• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

Forums New posts

Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

  • Total voters
    43
Until such time as a UFO lands on the White House Lawn (area 51 doesn't count) there will continue to be underpinnings of faith based on the personal testimony and feelings of others when formulating UFO belief systems. As we have said here so many times before, the testable hypothesis is a crucial component in distinguishing realms of the imaginary from consistent consensual reality. This is, whether we like it or not, what belief in the UFO (as of today anyway) has in common with organized religions. Subjective experiences and feelings are shared over time and consensual sub-groups emerge.

This is why when someone asks me what I absolutely believe about the UFO, I can only honestly answer that credible people report incredible things. We may push slightly beyond that with trace evidence. But it too has way of joining the macro quantum cloud of uncertainty that collapses to a 'yes' or 'no' status based on subjective opinion. Are religious fundamentalists, devout atheists, and believers in a physical UFO phenomenon that is currently amenable to objective analysis on the same psychological page? To some extent, I think so. But the sincere UFO investigator and constructive skeptic can at least be given credit for seeking solutions in an ongoing way. I don't think the same can be said of the fundamentalist, who adheres to a rulebook of sanctioned explanations. Or to the devout atheist, who is in the logically untenable position of trying to prove a cosmological negative.
 
Last edited:
Hmm this is about theology? I would say I'm an informed atheist. But a spiritual person as well. I believe that all life shares a connection, one that is undiscovered by science at this point.
 
Xylo said:
Hmm this is about theology? I would say I'm an informed atheist. But a spiritual person as well. I believe that all life shares a connection, one that is undiscovered by science at this point.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What do you mean by "spiritual"? I can't seem to distinguish it from a concern over psychological issues, particularly personality. Also this "connection" we all share: Apart from being on the WWW and belonging to a common species, in what way does it manifest itself so that you are aware of its existence?
 
ufology said:
Interesting. What do you mean by "spiritual"? I can't seem to distinguish it from a concern over psychological issues, particularly personality. Also this "connection" we all share: Apart from being on the WWW and belonging to a common species, in what way does it manifest itself so that you are aware of its existence?
Click to expand...


I feel connected to other people, to the earth, to life. It's hard to explain, but I feel (and I hate to use this word) an energy, a common life force, with other living things. As far as with people, you could chalk it up as serendipity, but I think about people, and then they call. Another example, an older coworker of mine had cancer, and the day he died, myself and 2 other coworkers asked about him. The next day we got the news that he had passed, at almost exactly the time we had all asked about him.

Another time as i was driving a dark back road rather briskly, a thought popped into my head "better slow down, there's a deer crossing the road up here." As I slowed down and rounded the bend, there was a rather large doe in the middle of the blacktop.

Coincidences? Maybe. But I think humans can forge a spiritual link with those we who we form relationships, and maybe even with others we don't even know yet.
 
boomerang said:
Until such time as a UFO lands on the White House Lawn (area 51 doesn't count) there will continue to be underpinnings of faith based on the personal testimony and feelings of others when formulating UFO belief systems. As we have said here so many times before, the testable hypothesis is a crucial component in distinguishing realms of the imaginary from consistent consensual reality. This is, whether we like it or not, what belief in the UFO (as of today anyway) has in common with organized religions. Subjective experiences and feelings are shared over time and consensual sub-groups emerge.

This is why when someone asks me what I absolutely believe about the UFO, I can only honestly answer that credible people report incredible things. We may push slightly beyond that with trace evidence. But it too has way of joining the macro quantum cloud of uncertainty that collapses to a 'yes' or 'no' status based on subjective opinion. Are religious fundamentalists, devout atheists, and believers in a physical UFO phenomenon that is currently amenable to objective analysis on the same psychological page? To some extent, I think so. But the sincere UFO investigator and constructive skeptic can at least be given credit for seeking solutions in an ongoing way. I don't think the same can be said of the fundamentalist, who adheres to a rulebook of sanctioned explanations. Or to the devout atheist, who is in the logically untenable position of trying to prove a cosmological negative.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am interested in. Whether we like it or not, faith will always intersect with the unexplainable. I am fascinated with where that intersection happens.
Honest theologians also seek solutions in an ongoing way. Theologically speaking, fundamentalism is fundamentally flawed. In the sum total of Christianity, Fundamentalists falls way outside orthodoxy. Being a vocal sub-group doesn't make you representative of the whole of Christendom. In many ways it damages the credibility of scriptural witness. I'm sure the same can be said of both extreme Islam Jiahdists or extreme Zionist Jews. The quasi-religious tenants of the zealous atheist are just as destructive.
Faith needs doubt in order to grow. Without the challenge of the skeptic, there is no movement forward.
 
The real issue is why you think they should be mutually distinct. This whole us vs them paradigm is what's holding people back. Get away from the compartmentality and ask why people believe in things like god but not Bigfoot.

The sooner we get away from categories and start seeing causality and connection with all things and in different fields and lines of enquiry the more we get different and missing pieces of the puzzle.
 
Last edited:
When you see someone on larry king talking about Ufos and then they have a "sceptic" opposed , its a trick. Your being manipulated into thinking that rational reasonable enquiry and sceptical enquiry is in opposition to new thoughts or ideas or investigations in these topics. More concerned about the topic or question you may fail to realise the methods at hand are there to negatively influence any outcome no matter what.

Don't fall for this trick.

It's imperative to be rational and sceptical about any claims which run contrary. Personal belief has nothing to do with scientific enquiry.
 
jonathan said:
In my experience and study as a theologian I have found that most people fit somewhere on the following chart. I think it also works for the belief in the paranormal, UFOs, and many other "unprovable" things. When we try to be honest about our world view (or at least reflect a little on where we come from), I think it can be helpful in discussion and debate.
upload_2013-9-1_10-42-28.png
Having been on both extremes and in the middle I consider myself an Informed Believer at this point in my life.
Click to expand...

You forgot another important option... IGNOSTICISM

Where belief or non-belief doesn't kick in until you have a clear definition. Depending on what aspect of the 'phenomena' you're focusing on, what is signal for some is really very loud noise for others.

The 'phenomena' is so wide open that your belief grid is unusable.
 
I chose "informed believer" but what I really would have liked to choose would be the option "skeptical believer".

believe it or not, I REALLY admire Ufology's staunch and powerful set of beliefs concerning UFOs. I wish I could have this type of resolve, but my convictions (deep seated formulations of belief) honestly get the better of me and that is what tears at me so.

So I honestly feel that without a clear balance of skepticism and belief mankind is pretty much "living the dream" of utter primitives.

Frankly, I am not certain "debunker" belongs in this grouping. Debunking is a terrible word. That's when people adopt the hypothetical uncertainty, the complete ambiguity, that if ANY explanation might serve in place of a predetermined false context, that's what the debunker is going with.

IMO, debunking is not so much a choice between a proposed dichotomy of belief and skepticism, as it is a mission statement of those executing the debunking.

The irrational skeptic, now that's a recipe for the ignorance of disbelief.
 
pixelsmith said:
god as taught in the bible is pure BS.

Now if He landed on the White House lawn... that would be a different story.
Click to expand...

And don't get me started on the cult of the zombie prophet...ok, actually, I'll start. How did Jesus 'ascend' to Heaven? Was it in an upwards direction and when did he reach it? Where is it? Did he bodily de-materialise like being transported on Star Trek and his 'soul' went to heaven? Was there any decay of his body during the 3 days inbetween......ad nauseum...
 
Im a guy who puts a lot of stock in mechanisms.
I know we exist on a planet that orbits a star
I know there are billions of stars (with planets orbiting) in our galaxy alone, and that there are billions of galaxys

Thus i have no issue, even without proof of accepting on the balance of probability, and extrapolating from known models the existance of ET life.

I do not have any such hatstand on which to hang my hat regarding the god question, quite the reverse. i find that given the scant evidence and the contradictions and inconsistancys of what evidence has been presented for the existance of god, that on the balance of probability i get a NO result.

Specifically to the ET/UFO question, my internal logic says yes, a zillion times yes.

But before i would ever impose that opinion on anyone else as concrete fact, i would need proof

So i AM a believer , but with a very high standard of proof, which in these days of so many obvious hoax's requires me to have a strong skeptical subroutine.

I dont want to believe, i want to know

Believeing is easy, knowing takes some tools, healthy skepticism being one of the best ones i know of
 
Religion in all it's forms can be condensed to Man's pre-scientific attempts to understand the where and why of our origin. It is profoundly sad that these belief systems now control and dictate human fate to the extent that they do. Other life must and does exist across multiple solar systems. It will be in various stages of advancement and may be in various forms from simple cellular to complex technological. The question of whether we have made contact with the latter remains totally equivocal. There is no convincing scientific data to support this position.
Ghosts and an afterlife is another question and by definition, if ghosts are real phenomena they have no fit with religion at all and are something to be examined outside this framework. The notion of an afterlife is nonsensical and is an appendage to religious frameworks: a control mechanism.
 
We live in a world which is contradictive in nature,our modern world could not exist without scientific purpose and methodology yet we are driven by superstitions and the belief in the immaterial and unquantifiable nature of ideals and human emotion. I believe belief is a personal self regulating system and one which is prone to outright fundamentalism if it isn't kept in check which is the real danger. For one to believe in a certain scientific theory to the exclusion and detriment of all else is as bad as imposing shariah law .

There is the ability to provide reconciliation between the two seemingly opposing views of superstitious belief and faith in the unseen and scientific belief in abstract theory. It lies ironicly with the founder of scientific methodology .
 
nameless said:
We live in a world which is contradictive in nature,our modern world could not exist without scientific purpose and methodology yet we are driven by superstitions and the belief in the immaterial and unquantifiable nature of ideals and human emotion. I believe belief is a personal self regulating system and one which is prone to outright fundamentalism if it isn't kept in check which is the real danger. For one to believe in a certain scientific theory to the exclusion and detriment of all else is as bad as imposing shariah law .

There is the ability to provide reconciliation between the two seemingly opposing views of superstitious belief and faith in the unseen and scientific belief in abstract theory. It lies ironicly with the founder of scientific methodology .
Click to expand...

And yet, this is precisely what 70% of all the professional or serious scientists do! They are as rigid as a 2x4 in their beliefs. Just as bad or worse than any religious fanatic I have ever personally run into. The most balanced of all the scientists, read: Einstein, Planck, etc. all contended that imagination was far more important than knowledge and that faith itself was and is an absolute prerequisite to scientific progress. This is simply called wisdom. Science is extremely self deceiving and in all reality, is FAR more so based on belief than most will admit. The theory of Evolution itself...don't even get me started. It's holier than ANY religious deity, and absolutely requires indoctrinated faith to "believe" in. It's all self important silliness built on argumentation and acceptance.
 
Jonathan I think you have some great points,especially in saying that aside from any belief in God or any structured belief system human beings still regularly exercise faith in one form or another, I believe we are infinite beings living in a finite temporary structure with a finite knowledge of our surroundings, no matter how much we might be convinced otherwise.

On the surface something like UFOs may seem like a subject best left out of discussions on belief, unbelief and faith, but delving deeper I see connections not just in this subject but in all things noted to be paranormal. There are UFOundamentalists in the so called field of ufology. Noise and static once again. Just as we form memories based on subjectivity, we tend to form our scientific views based on our subjective realities instead of factual findings. Even the consideration that there might be another explanation flusters some people,especially if the explanation fosters a theological component.

Apologetics and Atheism/Agnostism share some common traits but they can be extremes in trying to make an explanation with the limitations that we humans all have, even with our supposedly wonderful technology. Sometimes views from the two might need to homogenize in order to get to a real explanation. In one extreme man tries to explain everything with the preconceived notion that there can't possibly be a god. In the other example man tries to explain everything by theology alone when such explanations are not always feasible or rational given the data that we have available. In every case both sides think that their positions are past refute when in reality there can be alternate explanations and there is usually an explanation that fits or can be a stronger possibility.

I'm not saying that there is an in between when it comes to God. What I am saying is that sometimes the theologian and believer must accept that his faith is more important than an exact explanation and that this side of heaven he might not have an explanation. He needs to admit that there is some truth to the reasons why some people are led down the road to atheism, but that those same reasons didn't prevent him from finding his own faith. The atheist needs to admit that his science isn't flawless and that apologetics offers some valid explanations to even his staunchest ideas that seemingly are all he needs to make his point that the whole thing is absurd. If the facts are misconstrued how can the outcome be valid? Both sides could stand to learn a thing or two from the other. The fundamentalist needs to delve into the facts and start thinking for himself/herself. Stop drawing conclusions from only what they are told...same as the atheist.

The atheist builds one way away from God and the Apologist build bridges toward God. We set the trajectory one way or the other by our initial views and inclinations which few will admit they have and that happen well in advance of the facts. The only difference between the two being that in the case of the Christian turned apologist something might have happened at a personal level that adds to their persuasion of further information regarding their "faith". The experiential has entered into the picture first and nothing can be stronger than this and all other things are simply regarded as "re enforcement" to their life changing experiences. If someone gives you a Lamborgini and hands you the keys you might care little about what makes the car tick inside. Only later might you look under the hood. What I see in Chistiandom is a kind of surface understanding of the facts by most. A general overview. Not a clear picture. I'll admit I was like this for awhile mainly because I came to faith at a young age. I took the word of those who explained it and assumed that it was all I needed to know. If the scriptures are true, then it IS all I really NEEDED to know. Later on I realized that there were a lot of grey areas that didn't really take away from the initial experience but they caused me to study my faith more deeply.

These days I read books by those who are my polar opposites. Why? because if my faith can't stand up to them what's the point? In every case I either come to a place where I say. No we don't know. This is pure conjecture or the so called facts brought forward are inadequate to persuade an open minded individual that the original story has changed. Is the other side persuasive? You bet they are. But what is the truth? Do you want to be persuaded and comfortable with a lie? I don't. I want the truth. In some cases I have had to eat crow. I have been wrong about some things I believed. It would be foolish not to admit I was wrong. Usually the other side over simplifies the argument, " this couldn't be this way if that is that way" If we are talking about God then we are talking about an infinitesimally complicated being with lots of unknown reasons for doing things and the answers are more often than not far from a simple explanation. Surprisingly though, many of these arguments have a much more simple answer than you might think.
 
The character John Constantine first appeared in swamp thing comics and was created by Alan Moore who went on to say that he met him years later in passing as some kind of tulpic form.
 
Back
Top