Perhaps a discussion of why some people are more comfortable with the idea of being reincarnated vs. people who are more comfortable with the idea of Heaven?

I.e. What are the benefits of being reincarnated? A chance to "try again?"

What are the benefits of an "end of the journey" as offered by Heaven?

Hmmm, how about "Recycled Souls: Just when you thought you'd heard it all"

Speaking of recycling, you could include the Tibetan Sky Burial . . . a practice which says a lot about their powerful belief in reincarnation.
Sky burial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idea1
Plato (and by extension Socrates) have a position and belief in reincarnation of the soul. You could use supplementary material from Plato's Meno to argue on the notion of the soul and knowledge. The soul's knowledge is lost at birth, so when we are taught as children, we are basically re-nourishing a pre-existing memory within our soul. This can lead to the classic argument that applies to how children are taught, etc. But the finer details are in Meno in an isolated section, but you can pick up a few really good analysis compendiums (David Bostock) for finer details. To tell the truth, there is not much reading to be done since the subject is relatively isolated. This is the best pick for me at least.

Idea2
You could go with an Indian Metaphysical account of reincarnation, but I would advise against it. It is rather difficult when you get into the specifics though. When the concept of Dharma come into the equation, it gets kinda messy with all of the various stages. I would suggest Classical Indian Philosophy by J.N. Mohanty. Good book, very approachable. Focuses mainly on Vedantic thought, so it's pretty understandable. But again, its very abstract and sort of a pain to start out with.

If you do want to do any of these subjects, send me a message, because I have some materials you may find useful.

Madel, this site may be a start for you. Reincarnation or the belief in heaven are all about a "rebirth", just a difference in interpretation as to where that rebirth might take place. Of course Eastern philosophy is rift with it.
Christian Reincarnation: The Long Forgotten Doctrine

William

Reincarnation MUST retain some memory of a past life (lives), or else there's no distinguishing between a new soul and an old soul.

I don't know about that. Reincarnation seldom implies any memory of previous lives aside from the fact that the soul has transmigrated. Also consider that most beliefs in reincarnation consider it a bad thing to carry the baggage of a previous life into the new.

If there's no memory or something that shows it was an old soul, then what's the difference between a reincarnated soul and a brand new soul? Refurbished Warranty?

This assumes that you will be reincarnated as human. If my memory of Buddhist thought holds (and it may not), there is no guarantee that you will. Hence the Buddhist reverence for life -- all life. The fly you so casually smash today may have once been, in a previous incarnation, someone very dear to you. There's a scene in the movie "Seven Years in Tibet" where Buddhist monks are saving earthworms at a construction site that illustrates this point.

If the Buddhist theory of reincarnation is true, you are currently living yet one more of what have been many incarnations. The simple fact that you are alive as who you are would seem to validate this premise, at least from a Buddhist point of view. The things that are problems for you now, such as a terrible temper, for example, are carry-overs from your previous life, and your current "mission" is to fix this problem -- control it and conquer it -- so that you may pass on to your next incarnation with one less piece of baggage. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all of your imperfections of mind and spirit so that you may finally reach Nirvana, or "oneness" with the cosmos from whence you sprang and thus end the cycle of death and rebirth, or "Samsara."

If you are reincarnated as non-human (a raging lion, for instance) it is because you were unable to conquer the element of animal rage that defined your life in a previous incarnation, and your Karma (which is really more of a law of "cause and effect" rather than "reward and punishment" as it is often misinterpreted) is to live a life governed by your unruly emotions until the cycle rolls around again and gives you a chance to try again.

Only those who are very close to full enlightenment or who are close to attaining Nirvana are aware, albeit perhaps only dimly, of previous lives. I believe the current Dali Lama would be considered one such person. For everyone else memories only manifest themselves as residual personality traits. This is why those on the path of ending the cycle of life and death must be so very careful, as a misstep could blow the whole deal and you'd have to start all over again.

Reincarnation in Buddhist thought is much more complicated than simply being reborn in a new form, and I'm afraid I've done a very poor job of trying to make a synopsis of it. I may be interpreting what little I have read of Buddhist thought entirely wrong, but I hope I've at least touched upon the gist of what they believe regarding reincarnation.

If there are any Buddhists out there reading this who take exception to my words, I welcome any corrections or clarifications you may provide.

Tock.

There you go, that's something from the past life. All I'm saying is that for reincarnation to work, you must carry something, whatever it is, from a past life into your present life, whether from human to human or bug to human or human to bug; whether memory or karma or something.

So in what ways would you (both Ticktock, Victor, etc.) suggest to madel as approaches to his paper?

Exactly. My point was that it's not always memory, per se, as we may not technically "remember" it in the standard definition of the word.

I still think that the idea of a paper discussing the differing ideas of the Buddhist philosophy of getting a chance to keep trying to attain Nirvana ("Heaven," if you will) over several lives, vs. "one strike and you're out" in standard Christian theology might be interesting.

Why would one be considered preferable over another, psychologically or philosophically?

Or are they, in essence, the same notion viewed from a different angle? Or perhaps on differing timelines?

You might want to try comparing and contrasting various approaches of the eastern and western traditions; like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

For something philosophical, maybe Plato's theory of recollection and reincarnated past lives or Kierkegaard's existential freedom and karma

Could you do a chronological history of reincarnation beliefs, or a survey of reincarnation beliefs amongst different religions? Or would that not be philosophical enough?

Maybe a paper about the way belief in reincarnation can be psychologically comforting?

A paper on logical reasons why belief in reincarnation has persisted despite lack of empirical proof of it?

Here's your title:
Logical Positivism on Reincarnation: Why Carnap thinks You're Full of It

Deftil's good post there got me thinkin... at the risk of going off topic here...[INDENT]Reincarnation, would necessarily have to depend on the consciousness (let's call it spirit) existing as a distinct, actual entity that's transferable. Did this concept (reincarnation) arise out of that I wonder? (kind of like the "Welp, if it can live forever and return to god, why not just transfer it?"-mindset). I don't subscribe to it in any form, but it *does* seem to follow that if you believe in that actuality of the spirit, it's not so much of a leap to conceive of it being transferred. Yes?
[/INDENT][INDENT]Another thought occurred to me. One of the videos we have ("The Waking Life" - very interesting I might add) had a short blurb about reincarnation - two folks talking about it - whereby one person talked about the numerical impossibility of it. I'll probably get this wrong, but in essence the idea was this: If more world population is growing, as it is, and souls are recycled from one life to the next, where are the new ones coming from?
[/INDENT]<runs off to do penance for going off-topic>

Again, this makes the assumption that one's reincarnation will be in human form, and in this particular plane of being. The philosophy of reincarnation takes place on what amounts, in essence, to an infinite timeline in an eternal cosmos.

There is a passage in the Hindu Upanishads which I believe addresses the misconception of "new souls."

The story goes as follows (I'm abbreviating a bit in the interest of time):

A demon has sealed off all of the waters of earth, creating a terrible drought. The god Indra realizes that he can destroy the monster, and does so by dropping a thunderbolt on it. The water is released, and the world is saved. To reward himself, Indra decides to have the carpenter of the gods build a mighty palace for him.

To the carpenter's irritation,the palace is never quite good enough, never quite big enough to satisfy Indra, so he goes to Brahma, the creator god, and complains. Brahma in turn passes the carpenter's complaint along to Vishnu, who in essence says "Don't worry about it. It will be taken care of."

The next morning a boy shows up at the gates of Vishnu's palace. Indra asks him what brings him there.

----------------

(The following is taken directly from Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth.")

The boy says with a voice like thunder rolling on the horizon, "I am told that you are building such a palace as no other Indra before you has ever built."

And Indra says, "Indras before me--young man, what are you talking about?"

The boy says, "Indras before you. I have seen them come and go, come and go. Just think, Vishnu sleeps in the cosmic ocean, and the lotus of the universe grows from his navel. On the lotus sits Brahma, the creator. Brahma opens his eyes and the world comes into being, governed by an Indra. Brahma closes his eyes, and a world goes out of being. The life of a Brahma is 432,000 years. When he dies, the lotus goes back, and another lotus is formed, and another Brahma. Then think of the galaxies beyond galaxies in infinite space, each a lotus, with a Brahma sitting on it, opening his eyes, closing his eyes. And Indras? There may be wise men in your court who would volunteer to count the drops of water in the oceans of the world or the grains of sand on the beaches, but no one would count those Brahmin, let alone those Indras."

While the boy is talking, an army of ants parades across the floor. The boy laughs when he sees them, and Indra's hair stands on end, and he says to the boy, "Why do you laugh?"

The boy answer's "Don't ask unless you are willing to be hurt."

Indra says, "I ask. Teach."

And so the boy points to the ants and says, "Former Indras all. Through many lifetimes they rise from the lowest condition to the highest illumination. And then they drop their thunderbolt on a monster, and they think 'What a good boy am I.' And down they go again."

---------------------

I always liked this story.

Tock.
(Joins Khethil doing penance for going off-topic -- but brings two bottles of nice cold dark ale)

Good point! This would certainly help resolve what's-his-name's issue with the numbers involved.