Quote:
Originally Posted by John Freestone  I know. I'm evil! |
But cute.
You know, I believe there is no personal, interventionist god, and I think the likelihood of the existence of one is so small as to be insignificant, but it would only take one convincing piece of evidence (I've described what that might entail in other threads) for me to believe that indeed, there is a personal interventionist god. It's still possible that I might be being delusional or I'm being punk'd or there is some natural explanation, but I think that I am pretty clear in myself about what would convince me and what would not. None of what would convince me, I don't think, could be proven by science as objectively, inarguably true; but it would convince me (much like I'm convinced I would not survive having my head blown off by a shotgun.
).
I think that psychic phenomena is the same way, and as long as it's not used in an interventionist manner, it deserves the same treatment. That is, if people want to consult psychics, and even if they want to become addicted to consulting psychics and run clean through their inheritance on it, that is fine with me. Just like people believing in a p.i.g. No skin off my nose, as long as they remain non-interventionist. (Which is funny, huh? It's not god who intervenes in my life, it's some of his believers. If god himself were to intervene in my life, I would make him some tea.) And sometimes, psychics don't remain non-interventionist -- like the ones who behave badly that you object to. And I think you are right to object to them, and expose them.
But other than that little interventionist clause, just like belief and investment in religion, I think belief and investment in psychicism is well left to the discretion of the believer/investor, regardless of how dumb or smart I might think they're being. I can't see a helpful way of "regulating" either one -- except keep 'em all out of my reproductive rights!