<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A man with an ax to grind
Review: As a recent convert to reincarnation, I approached Mr. Edward's book with more than a little trepidation. After all, I had just abandoned 20 years of traditional Christianity for my new belief system and I had been hoping to hold onto it for a little while. My fears proved to be unfounded, however, as Edwards quickly demonstrates himself to be but another arrogant debunker with a quick wit and a generally poor understanding of reincarnation. At least, I think his understanding of it is poor as there isn't much of the book devoted to discussing the mechanics of the idea; rather, Edwards spends the bulk of his time attacking various proponents of the concept. Two entire chapters are dedicated to Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, another to Dr. Stanislav Grof, and yet another to Dr. Ian Stevenson (other major proponents of the concept also receive considerable ink.) Obviously, Mr. Edwards has quite the ax to grind and grind away he does-with obvious pleasure and good humor. Unfortunately, this attempt to discredit the messenger does little to tarnish the message. Even the most flawed prophets can have their fingers on the pulse of truth, even if they prove themselves occasionally to be poor judges of character or prone to bouts of sensationalism. In those rare parts of the book where Edwards does attempt to deal with the mechanics of reincarnation, I found some of his objections to be thought provoking and clever, but I found most to be pedestrian at best, and a few to border on the childish (where do astral bodies get their clothes? C'mon, Paul, show some respect!) Additionally, his repudiation of karma as a purely punitive system of retribution demonstrates his simplistic understanding of the concept. He deals with only one concept-and the most primitive at that-of how karma works without bothering to explore more sophisticated ideas that perceive it as a largely self-imposed instructional system designed to further a soul's spiritual development. Considering Mr. Edwards fervent devotion to classical materialism, one could easily get the idea that Paul's chief problem is not that reincarnation isn't true, but that it mustn't be true. Oh, I almost forgot: he also tries to show us why there is no God either, just in case we suspected him of latent spirituality. Despite all these problems, however, I still give Paul Edwards' book three stars as it does attempt to address a few issues that need further thought and refining by reincarnationists, and is a good-if occasionally ponderous-read. I hope if anyone else ever decides to tackle the issue in the future, though, they will do so with less condescension and arrogance than does Mr. Edwards. Respect for anothers beliefs is an important requirement if any dialogue is to be fruitful, although I suspect Paul is far less interested in convincing reincarnationists to abandon their beliefs than he is in impressing his fellow skeptics at Prometheus Books.
Rating: 
Summary: Only if you enjoy playing CSICOPS and robbers.
Review: I am rather surprised at the quantity and inanity of bad reviews for this book. It is rather inexplicable to me - perhaps they read something else. To me, this book is a very rigorous and entertaining voyage into the arguments, concepts and proponents of reincarnation. Paul Edwards dissects the reincarnation idea and discusses the idea of personal identity, the period that is supposed to lie "between lives", and various other problems of reincarnation. In Chapter 14, he notably discusses five powerful scientific arguments against reincarnation : Tertullian's Objection, Reincarnation and evolution, The recency of life, The population problem and the Absence of memories. He also argues against many aspects of reincationation, such as the idea of "karma" or of an "astral body", the Modus Operandi problem, the idea of conservation of mental energy which underpins the idea of reincarnation, and many others besides. His book is written in a very intelligent and humorous way. It is also obvious that Edwards' knowledge on the various positions and arguments related to the subject is nothing less than breathtaking. His extensive lampooning of the "research" of the main proponents of reincarnation is entertaining as well as shocking. No one should be without this book. I say this honestly and not lightly, since I think the question of death should concern everyone and this book is definitively a great reference on the subject of the doctrines of reincarnation.
Rating:
Summary: An experience you'll want to relive over and over again!
Review: I have a disdain for the notion of reincarnation, and to my mind, others who are similarly skeptical, such as Paul Edwards, the author of this book, never propound the best arguments against it.
If we were ordained to live many times over, the friendships and loving relationships that we experience in any given lifetime would be rendered worthless by an eschatological process that usually erases our memories clean of them and sends us back into the world to acquire new ones.
Moreover, if our parents, siblings and descendants in one lifetime might be related to us in a different manner in another lifetime, the whole process of rebirth becomes somewhat incestuous, notwithstanding the transposition of bodies and the absence of memories. If there is a Supreme Being, he's surely restored more divine order to universal chaos than would actually exist if we really were to live again.
So I actually picked up Edwards's book as a member of the anti-reincarnation choir waiting to be preached to, but this book was only somewhat satisfying in that regard. He spends a lot of time inveighing against the methodology used by New Age gurus and parapsychologists, exposing the frauds and charlatans among them. This includes a re-examination of the famous "Bridey Murphy" case.
Otherwise, it seems to be a book meant primarily for philosophy students and teachers. Many of its arguments allude to terms and concepts that leave this political science major scratching my head.
Others will sound more familiar such as the "absence of justice" argument (those of us who don't remember our past incarnations won't remember why we are being rewarded or punished in our present ones) and the "population" argument (the amount of people who have ever lived is many times greater than those alive now - so in what sort of halfway house are unreincarnated souls waiting to be reborn in? And if we have all lived before, why is it that new souls are no longer being created?).
If it is intended as a scholarly work, it's a somewhat slipshod one. There are a number of occasions where the author is developing a line of thought and then breaks it off, promising to pick it up again in a later chapter.
Edwards's argument is largely an atheistic one against any sort of post-death survival whatsoever, relying largely upon what he sees as the inseparability of the mind and the body. However, he does concede the theoretical possibility of an apocalyptic resurrection and reconstruction of original body parts and a reconstitution of each original mind within. The mind/body issue is apparently an age-old philosophical dispute, and Edwards comes down squarely on the side that the mind cannot exist separate and apart from the body that it directs.
But however persuasive his argument against ANY sort of survival might be from an empirical point of view, it seems to largely ignore stories of Near-Death-Experiences (NDE's) in which an unconscious patient was later able to give accurate descriptions of what was going on around him.
Maybe these stories would also lose their credibility upon being subjected to the same rigorous academic scrutiny that Edwards and others subject Ian Wilson's cases of spontaneous memories of past lives, but that has never been done to my satisfaction, in this book or in any other skeptical work.
Edwards has a sardonic wit that I can especially appreciate, and he often interrupts his empirical analysis to skewer a number of targets, including religious fundamentalism. His disparagement of the divine in general may yet prove to be correct, but it is an undercurrent that runs through this work and sometimes detracts from it. At one point, he borrows from Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, to inveigh against theocracy as "the worst of all governments".
Both Edwards and Lewis seem oblivious to the truism that atheism can be as much of a religion as theism, and the destruction wrought during the 20th century by atheistic governments in Germany and Soviet Russia suggest that it can be just as deadly.
Regardless of the state of evidence concerning survival in general and reincarnation in particular or of the existence of a divine being, a little less trenchant agnosticism and awe towards the Unknown might suit Edwards better as a human being and as an academic.
Rating: 
Summary: The best book about reincarnation
Review: It is a breath of fresh air to have at long last a systematic examination of these strange Eastern beliefs. No one could have done the job better than Paul Edwards. His arguments are devastating, his references voluminous, his scholarship awesome. Edwards brings his usual incisiveness, clarity, and wit to bear on ancient beliefs that underlie much of the fuzzy thinking of the New Age movement. He deftly exposes the philosophical and practical deficiencies of the concept of Karma and provides a trenchant critique of the evidence in favor of reincarnation.
Rating:
Summary: A Devestating refutation of nonsensical beliefs. Superb!
Review: Only guillible believers in reincarnation who has shut their minds to the facts, their consciences, and different viewpoints could possibly review this book poorly. It is an excellent work, but only understood in its full implications by minds free of childish fantasies
Rating:
Summary: Only if you enjoy playing CSICOPS and robbers.
Review: Reincarnation is the belief that at some point after death we return to this world as a different person in another body. There are many variations on the theme. Some theories include animal life, even inanimate objects. So, if you are bad this time around, you might come back as a dog, or somebody's coffee pot. (On the other hand, if you are good, the possibilities are endless.) Some, like the philosopher Nietzsche, believed that the same events happen, over and over. In that case, I will have written this review, and you will have read it, countless times already - a wearying prospect at best. For millennia, belief in reincarnation, and its attendant notion of karma - the idea that our actions now will affect our future lives - has been a mainstay of Hindu thought. The idea has attracted many major league figures in western thought as well: Pythagoras, Plato, Swedenborg, Emerson, Goethe and Schopenhauer, to name a few. And it has, of course, received a great deal of attention from occultists, metaphysicians and students of what used to be called parapsychology. Philosopher Paul Edwards, however, has taken stock of this situation and, out of the kindness of his heart, and what I can only surmise is a selfless devotion to rationality, has decided to disabuse anyone who will listen to him of this dangerous notion. The result is a tedious essay in pedantic nit-picking. I am not a believer in, nor an apologist for, reincarnation. I am, I imagine, a sympathetic agnostic. When we get down to it, no one really knows what happens after death - no one, that is, who has yet to enjoy the experience. And those who have, ain't talking. So my displeasure in Edwards' grating text is not that of an adherent defending a sacred creed. What bothers me about this annoying book is the smug, complacent know-it-all manner in which he treats his subject. (Its tiresome attempts at what I can only assume is wit are bothersome too.) The original edition appeared in 1996, and at that time, many of the characters and topics he addresses may have loomed larger in the public consciousness. (His initial knock-out punch was, evidently, not successful, and his publishers apparently feel a second dose is needed.) Kubler-Ross, Raymond Moody, Ian Stevenson and the psychedelic investigator Stanislav Grof come in for especially detailed dissection. It goes without saying that most, if not all, of the 'new age' advocates of reincarnation are out to lunch, and their ideas on the subject sport more holes than a bag of Hoola Hoops. But the 'new age' has lost some of its blissful appeal by now, and after reading Edwards's 'devastating' critique of its mystic flapdoodle, I found myself cheering for the underdog. What is wrong with this book is that Edwards sets up his targets like clay pigeons and knocks them down, one by one. Or, mixing my metaphors, he gives himself high marks for shooting fish in a barrel. No one, I think, who takes the notion of reincarnation at all seriously believes Shirley MacLaine is a quotable authority on the subject. But by taking her down a peg Edwards, an unflappable devotee of strict scientific rationality, believes he has scored major points. Maybe he uses a flame thrower to rid himself of mosquitoes too. Another annoying thing is Edwards' frequent remarks about the mental capacity of people who are interested in reincarnation, or other 'occult' ideas. They are, he tells us: "insane" or "semi-insane"; "under-educated"; "credulous"; "semi-literate"; "lunatics"; and, perhaps least offensive, "very average, middle-class Americans". They are also devoted readers of mind-numbing tabloids like the National Enquirer, The Midnight Globe, and the Star - all of which print columns of occult clap-trap that no "critically trained person" - like, we must imagine, himself - would be caught dead absorbing. Yet Edwards makes it clear that he too is among those many "under-educated" Americans who read this drivel, admitting that "for many years I have been an avid reader of assorted tabloids." Research, of course. But I for one suspect that Edwards has a morbid love-hate relationship with the 'occult', a neurotic attachment to a collection of beliefs he finds infuriatingly and self-evidently absurd. If only we all just listened to the scientists and, we must assume, philosophers like himself. Then muddled questions about life, death and everything else would just evaporate. My own money, however, is on the muddlers. Yet, as I'm a semi-insane, credulous under-educated reader of occult drivel, what do you expect?
If you are interested in an objective, informative and engaging book on reincarnation, this isn't it. But if you think the whole idea is as barking as the dog next door and enjoy playing CSICOPS and robbers, be my guest.
Rating:
Summary: Another Zealot Defends the Reductionist Orthodoxy
Review: Science, too, has its dogmatic, closed-minded zealots who attempt to summarily dismiss objective investigations into many human endeavors. Edwards desparately strives to discredit reincarnation with a priori reasoning. When the author's arguments fail to persuade or convince, he tries character assassination against reincarnation and near-death researchers and philosophers. The reader soon realizes Edwards' intellectual bankruptcy in his efforts to defeat reincarnationist views at any costs. The reader learns nothing meaningful for or against reincarnation in this work; rather, one simply discovers Edwards' personal agenda against reincarnation. The author's tone is reminiscent of fanatical defenses such as one might hear from the flat earth society, Ptolemic earth-centric universe believers, and those who utterly deny evolutionary processes. Edwards' personal attacks against researchers suggest that he would have been an excellent inquisitor several centuries ago (reincarnationists, all together now: "Perhaps he was!"). Seriously, expect no objectivity in this book. This reviewer recommends investing in more balanced scientific and philosophical inquiries.
Rating: 
Summary: Reductionistic view of a worthy subject
Review: This book claims to examine reincarnation from a skeptical perspective. However, a true skeptic has an agnostic approach to the subject he/she is examining. One the other hand, Edwards (as well as most of the people who write for Prometheus Books) is a debunker. He had his mind made up and simply approached the topic with pre-ordained conclusions. What a pity.
Rating:
Summary: Dogmatically materialistic-unconvincing
Review: This book did not prove that reincarnation does not exist. I am a skeptic and I did not feel that the book make any good points. The author just stated how others might support reincarnation, but did not make an honest attempt to refute it. I thought it could have been written better. The points used to disprove reincarnation could have been used to 'disprove' anything such as God, heaven or hell.
Rating:
Summary: Warning to True Skeptics: Beware of This Book!
Review: When I read this book, I understood why it took about three years for CSICOP to publish a favourable review of it. A typical case of tacit disowning... Edwards devotes to much space to irrelevant issues, or to irrelevant authors. For example, he talks a lot about Near-Death Experiences. But instead of performing a deep analysis of the works of highly respected authors in the field, like Kenneth Ring and Michael Sabom, he prefers to make lots of jokes and fun of the works of Kübler Ross and Moody Jr., who are considered very weak even by their own peers. Susan Blackmore, in "Dying to Live" (1993), did exactly the opposite, performing high quality skeptical analysis of the works of these authors. An update on that would be highly informative, but Mr. Edwards decided to give us only laughs instead. In fact, it seems that Edwards' phobia of analyzing empirical evidence is a long lasting illness. He was criticised by philosopher Robert Almeder for this in 1997, and had already received this very same criticism by Almeder in 1990. Another lingering disease of his is his "reluctance to engage primary source material" (that is, he doesn't read and cite scientific papers, but popular books mostly), as anthropologist James Matlock put it in 1997 and again back in 1990. Both these 1990 comments refer to Edwards' four-chapter article published in the "Free Inquirer" magazine, in 1986-87, on the reincarnation hypothesis. That is where his book came from, apparently with very few additions, and possibly with no improvements... (easy money, huh?). Edwards' analysis of the works of Ian Stevenson is a complete failure. Actually, his analysis "seems" to have some basis. The first time I read chapter 16 (on Stevenson), I thought: "Wow, that's devastating!". By the fourth time I read it, I would be saying: "This man (i.e. Edwards) is a fake!". If you read it really carefully, you will notice that he doesn't actually analyze the cases, or their empirical content, or the arguments for and against them. Strangely enough, he does make some deeper analysis of the weakest case reports, which led me to the conclusion that his problem is not incompetence, but unwillingness. Some specific points are especially revealing. On page 140, he makes some unrespectful and uninformed comments about Stevenson's research on birthmarks. If Edwards were really a scholar (or even a decent popular writer), he would have made a review of the bibliography instead, and would have found an introductory article on this issue by Stevenson (Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1993). There, he would really have spotted a very serious statistical mistake that Stevenson commited, and that seems to have remained uncriticized by skeptics until 2002 !!! (by Leonard Angel). Again, looking for information about reincarnation "researcher" Banerjee, I could only find jokes, laughs, and gossip in Edwards' book. But when I read Matlock's (supposedly a "believer") bibliography review of Past Life Memory Case Studies (1990), I found the following comment about Banerjee: "Banerjee...was caught tampering with experimental data, (and) must be considered unreliable...(and) he has been written out of serious parapsychology.". Wow! So, who is the "skeptic" and who is the "believer" after all? And what has Edwards to say about the so called "best cases" studied by Stevenson and colaborators? Are they really good? What are their weaknesses and strengths? Did he read them? The "answer" is on page 277. There, Edwards says: "Better perhaps; but not good enough.". So that is all our "Awesome Scholar" (as Martin Gardner labelled him) has to say? "Perhaps"!!?? The man simply didn't even read the cases! Again, on page 256, where he comments on Leonard Angel's critique of the Imad Elawar case, he only says that he "does not have the space to comment much on it". Of course he does not. He used up all his space with gossips and jokes about Kübler Ross and etc! Even the apparently stronger arguments that he seems to have (from "insiders who have dissented", Barker and Ransom) turned out to be very weak and even imprecise in light of my further readings on the subject. Edwards' main theoretical and logical objection to reincarnation is the "modus operandi" problem. "How could reincarnation possibly happen?" The answer is given by Edwards himself, when he confortably decides to throw away any "modi operandi" concerns when talking about his own philosophical persuasion, that is, materialism: "How could the brain create counsciousness?" "Why not?" he answers!!! (page 294). Possible "modi operandi" constraints is an intellectually stimulating and most relevant issue. But it has to be approached in an informed, coherent manner, and not a là "Jimmy Swaggert on the Pulpit". To me, the most revealing (and shocking) passage in this book is when, on page 134, Edwards brutally disrespects Scott Rogo, in a rude comment about his murder in 1991, still unsolved then, saying how Rogo might solve it by calling the police station himself! Rogo was almost an informant of Edwards. Many of the gossips Edwards used in his book he learned from Rogo. And Rogo still had relatives alive that might feel hurt by these crude comments from Edwards. That is basically the mistake many skeptics-materialists commit. They get so desperate to wipe out the very idea of life after death that they end up forgetting that there is indeed life "before" death. And also, there are feelings and hearts that deserve to be respected and cared for. This book, therefore, is very good if you want material for criticizing the pathological phenomenon of pseudo-skepticism. It is also of some value for giving a frame for criticism on reincarnation research, but then you will have to read much further if you really want to have a good idea of what are the strengths and weaknesses in the empirical evidence for reincarnation. I have done this. And I have concluded that the evidence seems to be weak. But it is certainly there!
<< 1 >>
|
