Second the Motion

The New York Times today brought a story titled “The Burning Bush They’ll Buy, But Not ESP or Alien Abduction.” “They” refers to the body of religious scholars generally and specifically to those attending the annual conference of the American Academy of Religion that recently concluded in Atlanta. But the article is actually the review of a book, Authors of the Impossible: The Paranormal and the Sacred by Jeffrey J. Kripal, a professor of religion at Rice. I haven’t read the book myself; I didn’t know about it until today. The article tells me that it is about four writers on the paranormal, two going back a ways and two who focus on UFOs. Kripal, evidently, advocates the inclusion of paranormal phenomena in religious studies and the inclusion of such writers as Frederic Myers, Charles Fort, Jacques Vallee, and Bertrand Méheust among the scholars.

“According to Dr. Kripal,” says the article, “their omission is evidence of a persistent bias among religion scholars, happy to consider the inexplicable, like miracles, as long as they fit a familiar narrative, like Judaism or Christianity.”

Good point, there, Dr. Kripal. I’ve made the same point on this blog myself, expressing the same regrets, although I directed my attention more generally at science rather than restricting it to religious studies. Kripal also identifies the ultimate problem underlying this avoidance of the paranormal, be it by science or by the humanities. The paranormal is, alas, a borderzone phenomenon. It bridges the material and the mental spheres, each of which has its well-established professions. It is uncomfortably real, as I might put it. People stay on their respective reservations because that’s more secure than wandering in the desert in the twilight. We might actually advance our knowledge if more talent were dedicated to the study of this uncomfortable interface.