While elsewhere in the world Pope Benedict XVI has recently decided to forgive John Lennon for famously saying the Beatles were “bigger than Jesus,” a new poll in England suggests that fewer people today believe in God than the number who express belief in the supernatural.
“Believing in ghosts and little green men from outer space appears a touch easier than having faith in God,” the article says. “Researchers found that while 54 per cent of us are convinced the Almighty exists, 58 per cent believe in the supernatural.” The study, meant to coincide with the DVD release of The X-Files: I Want to Believe, also seemed to reflect stronger tendencies among women to believe in the supernatural and visit mediums or psychics.
Now call me a moderate if you like, but as opposed to relentlessly comparing apples and oranges, I must say “why not just call them fruit?” In other words, though the poll is comparing people’s opinions on religion versus the supernatural, aren’t the items being compared pretty much fruit of the same tree? Of course, there are many who would argue that anyone who expresses belief in religion or the supernatural is a bit fruity (no pun intended), but to that we must be reminded that even belief is a subjective thing… as are notions attacking anyone else’s beliefs. Alas, we’re all entitled to opinions, whether we like it or not!
Therefore, in my humble opinion, just as I don’t see how science and religion pose any real contradictions to one another, I must also wonder if religion and the supernatural do either (granted, the recent poll I discussed moments ago wasn’t trying to weigh the existence of either of these, but instead showed the percentage of people who favored belief in one or the other. Nonetheless, when somebody picks an apple over an orange, there will always be folks who would like to tell you why the orange is better. Again, opinions…). If anything, religions like Christianity or Buddhism, when compared to what we deem supernatural, seem to compliment one another. Therefore, from a historical perspective involving non-denominational mysticism, I’d like to look at an example from the Christian Bible (something many would not equate with shamanism or mystic experiences to begin with).
Scholar Alan F. Segal wrote in his book Paul the Convert about numerous “mystic experiences” that the disciple Paul described having, where he ascended into a “third heaven” and met Jesus on many occasions during the years that followed his ascension. Segal points out that doing so would not have been considered strange at all for a first-century Jew, since ecstatic ascents into divinity were common among the mystical traditions in Jewish Hellenism at the time. Historically, Paul carefully blanketed his experiences with modesty, though Segal describes that “Paul’s identity as the mystic seems assured, though his reputation has never featured ecstasy, perhaps because he opposed the excessive claims made by his opponents on the basis of his own ecstatic experiences,” specifically referring to verses from the Gospel of Mark that describe Paul’s mystic encounters.
Looking at this a bit differently, Paul’s testimony of meeting Christ while in ecstatic states would not only be a likely fit for a series of traditional “mystic experiences”, but perhaps his encounters in the nonphysical realm might also fit our present notions of contacting sentient intelligences, i.e. remote viewing, channeling, and even attempts at contacting aliens via technological means like SETI. “What… SETI?” you might ask, but keep in mind, first century Jews had no such technology to aid them in communicating with non-human or “divine” intelligences, hence they by default were relegated to using mysticism. Had they been given a potential intercom to vast and distant star systems, who knows how they might have used it!
Another thing to keep in mind is that, in the Christian faith, Jesus ascending into the heavens is hardly an everyday occurrence. Even some Christian scholars doubt that Jesus literally took flight and began drifting away into the clouds, concluding instead that the literal meaning of his described “ascension” detailed some other method of departure which, quite simply, early historians could not relate easily with words. Therefore, if we consider this rationally, how are we to interpret such a feat? Was it merely fiction, drummed up by early scholars in order to better herd impressionable religious zealots? Or, could we accept the possibility that Jesus did exactly what he is said to have done, having literally risen up into the sky until he finally disappeared from view as described in the Christian New Testament? Even stranger, did it indeed occur, but perhaps not quite as it was described (i.e. Jesus perhaps being lifted into the sky with the help of something wild and crazy like an alien tractor-beam)?
We may never know… but that is neither the point at this moment, nor any argument I care to drum up at any time. Instead, what I hope we’ll gather from this is that, when looking at virtually any religion, deity, belief, or in many cases even the lack thereof, one will find elements which could only be described as “supernatural”. But how do we really define what is and what isn’t “supernatural” or “paranormal”? Certainly the Sun, Moon and stars were considered supernatural and looked upon religiously by early civilizations, as evidenced by the remnants of those cultures in the historical record. Similarly, within the last few centuries many phenomena witnessed in the present day, for which we now have a complete scientific understanding, were considered strange, paranormal, ghostly and otherwise without explanation. Even today, primitive cultures in various seldom-reached recesses of the Earth maintain belief in supernatural things, and might even argue that modern household conveniences common to you or I are nothing short of “magic”.
Indeed, I think the supernatural could be best described as nothing more than a label we give to phenomena which extends beyond our ability to comprehend… and perhaps religions fit well into this category also. But however you look at it, to flat out deny the existence of the many unexplained elements of the universe just seems… well, a bit fruity.
December 24th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
awesome insight!!