We can readily dismiss people reporting to have seen ghosts, experienced “miracles”, communicated with a higher power, etc., or we can consider it as empiricists. If these people weren’t suffering from hallucinations and delusions, and actually did experience these events, what is connoted?
– One possibility is that there is at least a single, if not a plurality, of spiritual realms, inhabited by some force(s) that can interact with our “natural” world. Why are these interactions so fleeting and vague? Either the connection is bad, or the forces just aren’t that significant (I could here propose that the “weak force” plays a role, but I don’t have the energy for weaving such a tangential theoretical tapestry). Perhaps “their”—assuming some spiritual agency to the forces—recovery time from making a connection, such as lifting a penny for us to, is very costly. Yet they are willing to pay the cost, which leads me to the point that they may worship us; or, they could just be a lot more concerned with affairs in their separate realm and only look to us occasionally, but we have no evidence of this. The likely conclusion might be that ghosts are just that, a lesser form of some once living beings, that do manage to muster the strength to have minute impacts on the world we inhabit, for specific open chakras audiences.
As for what we call and capitalize God, maybe s/he is eternal (just as ghosts may be), but as such may be stretched very thin across the eons of time and vastness of space, not having much power in our day to day lives. god is watching us, loving us (or envious of us), but vision is usually the limit of his power. Why is it that people are much more apt to rush to god’s defense than god himself? Perhaps death is his ultimate weapon, but this doesn’t seem that honorable, nor likely, because of its universal application. Maybe god just spends a lot more time interacting with microbes, or even particles, as could be evidenced by the causa sui virtual particles in empty spatial fields; particles are much less powerful than us, and on more of an even playing field for such an energy sapped god. Consider this when thinking about the recent phenomenon of a halo-rainbow occurring during Óscar Romero’s beatification, and what supplies an unnatural force would need to harvest for staging such a spectacle. Within Christian doctrine, think about how much energy it must have taken to create the sperm for Jesus’s conception that no more children have followed for 2,000 years.
But if god has set the bar so low, many among us are obsessed with finding new nadirs by digging ourselves into the ground. We grow the mountain only by lowering the valley, to be sure, though we fail to see the danger lurking above our new canyon, ready to engulf us. The danger is not the other, the danger is our severe severing from the natural world while being consumed with supernatural pursuits, whether they be the religion of the realm beyond, or the religion of progress. Both faiths are perilous.
– Another possibility, one that I favor a lot more, is that the subtle forces available to the universe are deep and beautiful both because of their current rarity and their eternal potential. There is no need to look to other realms to explain what we coin “the supernatural”, as Spinoza indicates in his philosophy (and I concur and attempt to expand and elucidate). The only thing the universe needs is itself. Not God, nor anything else, is separable from us or any other thing on some different plane of existence. We only see and feel this world because this is the only world to see and feel! Heaven is what we make of it—and though it’s true that Rome wasn’t built in a day, it was built, and it is but a tease of our true creative potentials. We have much work to do and we already have gravity keeping us down, we don’t need suppression by religion to limit our activities in this world too!
God is not the favored player in this game—he is the undergod…
† As I write this I understand it might be inflammatory to the religiously sensitive readers, and it is not for me but for such persons to decide whether or not to be enraged. Writing something is a completely different undertaking than burning someone at the stake, which I would argue is many times less sensitive to others, to say the least.