Hallowheeeeeeeeeeee!
Questioning the paranormal while enjoying its possibilities
Trick or treat to you, my piebald repository of scallywags, miscreants, and fine folk.
Hallows eve and a few spooky podcasts (like this one) got me thinking about the veil between our world and the other side and asking myself the question: What do I actually believe about the paranormal?
Personally, I find it befuddling, if not quite baffling. As in, most of the time, I don’t believe the paranormal exists for even one single solitary nanosecond. It isn’t material and we don’t have the tools to investigate the non-material so what’s there to talk about? We can’t pinpoint where the there there would even be.
Broadly speaking, I follow Matt Dillahunty’s motto: “I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.” It is absurd to follow this edict without being a rather hardcore materialist* because only in the material world can we test tangible evidence to verify truth claims.
(Side note 1: historically speaking, materialism and the scientific method have proven the most effective, efficient, and practical way to understand our cosmos.)
The paranormal seems like it should be testable. Cable television is, after all, rife with ghost hunting nabobs wandering dank hallways with bleep-bloop machines, performing endless jump scares. Sadly for the paranormal crowd, those guys can never quite verify the existence of anything besides low ratings. Simultaneously, there’s a dearth of papers from the scientific community on the subject and, if we’re being honest, an overly dogmatic dismissiveness within the academy that discourages investigation.
So what we’re left with are stories. And anytime your evidence is reduced to personal experiences, a cacophony of charlatans arise like a zombie horde droning “muuuuuuuh-ney.” Read up on the Spiritualist movements of the late 19th century and you’ll find con artists huddled cheek to jowl in seance rooms with credulous bumpkins seeking emotional serenity.
(Side note 2: Due to gas lighting fixtures, carbon monoxide poisoning was rampant in those days and many of its symptoms cannot be distinguished from a good haunting. Also, where the term “gas-lighting” comes from.)
But every now and again a story breaks through that seems legitimate. (Case in point: Otherworld Episode 54**). I have no idea if the events in this story were caused by a spirit or demon or phantom lord or not. That would require a different investigation than the host wanted to present. But it’s a damn fine telling of events that the participants couldn’t quite explain without leaning into paranormal explanations.
So what’s a skeptic who also likes a good yarn to do?
Well, the one thing we can know for certain is that people have paranormal experiences. We are incontrovertibly overwhelmed by claims even if we’re not overwhelmed by evidence. But believing in claims without evidence is a one-way ticket to false beliefs (what up to my Qanon, flat earther, moon landing, Atlantis readers?). If we were to rid ourselves of evidence and take everything on faith, there is quite literally nothing that we couldn’t believe.
The other thing we can know is that our beliefs affect our explanations. A Hoodoo priestess, a Catholic priest, and a skeptic can all have the exact same uncanny experience and come away with wildly different explanations for it that confirm their preconceived belief systems. Our worldviews often shapes our claims when we’d be better off letting the evidence shape our worldview.
One recommendation I do have is to be actively skeptical about everything…not just the paranormal. If you read about an experience from one perspective, find another source. I remember listening to a podcast about a haunted forest in Romania and it was spooky, spine tingling, goosebumping goodness - devils and disappearances and faerie lights and the whole nine. Then I googled the name of the forest and found an article that refuted the podcast’s claims with simple, clear materialist explanations for all the freaky-deaky facts.
This technique (alt sourcing) is a must for any claim that raises your nonsense hackles - from movies based on “real events” to politicians claiming MS-13 is a national security threat to Black Israelites claiming modern Jews stole their identity.
(Side note 3: in this day and age of misinformation, we should also be verifying claims that totally align with our pre-held beliefs. Do not pass judgement until the facts are in. Do no let your emotions rule your understanding of truth.)
So where does that leave me when it comes to answering the question: What do I really believe about the paranormal? Simply put: I don’t know enough to have a definitive answer. I do know we cope with our world by creating explanations for it. But not all explanations are created equal and I’m loathe to accept explanations that can’t be verified. I believe some paranormal experiences may have paranormal causes. I believe the vast majority of them have rational, materialistic explanations that we simply aren’t perceptive enough to uncover. I believe there may be a “spiritual” dimension that our senses and instruments can’t quite tap into. But, saying that, I firmly believe we don’t understand that dimension well enough to make useful claims about it. We remain ignorant, lost in a realm of pure speculation. Which is all to say: While I don’t personally woo-woo, I am open to the possibility of woo.
========
*For instance, it is easier to reject all gods than almost all gods because the more one investigates a singular god claim the less obvious that god’s existence becomes.
**The podcast isn’t great. The host is a little rambling and the multiple perspectives a little repetitive. But the core story is fascinating and its made more believable by the slightly insipid cast of characters to whom it happened. Simply put, they don’t seem “smart” enough to have made it all up***. I’m maintaining a highly skeptical view of it all, but it’s a curious and compelling case.
***That’s a very rude assessment on my part. And I’m sure if I spent a bit more time on it, I’d come up with a less biting descriptor. But I ain’t got time for that today. So I’ll apologize and leave it at that.
Internet of the Day
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
The Good:
During the writers strike, the white boys of late night launched a podcast called Strike Force Five featuring John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, and Jimmy Kimmel. It’s a fun listen. That said, episode 5 is an instant comedy classic as Fallon attempts a newlywed game style game that goes off the rails from the start.
Looking for a book that’s as readable as it is hilarious as it is poignant? I got you. Heating & Cooling by Beth Ann Fennelly.
Discount Grocery Outlet. The place for what you didn’t know you needed but now need because it’s so danged cheap. Well hello there can-of-corned-beef!
The Bad:
The new speaker of the house seems like a real piece of rational wreckage. See everything I said above about how we determine what’s worth believing. Mike Johnson appears to do none of them.
Did you know that the word “villain” descends from the same root word as villa? A villein was a tenant farmer on feudal lands. So the workers who lived on land of the villa were besmirched as villainous. Note to self: The rich and powerful have always feared and despised the hoi polloi. Those guys, to quote Norm Macdonald, are real jerks.
The Ugly:
Far be it from me to wade chin first into the Palestinian/Israeli crisis. My ignorance is matched only by my horror. This essay, though, struck me as a sober take, placing people over ideology (even as it clearly leans in the Israeli direction). Speaking of the “decolonization narrative,” the author writes, “Although it lacks the sophistication of Marxist dialectic, its self-righteous moral certainty imposes a moral framework on a complex, intractable situation.” This, I believe, is true - emotionally self-righteous moral certitude is a pathway to all manner of bad belief systems. It is the same thing that drives today’s Trump supporters. And its the reason the trans and anti-trans contingents can’t even hold cordial discussions as both sides cling to all or nothing moral frameworks. Nothing blinds us to truth and nuance like unexamined self-righteousness. And we all do it. So be mindful of your own predilection to certitude, or, to put it more succinctly, check yo’self.
And finally:
