Tao neither supernatural nor mechanical - III

Scintillation Grid

With regard to the supernatural, I believe that the data in many cases simply are not as represented and do not support – much less prove – what it is claimed they should prove. I also believe that the claims made are so unlikely to be valid, so difficult to believe, that very strong evidential proof would be needed. The matter has been put in words stronger than mine:

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish: And even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.

(David Hume, “Of Miracles” in “An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Essays and Treatises”)

It is that mutual destruction of arguments which most convinces me that there are not believably at the present time any miracles in which it is easier to believe than to doubt the attesting evidence.

The trouble is that belief in a claimed miracle must always leave the believer open to all belief. By accepting two contradictory kinds of explanation (both the ordered and the supernatural), he sacrifices all criteria of the incredible. If some proposition is both true and false, then all propositions whatsoever are and must be both true and false. All questions of belief or doubt then become meaningless. It is in this context that the concept of heresy assumes its importance. However, if heresy be defined as internally contradictory opinion about some major premise of life and religion, then belief in the supernatural is ultimately “heresy”.

An example will perhaps make this matter more clear. I recently attended a séance at which a professed (and professional) psychic painted about twenty pictures in about two hours. These pictures he signed with the names of various deceased and famous artists – Picasso, Monet, Toulouse-Lautrec, Rembrandt, etc. And indeed each painting was recognizably in the style of the artist whose name was signed on it. The psychic claimed that the spirit of the deceased artist controlled him in the act of painting and that, without such control, he himself did not know how to draw.

Some days later, a little girl, four years old, defaced with a marking pen one of these paintings, which was signed “Monet”. The members of the community were horrified. I suggested, however, that this sequence of events proved the reality of ghosts. Clearly Monet, somewhere in the land of the dead, had become aware, by ESP, of the monstrous impersonation which had been perpetrated upon him, and had come back to earth in rage, where he had possessed the little girl, guiding her hand as she defaced the picture. I pointed out that the defacing marks were surely genuine Monet and should fetch several thousand dollars at auction. Or was the whole picture a “genuine Monet”? Either hypothesis is as credible (or incredible) as the other. The introduction of the supernatural into the scheme of explanation destroys all belief and all disbelief, leaving only a state of mind, completely gaga, but which some find pleasant.

The great variety of supernaturalist superstition with which we are currently blessed seems to depend on a rather small number of misconceptions. Thus, I believe that the receipt of information, whether by organisms or machines, always occurs by way of material pathways and end organs which are, in principle, identifiable. This rules out such variants of extrasensory perception as telepathy, distance perception, second sight, etc. It also excludes that superstition called the inheritance of acquired characteristics. It does not, of course, exclude the possibility that men, animals, or machines may have organs of sense of which we are still unaware. But in discussion with friends who believe in ESP, I find that any simple explanation of what they assert is not all what they hope for.

Tao neither supernatural nor mechanical - II