence. As such, there’s really no experiential evidence that could be presented that would be convincing to me.

In short, if you believe in reincarnation, very little is going to persuade you it’s false. If you don’t, very little could persuade you it’s true. Sure, people change their minds, but in most cases I’ve seen it’s just something they’ve heard and decided they like the sound of.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think you can use his flawed argument to disprove reincarnation, as desirable as that might be.

His argument is not a proof of reincarnation, so refuting it does not disprove the teaching.

Consider the argument as a set of logical terms:

Animal species are disappearing (A).

Human numbers are increasing (B)

There is nothing there to link A to B. That they require reincarnation is an almost circular argument.

So sadly, knocking it down doesn’t disprove reincarnation, either.

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top