OUIJA SQUEEGEE

"...it is surprising how petty some of the "supernatural" miracles now seem. As with spiritualist seances, which cynically offer burblings from the beyond to relatives of the late deceased, nothing

truly interesting is ever said or done."

--Christopher Hitchens, god Is Not Great

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

--Mark 9:42

Let me tell you of a few incidents I have had with a co-worker. Easily one of the largest people I have ever met, the stature of this native of Samoa is surpassed only by his religious assumptions. Not only does he (let's call him Stephen) assume everyone with whom he comes in to contact is religious, Stephen also seems to have forgotten every conversation we have had on religion and super-nature. I have both stated my skepticism of religious claims and challenged his personal beliefs. Yet, he still assumes I pray...

Just before Halloween of last year, another co-worker (let's call her Stephanie) announced that she had seen a super scary movie: Ouija. As she described her terror, which she assures only worsened when the movie ended, and how she had to sleep with the lights on for fear of dark forces assembling against her, Stephanie pointed out that films about monsters and slashers don't scare her as much as dark supernatural movies. Films about demons and black magic and the dead communicating with the living via a children's toy made by Mattel are totally different and much scarier because they "could actually happen."

Since this occurred before any patients were awake (I generally avoid these conversations in front of patients), I poked fun at Stephanie's pronouncement that such magical things could really happen. This led to an interesting conversation with several co-workers who all seem to think black magic and Ouija boards are real. Seriously, I was literally the only person who did not believe that Ouija boards could relay messages from the dead.

I explained group-think mentality and how one's desire to believe a proposition influences one's perception of events. I explained how the ideomotor effect can lead a group of people to believe that their collective involuntary movements are really a demonic influence.

I even pointed them all to a specific episode of Penn and Teller's B.S., wherein the two veteran magicians thoroughly debunk Ouija boards by blindfolding participants and changing the position of the board. The test subjects collectively moved the board piece to where they thought certain words were located on the board--not where the words actually were. If the board was communicating with dead spirits, the testers would have moved to where the words actually were, rather than where they thought the words were.

To put it simply, there is ample evidence that Ouija boards do not communicate with the dead. So, I asked the rational follow up question: if there is a reasonable natural explanation for a given phenomenon, why would you accept a supernatural explanation?

Not to be out done by reasoned argumentation, Stephen shared an experience he had within his own family. Stephen's cousin, who is also quite large, went on a visit to Samoa. Upon returning, Stephen's cousin was "not himself". He was distant, and full of rage. Stephen's aunt swore that while on his trip, Stephen's cousin had been possessed by a demon. Stephen offered to help, and, with another cousin, he attempted to exorcise the demon.

During the ritual, Stephen's cousin thrashed about and threw Stephen and his other cousin across the room a few times. Stephen reported that his cousin's eyes were pure black and he couldn't focus on Stephen or anyone else in the room. It was all very intense. I do not doubt that the facts of the story (Stephen being tossed around and his cousin's eyes being black and vacant, etc.) all happened more or less as Stephen described.

You see, Stephen works with mental patients. He witnesses rage and vacant eyes in patients at work and doesn't immediately assume it is demonic in nature. It seems that the main reason Stephen assumes demonic possession in the case of his cousin is because his cousin tossed him across the room--something which rarely happens to a man of Stephen's size. But, as I pointed out, Stephen's cousin is also quite large. It would be more impressive if Stephen had been thrown by a small child, rather than another 350 pound Samoan.

I shared an experience I had with a patient who claimed to be possessed (she also had black, vacant eyes, and was quite strong). After her ordeal (she stabbed her wrist with a pencil over 40 times and bit off chunks of her arm, which she either spit at me or swallowed--all while asking to be taken to a church), a debriefing was called for staff with the resident psychiatrist.

The doctor explained the psychological process of mental dissociation (becoming completely disconnected with one's surroundings, often hallucinating). The patient was not actually possessed and there is a clearly understood scientific explanation for her behavior and physical symptoms. So, again I asked: if there is a reasonable natural explanation for a given phenomenon, why would you accept a supernatural explanation?

Stephen never responded to my counter argument, but clearly he understood that I do not agree with him on supernatural claims. Surely he would not be so quick to assume in the future that my position on supernatural phenomena is the same as his. Surely...

A few weeks ago, Stephen got in to an argument with a patient about god. The patient, who is a minor, revealed that she doesn't pray because she doesn't believe in god. Stephen took it upon himself to convince her that there is a god (Mormons...). To be clear, the company for which we both work frowns on this.

Stephen asked her why she doesn't believe in god. The patient responded that for the first ten years of her life she was abused physically and sexually. She prayed every day for god to save her, but nothing happened.

Undeterred, Stephen pointed out that god answers prayers in different ways: yes, no and maybe. He then looked right at me and said, "Isn't that right, Matt?"

With a tone of surprise and fluster, I responded, "Don't ask me!"

I was furious, but I did not intervene because I had confidence that the patient could hold her own. After all, platitudes are small comfort to victims of abuse.

The patient responded that she still wasn't sure of Stephen's assertion. So, Stephen offered the following anecdote to further prove that god answers prayers:

A man is stranded on top of a house during a flood. As the water rises to dangerous levels, a boat approaches the man and offers to save him from certain death. The man declines the offer and says, "Don't worry, god will save me!" Another boat comes and offers to save the man, and the man declines again in the same way. "God will save me!" A third boat comes and the man declines yet again. The man dies.

Entering heaven, the bewildered man approaches god and cries, "god, why didn't you save me?"

God replies, "Save you? I sent three boats after you!"

This is the evidence Stephen offers a seventeen year old girl who doesn't believe in god because, for the first ten years of her life, she cried to god to save her from daily sexual and physical abuse, but never received an answer.

She was unimpressed by Stephen's story, and seemed to just want the conversation to end. In essence, Stephen told this young woman that god did answer her prayers; she just didn't recognize it. This is classic blaming the victim.

If I had knowledge of a child being raped right now, and I had the power to stop it, I would be under a moral obligation to intervene. If I did not do everything I could to stop it, I would be a monster worse than anything in Stephanie's scary movies.

God allegedly sees every child being raped at this very moment and he has the capacity to end it. Yet he doesn't. Why does god get a pass? His ways are higher than ours? He is mysterious? Our morality doesn't apply to god? He has a greater purpose in mind? To preserve the free-will of the offender? What about the free-will of the child being raped?

Basically this line of reasoning suggests that god uses rape to teach children valuable life lessons. Disgusting. Ah, but god will help you find your misplaced car keys, or align all the traffic lights to be green on your way to work...

I admit that there is a difference between the morality of Stephen's god and my own morals: my morals are better.

There is only one moral answer to a child suffering this kind of daily abuse. It is not "no, you will learn a lesson which will make you stronger"; nor is it "maybe, we'll see"; it isn't even sending metaphorical "boats" which the child must recognize in order to be useful. There is only one ethical, acceptable answer to a child asking an all-powerful being to spare them abuse: "yes, I will stop it immediately." Anything short of this is evil.




BONUS MATERIAL:

Penn and Teller debunking Ouija boards:

EYES WIDE SHUT

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are skeptical."
--Friedrich Nietzsche






Today I was accused of being closed-minded for not accepting some "evidence" concerning 9/11 being an inside job. While this is not exactly a religious topic, it does deal with general skepticism which is something that I highly recommend--especially for the religious.

The funny thing is that this person once asked me what my thoughts were on why so many people believe in god. I don't recall my specific answer to his question, but usually my response to such inquiries is that people tend to be pretty bad skeptics when it comes to analyzing their own beliefs. This person seems to be confusing skepticism through empiricism with conspiratorial thinking by taking a bunch of dots and swearing that they are somehow connected.

Here is the basic problem I have with the evidence provided tonight: Let's grant that all of the coincidental claims, disappearing planes, information withheld by the government, strange comments by building owners, inexplicable puffs of smoke coming out of the buildings as though it were a syncopated detonation and any other provocative claims are all completely true and accurate. Oh, and the conspicuously placed thermite in the basement. Don't forget the thermite. How does one go from "gee, those are weird coincidences" to "the government did it"? There is a disconnect in the reasoning.

Even if one could conclusively show--through verifiable evidence--that the buildings really were demolished with planted explosives, how do you know that the government was the culprit? Let's not forget that the administration being accused of such fatuous crimes is the very same administration which took 5 days to get water to the Superdome after hurricane Katrina, and went to war with Iraq because of bad information about weapons of mass destruction. Do you really have that much confidence in their ability to pull off an attack on their own country and flawlessly pin it on some terrorist on the other side of the world? AND THEN get that terrorist to claim to be responsible all along? A quick stroke of Occam's Razor should dispel any doubts of Osama bin Laden's guilt on that day.

Now, it could be that this person is right. I mean, it is possible. But at this moment he is working off of unsubstantiated, and in some cases debunked claims, which seem all too mysterious and suggestive for him. This is no different than people who claim that god exists simply because the universe is too orderly to be explained without such a creative force to start it. This is an argument from ignorance masquerading as skepticism.









BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Penn and Teller on conspiracy theories, including 9/11 (explicit):

DOWN WITH THE SICKNESS

"Why, if god was the creator of all things, were we supposed to 'praise' him so incessantly for doing what came to him naturally? This seemed servile, apart from anything else. If Jesus could heal a blind person he happened to meet, then why not heal blindness? What was so wonderful about his casting out devils, so that the devils would enter a herd of pigs instead? That seemed sinister: more like black magic."
--Christopher Hitchens, author "god is Not Great"





I have already criticized Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses for denying medical treatment for religious reasons, and frankly, most religious people seem to agree with me that it is both ridiculous and dangerous to do so. But there is still much work to be done in the treatment of mental illness as well as therapy and counseling, as many churches still claim to have spiritual remedies for these things. I'm not even talking about shams like reparative therapy for homosexuals; I'm talking about things like demonic possession (or as doctors call it: schizophrenia and dissociation), marriage counseling, and even anorexia.

My work has some interesting opportunities and among my responsibilities is to work with teenage girls, many of whom have body image issues. Typically, when a girl is struggling with a food disorder we put her on "tray watch" and basically force her to eat a proper amount of food as outlined by her dietitian. This is all well and good while in treatment, but often times they fall back on old habits once they leave. For most of these girls, food disorders will be a constant struggle for the rest of their lives, in much the same way that a recovering alcoholic never really gets over their desire to drink, even if they are sober for many years. This is the nature of addiction.

Now, many religious people realize that health professionals are the best consultants for these kinds of things, but every once in a while I come across someone who thinks that the only way to overcome things like addiction or food disorders is through a belief in god. Not just any god, but their particular god. Case in point, I recently read an article on "The World's Thinnest Woman" which describes the tragic story of a 5ft 8in middle-aged woman who weighs about 60lbs. In the comment section, I found a comment which disturbed me:

"Ow My God , i can imagine this women must suffer a lot, i live even in this area if one day i have the opportunity to see her, i will just say her that Jesus can make something for her and if people are bad sometimes God is still good and loves his kids however they can be, as its my work to spread the words of God, he is still making miracle all over the world right now.
I will include prayer for this lady me and my ministries for this lady , i believe she will recover soon just accepting Jesus ad Lord and Savior." [emphasis added]

This "minister" clearly does not understand food disorders, which are psychological in nature. Their advice that she just needs to accept Jesus in order to overcome her illness is insulting, since a) she probably already is a Christian, given her place of birth, b) if believing in Jesus really was the cure for anorexia, then Christians should never struggle with it, and c) "b" is a testable claim which, if verified, would change modern medicine and the discoverer of this remedy would likely win a Nobel Prize.

The woman in the article is reported to have seen up to 30 specialists, which is an impressive number, to be sure. However, no information is given about the programs she has used, or where they were located, but given that she is a Russian native, I can imagine what they were like, since I lived in Eastern Europe for two years and I have some idea as to the quality of health care in that area of the world. Suffice it to say, even the office plants were sickly.

My educated opinion is that she would benefit greatly from any number of programs in the US. She will continue to fight her illness for the rest of her life, but with a program utilizing the very best medical care she would likely gain some headway.

It is common for people to go to church leadership for advice on various issues. In cases where the person just needs a listening ear or a shoulder to cry on, this is very often sufficient for them to feel better about their circumstances. They might even recieve some useful bit of information. But at times, as the comment above would suggest, religious learders overstep their level of expertise (which is usually none) and offer religious counsel when they should be referring a medical professional.

Lastly, about a month ago I witnessed my first demonic possession. A couple of weeks later I witnessed my second. In both cases, nothing supernatural actually occurred. There was no super human strength, voice of the devil or spewing of bile. In fact, there was a very clear psychological explanation for these events: dissociation, which is similar to Dissociative Identity Disorder (aka multiple personalities). But it is easy to imagine how primitive peoples with no understanding of psychology might think it really was a demon.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Penn and Teller on Exorcisms (Explicit):

CRIME SANS VICTIMS

"Indeed, what is startling about the notion of a victimless crime is that even when the behavior in question is genuinely victimless, its criminality is still affirmed by those who are eager to punish it. It is in such cases that the true genius lurking behind many of our laws stands revealed. The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin."
--Sam Harris, author "The End of Faith"




What happens when someone uses science incorrectly? First, it has the potential to mislead people. Second, it opens the floodgates of scrutiny.

Now, I don't read the newspaper often, but I am aware that some newspapers are politically, and in some cases religiously biased. For instance, I have heard a number of my more conservative friends and family bash the New York Times for being too liberal or progressive. This may be true of the opinions shared in the paper, but I don't think anyone has shown the NY Times completely and utterly misusing science. This is, however, something which the Deseret News (a pro-Mormon newspaper in Utah) has been caught doing recently.

The headline from an article published yesterday reads: "Link found between porn use and supporting same-sex marriage". The article itself shamelessly and inaccurately tries to show how support for gay marriage "may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts." In other words, if you watch porn, you will start to favor gay marriage, two things which the Mormon Church has spent countless time and money fighting against, perhaps more so than any other social issues.

This article is intended to strike fear and alarm in the minds of faithful, chaste and not the least bit perverse Mormons. What better way to scapegoat one condemned activity than by "linking" it to another? Why not apply this to other things, while we are at it? Masturbation is linked to bank robbing, and swearing is linked to stabbing puppies in the eyes with rusty soldering irons on Christmas Eve. See? It's easy.

Well, the claim is so outrageous and fallacious and completely unfounded by any actual science that some rather clever people have been issuing responses to the article, such as "Link Found Between Pedophilia and Reading the Deseret News". This blog response has some good points and useful links which show how the Deseret News is as bad at social science as they are at moral crusades.

One point the blog makes, which occurred to me as I read the news article, is that Utah has the highest porn use per household in the US (interestingly, porn use goes down temporarily on Sundays). This means that if the hypothesis is true that viewing pornography changes your views to be in favor of gay marriage, then Utah should also be at the forefront of the gay marriage movement. But, as anyone who is the least bit familiar with California's Proposition 8 can tell you, Utahns (at least Mormons) vehemently and monetarily oppose gay marriage. So, which is it, Deseret News?

There is one thing in common between porn and gay marriage which I can think of, and that is that both are opposed exclusively for religious reasons. All arguments against homosexuality and pornography seem to come from religions and their own moral codes. Ultimately, I don't have a problem with them denying science in order to condemn whatever they want. But I do have a big problem when they try to legislate against such things for people not of their religion. It is wrong and immoral to do so.



On a lighter note, today I came across a site which outlines the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Note: everything they say is scientifically verifiable, if a little exaggerated.


BONUS MATERIAL:

And here is Penn and Teller on the War on Porn (warning: very explicit):

Part 1

Part 2

APOCALYPSE NOW-ISH

This is all I'm going to post about the Mayan calendar ending this Friday (12/21/12), seeing how it is so ridiculous (warning: explicit):

Part 1

Part 2

DEBUNK-A-DUNK

For those who don't know, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) has issued a fabulous prize of one million dollars (see left) for anyone who can provide conclusive evidentiary support for any paranormal or supernatural claim. It doesn't matter if it is telepathy, homeopathy, dowsing, astrology, mindreading, bending spoons or keys, talking to the dead, or proving the existence of god, ghosts or invisible pink unicorns; if it is paranormal or supernatural and you have proof that it is real, the JREF will give you one million dollars. So, how many people have won this prize? Zero people...

Despite having some form of this challenge since 1964, the JREF has never had anyone provide indisputable proof of anything supernatural or paranormal, but not for lack of applicants. Here is James Randi explaining the challenge:

James Randi, a successful magician himself, has ruffled feathers for years among his colleagues as he has exposed a number of them as charlatans and frauds, who willfully deceive gullible audiences with claims of being true-blue mystics and psychics and the like. Just as he did to psychic Uri Gellar on the Johnny Carson Show (on live TV!), and a few years later, the imfamous Christian Evangelist Peter Popoff:

Mr Randi is not the only magician seeking to expose opportunistic frauds who prey on the credulous. Here is Criss Angel (successfully) taunting "paranormalist" Jim Callahan with his own money on live television (note: Uri Gellar, who was previously exposed as a fraud by James Randi, is also on the show, and wouldn't you know it, he believes Mr Callahan is the real deal...):

Good stuff, and even better television. One more: Here is dynamic-duo, Penn and Teller, debunking astrology (explicit):

So, why am I spending all this time on debunking supernatural mumbo-jumbo, malarcky, and jibbery-joo? Because the same tactics used by illusionists to defame charlatans can be used to debunk many, if not all, religious claims. For me, atheism is a logical extension of my skepticism. I have no more reason to believe in god than ghosts, star alignment, or the boogey man. Provide me with a rational, empirical reason to believe in god, and I will not only believe, but I will submit your proof to James Randi and give you the money you deserve. I may even eat my hat.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is musician, comedian, and atheist extraordinaire Tim Minchin pretty much agreeing with me:

And one more from Mr Minchin on confronting a "New Ager":