Is a belief in ghosts compatible with atheism?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Eonwe

I think it is totally consistent to believe in a human soul that persists after death while also not believing that there is a divine power that created the universe.

However, holding those positions indicates, IMHO, a willing suspension of critical thought with regard to ghosts, that one is not willing to apply to god(s), and that is a wee bit hypocritical.

I’m not sure it’s a 1:1 correspondence. You already know there’s a consciousness that experiences the world while housed in your body – and you don’t know, first-hand, whether it persists after the body dies. You don’t know whether there are any gods in general, or whether one created the universe in particular.

[miss_elizabeth]

I would say it’s compatible with atheism (which has no real tenets), but incompatible with skepticism. Since a great many vocal atheists are also skeptics, it’s common to confuse them, but really they aren’t always the same thing.

[DigitalC]

Being right about one thing doesn’t mean you are going to get it right on everything else. Ghosts don’t have to have anything to do with religion. It is another silly belief, but nobody is perfect.

[Blaster_Master]

I am not an atheist and these are not my beliefs, but I know a few people who profess themselves to be such and yet believe in any manner of “spiritual” things like ghosts, spirits, psychics, and even some form of an afterlife. The main difference is that they tend to think that somehow this is related to something that is intrinsically a part of the universe. That is, that somehow our consciousness is connected through means that science is only just started to uncover and doesn’t yet understand.

Obviously, these sorts of beliefs are uncommon, as most atheists are likely to reject anything that isn’t explained by science, but as others said, I don’t see how they’re necessarily antithetical.

[Sitnam]

I guess, technically, but I think of Atheism as Anti-Woo as well.

[Morgenstern]

It seems that an atheist who believed in ghosts (spirits, whatever) is buying into the afterlife theory. She’s probably going to lose her atheist card if headquarters finds out.

[John_DiFool]

@Martin_Hyde

Well, in the case of the OP the atheist described is almost certainly just an anti-Christian, who for personal reasons has a deep seated hatred of Christianity. I do not doubt however that if questioned she would display similar hostility to all organized religion, but given the virulence with which she bashes people of faith she sounds like a textbook “anti-Christian” who has some sort of pathetic little childhood-based disgust for the religion that has lead her to hate all organized religion.

Myself, I’m an atheist because it’s all absolute, 100% bullshit. No religion (at least none that presupposes anything supernatural) has any basis in a rational understanding of the world, there has never been even the thinnest proof of any supernatural anything in the history of the world. However I understand why people believe, and it is not a reflection on mankind’s evil but on mankind’s tools to cope with great hardship and on mankind’s natural inquisitiveness.

Ghosts are as fantastical and unrealistic as a sky God who is extremely obsessed with whether I blow my load inside my wife or spray it all over the floor, or who “sent his son” down to Earth to redeem mankind but then denied all of Africa, the Americas, and most of Asia any means of hearing about his teachings and thus denying them a clear path to heaven.

So how is she different from you, exactly?

[kanicbird]

Atheism seems to work best in a physical (non-spiritual) world. Once you open the doors to the supernatural realm then so much more is possible that at best one would be agnostic, but also feel that too must go as one explores spirituality.

Buddhism is a great example of a atheistic religion that does believe in the supernatural. The Buddha himself had a final battle to enlightenment with a high demon, which in some christian terms would be a ‘lesser’ god. So to that respect even Buddhism has a god involved in its creation. And for that matter, just like Christianity, Buddhism has a man overcoming the demonic god of this world to take it’s place.

[BrainGlutton]

So long as we rule out the Holy Ghost, I don’t see the contradiction.

[Lobelia_Overhill]

I think it depends on what your perception of a ghost is?

From a Christian perspective they are the spirits of the deceased (not every Christian faith, but gimme some leeway here)

I was raised Catholic and as such you’re not supposed to “believe” in ghosts, as all deceased persons pass on to Heaven, Hell, or purgatory and are not left wandering the Earth.

I’ve seen two “ghosts” (or apparitions of some description)

I am not a practicing Catholic any more and consider myself Agnostic.

(But I keep saying Atheist cos no one seems to know what Agnostic means)

[BrainGlutton]

From Donald Tyson’s Supernatural World: (Dude’s some kinda ceremonial magician – who could be a better authority here?)

Do ghosts exist? Of course they do. Why else would tens of thousands of people from all nations around the world and all periods in human history report seeing them under more or less similar circumstances? The question you should be asking yourself is, granted that ghosts exist – what are they?

The most important thing to know about ghosts is that they are not the souls of dead people returned to communicate with the living. Dead is dead. Unless you believe in the reincarnation of the lower soul with the memories of its past lives intact, there is no coming back (I do not believe in the reincarnation of the personality and memory).

Neither are ghosts physically present when you see them. They are present in the astral world which always overlaps the physical world. You see a ghost when, for various reasons, the separation between the two levels of reality becomes very thin.

From historical accounts, it appears that the perception of ghosts occurs most often at night, in relative or complete darkness, or at least in some shadowed place, usually when the air is still. Certain localities are favorable for the appearance of ghosts – why is difficult to determine. One theory has it that a ghost is a kind of psychic recording of an event in the past that took place at that locality, and that the locality acts as some sort of recording medium, and periodically replays the event under the right conditions.

Ghosts are often described as shadowy or translucent. Only portions of their body may appear – a relative of mine once saw a ghostly hand project itself upward through the surface of a school desk that was stored in a dark school basement. Sometimes ghosts walk out of or into walls, or through furniture. They can do this because, to them, our physical reality is no more than a projected three-dimensional image.

There are many exceptions to this general description, of course. Some ghosts appear as real and as solid as a person of flesh and blood. Some appear in full daylight, and are seen by numerous persons at the same time, or on numerous occasions. More rarely they interact with others, talking and even laughing with them, or touching them. However, as a broad rule of thumb, ghosts appear in haunted places, at night when the light is poor, when the air is quiet, to individuals who are frequently (but not always by any means) going to bed or waking from sleep. Usually they do not speak, or take the least notice of their observer. They perform the same set of actions on successive occasions, as though performing a play, or in a trance state, or as though they were themselves projections of a cinema image.

You may ask how a projected astral image can touch you? The answer is a bit difficult to grasp at first consideration, because it challenges your normal concept of reality. You need to realize that what you see in the world around you is being created by your brain from raw sensory data. Your world exists inside your head, even though it appears to exist outside your body. Because your world is really a mental construction, it is possible for an astral being to appear completely solid and real to your perceptions. When this happens, you may find yourself unable to differentiate between a physical object and an astral object, or a physical person and a ghost.

Usually there is a difference between our perception of a physical object and an astral object, which is why ghosts appear incomplete, dim, shadowy, pale, translucent, and so on. My point is, at times there is no difference in perception between the physical and astral realities. This rarely occurs for the average person, but it does occur. Under this circumstance, any entity or thing in the astral realm can interact with you with all the solidity and reality of a physical entity or thing.

If ghosts are merely astral recordings of past events, how do they interact and communicate with human beings? Usually, they don’t. When they do take notice of a human observer, it indicates that they are not a pure ghost, but an astral entity that has assumed the physical appearance of a dead person. On rare occasions, it is indeed possible to talk with ghosts, or communicate with them through gestures, but when this happens, the ghost is really a spirit of the astral world in disguise.

Astral spirits can assume different shapes and features more or less at will. They enjoy the company of and interaction with living human beings. When the emotions of a human being are very strong – for example, just after the death of a loved one – an astral spirit may put on the body of the departed and appear to his or her lover or family. If you have ever had anyone close to you die, you will probably have experienced extremely vivid dreams in which you are talking with that person. The being in these dreams is not your departed friend or relative, but an astral spirit. Such spirits can appear both in dreams and in our waking reality when the proper conditions exist.

[Indygrrl]

@Thudlow_Boink

But is “zero tolerance for things that can’t be proven” her reason (alleged or real) for being a militant atheist? I think Martin Hyde may be on the right track, that her militant atheism may be more about hostility toward God or religion or religious people or something like that, and she may well have Issues stemming from people or events in her life that have engendered hostility toward religion, but not toward supernatural ideas such as ghosts.

)

I think this is accurate. She says she has zero tolerance for things that can’t be proven, but from reading her rants it seems like a reaction to negative experiences with xtians. She’s a poor debater, so it’s easy to poke holes in her logic. But even though I love being “right,” I don’t have the heart to challenge her belief in ghosts. Ironically, I’ve suggested she try to “live and let live” when it comes to other people’s faith, that people rely on different things to get through life. But she can’t do that.

[Mr.Moto]

@WotNot

[nitpick]G(ilbert) K(eith) Chesterton[/nitpick]

A lovely writer, but some distance from reality with that little aphorism.

Sorry about that. Posting from a phone can be a pain sometimes.

As for the quote, there is a grain of truth in it. The decline in America of the relative strength of the old-line Protestant denominations and Roman Catholicism hasn’t led to an equivalent rise in “hard” atheism. It has been accompanied, however, by an explosion of “new” religious movements, various spiritualisms, and by the elevation of politics for some people as the equivalent of a religious belief and religious work.

By that I do not mean normal voters or party activists, but those whose activism is deeply personal and drives much of their lives. ELF, ALF and PETA members come to mind for me - I’m sure you can name others.

[BrainGlutton]

@Mr.Moto

By that I do not mean normal voters or party activists, but those whose activism is deeply personal and drives much of their lives. ELF, ALF and PETA members come to mind for me - I’m sure you can name others.

Oh, that! That’s just American Protestanism, Moto – a thing that washes far beyond the churches or believers. Our country was founded (in substantial part) by self-righteous religious dissidents. And ever since, if you have a cause, you have to be a zealot and you have to be a dick to anyone who doesn’t think like you. That’s the American Way!

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Mr.Moto

Sorry about that. Posting from a phone can be a pain sometimes.

As for the quote, there is a grain of truth in it. The decline in America of the relative strength of the old-line Protestant denominations and Roman Catholicism hasn’t led to an equivalent rise in “hard” atheism. It has been accompanied, however, by an explosion of “new” religious movements, various spiritualisms, and by the elevation of politics for some people as the equivalent of a religious belief and religious work.

By that I do not mean normal voters or party activists, but those whose activism is deeply personal and drives much of their lives. ELF, ALF and PETA members come to mind for me - I’m sure you can name others.

There was a time in history when people in democratic republics were not devoted to their political beliefs? Are these modern people engaging in religious politics just devoting themselves to political organizations that support their view on government policies?

How are people in animal and environmental rights groups different from the (likely to have been) highly religious abolitionists of now and centuries past?

I think your post is making many spurious correlations. To me it is obvious that high religiosity is completely unrelated to the political phenomenon you describe.

In regard to the OP: There are many paths to atheism and many states of atheism as a person develops. Some people may become atheists out of logic while others may develop atheistic beliefs out of something more emotional. This may explain some logical inconsistencies and further development will depend on how they approach their lack of religious faith.

That said, it is logically inconsistent to believe in ghosts while not believing in gods. They have the exact same origin. They are both based in a belief of a supernatural somethings that can act on the world - souls, deities, telepathy, etc. Belief in immaterial parts of ourselves is clearly silly, but generally harmless.

[Der_Trihs]

@Martin_Hyde

Ghosts are as fantastical and unrealistic as a sky God who is extremely obsessed with whether I blow my load inside my wife or spray it all over the floor, or who “sent his son” down to Earth to redeem mankind but then denied all of Africa, the Americas, and most of Asia any means of hearing about his teachings and thus denying them a clear path to heaven.

I’d call ghosts a less fantastic claim simply because the claims made about them are so much less extreme, what with all the “omnis” typically attributed to “God”. We can’t at least claim that ghosts are outright logically contradictory like we can with God. “God” is in fact pretty much the most extreme, implausible ideas out there.

@Eonwe

I think it is totally consistent to believe in a human soul that persists after death while also not believing that there is a divine power that created the universe.

However, holding those positions indicates, IMHO, a willing suspension of critical thought with regard to ghosts, that one is not willing to apply to god(s), and that is a wee bit hypocritical.

First; as said we have evidence that people exist, so ghosts are just supernatural remnants of something we know exist. And the claims made about gods, especially the popular tri-omni god are far more extreme than those made about ghosts.

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

How are people in animal and environmental rights groups different from the (likely to have been) highly religious abolitionists of now and centuries past?

Their plans and motives are more likely to be benevolent and have some connection to reality. “The slaveholders won’t let us teach the Bible to the slaves” and “another religious faction supports slavery, so we oppose it” are not benevolent. Nor is “I oppose slavery because my priest told me to”.

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

That said, it is logically inconsistent to believe in ghosts while not believing in gods. They have the exact same origin. They are both based in a belief of a supernatural somethings that can act on the world - souls, deities, telepathy, etc.

But again, the claims made about gods are far more extreme and logically incoherent. And believing in spirits but not gods is no more logically incoherent than believing in elephants but not unicorns.

[Renee]

A lot of people do have direct experiences with things that seem to be ghosts. I’ve had one myself. These are roundly mocked on these boards, but that doesn’t change the experiences. I don’t know anyone that has had a god experience, though, beyond a vague “I felt the presence of God,” usually after some tragedy that you’d expect a loving god to spare the person from in the first place. I agree with Der Trihs that believing in ghosts is much less extreme than believing in gods, we at least have anecdotal evidence for ghosts.

[Voyager]

@Morgenstern

It seems that an atheist who believed in ghosts (spirits, whatever) is buying into the afterlife theory. She’s probably going to lose her atheist card if headquarters finds out.

There is nothing incompatible with atheism and believing in an afterlife either. Farmer’s Riverworld books are an example of an afterlife without any gods. It does show insufficient skepticism, based on what we know today, though.

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

From Donald Tyson’s Supernatural World: (Dude’s some kinda ceremonial magician – who could be a better authority here?)

<inane blather of cite deleted>

Or, you know, we could apply Occam’s razor and note that the nighttime sightings can be explained as hypnagogic hallucinations.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Der_Trihs

Their plans and motives are more likely to be benevolent and have some connection to reality. “The slaveholders won’t let us teach the Bible to the slaves” and “another religious faction supports slavery, so we oppose it” are not benevolent. Nor is “I oppose slavery because my priest told me to”.

I actually did not bring that up to get one of your anti-religion sentiments. The point is that people may fight for greater rights or follow a cause regardless of whether they are religious. These motivations you are ascribing to religious people are no different than what you would find with PETA people. Just the context is different.

@Der_Trihs

But again, the claims made about gods are far more extreme and logically incoherent. And believing in spirits but not gods is no more logically incoherent than believing in elephants but not unicorns.

So a God that is so infused into everything (“omni”) so that it is completely impossible to observe its behavior from a separate frame of reference is more logically incoherent than to ascribe ruined film, things flying about the room, seemingly inexplicable lights, being a little scared of deserted places, and even rapes to spiritual entities that leave your body upon your demise. Your analogy would only work if you think spirits exist by the way.