It Just Raises Too Many Questions

I've been listening to Ed and Lorraine Warren books and... I have questions.

Ghosts

They say that ghosts come about because people's lives are cut short for one reason or another. While not everyone who dies early will become a ghost, we would expect the same chance of becoming a ghost across all situations, which means... We are about to hit 8 billion people, and some percentage should be ghosts... so there should be more ghosts than ever before? Where are they then?

Demons

If you do bad things, you get demons. Try a ouija board? Demons. Acknowledge Satan? Demons. Do any kind of bad thing? Demons. But it's not just what you do. If you are somewhere where someone else did bad things, then you might still get Demons. So again... they should be everywhere? Unless there's only like five demons in total for everywhere? Or does so many people being atheists mean the demons get to hide? But then highly religious places should be acknowledging demons all over the place.

Religion

But that that relies on culture acknowledging demons. Which, according to the Warrens, can only be fought by calling on Jesus Christ. So... a Shinto Priest would have no effect? Asking Mohammad to intervene does nothing? Pleading to Shiva is entirely useless? Phew, just fortunately we got at least some of it right to hit on the right religion 2000 years ago.

Evidence

The Warrens say they have plenty of tape, both audio and video. Let's see it then. Lots of things flying around, okay, show us. Lorraine got the highest ESP score at Berkeley, oh yeah, where's that then? Ed says you can photograph tombstones and ivy grows on there in the form of the buried people's faces, sounds great let's do a double blind test around that then!

Technology

With all our phones and such around, we should have more video than ever. Although with how easy it is to manipulate video, I will acknowledge that this is tricky. But still, should still have tons of video.

One person they cite is William James: "Why do so few 'scientists' even look at the evidence for telepathy, so called? Because they think, as a leading biologist, now dead, once said to me, that even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band together to keep it suppressed and concealed. It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pursuits." ... Who is this leading biologist who said that? Who would even say that?? We want evidence, give it to us!!!

Yeah, some questions.

[END]

Read more!

Borls Rect

I've heard good things about this movie, so of course I have to give it a go.

This movie is the history of Borley Rectory. In that it is replicating scenes that were given in various books, in a rather black and white style with basic effects layers on it. Don't expect anything new, or for this to go in any particular direction, it is simply various moments dramatised.

Oddly, it starts with "everyone saw the photos of Harry Price, but not his movies", but doesn't actually do anything with it. That would have been a great launching point for their own thing, but nope, just various moments portrayed on screen.

So in all, I'm not really impressed by this. And at the end, they rather irresponsibly say "the supernatural events are still on-going". No! Leave Borley alone! This was years ago now, and they don't need people tramping all over the place.

Indeed, you'd think we've have discovered a more "haunted" place than this by now. If there was anything to hauntings in the first place...

[END]

Read more!

Hebrew Bible

This is the other series by Shaye Cohen I saw on iTunes, and it is about how Judaism and Christianity view the Bible.

And the first thing I feel to point out is that this Christianity isn't one we would largely recognise from modern day, but from a more theological viewpoint. To pick one example, consider circumcision. This is seen as a mark of the Jews, and Christians would say 'Jesus was circumcised so we don't need to be', and yet circumcision is largely mainstream these days. And don't tell me it's for medical reasons, it's from religion sources because the medical science ain't in on it, and yet it happens anyway.

Also there are a lot of fine points about why Christians view things differently, and how Jews react to that, but I highly doubt most people think from that perspective. Instead it's just what we are taught, and largely take on board by a kind of osmosis in church teachings. Some things Christians do have as a cultural idea, of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, of Jews being responsible for Jesus' death, and so on, but I doubt largely anyone would be able to cite the sources discussed here.

So while this is interesting, I would like a course about modern day Christianity. Actually, speaking of courses I would like, one that goes into the differences between the different types of Christianities, for example Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, etc, etc… There's a decent lecture for you!

[END]

Read more!

Hebrew Bibble

Another iTunes course, this one on the Hebrew Bible as presented by Shaye Cohen. I have to admit that I like him. He's a rather liberal modern scholar, willing to accept that the bible is a constructed work and there are some things we don't know about it.

But going through it, this is making the bible feel like Post Hoc Rationalisation. The bible is often used for that, but in this case, it's more that the Israeli people did things, needed to explain and justify why they did things, why there were the way they were, and this is the story they came up with.

Cohen did a follow up course looking more at the Hebrew bible and Christianity... on to that next!

[END]

Read more!

Apologetics 5

I don’t really have a problem with the problem of evil, as there are some answers even I can come up with. While this is a problem and needs to be thought about, here are some glib possibilities.

Like a parent with a child, sometime you need to let the child experience trouble in order to learn. Thus does God let mankind encounter evil.

Or how about:

God has decreed that mankind should have dominion over this world (Genesis 1:28). Well, get subduing people! You should be able to predict and prevent, if not mitigate. Currently, we can't even deal with the results.

Usually the problem of evil is the problem of omnipotent vs omnibenevolent. Typical excuses are "god can't do anything about it" (so not omnipotent) or "you don’t understand evil" (in which case we can't talk about anything) or "god doesn't care" (not omnibenevolent) or "free will!" (which means god isn’t omnipotent enough to give us free will and not commit evil?).

My answer, while glib, does at least give the "it's good for us" excuse and frames it in a way we can comprehend (parent), and covers both natural and human evil. Why aren't the Apologists using this?

[END]

Read more!

Apologetics 4

I have some basic issues with religious set up.

The basic cosmological argument is that the universe is here, whence universe?, thus god. You could asked "who created god?" but there’s a more basic step. This is a problem of "as below, so above". This assumes there is an "outside of the universe", fine, but then assumes that the rules for "cause/effect" or "motion" that are in our universe also exist in outside the universe and thus needs an explanation. I don't see any reason for assuming that other than it makes your argument easier.

And then even if you get to a creator, that's just putting a label on an event, it doesn't imply Christianity.

Which reminds me of what annoys me about Christianity and any religion that relies on passing on knowledge… it relies on passing on knowledge! If we overnight forget about Moses and Jesus and Mohammad and all the others, and the religious texts disappeared… will we be able to work out that these people existed and we should believe in them and their messages? I can't buy that. Which means that we are screwed, according to them, as they are the ones who led us to salvation.

(As a side note, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve… and yet after the flood, this should mean that everyone is descended from Noah and his family, but no-one goes on about that.)

You want my take on a believable religion? Okay, picture a guy in a lab. He's sitting on a stool thinking. He's thinking about a universe that he's running in his head, mentally, from a Big Bang through to the Big Nothing. When he wants to, he can focus on a particular part in his mental model and change it if he wants. That guy is god.

Enjoy!

[END]

Read more!

Apologetics 3

The last section is the actual proofs and discussions. I'm not going to go over them because I don't have that much time, but while I was listening to the whole course I kept up a muttering commentary of objections, which says it all.

Among the logical fallacies on display were circular reasoning, strawman, argument from ignorance, false equivalence, nirvana fallacy, much special pleading and a large dollop of hypocrisy. (So often I thought 'now, if you just display the sense to turn that argument around on yourself and answer it… nope, you just avoid it.')

Listening to all this and the arguments presented, I wonder how many people actually tried them out in debate, rather than come up with arguments against the objections they thought were being given. I would also be interested if any of them actually sought out what apologists of other religions said. I'm fairly sure the Jews and Muslims might have some disagreements with what's said here, let alone Buddhists, Deists and Atheists. But I'm also fairly sure that that isn't likely to happen.

So I gave this a go, but it clearly didn’t meet my expectations of an actual challenge. Try again?

[END]

Read more!

Apologetics 2

The second part of the course covers going over Apologetics from time past. There are two main things of note here for me.

The first is that all these people are in agreement about Christianity, but they disagree with each other over how best to convince others. An argument that works for one is pooh-pooh'd by a later theologian who has his own view. (And by 'his' I mean that women don't even get a look in.) If none of these people can agree among themselves, why should I think they've got it right now and the next person who comes along won't throw that out as rubbish and come up with a new approach? That said, there's no reason for me not to accept that now might be right.

The other point is that it kind of feels like "how's this argument? Do you like it? If not, don't worry, we'll come up with another one shortly." [Insert your own reference to how this is evolution here.] That said, it doesn't feel like they spend much time really testing their arguments against actual skeptics, but that's for the third part.

[END]

Read more!

Apologetics 1

Out of interest, you know sort of "give me your best shot", I decided to listen to a Christian Apologetics course through iTunes University and found a course by the Reformed Theological Society present by Dr John Frame. As you might guess, I’m now a Christian, because bad argument is all that was needed to sway me.

As it was broken up into three parts, I’ll discuss each part separately.

The first section is on epistemology, how do we know? Dr Frame sets up the groundwork of what he calls Presuppositional Apologetics. The presupposition part relates to the basic foundation on which everything rest, for him it is the bible, for me it is reason. It is ‘presupposition’ in that the idea trumps all over thoughts, not that that’s where you start. It might just be me, but I don’t think that word means what you think it does.

Dr Frame also outlines why Apologetics.  1 Peter 3:15

3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

And he also outlines what an unbeliever is, Romans 1:18-21

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

See if you can spot any logical fallacies here. The main one is circular reasoning / begging the question, which is the heart of his argument. But he claims we do this too, so that’s all right. (I’m not sure if that is a whole new logical fallacy.)

[END]

Read more!

Jealous Girl

Lennon thought "Run for your life" was the worst song ever, so wrote one about that. And didn't actually do much better.


In this case, he was a jealous guy... no wait, then he says he is a jealous guy. This is the sort of "I didn't mean to hurt you" that can be insidious.

One person admits they have a problem... but don't actually do anything about it, but makes the other think they can change.

None of these are good, but now you can pick a tune for your wrongness.

[END]

Read more!

House Girl

Let's suger coat the violence, shall we?


Baby, baby, baby, baby... yes, it's Elvis! It's also the origin of the line "I'd rather see you dead, little girl, than to be with another man." But it's wrapped up in Elvis' cheery upbeat tune.

Which is how domestic violence can be. The person is all right, really, except for every now and then there's this streak that comes through... that can be hard to spot and then even harder to accept.

But there's still another kind.

[END]

Read more!

Run Girl

Good news everyone! I've found some theme songs for domestic violence!


This is... the Beatles? Really? But yes, written by John Lennon, it features such lyrics as "if I catch you with another man that's the end" and "I'd rather see you dead, little girl, that to see you with another man".

Now, this is the sort of violence that most people, from the outside, would take note of and say "that's wrong". (Although it's likely the partner wouldn't believe there was any real danger.)

Still, it is obvious violence, and that's one problem.

[END]

Read more!

Radio Unlive

There's a recent advert for Radio Live that's been playing in front of YouTube videos, so I've seen it more than enough times. Go check it out!

The ad itself isn't that bad. It's pointing out that debate is a good thing, and there should be more of it, and Radio Live is a vehicle through which debate can happen. Fine.

But then someone says:

There'd be no debate on climate change.

And here's the problem. THERE IS NO DEBATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, unless you are interested in manufacturing one where there is none to get people talking and filling air time until the next advert!

This isn't a sign of a healthy radio station, interested in keeping the vital art of debate alive. This is a sign of people looking for controversy where there is none in order to keep their paychecks.

Screw you, Radio Live.

[END]

Read more!

A whole lot of Toot

They say (whoever they are) that you learn something new every day. For instance, the other day, I learnt that the Mount Vic Tunnel is haunted.

Ya what now?

It seems that back when the tunnel was constructed, one man killed his significant other and buried her body. And now her ghost haunts the tunnel. But don't worry, you can ward it off by tooting. And that's why people toot inside the tunnel.

Yep. That's why. No other reason.

For example, people like being annoying and the toots echo nicely in the tunnel. And that's a popular tunnel at night, especially when drunk, when tooting might be the thing to do. Just like in the Terrace Motorway Tunnel, only people don't talk about that being haunted.

Never mind that I never heard of that story and my family have tooted in there all the time.

So no. Just no. Move along, preferably with respecting the noise level, but there's no ghost to see here.


[END]

Read more!

Understanding the Chinese Room

I've seen this argument in a few places, and it seems to me that those people drew the wrong conclusions from it.

In the Chinese Room is someone who doesn't understand Chinese. But they have instructions, in English, that tells them how to manipulate symbols; basically they have an algorithm. They take an input (which is some sentence in Chinese), run through the algorithm and output some other symbols (a reply in Chinese).

Now, to the person from the outside, it may look like the process is able to speak in Chinese, but has there been any actual understanding of Chinese? Is there any actual conscience involved in the process that is cognizant of what is happening? (Beyond just someone running an algorithm on things they don't understand.)

This is usually presented in terms of Artificial Intelligence, and shows that even if we have a machine that can converse in Chinese, the machine doesn't actually understand what is going on. And thus it doesn't have a mind, and we need something else to get actual understanding...

However, what this reads to me is: if we can't tell that the machine isn't speaking Chinese, how do we know that someone who reportedly does speak Chinese actual does so? Can we demonstrate that people understand and aren't just machines processing according to an algorithm?

This opens up the idea of philosophical zombies, and Searle, who created the Chinese Room idea, replies with "well of course we know that people are different with understanding and stuff"... which, to me, is special pleading.

Now, admittedly, this is a rather Operationalist view of the world, which leads to other problems, but if you can't tell the difference between a sophisticated replication and the real thing, is there a difference?

[END]

Read more!

Binary Scam

I admit, I gave in to the ads... there is one pop up ad in particular that caught my attention (and who wouldn't?) of "earn an extra $1000 a week!". Let this is a cautionary tale...

Binary Options are a form of stock market gambling in which you say whether or not the stock will rise or fall. Not by how much, just if it rises or falls. If you get it right, you win! If you don't, you lose everything!

The site I'm with is OptionsMint, and when I looked for reviews, I found sites like "optionmintreview.com". Erm... suspicious much? Oh, and the headquarters is in Belize. Over in Central America. The hub of everything stock market related...

Now, this is easy, but so far it's also looking random. Stocks going up? Ah, but in the last second it fell 0.0002 cents, so burn!

I've only put the minimal amount of money in, and only bidding the minimal amounts... and so far, as of when I type this, I am 0/2. So yeah, plenty of cash in my pocket...

As I said, cautionary tale. I'll update in some time to see how I'm doing, but consider that cash flushed away...

[END]

Read more!

1+2+3+4+...

What do you get when you add 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... on to infinity? Did you say -1/12? You're right!

According to a certain understanding of how to play with infinite series and such. Oh, and don't say 'converges', because that's wrong.

(Another take.)

And now I've found another video series I might get distracted by...

[END]

Read more!

Death rights?

I didn't think I had anything to post about... then I opened the local rag...

Workers eating at 'sacred' offend Maori, says MP

Because they were eating near human remains. Um... so no eating near cemetaries either? Tell that to families that want to enjoy time with a loved one whose passed. Although in this case there is the extra factor of the site bein wahi tapu, which encompasses a lot of area. But all burial grounds are... so are caretakers supposed to eat off site then? And those archeologists, they all have to down tools and leave whenever they take a smoko?

I am being deliberately flippant here, because I have no respect... and yes, I expect people to eat inside churchs too.

Pool blessed after aqua-jogger dies

The article is more about Motuiliu Groom, and after some incidents near pools myself, I know I'm not going to be the first to snark on that aspect... but then there's the one line about the pool opening after it is been blessed... because it needed to be blessed? Do road accident areas need to be blessed before they can be used? People die. I'm going to die! If we get squemish over every death, we're never going to get anywhere!

Tell you what, when I die, you have full permission to heave my body out of the way and use whatever it was I was at at the time. My non-spirit won't come back and haunt you.

[END]

Read more!

You will all wave

I've seen this ad a few times in cinemas. (Note this is the Australian version, I think in New Zealand the limit is $80. I'm never going to use it myself because I can see this being even easier to rip details from cards from people just wandering nearby someone with a paywave card... but that's not the point of this post.)


What we have it people doing the same thing, walking along in a queue, eating the same sandwich, which is created in the same way. There's that triple shot, which to me epitomises this ad, of the guys flipping the ties over their shoulders before they start eating... and then there's the guy with cash.

Now, watching this, what we see is mass production/standardisation/commercialisation that drains out any sense of creativity or individuality. People are cogs in a machine, don't think, just do the same thing day after day...

And then the guy with cash comes along and upsets everything. Look at the shock on people's faces! They can't believe this! They stop eating! They drop food! Someone is using CASH???

But... this is the guy that isn't going with the crowd, is doing his own thing, is not giving in to the mindless drone mentality. Why is he being portrayed as the bad guy? Hell, in this ad which promotes groupthink, he's the guy we should be rooting for! Break the system! Tear down the rules! Make the person behind the till have to make change!

I'm not sure the people creating this ad quite got the point...

[END]

Read more!

Watching the Ghosts

This was a documentary done by the BBC in 1992. It is a recording of a live show where a group of people investigate a haunted house, and it was hosted by Michael Parkinson! I watched this, and so did a Jet Simian.

There's the most haunted house in England, with recorded phenomena of a poltergeist affecting a family of a single mother and her two children. The BBC give over an hour (although they end up running longer because of events) one Halloween to run cameras there and see if anything happens. Michael Parkinson is in the studio with paranormal specialist Dr Lin Pascoe, and at the house outside is Craig Charles (yes, that one) and in the house is Sarah Greene. Nothing happens for a while, and they cut back to the studio where callers ring in, but then there are bumps... which is traced to one of the children. But then more tapping occurs, things fall off the walls, and people get hurt, and the studio goes haywire...

It's the most amazing demonstration of paranormal investigation that I've ever seen, with very dramatic results.

...

Now this is how you do it! A slow build of atmosphere, keep it subtle, but definitely have something progressing over time! This is where Paranormal Activities and the ilk fail so hard. Just a simple house, two levels, just a bedroom and a kitchen, and yet... bam! Complete with the studio set up, and completely treated as how the BBC would handle such an investigation! If only we could have investigations like this and have these kinds of results! Everything thing was just done brilliantly...

And you might be able to watch for yourself Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Please, America, just stop. The BBC did it far better than you did, over twenty years ago.

[END]

Read more!