@Kayla654321: “I don’t care much for spiritual in a religious way, Fyrius.”
It seems I’ve gotten a reputation for atheism, to a point where I can’t voice any sceptical thought without other people getting religion involved… Know however that I’m a sceptic first, and my atheism is a result of that persuasion. Religion is just one symptom of the bad habits I oppose.
I’d also like to clarify what it means to be a sceptic. Contrary to what most people seem to believe, being a sceptic does not mean being biased towards materialism. Being a sceptic simply means being difficult to convince.
Sceptics will gather around whatever world view a conservative interpretation of the evidence leads to; thus, if sufficient evidence of ghosts presents itself, it’s quite possible to believe in them while remaining a sceptic.
With that said, I’ll fulfil my prophecy now and get it over with. Let me address the following to you as well as to @loser and @fedupwitcaddys:
Inexplicable events do not prove the existence of spirits or ghosts. That’s jumping to conclusions.
The only thing something completely inexplicable proves is that your views are inadequate and deserve reconsideration, but that should leave you with a hole where the debunked views used to be. There’s no reason to immediately fill up that hole with belief in spirits or ghosts. The debunking of one view does not prove another, unless they’re complementary assertions like “P is true” versus “P is not true.” This is not our situation.
You all say you have been convinced of the existence of spirits/ghosts. So, what exactly are they like? How do they work, what are their properties, what can they do, what can’t they do? You probably think it’s unfair of me to ask so much, but if your evidence justified believing that spirits or ghosts exist, and not anything else, you must have very detailed knowledge of the phenomenon.
The common definition of “spirit” or “ghost” is a set of ideas. Every single one of these ideas has to be proven true in order to be able to know that they exist. It doesn’t suffice that something weird happens; you need to prove it was caused by an immaterial sentient being (with any other properties you may ascribe to them). Otherwise any other speculated explanation would be just as adequate, from telekinetic aliens to microscopic robot agents from the future.
Furthermore, on proving supernatural things in general, here’s a rule of thumb to keep in mind.
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.” – Hume (1748), On Miracles
In other words, belief in supernatural things such as spirits or ghosts is only justified if any conceivable alternative explanation would be even more unlikely. This is why you should always think of the infinite set of other conceivable explanations and try to exclude the alternatives with reasonable degrees of certainty before you accept any explanation.
Bottom line: It’s okay to say an event is beyond explanation, but if it is, leave it unexplained. Don’t fill up the hole with anything you can find.
So much for this session of Scepticism 101. Class dismissed.