Can blind faith be applied selectively?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“As soon as a topic deemed “paranormal” is brought up, it is met with more scepticism than any by the scientific community, our entourage and society in general. For example, when a patient claims that they feel the presence of God, they are perceived as appeased. However, if they are fearful because they claim to have witnessed the presence of their deceased mother or father in their room, this experience is perceived as a hallucination”.1 This loosely translated excerpt from a testimony presented in the French magazine “Inexploré” illustrates well the rift between the religious and the supernatural.

We cannot but acknowledge that there was a time where everything could only be explained by means of religious belief, and where it was normal to rely on divinity to find appeasement and solace. In those days, unexplained phenomena could frighten and therefore spark great unease unless a meaning could be attributed to them. And, due to mankind’s not dealing well with uncertainty, this type of phenomenon was commonly resulted in being attributed to divine intervention.

However, it is surprising and absurd that in our so-called “modern” society, people still refuse to consider the plausibility of unexplained phenomena, not being convinced of their existence due to the lack of tangible evidence. Yet they rely on any given God, of which we have even less tangible proof, to explain away these same inexplicable phenomena.

So, should we then blindly believe in these “human experiences deemed inexplicable in appearance, sometimes referred to as supernatural or paranormal?”2. Not necessarily. But should we simply dismiss them instead without even taking the time to consider them?

Perhaps just like; until we invented the microscope it could be difficult for most people to consider the existence of microscopic organisms (bacteria) living in water that appeared to be clear, yet made people sick, we could consider that our “microscopes” specific to particular “unexplained” phenomena could still be in the making. And the fact that so far, we might not yet have the tools to detect and explain each of these phenomena does not make them less plausible. One thing is certain, however, whether explainable or not, no one can ignore the fact that they appear real to the person experiencing them.

Therefore, whether it’d be telepathy, near-death experiences, life after death experiences or communication with spirits, to name just a few, are we able to affirm beyond a doubt that these are nothing more than fabrications by those that allegedly experience them? So, can we at least agree on the potential of their existence?

For those, who like me, subscribe to a deep desire to understand and gain knowledge in order to get to the bottom of things, let’s recognize the validity of the steps taken by our modern researchers and observers. To the extent that they adhere to very simple rules, which include “Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads and question everything”,3 this way over time, we may actually succeed in demystifying the true from the false.

And for the rest that continue to have blind faith in God as a means to explain the inexplicable, consider that there is more proof of the existence of one or more phenomena mentioned here above than there is of the existence of any given God. To my knowledge no experiment has ever to this day shown even an inkling of potential evidence supporting the existence of an anthropomorphic God as most religions make us believe exists.4 Whereas, when it comes to certain phenomena deemed paranormal or supernatural, without always being conclusive, an increasing number of experiments are beginning to support, if only in terms of potential existence, their existence none the less. Take for instance, quantum entanglement phenomena5 that have been documented in quantum physics showing evidence of an interrelation phenomenon between particles that transcend distances. Or as some claim, could there be an energy field connecting us all to one another that also allows us to communicate, in a way yet to be determined, with all living organisms (humans, animals and even plants)? Some experiments albeit unable to explain this phenomenon at least prove it may exist.

So, wouldn’t it be fair to say that if you continue to have blind faith in a God that watches over you and has an answer for ALL as thought to us by religions, that in order to be consistent you should also allow yourself to believe blindly in supernatural and paranormal phenomena? Otherwise, on what basis would you allow yourself to exercise blind faith this selectively?

And so, in the same way that I cannot close the door on the potential existence of a God even if I prefer and prioritize the scientific approach, let us keep an open mind.

A beautiful reflection to put into perspective, is it not? Join me on the journey of discovery and let’s reflect on this together.



  1. Testimony of a person with the initials P.N. on page 13 of the 12th issue of the Magazine « Inexploré » October / November / December 2011, published by l’Institut de Recherche sur les Expériences Extraordinaires (
  2. Freely translated excerpt from the mandate of the INREES as displayed at the bottom of the following page from their web site
  3. Quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson’s introduction to the TV series “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey”.
  4. The God which most religions refer to is more of an anthropomorphic one, controlling our destiny and being able to punish and reward as he sees fit and even being capable of having emotions. It is that specific understanding of God towards which I’m somewhat sceptic. (
  5. Excerpt from Wikipedia “It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.”
Join the discussion

Further reading