[-Sigurd-]

The trouble with relying on subjective accounts as 'evidence' is that the same arguments can be used to promote belief in just about anything, if we accept what some plausible seeming person says:

I believe in Karma primarily because there are enlightened spiritual teachers living today who claim to have a recollection of their previous incarnations-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people?I find the idea of reincarnation plausible because there is a wealth of scientific research which,while not offering definitive proof of reincarnation,does offer some convincing evidence that it is a fact.

How about this:

'I believe in alien abduction primarily because there are reliable, upstanding members of the community with no history of mental instability of dishonesty living today who claim to have a recollection of their abductions-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people? I find the idea of alien abduction plausible because there is a wealth of scientific research which,while not offering definitive proof of the phenomenon,does offer some convincing evidence that it is a fact.'

Another variation -

'I believe in miracles primarily because there are'....you get the idea.

In short, you believe in karma and reincarnation primarily because of the personal testimony of certain charismatic and revered individuals...this is a form of 'revelation' that is common in religion and absent in science.

Buddhism is not science or pure philosophy; the scientific world at large is in no doubt that Karma is a spiritual belief as much as belief in miracles. Not only that - but these beliefs are based in - essentially - the same kind of revelation based epistemology as Fears Christian beliefs.