You look like you've seen a ghost! (ritual, moral, minority)

[s2a]

So there's my 2c. How about you? What do you think abou the subject?

I suppose I would separate my thoughts into two distinct areas of definition/explanation.

Acceptance of claims predicated on faith (absent compelling fact) is, well, the very definition of faith itself. Faith-based beliefs can seem extremely compelling in their own right, especially if certain extraordinary claims tend to reinforce or validate such beliefs. If you believe in a realm of an afterlife inhabited by "souls" or "spirits", it's not much of a stretch (by faith) to accept the notion of ghosts (or amorphous apparitions) as being "real".

Faith-based beliefs neither demand nor require physical/empirical evidences in substantiating alleged incontrovertible proofs (ie., "truths"), as [being] somehow/therefore requisite to acceptance or belief of/in such claims. If another "believer" anecdotally testifies to witness such an experience, that's typically sufficient "evidence" to accept (or even validate) the claim itself.

In other words, if you tend to believe that ghosts "could" exist...then you are much more predisposed to accept anecdotal claims that ghosts actually "do" exist.

On the other hand, I candidly offer that I have never met anyone that does not "believe (proclaim/accept)" in supernaturalistic cause/effect explanations - as a contemporary/subsequent proponent of conceptually veritable and existent "ghosts".

In the minds of - "hard" ;-) - skeptics/rationalists....either "ghosts" are veritably real entities with a natural explanation, or they are not (or..."they" are "something else" that, as yet, defies or leaves unsatisfied lending any provision of acceptably measurable, independently testable and verifiable, or ultimately falsifiable evidences in support/deconstruction of a otherwise unsubstantiated, given hypothesis/theory/conclusion).

Let's be fair. "Ghost sightings" range from strange bumps/sounds in the night (or day)...to claims of conversational, full-torso "apparitions" of lost loved ones, most recently departed.

I dunno. Could it be that the mind "sees" things that aren't really there, but wishing prospectively "makes" it so? Well,,,there's plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that probability of causality (as "witnessed", anecdotally accounted, phenomena). Many Christians have claimed to "see God", though the BIble infers that such witnessed encounters are quite impossible (even Moses was spared seeing the face of his god).

What are "ghosts"?

I don't know.

I've certainly never seen one, nor interacted with one (that I know of). I can account of many personalized instances wherein I could claim some "ghostly experience" (squeaky attic noises/sounds; inexplicably moved/displaced objects ["Where are my keys, dammit?]); odd tugging, burning, poking, itchy, or uncomfortable "feelings" upon certain places on my body; blurred, obscured, or non-descript "sightings" of indeterminate "things", etc: none of which strike me - distinctly or personally - as being "supernatural", or inherently inexplicable by natural means. But hey...I am a skeptic after all; and supernaturalistic explanations remain (pour moi) the least plausible "answers" available today.

Could I propose suppositional explanations for ghost sightings?

Sure I could.

Maybe "ghosts" are trans-dimensional beings ("people") phasing in and out of our own dimensional physical reality (either purposefully, or inadvertently/unconsciously).
Perhaps they are time-travelers (historians, students, tourists?) from some (potential) future earth. Maybe "ghosts" are distinctly personalized mental manifestations that tap into a part of the human psyche/sub-conscious/super-id that is either hyperactive (or inactive) within the rest of us.
Or, just maybe, it's some...or none...of the above. Maybe old houses groan and creak more with age, and personal tragedy/loss triggers a yet undefined/unexplored/undiscovered part of the human mind that temporarily manifests seemingly "real" phenomena (human "dreams" - both waking and sleeping - can appear [individualistically] VERY potent and "real").

I know that I claim no definite "answer" as to what ghosts are, or are not. Anything that apparently defies any, some, or all currently available natural explanations fascinates our species, and serves to support ongoing notions of faith-based beliefs. "If science can't explain it (or debunk/disprove "it"), or 'prove' it (beyond reasonable doubts), then 'it' must be - 'supernatural' (in origin)". Nevermind the fundamental flaws in employing specious rationale and fallacious logic (Fallacies of :the excluded middle; argument from ignorance; composition, etc.) in drawing such conclusions...the plain fact remains that "ghosts" present no empirical evidences beyond the purely anecdotal.

While axiomatically true that "the absence of evidence is not [necessarily] evidence of absence", the obverse is equally applicable...in that inconclusive/incomplete (or utterly lacking) datum or empirical evidences only serve to illustrate continuing ignorance,,,as opposed to some claimed "proof" (or especially endowed personalized enlightenment) of supernaturalistic causation/effect.

Recorded history is full to the brim with examples of "unexplained" phenomena once solely attributed to divine/supernatural control/influence. But inexorable time, trial and error, critical evaluation (and peer review), scientific methodologies, and integrity/honesty in search of veritable facts - not in accommodation of existential "truths" - has time and again (eventually) provided fact-based naturalistic explanations that require absolutely no faith-based beliefs or supernaturalistic caveats to be acceptably credible, testable (without imposed bias), repeatable, and independently verifiable subject to objective critique and review.

Said again, I don't know what "ghosts" are...or what they are not. But if history is any credible mentor, and prospectively predictive prognosticator - I trust that at some point in the future, informed discovery will once more provide a naturalistic explanation for ghosts as being "something" that no longer depends upon (or demands) a requisite "faith" in justifying/qualifying/categorizing that "something" as supernatural.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by s2a

Hello Buttercup,

(Why does that phrase sound like an cheap pick-up line in a disreputable saloon? ;-))

But you offend me greatly Sir Calvin! Can't you see from my avatar combined with my user name that I am one high class chick? To voice such a bulls eye hit comment can only mean that you read too many of my posts!

I appreciate your longish response to my questions...and I can now see why you don't post as often as the rest of us. Your answers must take hours to compose. And I suspect you to be quite the loquacious impster in person as well.

Interesting. Does your "guess" have any relation whatsoever to your faith-based beliefs? Are such "spirits" noted or detailed (with any specified reason or purpose in "being") within those beliefs? Do you deem the suggested "dimension" as purely spiritual, or actually physical (subject to naturalistic explanations)? Would the concept of ghosts seem equally plausible (to you) if your faith did not suggest any alternate realms of afterlife/existence?

I am a Christian but my beliefs do not define this realm of 'revealed' spirits I am referring to. Ghosts are not a subject I have talked about with any other Christians except on this forum. My personal conclusions are speculation and obviously my mind is trying to rationalize these sightings into something I can understand. Just like you are trying to figure the phenomenon out as well. I could go into more detail but don't have the energy to at the moment....sorry!

Have you read any books on the subject?

Frubals to you for your very generous responses....Thank you!

[s2a]

Buttercup said:

But you offend me greatly Sir Calvin! Can't you see from my avatar combined with my user name that I am one high class chick? To voice such a bulls eye hit comment can only mean that you read too many of my posts!

My apologies for any (most assuredly) unintended offense. I remain unskilled in treating with especially musically-gifted, high-order primates of either gender. But I do know my saloons (both of great renown and odious origins), so any cork shot may (for now) be considered serendipitous coincidence. ;-)

I appreciate your longish response to my questions...and I can now see why you don't post as often as the rest of us. Your answers must take hours to compose. And I suspect you to be quite the loquacious impster in person as well.

I regret to say that my contributions are not especially intellectually overwrought, as I remain (more or less) a "train of thought" composer of bombastic bromides and banalities (references available upon request).

Loquacious? Guilty as charged.

Yet, "in person", I actually can shut-up for extended periods of time, just listening to what others have to say; free of anxious interjections or impulsive interruptions. Sometimes, silence elicits more beautiful music than applause can ever hope to wantonly extract.

I am a Christian but my beliefs do not define this realm of 'revealed' spirits I am referring to. Ghosts are not a subject I have talked about with any other Christians except on this forum. My personal conclusions are speculation and obviously my mind is trying to rationalize these sightings into something I can understand. Just like you are trying to figure the phenomenon out as well. I could go into more detail but don't have the energy to at the moment....sorry!

I would only offer that some Scripture does allude to "ghosts" (beyond the conceptual "Holy Ghost"), but I will not engage in uninvited Biblical expositions at this time...

Have you read any books on the subject?

Candidly, most of the non-fiction books I read that address supernaturalistic claims/beliefs are skeptical coomentariestreatises/rebuttals that reasonably/rationally question the qualitative/quantitative merits of such extraordinary claims. Such works are notably biased against anecdotal evidences; favoring more substantial (and notably lacking) empirical evidences. Needless to say, such evaluations are typically dry, and not especially entertaining reading (unless you really, really enjoy scientifically detailed and well-researched debunkings of uncompelling claims of extraordinary anecdotal experiences/phenomena. I still indulge such books, but not as often (or with as much gusto) as I once did.

If you like, my prioritized interests (as matters of discussion/debate) have "matured" (if I may presumptuously claim as much) beyond the "what" of faith-based beliefs, to the "why" of faith-based beliefs. Whether you "believe" in ghosts, beneficent and omniscient diety(s), or talking trees and/or sentient winds, is of minimal interest to me; it's the "why you believe", of " what you believe (is/as "true/truth")" that is of compelling interest and inquiry at this stage of mid-life contemplations and introspections.

I find continuing irony in the fact that most adherents of faith-based beliefs - when challenged to present foundational rationales in support of the "why" of "what" they "believe" to be "true" - are often mitigated to the very same conclusions/replies offered by skeptics/rationalists, ie., "I don't know". The main difference is that skeptics consider "I don't know" as a reasonable and prospectively thoughtful reply (primarily beacuse skeptics offer no claims of insightful/revealed - unequivocal or universal "truth[s])", and "believers" consider "I don't know" as some concession of ideological/impious defeat.

Proclaim/assign/identify yourself within whatever grouping of similarly like-mided affiliations/associations/communities that best suits your sensibilities and proclivities; it makes not one whit of difference to me. I find no faith-based dogma, doctrines, or rationales as persuasively compelling rationales of logical acceptance beyond reasonable doubts...and, that's OK. All I know is that I can always present myself as assuredly ignorant in providing any penultimate universal or existential "truths" to anyone that seeks such sort of assurances...and, that's OK too. ;-)