Myswizard

Reincarnation
Reincarnation, as a doctrine or mystical belief, holds the notion that one’s ‘Spirit’ (’Soul’ depending on interpretation), ‘Higher or True Self’, ‘Divine Spark’, ‘I’ or ‘Ego’ (not to be confused with the ego as defined by psychology) or critical parts of these returns to the material world after physical death to be reborn in a new body. The natural process is considered integrative of all experiences from each lifetime. A new personality feature, with the associated character, is developed during each life in the physical world, based upon past integrated experience and new acquired experiences. Some reincarnation philosophies express the idea that rebirth is made each time in alternated female and male type of bodies. Also that there is interaction between predeterminism of certain experiences or lessons intended to happen during the physical life, and the free-will action of the individual as they live that life.

This doctrine is a central tenet within Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Surat Shabda Yoga, some African religions, as well as various other religions teachings and esoteric philosophies. Most modern Pagans also believe in reincarnation.

Reincarnation is traditionally understood to be akin to the Buddhist concept of Rebirth, but in fact the two concepts are very distinct philosophically - Buddhism teaches that there is no self to reincarnate. An alternative view is that the teachings of Buddhism might stress one aspect, the teachings of Hinduism might stress another aspect, but that an advanced Buddhist and an advanced Hindu would directly perceive the phenomenon of reincarnation identically.

Overview
Belief in reincarnation is an ancient phenomenon; in various guises humans have believed in a future life since the Ancient Egyptians, perhaps earlier, and ancient graves containing both people and possessions may testify to beliefs that a person would have need for their treasured possessions once again despite physical death.

In brief, there are several common concepts of a future life. In each of them either the person, or some essential component that defines that person (variously called the soul or spirit) persists in continuing existence:

People live on this earth, and then live in some kind of afterlife for the rest of eternity - variously called heaven (paradise) or hell, or the Kingdom of the Dead, or some higher plane, or similar. They do not return to earth as such.
People die, but will return to the earth or are revived in some final Judgement, or at some final battle (eg the Norse Ragnarok). They may go to heaven or hell at that time, or live again and repopulate the earth. This is often called an apocalyptic vision of the future.
People die, and are returned to this or another existence continually, their form upon return being of a ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ kind depending upon the virtue (moral quality) of their present life. This is often called Transmigration.
People die, go through inner planes and return, re-birth, (usually or often) as new human beings. Strictly, it is this which is known as reincarnation (also called “rebirth”). In many versions, eventually there is the potential to escape the cycle, eg by joining God, enlightenment, some kind of self-realization, a spiritual rebirth, entering a spiritual realm, etc. (There is some confusion, in general society, between reincarnation and transmigration; see below for comparison)
Beliefs in reincarnation or transmigration are widespread amongst religions and beliefs, some seeing it as part of the religion, others seeing in it an answer to many common moral and existential dilemmas, such as “why are we here” and “why do bad things sometimes appear to happen to good people”. Reincarnation is therefore a claim that a person has been or will be on this earth again in a different body. It suggests that there is a connection between apparently disparate human lifetimes, and (in most cases) that there may even be covert evidence of continuity between different people’s lifetimes, if looked for. Proponents claim this is indeed the case, whilst critics tend to reject the notion due to its metaphysical implications or non-acceptance by science due to other possible explanations of the phenomenon not yet eliminated from consideration. Such evidence tends to be of three kinds:

Tradition commonly holds that certain people (such as the Dalai or Panchen Lamas in Buddhism) can be identified by looking for a child born at the time of their death, and by certain signs and knowledge that such a child has of their predecessor life beyond the norm. In the case of Buddhism there are well defined tests of such a child.
In Western culture, regression or near death experience has at times provided what are claimed to be past life memories, some of which can in theory be verified, and some of which might be tested for fraudulent claims. Some aspects of these tend to be quite consistent in some ways (beings of light, messages of love and peace, etc), a factor which to some people lends credence to the idea, and to others supports that “something” is going on but without certainty what that might be.
Last, for many people, the evidence is internal and empirical, personal belief or experience. This may not be proof as such, but to them, qualifies as sufficient evidence to believe it.
As the introduction suggests, there is an apparent difference between lower-order Buddhism and lower-order Hinduism in as much as the former emphasises that the ego or personal self is empty of content and does not truly exist whereas the latter tends towards the position that the Jiva or personal self while existing, is none-the-less a false self. For Buddhism in part, this is a linguistic artefact in that the remainder (after the personal self is “neutralised, detached from its internalised tendencies [vasanas], transcended”) is said to be nothingness whereas for Hinduism this residual is the “higher-self”, the Atman or more properly in English the “True Self”. In either case both Buddhism and Hinduism hold this state to be “beyond description” for the inhabitants of the “normal everyday” world. To the western mind this last-mentioned world is often termed the “real world” whereas to both Buddhism and Hinduism this is the world of “Samsara” and of “name and form” respectively. The Real is, for Hinduism, the supra-consciousness that perceives the world of name and form to be empty, or at best sees it as a “mental construct”. Shiva is thus termed “the destroyer” because his is the name attached to the consciousness, in realisation of which, the destruction (dissolution) of the world of name and form, is seen. For Buddhism this same realm is “Nirvana”, the perspective of the Buddha-mind. Through either linguistic construct, the viewpoint must be treated as the same and in both cases; freedom from Samsara is “on offer”.

It may be asked how reincarnation fits into this picture. In a word, for Buddhism it doesn’t fit at all, for if there is no personal self there can be no soul but since the Buddha himself referred to his past-lives it must be inferred that these existed only in the world of the mind and that this is furthermore exactly the same state as is perceived by the one experiencing (or immersed in) the cyclic manifestation of Samsara. For Hinduism this state both exists and does not exist so that it may be likened to a dream-state, unreal in every sense. Thus from both perspectives, reincarnation cannot be likened to the re-appearance of the spirit or person within a physical body which inhabits an objective physical world rather, the perception of the world alone exists as a manifestation, around the conscious being, and this is maintained as an act of mind only. To be trapped in Samsara then is to be held by ignorance of the true nature of being, in a self-created world of error. As such, this is really nothing other than a dream. The major point referenced by both Buddhism and Hinduism concerns the necessity of awakening from this repetitive dream-state by obtaining ”Nirvana” for the former and by achieving “Enlightenment” for the latter. Both are words specifying the exact same state and all lives, past & present, are then to be seen as products of mind only.

Many paths are offered toward this state of liberation or “heaven” and most are generally initiated by proposing this life to be “real”. This of course means that past-lives are also to be seen as real. However, significant progression on any such path soon causes this initial, every-day concept of “reality” to wither away. As unity with the god-head is approached, the essence of being is recalled with the result that the previously perceived “reality” vanishes as unity is achieved.

Whilst science is perhaps not as scathing of reincarnatory belief as it is of many other metaphysical concepts, and many claims have been documented in a scientific manner, it is important to be aware that formally, mainstream science does not accept yet that reincarnation is a proven phenomenon, or that it happens. Many apparently proven phenomenon turn out to be illusional over time, and others, such as the soul, are often deemed by many to simply be unknowable, and hence by definition outside its province.

Past Life Therapy can be extremely helpful to those seeking an alternative to conventional therapies. It uses de-hypnosis techniques or ‘focused-state’ to access UPE (unresolved past experiences;defined by Thomas C. Paul, C.Ht., Past Life Therapist utilizing Dr. Morris Netherton (founder of Past Life Therapy) techniques. Thomas Paul is the founder of Past Life Therapy Center, Los Angeles, CA. http://www.PastLifeTherapyCenter.com

Past Life Therapy helps resolve past life survival scripts that may be effecting one’s state of mind, behaviors, and mental and physical health in this lifetime. PastLifeTherapyCenter.com is a resource site that further discusses “What is Past Life Therapy, Past Life Regression, Hypnosis/ De-hypnosis?”

Reincarnation in various religions, traditions and philosophies

Eastern religions and traditions

Hinduism
In India this doctrine was thoroughly established from ancient times. While metempsychosis was not established in the older sections of the Vedas, it was explicated first in the Upanishads (c. 1000 BC - AD 4), which are philosophico-mystic texts held to be the essence of the Vedas.

The idea that the soul reincarnates is intricately linked to karma, whose first explication was also seen in the Hindu books of the Upanishads. The idea is that individual souls, jiva-atmas pass from one plane of existence and carry with them samskaras (impressions) from former states of being. These karmic agglomerations on the soul are taken to the next life and result in a causally-determined state of being. In some schools of Hinduism liberation from samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, is considered the ultimate goal of earthly existence. This is known as Moksha, mahasamadhi (or nirvana, also found in Buddhism) in Hinduism. Other Bhakti traditions assert that liberation from samsara is merely the begginning of real spiritual life and beyond nirvana activities still continue, but that they are no longer of a worldly nature. Both sides agree on the pheomenom of reincarnation itself.

Buddhism and Vedanta (in particular Advaita Vedanta) further promoted the notion of nirvana following the advent of the great Hindu sage Adi Shankaracharya. The idea that stilling one’s karmas (actions) and becoming at one, harmonious, with all would free one, ultimately, from reincarnation, became a central tenet of Hinduism. It displaced more complex Puranic systems positing the gradual progression of a soul through 8,400,000 (sometimes more) lives until eventual awakening. Instead, it relied more on the idea of self-growth and enlightenment through Yoga. Buddhism differed in that it felt there was no soul to reincarnate and developed an elaborate complex of metaphysical explanations for temporary states of ego to explain rebirth.

The Bhagavad-Gita explains that the soul is not the body. Two things determine our karma:

(i) mentality

(ii) activity

At the time of death (anta-kale), what we think of determines what body our soul will transmigrate to in the next life. There are 8,400,000 species of life, of which 400,000 are human species. One can reincarnate into any species, since every life form has a soul, since all display the four characteristics of living entities:

(i) growth

(ii) deterioration (e.g. old age)

(iii) leaving behind by-products (e.g. reproduction)

(iv) death

The ability to express consciousness is limited by one’s body, for example a tree has a lower level of expression of consciousness than an animal. There are examples even within human society, for example, when the body is paralysed, there is less ability for the human to fully express his consciousness.

What determines what we think of at the time of death? The answer is the our previous acts throughout our lifetime. For example, according to Vedic understanding, if one engages too much in sex life, then nature will provide one with the body in the next life that is most suitable for practice of sex life. One may reincarnate as a pigeon, since a pigeon’s body enables one to engage in sex many times.

Our subtle body’s programming is what determines our thoughts at the time of death. The three factors are:

(i) mind

(ii) intelligence (buddhi)

(iii) false ego (ahankara)

Once again, the two factors of mentality (or meditation) and activity determine our thoughts at the time of death. Even in everyday life, the analogy of a car shows how reincarnation is quite fair. For example, it is unsuitable to use a small, compact car like a Lamborghini to transport furniture, because that car is more suitable for looking good and racing. Hence, nature would impel us to get a lorry, because it’s suitable for moving heavy items. In the same way, if we use a lorry to race, nature would impel us to give up the lorry and buy a small, aerodynamic car like a Lamborghini – because the car is more suitable for our intended purpose.

This begs the question of what the purpose of human life is. The answer is given in the Vedic scripture, the Vedanta Sutra, that the aim is brahma jijnasa or self-realisation. In other words, the human form of life is given so that we may connect with God through service. If we cultivate this purpose then we are at least guaranteed to again receive a human form.

Now one can address whether there is any scientific evidence for reincarnation. There is plenty of scientific evidence which at least suggests that reincarnation is a reality. Dr Ian Stevenson has undertaken many studies on past life experiences. His approach is two-fold:

(i) Rejection of unreliable evidence

There are many so-called memories of past lives described via hypnotic regression, where the patient is told to relax his physical and subtle body in order to access deep-rooted memories of past lives. The problem with this approach is that many people have a condition called false memory syndrome where they play out some fantasy or ideal previous life as somebody famous. For instance, many women who have been regressed have described themselves as Cleopatra! Very rarely does one get normal lives of insignificant people being described. Consequently, Dr. Stevenson rejected this source of evidence.

(ii) Spontaneous memories described by children

Many children have at a very young age given accurate details of the name, lifestyle, circumstances of death and explicit details of their family members from a previous life. In fact many of these claims have been corroborated by those studying the cases. This body of evidence is much harder to refute and cannot be rejected due to the accuracy of the information, especially when forensic evidence exists in some cases (see http://www.childpastlives.org/titu.htm)

There is also one class of evidence from past life regression which cannot be rejected because of the accuracy of the regression. One case was described where the patient regressed claimed he was living in the ancient civilisation of West Mesopotamia. He was able to speak fluently in the language, accent and dialect of the ancient civilisation, and expert historical linguists were able to verify that language being spoken was from ancient Mesopotamia. In fact, the linguists had described how it is almost impossible to have studied and learnt the language in a modern day context, because even the expert linguists themselves only understand some aspects of the language. This all suggests that the knowledge of the language must have originated in a previous life.

Practical benefits of knowledge of reincarnation

(i) Accountability

It ensures no-one is denied their reward for good actions and negative reaction for bad actions. In other words, we have a logical reason for treating others the way we would like to be treated ourselves.

(ii) Endeavour

It makes people work hard in order to achieve success according to the potential of their karmic credit.

(iii) Bad Karma

This explains why some good people suffer bad things – due to actions they are unaware of from their previous lives.

Transcending Karma

Some of our karma is predetermined as fixed karma, as has already been explained. In addition, although we can change our future by performing good acts, thus increasing our karmic credit, this doesn’t change the fact that in this life we are somewhat limited to our available karmic credit. There is however activity which gives no karmic credit at all, called akarma. This activity is spiritual in quality because the activity is done for the pleasure of God. That which is spiritual is not limited by material laws. In fact, this activity not only prevents material reactions but also burns off bad karma which we are otherwise due to experience. It is the way of life described by Lord Jesus in the Bible as being ‘in the world but not of the world’. The movie, The Matrix, is a good analogy for this concept. When Neo knows that he is plugged in to the Matrix, he is acting in the Matrix from a higher dimension and so is not affected by many of the laws of the Matrix – thus he performs superhuman feats etc. In a similar way, to the extent that we are engaged in spiritual activities, which can include working, studying and maintaining a family, we are accessing the material dimension from a higher spiritual vantage point and so are not affected by the same material laws of action and reaction.

The example is given of the difference between a prisoner and the visitor. The prisoner is bound by the laws of the prison, but the visitor is free to leave at any moment. The important consideration is our motive, so we might be engaged as a businessman, but still be engaged in the service of God. As one recalls to the beginning of the topic, our karma can be effected by actions and desires (mentality). For example, the Vedic literatures explain how a great devotee of the Lord, King Bharata, due to attachment for a deer, thought of the deer at the time of death and so reincarnated as a deer. Similarly, somebody who is disabled may not be disabled due to past sinful actions, but may for example have been meditating on a disabled relative at the time of death in a previous life.

Spiritual intelligence is the key to transcending karma. When an external reaction comes to someone who may not be totally self-realised, because of getting spiritual guidance, he will be able to use the reaction in service of the Lord or reject it and thus transcend karma.

Buddhism
Since according to Buddhism there is no permanent and unchanging soul there is no metempsychosis in the strict sense. However, Buddhism never rejected samsara, the process of rebirth or reincarnation; there is debate, however, over what is transmitted between lives.

See also: Rebirth (Buddhist)

In spite of the doctrinal beliefs against the idea of a soul, Tibetan Buddhists do believe that a new-born child may be the reincarnation of someone departed. In Tibetan Buddhism the soul of an important lama (like the Dalai Lama) is supposed to pass into an infant born nine months after his decease.

The Buddha has this to say on reincarnation. Kutadanta continued: “Thou believest, O Master, that beings are reborn; that they migrate in the evolution of life; and that subject to the law of karma we must reap what we sow. Yet thou teachest the non-existence of the soul! Thy disciples praise utter self-extinction as the highest bliss of Nirvana. If I am merely a combination of the sankharas, my existence will cease when I die. If I am merely a compound of sensations and ideas and desires, wither can I go at the dissolution of the body?” [7] Said the Blessed One: “O Brahman, thou art religious and earnest. Thou art seriously concerned about thy soul. Yet is thy work in vain because thou art lacking in the one thing that is needful. [8] “There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self. Thy thought-forms reappear, but there is no egoentity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the word. [9]

Jainism
In Jainism, not only animals and humans but devas (gods) also reincarnate after they die. A Jainist, who accumulates enough good karma, may become a god; but, this is generally seen as undesirable since gods eventually die and one might then come back as a lesser being.

Ayyavazhi
Ayyavazhi says all souls are continuously reborn unless they reach Dharma Yukam, a state of union with God.

Western religions and traditions
Classical Greek philosophy
Some ancient Greek philosophers believed in reincarnation; see for example Plato’s Phaedo and The Republic. Pythagoras was probably the first Greek philosopher to advance the idea.

We do not know exactly how the doctrine of metempsychosis arose in Greece; most scholars do not believe it was borrowed from Egypt or that it somehow was transmitted from ancient Hindu thinkers of India. It is easiest to assume that earlier ideas which had never been extinguished were utilized for religious and philosophic purposes. The Orphic religion, which held it, first appeared in Thrace upon the semi-barbarous north-eastern frontier. Orpheus, its legendary founder, is said to have taught that soul and body are united by a compact unequally binding on either; the soul is divine, immortal and aspires to freedom, while the body holds it in fetters as a prisoner. Death dissolves this compact, but only to re-imprison the liberated soul after a short time: for the wheel of birth revolves inexorably. Thus the soul continues its journey, alternating between a separate unrestrained existence and fresh reincarnation, round the wide circle of necessity, as the companion of many bodies of men and animals.” To these unfortunate prisoners Orpheus proclaims the message of liberation, that they stand in need of the grace of redeeming gods and of Dionysus in particular, and calls them to turn to God by ascetic piety of life and self-purification: the purer their lives the higher will be their next reincarnation, until the soul has completed the spiral ascent of destiny to live for ever as God from whom it comes. Such was the teaching of Orphism which appeared in Greece about the 6th century BC, organized itself into private and public mysteries at Eleusis and elsewhere, and produced a copious literature.

The earliest Greek thinker with whom metempsychosis is connected is Pherecydes; but Pythagoras, who is said to have been his pupil, is its first famous philosophic exponent. Pythagoras probably neither invented the doctrine nor imported it from Egypt, but made his reputation by bringing Orphic doctrine from North-Eastern Hellas to Magna Graecia and by instituting societies for its diffusion.

The real weight and importance of metempsychosis in Western tradition is due to its adoption by Plato. Had he not embodied it in some of his greatest works it would be merely a matter of curious investigation for the Western anthropologist and student of folk-lore. In the eschatological myth which doses the Republic he tells the story how Er, the son of Armenius, miraculously returned to life on the twelfth day after death and recounted the secrets of the other world. After death, he said, he went with others to the place of Judgment and saw the souls returning from heaven and from purgatory, and proceeded with them to a place where they chose new lives, human and animal. He saw the soul of Orpheus changing into a swan, Thamyras becoming a nightingale, musical birds choosing to be men, the soul of Atalanta choosing the honours of an athlete. Men were seen passing into animals and wild and tame animals changing into each other. After their choice the souls drank of Lethe and then shot away like stars to their birth. There are myths and theories to the same effect in other dialogues, the Phaedrus, Meno, Phaedo, Timaeus and Laws. In Plato’s view the number of souls was fixed; birth therefore is never the creation of a soul, but only a transmigration from one body to another. Plato’s acceptance of the doctrine is characteristic of his sympathy with popular beliefs and desire to incorporate them in a purified form into his system. Aristotle, a far less emotional and sympathetic mind, has a doctrine of immortality totally inconsistent with it.

In later Greek literature the doctrine appears from time to time; it is mentioned in a fragment of Menander (the Inspired Woman) and satirized by Lucian (Gallus 18 seq.). In Roman literature it is found as early as Ennius, who in his Calabrian home must have been familiar with the Greek teachings which had descended to his times from the cities of Magna Graecia. In a lost passage of his Annals, a Roman history in verse, Ennius told how he had seen Homer in a dream, who had assured him that the same soul which had animated both the poets had once belonged to a peacock. Persius in one of his satires (vi. 9) laughs at Ennius for this: it is referred to also by Lucretius (i. 124) and by Horace (Epist. II. i. 52). Virgil works the idea into his account of, the Underworld in the sixth book of the Aeneid (vv. 724 sqq.). It persists in antiquity down to the latest classic thinkers, Plotinus and the other Neoplatonists.

Judaism and Kabbalah
Classic works of the Kabbalah, Shaar ha Gilgulim (”Gate of Reincarnations”) of Arizal or Isaac Luria, describes complex laws of reincarnation gilgul and impregnation ibbur of 5 different parts of the soul. It shows many references of reincarnation in the Hebrew Bible (the Tanach).

The notion of reincarnation is not openly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The classical rabbinic works (midrash, Mishna and Talmud) also are silent on this topic.

The concept was elucidated in an influential mystical work called the Bahir (Illumination) (one of the most ancient books of Jewish mysticism) which was composed by the first century mystic Nehunia ben haKana, and gained widespread recognition around 1150. After the publication of the Zohar in the late 13th century, the idea of reincarnation spread to most of the general Jewish community.

While ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates attempted to prove the existence of reincarnation through philosophical proofs, Jewish mystics who accepted this idea did not. Rather, they offered explanations of why reincarnation would solve otherwise intractable problems of theodicy (how to reconcile the existence of evil with the premise of a good God.)

Rabbis who accepted the idea of reincarnation include Levi ibn Habib (the Ralbah), Nahmanides (the Ramban), Rabbenu Bahya ben Asher, Rabbi Shelomoh Alkabez and Rabbi Hayyim Vital. The argument made was that even the most righteous of Jews sometimes would suffer or be murdered unjustly. Further, children would sometimes suffer or be murdered, yet they were obviously too young for them to have committed sins that God would presumably punish them for. Jewish supporters of reincarnation said that this idea would remove the theodicy: Good people were not suffering; rather, they were reincarnations of people who had sinned in previous lifetimes. Therefore any suffering which was observed could be assumed to be from a just God. Yitzchak Blua writes “Unlike some other areas of philosophy where the philosophic battleground revolves around the truth or falsehood of a given assertion, the gilgul debate at points focuses on the psychological needs of the people.”

Other rabbis who rejected the idea of reincarnation include Hasdai Crescas, Yedayah Bedershi (early 14th century), Joseph Albo, Abraham ibn Daud and Leon de Modena. Crescas writes that if reincarnation was real, people should remember details of their previous lives. Bedershi offers three reasons why the entire concept is dangerous: (a) There is no reason for people to try and do good in this life, if they fear that they will nonetheless be punished for some unknown sin committed in a past life. (b) Some people may assume that they did not sin in their past life, and so can coast on their success; thus there is no need to try hard to live a good life. In Bedershi’s view, the only psychologically tenable worldview for a healthy life is to deal with the here-and-now. (c) The idea presents a conundrum for those who believe that at the end of days, God will resurrect the souls and physical bodies of the dead. If a person has lived multiple lives, which body will God resurrect? Joseph Albo writes that in theory the idea of gilgulim is compatible with Jewish theology. However, Albo argues that there is a purpose for a soul to enter the body, creating a being with free will. However, a return of the soul to another body, again and again, has no point. Leon De Moden thinks that the idea of reincarnation make a mockery of God’s plans for humans; why does God need to send the soul back over and over? If God requires an individual to achieve some perfection or atone for some sin, then God can just extend that person’s life until they have time to do what is necessary. de Modena’s second argument against reincarnation is that the entire concept is absent from the entire Bible and corpus of classical rabbinic literature.

The idea of reincarnation, called gilgul, became popular in folk belief, and is found in much Yiddish literature among Ashkenazi Jews. Among a few kabbalists, it was posited that some human souls could end up being reincarnated into non-human bodies. These ideas can be found in a number of Kabbalistic works from the 1200s, and also among many mystics in the late 1500s. A distinction was made, however, between actual Transmigration and this form of reincarnation; the non-human subject had its own soul already, the human soul simply ‘rode along with’ the rock, or tree, or giraffe waiting to be ‘elevated,’ that is, to be raised to a higher level and to gradually approach the level of human again. The cow eats the grass, elevating the soul within it, the soul rides with the cow a while until a person eats the cow, and the soul is elevated to the max. Rabbi Chaim Vidal, when asked how he came to be the foremost desciple and sole transmitter of the teachings of his teacher, the great Issac Luria, credits, not study or mitzvot, but his diligence in blessing his food: “For this way I elevate the souls therein. These souls then become my witnesses in the Heavenly Realm, and empower me to receive even greater revelations.”

“Over time however, the philosophical teaching limiting reincarnation to human bodies emerged as the dominant view. Nonetheless, the idea that one can reborn as an animal was never completely eliminated from Jewish thought, and appears centuries later in the Eastern European folk tradition”. [Simcha Paull-Raphael,Jewish Views of the Afterlife, p.319]

While many Jews today do not believe in reincarnation, the belief is common amongst Orthodox Jews, particularly amongst Hasidim; some Hasidic siddurim (prayerbooks) have a prayer asking for forgiveness for one’s sins that one may have committed in this gilgul or a previous one.

Gnosticism
Many Gnostic groups believed in reincarnation. For them, reincarnation was a negative concept: Gnostics believed that the material body was evil, and that they would be better off if they could eventually avoid having their ‘good’ souls reincarnated in ‘evil’ bodies.

The Gnostic Gospel of the Nazirenes - Chapter 69:

1. As Yeshua sat by the west of the temple with his disciples, behold there passed some carrying one that was dead, to burial, and a certain one said to Him, “Master, if a man die, shall he live again?”
2. He answered and said, “I am the resurrection and the life, I am the good, the beautiful, the true; if a man believe in me he shall not die, but live eternally. As in Adam all (1997 = are bound to cycles of rebirth) die, so in the Messiah shall all be made alive. Blessed are the dead who die in me, and are made perfect in my image and likeness, for they rest from their labors and their works do follow them. They have overcome evil, and are made pillars in the temple of my God, and they go out no more, for they rest in the eternal.”
3. “For them that persist in evil there is no rest, but they go out and in, and suffer correction for ages, till they are made perfect. But for them that have done good and attained to perfection, there is endless rest and they go into life everlasting. They rest in the eternal.”
4. “Over them the repeated death and birth have no power, for them the wheel of the eternal revolves no more, for they have attained to the center, where is eternal rest, and the center of all things is God.”
Note: The text above is not from the original Gospel of the Nazirenes, which now exists only in fragments. Rather, it is the product of “channeling” and of recent origin.

The texts contains several parallels to the Gospels, which are, though, traditionally interpreted differently in their context:

“I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. John 11:25f RSV
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. Revelation 3:12 (NIV)

Christianity
There is a common mistaken belief to the effect that “the early Christian church taught reincarnation.” Two Church Fathers, Origen and Clement of Alexandria are frequently cited as supporting this. However, even casual examination of their writings reveals clear and heated rejection of reincarnation. Origen believed in the preexistence of souls, a different concept. The doctrine of a physical resurrection, incompatible with reincarnation, was established as early as St. Paul, as well as, of course, in the Gospels themselves. See Bible and Reincarnation.

Islam
The Quran says, “God generates beings and sends them back over and over again until they return to him”. The Sufis as a group attempted strongly to preserve this belief in reincarnation, in the East.

First American Nations
Reincarnation is an intrinsic part of many Native American and Inuit traditions. Regardless of the actual religious beliefs and practices of today’s Native Americans, with varying religious beliefs, the idea has survived for centuries. In the now heavily Christian Polar North (now mainly parts of Greenland and Nunavut), the concept of reincarnation is enshrined in the Inuit language. The survival of the concept of reincarnation applies across the Nations in varying degrees of integrity. The Nations are, of course, now sandwiched between Eastern [Native] and Western traditions.

Norse mythology
Reincarnation also appears in Norse mythology, in the Poetic Edda. The editor of the Poetic Edda informs the reader that Helgi Hjörvarðsson and his mistress, the valkyrie Sváva, whose love story is told in the Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, were reborn as Helgi Hundingsbane and the valkyrie Sigrún. Helgi and Sigrún’s love story is the matter of a part of the Völsunga saga and the lays Helgakviða Hundingsbana I and II. They were reborn a second time as Helgi Haddingjaskati and the valkyrie Kára, but unfortunately their story, Káruljóð, only survives in a probably modified form in the Hrómundar saga Gripssonar.

Contemporary movements and thinkers

New religious movements
At the Renaissance we find the doctrine in Giordano Bruno, and in the 17th century in the theosophist van Helmont. During the classical period of German literature metempsychosis attracted much attention: Goethe played with the idea, and it was taken up more seriously by Lessing, who borrowed it from Charles Bonnet, and by Herder. It has been mentioned with respect by Hume and by Schopenhauer. Modern theosophy, which draws its inspiration from India, has taken metempsychosis (or rather reincarnation) as a cardinal tenet; it is, says a recent theosophical writer, “the master-key to modern problems,” and among them to the problem of heredity. The idea of reincarnation is also part of the New Age culture.

Today, among newer movements, belief in reincarnation is widespread in New Age and Neopagan circles. It is an important tenet of Theosophy, and central to Spiritism, founded by Allan Kardec.

Toward the Light is an example of a contemporary work originating in the western world, which very detailed accounts for reincarnation.

Scientology*

Scientology is another new religion that accepts past lives and holds that all beings are truly immortal, although in a variety of levels of awareness. In Scientology,without karma or personal wisdom, a person’s own actions, reactions, and decisions are sufficient to ensure a great deal of adventure, boredom, and strife, along with all the combinations of problems that can be experienced in life. In this context, a lack of personal responsibility and other factors can act together to create something that is similar to karma in other belief systems.

Scientology does not focus on the doctrine of karma as commonly believed (i.e. a mechanism of divine justice). The term karma is not generally used.

The first writings in Scientology regarding past lives date from around 1951 and slightly earlier. The controversy brought the subject to public awareness, and was followed by such cases (not related to Scientology) as Bridey Murphy in 1952

Much of the controversy involving Scientology arises from the logical extension of the concept of past lives to what is effectively eternity. In this context, past lives not only take place prior to Earth, but also in non-Earth civilizations, and even in universes prior to this one, where conditions and rules of existence can be different. One could even have past lives in civilizations where advanced technology was common and/or routine. Thus a person who once lived in a world destroyed by nuclear war could become upset living in a world where nuclear power has been re-discovered.

Scientology does not look to Theosophical writings for explanations on the system of past lives, or for a cosmology. Scientology does not assume that beings in the between life area necessarily have the best interests of the individual at heart (it varies), and that the path to increased awareness is not a guaranteed thing.

Scientology also holds that people are composite beings, in that there is a body awareness which can have recalls in parallel to the genetic line. This entity is separate and distinctly different from the spirit, called a thetan in Scientology. Scientology procedures exist to address this body level awareness, although primary consideration is given to the liberation of the Spirit.

Scientology does not consider the lack of awareness of past lives to be a good thing. It attributes the general amnesia of past lives to a variety of causes, including, but not limited to, pain, unconsciusness, lack of personal responsibility, and even the decision to forget what had just transpired.

Seth Jane Roberts
In the Seth series of books Jane Roberts talks about reincarnation and life after death. Seth believed that time and space are basically illusions. Consistent with this view, Seth argues that only parts of each person incarnate (appear in physical reality). This last argument is part of Seth’s view that man is a multi-dimensional entity simultaneously alive in many contexts.

The New Age movement*
There are many people nowadays who allegedly “remember” their past lives and use that knowledge to help them with their current lives; this kind of occurrence is fairly central to the New Age faith. Some of the people who remember claim simply to remember without any effort on their part. They simply “see” previous times and see themselves interacting with others.

Common variations in the belief
In recalling past lives, there are a number of variations that need to be examined, which are important to its adherants.

In the Urantia* Book, reincarnation is does not always happen. Reincarnation takes place among those souls who have devined the divine meaning and purpose and signification of their life, basically having evolved sufficiently to awaken some form of immortal awareness. Otherwise, death is a permanent affair. The cosmology of the Urantia Book is very complex, but is similar in some regards to the system seen in Theosophy.

Theosophical texts maintain that people are constantly evolving, gradually becoming one of the Ascended Masters. In this system, one may be incarnated anyplace in the chain of life, and this is often in connection with life lessons that need to be learned. One often meets with ones spirit guides, one of the Ascended masters, etc. in order to plan the major events for the next life. The element of karma in reincarnation is often seen as a system of devine justice. See also Elizabeth Clare Prophet for a modern exponent of Theosophy.

In many common new age beliefs, past life recalls involving lifetimes within the historical record (real or supposed, including legendary places such as Atlantis) are commonly accepted. It is sometimes beliefed that prior to that there was a succession of lifetimes in other lifeforms where one was working to become Human. Lifetimes outside the context of earth are rarely acknowledged.

Often, the doctrine of karma as commonly believed is seen to be a mechanism of divine justice, imposed or enforced by rules of the universe. One variation is what one does, comes back to you multiplied three fold.

In Tibetan Buddhism one finds the concept of the Six Worlds, where dependant on the quality of one merit or karma, one is re-incarnated as a citizen of one of the six Worlds, these being the world of Gods, World of DemiGods, World of Men, World of Animals, world of Demons, and the world of Hell. The advantadge of the Human realm is that this is the only place where it is possible to achieve enlightenment, and so pass beyond the cycle of suffering. Incarnations in other realms and worlds are acknowledged, but usually this is considered so long ago that it is not very relevant.

Theosophical and other related beliefs systems explain the common inability to not remember past lives as a part of the devine plan, and that this is a good thing for a variety of reasons.

An interesting variation can be seen in the work of Author Peter Novak[1], who proposes that reincarnation is part of a larger scheme, where soul and spirit are two different entities, united as one during one’s lifetime, and which separate at death, in a process he calls consciousness division or Division Theory. The division of consciousness is not considered to be a good thing.

Evidence of reincarnation
The most detailed collections of personal reports in favor of reincarnation have been published by Dr. Ian Stevenson in works such as Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects, which documents thousands of detailed cases where claims of injuries received in past lives sometimes correlate with atyptical physical birthmarks or birth defects.

Perhaps the most significant anecdotal evidence in this regard is the phenomenon of young children spontaneously sharing what appear to be memories of past lives, a phenomenon which has been reported even in cultures that do not hold to a belief in reincarnation. Upon investigating these claims, Stevenson and others have identified individuals who had died a few years before the child was born who seem to meet the descriptions the children provided.

In the most compelling cases, autopsy photographs reveal that the deceased individuals have fatal injuries that correspond to the unusual marks or birth defects of the child; for example, marks on the chest and back of a child line up precisely with the bullet entry and exit wounds on the body of an individual who has been shot.

However, Stevenson cautions that such evidence is suggestive of reincarnation, but that more research must be conducted.

One hypothesis that comes from the channeller Diandra is past life injuries are stored in the cellular memory of a person’s body that can show as birth marks. These cellular memories can also be triggered this lifetime at the same age it occurred in a past lifetime. Diandra cites one example where she was doing a channelled personal session for a doctor that did not believe in channelling or past lives but came to the personal session because his wife wanted him to. The doctor started crying when Diandra moved into a past life where he died of a heart attack at age forty. The doctor revealed he was a heart doctor who had a heart attack at forty this lifetime. Diandra goes on to say that past life cellular memory can be healed and does not have to be repeated. In another personal channelled session Diandra moved into a past lifetime of a women that was in the 1930’s dust bowl. The women stopped Diandra and told her she has a fetish of coming home from work everyday and dusting.

Objections to reincarnation
Objections to metempsychosis include: that personal identity depends on memory, and we do not remember our previous incarnations. An answer given by Hindu philosophers (like Swami Vivekananda) is that though we do not remember our infanthood, we cannot deny its reality. Another common answer is that this perforce requires the limiting of memory to the known life, thus creating a circular argument; the past life cannot be real because they are not remembered, because whatever it is that is claimed to be a memory does not meet the definition of memory as belonging to this life only, and therefore cannot be considered a memory.

Another philosophical answer is that the soul, or whatever it is that lives these hypothetical multiple lives, is influenced throughout all its qualities by the qualities of the body, and as bodies vary, whatever travels between them would not be the same consciousness. If the soul of a dog were to pass into a man’s body, the argument goes, it would have to be so changed as to be no longer the same soul; and so, in a less degree, of change from one human’s body to another.

René Guénon and others maintain that Reincarnation is both a recent concept (created in the 1800 by Spiritists and Theosophists) and distinct from both metempsychosis (which he describes as an influence from psychic residue that does not involve any true soul or personal essence) and transmigration (which for him, while often mistaken with reincarnation, actually describes the change of a once-corporeal being into some other non-corporeal state). That viewpoint is detailed in his 1923 book “The Spiritist Fallacy”.

Some scientists and skeptics, such as Paul Edwards, have analyzed many of these anecdotal accounts. In every case they found that further research into the individuals involved provides sufficient background to weaken the conclusion that these cases are credible examples of reincarnation. Others, such as philosopher Robert Almeder, having analyzed the criticisms of Edwards and others, say that the gist of these arguments can be summarized as “we all know it can’t possibly be real, so therefore it isn’t real”, a well known logical fallacy traditionally called an Argument from Lack of Imagination.

Critics who claim that reincarnation is impossible often espouse the alternate theory that a large number of mental phenomena such as memory and ability are already accounted for by physiological processes; and may point to moral and practical inconsistencies in the various theories of reincarnation. To the materialistic mind, Occam’s Razor would then seem to dictate that the critical view is to be preferred, as it demands no extraordinary new evidence beyond what is already known to science.

A more skeptical view is that without conclusive evidence showing that reincarnation exists (regardless of the current state of science), the theory of reincarnation cannot be considered to be a valid theory worthy of formal scientific recognition and acceptance.

Some skeptics explain the abundance of claims of evidence for reincarnation to originate from selective thinking and the psychological phenomena of false memories that often result from one’s own belief system and basic fears, and thus cannot be accounted as empirical evidence.

Another argument often made is that claims of reincarnation by casual adherents are usually of having been some famous historical figure instead of being another animal or an insignificant person. This argument, however, is seldom substantiated with a quantitative count of famous and non-famous reincarnation claims, and many accounts are of peasant or other little known people.

Because of such skepticism, many people who feel they may have lived a past life tend to be quite circumspect which whom they discuss this.

Theories put forward to explain the phenomenon

A theory of reincarnation
A belief in reincarnation does not discount the existence of heaven, hell, or a final judgment. There are a number of small children who have reported having memories of past lives prior to their present life, and some also report being able to recall a time between lives (see books by Dr. Ian Stevenson, Carol Bowman, Dr. Jim B. Tucker, and Elisabeth Hallett). In some cases these children have also reported being in a place like heaven between lives, and sometimes that they were given some degree of choice as to whether and when to be reborn, and even in selecting their future parents.

Some of these children claim that being reborn is not necessarily a punishment for past bad “karma”, but rather an opportunity for a soul to grow spiritually. Additional lifetimes could give individual souls a greater opportunity to accomplish more for God, if that is a person’s goal, and to develop better character traits. Eastern views of reincarnation vary and several parallels with this idea are to be found in certain branches of Hinduism and Buddhism.

A more dramatic idea is espoused in at least one account, of a woman who was raped at age 37, and was treated amongst other ways, with regression therapy. It seems she was attempted to be regressed prior to her birth, and reported that she had decided that a traumatic incident would be needed at around that time, to change her life from its previous path. If such accounts were true, they would have profound implications for human life.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Reincarnation”.

* Much, but not all of the New Age movement, Scientology and Urantia do not calibrate over 200.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I’ve always loved using Occam’s Razor Principle. Most times in our lives when we’re thinking of a solution to an issue, using the KISS method is the best. When using the principle in the spiritual world, it’s also called for. When in doubt…God and Truth. Can we get much simpler?
Myswizard

Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor (also spelled Ockham’s Razor), is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam’s Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [Latin]
which translates to

Multiples should not be used if not needed.
But a more commonly used translation is:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (non-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferred.

Variations
The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”, but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Occam’s surviving writings. This also applies to non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as “pluralities ought not be supposed without necessity”.

This can be interpreted in two subtly different ways. One is a preference for the simplest theory that adequately accounts for the data. Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory which accounts for the data. The difference is simply that it is possible for two different theories to explain the data equally well, but have no relation to one another. They share none of the same elements. Some would argue that in this case Occam’s Razor does not suggest a preference. Rather Occam’s Razor only comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power. Occam’s Razor neatly cuts these additional theoretical elements away.

The principle of Occam’s Razor has inspired numerous expressions including: “parsimony of postulates”, the “principle of simplicity”, the “KISS principle” (keep it simple, stupid), and in some medical schools “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras”.

A re-statement of Occam’s Razor, in more formal terms, is provided by information theory in the form of minimum message length.

“When deciding between two models which make equivalent predictions, choose the simpler one,” makes the point that a simpler model that doesn’t make equivalent predictions is not among the models that this criterion applies to in the first place. [1]

Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) lived after Occam’s time and has a variant of Occam’s razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Occam’s Razor is now usually stated as follows:

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton’s version may be better:

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
In the spirit of Occam’s Razor itself, the rule is sometimes stated as:

The simplest explanation is usually the best.
This is an over-simplification, or at least a little misleading. See below, “In science”.

This rephrasing has several faults, the worst being that Occam’s razor is only supposed to be used to choose between two scientific theories which are otherwise equally predictive. The second problem with the “simplest is best” equation is that Occam’s razor never claims to choose the ‘best’ theory, but only proposes simplicity as the deciding factor in choosing between two otherwise equal theories. It’s possible that, given more information, the more complex theory might turn out to be correct the majority of the time. Occam’s razor makes no explicit claims as to whether or not this will happen, but prompts us to use the simpler theory until we have reason to do otherwise.

The earliest versions of the razor clearly imply that if a more complex theory is “necessary” then it need not be invalid. Perhaps a better way to state it is: “a correct theory of phenomena is only as complex as is necessary–and no more so– to explain said phenomena.”

William of Ockham
History
William of Ockham (c.1285–1349) is usually credited with formulating the razor that bears his name, which is typically phrased “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” In Latin, “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”. However this phrase does not appear in any of his extant writings. It is not until 1639 that this phrasing was coined by John Ponce of Cork. There are a variety of similar phrases such as “frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” - “in vain we do by many which can be done by means of fewer”; “non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate” - “pluralities ought not be supposed without necessity”; “si duae res sufficient ad ejus veritatem, superfluum est ponere aliam (tertiam) rem” - “if two things are sufficient for the purpose of truth, it is superfluous to suppose another”.

The origins of what has come to be known as Occam’s razor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers such as John Duns Scotus (1265–1308) and even as early as Aristotle (384–322 BC) (Charlesworth, 1956). Even the name ‘Occam’s Razor’ was unknown to William. This phrase does not appear until the 19th century in the works of Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1805–1865). It is perhaps how often and effectively he used it that accounts for its association with Ockham. See Roger Ariew’s dissertation of 1976, Ockham’s Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis of Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony and W. M. Thornburn’s The Myth of Occam’s Razor.

Justifications
Occam’s Razor is known by several different names including the Principle of Parsimony, the Principle of Simplicity, and the Principle of Economy. The reason for these alternative names can be explained by the association of simplicity and parsimony with Occam’s Razor. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Occam’s Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Occam’s Razor is a metaphysics principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Occam’s Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Occam’s Razor is currently conceived of as a methodological principle. Elliott Sober has expressed dissatisfaction with epistemological justifications for Occam’s Razor. He thinks that there must be a metaphysical presupposition for Occam’s Razor, but offers no possibilities (Sober, 1990).

For a summary of epistemological justifications for Occam’s Razor see Roger Ariew’s dissertation of 1976 “Ockham’s Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis of Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony”.

Chatton’s Anti-razor
Walter of Chatton was a contemporary of William of Ockham (1287-1347) who took exception to Occam’s Razor and Ockham’s use of it. In response he devised his own anti-razor: “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on”. Although there have been a number of philosophers who have formulated similar anti-razors since Chatton’s time, Chatton’s anti-razor has not known anything like the success of Occam’s Razor. Among those who have coined their own anti-razors are Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and Karl Menger (20th century). Leibniz’s version took the form of a principle of plenitude as Arthur Lovejoy has called it. The idea behind the principle was that God created the world with the most possible creatures. Kant felt a need to moderate the effects of Occam’s Razor and thus created his own counter razor: “The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished.” Karl Menger found mathematicians to be too parsimonious with regard to variables so he formulated his Law Against Miserliness which took one of two forms: “Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy” and “It is vain to do with fewer what requires more”. See Ockham’s Razor and Chatton’s Anti-Razor (1984) by Armand Maurer. A less serious, but (some might say) even more extremist anti-razor is Pataphysics, the “science of imaginary solutions” invented by Alfred Jarry (1873-1907). Perhaps the ultimate in anti-reductionism, Pataphysics seeks no less than to view each event in the universe as completely unique, subject to no laws but its own. Variations on this theme were subsequently explored by the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges in his story/mock-essay Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. There is also Crabtree’s Bludgeon, which takes a cynical view that ‘No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated.’

In science
Occam’s Razor has become a basic perspective for those who follow the scientific method. It is important to note that it is a heuristic argument that does not necessarily give correct answers; it is a loose guide to choosing the scientific hypothesis which (currently) contains the least number of unproven assumptions. Often, several hypotheses are equally “simple” and Occam’s Razor does not express any preference in such cases.

At the same time, without the principle of Occam’s Razor science does not exist. The primary activity of science, formulating theories and selecting the most promising theory based on analysis of collected evidence, is not possible without some method of selecting between theories which do fit the evidence. This is because, for every set of data, there are an infinite number of theories which are consistent with those data (this is known as the Underdetermination Problem). As an example, perhaps you are investigating Newton’s famous theory that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It’s easy to think of alternative theories which fit the data equally well. One such theory would be that for every action there is an opposite action of half intensity, but benevolent indetectable creatures magnify the opposing action with input of their own energy so it appears to be equal. These creatures will all die in the year 2055, and at that point the observable nature of the universe will instantly shift. This is an alternative theory which fits currently observable evidence just as well as Newton’s theory. Furthermore we are currently unable to collect any evidence that one theory is superior to the other. Because the second theory states these creatures are undetectable, we cannot have any evidence to distinguish between the two theories until 2055. Furthermore, each theory has profoundly different implications for what we should expect of the future (for example, we may choose to live our lives differently if we know that life as we know it will cease in the year 2055). And finally, it can easily be seen that there are an infinite number of competing theories by uncreatively incrementing the year. 2056 is another theory. 2057 is another theory, and so on. Because there are an infinite number of theories which fit any body of evidence equally well, and all make radically different predictions, if science cannot choose between them, then science can never determine any useful theories. So far the only known way to usefully choose between the infinite number of theories which fit a body of evidence is Occam’s Razor. For this reason Occam’s Razor is seen as an indispensable aspect of science, without which science ceases to function entirely.

Occam’s Razor is not equivalent to the idea that “perfection is simplicity”. Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that “The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience” often paraphrased as “Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because it requires fewer assumptions. Some people have oversimplified Occam’s Razor as “The simplest explanation is the best (or true) one”.

There are two senses in which Occam’s Razor can be seen at work in the history of science. One is ontological reduction by elimination and the other is by intertheoretic competition. In the former case the following are examples of reduction by elimination: The impetus of Aristotelian Physics, the angelic motors of medieval celestial mechanics, the four humors of ancient and medieval medicine, demonic possession as an explanation of mental illness, Phlogiston from premodern chemistry, and vital spirits of premodern Biology.

In the latter case there are three examples from the history of science where the simpler of two competing theories each of which explains all the observed phenomena has been chosen over its ontologically bloated competitor: the Copernican heliocentric model of celestial mechanics over the Ptolemaic geocentric model, the mechanical theory of heat over the Caloric theory, and the Einsteinian theory of electromagnetism over the luminiferous aether theory. In the first example, the Copernican model is said to have been chosen over the Ptolemaic due to its greater simplicity. The Ptolemaic model, in order to explain the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury relative to Venus, posited the existence of epicycles within the orbit of Mercury. The Copernican model (as expanded by Kepler) was able to account for this motion by displacing the Earth from the center of the solar system and replacing it with the sun as the orbital focus of planetary motions while simultaneously replacing the circular orbits of the Ptolemaic model with elliptical ones. In addition the Copernican model excluded any mention of the crystaline spheres that the planets were thought to be embedded in according the Ptolemaic model. In a single stroke the Copernican model reduced by a factor of two the ontology of Astronomy. According to the Caloric theory of heat, heat is a weightless substance that can travel from one object to another. This theory arose from the study of cannon boring and the invention of the steam engine. It was while studying cannon boring that Count Rumford made observations that conflicted with the Caloric theory and he formulated his mechanical theory to replace it. The Mechanical theory eliminated the Caloric and was ontologically simpler than its predecessor. During the 19th century Physicists believed that light required a medium of transmission much as sound waves do. It was hypothesized that a universal aether was such a medium and much effort was expended to detect it. In one of the most famous negative experiments in the history of science, the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to find any evidence of its existence. Einstein capitalized on this finding and constructed his theory without any reference to the Aether, thus providing another example of a theory chosen in part for its greater ontological simplicity.

In biology
Biologists or philosophers of biology use Occam’s Razor in either of two contexts both in evolutionary biology: the units of selection controversy and Systematics. George C. Williams in his book Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) argues that the best way to explain altruism among animals is based on low level (i.e. individual) selection as opposed to high level group selection. Altruism is defined as behavior that is beneficial to the group but not to the individual, and group selection is thought by some to be the evolutionary mechanism that selects for altruistic traits. Others posit individual selection as the mechanism which explains altruism solely in terms of the behaviors of individual organisms acting in their own self interest without regard to the group. The basis for Williams’s contention is that of the two, individual selection is the more parsimonious theory. In doing so he is invoking a variant of Occam’s Razor known as Lloyd Morgan’s Canon.

However, more recent work by biologists, such as Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene, has revealed that Williams’s view is not the simplest and most basic. Dawkins argues the way evolution works is that the genes that are propagated in most copies will end up determining the development of that particular species, i.e., natural selection acts to select specific genes, and this is really the fundamental underlying principle, that automatically gives individual and group selection as emergent features of evolution.

Zoology provides an example. Musk oxen, when threatened by wolves, will form a circle with the males on the outside and the females and young on the inside. This as an example of a behavior by the males that seems to be altruistic. The behavior is disadvantageous to them individually but beneficial to the group as a whole and was thus seen by some to support the group selection theory.

However, a much better explanation immediately offers itself once one considers that natural selection works on genes. If the male musk ox runs off, leaving his offspring to the wolves, his genes will not be propagated. If however he takes up the fight his genes will live on in his offspring. And thus the “stay-and-fight” gene prevails. This is an example of kin selection. An underlying general principle thus offers a much simpler explanation, without retreating to special principles as group selection.

Systematics is the branch of biology that attempts to establish genealogical relationships among organisms. It is also concerned with their classification. There are three primary camps in systematics; cladists, pheneticists, and evolutionary taxonomists. The cladists hold that genealogy alone should determine classification and pheneticists contend that similarity over propinquity of descent is the determining criterion while evolutionary taxonomists claim that both genealogy and similarity count in classification.

It is among the cladists that Occam’s razor is to be found, although their term for it is cladistic parsimony. Cladistic parsimony (or maximum parsimony) is a method of phylogenetic inference in the construction of cladograms. Cladograms are branching, tree-like structures used to represent lines of descent based on one or more evolutionary change(s). Cladistic parsimony is used to support the hypothesis(es) that require the fewest evolutionary changes. It should be noted that for some types of tree, it will consistently produce the wrong results regardless of how much data is collected (this is called long branch attraction). For a full treatment of cladistic parsimony see Elliott Sober’s Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference (1988). For a discussion of both uses of Occam’s Razor in Biology see Elliott Sober’s article Let’s Razor Occam’s Razor (1990).

Francis Crick has commented on potential limitations of Occam’s Razor in biology. He advances the argument that because biological systems are the products of (an on-going) natural selection, the mechanisms are not necessarily optimal in an obvious sense. He cautions: “While Occam’s razor is a useful tool in the physical sciences, it can be a very dangerous implement in biology. It is thus very rash to use simplicity and elegance as a guide in biological research.”

In medicine
When discussing Occam’s Razor in contemporary medicine, doctors and philosophers of medicine speak of diagnostic parsimony. Diagnostic parsimony advocates that when diagnosing a given injury, ailment, illness, or disease a doctor should strive to look for the fewest possible causes that will account for all the symptoms.

In philosophy of mind
Probably the first person to make use of the principle was Ockham himself. He writes “The source of many errors in philosophy is the claim that a distinct signified thing always corresponds to a distinct word in such a way that there are as many distinct entities being signified as there are distinct names or words doing the signifying.” (Summula Philosophiae Naturalis III, chap. 7, see also Summa Totus Logicae Bk I, C.51). We are apt to suppose that a word like “paternity” signifies some “distinct entity”, because we suppose that each distinct word signifies a distinct entity. This leads to all sorts of absurdities, such as “a column is to the right by to-the-rightness”, “God is creating by creation, is good by goodness, is just by justice, is powerful by power”, “an accident inheres by inherence”, “a subject is subjected by subjection”, “a suitable thing is suitable by suitability”, “a chimera is nothing by nothingness”, “a blind thing is blind by blindness”, ” a body is mobile by mobility”. We should say instead that a man is a father because he has a son (Summa C.51).

Another application of the principle is to be found in the work of George Berkeley (1685-1753). Berkeley was an idealist who believed that all of reality could be explained in terms of the mind alone. He famously invoked Occam’s Razor against Idealism’s metaphysical competitor materialism claiming that matter was not required by his metaphysic and was thus eliminable. Idealism has few adherents today and Berkeley’s arguments find few sympathetic ears.

In the 20th century Philosophy of Mind, Occam’s Razor found a champion in J.J.C. Smart, who in his article “Sensations and Brain Processes” (1959) claimed Occam’s Razor as the basis for his preference of the mind-brain identity theory over mind body dualism. Dualists claim that there are two kinds of substances in the universe: physical (including the body) and mental, which is nonphysical. In contrast identity theorists claim that everything is physical, including consciousness, and that there is nothing nonphysical. The basis for the materialist claim is that of the two competing theories, dualism and mind-brain identity, the identity theory is the simpler since it commits to fewer entities. Smart was criticized for his use of the razor and ultimately retracted his advocacy of it in this context.

Paul Churchland (1984) cites Occam’s Razor as the first line of attack against dualism, but admits that by itself it is inconclusive. The deciding factor for Churchland is the greater explanatory prowess of a materialist position in the Philosophy of Mind as informed by findings in neurobiology.

Dale Jacquette (1994) claims that Occam’s Razor is the rationale behind eliminativism and reductionism in the philosophy of mind. Eliminativism is the thesis that the ontology of folk psychology including such entities as “pain”, “joy”, “desire”, “fear”, etc., are eliminable in favor of an ontology of a completed neuroscience.

In religion
In the philosophy of religion Occam’s Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there doesn’t seem to be a need for God (to explain the universe), then God most likely doesn’t exist. None of these applications has been considered definitive because the competing assumptions are not (and perhaps cannot be) precisely defined. Also, it should be added that the principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the “truth”.

Galileo Galilei lampooned the misuse of Occam’s Razor in his Dialogue. The principle is represented in the dialogue by Simplicio. The telling point that Galileo presented ironically was that if you really wanted to start from a small number of entities, you could always consider the letters of the alphabet as the fundamental entities, since you could certainly construct the whole of human knowledge out of them (a view that Abraham Abulafia presented much more expansively).

Adding another layer of irony, many modern scientists and mathematicians seriously propose that the basic “entities” of reality may be “bits of information”, for example, the digits of binary code, in which case the entities of William of Ockham might be seen as foreshadowing the logic of George Boole and modern computing.

It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned to demonstrate that creation was contingent and the Creator free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences.

Perhaps the best formulation of Occam’s Razor is the one which states that, of equally good explanations for a phenomenon, the best one is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts.

Creationists sometimes attempt to apply Occam’s Razor in defence of geogenesis, claiming that theirs is the simpler theory as compared with evolution. This is actually a misunderstanding of Occam’s razor, as a “simpler” (defined as being short in description) theory is not necessarily true. Occam’s razor pertains to one not assuming more than what is needed.

Also, there is the question of whether a creator with sufficient intelligence and forethought is simpler than a model in which complexity spontaneously generates over geological timescales. In addition there is the question of whether Creationism actually accounts for the physical evidence; a matter which is currently debated. If it does not, then it is not an “equally predictive theory” and Occam’s Razor does not apply. Some people claim that attempting to apply Occam’s Razor to the past where it can only be applied retrospectively is erroneous; however, Occam’s razor is used extensively and successfully in data sets collected in both archaeology and astronomy.

In statistics
There are various papers in scholarly journals deriving versions of Occam’s Razor from probability theory and applying it in statistical inference, and also of various criteria for penalizing complexity in statistical inference. Recent papers have suggested a connection between Occam’s Razor and Kolmogorov complexity.

One of the problems with the original formulation of the principle is that it only applies to models with the same explanatory power (i.e. prefer the simplest of equally good models). A more general form of Occam’s Razor can be derived from Bayesian model comparison and Bayes factors, which can be used to compare models that don’t fit the data equally well. These methods can sometimes optimally balance the complexity and power of a model.

Many artificial intelligence researchers are now employing strongly probabilistic Bayesian techniques.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Occam’s Razor”.

Although there are forces and occurrences which are outside the realm of the linear, (which is our world as we experience it), I haven’t given a lot of space to this subject matter on my site for the reasons noted in my Mystical and Mysterious intro. I could most likely fascinate my readers with tales of mysteries and matters of the spirit and unknown realms. There are an infinite amount of so-called secrets and codes being glamorized for profit. I can (and have) used AK for all (or most) of them to test for the Truth of their existence or not. There is much to do, however, right here and now in this realm. Suffice it to say there are matters of the mystical and mysterious, which I know exist. I’ve dedicated this site however, toward The Journey to Enlightenment. When you reach higher states, whether or not certain “things” exist will not hold much interest for you.__ Myswizard

The supernatural (Latin: super- “exceeding” + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond the current scientific understanding and concept of nature, and which may actually directly contradict conventional scientific understandings. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and metaphysics.

Those asserting the occurrence of supernatural events and entities usually describe them as having been observed or experienced firsthand, but as being so unique that they cannot be systematically observed, recorded, or studied. Examples include sightings of angels, healings, creationism, and communications with the dead.

Those denying the plausibility of supernatural events typically define them as events which cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanation—yet remains firmly outside of the realm of science.

The term “supernatural” is often used interchangeably with paranormal or preternatural—the latter typically limited to an adjective for describing abilities which appear to exceed possible bounds.

Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, and may likewise be in direct conflict with scientific concepts of possibility or plausibility. The supernatural concept is generally identified with religion or other belief systems—though there is much debate as to whether a supernatural is necessary for religion, or that religion is necessary for holding a concept of the supernatural.

Fiction
The supernatural is also a topic in various genres of fiction, such as fantasy and horror. Some examples of supernatural phenomena are miracles and ghosts; psychic abilities like psychokinesis and telepathy are better classified as paranormal than supernatural.

Views on the supernatural

The supernatural as distinct from nature
In this, the most common view, the term supernatural is contrasted with the term natural, which presumes that some events occur according to natural laws, and others do not, because they are caused by forces external to nature. In essence, the world is seen as operating according to natural law “normally,” until a force external to nature (such as God) intervenes. Some believe strongly in the forces beyond the natural realm; but others have a strong belief in the powers of nature and only nature.

The supernatural as sovereign over nature
Other people, particularly in Eastern Christianity, deny any distinction between Natural and Supernatural. According to this view, because God is sovereign, all events are directly caused by Him or His creatures, not by impersonal powers of any kind. The only meaningful distinction that remains is events which God causes to happen regularly and events which God causes to happen rarely.

The supernatural as manifested through nature
Another view asserts that God makes himself known through the beauty and order of nature, but is not a personal God concerned with human moral activity, and does not violate the laws of nature which He created.

The supernatural as a higher nature
Others assert that events that appear to us to be supernatural occur according to natural laws which we do not yet understand. In contrast to supernaturalists, they assert that all things operate according to a law of nature. In contrast to atheists, they assert that God, miracles, or other supernatural phenomena are real, verifiable, and part of the laws of nature that we do not yet understand.

The supernatural as a human coping mechanism
Others, particularly among the skeptical academic community, believe that all events have natural and only natural causes. They believe that human beings ascribe supernatural attributes to purely natural events in an attempt to cope with fear and ignorance.

The supernatural as magic
Since the belief in magic is very old and held a great power over the minds and imagination of earlier generations long before the concept of experimental science, some historians of magic think the supernatural is a surviving form of magic. In the human quest for understanding and survival, magic may be seen as a complement to science. Both science and magic stem from the human imagination, observation and contemplation; but whereas science requires time, resources curiosity, and flexibility, magic provides an immediate solution, more appealing to the unscientific mind, and requiring little or no resources. In the earliest Christian art, which is from the 3rd century, Jesus is portrayed holding a magic wand. (See Lynn Thorndike’s classic study,The History of Magic and Experimental Science, Tarbell Course in Magic, vol 1- Harlan Tarbell, forward and epilogue to Greater Magic- John Northern Hilliard, The Discoverie of Witchcraft- Reginald Scot and the vanishing works of Henry Ridgely Evans, The Old and New Magic, The Spirit World Unmasked, and Hours with Ghosts or 19th Century Witchcraft.) It should be noted there may be a persistent link between supernaturalism, the paranormal, and the desire for immortality.

Arguments in favor of a supernatural reality
Following are some common arguments in support of belief in supernatural phenomena.

Many believers note that the complexities and mysteries of the universe cannot yet be explained by naturalistic explanations alone and argue that it is equally reasonable to presume that a Person or Persons controls the unexplained as to presume that no Person does, because neither explanation is verifiable or falsifiable until all phenomena have been explained. Believers note that it is unlikely that all phenomena will be explained soon. Believers conclude that, for the moment anyway, theistic and atheistic interpretations of unexplained phenomena are on equal intellectual and philosophical footing.
Believers argue further that just as science has evolved from weak early attempts to explain natural events (such as spontaneous generation and the doctrine of humors) into a much more credible modern science, religion has evolved from weak early attempts to explain supernatural events (such as animism) into the much more credible modern religions. Therefore, just as the simplistic and erroneous scientific explanations of early humans should not discredit modern science, the simplistic and erroneous religious understandings of early humans should not discredit modern religion.
Believers note that many of history’s greatest scientists, including Galileo, Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, and Albert Einstein, appear to have believed firmly in a God behind the universe. (Still, Einstein explicitly denied the existence of the supernatural and an afterlife. See Einstein’s forward to Man and his Gods by Homer W. Smith, Grosset & Dunlap, N.Y., 1957.) However, believers also acknowledge that, because freedom of speech on religious matters is a relatively recent development, it would have been impossible for many of these great scientists, such as Galileo, to express doubts about the existence of a deity, let alone to openly avow agnosticism or atheism.
Believers note that the vast majority of humanity, of all races, religions, and ages, believe and have always believed in supernatural phenomena of one form or another.
Believers conclude that while some people have invented religions to help them cope with frightening and unexplainable phenomena, others have come to believe in supernatural phenomena through intellectually honest means, having been persuaded by reason, evidence, and experience that the universe cannot be explained by naturalistic explanations alone, but is best understood by acknowledging the Supernatural.
Believers also note that while some people have denied the existence of supernatural phenomena through intellectually honest means, having been persuaded by reason, evidence, and experience that the supernatural does not exist, others have denied the supernatural out of a deep fear that supernatural forces might actually exist and have a real and tangible impact on our lives, and a fear that the universe might be more complex than their theories allow.
By its own definition, science is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of the supernatural. Science concerns itself with what can be measured and seen through observation. Thus, believers in supernatural phenomenon hold that scientific methods would not detect them; therefore the lack of evidence does not matter. Scientists counter that if this is so, then believers in supernaturalism themselves would be incapable of witnessing any supernatural phenomenon, as human senses themselves operate within the laws of physics and can only sense events occurring in the natural, physical world.
Applying Occam’s Razor is useful when looking for an explanation of specific events, but the likelihood of a natural or supernatural cause is determined largely by whether a person believes in the supernatural in the first place. Using this argument against the existence of the supernatural is circular. Theological claims generally do not claim or attempt to be scientifically provable.
Some of modern biblical scholarship is based on the assumption that the supernatural does not exist, or that God is far less involved in the world than commonly supposed (deism). Many theists believe that this biases the results, and is of itself equivalent to a religious position.
However, Jews do not accept the claims made in the Christian New Testament; similarly, Christians do not accept the supernatural claims made by the Qur’an, the sacred book of Islam, and so on. John Drane writes:

Not unrelated to this is a more general philosophical skepticism towards any document whether ancient or modern, that appears to give credence to the possibility of the occurrence of unique, or apparently miraculous happenings. Academic biblical study still generally operates within a mechanistic world-view, according to which the universe is understood as a closed system, operating according to rigidly structured ‘laws of nature’ which are entirely predictable and never deviate. By definition, therefore, the unpredictable cannot happen, and on this view it is inevitable that the gospels should be seen as something other than history, for they do contain accounts of a number of unique happenings which appear to violate the ‘laws of nature’ as set out by Newtonian science. Physics, of course, no longer operates on that paradigm, and the work of more recent theorists has led to the emergence of a far more flexible understanding of what might be possible within the physical universe.
Proponents of supernaturalism claim that their belief system is more flexible, which allows them more diversity in terms of epistemology (ways of understanding knowledge). For example, scientists accept the findings that the Earth and universe are many billions of years old. Among members of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities, however, there is a wider range of beliefs. Many have a literal interpretation of Genesis, and they believe that the earth and universe are only 6000 years old; other Christians accept the results of science which show the Earth and universe as many billions of years old in terms of age.
Many religious people claim that these phenomena, being essentially “unnatural,” are not appropriate for scientific study (see also William James, The Variety of Religious Experience. James was convinced Leonora Piper was an authentic spirit medium who contacted the dead. See: Studies in Spiritism by Amy Tanner, Prometheus books, 1994, reprint of 1910 edition and Both Sides of the Veil by Anne Manning Robbins, Boston, Sherman, French & Co, 1909, and The Correspondence of William James #06 by Ignas K. Skrupskelis. A striking example that many times the scientific quest for proof of the supernatural has led to a deterioration of rationality caused by a scientist’s “need” to believe.
John Drane writes that science is perpetuating “intellectual arrogance” when it does not accept the possibility of supernatural events and miracles: “To say that unique events can never happen, or that the supernatural does not exist, when most people of most ethnic groups at most points in history have claimed otherwise, is merely to perpetuate the intellectual arrogance of previous generations of Western thinkers, and far from providing an answer to the questions raised by history it merely begs larger and more important questions about the nature of Western intellectual culture.” In response, most scientists and historians regard such arguments as fundamentalist religious apologetics, and the pride of being uneducated.
William Dembski writes:
“The problem with terms like “supernatural” and “supernaturalism” … is that they tacitly presuppose that nature is the fundamental reality and that nature is far less problematic conceptually than anything outside or beyond nature. The “super” in “supernatural” thus has the effect of a negation.
But what if nature is itself a negation or reaction against something else? For the theist (though not for the panentheist of process theology), nature is not a self-subsisting entity but an entirely free act of God. Nature thus becomes a derivative aspect of ultimate reality—an aspect of God’s creation, and not even the whole of God’s creation at that (theists typically ascribe to God the creation of an invisible world that is inhabited among other things by angels). Hence, for the theist attempting to understand nature, God as creator is fundamental, the creation is derivative, and nature as the physical part of creation is still further downstream. [1]
C.S. Lewis argued in his book, Miracles, that it is inaccurate to define a miracle as breaking the laws of nature. Instead,
“The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, so that a Nature which had had a different history, and therefore been a different Nature, would have been invaded by different miracles or by none at all.”

Arguments against a supernatural reality
While the exact definition varies, any concept of supernaturality requires that supernatural phenomena are not accessible by the scientific method. Contrary to common prejudices science is not restricted to experiments in a laboratory, but can be based on any form of experience. If a phenomenon is by definition outside of the realm of science, it therefore cannot be experienced and has by definition no impact on our lives. Our lifespan, for example, does affect us and any factors increasing or decreasing it can be studied scientifically. This view is supported by the immense success of science. Scientific medicine proved much more successful in increasing the lifespan of people, than anything based on supernaturality.

Our knowledge of the world is continuously increasing. Some phenomena, once assumed supernatural, can today be explained by scientific theories, while others could be dismissed as myths. Volcanoes were once considered deities and natural calamities the actions of gods and people sacrificed animals or even other people to please their gods. If our current understanding is the gauge of supernaturality, its realm is ever decreasing and very subjective.

Science does not claim that phenomena contradicting our intuitive view of the world are impossible to occur. Scientist study such phenomena every day. In fact some scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, are much more counterintuitive than any supernatural concept. But many claimed supernatural phenomena vanish when they are closely examined. There have been, for example, various studies on astrology, most of them with negative result. A single positive result cannot outweigh many negative ones, as it can be expected by mere chance.

Supernaturality is a remnant of a static world view. It comes from a time when the growth of human knowledge was barely noticeable within a human lifetime. The Aristotelian Mechanics were considered valid for more than a thousand years. At that time human knowledge seemed static and anything exceeding it seemed to be from a different world. But even today some people still try to describe the world by unchanging “laws of nature” and declare anything beyond this framework supernatural and inaccessible to human understanding.

If a bush suddenly burst out in flames, and the fire would not consume it, a scientist would not call it supernatural, nor would he deny that this is happening, but he would curiously examine it.

Naturalization vs. supernaturalization
Some people believe that supernatural events occur, while others do not. In the process of debate, both sides attempt to discredit the other. People that believe in supernatural events accuse those who do not of naturalizing genuinely supernatural events; people that do not believe in supernatural events accuse who do of supernaturalizing genuinely natural events.

“Naturalization”
The neologism naturalize, meaning, “to make natural”, is sometimes used to describe the perceived process of denying any supernatural significance to events which another presumes to be natural. This perceived process may also be referred to as reductionism or deconstructionism. It rests on the believer’s presumption that supernatural events can and do occur; thus, their description as “natural” by the skeptic is seen as a result of a process of deliberate or unconscious denial of any supernatural significance, thus, “naturalization”.

(This should not be confused with naturalization, the process of voluntarily acquiring citizenship at some time after birth.)

“Supernaturalization”
The neologism supernaturalize, meaning “to make supernatural”, is sometimes used to describe the perceived process of ascribing supernatural causes to events which another presumes to be natural. This perceived process may also be referred to as mythification or spiritualization. It rests on the presumption of the skeptic that supernatural events cannot or are unlikely to occur; thus, their description by the believer as supernatural is seen as the result of a process of deliberate or unconscious mysticism, thus, “supernaturalization”.

The subjective nature of the issue
An individual’s interpretation of events depends upon his conscious or unconscious theories toward the nature of the universe. Since each brings a unique set of personal attributes to a situation, and each situation brings different forces to bear, two people may come to completely different conclusions based on identical evidence. Some have suggested that dogmatically held conclusions regarding the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural prevent one from maintaining and “open mind.” Instead, such beliefs supply comfort and satisfy an individual’s need for security. According to this argument, selectivity governs phenomenological reality, meaning that one “screens out” possible explanations simply because they conflict with one’s paradigm and create dissonance. Conformity to the popular dead end conclusions of the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural hinders human creativity and progress, because it limits the scope of curiosity and other alternative explanations one is willing to consider. For example, to make oneself “look good” to others thus avoiding isolation, and perhaps the desire to imitate personal heroes. Generally we criticize and question the picture of reality held by others. It is rare to question one’s own. Rarer still to admit our own is distorted.

Alleged instances of supernaturalization
In the Hebrew Bible, plagues and other misfortunes are described as signs of God’s anger or vengeance. J. Keir Howard of the Diocese of Wellington Institute of Theology, New Zealand, notes that:
Until there was any proper understanding of the causative factors in disease and the actual disease processes themselves, there was a tendency to see sickness as a result of divine visitations and punishment for wrongdoing. (Oxford Companion to the Bible (1992), entry for “Medicine and the Bible”)
English Protestants believed that the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was a sign of God’s favor for their cause.
Some fundamentalist American Christians have interpreted the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on 11th September, 2001 as a sign of God’s anger at various and sundry things, including secularism.
Some radical Muslims interpreted the loss of the space shuttle Columbia, whose crew included an Israeli Jew and an Indian-American Hindu, as a sign of God’s anger at America, Israel, and Hinduism.
In Japan the scattering of aggressive Mogul-Korean fleets in 1274 and 1281 was attributed to the 神風 (kamikaze) or divine wind.
Believers respond to the many instances of supernaturalization by arguing that the fact that supernaturalization often occurs does not refute the existence of the supernatural any more than the fact that scientists often make errors refutes the existence of the natural universe; and that the supernatural by its very nature cannot be explored through science, and must therefore be explored through different means, such as spirituality. Nonbelievers counter that the two forms of explanation cannot be equated, because erroneous naturalistic claims, such as those made for the existence of phlogiston or N-rays, are routinely and often rapidly corrected by reference to nature, while erroneous supernaturalistic claims such as the above are impossible to correct by reference to supernature or by any other widely accepted objective means.

The supernatural in monotheistic religions
The article on The supernatural in monotheistic religions concerns itself with the junction between monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and the supernatural.

See also
Dualism (Philosophy of mind) - the view that the mental and the physical have a fundamentally different nature as an answer to the mind-body problem.
Idealism (Philosophy) - any theory positing the primacy of spirit, mind, or language over matter. It includes claiming that thought has some crucial role in making the world the way it is.
Vitalism - the doctrine that life cannot be explained solely by mechanism. Often, the nonmaterial element is referred to as the soul, the “vital spark,” or a kind of energy.
TV Show Supernatural TV Show
Supernatural cinema classics

Compare with
Naturalism (Philosophy) - which rejects the validity of explanations or theories making use of entities inaccessible to natural science.
Materialism (Philosophy) - the view that the only thing that can truly be said to ‘exist’ is matter; that fundamentally, all things are comprised of ‘material’. Materialism is typically contrasted with dualism, idealism, and vitalism.
the Scientific method - essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world. The ability to repeat an experiment and obtain the same observed results is held sacred. A contemporary social cause or event affects the progress of curiosity and science.

References
Wonders of the Invisible World, Cotton Mather, Boston, 1693
More Wonders of the Invisible World, Robert Calef, 1700
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural”
Category: Paranormal phenomena

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Supernatural”.

Meme n. pron.(meem)
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
Etymology:
Shortening (modeled on gene ), of mimeme from Greek mimma, something imitated, from mimeisthai, to imitate ; see mimesis

Being the kind of person who likes to take the difficult and make it simple (Occam’s Razor or KISS), I’m going to share explanations, about thought, attention, and intention.

Thoughts and ideas arise out of a nonlinear energy field, which is a part of the totality of “The Field” (The Electromagnetic Field of everything…Universal Intelligence or God.) Thought, once given energy (through our intention or will) moves to the linear or local (our mind.) At this point it is real (a creation within our linear reality).

This is where a meme comes into play. This creation is either based on Absolute Truth or non-truth (due to the bias of indoctrination, opinions and most cultural ideas.) If an idea or piece of information becomes our reality, we now have the beginnings of either Relativistic Epistemology,*or our own personal design for life. The ensuing consequences are astonishing, pleasing, or horrifying (depending on what is created). As consciousness is raised, creation come from The Field of Absolute Truth and our memes dissolve.

That is how and what we create, using our intentions. It is all part of the miracle of creation. This is God creating, with all of us as an extension of The creation.

*See articles on Relativism, Epistemology, and Relativistic Epistemology
Thank you to Dr. Hawkins for his class discourses on Relativistic Epistemology and Creation
©Myswizard all rights reserved ‘05