doctrine of Reincarnation, from a number of sources. Some of these
arguments do not specially appeal to us, personally, for the reason that
they are rather more theological than scientific, but we have included
them that the argument may appear as generally presented, and because we
feel that in a work of this kind we must not omit an argument which is
used by many of the best authorities, simply because it may not appeal
to our particular temperament or habit of thought. To some, the
theological argument may appeal more strongly than would the scientific,
and it very properly is given here. The proper way to present any
subject is to give it in its many aspects, and as it may appear from
varied viewpoints.

CHAPTER X.

THE PROOFS OF REINCARNATION.

To many minds the "proof" of a doctrine is its reasonableness and its
adaptability as an answer to existing problems. And, accordingly, to
such, the many arguments advanced in favor of the doctrine, of which we
have given a few in the preceding chapters, together with the almost
universal acceptance of the fundamental ideas on the part of the race,
in at least some period of its development, would be considered as a
very good "proof" of the doctrine, at least so far as it might be
considered as the "most available working theory" of the soul's
existence, past and future, and as better meeting the requirements of a
doctrine or theory than any other idea advanced by metaphysical,
theological, or philosophical thinkers.

But to the scientific mind, or the minds of those who demand something
in the nature of actual experience of facts, no amount of reasonable
abstract theorizing and speculation is acceptable even in the way of a
"working hypothesis," unless based upon some tangible "facts" or
knowledge gained through human experience. While people possessing such
minds will usually admit freely that the doctrine of Reincarnation is
more logical than the opposing theories, and that it fits better the
requirements of the case, still they will maintain that all theories
regarding the soul must be based upon premises that cannot be
established by actual experience in human consciousness. They hold that
in absence of proof in experience--actual "facts"--these premises are
not established, and that all structures of reasoning based upon them
must partake of their insecurity. These people are like the slangy "man
from Missouri" who "wants to be shown"--nay, more, they are