The concept of an atheist who explores the possibility of phenomena classed as paranormal (a term for what may in fact be perfectly normal) often invites derision and swift dismissal.

For some reason, the interest in such matters is associated with religiosity (especially when the belief in an afterlife is involved, or merely considering this idea). Even though, per se, these phenomena would have nothing to do with the existence of a god or lack thereof.

Although atheism is often conflated with materialism, in its basic meaning, it represents no more than the lack of belief in a deity – which in itself does not limit an individual to seeing the world as purely material.

For a few years I thought agnosticism might be an umbrella term accommodating those who don’t believe in gods but are still interested in unexplained phenomena – but at the end of the day, since I don’t believe in gods and I vehemently reject organised religion, the term “atheist” should apply. So technically, I am one.

Yet I understand the logic of those who dismiss anything for which there is little or no empirical evidence, and if atheism as a movement is based on that, as opposed to simply rejecting deities and combating the influence of mainstream religions, there are those of us who don’t fit in there either (should we fit anywhere at all).

Following one’s intuition is more important than clinging to a label or group.

However, for those who see atheism and the above-mentioned as incompatible, here is my invitation to at least nuance this position.

  1. These phenomena have no moral implications.

Unlike religious people, those who are simply interested in precognition, telepathy or synchronicities don’t attribute a moral significance to them, in terms of them originating from “good” or “evil” sources.

Religions often interpret precognitive dreams or warnings as signs from a deity; alternatively, they link this interest to “delving into the occult”, which is another matter altogether (it involves intention, whereas seeking to understand what happens naturally and why it happens is completely neutral).

As a result, there is no artificial morality we derive from whatever we may come up with; none to hold and certainly none to propagandise as truth.

2. There is no focused attempt to convince others of their relevance.

Of course the exception consists of charlatans, who refer to themselves as mediums, fortune tellers, ghost hunters (posting fabricated recordings of ghost sightings on the internet) or whatever. For them it’s a trade.

But overall, those who study the phenomena do so in private, without an evangelical need to inform those around them of their observations.

Information on the paranormal, consisting of actual research or experiments, is found only by seeking it. Public speakers who analyse it do so before already interested audiences – as opposed to religious groups seeking to “spread the message” to anyone with a pulse.

3. Major religions often denounce ESP as satanic.

Almost by default, this interest is incompatible with religions seeing such phenomena as demonic manifestations – therefore it makes sense for us to renounce these religions when born into them, or not adopt them in the first place.

There is more of an incentive to be an atheist or agnostic than to subscribe to a dogma which is restrictive or engages, figuratively, in “witch hunting”.

4. This exploration (when carried out sincerely) is victim-less.

That is a stark contrast with religions, as their countless victims fill the pages of history and newspaper archives. To this day religious leaders encourage people to not vaccinate their children, not seek medical help, disassociate from loved ones, at times commit violence, vote for unhinged individuals etc.

Obviously, I’m not referring to gurus claiming to have certain abilities in order to garner worship and money, or to charlatans achieving pop star status, or tho smaller crooks operating at street corners.

Charlatans exist in every sector of society and that does not discredit the subject they claim expertise in.

5. Shysters are readily tested and denounced (unlike in religious communities).

It’s well-known that religious figures committing egregious acts are protected by the hierarchies they form part of (the Catholic Church is perhaps the best example). The same applies to to faith healers, who live like Arab princes from the donations of poor and desperate people. Their potential exposure as frauds is thought to reflect poorly on the religious communities and turn believers away; that is why when problems arise, they are quickly swept under the rug.

The same does not happen with those claiming publicly to have ESP, claiming to speak to the dead etc. They are scrutinised and held to account; there is no concerted effort to protect them from being challenged.

 

Considering these issues, I think it’s not very fair to associate this interest with religiosity, although according to most atheists, both stem from the lack of healthy scepticism. I guess minds just don’t belong in a box.