• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

no need to prove spirits


idontunderstand

Skilled Investigator
HS,

You are always acting like the defender of the sceptical faith.

You dont need to. Your not the only person on this forum who is able to have an objective view of the topics discussed in the show and on the forum.

Yes for some paranormalism may be a substitute wife for religion, but not for all of them. I really doubt any seriously see this area as a fill in for the religious process.

I don't think it's really helpful to anyone by constantly aligning paranormal belief with religious psychology.

Each base tendency I feel requires the same objective investigation. If the tendency is not to believe, that non-belief (in ghosts for example) has to stand up to the light of investigation to support that position.

Just in the same way the pre-disposition of belief in ghosts has to. It also has to support its position by objective investigation.

Proclamation of "I do not believe, because its all nonsense" is as bad as "I Believe it, because I believe it"

I don't think that paranormans or paranormettes faith in the subject is the same as faith in religion which is ultimately about a saviour figure who will square it for them with his dad in the after life.

Its faith that there is substance to the subject, and that it is worthy of investigation.
 

Ankhes

Skilled Investigator
Good points you make, HS. You are right in that when people place their faith in something they do indeed take criticism personally.
I should have learned that by now, especially since I abandoned the TAPS forums. Those people believe every little noise, door opening, and smell is positive proof of a haunting. And they attack anyone who challenges them or the findings of TAPS.
True, no-one will learn anything unless they are willing to alter what they think they already know.
 
H

hopeful skeptic

Guest
You are always acting like the defender of the sceptical faith.
Ah, but there is no such thing as a skeptical faith. Faith exists despite a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary. A critical thinker goes accepts what the evidence can reasonably prove. Skeptics have nothing to do with faith.

Yes for some paranormalism may be a substitute wife for religion, but not for all of them. I really doubt any seriously see this area as a fill in for the religious process. I don't think it's really helpful to anyone by constantly aligning paranormal belief with religious psychology.
Any belief held without evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence, is a belief based on faith. Faith exists among paranormalists, and it exists in religion. Faith is faith. There is no difference.

Each base tendency I feel requires the same objective investigation. If the tendency is not to believe, that non-belief (in ghosts for example) has to stand up to the light of investigation to support that position.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. (I could go into the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative, but I won't.) Ghosts defy all the known laws of physics, biology, pathology, etc., and a skeptic can (and should) safely proceed through life serene in the assurance that the creaking door in his house is not evidence of a ghost, since no one has yet presented a scrap of incontrovertible evidence for their existence. Someone who believes that ghosts exist has a responsibility to provide hard, tangible, testable evidence to support that claim.

If that evidence emerges, a skeptic should (and would) accept the existence of ghosts. Ten thousand years, and waiting....

Proclamation of "I do not believe, because its all nonsense" is as bad as "I Believe it, because I believe it"
I agree. That's not a good, critical position.

I don't think that paranormans or paranormettes faith in the subject is the same as faith in religion which is ultimately about a saviour figure who will square it for them with his dad in the after life.
Well, let's try a scenario, just for fun:

Some UFO believers (and LOTS of contactees) think the following:

We are destroying our planet with our pollution, wars, diseases, greed, corruption, etc. We are obviously incapable of saving ourselves, and things are getting worse. Good news, though! We have been visited in the past and are being visited in the present by benevolent beings come to save us, and redeem our world. They will come soon to reveal themselves (2012, maybe?), and if we'd be more open-minded and accept their message, we'll be saved from the impending destruction of our own making (Nuclear war? Al Gore's scenario?). Don't listen to skeptics and close-minded people around you, and don't listen to your government, because they're all "agents of disinformation," and are working against full disclosure of this wonderful message.

Here's the Christian message:

Every person on Earth has sinned. We've committed sins of murder, pestilence, greed, corruption, etc. We are incapable of saving ourselves, and things are only getting worse. Good news, though! We were visited in the past (and appearances are made in the present) by Jesus Christ, a benevolent being come to save us, and redeem the world. He will come again to reveal Himself, and if we'd be open-minded and accept His message, we'll be saved from the impending destruction of our own making (Hell? Armageddon?). Don't listen to skeptics and denizens of the secular world, because they are only agents of the Devil, and are actively working against the full flower of this wonderful message.

I see no tangible difference at all. Contacteeism is a mental shelter for those who reject traditional religious motifs, but still need the crutch of "something larger" to believe in.

Its faith that there is substance to the subject, and that it is worthy of investigation.
Not for me. I'm interested in UFOs because I've seen enough physical trace evidence and hard radar returns to warrant my further attention. This endless parade of unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts doesn't cut it.
 
H

hopeful skeptic

Guest
Ankhes said:
Good points you make, HS. You are right in that when people place their faith in something they do indeed take criticism personally.
I should have learned that by now, especially since I abandoned the TAPS forums. Those people believe every little noise, door opening, and smell is positive proof of a haunting. And they attack anyone who challenges them or the findings of TAPS.
True, no-one will learn anything unless they are willing to alter what they think they already know.
Well, welcome to this forum. The debate is often enlightening, but one side all too often refuses to engage.
 

idontunderstand

Skilled Investigator
Ah, but there is no such thing as a skeptical faith. Faith exists despite a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary. A critical thinker goes accepts what the evidence can reasonably prove. Skeptics have nothing to do with faith.
Agreed wrong choice of words, It would of been better to say a skeptical position


Any belief held without evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence, is a belief based on faith. Faith exists among paranormalists, and it exists in religion. Faith is faith. There is no difference.
Originally you said -:

Someone predisposed to believe in ghosts, UFOs, spooks, specters or flying humanoids has a faith that is in no way different from any given member of an organized, traditional religion
Typical Organised traditional religion requires that you believe in a saviour, or suffer the penalty of eternal hell. Faith that ghosts exists is not the same.

Religious faith deals with the concept of a creator god, which by some definitions must exist outside of space/time, and therefore is unknowable in the normal sense of the word.

Thats what some religious people mean when then say "They have faith", because they are unable to prove their belief in conventional terms, that would satisfy a nuts and bolts man.

Faith that ghost exists I suggest for most people is because they have seen enough information to suggest there is a tangible substance to the subject (much the same as your ufo position). Not because they want to substitute a sense of religion.

I don't personally believe what religious people believe in regards to faith, but I do not see the religious concept of "faith" the same as paranormal faith.


The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic.
Agreed.

Ghosts defy all the known laws of physics, biology, pathology, etc
If as you say no scrap of evidence has been produced to support the existence of ghosts, how can you come to a determination about the possible phyiscal, biological, and pathological nature of the phenomenom.

Surely its not possible to conclude anything about the characteristics you mention?

All the "known" laws of physics you mentioned. Yes of course they define our current window on the world and what is possible. But why should it be that ghosts break any currently known rules of nature?

And as you are fully aware the "known" in science seems to change a lot over the years, as new technology allows us to see deeper and more clearly than we could before.

As I speak many electromagnetic signals are passing through the space I occupy. The TV signal for example. I am unable to percive the energy, yet it surely exists as my Television testifys.

Is it possible for some condition to occur in nature when all the variables are set that energy from the past is visible and percivable by the human mind?

Are these people who have seen the same consistent apparition independently, and who previously have had no interest in the subject somehow breaking the laws of physics.

Well, let's try a scenario, just for fun:

Some UFO believers (and LOTS of contactees) think the following:

We are destroying our planet with our pollution, wars, diseases, greed, corruption, etc. We are obviously incapable of saving ourselves, and things are getting worse. Good news, though! We have been visited in the past and are being visited in the present by benevolent beings come to save us, and redeem our world. They will come soon to reveal themselves (2012, maybe?), and if we'd be more open-minded and accept their message, we'll be saved from the impending destruction of our own making (Nuclear war? Al Gore's scenario?). Don't listen to skeptics and close-minded people around you, and don't listen to your government, because they're all "agents of disinformation," and are working against full disclosure of this wonderful message.

Here's the Christian message:

Every person on Earth has sinned. We've committed sins of murder, pestilence, greed, corruption, etc. We are incapable of saving ourselves, and things are only getting worse. Good news, though! We were visited in the past (and appearances are made in the present) by Jesus Christ, a benevolent being come to save us, and redeem the world. He will come again to reveal himself, and if we'd be open-minded and accept His message, we'll be saved from the impending destruction of our own making (Hell? Armageddon?). Don't listen to skeptics and denizens of the secular world, because they are only agents of the Devil, and are actively working against the full flower of this wonderful message.
I think you are doing what a lot of people do. You are defining a stereotypical idea and applying it to a group. You then ask that group to defend the position that you have set out and believe is the truth.

Theres a real problem with that, because you might end up defending a position, and might miss the meat of the matter.

I see no tangible difference at all. Contacteeism is a mental shelter for those who reject traditional religious motifs, but still need the crutch of "something larger" to believe in.
I think you are way of the mark here , for the reasons I have described above.

I'm interested in UFOs because I've seen enough physical trace evidence and hard radar returns to warrant my further attention. This endless parade of unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts doesn't cut it
You've seen the trace evidence personally? Has the evidence been peer reviewed? What science journal did this "evidence" appear in?

If you can not supply the evidence my old boy, you are simply dealing with faith.


Cheers
 

Top