HALLOWEEN, THE SUPERNATURAL AND THE PARANORMAL

Yesterday, I attended a secular discussion group on the subjects of Halloween and the supernatural. I was amazed to hear hardened skeptics speak about supernatural encounters that they had had. While they wouldn’t allow these experiences to interfere with their skeptical beliefs and commitments to naturalism and materialism (the denial of the spiritual), they couldn’t deny what they had seen.

Several finally concluded that there might not be any ultimate answers and that life was just about holding incommensurate beliefs in tension. One even remarked that we need this tension in order to be open to others and to experience.

But open for what reason? It reminded me of people who claimed that life was about seeking but also believed that there was nothing to find – no ultimate conclusions to embrace or overarching wisdom to live by. I remarked that we had to seek to attempt to harmonize what we know in hope of assembling an accurate roadmap of reality so that we can navigate it. In order to do this, we need to answer some basic questions like “Why am I here, and how should I live my life?” The discomfort was palpable.

Nevertheless, the consensus was that the spiritual world was real. However, they weren’t ready to consider the possibility that certain spiritual beings might be evil. I remember how gullible I had been when I first experienced the spirit beings through the Ouiji Board. Even though the spirits addressed my girlfriend and me in a vulgar way, I was always ready to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, I was convinced that these were evolved superior beings, and such beings couldn’t do wrong. If I found their communications crude, it was only because I wasn’t as evolved as they.

These skeptics were also naïve about the spirit world. One older gentleman remarked that he had visited a witch but came away convinced that she only meant good. Why? Because she had been nice to him!

I began to think, “What if they asked me why they should believe in my God, whom they had never seen, rather than the spirits that they had encountered and the paranormal they had experienced.” What rational reasons could I give that could complete with what they had already experienced?

This sent me into a flurry of note-taking, but I also realized that without God’s intervention, there was nothing I could say that would make a difference. Nevertheless, here is the essence of my notes:

1.    An assembly of spirit beings could not provide an adequate explanation of this harmonious and benign world. Instead, this cosmos would reflect a patchwork of their competing objectives.

2.    Spiritistic cultures are not only backward, but they are also highly violent and self-destructive. If these spiritual powers were benign and supremely powerful, we should expect that the cultures which call upon them would be the most advanced and benign.

3.    In contrast, post-Christian Western nations still remain the most advanced.

4.    Jesus proved His love for humanity by willingly suffering the worst imaginable death on the Cross, proving that He is the true Shephard.

Nevertheless, I knew that this answer would be inadequate. However, I saw something else. Although they were impressed by their experience, they were also spooked by them and seemed to be determined to maintain a healthy distance. They were older and therefore more hesitant to embrace this exciting world then they would have been in their youth. They talked about mediums and witches but were not ready to go to one themselves.

However, this would change. Jesus prophesied that, in the end, there will be a proliferation of spiritistic manifestations. Times will be so difficult and the manifestations so profound that all will be deceived, except for those who are prepared (Matthew 24:21-24).

THE SUPERNATURAL

A skeptic had asked:

·       “Has there ever been an incident where people wanted to do something and a supernatural force stepped in to prevent it?”

I answered:

“Let me relate just one incident. Many years ago, I had met a young lady to whom I was very attracted. We knew that we could not be romantically involved because she was still married, although intending to divorce. Instead, we decided to just be friends.

However, I was experiencing something very strange when I’d try to pray. It felt like my prayers were hitting the ceiling and going no further. I had never experienced this before. It was perplexing and continued for almost a week.

I related it to a close friend. She suggested that perhaps I shouldn’t see this female, even as a friend. At first, I protested, but I had the feeling that she was right and that I was just kidding myself about my friendly intentions.

Once I had decided to break off entirely, my sense of separation from God vanished entirely, and I NEVER experienced it again.

It taught me that I can trust in God to warn me away from what I shouldn’t be doing. This was subsequently confirmed by many other supernatural encounters, some far more dramatic.”

Richard Dawkins: Nothing can Prove the Existence of God

The renowned atheist and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, had once been asked:

·       Bertrand, what would you say to God if you encounter him after you die and he asks, “Bertrand, why didn’t you believe?”

Russell confidently responded, “There just wasn’t enough evidence,” as if to say: 

•  I am a rational person and rational people require evidence. The fault, therefore, wasn’t with me but with you!

Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist today, has taken it one step further, claiming that no evidence is possible to support belief in God! In an interview with hosted by Peter Boghossian, Dawkins was asked:

•  What would it take for you to believe in God?

Dawkins dismissed the possibility that any evidence is possible – that even if Christ returned, he would have no way of knowing whether this was an hallucination or not. However, if Dawkins were to use this logic consistently, he also would deprive himself of any evidence of the existence of the universe. It might only be a dream or hallucination.

Besides, Dawkins seems haunted by the idea that his dismissal of all possible evidence doesn’t line up with the logic of science. After all, if a theory can be falsified by the evidence, it should also be amenable to evidential proof. Perhaps he senses that he is playing fast-and-loose with the concept of evidence and of science.

Perhaps he has stacked-this-deck with only the cards that will prove his point – that the natural explanation is the only possible one. But where did the natural come from? Doesn’t this question require a super-natural explanation? And is there any proof that causation is natural? While we all believe in the laws of science, perhaps these laws are best explained transcendentally, emanating from the mind of God?