How Can Skeptics Still Deny the Supernatrual?

I am wondering how or why skeptics still assert that the belief in the supernatural is delusion in the face of so much evidence. They easily forget that spirituality has been an intrinsic part of the human experience and never has there existed a non-spiritual society. Now with science, technology and gross materialism people are seeing ghosts and demons as 'silly superstitions' which belong to the past. I've noticed two things about such people: A. They are often well-read on current events. B. They are not so well-read on history. I am not a history buff myself, but rarely do I have to do much reading before I get into the spiritual experiences of well-respected historic figures. Every great mind I've met (or read about) was spiritual (and almost all of them non-religious too.)

Skeptics tend to hold to two arguments: "I've never experienced it" or "It's never been proven." The former disproves nothing and as for the latter, prove what to whom? Or should I say, what is proof? If it is scientific proof, who is to verify that? If they mean the majority of scientists, I have questions of my own: How could you know (since many scientists may keep it to themselves (some believe in God and are not Christian scientists, for example?) And what would their belief prove? As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Even in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth."

The evidence is endless, but a few examples: Studies showing that the body loses weight when a person dies, studies showing that the brain reacts when being stared at through a one-way mirror, deep-regression hypnosis revealing past-life memories and pre-life memories of a very similar and non-religious description (see Dr. Michael Newton,) and the scientific fact that physical matter is mostly space made up of particles held together by an invisible magnetic force—resembling a physical form to the human eye and by touch, due to the magnetic force (therefore our perceived reality is itself electrical signals perceived by the brain.)

Since reality is a perception through stimuli, then what makes the waking world more real than the dream world and how then could one (in intellectual honesty) assert that one world cannot interact with the other? They are connected, quite obviously—since we must sleep and 'recharge' ourselves. We awake, 'refreshed' and ready for a new day; we are bringing energy from the dream state into this one, and since we often dream what we experience while awake, vice-versa would also appear to be the case.

But now to common sense points. Everyone has stepped in on a heated debate and felt the tension in the air ("so thick you could cut it like a knife.") What about "women's intuition," the ability of either sex to "pick up" things from people they are closely linked to? Mothers often feel a psychic bond to their children, sensing when they are in danger. "Gut instincts" can aid detectives as well as writers like myself; inspiration striking us and a great idea just "pops into your head." Some people have had shared dreams with someone close, or dreams which came true. Déjà vu is extremely common, sometimes making you feel that every single object, person, word spoken, every single thing in that moment had been somehow witnessed or experienced before; a powerful experience which then fades. Sometimes you just "get a feeling" that something will work out or have a "bad feeling" that it won't. We've always had these experiences, they're nothing new and are absolutely nothing to be so embarrassed about that we all must hide them and pretend they don't happen, when they do (for the majority of us.)

And then there is the one subject that silences most skeptics: Edgar Cayce. If any one person's story every proved the existence of supernatural ability, it was his. Debunking what he proved and to so many would be a futile effort, so skeptics just conveniently overlook it. The few attempts to debunk him that I've read fall pathetically short of debunking the massive amount of real healing he accomplished on multiple people (and while monitored by credible witnesses.)

Countless books, immense public fascination, feelings stirring deep inside you that such things have truth, and yet skeptics still say "bah humbug!" If they feel that way, fine, but how they can still assert their view onto others in such a bold way as to make them feel either foolish or insane for disagreeing with their rigid outlook is absurd to me in the face of so much evidence; which includes photographs, audio recordings, physical evidence, countless credible witness accounts. How about the case of Spring-Heeled Jack? Debunk that one! Several credible witnesses all had the same delusion? A man with springs on his boots who ran around with cold, icy hands and who ripped at women's clothes, who startled such prominent people that the law got involved to search for him?

I'm sorry, skeptics, I can appreciate your fear of the unknown, but your assertions speak of, dare I say, self-delusion to me. At this point, the writing is pretty bold on the wall.

It is all a matter of perspective really, or maybe categorization.

In my case I do not believe that anything can be supernatural sheerly by definition. If it happens, it is instrinsicly a part of nature. End of case.

Are there things we are yet to discover? Absolutely.

Are there phenomenon that we have no way of explaining but one day might be able to, without having to resort to mystical or divine origins? Again, absolutely.

To me this line of reasoning is not heretical or insulting to religious belief. I simply have a predisposition to believe that God created a universe with a certain set of rules and that he chooses to remain within the confines of those rules when interacting with his creation.

So I guess the base difference is that what you see as supernatural I relate to as "yet to be understood".

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Everyone of those things you listed as evidence, do not fall into the catagory of evidence. None of those things. I agree with the above poster when they say that supernatural is a misnomer. Nothing can be outside of nature.

When there is an experiment that can be reproduced that shows that ghosts, para abilities, and other such junk can be demonstrated at will, then i will get on the wagon. Until then i chalk all those circumstantial claims up to delusion.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

You said it yourself, it simply cannot be proven scientifically.

I think on a deeper level the idea of supernatural forces, whether they be from within ourselves or outside forces are something people don't understand. So the easiest way to deal with it, is to dismiss it outright.

I think one day either science or humanity will figure out simple explanations for what we currently don't understand, much in the same way we have figured out many of the universe's secrets since our beginnings.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you have mistaken skeptics for debunkers or naysayers.

As a skeptic, I am completely open to the possibilities. As scientific fields like theoretical physics continues to work towards life's answers, we have to recognize that the bridge between natural and supernatural may be found.

Until that time, I still remain skeptical. To not do so falls in to belief or faith.

The evidence is endless, but a few examples: Studies showing that the body loses weight when a person dies

Of course it would. Why wouldn't it?

studies showing that the brain reacts when being stared at through a one-way mirror

The brain reacts to pretty much everything. Does it not?

deep-regression hypnosis revealing past-life memories and pre-life memories of a very similar and non-religious description

This area of "research" is very unreliable, and even dangerous. The mind can very easily be manipulated and anything revealed under hypnosis should be taken very skeptically.

Also, eye witness testimony is unreliable. Some criminal studies have revealed that eye witness accounts can wrongly identify suspects up to 85% of the time.

In the end, I do not deny the supernatural nor do I believe it.

originally posted by: Hefficide
It is all a matter of perspective really, or maybe categorization.

In my case I do not believe that anything can be supernatural sheerly by definition. If it happens, it is instrinsicly a part of nature. End of case.

Are there things we are yet to discover? Absolutely.

Are there phenomenon that we have no way of explaining but one day might be able to, without having to resort to mystical or divine origins? Again, absolutely.

To me this line of reasoning is not heretical or insulting to religious belief. I simply have a predisposition to believe that God created a universe with a certain set of rules and that he chooses to remain within the confines of those rules when interacting with his creation.

So I guess the base difference is that what you see as supernatural I relate to as "yet to be understood".

Arguing for the point of arguing, imo then. Since your explanation will possibly/likely receive just as much flak as op's, so i cant see why you feel you should be divided on the matter, when both you and op show common sense, but are going to argue over semantics and the current scientific status.


Edit'
After rereading i agree though, supernatural will scare off a lot of people, but in my experience talking about the stuff in scientific terms often results in similar looks from listeners.
I wouldnt dismiss the spiritual influence though, the religious aspect is not necessary as you mentioned, but i do think the spiritual should never be ignored, even in science, when it comes to what we label supernatural

originally posted by: Hefficide
It is all a matter of perspective really, or maybe categorization.

To me this line of reasoning is not heretical or insulting to religious belief. I simply have a predisposition to believe that God created a universe with a certain set of rules and that he chooses to remain within the confines of those rules when interacting with his creation.

I like both points made.

Or

We as his creation have not yet reached a level of understanding or have yet developed the scientific methodology to expand our perspective and fully explore all that still lay hidden before us. I personally have none and see no conflict between Spirituality/belief in God and all that Science has revealed to us thus far.

I choose not to be confined by both Archaic 'Religious Dogma' or a strict 'Scientific rigidity" Both have been proven wrong in the past and they shall also be proven wrong in the future.

As per the OP.

'Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another' Our Bodies become lighter when we pass?

Our Soul/Consciousness/Life 'Energy' has to go someplace. The question for me has always been will I retain my feelings for those I've loved and they for me?

Our bodies do not become lighter when we pass. That experiment was shown to be full of inconsistancies and when reproduced it never came up with similar results.

If your "soul" weighed anything, then it could be found and studied.
a reply to: SLAYER69

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
Studies showing that the body loses weight when a person dies

Please show a valid source for these "studies".

studies showing that the brain reacts when being stared at through a one-way mirror,

Please show a valid source for these "studies"

and the scientific fact that physical matter is mostly space made up of particles held together by an invisible magnetic force

Why do you claim that? Source for that claim please.

It appears your desire to believe makes you think that it exists.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

It's easy for people who do not understand the scientific method to say there is lots of evidence. But if you are not a scientist or trained in the proper use of the methods, then everything looks like evidence. Every story your uncle bobby tells about ghosts sounds plausible. Every story you read on the internet sounds like evidence. Things like "spring jack" sounds like there were tons of eye witnesses.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Are you familiar with the term confirmation bias? The reason skeptics can still be doubtful is because most (if not all) supernatural explanations start with a confirmation bias. "Such and such exists, let me go find evidence to support that claim." That is the incorrect way to go about verifying something's existence. For one, you don't verify existence; you demonstrate that it exists. There is a difference.

Until you can produce a testable, repeatable, and valid scientific study/experiment that can produce repeatable results that demonstrate (not verify) supernatural behavior (which really just means natural) I will remain skeptical of your beliefs. That isn't to say that these things don't exist. I just find your approach to explaining them flawed.

a reply to: NoNameNeeded

Talking about things with "sciency" sounding words is not the same as presenting evidence and showing reproducible experiments.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

I have always wanted to research a place with supernatural activity and head there for a weekend to see if I see anything because as it stands I don't believe in ghosts etc. So who wants to come with me? lol I am most certainly not going alone, shoot that means I do believe a little if I am scared I guess.

I am a skeptical believer. I've been an 'investigator' into the mysteries for nearly three decades. I've had several epic paranormal experiences. The reason why I doubt most other people and their paranormal experience is because most people are terribly biased and their stories aren't very reliable.

I would never expect a skeptic to believe my stories. There are all sorts of mentally ill people in this world, and just downright kooks that will believe in anything. You know what's worse than a skeptic? A person who has a paranormal experience, and suddenly they make the jump to true believer. "I caught an EVP. Know I know ghosts are real". This is why the paranormal field is full of the worst kind of idiots.

In order to be truly intellectual honest you must question everything. Including your deepest held beliefs and experiences. If you are jumping the gun from experience to belief system, you are not truly being honest with yourself.

No offence, but you brought up Soul Weight and other topics that have been discussed, debunked, and put away for years now. Soul Weight is total garbage. It's been brought up repeatedly on ATS, and picked apart ad naseum. There is no real proof to it whatsoever. When you use garbage like this as an argument that the paranormal is 'real', no one with any real objectively is going to take you seriously.

Edgar Cayce. I've read every book about him and studied him intensely. The guy was an enigma, no question, and seemed to be genuinely having a strange experience, but he was also wrong with many of his predictions (of course, the true believers have all sorts of conspiracy arguments disputing this), and many of his cures can be explained by placebo. Believers will never entertain these explanations though. In their minds, he was a prophet!

Should a true paranormal skeptic be admonished from reading your post? I seriously doubt it. You're the other side of the coin from a total skeptic. The believer who will believe anything. The fact that you believe in Soul Weight, without a question or any real research into the matter, shows this to be true. Again, you can't blame other people for being skeptical. Despite the fact that I am a paranormal investigator myself, other people's stories and encounters bore me to tears because I know 99% of these people are about as reliable as UFO witnesses. It doesn't take much for many people to allow their own brains to fall out.

You should worry less about skeptics, and concentrate on your own subjective beliefs. I couldn't care less whether skeptics believe the paranormal or not. If one has not had a paranormal experience for themselves, it is wrong to admonish them for being skeptical.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I wish I had saw your post before posting. You summed it up nicely. This is why I hesitate even having conversations with true believers. The paranormal field is so unhealthy these days. It's totally polluted and distorted with religious/spiritual doctrine/dogma.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2


I'd like to think that some aspects of the paranormal are perfectly normal- they are experienced everyday by people all over the globe.The only reason the phenomena is not considered a fact is because science cannot explain it...yet.

But yet science could hold the answer to many of these mysteries because there is so much we have to learn about the nature of reality. What is ridiculed now could be common knowledge in the decades to come.

I'm skeptical of the accepted idea of "supernatural" things. For all we know, it's not anything ghostly or spiritual, but a cosmic skip of the disc in some areas. An act/person/event imprinted on the fabric of time, looping over and over like a scratched CD. An remnant echo on cosmic repeat.

Or perhaps it's a thin region between universes, and they think we're just as much ghostly apparitions as we think they are. Maybe it's a region that's "scratched" through infinite universes, and all of them have the same "apparitions", and "events" we perceive to some degree.

a reply to: Calalini "How Can Skeptics Still Deny the Supernatrual?"

If one has not had a paranormal experience for themselves, it is wrong to admonish them for being skeptical.

I remember in grade school when I was admonished for being left handed. Seems the Nuns just could not see life from my left handed perspective. But alas, they were evidently TRAINED to not see any other perspective, possibility.

I think it all boils down to a programing, education. It is that "Skeptics" are really just holding onto a training, frame of mind, train of thought, that was put inside of them? Certainly, the Nuns thought they were doing the right thing by beating my left hand with a ruler.

Well, that all is fine and dandy because if the "Supernatural" was intended to be known openly, then it would be, known openly. To this point in time it seems to be strictly on a personal level, one on one. And I personally don't know if that is a good thing or bad.

Sure, the world would be a completely different place if the "Supernatural" was openly known by everyone. We would always have that in the back of our minds in what ever we do. We would always guard our actions accordingly and very few would dare to leave the narrow line of righteousness.

Should the Skeptical physically abusive nuns be admonished? They thought they were doing the right thing, at the time. Should the skeptic of the supernatural be admonished? I suppose it all depends on why they do it, and if they know the truth. If there are any skeptics out there who are knowingly, willingly for what ever reason, covering up and hiding the truth of the Spiritual reality, then maybe they too, should have their hands SPANKED!

In my own case its hard to be skeptical of something I know to be.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Are you familiar with the term confirmation bias? The reason skeptics can still be doubtful is because most (if not all) supernatural explanations start with a confirmation bias. "Such and such exists, let me go find evidence to support that claim." That is the incorrect way to go about verifying something's existence. For one, you don't verify existence; you demonstrate that it exists. There is a difference.

I disagree, just look at Eben Alexander the Harvard neurosurgeon who had a very compelling NDE. There was zero confirmation bias there.link

I personally feel like science and skeptics really aren't that interested in proving "supernatural" phenomena, if they were they would be down in the amazon rainforest investigating the world of aya.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

I'm a skeptic, not a debunker.

That said, I do feel that people in general spend far too much time worrying over whether or not ESP exists, or Ghosts, or what have you, and not near enough time actively working to make this world, and their relationships with others, richer, more meaningful and more fulfilling.

I personally know people who spend most of their time talking about Jesus, going to church, and chasing Ghosts via Ghosthunting tours in Colorado, while their own children get little or no meaningful attention from their parents.

I am a fruit on the tree kind of guy. If your belief in spiritual matters makes you a better friend, child, parent, or lover to those who matter in your life, or -- at the very least -- does not pervert and marginalize those real relationships and experiences -- no worries.

But if they don't? Jettison those beliefs and obsessions in favor of being "here now" in the lives of the people closest to you.