Bimini Road Skeptics—a simple psychological analysis & advice for the seeker

by Dr. Greg Little

Since the discovery of the underwater Bimini Road in 1968, two viewpoints on the origin of the site have developed. One side, comprised of a handful of archaeologists, several biologists/zoologists, and a host of other professionals, argues that the site may have been manmade. The most frequent suggestion is that the Road may have been an ancient harbor. So much evidence has been found in the past years, that it is a near certainty that at least portions of the Bimini Road are manmade. On the other side are a handful of geologists who have issued what they say is the final scientific word on the possible archaeological nature of the site: the state emphatically that they have proven it is a completely natural formation. In reality, all the geologists have determined is that the Road has some beachrock (limestone) on it. (They have cored about 20 stones in total.) They have tested a few adjacent limestone blocks on the site, which they say is definitely thousands of years old. What they have actually found is that some of the large stones appear to have broken into two or more pieces over thousands of years. That's the sum of evidence "against" the Bimini Road. Based on this, they say it's completely natural.

A few of the geologists, who often describe themselves skeptics, have launched bitter and vicious attacks on all the others who have studied the road, ignoring the obvious fact that they have no scientific expertise in assessing archaeological sites. Their assaults have been designed to ridicule those who continue to study the site to such a degree that other professionals will not even consider openly discussing any findings on the Road. The Skeptical Inquirer magazine supports the ongoing assault, although their articles are riddled with inaccurate names, dates, and questionable assertions. (Click here for details.) The media, for related reasons, never questions the geologists' expertise in archaeology and always seems to cast the geologists as archaeological experts, which they are not. This, of course, pleases the geologists who never seem to say that they are not archaeologists. Pseudoscience is defined as an individual or group purporting to represent the scientific community in one way or another, but in reality they are beyond their expertise. Rogue scientist is a term sometimes applied to scientists who make unsubstantiated claims outside their areas of expertise. The skeptics publish in the scientific journals and make flat statements about various topics. They seldom say that evidence points to one answer or another, they state authoritatively that their word is the final word and ridicule everyone else. Therein lies the problem. There are several groups looking at the Bimini Road and other Bahamas formations, but none of us purports to have the final word and we do not act as if we are representing the entire scientific community.

For several decades I have observed this ongoing phenomenon between skeptics and proponents. I too have been a skeptic in many areas, but unlike the geologists, I have reversed opinions as new evidence came to light--something true scientists should do. In many ways, I have come to see the "modern skeptic" as a sort of gullible pseudoscientist. The goal of the modern skeptics seems to be to ridicule and belittle those who go against their beliefs in a manner similar to how some religious cults view others as enemies. Once an opinion is formed by the skeptic, nothing can typically change it, because the belief becomes central to their definition of "self" and to change one's opinion would be an admission of being wrong. In essence, it is the same thing as what is often described as faith in various religions. The gullibility aspect is derived from their immediate tendency to accept statements supporting their view as absolute fact. The pseudoscientist aspect is derived from their complete unwillingness to address contrary evidence, their ridiculing and belittling behaviors, and their unscientific and inaccurate portrayal of themselves as archaeological experts.

Within psychology, there are unconscious processes that relate to "true believers," whether they be true-believing skeptics or those with unusual beliefs. In many ways, the skeptic begins by wanting to believe in something greater than self, and they often come to admire others who develop a genuine passion for a variety of things. This genuine passion is displayed in an energetic engagement in discovery and a deep personal involvement in various "important" issues. For example, there are many people who are completely devoted to investigating UFO abduction reports to the extent that they have faith that the phenomenon is genuine and important. Skeptics of the abduction scenario, however, assert that the "true-believer" investigators are "wasting their time" and misleading others. Sometimes the skeptics will say they admire the persistence of the other side, but that's not the issue to them.

Before taking to this to a slightly deeper level, one must question exactly why the skeptics desire to so ridicule and belittle the other side. What is the harm in people investigating UFO reports if it serves a beneficial purpose for the people involved? What's the harm in looking at the Bimini Road as a possible archaeological site? The skeptics often say that it is harming the public by misleading them. Of course, this statement is also asserting that the skeptic knows reality better than anyone else and they know what the public should or should not hear. But that's not at all true.

So what if 60% of the US population has seen a UFO? So what if 85% of us believe in God? So what if 75% of us think there is a lot to history that isn't known? What's the harm to the public? The answer is simple: none. But the problem is that it creates an awareness in the skeptic that is unpleasant.

While the skeptics often begin with a sense of admiration and a striving for meaning in their lives, somewhere along the line they start questioning the others they admire. They not only question them, but seldom does the skeptic achieve the recognition and fulfillment they really desire. For whatever reasons, they lack the passion or energy to make their own path in life, and choose instead to destroy others' paths. Their admiration turns to disdain and contempt and they become emotionally empty where all that's left is to engage in behaviors designed to empty out other people as well. (Perhaps the best way to test this is to ask the skeptic's spouse and children about how passionate and fulfilling the skeptic's life is.) There is a biblical quote that sums this up in three words: "misery loves company."

For those of you who are interested in mysteries, the best course of action is to evaluate the path you are on rather than focusing on what the skeptics say. Is your path one that is fulfilling and one that doesn't limit your life? Is it helpful to you and others? Is it causing other areas of life to spin out of control? For example, has an interest become an obsession that keeps you from paying bills, working, or being with those you love? Has your interest cost you things you really didn't want to lose? If it hasn't caused problems in these areas, then go a little deeper.

You might ask yourself exactly why you have that particular interest. You probably will never know the "real" truth about it, but it's relatively easy to understand the wrong reasons. For example, if your desire is for fame and fortune, you'll pay a price. If you are simply trying to disprove someone else, reaching that goal will probably lead to emptiness.

If you find genuine fulfillment in your quest, whatever it may be, choose to stay on the quest as long as it doen't create other difficulties. But you probably know that getting final answers almost never happens. Perhaps discovering something greater than ourselves is the real quest, and the quest itself is the discovery that's needed.

Home