The Rationalist and the Mystic, part 3

To finish up this series, I just want to make a bit of a list of real scenarios I've come across that illustrate some common pitfalls. The reason for doing this is to illustrate how easy it is for the "mystic" to lose sight of her/his rational faculties, thus falling into the realm of simple fantasy. Superseding reason may be a worthwhile endeavor, but we should remember that losing sight of reason entirely can lead to trouble.

True Case #1: Someone I know states that while "channeling" one day he spontaneously wrote in ancient Chinese. According to the story, this was verified by someone nearby who just happened to be familiar with ancient Chinese writing. This person believes that this series of events is proof of reincarnation: If he writes in ancient Chinese, he must once have been a Chinese person.

One thing that makes cases like this tough is that it's all second-hand information. One must first ask whether he was telling the truth or simply lying in order to be perceived a certain way. This is a matter of personal assessment. In this case, I think there's a reasonable chance of some level of fabrication. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that this account is completely true. Can it be taken as evidence of reincarnation?

The case in favor of such a conclusion would seem to hinge on the assumption that reincarnation is the only possible explanation for what occurred. Even if we can completely rule out the possibility that somewhere sometime this person saw ancient Chinese writing and was able to draw on that memory in his trance state, it seems like a bit of a stretch to suppose that there can be only one explanation. For example, is it possible that the Chinese text was read directly from the mind of that nearby person who happened to understand it? Could there have been some other kind of intermediary? In other words, the mechanism by which something like this might happen is not understood in any objective way. We cannot really say how this information would have entered his mind, but it is easy enough to imagine at least a few scenarios, none of which can be tested, given this set of information.

True Case #2: Someone else claims that at the age of six, he began to sing a song whose sole lyrics were "The electrons are better than the waves." This person claims to have had no interest or knowledge of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics at that time. He believes that he had not been exposed to anything mentioning this topic before. He is curious about what this might mean, but has been unable to draw any specific conclusions on the matter.

As for reliability, I've assessed this person as being very likely to have told the truth about this event. Still, memory of events before the age of six is not generally the most reliable, even less so when trying to claim that one would never have been exposed to certain words, for example. The word "electronics" would certainly have been heard by that stage at the very least, and the word "wave" would have been a part of this person's everyday vocabulary. One is inclined to write this off as coincidence.

Then again, one definition of synchronicity is "meaningful coincidence." To draw a definitive conclusion on the matter based on the fact that there may be a more mundane explanation seems perhaps a bit hasty. In the absence of further evidence, the "who knows?" attitude seems like a healthy one.

True Story #3: Another person claims to have found evidence of ghosts or spirits in an area she frequently visits. The evidence consists of temperature differences at different times of the day. These temperature differences are not necessarily inconsistent with what one might naturally expect. For example: On hot days, it is not inexplicably cold.

...and even if it were... Well, I'll leave that to you. One thing I want to stress here, though, is that it's easy to condemn, but trying to understand may actually be more instructive. What do you think this person's thought process is/was? In other words, what do you think caused this error, and why do you think you are immune to it? If you think this person is simply "stupid" or "irrational" or "superstitious", and that is the whole of your thought process, you are not looking deeply enough.

True Story #4: Someone else I know once claimed to have seen a "vision" of a peculiar shape on the ceiling. This person attached meaning and importance to the shape as a consequence. It was later discovered by this person that the "vision" was simply a pattern of shadows created by clutter near a light source. For some time afterward, the person tried to cling to the notion that the shape was important, though it never was clear how or why.

Ahh, this old trap: "I want to feel that something important and mysterious is happening to me." It may have seemed important when it was thought to be coming from a non-physical source, but afterward information was discovered that showed that it was not even remotely supernatural in origin (unless...). At that stage, however, it was apparently hard for this person to make the psychological adjustment to critical thought. Eventually, this person admitted that the whole episode was useless silliness. Someone less capable of "coming down" might have been chasing rainbows with this one for years -- perhaps a lifetime.

I think that's it for this one. To reiterate my position as clearly as I can:

If you cannot think from a rational materialist viewpoint, you are lost.
If you can only think from a rational materialist viewpoint, you are imprisoned.