![]() |
Photo by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash
|
I don't think it is a stretch to say that ghost and any other supernatural entities around the world are products of hearsay being told by parents in their respective culture. Concurrently movies were made about those hearsay, and stories being told about them from relatives, friends, friend of a friend. Fascination about the subject lifted them away from mundanity. Also there is an appeal of a pascal wager’s-like intuition: if you believe, and it's not true, you just waste your time; but if you don’t believe, and it's true, you place yourself in grave danger.
So after an ample amount of reverberation of the above (i.e. anecdotes and movies with the addition of fascination and the pascal’s wager) in one’s thought processes, you are well prime to be attuned to supernatural thinking.
Claims of the supernatural are simply a series of events which don't align with the perceiver’s notion of cause and effect. The line of causation was chopped off somewhere along the way. So it was interpreted as the supernatural. So, the supernatural simply means the things that they can’t explain. This calls for more explanation not less. The problem is that they were not willing to accept any other explanation except the supernatural.
Then there is another thing. Certain people with a bent towards supernatural thinking would claim that they were the open-minded ones. That would make the ones who doubted, by contrast close minded. The reasoning was: Well, of course, you have just closed off to a possibility, you are not open to an extra idea, your thinking is rigid.
Is it though? Are the people who were clinging to the belief of the supernatural really the open-minded ones?
Say, if they saw an apparition of sorts, or heard a disembodied voice or heard something supernatural from a friend, or even a friend of a friend. Believing is always their immediate reaction. They would accept that its a spirit, a ghost, a soul, full-stop, no additional inquiry needed. But if you would to say maybe it was a visual illusion, or auditory illusion, which is a product of contextual cues such as being in a dimly lit place, a predilection to assign agent and the feeling of fear which accompanies it, then all of a sudden, critical thinking kicks in. They would apply a stronger than normal scepticism to question your various assumptions. Well, how about this? If it is not a ghost how do you explain that?
Questioning assumptions is good, all assumptions should be questioned in a fair-minded way. That's critical thinking.
But the supernatural thinkers weren’t being fair-minded. Their thinking was in fact lopsided. How is it fair if they were not willing to put the same rigor to their supernatural belief, compared to the rigor they place on others when various forms of possible logical explanation were presented.
At best they would mostly settle with the phrase “something just can’t be explained”. That is true, there might be things that would end up not being explained, but the conclusion they draw doesn't end at "i don't know". Instead their logic often goes like this: It can’t be explained, conclusion: the supernatural. So, their line of reasoning: It can’t be explained, therefore, it is explained (the supernatural).
Similarly, they would say things like science can’t explain everything. In a way which insinuates the idea that there is a science world and there is a paranormal world. It is nonsensical because science is just a method of inquiring the truth. It simply means if you make a claim, you should have evidence which supports it, and that evidence provided would be placed under close inspection.
At times, a disbelief would be taken as offensive. That is because not believing would be taken by the experiencer as you labelling them as someone crazy, so it's either they are sane and it happens, or they are insane and it didn't happen. What if you told them, no they are not crazy they have simply made a mistake? That explanation too wouldn’t bite, because that would mean that it was not special with their fantastical accounts rendered moot.
Some people who experience the "supernatural" were indeed genuinely scared. So being sceptical would be taken as you seeing their experience and emotions illegitimate. At this juncture, feelings would come first, and rationality would be placed at the back seat. What If you take the approach of I believe your feelings are real, it's just your conclusion of the feelings might be mistaken, will that work? The most compassionate approach seems to be taking a suspension of disbelief while hearing the apparent victim of the "supernatural" out.
Some people who experience the "supernatural" were indeed genuinely scared. So being sceptical would be taken as you seeing their experience and emotions illegitimate. At this juncture, feelings would come first, and rationality would be placed at the back seat. What If you take the approach of I believe your feelings are real, it's just your conclusion of the feelings might be mistaken, will that work? The most compassionate approach seems to be taking a suspension of disbelief while hearing the apparent victim of the "supernatural" out.
Lastly, to say that science can't explain everything, is to say that the best method of inquiry we have can't explain everything. Which is true, that is why it is an expanding enterprise. If one day the supernatural were to be explained by careful inquiry, then it would become the natural. That's why there is no such split as scientific view vs everything else magical. If there are, it is just the things that were explained vs the things which were yet to be explained. Believing the supernatural in the modern world seems absurd. But I believe even in an age of progressing technology and science, it will be here to haunt us for a long while, if not indefinitely.









