> 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.

I think the difference between what you describe as Christian spirituality and talk show psychics is that the talk show psychics (often) claim to be able to effect or percieve things in objective reality through this "extra sense" that they claim to have. This is something that is testable and falsifiable. That is not to say that Christian sprituality doesn't also at times make these claims (faith healing comes immediatly to mind) but that I feel that the kind of spirituality you're talking about doesn't make those kinds of claims. We had a long thread awhile back about how a Christian can "know" with objectivity that their relationship with God is real. Apart from charismatics such as Monkeyman, I don't feel like I got any answers that are open to testing in the same way that, say, faith healing or remote viewing are open to testing.

What this means is that while you cannot prove to me objectively that your spiritual relationship with God exists, I also cannot prove that it doesn't exist, since you make no claims that are testable. I can make the claim that it's up to *you* to prove your assertion rather than for me to disprove it (the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic), and I can also claim that the simplest answer (and therefore more likely the correct answer) is that God doesn't exist and therefore your relationpship with him doesn't exist, but this is only an argument, not a proof.

On the other hand, I *can* test many of the claims of TV psychics. It's been done time and again, and every time they fail under properly controlled conditions. In this way I feel justified in dismissing them and their theories. They make testable claims, but when tested, they fail to produce. This is the very nature of the scientific method--hypothesize, predict, test. If the predictions don't fit the reality of the test, then the hypothesis is wrong.

-- Dave