Are Paranormal Events Consistent with Christian Doctrine?

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.

.