A common argument used by sceptics to counter claims by those who argue that gods, magic, ghosts etc. exist because they have experienced them in an empirical /quasi-empirical way, is that such experiences are purely psychological i.e. mental illness, hallucination, power of suggestion etc. However this argument could taken the other way. That is the non-experience of gods, magic, ghosts etc. is purely psychological i.e. mental illness, hallucination, power of suggestion etc.

Um.... no... I dont quite see how that one works.

Like Xalle, I fail to see how that one works too.
The majority of sceptics (and believe me I know a good fair few) would like to believe in many of these things but the difference is that they require proof that these things actually exist.

They don't blindly believe that the 'medium' in front of them is talking to dear dead aunt Mabel or whoever.
They would look into the possibilty of, say, cold reading eg. "Does the initial M mean anything to anyone here?" Then the 'medium', judging on the age and appearance of those who indicated in the positive, work from there.

They don't believe blindly that the picture taken with the digital camera in the graveyard that shows 'Orbs' gives evidence of ghosts/spirits/engeries.
They would look at the technical data available that shows how light refracting through moisture on dust particles creates these pictures on digital cameras (and sometimes on film).

With reference to Gods and magic.
As any 'evidence' presented is always anecdotal, there can be no proof.
Without the testing of these claims in a controlled environment, no sceptic would believe they exist.

The notion that all sceptics are close minded is, in the main, wrong.
They just require proof positive that these things cannot be explained by rational processes.

Believers don't need any such proof and usually come out with the old chestnut of "Prove it doesn't exist"

An athiest aquaintence of mine has a wonderful sig that says:
"You pray for me and I'll think for you"

Correct me if I'm Wrong Yarrow but are you argueing from the "Ghosts ect are all around us and its "normal" people that don't see them becase they have been brainwashed into not seeing them." A consensus reaility, or maybe a A Genral Consesnus Reaility

Most Psycics would argue that its important to be able to "swich off" at times, as this gives them a little down time and enables them to deal with everyday (mortgage/bills/job) Reality.
Plus and this is OMHO. There are tasks and skills that are required to be done in this current reality. Could a Surgeon operate sucsesfully if he saw Death standing at his Elbow?

Who's to say that the Day to day "social" skills-Inteacting with work colleagues, Paying bills, driving to work ect? Are less important than being able to See Ghosts and Work Magic? As i've said before, Becoiming a Magician/Pagan/Witch Isn't a easy option it measn learning a new set of skills to compliment not replace the existing ones.

Sometimes I think the Gods only pester the ones that are more likely to believe in them on purpose!!

I know it is not empirical or provable but to be honest, I have seen too much and experienced too much not to believe.

I know that it is down to interpretation but sometimes you cannot interpret something any other way than how your gut is telling you. Sometimes it is that clear. Sometimes also the experiences are that persistant that you have no choice.

Sometimes it is a case of staying true to yourself and going with your gut.

And for the folks that use magic - we all know the importance of going with gut instinct at times

Maybe belief in deity can be put down to a dodgy digestive system!

How many times have you heard somone calling for Jesus or God the morning after a Indian Meal (Though thinking about it should'nt they be calling on the Hindu Parthenon)

There was a theory doing the rounds at one time that the feeling of being in Love was a Virus like the common cold. Anyone else remember that?

I remember that!

I wonder on what basis people believe things? I mean, there is no historical evidence that J.C. even wandered about. There is evidence for Siddhartha and Mohammad, but none for J.C. or say...Shiva.

But that's a by the by.

Thing is, the question is more of a kettle compared to a frying pan type of question. Or, apples and oranges. One cannot hold a logical discussion which springs from that which is built on no logic.

A religious person or a person who has seen a ghost can still be a skeptic, a skeptic can be religious and may never have experienced a ghost, a sane ( by present definitions) person can be a skeptic or not and a mentally ill person can be a skeptic or not and so forth and so on - the permutations are endless.

So the question makes no sense as there are no exclusive categories from which to take any information. Psychology does not concern itself with such things unless a 'belief' issue makes a person unable to function in daily life and skepticism is not in the realms of psychology at all except in so far as psychology relates to the brain and without one of those items, we are just rather cumbersome paper-weights.


Marto

All I’m trying to point out is that one of the many counter arguments that opponents of the argument from religious experience use is not as strong as it would first appear as the argument can be run the both ways. I’m not saying that believers are better then non-believers or that all sceptics are close minded and nor am I arguing that gods, ghosts, magic etc. do exist

If hallucination, suggestion, mental illness etc. can cause people to see things that are not there then is it not possible that they can cause people to not see things that are there? Also , say for example you did an experiment to determine whether or not magic exists, how do you determine that the results you perceive are the actual results and not some hallucination?

I had to read that several times to get my wee head around it. I think I see what you are saying. I think the line you could take... is that mental illness allows you to see things that others can not percieve, in other words part of the symptom of the illness is an opening of an awareness. In other words... good mental heath blocks certain aspects of reality to allow you to function... I dont think you can argue, NOT seeing them, implys poor mental health, its like trying to prove a negative, you cant argue it that way it isnt a supportable argument.

In the land of the insane the sane man is considered insane, for what is insanaty but that which is out of the norm , and to whom is it to say what is the norm and what is not...

I don't think this argument works.

We're back to the CR/NCR thing. Consensual reality is the construct of the majority of people, whose experiences are compared with each other. If you like, the lowest common denominator of experience. Non-consensual reality, OTOH, is not a single construct of those who experience CR plus something else. Those who experience NCR experience in a wide variety of ways, most of which do not converge to produce a standard NCR. Consequently, where those experiences differ as much from each other as they do from those who only experience CR, are we to say that there is one form of NCR and all the other claimants are as unattached to some sort of 'true' reality as are those who experience only CR? Or do we say there is some means of reconciling these differences? Or that the 'true' nature of reality is total chaos? You would, after all, have to include the genuine psychotics in there.

The point is that 'reality' is owned by us all - both those whose experience is only CR and those who also experience NCR. Excepting only those who experience psychosis which, in many ways, is only a way of saying they have lost touch with CR in certain ways which produce set symptoms. If you redefine NCR as true 'reality' then there is the danger that 'reality' ceases to mean anything at all.

I realise you may be trying to say that some people may not be able to experience NCR and that there may be something 'not there' which is 'there' for other people who do experience it, but, even taking that analogy and running with it, surely an 'anti-hallucination' would temporarily deprive someone otherwise capable of experience NCR of that ability? I don't see how one condition or the other would make any difference to a person's susceptibility to suggestion (read, for example, Asch's experiments, which ground susceptibility to suggestion in social plasticity rather than mental aberration), and mental illness can strike anyone and does not necessarily result in any form of NCR.



Hmm...if we take that line then I'd suggest we cannot depend on anything as a means to test 'reality'. Perhaps an experiement with gravity might be worthwhile.

I've had that quoted at me a lot recently, and its triteness never fails to wind me up something chronic.

Does it work with other illnesses perhaps? In the land of cancer is the tumour-free man considered sick? I think not.

From my perspective, mental health issues are less about subverting cultural norms, and more about being actually unwell and wanting to be treated like anyone else who has a physical illness.

Or are we only discussing the more interesting mental illnesses here? Very little spiritual exploration to be found in self harm and panic attacks, I suppose.

A woman after my own heart! I get sick of people (often of a famous presuasion) telling us how their illness allows them to explore their art. also people who think it's somehow "cool" to be mentally ill. That's as maybe but most of us live in the real world with our illnesses and we stil have to get up in the morning, look after kids, go to work and put food on the table.
I personally am far more creative when the black dog buggers off for a while. Then it comes back, pees up my leg and I'm back to being Detritus.
Sorry, I've wandered off the topic a bit. What was the question?
BM
xx

How many ghosts does it take to change a light bulb????

None. They don't need lights cos they're mystical orbs. Wooo-ooo-oooh!