This Is "Fit To Print?"

I started writing this earlier today but had to leave before finishing it.

Ghosts in the machine. What is this rot? Scientists discovered (more or less accidentally) a part of the brain that, when electrically stimulated, induces phantom visions. The obvious logical conclusion to be drawn is that all those reports of people seeing ghosts and other supernatural apparitions are nothing more than the result of chemical/electrical disturbances in the brain. In other words, illusions. Most reasonable, rational people long ago accepted that these phenomena are merely tricks of the brain, but here comes a study - hard evidence really -that demonstrates the possibility of inducing exactly the kind of visions people sometimes report as paranormal. Case closed.

Unless, of course, your life's work is based on peddling this supernatural nonsense. Don't get me wrong. I don't really have a problem with kids believing in Santa or superman or space aliens or otherwise engaging in fantasies of ghosts or demons or the Avatar. But when these beliefs persist into adulthood in a literal way, you've got to wonder about the sanity of the people holding onto them.

Deborah Blum won a Pulitzer prize for “Ghost Hunters: William James and the Scientific Search for Life After Death.” I haven't read it, but I assume it's a pretty objective account of a turn of the century thinker who holds onto some romantic notions of spirituality and tries to bring science to bear on his beliefs. Sounds not much different from the "Creation Science" movement a few decades ago or the intelligent design fraud that is waning today. But apparently the author isn't just interested in this stuff for historical reasons but actually holds onto this desperate need for some form of supernatural world out there beyond the limited imaginations of the stale scientists who dismiss it. Nineteenth century indeed. Her conclusion says it all:

I suspect that we’ll dwell forever in the haunted landscape of our beliefs. To many people it’s a world more interesting — bigger, stranger, more mysterious — than the one offered by science. Why choose instead to be creatures of chemical impulse and electrical twitch? We would rather gamble on even a tiny, electrical spark of a chance that we are something more.

I suspect that my 8 year old twins have a similar rationalization somewhere deep in the recesses of their brains regarding Santa Claus. On one level, they must know that it just doesn't make sense and I can see the beginnings of doubt and realization on their faces and in the questions they ask. On the other hand, to disbelieve outright is to lose something warm & comforting and to risk not getting presents anymore. But eventually they will have to face the facts and appreciate the reality behind the fantasy - that Santa, in his purest form, is a mythical figure who represents something real but abstract, the spirit of giving and of generosity and good will and yes, even love. That is part of the "something more" that we are and it's enough for me, cynical "scientist" that I am.