Ghosts in the Science Lab

Ghosts in the Science Lab: 

A Glimpse into the Conflict between Reason and Believing in the Supernatural

Emily Bencsics

Indiana University South Bend

ENG – 680

Professor Joe Chaney

August 4, 2012

Ghosts in the Science Lab: 

A Glimpse into the Conflict between Reason and Believing in the Supernatural

            Internally, there is an ever-present struggle going on within human beings.  How is it possible to be a reasonable, logic-minded individual while at the same time still believe in ghosts or spirits?  Consciously, most people do not focus on this kind of conflict; however, subconsciously, it is always there lurking within our psyche like some sort of wandering specter.  The juxtaposition of science and the supernatural has been a dance throughout hundreds of years; moreover, it is a dance people have participated in across all cultures and classes.  Central to understanding this conflict, one must first understand how we form beliefs.  “We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, emotional and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture and society at large” (Shermer, 2011, para. 2).  Essentially, our belief systems are environmental productions on a grand scale.  In addition to outside influences, Shermer (2011) goes on to state that “[a]fter forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments and rational explanations.  Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow” (para. 2).  Nowhere is this theory about belief systems and how it relates to the conflict between science and the supernatural more prevalent than in our literature.  In many cases, ghosts (and other supernatural figures) are more than merely plot-helpers in our collective tales.  When a ghost is introduced, it immediately calls into question our belief systems and forcibly shows us some rather terrifying internal truths about ourselves.

            One of the most famous literary examples of these struggling beliefs, and a primary focus of this exploration, is the ghost of Hamlet (also known as Old Hamlet).  When Marcellus and Bernardo welcome Horatio into the beginning of their ghost story, there is a poignant piece of dialogue that transpires.  Marcellus says, “Horatio says ‘tis but our fantasy, And will not let belief take hold of him Touching this dreaded sight twice seen of us.  Therefore I have entreated him along With us to watch the minutes of the night, That if again this apparition come He may approve our eyes and speak to it” (Shakespeare, 2004 version).  Here we see Marcellus struggling with not only having seen an otherworldly spirit, but perhaps even more fascinating; he seeks the validation from the other watchmen.  “How many subsequent ghost stories begin with the disbelief of one participant, both legitimating our incredulity and making the evidence to the contrary, when it comes, the more appalling?  Stout common sense restores the everyday – but only for an instant” (Belsey, 2010, para. 6).  This play between what we know as logical and “real” and what we experience as unexplainable is the tension that has been the basis for this uniquely human encounter. 

            After Horatio sees Old Hamlet for the first time, Bernardo remarks, “How now, Horatio? You tremble and look pale.  Is not this something more than fantasy? What think you on’t?” (Shakespeare, 2004 version).  Horatio is considered to be a scholar and a reasonable person.  For Horatio to see and interact with the spirit is to raise the level of uncertainty among the watchmen, and most assuredly, the audience as well.  In this case, Old Hamlet is an uncanny “thing.”  It “unsettles the familiar categories of knowledge, prompting ‘thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls’ (1.4.56).  Is it dead or alive, this figure that cannot rest in its tomb? … The oppositions we normally think with do not hold” (Belsey, 2010, para. 10).  It is important that Horatio experiences the ghost of Old Hamlet as it lends a credibility to how beliefs are formed.  Shermer (2011) coined the term “belief-dependent realism,” and it most definitely applies in the example of Horatio.  According to Shermer, the process “wherein our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it [is called] belief-dependent realism” (2011, para. 2).  Culturally, all of the guardsmen in these scenes have an underlying belief in ghosts even if that flies in the face of their religion, or, in Horatio’s case, even if it goes against his reasoning and logic skills.  Much of the Elizabethan environment would have been filled with the mysterious and unexplained; and thus, much of what constituted the watchmen’s belief systems could have already been rooted in the supernatural. 

            When the beliefs are formed, then the task of backing them up becomes paramount.  “Once we form beliefs and make commitments to them, we maintain and reinforce them through a number of powerful cognitive biases that distort our percepts to fit belief concepts” (Shermer, 2011, para. 4).  In other words, one will always strive to find evidence and support to confirm one’s belief in a variety of ways.  At the end of act one- scene one in Hamlet, Horatio says:  “So have I heard and do in part believe it…Let us impart what we have seen tonight Unto young Hamlet; for upon my life, This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him” (Shakespeare, 2004 version).  This passage shows a couple of things. First, it shows Horatio’s willingness to accept the ghost due in part to his eye-witness account, but more notably, his being a part of a group experience.  One of the cognitive biases Shermer discusses in his theory, is that called an “in-group bias.”  In this bias, “we place more value on the beliefs of those whom we perceive to be fellow members of our group and less on the beliefs of those from different groups” (Shermer, 2011, para. 5).  Because Horatio witnessed the ghost of Old Hamlet with his cohorts, instead of apart from them, the belief in the ghost is somehow solidified in his mind.  Secondly, and perhaps ironically, this same passage also reveals that Horatio is not one hundred percent sold on the existence of the ghost just yet.  The words “do in part believe it” show us that Horatio has some hesitation about what he has just seen.  Also, these words reveal that internally, Horatio is searching for some other logical and/or reasonable explanation. 

            Before moving forward with the ghost of Old Hamlet, it is important to define what a ghost/spirit is within the context of Hamlet’s time.  Around the time frame of Hamlet, several factors were at play when it came to explaining the world in which they lived.  For example, common people still adhered to a more medieval way of describing the unknown.  This would entail a strong belief in ghosts and/or spirits.  In addition, the early Catholic Church had strict interpretations about what seeing ghosts and/or spirits would mean.  According to the church, witnessing ghosts/spirits implies an inherent evil either within the environment, or within the spectator seeing the specter.  Essentially, ghosts of any sort were equal to something demonic, and one would have to be simply mad to engage or summon one; much less question the church on the matter.   At the same time, there was an emerging group of people concerned with scientific theory and discovering rational explanations for “supernatural” events.  These early renaissance scientists, often at their peril, broke with ritual and religious tradition.  Most of these young men, like Horatio and Hamlet, concerned themselves with learned investigative and questioning techniques that did not lend themselves to blindly accept supernatural events.  “Ghosts suspend the rules of logic just as they break the laws of nature.  They belong to the past, to a history that should have closed with their death, and yet they reappear to trouble the present and change the future.  A ghost is always radically out of time, as well as out of place.  Is this Ghost a true revenant, the old king back from the grave, or a demon from hell that assumes his person (1.2.244-45)?”  (Belsey, 2010, para. 10).  However that question gets answered, it is undeniable that Hamlet and his helpers must completely reassess the beliefs they hold while being shaken to their very core. 

            Some literary analysts argue that the ghost in Hamlet is not scary or creepy enough to warrant it being a supernatural event.  “As for Hamlet, there is a supernatural constituent, but it is no more than a fragment of the fantastic, a peripheral phenomenon that motivates Hamlet’s actions and triggers the plot” (Traill, 1991, para. 8).  Many disagree with this theory (myself included) simply because there are so many levels of meaning to the ghost of Old Hamlet.  The ghost in Hamlet provides friction among the characters, reveals insights into the truth of his death, and creates questions about justice and consequences for the audience.  To relegate the ghost as a mere plot device seems undeserving and much too easy.  Besides, any time a dead man rises and takes the form of a ghost, it seems obviously necessary to attribute the supernatural.  Also, the ghost plays another important function.  Seeing Old Hamlet is at odds with very powerful religious beliefs held at that time.  This must have had quite an effect on the audience at the time of this performance, and is still a marker even today for the conflict between beliefs of what we think is real and what is not.   

            When Hamlet first encounters the ghost of his father, it is with these very same religious overtones that he speaks to him.  “Angels and ministers of grace defend us!  Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned, Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell, By thy intents wicked or charitable…” (Shakespeare, 2004 version).  This passage confirms an idea about belief systems.  Mainly, even though Hamlet is considered to be a learned scholarly person, upon seeing the ghost of his father, he immediately resorts back to his Catholic belief system rather than a scientific one.  In an article discussing Shermer’s work, A.C. Grayling states:

                        Although religious scientists are few, they are an interesting phenomenon,

                        exhibiting the impermeability of the internal barrier that allows  

                        simultaneous commitments to science and faith.  This remark will be

                        regarded as outrageous by believing scientists, who think that they are as

                        rational in their temples as in their laboratories, but scarcely any of them

                        would accept the challenge to mount a controlled experiment to test the

                        major claims of their faith… (Grayling, 2011, p. 447)

Although Hamlet is experiencing fear and trembling at the sight of his father’s ghost (who wouldn’t), it is important to note that his reversion back to a religious upbringing takes precedence over his rational/logical mind.  This reiterates the concept that primary and/or early belief systems are extremely powerful and difficult to override. 

            In addition to religious implications, it was generally accepted that involvement with a ghost and/or spirit would most certainly be an indicator of madness.  When the ghost beckons Hamlet to a moment of privacy, Hamlet’s friends make it clear that this is a grand mistake.  Horatio pleads, “What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord, Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff…And there assume some other horrible form Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason And draw you into madness?” (Shakespeare, 2004 version).  Following the Catholic Church’s teachings, any spirit that wishes to take one someplace private to converse cannot possibly be a virtuous ghost.  Therefore, Horatio’s warnings to Hamlet are more than justified.  Moreover, when Hamlet does speak with the ghost of his father, it becomes uncannily apparent that this spirit is seeking something much more devastating to Hamlet than a conversation.  Hamlet’s father commands, “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” (Shakespeare, 2004 version).  At this point, Hamlet must decide whether to trust this seemingly evil entity or seek peace through rationality.  After all, what natural conclusions could be drawn from a ghost that asks for revenge?  Indeed, is this ghost really Hamlet’s father, or is this ghost now a reflection of Hamlet’s desires?

            Perhaps the real conflict with ghosts comes not from whether one believes in their existence, but rather what ghosts disclose about a person’s true nature.  Old Hamlet is not imparting some new emotional quest onto his son by revealing his death was murderous in nature.  Ironically, it is the ghost that provides a reason for Hamlet to act on vengeful fantasies.  After Hamlet alludes to the current king (Claudius) as being a villain, Horatio’s response is:  “There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave To tell us this” (Shakespeare, 2004 version).  This outwardly simple line shows us that the ghost resembles a mirror reflecting desires, wishes, and truths about the individual.  Deep down Hamlet (and his cohorts) already realize that there is something terribly wrong with Old Hamlet’s death, Gertrude’s quick remarriage, and the overall natural order of things.  Rationally, Hamlet recognizes his anger, grief, and depression long before Old Hamlet appears to him.  Similarly, Hamlet’s self-awareness leads him to constantly check himself between committing a murderous crime, ending his own life, or moving on and trying to forget this time of his life.  Essentially, Hamlet is juggling a whole host of cognitive biases and conflicts.  Interestingly, Hamlet’s “[b]elief-dependent realism is driven even deeper by a metabias called the bias blind spot, or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to [the] influence on our own beliefs” (Shermer, 2011, para. 6).  Even though Hamlet appears to be hyper self-aware, it isn’t enough to discern the healthy from the unhealthy, or the natural from the supernatural. 

            In summary, there will always be a place for ghost stories of some sort throughout time.  By examining the ghost in Hamlet, one can in turn explore all ghost stories.  Old Hamlet is special in that “[t]he Ghost constitutes more than a device of the plot and more, too, than a thrill of the uncanny.  It brings the prince into direct confrontation with the fact of mortality:  the revenant who bears his name presents the hero with a glimpse of his own future beyond the limits of what it is possible to know” (Belsey, 2010, para. 51).  And, perhaps it is this very stark reality of our own impermanence that makes ghosts and spirits so weirdly fascinating.  Spirits represent many things for us.  For instance, apparitions could signal everything from hallucinations to belief systems run astray.  “It is only by recovering the history of lost possibilities, what might have been, that we can shake the naturalness of what is” (Clery, 1995, p.174).  Ghosts give us a chance to reconcile and redefine ourselves, and maybe it is ultimately comforting to know that they are designed to confound the believer, the non-believer, the spiritualist, and the scientist all the same.  

References

Belsey, C. (2010). Shakespeare’s sad tale for winter:  Hamlet and the tradition of fireside ghost stories. Shakespeare Quarterly, 61(1). Retrieved from Ebsco.

Clery, E. J. (1995). The rise of supernatural fiction 1762-1800. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press.

Grayling, A. C. (2011). How we form beliefs. Nature, 474, 446-447.

Shakespeare, (2004 version). In D. Bevington & D.S. Katsan (Eds.), Shakespeare Hamlet. New York:  Bantam Classic.

Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain. Scientific American, 305(1), 85. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

Traill, N. (1991). Fictional worlds of the fantastic. Style, 25(2), 196-209. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.