- This paper is a rejoinder to Robert Almeder's "On Reincarnation1: A Reply to Hales".
- I argue that even if we stipulate the case studies of the reincarnationists2 to be good data, the explanatory hypothesis of reincarnation3 is a deus ex machina.
- Without a comprehensive scientific or philosophical theory of the mind that embeds the reincarnation4 hypothesis, the view should not be taken seriously.
- The fact that reincarnation5 is the first explanation of the case studies that comes to mind says more about us and our culture than it does about which explanations are the most probable ones.
- Robert Almeder offers a host of arguments in response to "Hales (Steven D.) - Evidence and the Afterlife". I’ll first address three of his smaller objections, and then look at his primary challenge to my views. All three of these initial criticisms were discussed in my original paper but, hydra-like, bear further applications of the sword.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)