> I am a materialist, which means I believe only in the existence of physical reality. Above and beyond that, I believe there is an objective reality that exists outside of our own sensory perceptions, though I grudgingly recognize that I can't prove this. I'm also a very strong empiricist, which means I only believe in things that can be empirically proven to be true. This is contradictory to my previous statement, so let me just say that while I can't be *sure* an objective reality outside of myself exists, I'm confident it does.

You haven't said so explicitly, but I assume you also believe that the nature of the unprovable "objective reality" conforms well to your sensory experience. That is, your senses are a fairly reliable (though not infallible) guide to what the objective world is really like. Most of us, reasonably, think the same way. Our well-developed organs of sense (together with the capacity to reason) provide sufficient information for to negotiate life both in its broad strokes and its intricacies.

I wonder, though, whether it is intellectual arrogance on my part to dismiss the claims of "psychics on talk shows" out of hand. What such people are essentially saying, or at least implying, is that there are additional organs of sense that we *could* use to gain more information about reality, but do not. Let me disregard for the moment any off-putting New Age mystical mumbo-jumbo in which this kind of discussion is often swathed, and consider the following question by itself:

Is my assumption that my own familiar organs of sense (aided by reason) are adequate to reveal every aspect of reality, a "good" assumption?

Without the exercise of sight, hearing or touch, it's beyond my ability to conceive of humans ever discovering most of the physical laws we currently know and study. Even *with* those functional senses, we've endured many setbacks in discovering the universe because of social/psychological factors or the misapplication of reason. When I consider what I think of as spurious claims about reality (such as mind-reading, for instance), I'm predisposed to think that the claimant's error is on the "reason" side of things. I don't assume that he is rationally interpreting a sensory experience that I myself am incapable of, or simply unpracticed in.

As a Christian, I grapple with this issue when I consider the testimony both of Scripture and of human believers about the spiritual dimension of life in a world created by a spiritual God. I can't say that I experience any spiritual sensations that are clearly not produced by my physical and emotional makeup. My belief in Christianity is nearly one-sidedly empirical: it's true not because I feel or wish it to be so, but because the events recorded actually happened, and continue to happen, in the physical world. On the other hand, Scripture stubbornly insists on describing an aspect of my being and my relationship to God as "spiritual". So what *is* that aspect, and why isn't it part of my sensory repertoire?

The Biblical answer seems to be that I'm simply unpracticed. I have an underdeveloped spiritual organ of sense, and if so, it's not to be wondered at that I don't have a very good idea of what spiritual reality is like. Try explaining to a blind person what "red" is. He won't really understand it, and he'll really only believe you if he has a reason to trust you as a good-intentioned source of authority. Well, I have more than one good-intentioned source of authority who can tell me about spiritual reality. So is it intellectual arrogance on my part not to believe them, to assume that I already have a perfect capacity to perceive the world? Should I suspend my intellectual prejudices and make a serious effort to practice the development of that sensory ability? Should we *all* be doing that, if we're honest inquirers?

Iss