The Skeptical Agenda

They are called the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Their magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, is a wildly successful and popular publication. They even have regular, "infomercial" style segments on the Science Discovery channel, hosted by none other than the chain smoking villain of The X-Files. They have a positive sounding mission. They count among their ranks many prominent scientists, authors and magicians. They are supposed to be carrying on the good works of Harry Houdini, who exposed psychic con artists and parlor game trickery. So, what happened?

Instead of investigating with an open mind—an attitude maintained be Harry Houdini (who even arranged for a "secret message" that he could communicate to his wife if he was the first to die)—the CSICOP mission has evolved into debunking all things supernatural … including religions! They are closed minded. Wielding the "Occam's razor" rationale ("the best explanation is the simplest one") with a naturalistic bias, they scoff, ridicule and sneer. When medieval religious powers persecuted the scientists of their day, they had no way of knowing the crop their evil seed would produce. Our modern scientific community, possessing a mostly agnostic or atheistic attitude, has found our current era a perfect time for payback. The tables are turned, and revenge can be so sweet!

One of the reasons for this prevalent agnostic/ atheistic bias is the close association the CSICOP organization has with the American Humanist Association. Humanism is a philosophy that views religion as a continual threat to the advancement of humanity. Prominent member of CSICOP and humanist author Paul Kurtz, who is the President of Prometheus Books, has promoted such books as The Atheist's Debater's Handbook and Atheism: The Case Against God. His own book is entitled The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal.

This skeptical link between scientific paranormal studies and religion is also explored in James Alcock's book, Parapsychology: Science or Magic? In this book, Alcock states that religion has inspired those who have "committed genocide, toppled thrones, … practiced ritual murder, forced others to conform to their way of life," etc. Does this attitude sound familiar? Karl Marx held to this "anti-religion" philosophy. John Lennon included it within his classic song "Imagine." Voice contributors Noel Ambry, Nicole Chardenet and William Carlotti have also concentrated on the evils perpetrated by professed Christians throughout history.

On the other hand, I as a Christian would never dream of placing evil solely at the feet of any particular theology, philosophy or discipline. The atheistic Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot murdered millions of people. This doesn't mean all atheists are violent and dangerous. The terrorists of September 11 murdered thousands due to their particular view of "jihad." This doesn't mean all Muslims are violent and dangerous. Science has developed nuclear weaponry, biological warfare and industrial waste. This doesn't mean all modern science is inherently violent and dangerous.

My point is that human beings have a great potential for evil and violence, and they will use and misuse every rationale they can grab on to. This includes the evil corruption one can find within my faith—from abortion clinic bombers to men of the cloth who molest children. The Bible states that "sin" is a powerful cancer that infects all of humanity.

The Skeptical Inquirer seems to have abandoned the pretense of "inquiry." A clear example of this is their use of satirical cartoons that ridicule individuals and ideas they disagree with. I personally believe that when people launch personal attacks and characterizations, they only end up demeaning themselves. One Voice contributor has used the terms "mindless" and "pitifully myopic" in rebutting my opinions. How unnecessary it is for people to be adversarial … after all, people should be able to politely "agree to disagree" in any public forum.

Science is the objective, unbiased study of evidence. Let the facts lead where they may. This is why I don't criticize science for evolutionary theory—after all, there is evidence that supports it! If any of us were to impose boundaries on scientific inquiry, we would be working against the pursuit of truth. This being said, they should not be any philosophic boundaries imposed upon the scientific community—whether that philosophy be theistic or humanistic. Many honest scientists are currently exploring the stigmatized world of paranormal phenomena, much to the chagrin of the CSICOP. Perhaps they'll produce enough data to make even the skeptical community take notice!

One particular study has already done just that, even though CSICOP member Joe Nickel disregards the scientific data available and offers his own alternative. My next article will deal with this study, where the scientific evidence discovered actually contradicts all reasonable explanation. More to come.