As a
committed Christian Evangelical, one might suppose that I disbelieve in ghosts,
apparitions and other such accounts concerning the paranormal. The fact that I give tentative credence, in principle,
to such accounts is due to two factors.
One of them is Biblical, for example the account of the Medium of Endor
in the First Book of Samuel, Chapter
28. The second factor is that, for a
time, I resided in a house that I strongly believe to this day was haunted by
spirits of deceased people. It was an
experience that persuaded me on many levels, and in some great detail, that
there are spirits inhabiting parts of the physical world.
Before going
further, I must emphasize that I dismiss most, nearly all, accounts of the
paranormal that I have been exposed to.
Partly, this is due to the suspicion that a great many of these accounts
are either fraudulent, hoaxes, or the product of unwarranted superstition, or
other deceptions.
Another part
of my general skepticism is due to a subjective sense on my part that most of
these accounts do not have the, shall I say, “flavor” of authenticity. For example, in the house where I now live,
there were strange sounds occurring at odd times, just as they had in the
(allow me to say) “haunted” house of previous years past. I never for a moment, however, thought that
these more recent sounds were spirits.
The distinct “feeling” of a spirit presence was not there, and
eventually it was shown that the culprits were squirrels in the attic, which we
evicted. The sounds have not returned.
Likewise,
when I read reports of paranormal events, I sometimes get a distinct feeling
that they do not impart to me a sense that they are true. For example, one popular book (and movie)
just simply was entirely contradictory to my experience.
Don’t get me
wrong; I do not hold myself forth as any kind of expert whatsoever in matters
of the paranormal (nor of squirrels, for that matter). Everything I say on these matters is subject
to error. The reader must judge for
himself. I merely offer my personal
account and interpretation. I am not the
least offended by those who disbelieve me.
A bit of
context might help.
It seems
that throughout written history, and even before, humans have regarded the after-life
as a fact: the physical body and the
human soul, or spirit, are detachable upon death of the body. This built-in belief seems instinctive.
The question
then arises, is this instinctive belief an aberration of the mind? Did it at one time provide a survival
advantage? In the modern technological
era, is that instinct no longer useful?
Just as in the case of familiar optical illusions, do we interpret
certain normal events incorrectly? In
this case, is it the lens of superstition?
Physical
science suggests that reports of paranormal phenomena are misguided, erroneous,
or patently false. Science relies upon
evidence, and that evidence must be subject to repeatable observations under
controlled conditions. Many attempts to
conduct experiments regarding paranormal matters have either failed to produce
clear results, or have proved that fraud was involved. Therefore, the degree of skepticism is very
high. Some experiments seem to support
the existence of spirit beings, but they receive little serious coverage.
How do we
wade through the ocean of fraud and error to get at the truth? Since it cannot be directly proved that there
is no such thing as spirit—one cannot prove a negative—then we must seek proof
in a different avenue. For example, I cannot
positively disprove the existence of unicorns, elves or magic lanterns. I can only point to a lack of evidence for
them, but not to evidence of lack.
We can,
however, look at the efforts of science to seek the presence of unknown intelligent
beings on other planets, for a clue as how to proceed. There is no publicly available proof,
palpable and demonstrable proof, that technological civilizations on far
distant planets exist. There is no proof
of the so-called flying saucers which thousands of credible witnesses have
reported in concert with radar, with multiple simultaneous sightings on the
ground and in the air, by experts, and after-the-fact evidence including burned
patches of grass.
Despite the
lack of conclusive proof in the public domain, people reasonably believe that
distant planetary civilizations do exist.
It is entirely plausible that inhabitants of such planets can traverse
the galaxy and arrive here. The greater
mystery is that despite the abundance of anecdotal evidence, no one has produced
undeniable proof. Does this absence of
proof, equal proof of absence?
Likewise,
despite the absence of irrefutable proof concerning spirit beings, their
existence can be plausibly postulated.
Science can no more laugh this off than they can the proposal that
intelligent life exists on other planets.
Each hypothesis deserves serious investigation by open-minded skeptics
who can apply objective discipline to an honest search.
In the case
of UFOs, most reported incidents are mistaken, either honestly or dishonestly—but
a residual number of them remain stubbornly plausible, and in some cases, quite
compelling.
In my “haunting”
case, I cannot claim independent objectivity about something that I personally
experienced over an extended period of time, even though it is corroborated by
numerous other people. Nor can I feel
personal affront if someone tells me that I am mistaken, deluded, or lack good
judgment. People should indeed be
skeptical. We should demand it.
But that
skepticism should itself be subject to tests of reasonableness. Modern technology has produced a wide array
and assortment of investigative tools, and modern methodology is able to detect
fraud, illusion and error. Those tools
should be aggressively applied by open-minded skeptics, beginning now.
There is however,
one giant brick wall that inhibits research into the paranormal. That is the current paradigm under which
science presently labors, the paradigm of physicalism. The physicalist paradigm is not inherently
unreasonable, but if it is false, its weaknesses will never be exposed until
and unless scientists honestly question it.
The physicalist
paradigm, as I understand it, states that nothing exists except the
physical. Everything in nature can in
principle be explained by, and only by, other things in nature. Nothing else exists, or if it does, nothing
except the physical has any effect in nature.
Nothing.
The fact that
this paradigm has profound weaknesses can be exposed by any conscious person
merely by observing the undeniable fact that he is indeed, conscious. Consciousness has never been shown to be limited
to, or to arise solely from, physical processes, despite claims to the
contrary. Indeed, powerful arguments can
be made—and are being made—that unconscious materials have no potential to
become conscious, no matter how much the complexity with which they can be
arranged. Therefore, there is a profound
gap in our understanding of what consciousness is.
Another
weakness is that the physicalist paradigm denies that free will can possibly
exist in the manner we perceive it. True
free will violates the strict cause-and-effect chain of events which
physicalism absolutely requires if it is a valid paradigm. Yet, without free will, we are merely
helpless witnesses to our own lives, not active participants in them. Without free will, there is no science.
If
consciousness is fundamentally different from any purely physical phenomenon,
then that shatters the physicalist paradigm.
Its proposed replacement, the God paradigm, goes further. It holds that free will and consciousness are
fundamental realities underlying physical reality. It then follows that life itself also
underlies the basis of reality. Life is
not a chemical process, but rather, the force which guides that process.
While
physicalism cannot explain matters of the spirit, indeed cannot admit of them, the
God paradigm gives us a suitable context for them. Once that paradigm is permitted in science,
the real work can begin. The potentials
are barely imaginable.
.
