One out of three people believe in ghosts (The Associated Press, 2007). This simply means 33.33 percent would rather pick up a DVD copy of The Ring in 3D than a tissue-requisite novel of Nicolas Sparks. One third might be a significant number, but it still isn’t majority. The larger two thirds remain skeptic. They reserve the apparitions for Halloween trick-or-treat costumes. Testimonies, Facebook photos and You-tube raw videos aren’t strong campaigns for paranormal advocacy not after the birth of Photoshop.
To see is to believe. Most people need proofs to believe, like the security guard of my university who would swear to heaven not to let me in the campus without presenting him my ID even if we’re already on first name basis. Proofs set limits and maintains order. A criminal is absolved not often because of a kick-ass lawyer but a criminal is dubbed innocent because of an inadequate package of evidences against him. On certain occasions justice may become an understatement for the bereaved victims because of a clean and well-swept crime scene. But depressing as it sounds, proofs put a stopper to a boiling dispute.
But then I often wonder why despite the presence of proofs, despite the abundance of evidences, disagreements and debates endlessly pile up. I thought it may be because each party, each faction, each stand has their own substantiations. Man is smart. Man rarely accepts defeat and man will use one fact to terminate the substance of another fact. Man will find loopholes from his opponent. They will not settle and they will not cease unless a common fact will be established and will serve as basis to either reject or support their attempts.
It follows that we cannot fully compare and absolutely judge in the absence of a tangible basis. I am a Christian and I have my proofs that my Lord Jesus exists. She is a Muslim and she has her proofs that her Allah reigns. It would be then unfair for me to judge and refute her belief because we have different sets of proofs about our God. However, both of our religions believe in the sanctity of life. So when either of us intently kills the innocent, we can condemn each other because we both know that life is sacred.
RH Bill 5043 known as Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 has stirred a bit of a religious and moral upheaval. The Catholic Church considered some provisions of this bill to be against the moral principle of life preservation especially on the section for contraceptives. Last July 29, 2008 I wrote an article entitled Sheep Intestines where I impulsively wrote a hate-mail for the authors of the bill. But I was two years younger and hopefully, since I am writing a refute two years less wise. But I am not going to transfer to the opposing podium. I recently realize that the state has a different definition of pregnancy than the Church does. The state goes with the implantation definition, in which pregnancy starts at implantation of the embryo to the uterus. The Church on the other hand fixes her belief from the zygote phase of pregnancy, or right after the union of the sperm and the egg or fertilization. Most contraceptives take effect after fertilization. The method can either be abortifacient or not depending on the definition on when life starts.
I am a Catholic and I am an obedient citizen. Right now I do not have a stand. It would be unfair to choose if I do not have basis, otherwise it will just be another impulsion. I wanted it to be a decision. I will finalize my stand though if a common definition of pregnancy is to be formulated and agreed upon by the two parties. Then it will make all the difference in the world and we can then resume on condemning the astray.
During our case presentations, our clinical instructors would not snub even the most well-constructed rationale for a certain nursing action or the significance of an abnormal laboratory value if it is not based on a published textbook. We need facts to pass our subject. We need facts to not get sautéed by our clinical instructors.
We need facts to silence debates and cap off arguments. Opinions and subjectivity are needed to advocate on human uniqueness. No problems there. But there are certain occasions that we need objectivity, that we need a common ground to set limits and not go hell-loose on freedom.
We need an evident proof to establish a fact. Then when facts are ludicrously many, we need to consolidate. We need a common fact to silence a battle.
Ghosts exists you say? Skeptics already saw your proofs. For ghosts to move in to the non-fiction shelf, establish a fact.
(Reactions to email@example.com)