Science's 'Proof' of No Souls and No Reincarnation

Scientist Claims Evidence that Proves

that Souls and Reincarnation Cannot Exist

(humorous silly stuff that's true!)

Neurons Communicating

(PD) Neurons Communicating

A non-detailed scientific drawing of neurons communicating.

Larry Neal Gowdy

Copyright ©2023 — July 09, 2023


Unintentionally, I saw an online science(?) article written by an "evolutionary biologist" professor of psychology. The anti-reincarnation and anti-soul article was published in a leading scientific psychology magazine, and, the article was so silly that it begged to be humorously poked fun at. At first I had felt an impulse to respond, but later when it was discovered that the article was linked to Oxford, laughter erupted. Yep, the humored response is now a necessity.

The 'expert' psychology professor's over-all general theme was that souls cannot exist because Buddhism says so. Ohhhkay. Yes, it is common for enthusiasts of various cults to claim that their holy books' words are true truth, but there was humor in the 'expert' psychology professor claiming that the writings by an aberrant denomination of Buddhism prove the psychology professor's belief that souls cannot exist, and, thus, reincarnation also cannot exist.

The 'expert' psychology professor made numerous claims, all of which were logical fallacies and/or just outright silly, such as his claiming for himself to have a "scientific mind".

Normally, articles like the 'expert' psychology professor's would be ignored by everyone with commonsense, and apparently the article was ignored because I did not find any online review of the article. Nevertheless, the article does have value for it being so silly, so unlearned, and so, so, so reminiscent of James Legge's disinformation.

Background Data For Applying Logic to Science's Claims

"If an individual wishes to voice an opinion outside of their professional expertise, then fine, no problem, but when the individual begins claiming that their professional expertise is proven valid by the individual claiming an unknown topic proves the person's accuracy, then that is a problem and reason enough to ignore all of the individual's claims entirely. ...The quote appears to be rhythmed upon the general Hindu/Buddhist ideas that are often repeated in books. ...Just because someone makes a claim, it does not infer that the claim must be true, and though a man quotes words from religious text, it does not infer that the words must relate to you, as if all humans were identical and required to follow the identical same path to achieve an identical same goal of which there is no other option." (critique within Einstein's Ideas and Opinions Review and Commentary)

"Lumping the religious experience of Jews' to be identical to the religious experience of Christian Protestants' to be identical to the religious experience of Christian Catholics' to be identical to Muslims' to be identical to Buddhists' to be identical to Wiccans' to be identical to Scientists', and to everyone else's, such a claim is careless and quite ignorant of what a 'religious' experience is itself. Individuals who claim theirs to be the ultimate path are individuals who — aside from their tiny insignificant personal experience — know absolutely nothing of the topic, period. ...Einstein's opinion of Buddhism was presented — in part — as a knowledge gleaned from having read another man's essay, which immediately and permanently nullifies the opinion while exposing the speaker to correction, as did William James' opinions of religious experience expose him to ridicule, as were Schopenhauer's claims grossly ignorant. ... [einstein quote] "The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us." (Einstein Cosmic Religion Review and Commentary

"...with there being a relatively fixed rectangular 'surface' region but with an infinitely deep depth that is only limited by my effort to continue the dividing and multiplication of golden durations." (Consciousness - Types and Examples)

Logical Fallacies

A quick list of the logical fallacies that are most obvious in the psychology professor's article (there are others, but these stood out glaringly):

Fallacy of Composition

Fallacy of Division

Fallacy of False Authority

Historian's Fallacy

Appeal to Authority Fallacy (Buddhism and fake Science)

Insufficient Evidence Fallacy

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy

False Attribution Fallacy

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy: The evolutionary-biologist-believing psychology professor adamantly declared that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of souls. Just because scientists are incapable of measuring a soul with a volt meter and bathroom scales, it does not mean that souls cannot exist. (The author's logic was right on par with James Legge's.)

Within the article, the 'expert' psychology professor had made the insufficient-evidence fallacy by claiming that no scientist ought to accept the existence of anything that is undetectable, immeasurable, or immaterial, especially not if the thing is associated with everyone's life. My own first knee-jerk reaction was to think of how science does not know what electricity is, nor what enables animal migration, nor what consciousness is, nor what the mind is, nor what memories are, nor what logic is, nor what qi (chi/ki) is, nor does science know what the hundreds of other things are that are allegedly immeasurable, undetectable, and immaterial.

Scientists claim that qi is impossible because no scientist is able to observe and measure qi, but the problem is not with the existence or non-existence of qi, the problem is that the scientists are themselves incapable of exhibiting qi, and too, no scientist has enough gumption to step from their arm chairs to go investigate qi (reading a science magazine's article is not research). Many of us are able to physically and measurably demonstrate qi, and do so at a strength that every living being can observe and know that qi is real. Believe it or not, voltage cannot be measured with bathroom scales, horsepower cannot be measured with a cooking teaspoon, and qi cannot be measured with a volt meter. Just because scientists do not know whether to use bathroom scales, a teaspoon, or an ammeter, it does not mean that qi does not exist. Scientists' claims are almost always inventions invented by unlearned individuals of whom themselves have no experience with, nor knowledge of, nor expertise with the topics that the scientists claim to be experts of.

The psychology professor also spoke of emotions, all while the professor's wording proved that he had absolutely no knowledge of the mind, nor of the body, nor of emotions, nor of electrical physics (and yet he was allegedly an employed college professor of psychology).

The evolutionary-biologist-believing psychology professor adamantly declared that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of souls. My knee-jerk reaction: there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the mind is electrical, and yet all scientists claim that the mind and body are electrically-based, in spite of the fact that science's laws of physics specifically state that the human mind absolutely can never ever under any circumstances be electrically-based. Why do 'experts' preach their science with one face, and then fully deny their science with another face? Are not the silly people, who contradict their own beliefs, in need of psychiatric help?

The psychology professor repeatedly spoke of his "scientific mind" being a reason for his disbelief in reincarnation. (quiet chuckle) But doesn't science have the scientific method that includes observations and measurements? What observations and measurements did the psychology professor himself do? None? Where is the science? Where is the logic? Well of course there's none!

In science, if a thing is electrical, then you will be able to draw a schematic and write the electrical mathematics of the schematic. Please, please draw a schematic of the brain, and write the mathematical formulas for every thought, memory, logic, emotion, and everything else that the 'electrical' brain allegedly does. Go ahead, do it, we'll wait. (louder chuckle) And when done, please do similarly with all genes. If the mind and body are electrical as most people believe, then the schematics and mathematics ought to be easy.

As expected, the psychology professor then began yacking about how atoms and molecules are identical as all other atoms and molecules, and, of course, his verbiage committed the fallacy of composition, fallacy of division, fallacy of false authority, historian's fallacy, appeal to authority fallacy (Buddhism), and the numerous other fallacies by his speaking of genetics, as if genetics could possibly be the explanation and excuse for his anti-physics beliefs. (audible exhale)

And don't forget that the article was published in a leading scientific psychology magazine. Yep.

Scientific Questions About Reincarnation

There is an agreement that the body has its own design that is passed down from its ancestors. The human design does not birth from any critter other than humans. For ease of use, we can name the design as being 'genetics', and, we can generally say that some behaviorisms absolutely must occur within specific genetics (poor bacteria, they never laugh like humans do; darn genetics is the cause).

Now, if genetics were the sole answer, then everyone with a 'scientific mind' could explain why some children are born with different personalities, different behaviorisms, and different tendencies (claiming "chance mutation" is a cop-out for tiny minds (that ought to be a fallacy all of its own since it's so popular amongst sciencians... oh wait! There already is one! It's called 'Argument From Ignorance'!)). Science is wholly vacant of the knowledge of atoms, molecules, and everything else that occurs prior to and during conception, else science would be loud of speaking about the variables. Nevertheless, there are some ancestral 'traits' that are observably passed to one's young, but there are some other traits that are not possible to be inherited 'genetically'.

Obvious Logic: All fountain pens have cavities for ink, but not all fountain pens have ink in the cavities. Just because a fountain pen exists, it doesn't necessitate that there must be ink inside. Just because a human body exists, it doesn't necessitate that it has a soul inside. Nothing in the universe is identical, the same, nor equal, and just because a soul may exist, it does not mandate that the soul is identical, the same, or equal to any other soul. Some humans may not have any soul (which is what many of the automaton scientists claim for themselves, and may actually be correct), some humans may have whispers of tiny souls, and some humans may have grand souls. People with 'scientific minds' who claim binary 'yes-no' for souls, are as silly as the high IQers who claim that the universe began as a binary.

Nothing in the universe is identical, the same, nor equal. The belief in 'either-or' answers, is silly. The belief of humans 'either-or' having souls, is silly.

If the body is electrical, as the 'scientific minds' claim, then there must exist a 'cavity-void' within the electrical currents. Science knows nothing of the 'voids' within electricity, nor so much as to know to not place dimensional time upon the non-dimensional cause of electricity.

"All known electrical devices are reactive and not the origin of cause." (Consciousness in Dreams Research) If the body is allegedly electrical, then, what is the cause of the electricity? Oh, but that opens a whole different realm of things that are 'undetectable, immeasurable, and immaterial', and, of which, the psychology professor's Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy claims ought to be ignored.

Now, if one's ancestors never felt a specific emotion, and if genetics were true, then all offspring would also be incapable of feeling the specific emotion. A change of body shape does change emotional potential, but some emotions require time-dilations (you cannot feel appreciation for a thing in the present if you did not lose and/or not have the thing in the past (oh but scientists don't believe that appreciation is an emotion, else the all-knowing science gods would have included the name 'appreciation' in the scientists' lists of emotions)). If no time-dilations, then one's emotional potential is limited to one's immediate life. Scientists' emotions are limited, small, and recorded by their own hands to be predominately negative. Numerous similar variables enable or disable one's ability to experience specific emotions. This topic leads into another that is very descriptive of reincarnation, but the topic is too obvious, and will not be made public for the silly 'scientific minds' to copy-paste and then claim that 'they made a discovery' (as what the psychology professor had already done in his articles and books).

As mentioned in the Reincarnation of the Soul article, "All known ancestors in my family tree were of the Christian variation that does not believe in reincarnation, and of the family members that I have spoken to, the idea of reincarnation is deemed to be wrong and of an immoral belief of heathens'. To my ancestors, the concept of reincarnation is met with anger, hate, and a belittling emotion that very strongly goes against the theory of cultural beliefs being emotionally handed-down to the fetus. The possibility of my having received the idea of reincarnation from my parents is very much not plausible."

If genetics were truly the only source of body and mind, then how could it be possible for a child to be born while knowing specific events and specific physics of biological natures that none of the child's ancestors ever knew (and of which modern science has still not 'copy-pasted discovered'), and for the child to be able to hold firsthand interpretations of topics that are in direct opposition to what all of the child's ancestors had believed? If 100% of all recorded ancestors for hundreds of years believed in Christian ideals, without any known ancestor ever having believed in reincarnation, then please explain the genetics of how an unborn child could hold the opinion of having reincarnated. If no ancestor was ever able to think five-dimensionally with durations and curves, then please explain the genetics of how a newborn child could do so. The ungiven answers are simple, but one requirement for the abilities is consciousness, the very same consciousness that 'scientific minds' claim cannot possibly occur before about 6 to 18 months old (which, by the way, adamantly proves that the scientific beliefs in the brain and consciousness being electrical, are utterly false (scientists really ought to take (and pass!!!) a class in physics!!)).

Science does not know so much as the nature of electricity, and far less able is science able to grasp that not everything in the universe is three-dimensional matter. If scientists so much as held an elementary knowledge of electricity, then the scientists would already know that a form of non-three-dimensional 'souls' exists. Ah, but 'scientific minds' are not able to extrapolate, nor cross-light information, and thus, the silly 'scientific minds' remain within their self-contradicting beliefs of preaching their science with one face, and then fully denying their science with another face.


Just because a fountain pen has a cavity, it does mandate that all fountain pens use the same ink from the same source. Just because a human has a cavity, it does mandate that all humans have the same types of souls from the same source.

Just because someone wrote something thousands of years ago, and billions of people have believed the writings to be true truth, it does not mandate that the writings are indeed true truth. Just because Buddhism and other ideologies have many different writings, it does not mandate that any of the writings are true truth. The 'scientific mind' psychology professor attempted to enforce his disbelief in souls by his quoting Buddhist writings (appeal to authority fallacy), and in having done so, validated that the whole of what the 'expert scientific mind' psychology professor had written and believed in, was silly.

If an individual wishes to know if they have a soul or not, then it is very easy; simply self-observe, and once the person is able to intricately describe what an emotion is, at that moment the person will be able to discern if one's thoughts speak of a soul, and if he had lived a previous life. Ah, but the self-observation may take years, even a decade or more, and not many people would exert that much effort to find answers.

Examples of Reincarnation, Or Something Else?

From birth, a girl had always interpreted herself to have been someone else in a previous life. She had no memories of a previous life, but one day while reading a book about the Trail of Tears, some of her memories rose to the surface, and she intricately described the event along with the dwellings. Her descriptions were proven to be correct. The memories were not happy, and now she avoids all written things about the Trail of Tears. Was it a memory of a past life, an ancestral memory (which would not be 'genetically' possible because she had been childless when she died during the Trail of Tears), or was it something else that enabled her to have specific memories of specific people and specific events?

At an early age, a boy in the central USA began exhibiting a strong interest in turtles, not living turtles, but rather his interest was solely in specific hand-sized carved turtles of golden colors. During a trip to California, at a Flagstaff restaurant he saw a wooden turtle of almost a foot width that he greatly admired, but he did not buy it because it was too big. As a teenager, the boy gave himself the nickname Turtle, and later in life often used the user name Little Turtle. After marrying, at an import store the man bought a hand-sized bronze turtle-shaped incense burner, simply because the turtle was close to being similar to what he felt in his heart ought to be the correct size. In later years, the boy wrote fictional books of what he felt in his heart. Of the stories, one was set in a specific Asian region during a specific century, with specific clothing styles that were different for the man and woman, with specific dwellings that included round houses, plus numerous other specific details that included facial features of the man and woman. The details did not appear to agree because the details suggested different cultures that would not have intermingled. Years later, the man first researched the felt facial features, and determined that one was Mongolian, and the other was Korean. Further research verified that the clothing and housing styles were correct for the century's era. But still none of it made sense until he discovered that it had indeed been an accepted practice for Korean and Mongolian royalty to marry during the century. Fist-sized golden turtle seals were used by Korean royalty, and the round houses (along with a round house (used by royalty/tribal leaders) in the center of other round houses) were Mongolian. Everything fit, precisely, with no detail being incorrect. The memories are happy and wonderful, with love and tears, but the man has chosen to not investigate the era further, because he does not want to know how the life ended.

Some individuals are able to watch foreign movies without much of any emotional response, but when the individuals watch a movie about a specific culture and era, the individuals may become emotionally overcome. For the Turtle man, he can watch Korean dramas all day without an emotional affect, but specific Korean dramas of the Joseon era are greatly emotional. The main emphasis here is that the man had been emotionally moved by golden turtles and Mongolian eyes all of his life. The emotions existed long before he first learned of Joseon, and thus, the Korean movies were not the cause of the memories nor the emotions.

It is not so uncommon for some people to have similar memories and reactions as the boy's and girl's. The uncommon thing is when the individuals are able to intricately describe the memories within a firsthand point of view (and describe them better than what most people are able to describe their present moment in life).

But were the memories and emotions caused by a soul? What about the future influencing the past? Are the memories actually a sensing of what will later become emotional? Are the memories merely a tuning-in to an ambient field where everyone's thoughts reside without fading? There are several plausible answers that do not rely on an individuated soul, and especially not rely on genetics nor any other science.

But, countless trillions of times people have had gut feelings that came true. Future perception is real. Silly psychology professors can deny it all they want, but it's still real, observable, and measurable by billions of people. Explain what the 'spirit-soul' is that communicates from the future and from a different location. Yeah, wind noises as palms fly over the heads of silly psychology professors!

An interesting discovery is that sometimes people might carry a thought all of their lives, and not until a specific event occurs in their life, do they then realize that they had been thinking of a past life's event.

The ability to intricately describe a past life does not mandate that the memory came from a non-3-dimensional 'soul', but the ability most definitely proves that all science of the mind is fully false (including what the 'expert' psychology professor teaches in his classes).

The sense of beauty has very specific ingredients, including one's own body design (i.e. genetics), but there are many other 'non-genetic' ingredients required to sense beauty, some of which directly mirror one's own inner natures. Inner natures are also composed of ingredients, some of which mirror ancestral emotions, but, if no ancestor ever expressed the specific ingredients in their lives, then, genetics and physics cannot have been the source of the ingredients. In a manner of speaking, one's body design and life are physics-based predestined (fated), but, the originating inner 'tone' (I have often referred to it as the 'foundational emotion'), from where did it come from? Within an electronic circuit that is designed to only produce a musical 'C' tone, it is obvious that any additional emitted tones would be caused by the harmonics and transductance of ambient EMF fields. Parallel, what is the ambient field that enables the originating tone? Science knows literally nothing of the sense of beauty, and science never will, but without an individual first knowing what beauty is, all claims of souls and reincarnation are merely imagined fantasies.

Within electrical physics, if the body and mind are electrical as science claims, then there must be a 'soul' that existed prior to any organic activity, and be the 'soul' that triggers the originating tone from outside of the human body. If a person believes in science's physics, then the person must also admit that science's physics proves 'souls' to exist. The silly psychology professor's "scientific mind" knew so little about science, that he didn't know that he didn't know about physics.

But the emphasis here, is, if a person wants to believe or disbelieve in souls, then first intricately describe what a 'soul' is. How many dimensions does the soul have? What is the 'voltage'? What is the 'tone'? What is the 'shape'? If a person is unable to intricately describe the soul's nature, then all beliefs about souls are imaginary.

The actual existence of 'souls' might be a lot different than what everyone assumes.


The psychology professor made the false attribution fallacy when he spoke of Buddhism and science sharing the same belief of disbelieving in reincarnation. As I have repeatedly mentioned in other articles, bad Buddhists (and Einstein) frequently claimed that their religion was the same as what other religions taught. The bad Buddhists all but destroyed Dao De Jing by inserting false Buddhist claims. It would appear that the psychology professor may himself be a reincarnated bad Buddhist {grin} who still preaches the same lies.

Too, the psychology professor has written other writings, some of which strongly verify that the fellow is unqualified to practice nor to teach psychology, nor ought he be permitted to be near children.

"...with there being a relatively fixed rectangular 'surface' region but with an infinitely deep depth that is only limited by my effort to continue the dividing and multiplication of golden durations. ...The only thing that a human can create that is fully new and unique is one's own personality of quality. ...[[ [einstein quote] "To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us." (Albert Einstein, "Ideas and Opinions", 1954, Crown Publishers, Inc., page 47) ]]. ...Philosophies, religions, and sciences have had thousands of years to solve the puzzle of consciousness, and yet the puzzle still remains a mystery. If no ideology or university has solved such a simple thing as an ethic - or consciousness - then there is no reason to assume that a solution ever will occur. Failing over and over does not create success. ...Yes, so perhaps the biologists' theories might indeed have some validity, that their minds are the most rudimentary of simpleton machines without consciousness and without thoughts... if this thing named "consciousness" is formed upon a similar principle for everyone - as radios and computers can be powered by the same electricity - or if there might be fully different principles for different forms of consciousness. ...Crusading is an ignorantly negative behavior, as are proactive atheism and all other forms of terrorism. ...The word "consciousness" is unknown to all religions, all sciences, and all philosophies, and at present there is no potential that the word will ever be known to man. ...The universe is formed upon emotional states, and if man is to ever discover the meaning of consciousness or any other word, then he must accept Nature as the one and only worthy teacher, and he must do so with the love of learning and caring, and he will discover that all answers are within him, and only him. (Consciousness - Types and Examples)

"The only thing that a human can create that is fully new and unique is one's own personality of quality." What have scientists created? What have you yourself created?

If no science and no psychology professor knows what consciousness is, then why on earth are they so screamingly silly to insist that they know that souls cannot exist?

Seriously, if [1] souls are supposed to carry consciousness, and if [2] scientists do not know what consciousness is, then is it not an intensely severe mental problem for a scientist to [3] demand that a conscious soul cannot exist? But that is precisely what the "scientific mind" 'expert' 'evolutionary biologist' psychology professor did. AND, of course, the leading scientific psychology magazine's editors and staff peer-reviewed-approved and published the psychology professor's article.

There is a short video about a woman at a gas station trying to figure-out how to insert the gas pump's nozzle into her electric car. You can hear people laughing in the background. Yep, and you can also hear laughing when reading the "scientific mind" psychology professor's article. {grin}

(For obvious reasons, the living psychology professor's name and article title are not given publicly. Contact us if you are interested in seeing the scientifically peer-reviewed article.)