How is reincarnation similar to evolution theory?

Evolution of the Soul Hindus believe that at the beginning of the cycle of rebirth we all started off as ‘lower beings’, originally as a single cell. Over many lifetimes we undergo evolutions, as we are reborn into the animal kingdom and then eventually as humans- After being born human, the individual keeps being reborn as human unless his actions were so bestial as to warrant his being reborn as an animal

Samsara, or reincarnation, is a central teaching of Hinduism Samsara, or reincarnation, is a central teaching of Hinduism. Rivers are sometimes thought to symbolize reincarnation because they constantly flow, yet follow the same course. Perhaps the most sacred river is the Ganges, which is used for spiritual cleansing, funeral rites, and other Hindu rituals. The concept of reincarnation can best be represented by the infinity symbol. When one is born, they are given life by Brahma, as the pass through life, they are preserved by Vishnu, until finally Shiva claims you in death. Then the cycle is repeated over and over again until one finally achieves moksha. These teachings are very similar in Buddhism

Watch the clip what questions does reincarnation raise? https://www.truetube.co.uk/film/life-after-life http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/hindu-beliefs-about-life-after-death/3629.html

What questions does this raise? How would a Hindu answer this?

Rebirth: what it is The Buddhist teaching that we have no essential self or soul (anatta); true selfhood is an illusion. Everything, including conscious life, is forever changing (anicca). This means that there is no personal afterlife, but instead a constant cycle of rebirth (samsara). Rebirth is a fixed principle of reality, not something created by God (not even the Great Brahma understands how or why it happens).

Rebirth The process of rebirth is governed by the law of karma – the principle that ethically significant actions have consequences. Ultimately, believers aspire to escape from samsara by recognising the illusion, thus reaching Enlightenment (nibanna). The hand of Karma – what you give out returns back to you three times.

Rebirth and the Law of Karma In Buddhism, karma refers to ‘volitional action’ or ‘intentional action’ (i.e. something that is deliberately chosen). For these actions there are definite moral consequences. Buddhists claim that both the intention and the result of an action contribute to its effects. Buddhists distinguish four key types of karmic effect: a fully ripened effect; e.g. hatred leading to rebirth in hell, an effect similar to the cause; e.g. being lied to if we have lied in the past, conditioning effect; e.g. stealing may lead to rebirth in conditions of poverty, proliferation effect; an action in the past will be repeated over and again. Karma immediately affects rebirth, not because it decides our ultimate fate (because in Buddhism there is no true self), but because we are constantly reborn into different states which are largely determined by karma. Rebirth and the Law of Karma Buddhism understands the consequences of every action as having an impact on those who perform them. However, it needs to be considered how this affects the individual, since in rebirth “there is no ordinary-language self … no empirical self or person” (John Hick).

Rebirth: arguments in favour This idea is of moral value; since we are constantly reborn we must constantly strive for good karmic effects. We are never just damned or saved. The idea that we have no ‘true self’ will appeal to some, especially to those who find the idea of an immaterial soul to be too metaphysical or doubtful. There is some psychological truth in the idea of anatta, since who we are is something which is constantly changing. I am not the person I was ten years ago. By emphasising the enlightenment of the Buddha, rebirth stresses the importance of personal spirituality and compassion over blind faith.

Rebirth: arguments against There is no hard evidence for the law of karma affecting our lives. It might fall into the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ (G.E. Moore) in that it confuses moral ideas with factual information about how the world works. It assumes a dark view of reality with the inevitability of suffering – must life always be this way? Isn’t life actually enjoyable? It is difficult to live without the idea of a fixed or true self. Surely it’s important to know ‘what we are really like’.

Which view is most likely, or has the most evidence behind it Which view is most likely, or has the most evidence behind it? Do our experiences support certain forms of afterlife? Which view has the most realistic view of the self? Should we favour dualism, monism, or rebirth? Evaluation Ideas Does the background in a faith tradition matter? Is it useful to have established religious support for concepts of afterlife? Are certain forms of afterlife more or less moral as ideas? Is it better to believe certain things?