I’m as skeptical as a Christian comes. In fact, I’m sure many would claim I don’t qualify for the Christian label at all, what with my insistence on prefacing it with “agnostic,” my skepticism that there are actual beings called angels and demons around us, my skepticism that there is a literal place called Hell, and so forth.
I first wandered from the path of unquestioning righteousness (heh) in college. Until then I had been a good Episcopalian child, and then a down-the-line Southern Baptist adolescent. I seriously considered atheism—and by “seriously considered,” I mean I thought about it every day—for about two years. Neither God nor anything in the Bible even came close to surviving the methods I’d used to reject the run-of-the-mill supernatural (ESP, seances, dowsing, and the like). Atheism was definitely more intellectually attractive.
I ultimately decided that the origin of the universe is a special case. If anything is bigger than the logic of which a human is capable, then God is. Plus, I believe it is a choice between accepting “the universe has always been” or “God has always been,” and I have less trouble with the latter. Hence I identify myself as an agnostic Christian—a person who believes in God, but also believes that His existence cannot be proven.
So why Christianity? It is simply the dominant story of God in my sociocultural world. I do not believe it is superior to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, or any other world faith. (That’s another thing that gets me in trouble with some kinds of Christians.) Christianity is just how I do it. I think faith in God is faith in God, and I believe His concern with the specific trappings of how He is worshiped is minor indeed.
So belief in God survived my collegiate intellectual growth. What has remained and intensified, however, is skepticism that is one click up from outright dismissal toward what I described above as the run-of-the-mill supernatural.
I have a friend who was recently enraptured by John Edward, a man who claims to talk to dead people. (You might remember his program “Crossing Over” on the Sci-Fi Channel.) At his (concert?), she writes of the “energy” she felt, and how she left absolutely convinced that he was for real. Further, she equates disbelief in his abilities with a lack of curiosity about “the other side.”
Well, I resent that. Of course I’m curious about realms beyond the strictly empirical. However, I insist on
the absence of known factors as possible explanations. (I believe a fellow named William of Ockham once famously articulated a super-corollary along these lines.) For example, John Edward is a talented cold reader. (Go read that linked article right quick. I’ll wait for you.)
Now, which seems more likely: that Edward is a skilled and charismatic communicator? Or that he literally contacts and exchanges conversation with people who have died?
James Randi, the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has for years offered a prize of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate supernatural ability under controlled conditions. Not only has the prize never been claimed, to date no one has ever passed the (easier) preliminary qualifications. What does that mean? It means that when appeals to emotion, skillful communications, and other factors that are not strictly quantifiable are removed, the “ability” is removed as well.
If it’s a real ability, how can that happen? How can that unclaimed-for-years prize not give me substantial pause? $1 million is a hell of a lot of money, even still—particularly when it’s available for merely demonstrating an ability one claims to have. Why hasn’t Randi paid it out?
I think part of the problem is that we assign excessive value to coincidence. About ten years ago I went to Toronto on business and, walking on the shore of Lake Ontario with my colleague, ran into the people who owned the bookstore where I worked in college. Wow, right? Anything at work there? Well, let’s see. How many common foreign destinations are there? Not many, when you think about it. Couple of hundred? How many different people could have produced a similar reaction? Maybe a thousand? Maybe more? It’s not so remarkable when you think about it in the emotionless terms of mathematics, is it?
OK, now keeping that in mind, let’s go back to Edward. How many people in your life have had a D in their names? Ever been afraid of a relative? Ever been outside and cold? Ever had a flat tire? These are the kinds of things with which cold readers obtain an initial hit. Why do so many think they’re amazing? But he gets that hit and it’s off to the races, because he’s learned to manipulate someone who wants to believe he’s genuine. That’s it.
At the end of the day, I don’t disbelieve in the supernatural. There is nothing you can name that I will reject out of hand. I do, however, insist on absence of a more reasonable explanation for whatever phenomenon is under consideration. No dice so far.
That world may well be there. But I’ve not seen it yet.
You might also like:
- Church
As much history as we have, and despite both of us growing up in practicing Christian homes, the ver… - 1. Open can of worms. 2. Throw them all over the damned place.
I intended to keep my post on what I thought as a child in church light, and I think I succeeded. I … - The skeptic’s guide to white privilege
In the past, part of my problem with the notion of white privilege has been that mostly white people… - Rebellion, vulnerability, and Jesus
So I’m habitually going to early service downstairs, then Reveal service upstairs, every Sunday. Thi… - Conservative anger with Chick-fil-A is misguided
Citing an agreement that committed it through 2018, Chick-fil-A announced Monday it would not give t…
Well, I suppose you could say that your faith in God is similar to others’ faith in the supernatural. I’m not going to fight with you about it – it doesn’t matter a whit to me whether anyone else believes or not – but I do believe that I get guidance from sources other than my own intelligence and instinct. My great grandmother visits me every so often; I know things I have no business knowing, that sort of thing. I know it to be true for me – though I can’t claim the million because I can’t make it happen on demand – but its not being true for anyone else doesn’t change how I feel.
I DON’T identify as a Christian, mostly because I feel too limited by the label. I’m generally uncomfortable around people who make professions about their faith, but I never got ANY of that vibe from you (clearly – I went to church with you and your family when I visited). What that more “Christians” were like you, Bo; the world would be a safer, kinder, better place.
There is a profound difference to me between faith in God and faith in the supernatural. Consider the origin of the universe. Even the most passionate atheist has a problem with it, applying strictly empirical knowledge. Yeah yeah, I know, Big Bang, spinning mass, carbon, oxygen, and the rest of it. But where did it come from? Uhhhh…
It’s in that “Uhhhh…” that I see divinity. “What caused that cause?” Heh.
That was a special moment for me when you came to church with us, and I still think of you frequently during services. It’s related to exactly why I do identify as a Christian–that whole “be the change” thing. I believe that witnessing never ends, and if a person looks at me and sees a Christian who believes he’ll see gay Muslims in heaven, then maybe that person begins to broaden his/her definition of what a Christian is. It’s no more reasonable to define me by Fred Phelps than it is to define an in-the-street Muslim by Osama bin Laden.
In any case, thank you for the wonderful compliment, and I’m delighted that in our budding friendship, you can identify me as both a man of faith and a reasonable citizen of the world.
Hate to nit pick you Bo, BUT, a “Christian”, by definition, is someone who believes Jesus to be the son of God. The way you describe yourself would be something closer to an Agnostic Jew. And i’m right there with you.
The distinction I see is that I believe I can pick my myth, and it makes no difference.
I do believe Jesus to be the son of God. I also believe that God revealed the Qur’an to Muhammad. I also believe Buddha is an enlightened teacher who helps sentient beings end their suffering by proper use of the laws of Karma. I also believe…
You might want to read Ann Lamott’s “Travelling Mercies.”
She and I are on very similar spiritual paths. Plus, I stalked her.
touché 😉
I’m gonna stay out of this.
I believe that what I call a “soul” and what other people call an “energy” may be two names for the same thing. Is there literally a Heaven and Hell? Maybe not. Maybe it really is just an example to explain the concept of a soul at peace and a soul in torment. (I know I don’t believe it’s just “over” when you die, though.) In the long run, I’m not sure that the specifics matter to me as much as it matters that I am at peace with MY convictions when I die (i.e. did I live by the things I espoused?). Again, with me it’s the “whatever you’re going to be, be a good one” philosophy.
Okay, having laid that foundation, here’s my take on ghosts and mediums. I don’t think my dead father is going to talk to me or send me signs. There will always be things that remind me of him every time I see them. These are things I might LOOK for when I am missing him as a way to comfort myself just as a child looks for a favorite blankie. When I’m in a situation where I wish I could sit down and talk to him, I can generally tell you what he’d tell me… but not because he comes to me in dreams. It’s because I knew him well enough to know what he’d be saying if he still was sitting across the table. Does that mean I don’t believe in ghosts? I dunno… I’ve certainly never seen any… but there’s that whole soul / energy thing that I haven’t quite worked out and wouldn’t it be kinda cool if there were… Do I believe in mediums that see your dead relatives in the cool comfort of the local concert hall? No. I think they say what some people need to hear like “you’re forgiven”, “it’s okay to move on with your life”, “I love you, too” or “I know that you loved me”. For some people, though, I think this is better then a year’s worth of therapy (and apparently about the same price). Does the end justify the means? Maybe. It’s probably a lot better for you then a mood altering drug.
Lea, I appreciate what you’re saying here. For me, the idea is a cross between Bo and the origin of the Universe and you and souls – if we carry this energy with us (or, as can also be argued, we ARE that energy) doesn’t it make sense that it would continue on after the body housing it is gone?
I’ll say it again, though; I’m not in this to convince ANYONE (and it’s true that I RARELY speak of these things to others, for fear of starting something that can’t be finished). I believe it’s true for me; that it might not be true to anyone else doesn’t matter a bit to me.
Yes, it really can be a never ending conversation. I kept finding myself getting “off in the weeds” trying to put my thoughts in writing. Writing only a piece of it down makes my views sound more narrow then how I really feel. Mostly, I was trying to explain that my views on souls / energy leaves open the *possibility* for ghosts, even though I’m *skeptical* that these souls really hang around. Making a career of talking to dead people is where I have a problem believing it. On the other hand I think it’s very entertaining to watch because these guys are darn good at what they do and I’m okay with the idea that somebody is walking away comforted. (I mean, seriously, how many spirits “come through” and say, “It was your fault and I hate you!”) I, also, love a good ghost story. Like you, I’m not in it to change anybody’s mind. Bo and I don’t even agree on everything. Still, hearing someone else’s opinions often helps you clarify your own.
“hearing someone else’s opinions often helps you clarify your own.”
YES! And this is why I LOVE blogging! Access to a practically unlimited number of opinions!
I have SERIOUS issue with people who make their living doing this kind of thing, though; it feels slimy to me to take money hoodwinking people (but, obviously, I’m in the minority on this one – look at all the politicians and lawyers and,…..). I like that people may come away comforted, but I’m not down with the fact that many of them come away significantly lighter in the wallet.
Suzie, thanks for the recommendation. I’ll add that to my squirrel heap.
Mrs. Chili, that’s where I have a problem with it. If you take money for services, then you should provide the services. He doesn’t. He’s a fraud. Even a caveat emptor libertarian like me thinks that should remain illegal. ‘Course, I’m sure his performances are disclaimed out the wazoo.
It takes a really great ghost/spirit/possession/haunting story to scare me, but I can appreciate them on a dramatic level if they’re otherwise well done too. The Exorcist is a great example. It scared me the first time I saw it, but when I watched the re-release on the big screen a few years ago, it didn’t. I was still able to enjoy the well-crafted film that it is, though.
I’m showing The Sixth Sense to my lit. students next week. I LOVE this film for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that I think it comes pretty close to how I think it works….
I’ve never seen The Exorcist – those kinds of ghost stories don’t work for me. I liked What Dreams May Come (that’s pretty close to how I think it works, too – we end up in “heaven” or “hell” according to what we think we deserve), and I liked Dragonfly (though not enough to own it – I have the other two on DVD). I’ve also got Stir of Echos on DVD, but it’s one I’ve not yet watched – I bought it on a recommendation from someone who’s opinion on such things I trust. I’ll let you know what I think after I see it.