Do You Believe in Ghosts and Spirits?

[jonathan180iq]

I grew up surrounded by superstitious beliefs. Shaking ingrained habitual assumptions and fears takes time - but I do not believe in a dualistic Universe, where there exists both the natural and supernatural. I'm a monist naturalist. Spirits and ghosts and whatever other juju you want to bring up are only as real as the imaginations that created them.

 

[Nada]

Ghost of the dead,no.Spirits yes.I believe,according to the holy scriptures,that the spirits that are in the world are really demons pretending to be the dead loved ones of those who have passed.When one dies,they return to the ground.The dead know nothing and are aware of nothing.People that do not have an accurate knowledge of this are manipulated into thinking that their loved ones can be reached by way of mediums.When this is done,unwanted spirits,demons,can manipulate and trick people.They are aware of you and your situation and can say things through mediums to further distort truth.

 

[George-ananda]

I grew up surrounded by superstitious beliefs. Shaking ingrained habitual assumptions and fears takes time - but I do not believe in a dualistic Universe, where there exists both the natural and supernatural. I'm a monist naturalist. Spirits and ghosts and whatever other juju you want to bring up are only as real as the imaginations that created them.

Have you considered that the supernatural is just the natural that modern science doesn't understand yet? I think the universe is vastly more complicated than modern science can grasp. Calling it 'juju' tells me you think you know the limits of the 'natural'.

I believe ghosts and everything is part of the natural myself.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Have you considered that the supernatural is just the natural that modern science doesn't understand yet? I think the universe is vastly more complicated than modern science can grasp. Calling it 'juju' tells me you think you know the limits of the 'natural'.

I believe ghosts and everything is part of the natural myself.

As animist, I don't believe in dualism, whether between the spiritual and the material or between the natural and supernatural. Everything is spiritual and there is no "mundane". All there is are varying depths of perception.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

My answer before was based on some assumption and varied gnostic thought, so I would ammend my answer as an agnostic to: maybe. Its a nice and comforting belief that our loved ones could still exist somewhere. I think its possible.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Have you considered that the supernatural is just the natural that modern science doesn't understand yet? I think the universe is vastly more complicated than modern science can grasp. Calling it 'juju' tells me you think you know the limits of the 'natural'.

I believe ghosts and everything is part of the natural myself.

Yes, I have considered that. My decisions generally don't come from not taking multiple options into consideration.
But to answer your question, no. Naturalism pretty much implies that unless the supernatural can be quantified and verified, then it's merely speculation. We can speculate about the supernatural "realm" and consider it something that science hasn't discovered yet (or any other type of gap theory) but if it can't be tested, then it's not natural, by definition. And, being a monist, there isn't room for both - like Lucifer said, from the flip side of monism, everything is spiritual and nothing is natural. I'm the opposite.

 

[George-ananda]

As animist, I don't believe in dualism, whether between the spiritual and the material or between the natural and supernatural. Everything is spiritual and there is no "mundane". All there is are varying depths of perception.

I think I'm compatible with this thinking.

BTW, how cute is my Koala Bear?

 

[George-ananda]

Naturalism pretty much implies that unless the supernatural can be quantified and verified, then it's merely speculation.

OK, but I can look at the evidence for the 'speculation' and conclude it is highly likely to be on to something real (but not proven or disproven by hard science). This speculation effects my view of the universe where I believe ghosts are real as well as realms beyond where our physical senses and instruments can reach.

 

[jonathan180iq]

OK, but I can look at the evidence for the 'speculation' and conclude it is highly likely to be on to something real (but not proven or disproven by hard science). This speculation effects my view of the universe where I believe ghosts are real as well as realms beyond where our physical senses and instruments can reach.

You can do that because of bias, certainly. There's more evidence for the ancient astronaut theory than for most other hocus pocus - the fact that people like to believe stuff doesn't give it any more credibility.

If your evidence for speculation can't be measured, in anyway outside of feeling like it seems real, then it's not evidence. It's a mental mirage.

 

[George-ananda]

You can do that because of bias, certainly. There's more evidence for the ancient astronaut theory than for most other hocus pocus - the fact that people like to believe stuff doesn't give it any more credibility.

If your evidence for speculation can't be measured, in anyway outside of feeling like it seems real, then it's not evidence. It's a mental mirage.

What I do is take all the information I can gather where people report 'out of the ordinary' phenomena and objectively conclude what I believe is going on. I consider all the ordinary explanations (that would not require an extension on what is already known) and objectively decide if those explanations seem satisfactory to explain the large body of evidence. My conclusion is 'what we know' does not satisfactorily explain the large body of evidence and we must speculate new ideas and understandings; this is how an objective scientific mind works.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What I do is take all the information I can gather where people report 'out of the ordinary' phenomena and objectively conclude what I believe is going on.

this is how an objective scientific mind works.

...Minus the bias from the first part.

You have to remove yourself from the equation, and your preconceived notions and your preferences and your cultural surroundings and anything that could throw off the actual study of the occurrences.

You can do and believe whatever you want. I'm not saying that you can't and I'm not saying that you're wrong in whatever you conclude personally. What I am saying, however, is that those conclusions are not science. They aren't facts and they never will be.

I am absolutely open to accepting these supernatural things if the data supported that hypothesis - but it doesn't.

 

[George-ananda]

You have to remove yourself from the equation, and your preconceived notions and your preferences and your cultural surroundings and anything that could throw off the actual study of the occurrences.

I feel I am quite good at stepping back and thinking all sides objectively.

You can do and believe whatever you want. I'm not saying that you can't and I'm not saying that you're wrong in whatever you conclude personally. What I am saying, however, is that those conclusions are not science. They aren't facts and they never will be.

I agree belief in ghosts is not science. But objective open-minded speculation on evidence is what intelligent people do; it's how new scientific discoveries begin.

I am absolutely open to accepting these supernatural things if the data supported that hypothesis - but it doesn't.

That's our fundamental disagreement. I objectively believe the data supports the position that science's current knowledge is incomplete in some dramatic ways.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I feel I am quite good at stepping back and thinking all sides objectively.

We all believe that. And we are all wrong.

I agree belief in ghosts is not science. But objective open-minded speculation on evidence is what intelligent people do; it's how new scientific discoveries begin.

If we are talking about open minded exploration of ideas, I have no qualms with this. How can you develop a hypothesis without asking provoking questions - in the manner as it relates to this thread, however, asking questions like "How do the ghosts move between walls" is a flawed question. None of these "scientific" ghost investigators are going any science at all.

That's our fundamental disagreement. I objectively believe the data supports the position that science's current knowledge is incomplete in some dramatic ways.

Don't think I'm saying that we know everything or can measure everything. I'm simply saying that until it's verifiable, then it's purely conjecture.

If you have some evidence on paranormal or supernatural phenomena then I'd love to see it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And, being a monist, there isn't room for both - like Lucifer said, from the flip side of monism, everything is spiritual and nothing is natural. I'm the opposite.

That's not quite what I'm saying. To an animist, the natural world is spiritual and vice versa. It's all the same to us. We don't come up with false dichotomies. I don't describe myself as a monist or a dualist. Animism is a holistic worldview.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think I'm compatible with this thinking.

BTW, how cute is my Koala Bear?

Very cute!

 

[Norrin-6-]

If it was just lights going on/off inside homes I would probably agree with your opinion.

Yeah, good point. I've heard a lot crazier stories. By crazier, I mean what they saw, not anything about the person who had the experience. I totally believe many people are being honest about seeing ghosts and angels and all that. I just think the experiences are better left unexplained until we have conclusive data. Personally I don't believe what they saw was real; I don't mean it's always straight up hallucination (although it can be), but sometimes our brains misinterpret what we see. There's something they saw but it wasn't really a ghost is my assumption.

And yeah, you could reiterate the same response you gave me, but I'll just leave it be. I know there's tons of experiences other than just seeing an apparition.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's not quite what I'm saying. To an animist, the natural world is spiritual and vice versa. It's all the same to us. We don't come up with false dichotomies. I don't describe myself as a monist or a dualist. Animism is a holistic worldview.

That's fair - thanks for clarifying

 

[George-ananda]

Yeah, good point. I've heard a lot crazier stories. By crazier, I mean what they saw, not anything about the person who had the experience. I totally believe many people are being honest about seeing ghosts and angels and all that. I just think the experiences are better left unexplained until we have conclusive data. Personally I don't believe what they saw was real; I don't mean it's always straight up hallucination (although it can be), but sometimes our brains misinterpret what we see. There's something they saw but it wasn't really a ghost is my assumption.

And yeah, you could reiterate the same response you gave me, but I'll just leave it be. I know there's tons of experiences other than just seeing an apparition.

I understand the prejudice against believing there is more to reality than our physical three-dimensional world. I and everyone, to some extent, share this prejudice.

But after studying multiple subjects, ghosts, NDEs, childhood reincarnation memories, and 20 other things, I now believe in a vastly more complex worldview. In fact I don't think these things should fairly even be called 'unexplained'. The Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, and other respected traditions have a worldview with amazing details that show how these things are really part and parcel of the natural. This worldview after much consideration seems more believable to me than the physical-only worldview. Just my considered opinion of course.

 

[Willamena]

Have you considered that the supernatural is just the natural that modern science doesn't understand yet? I think the universe is vastly more complicated than modern science can grasp. Calling it 'juju' tells me you think you know the limits of the 'natural'.

I believe ghosts and everything is part of the natural myself.

That's just saying that the supernatural is not the supernatural.

 

[George-ananda]

That's just saying that the supernatural is not the supernatural.

Correct, it's really saying the term 'supernatural' shouldn't be used. Ghosts are part of the natural but colloquially are also considered 'supernatural'. We want precise terms but that's not going to happen. I hope people know what I mean.