The End ... again

The end is near and you'd better believe cuz Jews, Muslims, and Xians are making sure it arrives soon. Talk about impatient devotees. Read the LA Times article in full. It's a fine overview of what's preoccupying the most deluded people on earth.

I have a psychic prediction: Years and decades down the road all of them (at least those who haven't kicked the bucket by then) will still be waiting for their respective messiahs to either drop from heaven or pop up from a well (Saddam?). And they will be offering yet more excuses and rationalizations for why the end has been postponed yet again.

I wonder what the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing and predicting these days.

Professors from Hogwarts

Jeffrey Russell is dismayed by what he sees as the deterioration American Christians' understanding of the concepts of heaven and hell. He says their beliefs are practically superstitious.

Belief in hell is going to you-know-where. And belief in heaven is in trouble, too.

That's the concern of some Christian thinkers, including Jeffrey Burton Russell, an emeritus professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of the new book "Paradise Mislaid: How We Lost Heaven and How We Can Regain It" (Oxford).

So, Prof. Remus, I mean, Russell, please edify and tell us what in fact are heaven and hell.

"For Christians, basically, heaven underneath all of the decorations means living in harmony with God and the cosmos and your neighbors and being grateful," said Russell, who studied hell and Satan for 15 years before turning his attention to heaven in a 1997 book.

I guess those who arrive in heaven have all been sanitized, whitewashed, brainwashed, and end up just exchanging namby-pamby, touchy-feely hogwash. While 99% of the time they're sucking up to and kissing His Holeliness' you know what.

What about hell and its fire and brimstone? "There is a tendency to overdramatize hell in order to get [it] across to people," he said. But it's simply "the absence of God, the absence of heaven."

So hell is like, umm, uhh, the here and now. Like being on earth and having not a glimpse or whiff of Big Daddy while obsessively fantasizing about meeting and being with him, and all the time having to pray just to gain his ear but not getting any registered mail of what the fuck his reply really is. Yeah, I bet that's hell.


And can you dig that? Russell studied hell and Satan for a decade and a half. What a vacation that must've been--flitting off to fantasia for that long. Well I'm taking my cue from him. I'm filing for a 10-year sabbatical and when I come back I'll be the world expert in Dementors. You see, I've been meaning to correct your false understanding of what they really are. Right now what you think you know about them borders on superstitious. So watch out for my book: Demented: How We Lost Our Brains and Misunderstood the Dementors. (Advance credits: My thanks to A. Dumbledore for the encouragement to embark on this project and for setting up the invaluable interviews with the Dementors.)

Pass the salt, please

Heard a lady on a religious program on DZMM tonight. Her topic? That in the sacrament of the Eucharist the bread and wine really are, literally, the body and blood of Jesus. And she had proof positive for this. She said that back in the 13th century a priest was having doubts about the reality of transubstantiation and so muttered some words to God. Sure enough the invisible bearded man high in the sky heard and answered his prayer. Soon thereafter he found the host he was holding was in fact a piece of flesh and that the chalice contained blood. According to the lady the flesh and blood were both tested and found to be real human flesh--muscle tissue to be exact--and real human blood. (She probably was alluding to the touted 700 CE miracle in Lanciano, Italy)

Unfortunately, she didn't say whether the priest and his congregation had a feast and cannibalized the very holy fare du jour. She also failed to mention whether they stir-fried Jesus' body parts and boiled his blood or whether they ate and drank them raw. From the scholar's point of view, it certainly would be most fascinating to find out using that sample what Jesus' blood type was (type AB in the Lanciano miracle. Hey, I'm AB too!). And who knows, we may even be able to find viable DNA in the tissue sample. Heck, someday we might be able to use the DNA to clone the Son of God. And so, as divinely preordained, science will ultimately and unwittingly prove The Resurrection.

So there it is folks. Irrefutable, incontrovertible, unassailable, indubitable evidence that those wafers they serve on Sundays only look and taste like bread (and yes they are made with flour), but in fact and without question are really body parts of Jesus--specifically, his muscles. And that liquid the priest gulps by the mouthful is blood freshly squeezed from Mel Gibson's idol. These guys certainly put Dracula to shame.

Oh, I almost forgot. The crackers and grape juice become Jesus' biceps, triceps, myocardial tissue, ... and red blood cells and plasma only after the right words are chanted over them. And only when uttered by specially licensed blokes (it's a sexist clique you see). Apparently the magic trick takes many years of training in cloisters to master.


Now I'm wondering how Divine Dinuguan tastes like. Mmmm, I'm already drooling.

Want to meet God? Then just don it.

By Badscience's Ben Goldacre:

A “neurotheology” researcher called Dr Michael Persinger has developed something called the “God Helmet” lined with magnets to help you in your quest: it sounds like typical bad science fodder, but it’s much more interesting than that.

Persinger is a proper scientist. The temporal lobes have long been implicated in religious experiences: epileptic seizures in that part of the brain, for example, can produce mystical experiences and visions. Persinger’s helmet stimulates these temporal lobes with weak electromagnetic fields through the skull, and in various published papers this stimulation has been shown to induce a “sensed presence”, under blinded conditions.

There is controversy around these findings: some people have tried to replicate them, although not using exactly the same methods, and got different results. But however improbable or theologically offensive you might find his evidence, because it is published and written up in full, you can try to replicate it for yourself and find out whether it works. In fact, you really can try this at home: the kit needed to make a God Helmet is fabulously rudimentary.

You can order a commercial product online for just $220 (£119): it is basically eight magnetic coils that fit over the relevant parts of your skull; the signal is generated by your computer’s soundcard, and then played through these magnetic elements, instead of through the magnetic coils of your speakers.

More excitingly, you can go to the open source development forum Sourceforge and check out “Open-rTMS”, where designs for the necessary hardware and software are being developed collaboratively and openly, and by the same people who brought you “OpenEEG”, a surprisingly effective EEG system that you can also make at home.

Some months ago Persinger strapped his "God helmet" onto Richard Dawkins. Apparently, Dawkins is immune to electronic-electromagnetic hallucination-inducing devices. Except for some slight physiological effects the contraption did not trigger any religious experience in Dawkins. One wonders how much susceptibility to these neurological effects has a bearing on whether a person becomes a believer in the paranormal/supernatural.

Since we know that such things as sensing "a presence", so-called communiques from supernatural entities including spirits and deities, and other alleged paranormal/supernatural phenomena can be caused by quite ordinary means including electrical stimulation, sensory deprivation, hypoxia, pharmacological substances, we therefore must rule out all naturalistic explanations (but how do you exhaust them when we aren't omniscient of the natural world?) before we can begin to entertain the various proffered supernatural explanations. If I hear a voice in my head telling me I have been specially elected by my deity to be spread his word and be his spokesperson here in the Philippines, it is an epistemic error to say that just because I believe in the premise that angels talk to people, that indeed the voice in my head was one of my god's angels. More parsimoniously, I'm hallucinating, or simply delusional or psychotic, just like that Philippine judge Florentino Floro. So how do we know that ancient sacred text writers and prophets from around the world who claimed to have been communicating with their gods and to whom spirits, angels, and deities have revealed various things had not in fact experienced nothing more than natural neurological phenomena?

Atheists as skeptics

In the current issue of Free Inquiry Paul Kurtz has an article on religious skepticism. In the latter two-thirds of his rather longish piece he offers a panoramic overview of the vast number of problems with supernaturalism and its claims.

If the customer wants trash sell him hi tech versions of it

What's Motorola interested in? Increased sales of course. So if there's a demand for claptrap such as feng shui, well then give the public what they want since the customer is always right, right? According to Motorola,

Among known methods of evaluating surroundings is Feng Shui, an ancient Chinese art of creating a harmonious environment. Recently, Feng Shui has increased in popularity in many societies around the world. Feng Shui principles are widely applied in the fields of interior decorating and real estate. Despite the increased popularity of Feng Shui, its complexity detracts ordinary people from using it to improve their overall lifestyle and associated environment.

Handheld electronic devices, such as cellular telephones and personal digital assistants, have also become more prevalent in recent years. Some handheld electronic devices today can include the capability to measure environmental characteristics.

Ergo, the Motorola Feng Shui PDA. So what does their product do?

[It] evaluates a property’s Feng Shui rating by measuring positive and negative chi and awarding plus and minus points accordingly. “Feng Shui principles are widely applied in the fields of interior decorating and real estate,” a company spokesperson explains.

The device houses a camera that checks the colour of the property, a microphone that listens for noise from nearby roads and factories and a compass to find north – a crucial factor for Feng Shui enthusiasts. It can also measure the strength of AM and FM radio signals from local radio transmitters and connect to the nearest mobile phone base station to check for indications of cellphone signal strength.

Weak radio signals indicate positive chi but strong signals mean negative chi and lead to a poor Feng Shui rating. Ironically, Motorola’s new gadget seems to help people avoid the signals that they need to connect their cellphones. It looks like city dwellers' chi may be in dire straits.

This is very serious stuff--just like astrology. Entails lots of analysis of a host of factors and a good deal of number crunching you see.

The Feng Shui analysis, for example, includes determining whether a particular measured characteristic is positive, neutral, or negative according to Feng Shui principles. Chi can be considered a measurement of Feng Shui. FIG. 5, for example, is a table illustrating criteria which can be set for positive, neutral, and negative chi for each environmental characteristic according to the principles of Feng Shui.

...

In Feng Shui, there is a desirable order of colors. The most favorable order of colors is that corresponding to the enhancement cycle, which is a cycle well known in Feng Shui. The enhancement cycle is shown in FIG. 6. The colors associated with the various parts of the enhancement cycle are known. Colors such as red, orange, burgundy, pink, purple are associated with fire. Colors such as brown, yellow, off-white, gray are associated with earth. Colors such as white, silver, gold, bronze are associated with metal. Colors such as black and blue are associated with water. Colors such as green and jade are associated with wood. When colors occur in the order of the enhancement cycle of FIG. 6, the Feng Shui rating of that image will be high.

Can the Motorola EVP Spirit Channeler cell phone series be far behind?

VIBs get special treatment

There are some scientists who somehow are able to do great science but then manage to subscribe to beliefs for which no good evidence exists. Somehow their minds are able to cordon off these Very Important Beliefs and grant them epistemological immunity. Francis Collins, the leader of the team that cracked the human genome, is one of them. He sees God's handiwork here, there, and everywhere.

When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.

...

I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way.

C.S. Lewis--that atheist who mutated into another of Yahweh's sheep--is one bloke who convinced Collins about God's existence. But what finally drove Collins to dive into the black hole was something else.

His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: "It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment'."

Resistance was futile, eh?

Collins finally surrendered and became a theist because he experienced a high. How rational. Hey, I'm sucker for beauty too. I can't get enough of beautiful places, beautiful works, particularly beautiful moving music, beautiful women even. But in those rare moments that I'm in the midst of something really awesome I don't suddenly fall on my knees and accept Jesus and his dad as my delusion. It's also rather stupid to reason that just because we perceive and interpret various things (in nature) as beautiful means that a deity exists. Or maybe Collins wasn't even reasoning. As Pascal would say, his heart had reasons of its own.

Collins tells us that, "If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion."

If you believe that the Incompetent Designer exists and if you believe that he waves his magic wand (or his fingers) from time to time, then sure you can believe that miracles pop up from time to time. The thing is, it's also logically valid to believe that Superman regularly foils bank robberies as long you believe in the "right" premises. There's nothing in Collins' statement but speculations. Is there any event at all that's been confirmed to be a miracle? Are we going to get showered with more arguments from awe and ignorance?

Double trouble for supernaturalists

Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion will be coming out in October. It's being published by Houghton Mifflin.



However, I just checked Amazon UK and it seems that not only do they have the above but also another version that's going to be released by Bantam a month earlier.



So why may I ask is The God Delusion coming out in two flavors at the same? Both are hardcovers. But the one by Houghton is 288 pages long, the Bantam edition, 372. What could possibly be included in the latter that isn't in the former, making it balloon by 30%? Or is that the Bantam edition is printed in a font size for the visually impaired?

And he said to his disciples, "Take and breathe. This is from my body."

According to the Catholic Church Jesus was fully divine and fully human. He was born a human (not a chimp nor a gorilla, mind you), had a childhood, had to eat and drink to survive just like the rest of us, and obviously had lots of blood coursing through his veins, as Mel Gibson has, hands down, proved.

Since Jesus was very much a fellow Homo sapiens, we can presume that he had a colon and intestinal flora pretty much like ours, and that the second person of the Trinity, the Savior of mankind also moved his bowels and farted as the rest of us do. Now what do you think is the probability that in the time it took you to read to this point you've already breathed in at least a molecule of the last couple of farts of the Son of God (perhaps those expelled soon after the last supper or during his crucifixion)?

Let's assume that the expelled gas molecules, given the twenty centuries, have become uniformly distributed all over the world. The estimated number of air molecules in the atmosphere is around 1 x 10⁴⁴. While at rest a single breath contains about 1 x 10²² molecules of air. For ease let's assume that the volume of Jesus' last couple of farts was equal to one breath.

Let
F = number of gas molecules in Jesus' flatus = one breath's worth = 1 x 10²²
B = number of gas molecules in a specified number of breaths = (1 x 10²²) x number of breaths
N = total gas molecules in the atmosphere = 1 x 10⁴⁴
P(f) = probability of breathing in at least one molecule of F

F/N therefore is the relative frequency of the Jesus' flatus molecules in the atmosphere. It's also the probability of breathing in one molecule of F we were to breathe just one molecule of air. Its complement is (1 - F/N), the probability of not breathing in a molecule of F.

Since we don't just breathe in one molecule but 1 x 10²² of them, the probability of not inhaling a single molecule of F is (1 - F/N)^B. This is the probability that the first, second, third, ..... , and Bth molecule are all non-Fs. Its complement is therefore the probability of breathing in at least a molecule of F. And that's what we're looking for:

1 - (1 - F/N)^B

If we use various values for B--one breath, two breaths, etc. (B, 2B, 3B,....)--we obtain the following results (see Note 1 for computational details):

Number of breaths	P(f) = probability of inhaling at least one molecule of a specified historical person's flatus
1	63.2%
2	86.5%
3	95.0%
4	98.2%
5	99.3%
6	99.8%
7	99.9%

In just half a dozen breaths you're practically certain to have inhaled at least a molecule of the Savior's last farts.

What this also means is that every hour, everyday we are inhaling rather odious molecules of practically everyone who's ever lived in the past. And remember we were computing the probability of breathing in at least a molecule of the flatus of one particular person. Consider how many humans have lived over the hundreds of thousands of years and how much gas they've expelled. The probability that we are taking in at least a molecule is 100% for every one trillionth of a breath we take--that's much less than a whiff (see Note 2).

And you wonder why halitosis exists.


--------

NOTES:

1. If you plug in the values of F, B, and N into a calculator or even a spreadsheet program you'll exceed their limits and you won't get a result anywhere close to accurate. F/N for instance is an infinitesimal figure, while raising a number to the power of B is almost unimaginable. Even resorting to logarithms won't help much. One way around this is to use smaller values of F, B, and N. For example instead of 1 x 10²² use F = 1 x 10⁶ and N = 1 x 10¹². Note that the exponent of N must be twice that of F since it is so in the original values. For one breath B = 1 x 10⁶. Try using other values for F such as 1 x 10⁴ for instance (and corresponding appropriate values for B and N). You should get practically the same P(f) values.

However, a more graceful way of doing it is to use a different equation altogether. If you examine the above problem you'll see that it is basically a binomial probability distribution and can be solved using the general equation

_nC_rp^r(1 - p)^n-r

where _nC_r is combinatorial notation for n taken r at a time. For our problem above n = B, r = 0 (since we're computing for zero flatus molecules), and p = F/N. Because r = 0 , _BC_r = B! / [r! (B -r)!] = 1 and p^r = 1. Therefore, the equation reduces to (1 - p)ⁿ. Substituting, we have: (1 - F/N)^B, the very equation we have above.

Because p is very small and n very large the conditions are satisfied for using the Poisson distribution as an accurate approximate for the binomial probability. The Poisson distribution is given by the equation

(np)^re^-np / r!

where e = 2.71828. Since r = 0 the equation reduces to e^-np. Substituting, we have e^-BF/N. This can be easily handled by a scientific calculator. Because this equation gives us the probability of not having a single flatus molecule in B, we are interested in its complement: 1 - e^-BF/N.


2. To estimate the amount of flatus molecules ejected by humans throughout the ages, I assumed 1 x 10²² gas molecules expelled per person three times a week, with each person having an average lifespan of only 30 years, and a total (deceased) human population of 10 billion. F then is = 4.68 x 10³⁵. For 1 x 10¹⁰ molecules inhaled the P(f_total) = 99.9%. 1 x 10¹⁰ is one trillionth of 1 x 10²².


--------


This math problem is a variation of the Caesar's-dying-breath example by mathematician John Allen Paulos (Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences. 1988. New York: Vintage. p. 32.). However, Paulos does not offer the reader the use of the Poisson distribution. The idea of substituting flatus for breath comes from The New England Skeptical Society's podcast (2006).

This mayor rocks!

Here's an excerpt from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's address to the 2006 graduates of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agendas. Some call it "pseudo-science," others call it "faith-based science," but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it "political science."

You can see "political science" at work when it comes to global warming. Despite near unanimity in the science community there's now a movement - driven by ideology and short-term economics - to ignore the evidence and discredit the reality of climate change.

You can see "political science" at work with respect to stem cell research. Despite its potential, the federal government has restricted funding for creating new cell lines - putting the burden of any future research squarely on the shoulders of the private sector. Government's most basic responsibility, however, is the health and welfare of its people, so it has a duty to encourage appropriate scientific investigations that could possibly save the lives of millions.

"Political science" knows no limits. Was there anything more inappropriate than watching political science try to override medical science in the Terry Schiavo case?

And it boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, this country is still debating the validity of evolution. In Kansas, Mississippi, and elsewhere, school districts are now proposing to teach "intelligent design" - which is really just creationism by another name - in science classes alongside evolution. Think about it! This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities.

Hopkins' motto is Veritas vos liberabit - "the truth shall set you free" - not that "you shall be free to set the truth!" I've always wondered which science those legislators who create their own truths pick when their families need life-saving medical treatment.

There's no question: science - the very core of what you have been living and breathing these past several years - is being sorely tested. But the interesting thing is this is not the first time that graduates of the School of Medicine have faced such a challenge. When the institution was founded more than a century ago, medicine was dominated by quacks and poorly-trained physicians. In that world, Johns Hopkins and its graduates became a beacon of truth, and trust and helped to revolutionize the field.

Can you Americans have this guy as your next president, please?

Kiev man has proved God doesn't exist

Contrary to what that babbling bible says about lions, the king of the jungle is no puppet of some invisible Incompetent Designer (who, it is rumored, calls himself king as well):

A MAN shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on today.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

Guess He it doesn't exist. What's that I hear the from the Xians? That mister lion food above was tempting the Lord? That we cannot test Big Daddy? That it was SkyCop's will that he get killed? Really now? And what and where might the evidence for these claims (ad hoc rationalizations) be?


(via God is for Suckers)

Shuttle Challenger and Columbia disasters foretold by the bible

In a discussion board some Christian who thinks of himself as being scientific plagiarized some verses and commentaries from the Web and pasted them in his post. The more than a dozen verses allegedly point to the fact that the bible is science savvy. Here's the most ridiculous:

Modern time vehicles

Amos 9

2 "Though they dig into Sheol, from there shall my hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, from there I will bring them down. 3 Though they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, from there I will search out and take them; and though they hide from my sight at the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them.

The Bible describes a space shuttle and a submarine long long before it was invented.

I wouldn't be surprised if not a few Christians will be nonplussed as to why that passage does not prove the bible is speaking of space shuttles and submarines.

Headhunters

On the night of May 25 the head and hands of a statue of the Blessed Virgin Dolorosa in Cauayan, Negros Occidental, Philippines were cut off and stolen. "The incident took place almost nine months after robbers also beheaded and stole the two hands of a statue of a similar patron saint in Brgy. Inayauan, Cauayan, in July last year."

Why would anyone run off with only the appendages?

There are reports that the stolen parts of statues are being used as "anting-antings" (amulets).

On the other hand, [police chief Rudy] Bico said the stolen parts of Blessed Virgin Dolorosa in Brgy. Inayauan and poblacion Cauayan, may have been used by fishermen to ensure an abundant catch of fish, or by members of a cultist group as amulets.

How amusing. The superstitious stealing from the supernaturalist. (Not that they're mutually exclusive. On the contrary.)

There's supernaturalism and there's superstition. There's the belief that invisible preternatural superheroes and supervillains exist and there's the belief that certain objects/rituals/events can bring about good/ill fortune. Both are devoid of evidence. Both are delusory.

Truly pathetic.

Supernaturalists are liars

From the graph it looks like gas prices in the US have been climbing. And it looks like God's having a hell of a time negotiating with the cartel to boost their production or whatever it is that's going to bring down crude prices. As Randi tells us it's been over a month since Christians started praying for lower pump prices (see red bar in the graph). Guess the thousands of petitions aren't making a dent.

Ah! But look. It's plateauing. God's got it under control. For an almighty, all-powerful, perfect creator who transcends time and space he sure doesn't work like one.



So how in fact can we know whether prayer works or not?

If religionists pray for B and B happens how do we know that the occurence of praying and B weren't just coincidental? If yesterday farmer Pedro prostrated himself and beseeched God to flood his encrusted rice paddy so that he may have a harvest to feed his wife and 12 children, and if it's raining outside right now, how do we know whether his deity had caused the downpour or whether it's been brought about by the monsoons (well, June is the start of the wet season you know)?

On the other hand, if these supernaturalists pray for B and B does not occur and because of such failure they churn out ad hoc explanations such as "God sometimes answers yes, sometimes no," "God works in mysterious ways," or "God knows best and this is his will," how do we know these explanations are true? How do we test their veracity? Pointing to an ancient text only passes the buck to ancient writers and pointing to their ministers, priests, bishops, popes ... just passes the buck to the living deluded. Such fallacious arguments may strengthen these believers' belief, they may give us info on how many believe and how long the belief has been around, and they may tell us how ignorant the believers are of logical fallacies and epistemology, but they do nothing to suppport the case for prayer.

If prayer is not or cannot be subjected to objective testing, if non causa pro causa / post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies cannot be ruled out when prayer apparently works, and if nontestable/nonfalsifiable ad hoc rationalizations are resorted to when prayer apparently fails, then how can prayer ever be known to work? Mere belief (faith) in the power of prayer cannot in any epistemologically valid way lead us to the conclusion that it works. Cherry-picking cases that confirm the belief and ignoring those that contradict/refute them, on the other hand, is subjective validation and selection bias (and outright cheating--either cheating themselves or duping others as well).

If there is no way of objectively testing, verifying, and knowing if prayer is indeed efficacious then those who claim that it works are guilty of ignorance, bias, or prejudgement. It is extremely pitiable. And it is so because such a belief (meme) is passed down to their progeny. It is the children's intellectual future that I care about. I have no regard for adults past 30 who still literalize mythology. It is their progeny and their descendants that I care about. It breaks my heart to see and hear parents telling their children not to forget to say their prayers, to be good because YahooJuju up above is watching them, that grandma is now living with Him. Lies! How do they know any of these is true?!

We teach our children to be honest. But we break this rule every time we imply by our example and by our imperatives that prayer works. When we pray and when we tell them to say their nightly prayers we lie to them. My own brothers lie to their children, Christians lie to their children and grandchildren. If we are going to be honest with those who inherit our genes then there is only one lesson we can pass on about supernaturalism: We don't know if it is true. We don't know if deities exist. We don't know if prayer works. There simply is no good, compelling evidence for any of these. We may believe but we don't know if any of these things we believe in are true. And that my sons and daughters is the truth.

So Christians are liars. Whether it is Eli Soriano, Pat "one ton leg presser" Robertson, Manalo, Ratzinger, ... --they're all liars. Not one of them has incontrovertible evidence for their theological claims, nor do they provide the methods for testing the same, tests which would provide us intersubjectively verifiable results. They claim to know when they in fact don't.

Another act of god

Woman hit by lightning while praying

Worried about the safety of her family during a stormy Memorial Day trip to the beach, Clara Jean Brown stood in her kitchen and prayed for their safe return as a strong thunderstorm raged through Baldwin County.

Suddenly, lightning exploded, blowing through the linoleum and leaving a pockmarked area on the concrete. Brown wound up on the floor, dazed and disoriented by the blast but otherwise uninjured.

"I said, 'Amen,' and the room was engulfed in a huge ball of fire," she said. "I'm blessed to be alive."

Look, the only reason she got hit is because she was praying to the wrong deity. And so He zapped her to teach her a lesson. Lucky for her He remembered the real god must show not only justice but also mercy, else He would've turned her to cinders with her soul burning eternally in hell.

"Never in my life did I think something like this could happen," James Brown told the Press-Register. "I always thought if you're in a house that you're safe. That's not the case."

Who said you can hide from the all-seeing god?


Moral of the story: Make sure you pray to the real McCoy. And who is he? Thor.

Have any of these benighted bothered asking?

Who would've thought that something as trivial as when to stand and when to kneel would still be up for debate? Well, some Catholics are facing a moral crisis with just that issue.

At a small Catholic church in Huntington Beach, the pressing moral question comes to this: Does kneeling at the wrong time during worship make you a sinner?

Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary's by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran's anti-kneeling edict.

...

"Kneeling is an act of adoration," said Judith M. Clark, 68, one of at least 55 parishioners who have received letters from church leaders urging them to get off their knees or quit St. Mary's and the Diocese of Orange. "You almost automatically kneel because you're so used to it. Now the priest says we should stand, but we all just ignore him."

The debate is being played out in at least a dozen parishes nationwide.

Since at least the 7th century, Catholics have been kneeling after the Agnus Dei, the point during Mass when the priest holds up the chalice and consecrated bread and says, "Behold the lamb of God." But four years ago, the Vatican revised its instructions, allowing bishops to decide at some points in the Mass whether their flocks should get on their knees. "The faithful kneel … unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise," says Rome's book of instructions. Since then, some churches have been built without kneelers.

You know there's an easy way to end all the wrangling. Do what God wants them to do. So does God want them to stand or kneel? Answer not in His book published a thousand years ago? Then why don't they just ask the Supremo?! Isn't it that He's available 24/7? Here let me do it for them.

YO! Big Guy high in the sky. You want your minions and toadies here to kneel or stand? ... Well? ... Sorry, I don't hear you dude ... Satan bit your tongue off or something? ... Hey, we don't have all millennium here you know.... Going once, going twice.... Sheesh! Guess there's no Big Daddy up there after all. Oh well.

Ok, all ye deluded, listen up. Go do whatever you like. Kneel, stand, sit, do somersaults, one-hand stands, kneel and lose yourself in your parish priest's crotch--whatever pleases you, whatever your cockamamie delusions compel you to do. Have a favor to ask though. Can you all book yourselves on the next flight to Pluto? Or better yet, heaven. You're just dying to go there, right? Goooood! Call me if you need help getting there.



Sigh. And for hundreds of generations to come those dang religionists will still be arguing over how many cherubims can tap dance on that pinhead (aka God). Can you imagine Roman priests during the time of Jeebus debating whether an offering of wine or the blood of Jews would please Jupiter more? And these Christians think what they believe in is for real? That out of the thousands of invented deities throughout history it is their invisible, absent, silent god that's the real McCoy?

Shoot me. I'm an alien living on Planet Woowoo.

God's chosen one is on the loose

Remember psychic judge Florentino Floro? He was booted out of office by the Supreme Court. Apparently, he's now hunting down those who wrote and blogged about him. God is for Suckers just received an email from Judge ESP. Here's a snippet:

I never used the word DWARVES in any DECISION, and I never consulted any imaginary dwarf to pen my decisions, my detractors submitted these false evidence or lies; and what I do believed in is: in the so-called SPIRIT GUIDES or PROTECTORS. LUIS, is the KING OF ALL KINGS of ELEMENTALS/spirits worldwide; and he is GOD’s ANGEL (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) What I believe in, is what St. Paul teaches: Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Prophecy and Spiritual Healing. I am GIFTED, and I never tried to develop my psychic powers, since what I believe in, is God’s GIFT to me of these — TO HEAL and TO PROPHESY, I never used these in DECISIONS.

I am not psychotic, and if you read the DECISION, it RULED that I can apply in other government positions that do not require dispensation of justice. I am a victim of INJUSTICE. On September 19, 1995, I stated that Atty. Teresita Cruz-Sison (Judicial and Bar Council Member) would suffer massive STROKE. HER VENGEANCE resulted in the submitting of FALSE EVIDENCE about DWARFS, ANGELS, PSYCHIC PHENOMENA, etc. Here in the Philippines, Judges, Justices are first NOMINATED by the Judicial and Bar Council (who selects 3) and the President of the Philippines appoints a Judge or Justice based on these 3 submissions.

I admit that GOD has chosen me to be the instrument to CLEAN the Philippine Supreme Court and Judiciary of CORRUPTION and abuse of power — by inflicting illnesses....

...

IN SUM, KARMA and the CURSE as we Catholics and Christians believe in have their own ways in revealing the truth; my clerk of court, Atty. Esmeralda G. Dizon, who submitted false evidence about dwarfs and psychic phenomena, to make it appear that I have brain damage, now, her first born, GELAY, 10 years old was inflicted with EPILEPSY, with 2x a week severe attacks. I admit that my GUIDE LUIS did all these, to impress upon the Philippine Judiciary, that receiving BRIBE money and abuse of powers, due to lust for glory, cannot remain unpunished in the laws of these UNSEEN, that are more REAL than we ever imagine. I REPEAT, LUIS, ARMAND AND ANGEL ARE NOT THE LOWLY DWARVES OR GNOMNES BUT SPIRIT GUIDES AND PROTECTORS THAT GOD HAD CHOSES AS INSTRUMENTS TO RID THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY OF MISFITS AND ROTTEN EGGS, THOSE THAT FAIL TO DELIVER IMPARTIAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF MONEY, GREASE OR GRAFT MONEY.

Nuts, man. Plain nuts.

The brain creates supernaturalism.
Supernaturalism screws up the brain.

Hey, wait a minute. I wrote about this woowoo. Why hasn't he spammed me yet? No fair!

The Rat's non-question

The Rat visits Auschwitz and puts on a act:

"To speak in this place of horror, in this place where unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man, is almost impossible -- and it is particularly difficult and troubling for a Christian, for a pope from Germany," he said.

"In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can be only a dread silence," he said, "a silence which itself is a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent?"

Why is Shiva silent? Why is Kuan Yin silent? Why the heck do you suppose each and every supernat hero that's ever been worshipped silent? Geez, do we have to spell it out? Why the hell is it that Superman, Wonder Woman, Spiderman, Ironman, ... have never been around to save anyone in the real world? Duh!

Ang Maputik na Daan (The Muddy Path), or How one gets mired in muck when there's no evidence for one's belief

I think most of us intuitively understand that the final arbiter in any argument as to whether X is true or false, exists or does not exist is evidence. If a party can present incontrovertible and overwhelming evidence for its claim then the matter soon comes to a close. If neither side has any evidence then the debate can hardly end. If the particular claims do not lend themselves to being tested (and are nonfalsifiable), if the claims cannot (perhaps in principle) ever have any evidence either for or against them, then the debate will go on ad infinitum (or until the proponents die out). Without evidence no one can know definitively whether the claims are true or false.

For instance in the case of "facilitated communication," study after study after study has shown that FC does not work as it is touted. Studies have repeatedly shown that when facilitators don't know the answers to the questions then what appears on the computer monitor are incorrect. Only when they know the answers will the child apparently type out the right answers. The implication is clear. It is the facilitator doing the typing (albeit unconsciously, perhaps through the ideomotor effect), not the autistic child. The confuting evidence is so strong that the American Psychological Association in a 1994 resolution stated that "facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communication procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."

On the other hand, supporting evidence for evolution is so overwhelming no biologist in his right mind would even dare suggest that evolution theory is crap. The flood of evidence comes from various fronts: from fossil records, homologies, selection experiments, DNA functional redundancies, transposons, redundant pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, .... While supporting evidence is legion there is thus far no evidence that refutes evolution.

In a recent "row" in an online discussion board the matter of presenting evidence regarding certain issues vis-a-vis Mr. Eliseo Soriano and his Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path) tv program came up. "Evidence counts," declared a Christian who's hardly sympathetic to Soriano, referring to video/audio tapes being aired by rival program Ang Tamang Daan (The Right Path) that's supposedly incriminating, evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Soriano said/did so and so. Failing to firm up his allegations a member of Soriano's group retorted, "you cannot say things [on this forum] without evidence."

Clearly these Christians know that evidence is vital in showing whether a claim is true and not just idle (or libelous) claims. The producers of the Iglesia ni Cristo (trans. Church of God) program Ang Tamang Daan likewise know it is essential that they have proof Soriano said or did whatever it is they're claiming he said or did; thus they present (ad nauseam) a litany of video and audio clips in each of their episodes to make their case. (As to whether these AV clips have been doctored or taken out of context--we won't go off tangent and take up that issue. Needless to say, fudging and doctoring evidence is most unethical. That South Korean stem cell researcher got fired and internationally disgraced for doing exactly that). If there is good evidence for a claim then that claim has a good probability of being true. If there is no evidence then one must doubt whether it is true, and should not believe until such time good evidence is presented. Ostensibly, even Christians of various denominations/sects know the value of and need for evidence.

What is so ironic, therefore, is that the Christian forumers in those discussion threads fail to apply the same test to their core and collective beliefs--that the theological claims in the bible are in fact true. They fail to ask themselves: What objective evidence is there--outside the bible of course--that lend support to the theological claims therein, that evince they are more than just claims/beliefs by ancient writers? How do we know that those theological claims/beliefs actually have a basis in objective reality? Where's the evidence? If there is no good/testable/persuasive/compelling evidence should we believe these claims or must such lack give us pause? Should we ask for evidence only for certain matters while exempting others--specifically our treasured beliefs--from rules of evidence? Why? And what could possibly be the bases/criteria for deciding which matters are to be exempted from the need for evidence? How do we justify these criteria? If there is no evidence or no good evidence for claim Z and if Z is an extraordinary claim which does not cohere with the best of our current fund of knowledge (justified, evidence-based understanding) or if Z is not implied by the same, then is it rational to believe in Z? If so why?

The bias is pretty conspicuous. Evidence--and that means evidence with substance, evidence that will stand up to the rigors of critique (and intersubjective testing/verification)--is sought only for those beliefs that do not accord with what we want to believe in. For those beliefs that we cherish and have invested our hearts in, we relax the demands and requisites, and may not even ask for anything more than having others believing in the same. For instance, if we believe that aliens are in our midst then the flimsiest of evidence--e.g. I saw an unidentified blip streaking across the sky last night! Mr. To Pak said he fought off a couple of aliens trying to abduct him--is used to substantiate the belief. Then when confronted with the fact that such anecdotes don't prove anything and must be critically perused and investigated to rule out various other more parsimonious explanations, we resort to any number of fallacious arguments, or we declare, "Irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Because I believe in them!" And when told that mere belief (faith) does not make something true, that merely believing without evidence is wishful thinking and delusory, we unleash a storm of ad hominems and ad baculums and consign and damn our interrogator to extraterrestrial hell.

Such is the power of (strongly-held) beliefs. The power to derail and cloud our faculty to think clearly, critically, rationally, objectively.

That nostrum called supplements

From Quackwatch:

Comprehensive dietary supplement reports issued. The National Institutes of Health has drafted a "state-of-the-science" report about whether multivitamin/mineral supplements (MVMs) and certain single nutrient supplements can prevent chronic disease. The conclusions expressed by the report's authors include:

• More than half of American adults take MVMs with the belief that they will feel better, have greater energy, improve health, and/or prevent and treat disease.
• Compared with nonusers, supplements takers tend to have a better diet, less need for supplements, and more risk of exceeding the safe upper limit (UL) of some nutrients.
• There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of MVMs by the American public to prevent chronic disease.
• Few high-quality studies have addressed whether one or a few nutrients can prevent chronic disease in American adults, and only a few such studies have yielded positive results.
• With few exceptions, neither beta-carotene nor vitamin E had benefits for preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, cataract, and age-related macular degeneration. Beta-carotene supplementation increased lung cancer risk in smokers and persons exposed to asbestos.
• Folic acid alone or combined with vitamin B12 and/or vitamin B6 had no significant effect on cognitive function.
• Selenium may confer benefit for cancer prevention but not cardiovascular disease prevention.
• Calcium may prevent bone mineral density loss in postmenopausal women and may reduce vertebral fractures, but not non-vertebral fractures. The evidence suggests dose-dependent benefits of vitamin D with or without calcium for retaining bone mineral density and preventing hip and other nonvertebral fractures.
• The FDA lacks the resources to collect adequate data and lacks the legal authority to safely regulate the dosage of individual ingredients.
• Additional research and a mandatory adverse-event reporting system are needed for dietary supplements.

The draft statement was accompanied by a 321-page evidence report. A final statement is expected in July.