Who's in crisis?

On a comments thread, Leo mentioned (somewhat off topic, but we'll let that pass) that he'd been engaged in online debate with a skeptic. Among his other arguments, the skeptic had this to say:

Crisis apparitions.. the people are in a crisis. Under great emotional stress people are very likely to have their perceptions altered(the time slowing down effect is a good example, which I believe has been found to be a manipulation of the memory of the event and not the perception of the actual occurrence of the event) and it's not a stretch for them to believe they see loved ones.

This and other pronouncements were presented with an air of authority, an almost condescending weariness at having to explain the patently obvious.

But here's the rub. "Crisis apparitions" are events in which a person sees the apparition of a loved one and later learns that the loved one in question was having a crisis at the time. Usually the loved one was dying at that moment, a fact that the percipient was unaware of.

In other words, the person in crisis is not the percipient, but the person whose apparition is perceived.

Here is a fairly standard crisis apparition case from the 19th century, cited in an article by Scott Rogo:

I sat one evening reading, when on looking up from my book, I distinctly saw a school-friend of mine, to whom I was very much attached, standing near the door I was about to exclaim at the strangeness of her visit when, to my horror, there were no signs of anyone in the room but my mother. I related what I had seen to her, knowing she could not have seen, as she was sitting with her back towards the door, nor did she hear anything unusual, and was greatly amused at my scare, suggesting I had read too much or been dreaming.

A day or so after this strange event, I had news to say my friend was no more. The strange part was that I did not even know she was ill, much less in danger so could not have felt anxious at the time on her account, but may have been thinking of her; that I cannot testify. Her illness was short, and death very unexpected. Her mother told me she spoke of me not long before she died ... She died the same evening and about the same time that I saw her vision, which was the end of October, 1874.

Note that the person relating this story was most definitely not in a crisis. He was sitting and reading a book. The apparition itself scared him, but he was apparently quite relaxed until then. And this case is typical of thousands - literally thousands - that have been collected.

Thus the skeptic's apparently knowledgeable debunking is based on a faulty assumption: "The people [meaning the people who see the apparitions] are in a crisis ... under great emotional stress ... their perceptions altered."

Not so. The people who see the apparitions are not under stress, not in a crisis at all.

Now, anyone who has studied the subject of crisis apparitions must know this. We can conclude, then, that the skeptic has never studied the subject. He knows literally nothing about it. He does not even know what the term "crisis apparition" means.

Yet he is sure he knows it's all bunk. And he is willing to state as much with confidence and conviction.

How much of skepticism fits this description? How much of it is mere bluster by people who have never looked at even one case study of the phenomena they deride?

And why should anyone take them seriously?

Comments

[Wendy]

Michael H. wrote:
Great article, Tom. Talk about accessing inner wisdom. This from a thirteen year-old autistic girl who’s unable to speak:

“I think people get scared with things that look or seem different than them . . . If I could tell people one thing about autism it would be that I don't want to be this way. But I am, so don't be mad. Be understanding."

We might try and apply this to everyone we encounter. It’s worth a shot.
* * *
I agree. It's all about accepting people exactly as they are - to allow them to BE who they are if that is what they choose - with compassion and understanding, even Love (which can be "tough love"). Not fearing (fear is the root of hate, anger, jealousy, irritation, etc.), or trying to change someone else to suit yourself. Fear only causes more polarity and distance, and surely we all living here on planet Earth could benefit from the opposite - pure and healing, unifying, unconditional LOVE.

The peaceful, powerful presence of Love - without exerting any force upon others - has this habit of defusing negative situations and rubbing off on others. All we truly need and crave is Love (which brings compassion and understanding). Sounds trite, but it's the most fundamental spiritual law of the Universe. And it's a wisdom/Truth we all know from deep within if we dare to look that deeply inside ourselves to access it.

[Hope Rivers]

You hit a hole in one with that comment Wendy. Its been preached for 1000's of years but it is the "truth".

Its only Love that can change this world, change you and I, our spiritual core that lives forever.

Why does love exist, if it isn't without a purpose.

[Roger Knights]

“The vanity of teaching doth oft tempt a man to forget that he is a blockhead.”
—George Saville, Marquis of Hallifax (1633-1695), English statesman and essayist

[The Major]

On the subject of skeptics, anyone seen The Daily Grail today? Greg has really nailed the Randi challenge. Way to go Greg!