I'm going to comment on a recent post by Michael Sudduth:
I’d say that my curiosity in survival-related questions began when I was around eight years old. After having recurrent apparitional experiences in the house I lived in with my parents at the time, I began wondering whether there were real things that I could not normally see but which became visible under certain conditions. And seeing as I recognized some of the apparitions as deceased members of my family or friends of the family, the experiences prompted the question, is death really the end of our existence? I never said anything about these experiences to my parents, but I remember feeling encouraged when a couple of years later my grandmother shared with me an apparitional experience she had of my grandfather shortly after his death. And I recall, on another occasion, overhearing another family member secretly discussing her apparitional experience of my grandfather. In my teenage years I had a variety of paranormal experiences over a two-year period. Given my prior experiences, I decided to document the experiences in a journal I kept at the time. I was also inspired by the 1972 television series the Sixth Sense to explore these experiences through various readings in parapsychology. Interestingly enough, during this time my mother reported an apparitional experience of my grandfather a few days before the death of my grandmother. Although my mother had no knowledge of my grandmother’s experience several years earlier, her description of the apparition was remarkably similar to what my grandmother had described. In 2002 I left Saint Michael’s College and moved into a historic home in Windsor, Connecticut. There my ex-wife and I had a large number of paranormal experiences, which I documented in written form. After moving out of the house in 2004, I conducted some interviews with prior occupants of the home and learned that they had similar experiences. I became very fascinated with the nature of these shared experiences, seemingly tied to a particular physical location, and their possible implications for postmortem survival. I’ve had the added benefit of participating in a number of paranormal investigations and developing friendships with various mediums over the past eight years. So my thinking on this topic has been shaped by a wide-range of first-hand experiences, as well as my research and training as a philosopher.
The interview indicates that his experience of the paranormal goes back to childhood. It predates his teenage dabbling with a Ouija board. So this may be a family curse that's been passed down from one generation to the next. And befriending mediums invites further self-delusion.
Although I was greatly impressed with Price’s reflections on the empirical approach to survival, my conservative Christian views at the time, together with my focus on other topics in graduate school, dissuaded me from a further exploration. On my current view, I think there is a legitimate debate about what exactly paranormal phenomena establish about the reality and nature of postmortem survival. That’s an issue at the center of my present work. I am a Vedantin philosopher, so I certainly accept the idea of survival, at least broadly understood as the postmortem persistence of consciousness.
Well, let me begin with some important caveats and clarifications. Unlike many other philosophers, I don’t object to the survival hypothesis itself, nor do I deny that people can be epistemically justified in believing in survival. I’ve already stated that I subscribe to the eastern philosophical and spiritual tradition of Vedanta. So I don’t believe that what I essentially am shares in the limits or destiny of my body or individual mind. I am a survivalist.
On the one hand, he doesn't hesitate to promote positions which contradict Christian theology. On the other hand, he can't bring himself to take a position that contradicts Hare Krishna.
I'd like to make a few general observations about the interview:
i) I think his analysis suffers from reductionism. He seems to be seeking a single causal explanation for all the phenomena in question. But what if there's more than one cause? On the face of it, there are potentially three different parties to one or another of these transactions: ghosts, demons, the medium. So perhaps the correct explanation varies. In some cases a ghost might be the best explanation. In other cases a demon. In still other cases, the medium might be psychic.
I'd add that the demonic explanation and the psychic explanation are not mutually exclusive. A medium might be demonically empowered thru possession.
ii) We need to draw some theoretical distinctions in terms of apparitions. In principle, there are two or three distinctions:
a) The dead initiating contact with the living.
b) The living initiating contact with the dead. A medium opens a two-way channel. Whether the dead respond might be voluntary.
c) Summoning the dead. The dead are compelled to appear. Classic sorcery.
I'm not vouching for the reality of these distinctions. Just drawing them for conceptual clarity. Having a bigger toolbox helps us classify and assess the evidence. Likewise, I'm discussing what's possible, not permissible.
iii) Both (b) and (c) would be cases of necromancy. A Biblically forbidden activity.
iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's possible to summon the dead or initiate contact with the dead, what class of decedents would be available? Departed saints? Or the damned?
Since Scripture forbids necromancy, it seems antecedently unlikely that God would make departed saints available to mediums. However, we have the counterexample of the medium summoning Saul (1 Sam 28). That, however, may be quite exceptional. Saul's attempt to contact Samuel backfires. For Samuel uses the occasion to denounce Saul. The exercise seals the fate of the apostate king. God may have allowed Saul to appear for that express purpose. That would also explain why the medium seemed to be surprised. Perhaps wasn't expecting Samuel to actually appear.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that necromancy is sometimes successful, it seems more likely that only the damned would be accessible. Admittedly, that's speculative.
v) But what about (a)? Is it permissible for departed saints to appear to the living? That's hard to say.
There are credible reports of apparitions of the dead. That, of itself, doesn't necessarily establish the identity of the apparition. It appears to be the decedent. But at least in some cases, appearances might be deceptive.
vi) As a Christian, I'm not ashamed to admit that I discount reincarnation on theological grounds.
vii) In addition, reincarnation isn't clearly the simplest overall explanation for certain phenomena. That's because simplicity involves more than one variable. For instance, even if reincarnation is the simplest discrete explanation for certain phenomena, that must be counterbalanced by the fact that reincarnation is metaphysically cumbersome. It would require elaborate offstage machinery to pull that off. So the explanatory simplicity of reincarnation is deceptive.
viii) I've also analyzed prima facie evidence for reincarnation on several occasions:
