Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

In a recent article I wrote, I mentioned how talking to people about possibly considering an alternative hypothesis to their own belief in what causes the things we consider paranormal is much more difficult than discussing alternative views on their chosen leanings in politics. Lately, I've been under fire (again) for not toeing a line in one way or another with some folks who can be, for lack of a better term, vitriolic in their correspondence and very much warriors of what has to be termed their faith.

"Faith" is a multi-meaning word for me as it not only encompasses the obvious spiritual possibilities within philosophies or religious views, but also "faith" in what some people understand to be the absolute answers to what is normally considered the unknown... and also, "faith" within fandom of certain people and even philosophies.

Effectively, you can have "faith" in a deity, but you can also have "faith" in the quality of a brand name cola... or "faith" that you will not slip on the stairs leading to the sidewalk outside your home... or "faith" that what you've read, seen on TV, or heard on the radio is 100% accurate and absolute.

Religiously, I've never hidden that I'm agnostic. I do have personal and indeed speculative concepts of religion... and/or spirituality... and/or even possible life after death... but they're open to evidence and I'm quite content to assume I'm wrong and would not be heart broken if I was proven to be incorrect. That said, I do actually have tremendous respect for those that find strength in their religious beliefs that find their faith aids them through life... and am a bit saddened that my inability to subscribe to any version of dogmatic beliefs might actually be a hindrance to my psychology as I am not comfortable with pat answers or other people dictating to me what I should believe based on their own (or even a popular) faith. In essence, I lack that strength that absolute faith brings because my mind demands more... and although I can entertain ideas, without empirical evidence one way or another, I cannot adopt a belief based on any other people's "say so" alone.

It's freeing in one sense though... as it does allow me to hear other people's testimony and not write it off as nonsense as many people can... because, again, I do believe the experiences to that person are legitimate... it's just personally, I will always require that little extra... yeah, I'm one of those people that can see a "Wet Paint" sign and STILL have to touch the surface to "make sure".

This viewpoint in religion and spirituality also haunts me in terms of the paranormal... and that is where those vitriolic people don't like me.

Are ghosts the spirits of the dead? Do demons exist? Are UFOs from alien worlds? Can psychics tap into another realm?

My answer to all of these is "possibly"... and "maybe not".

This is not popular.

The thing is, why are many people genuinely angry when someone, like me, cannot commit... and when people like me toss out other ideas and speculations for them to think about... I have to ask why are some people so uncomfortable with facing their "faith" head on with other arguments? Why can't they question to find better answers?

...and possibly most importantly, why are they not willing to make a believer... or non-believer... out of me with facts and evidence based on the things at hand?

Sadly, I do know that some people get angry when confronted by inconvenient facts about beliefs... be that in the causation of certain phenomena or even the egos involved with these studies... and that is when evidence is brought to bear, it forces them to re-think and re-consider a possible entire philosophy... and that's not only hard work (which nobody likes to do,) but it can be demoralizing. (Think in terms of hard-core Republicans in the United States that supported President Nixon and refused to believe there were any shenanigans... until "Watergate" broke... then they were literally stunned... some still are denying those incidents...)

Some folks who've e-mailed me recently don't like being questioned or seeing alternative thoughts because, quite frankly, it affects their "thunder"... well, their popularity with the masses. (Think in terms of all the ghost sites that had photos of orbs as their only data in terms of paranormal evidence... and when that all started going South...)

In these cases, however, I do have to wonder when these e-mailed complaints do roll in from other investigators in the field... because when I see they have trouble with other hypothesis... be that from myself or others... and then vehemently buck the ideas and even dismiss evidence that supports these other ideas or worse yet, adds questions to their own beliefs... I wonder... what's more important to these folks... the truth and continued expansion of knowledge on these subjects... or their own faith and indeed, sense of popularity?

As an agnostic on all fronts, for me, I don't care... The truth is what's most important... and if I'm wrong about everything in any of my speculation, that's a good thing... because it teaches me more and helps me find the answers (or even just better questions.)

Since I've brushed on religious beliefs, the only thing I cannot tolerate in terms of those with strong religious belief is when they force it on me in any way... when they preach to me to try and convert me to their side and shout down any opposition. When people cross the line from discussion to (hellfire and brimstone-style) preaching, I get genuinely grumpy... and again wonder why they feel they NEED to force me to their point and not address any of my personal concerns or worries.

Same goes for the paranormal... Why do they need to tell me how wrong I am... or how bad I am... or how awful something I've said/written/whatever is without presenting any hard evidence to show me the "error of my ways"?

Why do they need to convert me to their faith?

I'm an agnostic... and indeed, a sceptic. I doubt. I always have. I always will.

...and saying (or shouting) that I'm wrong or bad because I won't ignore the inconvenient facts or making me feel somehow stupid because I dared to question something that does not seem to have an empirical answer does not change my mind... it only makes me question you more.

This goes in all directions... If you demand I believe because something MUST be, then I ask for proof. If you demand that I say that something CANNOT be, then I ask for a better answer to those things that have been reported that fits the models at hand, not simply the argument that it "cannot be therefore it isn't" because there is room for hypothesis and even speculation without firm evidence in hand.

If there's a counter-point to your point, bring empirical proof to the table to counter that counter-point... or even admit you're only working on your own faith... and again, DON'T ask me to change my entire outlook based only on that. Be patient. Be kind.

I would demand no less of myself... and I do expect you to demand the same of me as well.

Don't preach to me... PROVE to me.

Prove to us all...

...or, if that proof is too elusive and you're looking into things like us, examine all aspects and then help find an answer... and show us that indeed, you might be willing to at least entertain a differing viewpoint if the facts come to the fore.

Just my $0.02 worth on some of the arguments I've had lately... and if you disagree, that's fine... just remember, we're probably not really in the exact same work or study... and as such, we probably are just hold differing faiths and beliefs.