I will point out that Derren Brown has described himself as someone that really wants to find real proof of the supernatural, but will not believe in it until he does. I share that same mentality. I would love to find out that there are fairies and ghosts and vampires and such, but until I can find a way to empirically prove it, I will continue looking. I don't want to believe just for the sake of believing, and I don't want to stop looking for proof because it's hard to find.
This is a very old marketing tool used by many (and not just magicians but well known scientists as well). The problem with this contention is that it's what theologians recognize as the Doubting Thomas Syndrome -- the Apostle Thomas wouldn't believe JC had risen from the grave until JC himself told him to put his fingers into the scars in his hands and upon his side, it wasn't until this point that he was able to accept the seemingly impossible. While I personally view the resurrection story in a completely different light, this particular tale is more than applicable in that persons that live with such myopia can't possible enjoy a forest due to all the trees that are in their way -- they refuse to see, to let go and accept the simple within the dramatic.
I'm very much a skeptic but in my early years skeptics weren't demanding carved in stone and unshakable facts, this started with the likes of Randi, Shermer and as noted, the cynics of the late 1960s through the 70s and ever worsening as we moved toward our present. If we step back and look at this social-political creature, we can see how what "skepticism" has become has little to do with disbelief in things psychic or magickle and everything to do with an atheist agenda. Randi claims otherwise and yet, he's accepted numerous awards of recognition for his work in spreading said message and converting so many "lost souls" . . .
I stopped (as many of my elders likewise did) using the term "Skeptic" by the time I was in my 20's because it made me feel guilty and even dirty. Not just the various underhanded and questionable ways the new skeptic was using to slam spiritual thinking, but the qualities within the lives of those doing the slamming as well;
How could a decent human being embrace an ideology espoused by persons that were predatory and willing to bluntly use the very tactics the charlatans were using, in order to manipulate others?
What it boils down to is that I can't, on a moral or ethical standing, respect a leadership that promotes an "all or nothing" agenda no matter who or what it's about. Secondly, I have to question that leadership's own integrity; when I keep seeing one account after another in which sexual improprieties are involved, especially when it comes to minors, I know something is wrong and unbalanced. When I keep hearing about association with this and that noted "criminal" type, I must likewise question the situation. Then too, when I hear of a person saying that they have not affiliation with certain groups and yet they accept high honors & accolades from those very organizations . . . well let's face it, that's pure duplicity and proof that these individuals are not honest, don't tell us the truth and are simply using said platform for personal gain. . . even when they are being supported through the "non-profit" leg of things . . . Al Capone had a few non-profit operations supporting him, right?
While all human beings have blemishes to their character much of it stems from happenstance in life, not deliberate acts of deception and the cruelty of
zealotism. Morally & Ethically, I think it's up to us to -- I believe it mandatory in fact -- that we hold the self-righteous to a higher standard so that hypocrisy cannot bring them down. Problem is, instead of demanding these leaders of the Skeptics community to step up to the table and explain their transgressions HONESTLY, the followers help obfuscate the issues and consistently turn such issues around in a way that breaks down and thwarts (in most cases) all other instances of challenge. This usually means discrediting those that make such a stand . . . something I've learned quite directly.
While tempting, I'll not drag the two or three well pummeled horses into this discussion that could be looked at, it's simply not worth it. As Uri Geller told me some years ago, we're talking about a angry old man with one foot in the grave already and what is past, is past. But it really is up to US to challenge these "moralists" by holding them to the same standards they put their "opponents" against. It is likewise up to US to stand-up for our personal rights as well as those of others, when it comes to belief and personal testimony; the right to not be ridiculed and belittled or otherwise humiliated from the stage or in public forums of any form. Everyone has a right to believe as they are lead to believe but NO ONE has the right to force their will or ideologies onto another (and yes, that includes any and all forms of dogma, religious or otherwise).
Again, kudos all around for a very positive and mature thread. Let's keep living the example vs. being the lower denominator.
