Extra Credit - When Gods Decay

When Gods Decay is a short book which lays out for us the steps we take in life and how we can easily move to and from religions based on our mentality at the time. We go through processes of rationality, just like religions go through processes of birth, change, and split, leading to rebirth. We are all moving and changing, and we find ourselves led to religion from an intrinsic psycho-social makeup in ourselves.

Religions will always exist, but they will always die, change, and split (re-birthing). This is what has happened for years and years and Nietzsche himself recognized the inability for humanity to cope with life without meaning and purpose. This is why religion is so important to humanity. But for religions to survive they must adapt with the times. As science, mentalities, and “cultures” change a religion must adapt partially so if it is to stay alive and be accepted. For acceptance and growth it is important that it is relatively simple to present and not to extreme so that man will not be deterred. It is utterly important that a religion be easy to replicate or such a religion will not live long nor grow.

For us as humans we are also growing and our ideas are changing. In the process we find ourselves confronting many questions that religions seem to answer for us at the time. But as we move along and our minds continue to move along as well, we start thinking in other forms, more rational and scientific sometimes, and we begin to lose our religion. As Nietzsche said, “God is dead…and we have killed him.” Our God no longer fits us and we kill him off. But we don’t kill off all gods and religions, but we take up a new one which fits our needs most.

“God is dead and we have killed him…but look! God is resurrected and he seems a little different. I like this God and I will embrace him.” As so it is as we move forward and change, us and religion(s).

Double Extra Credit - Nicholas of Cusa

This short film was very indirect and ambiguous, but I think that is the point. If we are to truly find meaning in things, find the truths, we must not go into to something with everything already made up in our minds. We should have no presuppositions. Like the scientists who work hard to make their data come close to the data of previous testers, they were not honestly just testing and researching. They had previous ideas and thought that they had to build off of them. If we are to find truth, we cannot make something be an unchangeable factor, there should not even be a something. We should seek with great ignorance. When we do so, we will be able to find the truths as they really are, not as we perceive them or as they coincide with what we already think and believe. But when we come to learn that we also should not hold into it, but rather enter the process again in total ignorance so that we may again receive pure truth as it is revealed.
In the film the ship seems to be moving around with no real straight forward direction until he comes in contact with a planet, then he quickly keeps moving on with no specific direction. This is how we are to seek, going with total ignorance and ended up where we end up, then we will find these planets as they are and where they are. But we are not to take these bits of knowledge and make them our base for everything else, but rather we are to go out again and seek pure honest truth with no prejudices.

Midterm

11.

Richard Dawkins believes that religion is a virus of the mind because it is embedded in the minds of people from childhood. It is a condition which impedes us as humankind in our evolutionary process towards the future through science. This virus called religion is the very weakness in humanity which simply makes us believe what is not true, causing us to believe that a distant god is the maker of it all and instead of searching out why and how things work, we simply take them for what they are and attribute it all to this god. Richard Dawkins cannot stand religion and he believes with all his conviction that it is a problem and impediment in our future. They come into us and teach us that the most foolish of things are virtuous. As Dawkins puts it, "Any wimp in religion could believe that bread symbolically represents the body of Christ, but it takes a real, red-blooded Catholic to believe something as daft as the transubstantiation. If you believe that you can believe anything, and (witness the story of Doubting Thomas) these people are trained to see that as a virtue." These are simply ignorant brain-washings of people from childhood led to believe that the most absurd of all things, when believed, is the most noble. This has no logical point or reason at all. It is this kind of thinking that will ultimately make us dumber and dumber. Thus, religion is a virus of the mind.

I definitely would not agree totally with Richard Dawkins idea. He speaks so badly against teaching these principles to children because it is "brainwashing them", yet the very thing he desires to do is the same, but with his "dogmas". He is set on his way of thinking, with reason and logic (which are good things) that he simply closes his mind to a possibility which he hasn't found any proof for, but neither has he searched very hard. There is simply too many phenomenas and unexplainable "spiritual" events and things that have happened to simply brush the thought of something transcendent under the rug. Do I think religion is a virus? Because of the positive it has contributed to the world and life I would say no. Because it is put into the minds of children from an early age, I would have to say all things taught to children would need to be put into the same category, and that would be ridiculous.


12.

I live here in Tacna, Peru and there are many animistic beliefs and black magic. Because of these two things there are many many beliefs. One of the more unbelievable beliefs the people have here is that witches and shaman (chaman they call them here) can turn into dogs or wolves and stalk people. There is no evidence that anyone has been able to show or explain me other than "so and so" said they heard a story of someone doing it. Or sometimes we will be walking down the street at night and someone will say, "that dog right there is one". When I ask them how they know they simply say they can tell. The biology, physics, and the theory of evolution make it clear that a person cannot physically change into a dog and vice-versa, especially in such quick time span. All the people I have talked to about this have never actually seen it happen, but only heard stories. There are no documented sightings, no video, no photos, no physical evidence at all that could lead us to believe this is true or even possible. Furthermore, a dog does not have the consciousness to stalk a person for reasons of vengeance. The belief is absurd, untrue, illogical, and scientifically impossible. Another good cargo cult could be the belief that war is the path to peace. But that enters into many fields of thought and I don't want to make you read too much.

13.

According to Richard Feynman, when doing science one should do all things with integrity. All results should be published, both the good and the bad so that further studies can know exactly what they are looking at beforehand. Scientist should not be so worried about making things fit so that they can be right, but rather simply looking for the honest truth in all things. We should not work hard to make our results reflect the results of others, but rather we should do all things thoroughly and simply study and report the results as they are. Integrity cannot be underestimated in science if it is to be done correctly and for the good of science and humanity. But the most important of all is that one should do science because one simply is curious and wants to know. When a scientists simply enjoys and takes pleasure in finding things out, he works hard, diligently, and honestly to find the answer. He has no motivation in fame, money, societies. He simply has the desire to know. When we learn about the intrinsics in things we can enjoy them more thoroughly by enjoying the very beauty of something from the inside and out. When we know more about something it doesn't take away from its beauty, but rather it adds to it. If I look into the sky at night I can appreciate its splendor even though I might know why each star shines and glitters. If I look at a crystal vase I can enjoy it for its beauty. But when I understand the long hard process in making that vase what it appears to me today I understand and appreciate all that goes into that vase. Either way, knowing more or not about our sky or a vase does not take away the beauty we can see and experience by being there with them.

14.
The short film Karma portrays the belief that what goes around comes around. If you do something morally wrong, according to the Hindu and Buddhist teachings, it will come around to you in the end. Their teachings are more based on the reincarnation and where you will end up next, but it has come to be accepted that what you do here and now will come back to you in this life.

The concept of good and bad cannot be denied. We are all affected on a daily basis of by things that happen to us on both ends of the spectrum. But does one really have to live in fear of something inevitably bad coming back to them when he has done wrong to another? The rich don't seem to need to live up to this belief. I find it hard to accept that there is a force of good and evil, with no conscience state, which dictates all the is going to happen both good and bad. I do believe, based on our human instinctive (could this be that force?) that causes us to want to return evil with evil and good for good. If he treats me this way I will treat him likewise. But there are too many people who live based on religion, of which their religion teaches not to pay back evil with evil, but to win evil with good. Ghandi and Jesus are good examples of these teaching. Therefore these people would not be living according to this Karma (in this life). Ghandi and Jesus were both beaten and killed, but they did not live practicing evil.

Could the Karma of our next life be real? I personally do not believe so. But as for this short film, I think it is more based on the newer thought of Karma in this life and not on the reincarnation basis it is rooted in as a teaching.

15.
Darwinian evolution is in a nutshell survival of the fittest through adaptation evolution. We adapt to our environments to survive and advance. As the evolutionary occurs the fittest of all the species will continue to live and the weaker will die. John Maynard Smith's Game Theory and the idea of a payoff plays an important role in understanding differently the idea of survival of the fittest. Understanding that a fight until we die mentality is not good for either of us, we will do everything we can to avoid it. We all want to come out ahead with the least amount of pain and confrontation as possible. This would allow both parties to resolve the problem by "measuring up"to each other and the stronger and bigger would win, thus confrontation on the fighting level is not necessary nor wanted because it would cause harm to both sides of the confrontation. We see this in our everyday lives when we much rather avoid confrontation because it leads to problems when not handled correctly.

16.

Freeman Dyson believes that there is a God, but it is more like a universal mind. The universe seems to be designed for a few reasons. It is life friendly. We have easily been able to adapt to this earth and evolve. It has to have been life friendly at some point or the evolutionary process could never have taken off. Also, the universe seems to be make decisions. It reflects a universal mind because atoms and other parts of the universe seem to just make decisions to connect or stay at a distance or whatever it may be. These things suggest that there is something more out there that moves it all, something bigger. This leads us to look for our purpose because it seems with the way that the universe is, that there is something more and there is a reason why we are here, on this earth, living and growing and continuing. We seem to be moving towards some goal.

17.

Faqir Chand came to understand that all visions come from within and not from without. They are not a vision that come from some other person or place, but rather a manifestation of what is in us and our minds. Thus religions and their founders, which are based on visions, cannot possibly be the answers we are all looking for, but rather the manifestations of the people who had the visions. We cannot ever know the absolute truth about it all, so we should not put our absolute faith in it.. Or as Faqir puts it, “How can I make a claim about my attainment of the Ultimate? The truth is that I know nothing” (Faqir Chand Meets the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Chapter 9).

18.

I think there are two main points made in the short film Eleven. One being that we can never claim that "they" are all the same. The fact that a handful of Muslim terrorists did a horrific act does not mean that they are all terrorists and they are going to repeat the same type of horror. The Oklahoma city bombing is just one of many examples. The fact that there are many Muslims who detest and hate what was done is clear and solid proof that they cannot all be put on the same level. Generalizing a "people" and believing that they are all the same in all aspects is just stupid. Not saying that the people who act this way is stupid, but rather this ignorance and mentality is stupid and needs to be fixed.

The second main point brought across in the film was in our extreme actions to stop the extremist, we become that which we hate. The founder of the gang Eleven wished to be rid the country of terrorist threats, because it was after all the terrorists who took the lives of so many innocent people, one of which was his dad. But in the process he became so focused on the fact that they were Muslim that he closed his own mind to think of the many innocents in that "category". The two victims that were mentioned were not even partakers in the Muslim faith.

19.

If we confuse the message with the medium we might lose some very insightful and true teachings. It would be like never considering buying a Mercedes Benz because you’re the owner of the company is a drunk and polygamous. The fact that he has that lifestyle does not mean that the car is a bad car. If we link the two completely we could be missing out on one of the finest cars that exists. Likewise, if we do not take into consideration certain teachings which seem to be true just because the one who teaches them is wreck, we could miss out on some of the finest teachings there are today. Ghandi is a good example. He was not a Christian but he took some of the teachings of Jesus and made them the pillars of his life and political movement to free India. If he would have disregarded the teachings of Jesus because those who taught them were hypocrites, he would have never done what he had done (we can assume).

20.

Bertrand Russell was not a Christian. He reasoning comes from the fact the he says the he cannot rationally believe in the existence of God and immortality, and that Christ was the best and wisest of men and the son of God. He argues against the five main arguments for the existence of God are not sound arguments, thus debunking the existence God and therefore the fact that Christ is his son. He also claims that Christ was not even the best and wisest of all men because he spoke so much on hell to put fear into the people so that they follow him. He did not use rational thinking or some other way to convince people that his way was the correct way. Therefore, using emotions to sway people does not prove him to be the best and wisest of people.

I would disagree with Bertrand Russell on a few of the points he makes. In the fourth argument which he wishes to debunk is the Moral Argument for Diety. He states among his thoughts, and this one being the most logical I believe, that good and bad exist, therefore a higher being had to put them here. Therefore, good and bad have to be apart from who God is, meaning that God is not good. My rebuttal would be to argue that if God himself is good, in his essence (which many religions claim), that which is not of him would therefore be bad. His very existence would be the definer of what is good and bad, therefore good, bad, and God all exist and coincide.

My second rebuttal, or skepticism it could be said, is on the Remedying of Injustice, the fifth argument Mr. Russell argues against. My argument is more towards what most evolutionist and scientist claim, that religion is not necessary for morals, because morals are/can be/have been developed through the evolutionary chain. If injustices are a part of the universe as Bertrand Russell leads us to believe with the example of the crate of oranges in his rebuttal against the necessity of God to remedy injustice, then injustices are simply a part of what has come about through evolution so that each of us can assure our own good, our own survival. Only the fittest will survive no matter the cost, right? We do not call it injustice that an octopus devours a crab or that a lion easily hunts down a zebra. We call it nature and natural. But when a person cheats or does some type of injustice (based on our basic human moral code) we see that as not right...unjust. How can we have morals that come from science and evolution, and also have injustices as a natural part of our world? The two ideas seem to contradict.

Lastly, on Christ. I would have to argue that Christ was in the best and wisest of men. First, if we take what the gospel of John says about Jesus that he “did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (Chapter 21, verse 25). Jesus did in fact do many more miracles and good things than were recorded in the Bible. In the same gospel of John (Chapter 20, verse 30&31) it states that the things that were recorded were recorded so that those who read it might believe in Jesus and have eternal life. And if we give the fact that hell is a real place and a real consequence, it would be correct to warn someone about the dangers of their decisions, actions, and beliefs, would it not? It would be a very cruel person who knows that a house is on fire inside and they do not tell the people who are heading up to the front door.

21.

In order to think clearly and critically we need to keep some things in mind. To start off we need to have a basis to build off of, something needs to be able to be proven false. In other words, if we are trying to find out if something is true there should be certain criteria which if not met would mean it is false. If these criteria are not proven we could then know that this could be true. If it is impossible to prove to be false there is no way of knowing if it is true or not. From there we can test logical arguments using all of the evidence and testing we have available to see if it is actually true or false. We need to be careful not to be trying to prove something true for our own good, but rather we should be honestly trying to find the truth without twisting or manipulating anything. If it does prove to be true we should be able to test it again and again and it will always come out to be true. But it needs to be taken into account that the harder it is to claim something true the more evidence and testing is required to prove beyond doubt that it is true. The burden of proof is on the one who claims something to be true. When these things have been tested and proved beyond a reasonable doubt with sufficient evidence through ample testing, then and only then can we reasonable claim something to be true.

22.

Kurtz believes skepticism should be applied to religion because there is no reason that science should simply cop-out of looking into studying the facets of religion that can be studied. Anthropology, sociology, and psychology all touch on some of the religious claims, but other fields of science should look into studying more. Physics, biology and other field can attempt to broaden their fields to look into the claims of miracles. Science should look into finding ways to scientifically and skeptically seek to prove true or false the claims which religions put out there. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the one who claims it true, but the burden of science is to seek out truth and knowledge without limiting their field of study because of personal biases. There are certain things that obviously cannot be studied with our current science, but things like the form of human behavior and the transcendental (that which transcends human reason or experience) in religion can be looked into, and should.

I think that scientists are hypocritical when they say religion closes our minds and doesn’t allow us to seek more knowledge, but then turn around and say that we shouldn’t study religious claims because they are false. I agree with Kurtz, we should seek to broaden the field of study to include all that we can. If there is something which we cannot understand with the methods currently available, we should seek to find new methods to seek and explain that which we are studying.

23.

All books and arguments are based on pretexts and lead to conclusions. It is especially important to understand what is the pretext, the text, and the context of everything we analyze because it is here that we will find its validity as a text. It is utterly important that the pretext is solid because everything comes from them. Without the pretext the text cannot be put together, and the text cannot be used for its function, in the case of a book to lead us to understand the point. Take a remote control for example, or any electronic device for that matter. It is composed of many little plastic, metal, and information processing parts, these are the pretext to remote control. Without them the remote control cannot be put together, but on their own they do not allow the control to change the channels or turn on and off the apparatus. So it is with books and arguments. They are put together with little facts, truths, or reasonable evidence (the pretexts), and they lead us to better understand something. If the pretexts are incorrect, the foundation of the text is not solid and is easier to be brought down. The context is that which influences the receptiveness of the text, be it our mood, our biases, our presuppositions, etc.. Take our remote control for example. Say we are far away from the apparatus. The remote control won’t work for us. Likewise, if there are elements which influence the ability of the text to be clearly taken in and without prejudice, we will be able to better analyze and reason with the text that is presented to us.

24.

A transformative UFO encounter is when it seems to the one encountered that it was a real actual event. Their senses have taken the encounter as an event sometimes more real than the world we consciously live in daily. Because there is no real physical evidence to support what has taken place, the event seems to be only a “empirical-sensory” event. The fact of it happening or not is limited by the language that is being used. For the person encountered, they feel they were encountered because they consciously sensed what had happened to them. There can be no empirical evidence for or against it because it is reduced to their sensory experience.

The author of the Himalayan Connection does not believe that we have been visited by extraterrestrials, but rather the unidentified flying objects were misidentified flying objects and misconstrued psycho objects highly influenced by our culture.

25.

Thinking critically is important in studying anything, but now in the online era it is ever more important. There is so much information out there that one needs to be able to discern what it true and based on good evidence and what is not. For someone who is reading something online it is very important to understand the concepts learning and studying. We must take into account the very things that are being said and analyze them to see if they are built on true solid facts. Hearsay, commentaries, and things simply stated are not grounds for coming to a conclusion. We must be able to clearly identify the basis from which the arguments are brought forth. These arguments need to bring us to the conclusion that is being presented to us. We need to be able to distinguish the value of the content we are reading, based on the sources of the material, and then evaluate if what is being presented can rationally and logically lead us to believe what the material suggests.

26.

Steven Weinburg believes that religion is an impediment to the future of the economy of the United States, to scientific discoveries, and to the advancement of humanity. He concluded his lecture at the Beyond Belief conference saying, “Anything to be done to free the world of the religious nightmare we are in I embrace. Perhaps it will be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

I disagree strongly, but not totally with him. If religious extremist are to influence the scientific world I think that they need to be put in chains (figuratively speaking). We cannot allow anyone or anything, except the law, to get in the way of anyone’s freedom to pursue anything. If science wants to continue to seek and discover more things, so be it. If religion wants to continue to study science or teach their beliefs or help out the world with humanitarian projects, so be it. To take away the freedom of anyone, especially in the United States (which was a point that he spoke on), would be against the very foundation of our country. It makes no sense to infringe on science because religion says so (which is Weinburgs fear), and then say it is okay to infringe on religion because scientist say so.

Apart from that, history has proven that belief in a deity has been the very motivation of many of the major scientist. Newton, Einstein, Galileo, and others all believed that there was something more out there (referring to a god), and this did not stop them from seeking to understand more about our planet, nature, and the universe.

27.

Sam Harris says he is an atheist because of certain factors in religion. He states that religious claims are not based on evidence and that religion has been sheltered from criticism. He says that what would otherwise be the most illogical and unreasonable of statements are taken as truth and virtuous because they are under religion. He further goes on to say that the more illogical and unreasonable it is to believe, if you believe it it is a virtue because you are having much faith.

The majority of his points are logical. I do not think I would put say the case was closed with Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapots metaphor because there are not unexplainable events taking place because of people who believe in celestial teapots. There are not billions of people whose lives have been changed and who have claimed to have contact on some level with the celestial teapot. I would also say that religion is not too sheltered from criticism and skepticism because those who believe and those who don’t believe both look into the possibility of the phenomenal claims that are made and have been made. When scientist make theories that cannot be tested, like Einstein’s E=mc², we call him a genius and because of his record in science we assume that he is at least going in the right direction. When a major religious figure, like Jesus or a current one, does a miracle that cannot be explained with science, we take their word for how they have done it. There are some things that can’t be reasonably or logically explained like a tumor disappearing from within a person, or a man being healed instantly of a life long condition. There are cases that can be explained, but there are many which cannot be explained. To simply throw those out the window and say “one day we will know” isn’t sufficient for me or the billions others who believe in a God. It would be wiser for him to be agnostic, because scientifically speaking he cannot close the door on something until he knows it is false. Proving where miracles come from would definitely be one of those points that could allow him to do so.

28.

I found Michael Sherman to be the most persuasive in his presentation. He was not the one with the most information or the most slides and quotes, but I found him to be the most reasonable and logical of all the speakers so far. The majority of the speakers spoke on what could be in the future, or why we need to kill religion in the world today because of a couple extreme situations in Latin America and in the Islamic world centuries ago. But Michael Sherman presented clear, logical, and easy to understand points based on historical patterns and evidence. He explained how billions of people believe in religion, simply because it gives them what they need to deal with life, something which science has not been able to provide them. He also showed how illogical it was for scientist to go on this continual tirade to abolish religion from everything, because it only shuns the religious away from science instead of showing them why science should be embraced. It is just like those religious fanatics who try to force religion down someone’s throat, the end result is the person being totally turned off by the idea of religion. If science is the ultimate truth or not, Sherman shows the illogical means by which they are trying to achieve the end, the total replacement of religion with science.

29.

Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity is rejected by Ken Miller and the scientific community at large based on the argument of ignorance. Ken Miller shows us clearly shows us that the examples brought forth by Behe have been proven wrong. The blood clotting cascade for example was said to need 10 proteins to clot correctly, but some jawless fish are successfully able to do it with just six of the proteins.

I can say that he Ken Miller is right in proving Michael Behe’s argument to be false. Could we say that he is right in proving evolution to be true? Not quite, but we can say that he proves that it is definitely very possible.

30.

I found that Stuart Hameroff had the least substance in his presentation. Due to the fact that he speaks mostly on quantum levels, they are more just ideas thrown around than theories based on physical evidence and facts. The field he works in is relatively new and does not have as much in depth studies and proof. He brought up some interesting ideas about the conscious, things which were not touched on at all by anyone. In the future he might be able to speak on more solid ideas after extensive studies have taken place to deduce more reliable ideas and concepts. Until then he has spoken mainly on very broad quantum ideas that have no scientific foundation.

31.

A scientific education according to Huxley is that of a well balanced education. It should have science, its methods, and logic as a cornerstone. It should be well rounded and include history, the arts, and it is very important to study ones own language well. When studying ones language it is also important to learn it scientifically, not just the grammar, but why it is the way it is. Where the rules come from, and if it is possible a couple more languages should be added to help the student understand the concept of a word and not just the word in its common day use. Learning another language helps us to better appreciate words and to better understand their root meanings, and to better understand our own language.

Huxley stressed very much the importance of science in education. He felt that science was the new method of learning and that we should put special importance on it if it does in fact come to be the best and only proper way of learning.

32.

The author of BELIEVER-SKEPTIC criticizes Ken Wilber for a number of reasons. First, Ken Wilber’s claims of Da Free John as being the greatest guru to have ever lived and his writings to be the greatest books ever written are simply illogically exaggerated. For him to truly argue this point, he would have had to have read every book written, which we know is impossible in a life’s span. His second unreasonable point made is the greatness of this guru. He later admits that Da Free John is a f#*k up, but does not back down from his claims as the greatest guru of all time. His life does not reflect his teachings, on that argument alone his claim loses validity.

Secondly, Ken Wilber argues ignorantly for things which have already been scientifically invalidated. When he speaks about the mutations that take place in the evolutionary process, he says that the theory viewed in a new way. But the widely known evolutionist and most read authors on the subject like Dawkins and Gould openly speak contrarily. To openly and clearly speak incorrectly about the current evolutionary theory is simply speaking out ignorantly.

The author makes the important point that if Ken Wilber builds off of these pretexts, his arguments are going to be fallible and we will not know which things to take correctly and which to throw away as rubbish. The author also makes the point that Wilber has many good and valid points to convey, but if he continues to use these manners of study and presentation it will diminish what he is trying to do.

Beyond Belief - Universal Sloth

Have you ever seen a sloth? They are a fascinating type of monkey found in jungles. Have you ever thought about how a sloth thinks about his surroundings? A sloth sees his immediate surrounding (his earth and universe) and thinks that it is all there is that exists. But upon further moving around and discovering things he comes to find out that there is something outside the jungle. There are other "universes" out there. He sees all these little bugs and plants in his immediate surroundings and thinks he knows it all.

We seem to find ourselves like sloths thinking that just because we discover more and more that everything we know or will know is all that there is. Our fundamental base is our knowledge, our techniques of learning, nature's laws, etc. This is our base from which everything is built on. This is our Turtle which our other turtles rest on, and on and on, until we have our earth and us. Paul Davis makes a great point that we all have to reduce things down to something in which we put our faith. For scientists it is nature's laws, physics, scientific theories, etc. For others it is something metaphysical. It seems that people aren't satisfied with sciences explanations, because there are so many things that we experience that cannot be explained. The power in so many religions has not been explained, and that is why so many people still stick with there faith and do not turn to science even though most scientists try to explain away religion.

We all have our Levitating Turtles, it is just a matter of which we choose. Some seem more logical than others, but others seem to answer the inner questions that arise about the unknown. I don't think the Levitating Turtle of science will replace the Levitating Turtle of religions until science can totally explain the Deja Vu's, the out of body experiences, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and all the other experiences that people have in their religions.

Why I Am Not a Christian?

Bertrand Russell is no doubt a great thinker and one of the better ones of our time. Though there are some inconsistencies in his thought process (who doesn't have them with so many topics and points of views, etc.) which I was curious about, and more so I was wondering if anyone else could have some explanations to my doubts.

In the fourth argument which he wishes to debunk is the Moral Argument for Diety. He states among his thoughts, and this one being the most logical I believe, that good and bad exist, therefore a higher being had to put them here. Therefore, good and bad have to be apart from who God is, meaning that God is not good. My rebuttal would be to argue that if God himself is good, in his essence (which many religions claim), that which is not of him would therefore be bad. His very existence would be the definer of what is good and bad, therefore good, bad, and God all exist and coincide.

My second rebuttal, or skepticism it could be said, is on the Remedying of Injustice, the fifth argument Mr. Russell argues against. My argument is more towards what most evolutionist and scientist claim, that religion is not necessary for morals, because morals are/can be/have been developed through the evolutionary chain. If injustices are a part of the universe as Bertrand Russell leads us to believe with the example of the crate of oranges in his rebuttal against the necessity of God to remedy injustice, then injustices are simply a part of what has come about through evolution so that each of us can assure our own good, our own survival. Only the fittest will survive no matter the cost, right? We do not call it injustice that an octopus devours a crab or that a lion easily hunts down a zebra. We call it nature and natural. But when a person cheats or does some type of injustice (based on our basic human moral code) we see that as not right...unjust. How can we have morals that come from science and evolution, and also have injustices as a natural part of our world? The two ideas seem to contradict.

Again these are my thoughts and rebuttals, and I ask and welcome from everyone the answers to these questions.

Pretext/Text/Context

The importance of understanding pretext, text, and context is vital to understanding all things, the continued advancement of our knowledge and understanding. It was interesting to read the comparisons (the book example cleared things up well) and link them to our understanding of all things. I found it utterly important that we do not take just the pretext on its own, nor the context on its own, but rather that we use each of them to better understand it all.

The key statement, I believe, was "we ground our speculations in what we have available." To take a sky hook idea and make everything fall into place with it is illogical, with what we have available to base it on. Is it incorrect? We cannot say until it is proven wrong. But that doesn't mean that it is the most logical of decisions. There are some sky-hooks, as they are called in the article, which do seem to have a little more text and pretext to lead us to the conclusions that are taken. But none the less, we would have to say that some or all are not based on the cranes of evidence which support them, but the sky-hooks which seem to come from no solid ground.

And the application for us is very good and important as well. I know that I read into everything I have read or listened to so far with my belief spectacles which seem to decipher what it is I want to take and skeptically study the rest. I know I am guilty, but with that knowledge I can also try to ground myself and use discipline to logically think through it all and come to better understanding with time and without emotions and presuppositions.

Freeman Dyson

Freeman Dyson is a wonderfully curious and intelligent mathematician. His intelligence has allowed him to come to understand or get some pretty good ideas of what his curiosities have brought to his mind, especially those of the universe, nature, and the metaphysical. I really enjoyed the fact that his intelligence keeps him seeking the unknown, but his humility keeps him in wonder and awe at the very thing he seems to understand better than many others. His idea of God, not based on theology or doctrine or beliefs, has come from his very studies which have allowed him to think of many ways God needs to exist to explain the unfathomable.

His open-mindedness, not like the religious or scientific die-hards, hasn't impeded the openness to his thoughts, and I think this is what I liked most about him. The evolutionists are so Darwinized that they cannot think outside the box of evolution beginning from nothing, when we can never really know. His openness has allowed him to bring new ideas of maybe a partial evolution, after there was some type of stability on the earth. These ideas, which make more sense than most of the bizarre theories of Big Bang gurus, suggests what seems more reasonable and logical. If it all began at the Big Bang or from one step above nothing, and as evolution took place we adapted to our environment (not vice-versa as ID suggests), I beg the answer to why no other life form has survived on any of the other planets? Or anywhere else that we have voyaged? If evolution were true it should be true that other life forms would have survived on other planets because they too adapted to their environment and became stronger and stronger. Would it not?

If I am way off, or if there are answers to these questions someone let me know. Until then, I will continue with my ideas and beliefs...I probably will continue if I hear the answers anyway.

Exposing Cults

I think that it was a great idea to publish this piece because it has opened the eyes of many, and hopefully many more, to the danger of Da Free John and his cult. Some may say that we cannot speak so harshly because there is a great amount of good that could come from his teachings, but evidence has proven the contrary. True, some may come to enlightenment, freedom from self, or whatever one may call it, but there is too much of a danger to the man himself. There are many other philosophies, ways, or religions which to not put the seeker in danger of brainwashing and at risk of being taken advantage of. It is sick that a spiritual guide will use something that might have been a gift from a god or God and use it for purely egotistical abuse of others. We all get appalled by the priests who sexually abused children, or the cult leaders that do likewise through convincing them that it is necessary, but it is sick. Joseph Smith having so many wives and as young as 13 yrs. old is just messed up and something has gone wrong in the head.

It is my opinion, but I think that some of these spiritual gurus or psychics or whatever it may be, come to believe so much in this ability that they have that they lose the ability to distinguish between a spiritual word(or enlightenment or vision) and a thought. This thought could be something common or something perverted and twisted as we all are able to think up sometimes. In these moments it becomes a problem. Joseph Smith saying that God told him to secretly marry different woman and girls is just his sick thoughts with a spiritual twist by him (though unknowingly). These people should then be avoided because of the fact that they no longer can decipher between what is spiritual and what is ego and self.

The Himalayin Connection

I think the writer of this is just out of his mind...just kidding Professor!

Actually, I think the mentioned breakdown of cases in UFO sightings is very important to the scientific study of such. If we are able to break down the cases into the three categories mentioned, or into some other type of categorizing system, it would allow scientists and science the availability to look into and try to find logical, empirical answers to what seem to be difficult questions. Categorizing could even serve in many of the other phenomena areas like miracles, visions, etc. If we are able to break down the cases, the scientists would not have to feel like they are wasting their time because so many of the cases are not "worth" their time.

Imagine a scientist being able to see a list of all the miracles in the world in such a year or month, and reading a little about where this miracle is categorized as and what information there is on such miracle. It would totally change the availability of the scientists who could look more into specific cases which seem a little possible to explain or even those which seem harder to explain. Each scientist could choose as they pleased.

The proposition of Dr. David Lane is a good one and one that could help the science world to open up a little and broaden the closed mindset that so many in science already have toward paranormal, metaphysical, or anything of the such.

Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?

I truly enjoyed Paul Kurtz´ open minded article and his desire to seek out to know more in every field of interest. I agree totally that skeptical inquiry should be applied to religion, and in so we might even begin to understand a little more about the religions, there roots, there socio-psychological links, etc. If we simply throw religion out the door and say it is nothing because we know nothing empirically true to about it does not give an adequate answer to the billions who follow. I think that if the field is broadened in the scientific studies to include the metaphysical, the claims of miracles, etc, that we can truly come to know and maybe understand what it is that is occurring.

A friend of mine was going to have a life threatening organ transplant done because the doctors only gave him a year or two more to live. He was hospitalized for a few weeks and said that he just started praying and coincidently at his church the pastor who was going to preach scrapped the prepared sermon because he said he felt that the church should pray for this man. The hospitalized man said that he felt something happen that he cannot explain to well, but that the next morning the doctors said that he was okay and that he wasn´t going to need the transplant and he could go home later that week after some follow up observation. These doctors have the X-Rays showing the literal overnight change and have no scientific explanation. Nor do I. This man claims to have been healed by a miracle and I have no scientific proof to say otherwise. These things must be investigated and we must learn if there is an explanation or not. Because these are some serious claims that go against all of what science has taught us. According to science there is no way this man would have been able to have been healed over night. It would have been an irrational, unreasonable claim made in the "stupidity" and illogical name of faith. But this did happen. I know the man. I cannot deny that something happened that goes totally against what science says.

These are the things that cause the religious to feel that it is a battle between religion and science. But should it be? Shouldn´t science research these claims that are happening today in the present scientific age? I argue that we must and that it is our responsibility to do so for the billions who believe. And not simply tell them all to "f#_k off" as Dawkins enjoyed quoting to avoid a response. (Such a smart man, such a feeble response...but very funny!)

John Maynard Smith and Evolution

John Maynard Smith seems to be a very intelligent man who has chosen to take a certain path. I was heard a teacher who was speaking of philosophy and theology that there comes a time in all of our lives if we really study into these things, that we must simply choose which one makes more sense to us and then go with that. We will need to learn to make things fit or find there truth in what we have chosen. There is almost always a way and it seems that John Maynard Smith has chosen evolution without God. He worked his whole life to solve the things that didn´t make sense in the theory of evolution and through that he came up with ideas like the game theory.

There were points that seem to astonish me when he admitted having no educated idea in things like consciousness, which he conceded in being the thing that gives us our meaning and that it also gives way to a metaphysical. He simply said he found it hard to believe, but that there isn´t any evidence against it and he simply couldn´t have an educated opinion because he doesn´t know much. There seems to be a redundancy in some of the opinions of the evolutionist toward how religion impedes science, but yet where there is a field of research in things such as consciousness they simply throw in the towel and say it cannot be tested. I understand that he has a hard time believing anything without hard evidence, but he himself said that who knows what science will lead us to in 50 years or more. Maybe robots will be ruling the planet. Who knows? Than why does he and others put soo much into the scientific mentality when they do not even know if the whole mentality and process will change in the future leaving everything studied until now without reason. As was mentioned in the Beyond Belief conference, we as humans are very bad at thinking rationally. We can in one field, but we cannot in everything.

Why do we think we can know everything? Why do we think we will ever? I do not think we should stop advances and learning and searching, but we make ourselves a god if we think we are the supreme being that will arrive at knowing everything...and becoming our own Supermen.

Beyond Belief - The New Inquisition

Throughout the four sessions that we have watched I have found it to be true what Stuart Hameroff said to start his lecture. Up to that point he said that it seemed more like a new inquisition, but this time it was against religion. We all believe that the Inquisition was a horrible moment in history and should never be repeated, but would it not just fall into the survival of the fittest category. I am curious to understand where this theory stops between the animal kingdom and "ours". Something just isn't too clear to me. We say that it is okay in nature, that we are simply the continuation of nature, but that it is not okay to act in such "beastly" manures like genocide. I know that we haven't really talked much about it, but there has to be some morality issue brought into the discussion at some point, and more elaborated on that science can explain morality one day. Maybe I missed something but it seemed as though it was what we have heard.

I think that Joan Rathgaurd (not sure on the spelling) made some interesting points. Not so much to favor religion over science, but rather to broaden the field of scientific research into researching more to understand it better. I find it very hypocritical that the side of science only has reacted so emotionally and not rationally in stating their facts that science does prove itself right in the end, even when that means new findings disprove some older findings, because who is to say that with our such limited understanding of the natural world (we barely know anything in our own world, much less in the universe) that we will not find something in the future of metaphysics, supernatural, or some evidence of phenomena. It may sound impossible, but if science truly is always advancing who is to say that what seems impossible today is possible for tomorrow. The scientific greats themselves made such comments when referring to what was simply for the Creator to know.

Eleven

I think there are two main points made in the short film Eleven. One being that we can never claim that "they" are all the same. The fact that a handful of Muslim terrorists did a horrific act does not mean that they are all terrorists and they are going to repeat the same type of horror. The Oklahoma city bombing is just one of many examples. The fact that there are many Muslims who detest and hate what was done is clear and solid proof that they cannot all be put on the same level. Generalizing a "people" and believing that they are all the same in all aspects is just stupid. Not saying that the people who act this way is stupid, but rather this ignorance and mentality is stupid and needs to be fixed.

The second main point brought across in the film was in our extreme actions to stop the extremist, we become that which we hate. The founder of the gang Eleven wished to be rid the country of terrorist threats, because it was after all the terrorists who took the lives of so many innocent people, one of which was his dad. But in the process he became so focused on the fact that they were Muslim that he closed his own mind to think of the many many innocents in that "category". The two victims that were mentioned were not even partakers in the Muslim faith.

Why no religion? - A doubt raised

In the conference Beyond Belief, of the first five speakers all spoke to the fact that religion impedes progress in the world, especially that of science. Three of the five said that we must fight to get rid of science in the world, the other two agreed but said it will probably always be here, and one of those two stated that there is no reason to fight against them, just prove by action. I personally do not think that there is any reason religion needs to be stopped, not do I think that it ever will be. I know that evolution basically says that it will be, because those who depend on religion are the weak, therefore the strong will advance and survive and the religious will not. With that being said, shouldn't evolutionist believe that it will just go away with time inevitably? If not, does this alone not debunk the ideology of survival of the fittest? I do not know, I only ask.

But religion has proven that it has added more to sciences past than any other. The Muslims between the 9th and 12th centuries, Christianity and Judaism the last couple thousands of years. Apart from the scientific aspect, because that is not the only important aspect in life, religion has served to do much more. Likewise it has had its negative effects, but does not survival of the fittest, euthanasia, and Hiroshima also have the same. There are things that science cannot fulfill. As Laurence Krause stated at the end of session 2, "If science proves that being delusional causes us to be happy, will we say stop being delusional?" Or if science leads us to no longer desire life, will we choose science or life? Darwin himself stated how he missed being able to simply enjoy something without having to try to understand everything. And Dr. Weinberg noted our intrinsic desire to be with others in community (that of its root of having something in common). If we discover that it is necessary to being happy, but likewise impedes our progress in science, economy, humanity, etc. will we rid ourselves of happiness, joy, excitement, etc. for the prior?

Can we even answer these questions yet? I think I am turning skeptic and I don't like it very much because it doesn't lead me anywhere ahead, just in circles.

Religion Impedes? - Beyond Belief

The basic idea of the conference is kind of like any religious conference, "How do we make our ideas be the only ones accepted?" The majority of the people involved try to make the point that religion impedes science, therefore impedes the economy, discoveries, and mankind. But even as Dr. Neil make the point that all the major scientists (that he mentioned at least) that have made some of the most significant impacts on humanity, our understanding, and reason and science, have all believed in an Intelligent Designer to our universe. Galileo, Newton, Huggens, etc. have all attributed what was unknown to someone bigger who has made it happen.

I think that his very point that religion impedes science because these men were religious and didn't learn more is self-contradicting. These men were religious and had beliefs about an Intelligent Designer and they advanced science more than any other men in their time. Does this not prove that one can believe in a God and yet still contribute on the highest of levels in science? The more we find out in science, the more questions are brought out. Will there ever be an end to what we will learn? If so, what will we do then...science will no longer be needed. If not, there will always be a mystery that cannot be solved and therefore even some of the greatest of minds will inevitably (as history has proven) believe in a God or/and Intelligent Designer of some sort.

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out - Richard Feynman

Richard Feynman speaks much about the inner pleasure of just finding things out. Not the drive to be famous, not the desire to be rich, and not the joy of being honored and recognized by your peers. His father was a great influence in his early life and taught him the importance of the man and not the uniform. His comments coincide with the thoughts of his cargo cult science article and likewise that of the article on Critical Thinking in an Online World. We must have integrity in our lives and especially in the of science.

His idea of the mere pleasure of finding things out, and that being the driving force for a scientist (or for himself in his example). I think and believe that it is this desire which makes way for the integrity. If a scientist doesn't have the desire to be rich, famous, and honored, but just wants to know "why?" he will come to a true honest answer based on reason, understanding, and facts. So the question and problem that needs to be solved, at the root of integrity in science, is how is this possible? Can we be rid ourselves of the natural desires to be rich and famous, loving the limelight and attention? If so, how? If not, will science ever be a practice of integrity? Thinking skeptically, how much of what we believe or have been led to believe is based on a scientist ego not wanting to admit that he has not truly found what he has found? But there are actually many holes in his theory. Who can be certain without personally testing it all firsthand.

I find it absurd myself to go to such an extreme, but we must exaggerate a point to make it easier to understand sometimes.

Cargo Cult Science - Richard Feynman

The scientific processes discussed by Mr. Feynman in Cargo Cult Science are partially important to us as beings. Do we need integrity in the things we are doing? Whether it be scientific or not, if we wish to advance in a positive long-term goal, there is no doubt that it is very important. If science is to move ahead then there must be integrity in order to insure that what is being solved, found out, and/or discovered is in fact 100% true unaltered, unbiased, and certain. I think that the piece on learning the concepts of where information is coming from could help us out greatly here. If a tabacco company is funding scientific studies, do we really think that the scientists are going to come out and say, "hey, you know what? This stuff is really addictive and it can kill you." They are more inclined "discover" things that are to the benefit of their employer.

What I liked about the end of this Feynman article is his desire to call scientist to integrity to truth. This is essential to the credibility, in turn, the success of the future of science. If science comes to be known for corruption of data, or biased "truths" and "facts" then there will be no truth and fact to which we can honestly cling fast to. I think much of the debate of evolution has been diminished due to the confessions of many archeologist's and scientist revealing some dishonesty in their work. Science in itself cannot continue with errors, intentional or non-intentional, in the data and findings and continue to still be science in its honest essence. Science is the findings based on facts through rationality. Without the true facts there can be no true findings, which means it is all irrational. According to the very scientists it would then need to be throw out like the very idea of religion they are so for throwing out...because it impedes more than it advances.

Beyond Belief

In Sam Harris´dialogue during the Beyond Belief Conference he stated the absurdity to waste time studying and researching the idea of a God creator. He cited Bertrand Russell´s example of a "celestial teapot" and how he thought that Russell had put an end to the argument. My skepticism or doubt is the difference between a celestial teapot which has no impact at all in the daily lives and common belief of the majority of the world and of a "creator god" whom, if it be true, would have all the significance to look into. With quite a few well studied scientists believing in a creator God and in some if not all of the idea of Intelligent Design, I think that it deserves a little bit of required attention.

If we were to simply disregard everything that didn´t seem to have the evidence to support it, we would not have many of the theories and scientific laws that we have today. But due to the fact that some things happened to which we could not explain raised some interest in us, those who were interested in finding the answer dedicated their time and energies into finding the answers to their inquiries. The laws which scientist come to discover are the very things that help us, if I may use Richard Feynman, to understand how things happen the way they do but they do not tell us why. The law of gravity was found and it explains why things fall the way they do, but it does not explain to us why it falls downward. Why? Feynman uses the idea of watching a chess game and by watching long enough you can come to understand some of the laws of chess...until something happens outside of those laws. Then we must reevaluate to find out why this happens. And it continues and continues.

Why do the supernatural things happen? Things that many call miracles, that which is unexplainable by what we know up to now. Science continues to grow but what happens if we get to the point in science when we no longer can find out more? Is that day possible? Would we then be gods?

Why not look into the paranormal?

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

Russell definitely seems to represent a very clear and thoughtful man. He uses a select vocabulary to express a very precise point which he wants to bring out...that being, we must learn as humankind to be clear and exact thinkers. I could not agree with him more. We need to learn to think through things and use our ability to learn words with specific meaning to express a specific point so that there is not misunderstanding about the very points of view and beliefs that we have. This video was short, but I went ahead and watched a few more of him on YouTube about his assessment of Nietzche, the mind and body, and another on nuclear war with the USSR.

He is a very smart and well thoughtout man. I think we can learn a lot from people who have dedicated their lives to thinking things through, and we should learn to build off of them so we can go further. In time we will continue to learn more and more, but not just that, we will be able to decide which is correct and which is not. I think this is the core of who we are as humankind, and if we lose this we will lose our very escence. The reason we are not beasts is due to the fact that we can decide and that we seem to have some type of morality. Murder is wrong for us, and we know that...but an animal will murder without guilt. We must continue to grow and learn in our ability to make decision and think clearly and critically.

Viruses of the Mind

Richard Dawkins is no doubt a very smart man. His ability to compare and contrast and bring to light his thoughts is definitely something he has mastered. The way he uses computers, a human invention, to show us how they are like us does not impress me to much. Precise it may be, but the obvious comparison will be there because the makers of computers used humans as there model. It is like me saying it is amazing how an artist reflects himself, his thoughts , his ways in his art.

Now it may not be the best example, I do not claim to be a master at comparing and contrasting, but I think that when it comes down to it we cannot always use the example as the overwhelming point of proof. We must use facts. With that being said I did enjoy (I can still enjoy it) his comparison and I found it very insightful. It is my hope that he wishes his example be taken no further than what he has written. We are not computers, because we have the ability to decide what we desire. A computer is programmed to do whatever it is programmed to do.

If there is any virus of the mind, I would say it is our laziness to not want to study and learn, and learn to think critically to be able to make our own minds up. I am sick and tired of everyone saying that this shouldn't be this way, and you shouldn't say that, and how could you teach that in class. What is the problem with teaching religion in school? We teach evolution and to be honest there is more against evolution than for it. (I am sure I am going to hear a lot about that comment..if anyone reads this). I am condoning religion in the classroom, but rather contrasting the facts between the two cases. But back to what I was saying, the only problem would be if our students and children aren't taught to think. Then they truly would be computers simply taking in whatever is told them. We all have an ability to make a decision on any level. But when we have not exercised our minds, we will not be able to lift the weights of difficult subjects that are brought to our attention.

So with that being said, I hope that this class continues to poke at our minds and cause us to really wrestle and fight through tough mindsets.

Critical Thinking in an Online World

The importance of having good study habits cannot be understated. Now with technology and the internet age the techniques and research tools are utmost important. There is so much information that can be reached that its authenticity and validity to truth must always be brought into question. I remember when I was a child and someone would say the most bizarre thing, but to give it validity we would add, "I saw it on TV!" As if everything on TV was true. Jerry Springer, need I say more?

Nowadays everyone says, "I read it online" as if that is enough to make it true and valid. The importance of good study and working concepts is what is needed. As time goes on technology will change and what serves to solve the problem today will not be the same process in 10 or 20 years. If we can learn concepts to solve problems, concepts to validify content, and concepts to study and learn, we will have the tools to do all the above mentioned no matter the format, era, or source from which we learn.

I believe that we need to do something quickly to give us all the tools and concepts necessary to study correctly and not just allow everything we hear, see, and read to be processed as true. The more valid a source of information is, the more time and effort we should put into processing our thoughts on the subject content. Too many people seem to be lazy thinkers and they tend to want to hear facts (sports, news, etc) and not many are interested in using their mind as a muscle to work hard through difficult content to come to learn on their own through the information used to catapult us into our ideas, understandings, and thoughts.

Karma - a short film

The short film Karma portrays the belief that what goes around comes around. If you do something morally wrong, according to the Hindu and Buddhist teachings, it will come around to you in the end. Their teachings are more based on the reincarnation and where you will end up next, but it has come to be accepted that what you do here and now will come back to you in this life.

The concept of good and bad cannot be denied. We are all affected on a daily basis of by things that happen to us on both ends of the spectrum. But does one really have to live in fear of something inevitably bad coming back to them when he has done wrong to another? The rich don't seem to need to live up to this belief. I find it hard to accept that there is a force of good and evil, with no conscience state, which dictates all the is going to happen both good and bad. I do believe, based on our human instinctive (could this be that force?) that causes us to want to return evil with evil and good for good. If he treats me this way I will treat him likewise. But there are too many people who live based on religion, of which their religion teaches not to pay back evil with evil, but to win evil with good. Ghandi and Jesus are good examples of these teaching. Therefore these people would not be living according to this Karma (in this life). Ghandi and Jesus were both beaten and killed, but they did not live practicing evil.

Could the Karma of our next life be real? I personally do not believe so. But as for this short film, I think it is more based on the newer thought of Karma in this life and not on the reincarnation basis it is rooted in as a teaching.

What is Cold Reading?

"If they can be said to have moral failing, it is in ignoring the skeptical questions and problems which have doubtlessly occurred to them." (Austin Cline, in the What is Cold Reading? article)

Is there anything that exists, that has occurred, that we have seen, touched, smelled, and contemplated, which we would not be able to bring up a question of doubt? Science itself, the new level of truth for man, proves itself to be wrong over time. What was once thought to be a fact, Columbus has proved to be round. There is doubt in everything, but we have all used our logic, experiences, and even skepticism to come to believe what we do.

There are many mediums, card readers, etc., and those who go to them who profess a honest surreal spiritual experience. How can we refute what cannot be explained. I have heard many stories of psychics leading the police to find murder victims who have been hidden. I have heard stories of objects moving on their own, and even people being physically hurt by an unseen "spiritual" force. Even if I have my skepticisms, I cannot refute the physical evidence before my eyes.

With that being said, I do believe there are many farces who shamelessly deceive many, probably using cold reading and/or other sources, but I also believe that there is some other unseen "something" which I call a spiritual world.