Social Question

Blondesjon's avatar

Is it hypocritical to be an atheist yet still believe in ghosts and the paranormal?

Asked by Blondesjon (33997points) October 24th, 2010

I am an avowed atheist and my non-belief in the Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit extends to spirits and paranormal activity in general. With this being said, I still know a great deal of outspoken atheists who will scream at you about how ridiculous the idea of God/Heaven/Hell is and in the same breath tell you that ghosts and their kin are not outside the realm of possibility.

To me this seems self-contradicting and hypocritical (two things I’m quite familiar with). Your thoughts Fluther?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

65 Answers

DominicX's avatar

All atheism means is that you don’t believe in God. There’s nothing that says in order for ghosts or the paranormal to exist, God must also exist. A person can definitely believe in ghosts/paranormal and not God.

I guess what would be hypocritical would be to berate someone for believing in an “illlogical fairytale with no evidence to support it” (God) and then at the same time talk about how ghosts, the paranormal, and other “spiritual” things exist, even though they could also be written off as illogical and lacking evidence.

FutureMemory's avatar

@Blondesjon …and my non-belief in the Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit extends to spirits and paranormal activity in general.

Agree completely.

Lorenita's avatar

I believe it depends on what’s god to you, what does it mean…technically , atheist, comes from the latin a-teo .. which means “without god”.. now if you don’t believe in god as, the father, the creator of the universe, but still acknowledge the idea of his presence, you can perfectly believe in the paranormal realm.. now if to you there’s just no such thing, then i’d say it would be pretty hard to believe in other presences as well, such as ghosts…

Blondesjon's avatar

@DominicX . . . my point exactly, forwards and back.

janbb's avatar

Sorta strange; I don’t know if I’d go so far as hypocritical.

Response moderated (Spam)
Blondesjon's avatar

@noelleptc . . . please refer to @DominicX ‘s response above and read it backwards.

poisonedantidote's avatar

Not really no, but yes.

As @DominicX has pointed out, atheist only means you dont believe in a god or gods. However, there is this kind of assumption that atheists tend to be logical and rational. But being logical and rational have nothing to do with being an atheist. It is possible to be an atheist totally because of illogical and irrational ideas. e.g. there is suffering in the world, therefore there are no gods of any kind. when suffering would only really be an argument against an omnipotent and benevolent god that takes an active role in our existence. suffering may be a good reason to disbelieve some gods exist, but not all of them.

I would say its hypocritical to call your self a skeptic and believe in ghosts and spirits.

Having said all that, I don’t really pay much attention to what is and is not hypocritical. The reason for this is, all of us will be hypocritical about something at some point in our life, and as everyone is a hypocrite about something at some point, calling someone a hypocrite is ironically actually a bit hypocritical. You may even find me giving answers on here where I call some things hypocritical, but don’t pay too much attention to any of that, im just a hypocrite when all is said and done.

While the term atheist really only means lack of belief in a god or gods, or belief in there being no god or gods, I personally extend the definition of the word much further. however, only when talking about my self. When I say im an atheist, im not just saying that I don’t believe in gods, but that i also don’t believe in ghosts, goblins, unicorns, souls, alien abductions, and that im skeptical of many other things; such as conspiracy theories and more. So in my case it would be very hypocritical and even a little contradicting and insane.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

I don’t have an issue with it. Surely there are people who do not believe in a god, yet find it reasonable not to pooh-pooh the thought that there can be some type of spiritual residue left behind. There are enough tales about ghosts and hauntings that have been corroborated by others to give it some consideration.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Pied_Pfeffer . . . The same can be said of the anecdotal evidence supporting miracles and faith healing.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Hmm, it’s a good question…really depends on whether ghosts and paranormal are in the same basket for you that God is…I am an atheist and it doesn’t matter whether God exists or not…which doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t…I also know we have a very limited knowledge about what’s out there and it may very well be that there are energies and entities we can’t conceptualize using the tools we have presently…I do think many of the people who believe in all this ghosts/aliens stuff are kidding themselves and I’m skeptical about a lot of it.

Response moderated (Spam)
Joybird's avatar

I suppose that depends on what you believe ghosts to be. If you don’t believe they are spirit forms and instead believe they are some kind of manifestation of energy forms and matter associated with life than I guess you might not believe in “God” and believe in “ghosts” and other paranormal or psi activity such as precognition. Being precognitive wouldn’t interfere with being atheist.
But then I don’t believe in God, the father or the holy ghost either. At least not in the way Christians, Catholics, Jews and Moslems do. I may believe in a Great Spirit but it is NOT gender specific.

Blondesjon's avatar

@noelleptc . . . Of course!

Your chocolate is in my peanut butter! Your peanut butter is in my chocolate! It’s all two sides of the same ridiculous coin.

Response moderated (Spam)
Blondesjon's avatar

@noelleptc . . . i like her better too. she’s not a grouchy old drunk.

flo's avatar

It does seem inconsistent for sure. It just seems that the people who believe in paranormal are the ones who desperately want it to be real.

Response moderated (Spam)
ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

It has a sense of inconsistency, only because most atheists have similar belief structures all around. However, the only stipulation to be an atheist is to not believe in god. God is not the same as ghosts, spirits, the paranormal, aliens… so, no, it is not hypocritical.

FutureMemory's avatar

@Blondesjon I bet she looks better in a thong, too.

versonnen's avatar

A hypocrite is one who tells others to be a certain way meanwhile at the same time not following their own advice. Most Atheists don’t advocate others to be atheists , they just ARE atheists because they have decided to not believe in (g)God.

Rarebear's avatar

It’s not hypocritical, but it is odd.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

@Blondesjon I could be wrong, but aren’t all cases of faith-healing supported by a belief in a supreme being? As for a miracle, it implies that there was some sort of divine intervention, yet that isn’t always the case, as the word is used fairly loosely.

By definition, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity. There are people who believe in spirits/ghosts that don’t associate them with a deity, so it becomes a separate belief.

Katexyz's avatar

I think atheism can be compatible with belief in the paranormal, depending somewhat on the flavour of both. If one does not state that these paranormal events they believe in are in fact something that is dogma, should be believed by all, should dictate our lives etc, but instead something interesting, abnormal, or pushing the limits of the possible.

Yeah sometimes it can be contradictory, but I see no reason why one cannot refuse to believe in a creator, yet still believe in extraterrestrial life forms. Spirits definitely push that boundary more, but it isn’t essentially hypocritical. It sure looks like it most of the time tho.

Rarebear's avatar

I have far less of a problem with people who believe in the opposite—people who are theists or deists of some sort but refuse to believe in the paranormal.

YARNLADY's avatar

In my mind it is, because I put them all in the same realm of superstition.

subepsilon's avatar

Oh, dear.

Firstly, any “avowed” atheist (like others who make “avowals” of things they cannot possibly know for sure) should be careful to keep an open mind lest they become as convinced of their own BS as the dumb suckers they think theists to be.

Secondly, yes. Anyone who banishes God from the realms of possibility based solely on His “unknowable-ness” and supposed lack of scientific foundation should also banish those things in kind.

Blondesjon's avatar

@subepsilon . . . I can say that I am an avowed atheist because I know 100% for sure that I am an atheist.

On a side note, I can also avow that I am quite enamored with my own BS.

josie's avatar

Ghosts and God are in the same genus. To believe in one and not the other is a revealing contradiction.

subepsilon's avatar

@Blondesjon: I didn’t say you weren’t an avowed atheist, I only advised you to be careful of “avowing” anything. I’m sure you understand the difference and would admit the same.

If you don’t, then I would add that it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe or disbelieve in whatever you profess to believe or disbelieve because you will have demonstrated a comprehensive inability to understand (and further, to articulate) your own position.

high five

earthduzt's avatar

why do ghosts or paranormal activity have to be in the same realm as God? Why can’t they just be energy beings in our Universe? Maybe they are just energy that never dispersed and these people felt so strong about something in their life that the energy they created from it stayed around in their “afterlife”. Maybe they are inter dimensional beings, maybe when we die our energy flows into another dimension but for certain people they did not enter that dimension? Who knows, but I don’t think they have to correlate with any religion, the Universe is strange place.

Blondesjon's avatar

@subepsilon . . . uh-huh

and i’m assuming, from your thinly veiled zeal, that you are a non-atheist. before you begin to make broad assumptions about myself and my beliefs take a look around fluther. you’ll find that i stand up for a christian standpoint more than i do for any of the other hellbound heathens like myself.

perspicacious's avatar

No. Why would it be? Atheism is not believing in the existence of God. You might still believe in other unseen unprovable things.

subepsilon's avatar

@Blondesjon I have no idea what you mean. I am warning you of overconfidence in your own ability to comprehend what must be and remain incomprehensible. I would counsel anyone else to do the same.

Where have I said word one about Hell? Or Christians for that matter? Jeez. Are you so proud of your own opinions that you accuse someone of zealotry for declaiming your own hubris?

Thinly veiled zeal, indeed. I’m sorry if I betrayed myself as a reason-monger—maybe I’m a better sceptic than you are… ;)

Blondesjon's avatar

@subepsilon . . . Again, if you look around Fluther for a bit you will see that I am indeed very proud of my own opinions and absolutely bonkers over my hubris.

If you had read all of these fine Jelly’s posts (as well as my own) you would see that I am simply making a comment about either side decrying the other as a fairy tale. Even my engorged ego will lay no absolute claims to the incomprehensible.

and, just to be a dick, i’d like to point out that it’s spelled skeptic

subepsilon's avatar

@Blondesjon

Missing the point, again. My original first point was only that a person should keep an open mind—I’m sure most people would agree to that.

…and just to be an even bigger dick, I’ll point out that “sceptic” is an accepted alternative spelling. Don’t try to out-officiously nitpick me. You will lose. :)

subepsilon's avatar

@Blondesjon: And just to lay claim to the officiously nitpicking crown and out-dick you once and for all, I’d like to point out that it is not Jelly’s (as you’ve mistakenly written), but jellies’.

Amen.

Nullo's avatar

Literally speaking, no. Heck, technically, animists are atheists.
However, people who exhibit atheistic tendencies tend to be skeptical about the supernatural in general.

Foolaholic's avatar

Merriam Webster defines an atheist as “one who believes that there is no deity.”

Just because you don’t believe in ‘traditional’ ways doesn’t mean you can’t believe in powers out there that we can’t comprehend.

Paradox's avatar

Atheism just means a lack of belief in the existence of a god/s. It doesn’t say anything about paranormal phenomenom. However many atheists have their own religious dogma they bring with themselves. I like this quote by Albert Einstein,“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

@blondesjon There is such a group of people and they are usually referred to as secular dualists which is the opposite of religious dualism (in a sense). Sir Oliver Lodge (one of the greatest physicists of all time) and Sir William Crookes (one of the greatest chemists of all time) were just 2 example of such people. They were not religious or even spiritualists prior to their investigations (and verification) of the existence of so-called “paranormal” phenomenom.

@neolleptc There are some religionists and deists who do not believe in ethereal concepts to say the least. There is also nothing technically saying that atheism and dualism should not be synonymous with each other. There does seem to be a strong correlation between atheism and physicalism however. Theism is different from religionism and both of these are extremely varied among themselves.

@Rarebear I am a theist and I am a big believer in paranormal phenomenom, uh oh. Well I will welcome myself to Fluther here and accept I am in a super small minority on here.

Response moderated (Spam)
deni's avatar

The two are completely unrelated. I believe in everything paranormal, and I don’t believe in God at all. But also I have been watching a lot of X files lately…so…

Paradox's avatar

@noelleptc No just telling you (or anyone else for that matter) because there are nondualist theists as well as secular dualists.

Response moderated (Spam)
flo's avatar

Let me make my answer above complete: ”... It just seems that the people who believe in paranormal are the ones who desperately want it to be real”. And the people who don’t believe in the paranormal probably push back, if they are confronted with an experience they are likely to push back. But believing in a god means attributing benevolence to it. If an atheist let’s say, “sees a ghost”, it would just be one more thing that they can’t explain, that is it. In no way does it tell them, that they should suddenly think that a/the “god” that supposedly created the natural disasters and all the other evil things, is a good and admirable one.

Paradox's avatar

@flo Interesting paradox you’ve mentioned because most atheists I’ve ever encountered desperately do not want to believe God is real as well. Another interesting coincidence I’ve noticed is most skeptics/atheists do not wish for an afterlife of any kind to begin with. I do not see too many atheists on Fluther (believe me I’ve read alot of older posts on many topics before typing my statements) that claim they wish for for an afterlife or even the possibilty of it’s existence.

Not trying to get into the “disproving a negative” or lack of evidence comments there definitely does seem to be a wishful thinking bias on the other end of the stick as well. People who believe in an afterlife usually do hope for this to be true. People who do not believe there is an afterlife also seem to hope for oblivion upon death over an afterlife. Again I do not hear of too many atheists out there that say “it would be nice but”. Get my point?

augustlan's avatar

@Paradox I’ve seen (and heard) quite a few atheists say “It would be nice, but I just can’t believe in it.” I’m one of them. Who wouldn’t want an afterlife… hanging out with loved ones, in eternal happiness?

To answer the actual question, I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocritical. If I felt sure I’d seen a ghost or something, I’d accept that I’d seen something inexplicable at this time, but would assume that one day science will provide an explanation. I probably would not be convinced that a god had anything to do with it, though.

flo's avatar

@Paradox I hope you see ”...In no way does it tell them, that they should suddenly think that a/the “god” that supposedly created the natural disasters and all the other evil things, is a good and admirable one. ” So to me that is the key thing about the Q. But like @augustlan mentioned above “Who wouldn’t want an afterlife… hanging out with loved ones, in eternal happiness?” But maybe you haven’t met the solid athiests?

Paradox's avatar

@flo My beliefs on this topic and why I am fairly certain the mind is seperate from the brain comes from my own personal experiences, not religious blind faith. However I do not think you’ve read many of the older posts from similar forums on here. I’m not new to Fluther, I’ve been familiar with the site for nearly a year now under other user names but I will leave it at that. I would suggest digging around and reading most of the older posts on here relating to this topic and you would see what I’m talking about.

flo's avatar

@Paradox I have answered a question on religion. I try not to waste too much time on Qs of religion though.

mattbrowne's avatar

Both enlightened atheists and enlightened Christians don’t believe in ghosts and the paranormal, because they know that unexplained does not mean inexplicable. Enlightened Christians don’t confuse symbolic meanings with physical reality.

But like with Christians, not all atheists are enlightened, some even claim that they know for a fact that God doesn’t exist or fail to understand the contradiction in a sentence like ‘science can answer everything’ (as easily shown by applying simple first and second-order logic).

We are are products of our socialization. Placebo and nocebo effects are real and there’s nothing wrong telling yourself, hey, today’s my lucky day before your football match. A good placebo.

The trouble is the nocebo effect, for example related to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triskaidekaphobia

To be fair, there are far more enlightened atheists than enlightened Christians, especially in North America.

Nullo's avatar

@mattbrowne Out of curiosity, how exactly are we defining “enlightened Christians?”

mattbrowne's avatar

@Nullo – I hope this classification helps:

A1) Deism

In deism a divine entity is seen as the ultimate reason for our natural laws. Religious beliefs are optional. There is a theistic and atheistic interpretation of the cosmos. The existence of a deity is not a scientific question. Many deists reject religion, but they are to a certain extend influenced by the culture they grew up in. There are deists who do not consider themselves to be Christians, but they are influenced by some Christian values and ethics.

A2) Enlightened Christianity

Enlightened Christianity is a form of liberal Christianity with a strong focus on the Age of Enlightenment and interfaith dialog. In addition to deism, there’s the belief that the divine entity called God also sustains the natural laws and that our cosmos has a purpose and a deeper meaning. The orderly, biofriendly cosmos is the result of a deliberate act. God is beyond nature and should not be viewed as a god of the gaps. Science cannot explain the world, only phenomena which are observed within our cosmos. There is no magic, which means the supernatural doesn’t exist in our world. Natural sciences are consistent with both atheism and religious belief. Rationalism, critical thinking and spiritual progressiveness are core values of enlightened Christians. Rationality needs to be tied to moral decency. Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism. Holding on to superstitions is therefore wrong. God is not a micromanager intervening on a daily basis (to create DNA for example). Liberal Christianity in a more general sense uses a method of biblical hermeneutics, which is an individualistic method of understanding God through the use of scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings.

The Christian religion has many levels of meaning and the belief in God is only one of them. Jesus Christ being the son of God and revelation has a symbolic meaning. Prayers are a form of meditation supporting our spiritual growth and finding our strengths. Dogmas arise in a social context and when the context changes, dogmas should change too or even be given up. Rituals are seen as a means to strengthen social groups. Christianity must not claim exclusive rights in defining truth and it is best seen as one world view among many. In-group/out-group morality models are discouraged. Liberal and enlightened Christians share many values with other belief systems and world views such as liberalism and humanism.

A3) Conservative Christianity

The true nature of God is beyond our understanding. God has the capability to directly intervene in world events and He does so from time to time. Religious miracles can be seen as spiritual reality. Dogmas lie at the heart of Christianity and they should be upheld. Dogmas and rituals are a direct consequence of divine revelation. Prayers are directly answered, sometimes by direct intervention. Conforming to Christian rituals and rules is seen as the best way to please God. Christianity is superior to all other faiths. Believing in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved.

A4) Christian Fundamentalism

The whole Bible is literally true and a direct result of divine revelation. Scientific findings and explanations must remain consistent with teachings of the Bible. Christianity is the only true faith. Muslims and Jews and followers of other religions as well as atheists are infidels and they will be punished by God.

iamthemob's avatar

@mattbrowne – watch out with that classification – you know what kind of havoc it can wreak. ;-)

mattbrowne's avatar

@iamthemob – It’s my personal opinion. That’s all. People might like it, or not.

wenwen's avatar

I am with you on this , In my opinion if you are an Atheist you have thought outside the box & come to your own conclusions usually based on logic & reason, this usually means dismissing beliefs in ghosts, spirits etc as well as that of a God .
An Atheist who defends a belief in supernatural is still an atheist, however I just don’t think they have applied their full logic to their belief the way they have when it comes to their non belief in God.
I wonder if they believe in the tooth fairy?

Paradox's avatar

@mattbrowne True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics
Asks questions to try to understand new things and are open to learning about them
Applies critical examination and inquiry to all sides, including their own
Are nonjudgmental and do not jump to rash conclusions
Seeks the truth and considers it the highest aim
Thinks in terms of possibilities rather than in preserving fixed views
Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
Acknowledges valid convincing evidence rather than ignoring or denying it
Possess solid sharp common sense and reason
Are able to adapt their paradigms to new evidence and update their hypothesis to fit the data
When all conventional explanations for a phenomenon are ruled out, are able to accept paranormal ones

PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics
Does not ask questions to try to understand new things, but judges them by whether they fit into the established order
Applies “critical thinking” only to that which opposes the status quo, but never to the status quo itself
Carries a fixed set of unchanging beliefs which all data must conform to
Are not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending the views of establishment
Cannot think in terms of possibilities, but views their own fixed viewpoints as constant
Are willing to lie and deceive to preserve establishment views, which are their true master
Automatically dismisses and denies all information that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy
Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about
Scoffs and ridicules what they oppose instead of using objective unbiased analysis and examination
Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation
Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments
Are unable to adapt their paradigms to new evidence but instead denies data which doesn’t fit into them
When all conventional explanations for a phenomenon are ruled out, are not able to accept paranormal ones.

You believe in God but not anything paranormal. There is no hard evidence for God here either technically speaking. I didn’t know that to be considered “enlightened” you had to reject anything paranormal but yet believe in a non-material supreme entity? So you’re more rational than people like me. By the way thanks for clarifying what “Enlightened Christians” should believe. However I’m entitled to my own beliefs as well based upon my own thousands of hours of investigation, personal experiences while looking at both sides of the evidence which most others who criticise people like me have not done.

There is also a difference between an active fundamentalist disbelief, fundamentalist belief and true open minded skeptism. It also amazes me how quantum theorists have accepted non-locality but yet bring up the term “telepathy” and boom you’re irrational. Who’s talking about magic here?

mattbrowne's avatar

I realize that you believe in the paranormal and this is your right. And I do have an opinion about it, which is my right. Yes, I’m both a theist and a skeptic. I believe in a non-micromanaging God as the origin of our natural laws. Atheists believe that the universe is self explanatory.

If you apply scientific method to phenomena you suspect of being supernatural/paranormal, three things can happen:

1) You confirm them. Then they are no longer supernatural/paranormal. They are natural and normal.
2) You refute them. Then they don’t exist.
3) Your tests are inconclusive. You keep speculating.

A flash of lightning was once considered supernatural and explained by God being angry.

So when quantum theorists speculate about the nature of non locality it might seem paranormal or magical, but they are actually talking about normal phenomena.

Michael Shermer who is an expert on giving good explanations for almost every paranormal claim has come up with a list of 25 reasons why people believe weird things and he wrote a book about it. Here’s an overview:

1. Theory Influences Observations — When you have a theory of something, you interpret the results inside your theory. So when Columbus arrived in the New World, he saw Asian spices and roots. His theory said he should be in Asia.

2. The Observer Changes the Observed — The act of studying an event can change it. This can happen with anthropologists studying tribes to physicists studying electrons. This is why psychologists use blind and double-blind controls. Science tries to minimize this, pseudoscience does not.

3. Equipment Constructs Results — The equipment used often determines the results. The size of the telescope shaped and reshaped the size of the universe. The kind of fish net determines what fish it can catch.

4. Anecdotes != Science — Stories that people pass on is not the same as controlled experiments. Pseudoscience points to anecdotes; science points to reputable studies.

5. Scientific Language Doesn’t Make It Scientific — Dressing up a belief in scientific language doesn’t make it science. This is easily seen with “creation science” and New Age pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

6. Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True — L. Ron Hubbard called Dianetics “a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his invention of the wheel and the arch.” But it wasn’t. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary well-tested the evidence must be.

7. Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness — Copernicus and Galileo and the Wright Brothers were rebels. But just because someone is a rebel doesn’t make them right. Holocaust deniers are rebels, but they need historical evidence for their position. It’s heresy to say Bush planned the 9/11 attack, but that isn’t evidence of the government suppressing the truth.

8. Burden of Proof — The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving their claim is true and better than the commonly accepted position. If a man claims he moved a mountain with his mind, the burden of proof is on him.

9. Rumors Do Not Equal Reality — Rumors begin with “I read somewhere that…” or “I heard from someone that….” Before long, the rumor becomes reality, as “I know that…” passes from person to person. These stories are often false. For instance, everyone knows George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and couldn’t lie about it. He also had wooden teeth. Both stories are false.

10. Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable — Just because you can’t explain something doesn’t mean it can’t be explained. Firewalking seems inexplicable, but once you know the explanation it seems obvious. The same goes for all magic tricks. And even if an expert can’t explain it doesn’t mean it can’t be explained someday. Think of how many things — from germs to atoms to evolution — couldn’t be explained two hundred years ago!

11. Failures Are Rationalized — Scientists acknowledge failures and reformulate theories. Pseudoscientists ignore or rationalize failures.

12. After-the-Fact Reasoning — Also known as, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” literally, “after this, therefore because of this.” It’s superstition. Because I carried a rabbit’s foot, I sold more products today. Because I have blonde hair, I’m ditzy. Because I used a dowsing stick, I struck water. All superstition. Correlation does not mean causation.

13. Coincidence — Most people have a very poor understanding of the law of probability. Say you are about to make a call and as your hand touches the phone they call you. How could that be a coincidence? It must be ESP. We forget about the other thousand times we call someone and they don’t call us first. You make 5 baskets in a row, and you’re “on fire.” But statistically your chances are the same as a coin-flip. The human mind looks for patterns and often finds them when there are none.

14. Representativeness — Something may seem unusual when it’s not. Baselines must be established. For instance, tapping and scratching sounds in your house may be ghosts, but it’s probably just pipes and rats. Many ships are lost at the Bermuda Triangle, but only because there are more shipping lanes there than in surrounding areas. When that is factored in, the accident rate is actually lower in the Bermuda Triangle.

15. Emotive Words and False Analogies — Loaded language can be used to provoke emotion and obscure rationality. Industry can be called “raping the environment” or abortion “murdering innocent children” or a political opponent a “communist.” Rarely does this further rational thought, but clouds the issue with emotion and rhetoric.

16. Appeal to Ignorance — This claims if you can’t disprove something, it must be true. So if you can’t disprove psychic power or ESP or ghosts, they must be real. The problem is you can’t disprove Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, either. Belief should come from positive evidence in support of a claim, not a lack of evidence.

17. Attacking the man —Redirect the focus from thinking about the idea to thinking about the person holding the idea. Calling Darwin a racist or a politician a communist or past figure a slaveholder does not discredit their ideas.

18. Hasty Generalization — Also known as prejudice, or drawing conclusions before the facts warrant. A couple of bad teachers and it’s a bad school. A couple of bad cars and that brand of automobile is unreliable.

19. Overreliance on Authorities — We must be careful not to accept a wrong idea from someone we respect, nor write off a good idea because of a supporter we disrespect. Examining the evidence ourselves helps us avoid these errors.

20. Either-Or — This is the argument that when one position is wrong, another must be accepted. For instance, creationists spend much of their time attacking evolution because they think if evolution is wrong, then creationism must be right. But for a theory to be accepted, it must be superior to the old theory. A new theory needs evidence in favor of it, not just against the opposition.

21. Circular Reasoning — Also known as begging the question, this is when the conclusion or claim is merely a restatement of one of the premises. For instance in religion: Is there a God? Yes. How do you know? Because my holy book says so. How do you know your holy book is correct? Because it was inspired by God. Or in science: What is gravity? The tendency for objects to be attracted to one another. Why are objects attracted to one another? Gravity. While these definitions can at times be useful, we need to try and construct operational definitions that can be tested, falsified, and refuted.

22. Reductio ad Absurdum and the Slippery Slope — Reductio ad absurdum is the refutation of an argument by carrying the argument to its logical end and so reducing it to absurd conclusion. For instance: Eating ice cream will cause you to gain weight. Gaining weight makes you overweight. Overweight people die of heart disease. Thus eating ice cream leads to death. A creationist might argue: Evolution doesn’t need God. If you don’t need God, you reject him. Without God, there is no morality. Therefore, people who believe in evolution reject God and have no morals.

23. Effort Inadequacies and the Need for Certainty, Control, and Simplicity — Most of us want certainty, want to control our environment, and want nice, neat simple explanations. But it doesn’t always work like that. Solutions are sometimes simple, but other times they are complex. We must be willing to make an effort to understand complex theories instead of rejecting them out of laziness.

24. Problem-Solving Inadequacies — When solving problems, we often form a hypothesis and then look only for examples to confirm it. When our hypothesis is wrong, we are slow to change our hypothesis. We also gravitate towards simple solutions even when they don’t explain everything.

25. Ideological Immunity — We all resist changing fundamental beliefs. We build up “immunity” against new ideas that do not fit within our paradigm. The higher the intelligence, the greater the potential for ideological immunity. This can be the greatest barrier to changing our weird beliefs.

Blondesjon's avatar

@mattbrowne . . . #25 intertwines and not-so-subtly influences #‘s 1–24.

well put

mattbrowne's avatar

Paul Watzlawick once said: “The belief that one’s own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions.”

So I guess we are all entitled to support the paranormal or reject the paranormal as part of our personal reality.

Paradox's avatar

@mattbrowne Yes I try to find a fine balance between being guillable and being open-minded. I’m probally one of the most skeptical people that can exist. If it wasn’t for several personal experiences I would probally still be skeptical about psi as well.

I do try to call other people out on their claims when they sound suspicious. Dam I even had my account “mysteriously deleted” from scepcop before I joined Fluther. I found several flaws in some of the cases of NDEs that one of the editors was trying to use to support the cases for life after death. Even though I suspect there is truth to life after death there were so many details the people on scecop were leaving out to support their side of the story. One case in particular was Pam Reynolds suppossed NDE. I try to call both sides out on their mistakes whether it’s on JERF or Scepcop. I have found both sides like to cherry pick evidence which supports their cause. I do this because I feel when people become to biased towards believing any accounts of ndes, ghosts and other psi phenomena then this hurts the cause and leaves many psi investigators open to fraudulent claims upon wishful thinking.

Dam I had my account deleted from scepcop, a proparanormal website and I am a paranormal investigator myself! How did that happen?

mattbrowne's avatar

@Paradox – I like Fox Mulder’s approach ;-)

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

In my opinion, to not believe in God but to try and believe in ghost, telekinesis, ESP, or any other thing that cannot be measured, weighed, heard, felt, measured, etc. is rather disingenuous. It would also be disingenuous not to believe in extraterrestrials (at least there is some plausible evidence they exist). If this is all there is, then their dead relatives are not ”looking down” on them from anywhere. Their long dead relatives no longer exist, so they are not watching anyone. Likewise the relative’s ghost would not be hanging around hunting anything or passing through on _’visits”, as there would be no soul to do it. The relative’s soul, as an atheist should see it off their belief has departed to the great white zephrum, never, never land, oblivion or wherever nothingness is.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther