Table of Contents:
From time to time, I browse through our large collection of Fate Magazine, a pulp publication at one time coming out of Highland Park, Illinois, by Curtis and Mary Margaret Fuller. Fate ran every sort of supernatural, occult, paranormal, UFO, prophecy, or time-travel story that could be dredged up, starting back around 1948. It's interesting to read articles that at first flush were titillating, but then lost their charm when mundane solutions were found. I chanced upon one issue that ran a mysterious "disappearance" story, which I'll reduce to its essentials:
On December 11th of 1984, Elmo Batterton, 55, a millionaire industrialist, and his wife Edna, 59, simply vanished, leaving Christmas tree lights on in their home in the little town of Morton, Illinois — just south-east of Peoria. Mrs. Batterton left her purse on the kitchen table. Once the news became known, the Morton police department was inundated with calls from psychics predicting where the Battertons would be found.
Chief Stephens reported that the psychics "came out of the woodwork, while the press came stampeding out of the woods." But, he added, "They all [the psychics] seemed to be sincere people." However, he said, nothing they produced was useful, although they tried to check out all their tips. Police Sergeant Thomas Daab said, "There were a lot of them, and they told us a lot of strange stuff. They also said they didn't want their names released unless their predictions were right." A very wise move, as it turns out. This tactic, which is also resorted to by "psychics" who enter labs to actually be tested scientifically, leaves the impression that they never fail. Read what a variety of fates were magically divined for this missing couple by seven different psychics:
- The Battertons were being held captive by four men who were feeding them sugar.
- They had been murdered and their bodies were buried in a barn.
- They were in a wooded area near Reading, Pennsylvania.
- They'd be found by farmers in the spring along a dirt road between Morton and St. Louis.
- They were being held in a Michigan warehouse.
- They had been killed by someone involved in drugs.
- They'd been kidnapped by an alien spaceship.
"We really didn't know how to check that last one out," Sergeant Daab said.
Ten weeks after the disappearance, the Batterton car and their bodies were found in the Illinois River, where their car apparently had plunged through the ice that cold and foggy night; there was no evidence of foul play. All the psychics had been wrong, very wrong, but if just one had come up with a single fact that coincided with reality, that would have provided another "confirmed" story in the never-ending "evidential" accounts that are continually offered up to us. Also, that psychic's name would have been released to the media, while the others were kept secret. The bare fact is that with enough stories being told by enough people, some points have to be right, by chance, every so often. It's inevitable, and should not be looked upon as validation of psychic powers. What's the saying? "Even a blind pig finds a truffle, now and then." No truffle this time….
Reader David Lichtman refers us to the location www.makers-diet.net which is run by a Dr. Jordan Rubin, the creator of "The Maker's Diet." This is a diet consisting only of foods available at the time of the Bible, to be augmented by a supplement — that, of course, only he has discovered, and only he sells — called HSOs™ — "Homeostatic Soil Organisms." By eating this combination, we'll be in tune with God's will, he says. How can we doubt him? He holds a Ph.D. from the "Academy of Natural Therapies"! That's closely affiliated with "Healing Light Ministries," but a diligent Internet search indicates no Ph.D. programs there. Something is not right, methinks.
This nutty — pun intended — diet is based on foods eaten at a period of history when the average lifespan was no more than 60% of what it is today, Mr. Lichtman reminds us. As part of his treatment, "Dr." Rubin also strongly urges all dieters not to do any aerobic exercise, as it harms the body's immune response. Gee, that's news to most of us. But, he's hitting some weak spots in the public's reasoning processes, because his book is a #1 best-seller at Barnes & Noble.
And as David points out, at www.bottledwater.org/public/hydratio_main.htm you'll find a "hydration calculator" that tells you how much water a person should consume daily for optimum health. "I weigh 235 pounds and exercise 20 minutes per day," he writes, "therefore, I should be drinking 17 glasses of water per day — more than one per waking hour."
He also points out that the "hydration" site is sponsored by the International Bottled Water Association. Sheer coincidence…!
Reader Jon Blumenfeld, an "interest rate strategist," tells us that unemployment rates and such are a big part of his job. He says that he hopes that unemployment one day will become a big part of Sylvia Browne's job:
At last! A claim that actually has something to do with my area of expertise!Sylvia's prediction #5, that in July/04 unemployment will hit an all-time high before improving with the advent of new technology from Texas and Nevada, is absolutely preposterous. She has just about zero chance of this coming true, if only because the first part is so patently ridiculous.
Going back to 1954, which is the beginning of the current unemployment series, the highest annual rate seen was 9.7% in 1982 (it may have been higher sometime during that year). As of the last employment figures (for March 2004), the unemployment rate in the US was 5.7%. To reach the 9.7% rate by July, something like six million workers would have to lose their jobs between now and then without any new jobs being created. Of course, this is not impossible, but would be totally unprecedented. As to the advent of "new technology from Texas and Nevada," this is pretty vague — but that's completely in character. Something that combines gambling, oil wells, and cattle ranching perhaps? The mind boggles at the possibilities.
Okay, Jon, I accept your expertise, but remember that Browne and her ilk depend on the wild cards, hoping that among a long series of obvious and resounding failures, one of the guesses will pan out. As we've seen so many times, that's what the media look for, and pounce on to make a "good" story. But, we'll see, won't we? Nine weeks to go, and we'll be in July….
Reader Michael Duchek from California writes that a recent article that appeared here reminded him
. . . of situations I've been in a number of times, and I know you've heard a million of these stories, but I couldn't resist passing this short one on. Until recently I worked "graveyard" at a hotel here in Arcata, a town whose reputation for marijuana, and all the disjointed beliefs that go with its use, is well deserved.One evening a lady asked me if I'd seen any recent movies, and I apologetically said that nothing new really interested me, and I was just waiting for the last Lord of the Rings movie. Her response:
"Yeah, those are good. But, it's such a dark period of our history…"
I was too flabbergasted to even respond, which is probably just as well. I would have lost a customer, and possibly my job.
I suspect that use of "disjointed" was a pun…?
It's reported that in Perth, Australia, a statue of the Virgin Mary that has been drawing crowds since 2002 when it apparently began weeping rose-scented tears, has started crying again. Wow. The owner said that she bought the statue ten years ago in Bangkok, and that it started shedding aromatic tears again on Palm Sunday. She said she was "surprised" at this. You see, the "graven image" had been crying before, but she just had no idea why it had started up again. Really!
However, when a chemical analysis of the "tears" was ordered by the local Archbishop, she was ordered to take the figure home. The tests found that Mary was crying a mixture of vegetable oil and rose oil. Wisely, the archbishop declared that a case for a miraculous happening had not definitely been proved. In the background, I'm sure, could be heard a weeping and wailing and gnashing of dentures.
But don't think that this exposure of the scam dampened the zeal of the blindly faithful, one bit. Thousands of people continue to push one another aside to see the statue. The owner has built a shrine to hold the plaster saint, which is now on display four days a week at her home. Doubtless, contributions are being accepted to purchase fresh Mazola and rose oil. You can't expect Mary to go out to the local supermarket and buy it herself.
And isn't it a bit bizarre that it was an off-the-street product made in Bangkok that manifested this miracle? Thailand's populace of some 51 million are very predominantly Buddhist, with minorities of Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and Sikh persuasion. The religious idols of Christ, Mary, St. Christopher, and other saints that are sold at our local emporium of sacred stuff here in Florida, are made mostly in China and in Thailand, as witness this "Made In China" item that we keep on hand at the JREF to weep oil or blood — your choice — for TV interviewers. A bargain at $32.99….
Reminds me of the old story: An evangelist was going at it hot and heavy, telling those gathered about what could lay in store for them. "God's wrath will devour you." he bellowed. "There will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth."
"I don't have any teeth." said one old man.
"Teeth will be provided." replied the evangelist, confidently.
Of course!
Reader David Bryant, a frequent contributor, writes that he's not been mentioned here for a long time, so he sends us this story:
The reason I write is to relate a story about a "glowing tombstone" in Emporia, Kansas, where I once lived. The lady with the orange lights in her room [mentioned last week] reminded me of it. I, along with friends, had seen this phenomenon many times, but opted not to pursue it until one day I decided to find out what it was.Standing around 100 yards away, looking into a cemetery with very many trees, one could see a greenish glowing something, taller than it was wide, possibly a yard tall and maybe eight inches wide, allowing for depth perception and how far away it appeared to be, in the cemetery. The setting added to the mystery, of course. This particular time I was there with several friends and I declared to go into the cemetery and see what the heck the thing was. They advised against it. I guess they thought a boogie man might get me or something, but I proceeded. It didn't seem possible that it would be anything reflecting light, since there were so many trees around. And no green ones, anyway. No, no traffic light around in case we were only looking at it when the light was green. Hmmm...
I walked toward it slowly, and I admit it did get a little creepy as I climbed over the fence into the cemetery. As I got closer, it seemed incredibly bright. Trees were everywhere, what was this thing? I finally closed in on it, and it was in fact the side of a tombstone, and as I put my head down to it to try to determine where the light was coming from, I spotted a light in a church parking lot a very long way away. Insert your own religious reference there if you like.
And for some reason, there was a clear channel of space with no tree limbs to block the light to the side of that tombstone. It was almost as if someone had purposely trimmed the trees to allow for that light to reach the tombstone. But not so; the channel was very irregular, but large, a very odd happenstance that allowed the light to reach that spot, when observing it from outside the cemetery one would think that was impossible. Now exactly what accounted for the greenish glow, I don't know. It was dark, maybe the stone in the grave marker had some greenish content. Could the light pick up any greenish influence from the tree leaves? Does the chlorophyll exude from the leaves into the air? That part I don't understand but I'm satisfied to mark it down as unexplained, and not some otherworldly influence, thank you. The tombstone glowed because of simple reflected light, end of story.
Oh, and people were not too pleased to hear my rational explanation, either. Like so many, they would prefer to believe it was something spooky, a ghost or something. Sorry, just plain old light.
So the mystical glowing tombstone mystery was solved by me. Little old me.
David, the eye works in mysterious ways. Sensory perception is of course a matter of great interest and importance to the professional magician, and I've given a great deal of attention to the various ways that our senses work, not only to inform us, but also to deceive us. The green coloration of this "apparition" that you describe, can perhaps be attributed to the low-light conditions that existed. When the eye receives very little stimulation — that is to say, very few photons are present to affect the sensors in the retina — our system tends to see in monochrome. It's well-known that the blue/green end of the spectrum most affects the retina, which is the reason that when we see something by moonlight — a relatively poor source of illumination — the predominant impression we get is of blue. When cinematographers wish to produce the effect of nighttime in a scene, they use a blue filter over the camera lens to tint the entire picture that color, and our brain accepts it as being shot at night. In fact, I've watched more than one "Western" film in which the night scenes were actually shot in bright sunlight, strongly filtered blue to produce this illusion.
I can't give you a very good reason for your apparition looking green rather than blue, but perhaps the light that was being reflected was from a fluorescent fixture; most fluorescent lights have a high green content, a fact that many photographers have found to their dismay when they've not been careful to notice their light source and its characteristics.
You neglected to mention whether or not the side of the tombstone was polished — for if it were, that would probably have enhanced the reflective power of the object. In any case, thank you for providing this mystery, which "little old you" solved — so courageously….!
Reader Gerry Carton from Down Under reports on an article that was published there titled, "Eyes Wide Shut." He writes:
A friend recently alerted me to your website. I found that your comment on psychic crime detection reflected my reaction to a recent article in one of Melbourne's major dailies. My letter is below, and surprisingly it was published in late January. The reference to "lunchbox" is because the psychic accurately identified that there would be sandwiches in the lunch box. I wrote to the newspaper:
"Eyes wide shut" said that Debbie Malone wanted to use her psychic skills to help solve crime. The article went on to detail her experiences in two cases summarized as follows: "The information Malone offered [to investigator] Crea didn't lead to a breakthrough" and "An extensive search... was carried out... using information provided by Malone but no body has yet been found."Later: Malone "insists she's been able to offer important information that has helped in other investigations." Now, if that were true, you would think she would have given those as examples of her craft rather than the two abject failures quoted. Malone summarizes with, "It's not an exact science." Perhaps more truthfully she might have said "It's not exactly a science"!
Now if only we can get these dead people to tell her something useful, rather than what's in their lunch box, we'll really have those skeptics rattled.
I don't sense any rattling coming up, Gerry…. But that divination of sandwiches in the lunch box has me wondering. Wow! How did she know? To see the wealth of highly convincing evidence offered by Ms. Malone — evidence for her poor photographic skills — go to http://spiritphotography.tripod.com/ It's a hoot. And for a reference to another "inexact" science, see the next item here….
I've always been mystified at how easily we can mis-use words and then adopt their "new" meanings as if they were there all along. There are three realms/kingdoms in classic nomenclature: animal, vegetable, and mineral. Everything can be assigned to one of these three. A flounder or a flea belongs in the first, a tulip or a turnip in the second, and a rock or a rivet is in the third. But the woo-woo faction has adopted the word "organic" to apply only to a plant grown without the use of anything but water and faith. They'll dub a tomato "non-organic" if it's not one that grew up "on its own," unprotected from hungry insects or poor soil. I object to the use of the term, but I have to go along with it because it's now in use in that sense. But I still say that there are no mineral or animal coffee beans in my percolator.
On that angle, reader Terrence Fullerton offers:
First let me congratulate you on the excellent job you are doing. Your book Flim-Flam! was really influential in the development of my thinking. Maybe I should blame you for the problems I occasionally face. I've been ejected from organizations and unofficially banned from various meetings simply because I would not sit quietly and allow people to promote nonsense.One of the biggest hoaxes being promoted today is organic agriculture, yet few people seem to care. I have written an article [see below] that I have circulated to anyone who promotes organic agriculture. In it, I point out that there is no logic or science to it, only senseless decisions based on emotion.
To date, I have only received one reply from someone with a PhD in agricultural science who said that "organic agriculture" is not really a "hard" science but a philosophy. I was not aware that there are "hard" and "soft" versions of science, the only one I know is based on fact. I have concluded that many people are afraid of confronting the real problems they face, therefore they invent artificial worlds where problems are magically solved by "philosophy." The sad fact is that after a while, they lose the ability to differentiate between the real world and the imaginary one they created.
Go to www.agroservicesinternational.com/Articles/Organic%20hoax.pdf for a copy of Terrence's article on e-mail.
Reader Nick Jarvis had this pleasant experience:
I work at the Clark Planetarium in Salt Lake City, Utah, and am fortunate enough to be able to work at a place where the mission is to educate the public on science and astronomy. I'm regularly involved in discussions with the Planetarium's patrons on various scientific topics. I'm also, however, in a position where I'm able to see how ignorance of basic scientific and astronomical principles, combined with an irrational need to experience the sensational, can lead people to jump to erroneous conclusions about some of the things they see in the nighttime sky. I would like to relate to you an example of a person I have encountered who was quick to jump to a paranormal explanation for a perfectly ordinary happening.One Sunday night, after we had closed and were in the process of cleaning, the telephone rang. The receptionist answered, and after about a minute she asked the caller if she would hold. She looked at me and said, "There's someone calling about a UFO. Do you want to talk to her?" Curious, I accepted, and took the phone. I spoke with an elderly woman who reported seeing "a red blinking object in the sky with a ring of light around it." She was quick to provide information such as its estimated altitude and speed of travel, noting that both were exceeding the performance ability of any known aircraft. I tried to extract from her its approximate position in the sky, and after a quick lesson in estimating the angle of elevation (the height of a fist held at arm's length approximates ten degrees of elevation) I had a rough idea of where in the sky she was seeing this object.
This episode took place last August when the planet Mars was in its opposition with the Earth. The woman's description of the objects position matched Mars' position, roughly southeast and at the correct elevation for that time of night, and its unusual brightness was certain to make it seem like an extraordinary sight. This was a likely explanation, but it still did not address the apparent ring around the object, its estimated speed, or the fact that it was blinking. Just to confirm that Mars was indeed in the right place, and to see if I could observe any of the other interesting effects the woman was seeing, I stepped outside to see the sky for myself. Looking at the planet, it became apparent that there was a thin layer of clouds through which we were both seeing the planet. This served not only to give a noticeable halo around the planet (a similar effect can be seen by observing a bright moon through light clouds) but the motion of the clouds with the wind gave the appearance that Mars was moving with significant speed through the sky.To solve the problem of the blinking, I needed some more information. Back on the phone with the woman, I asked if she had any trees or other tall objects near her house, specifically on the southeast side. She answered that there was a large aspen tree to the south of her house. I offered the explanation to the woman that she was seeing an unusually bright Mars that was given the appearance of movement and a halo by the thin clouds. I also suggested that it appeared to be blinking because she was looking at it through the fluttering leaves of an aspen tree.
After a moment's pondering, she conceded that what I had described was very likely the nature of the object she was seeing. What interested me is that the tone in her voice was very disappointed after the mysterious nature of her experience was resolved. I cite this anecdote as an example of people's readiness to accept a supernatural explanation for the world around them. Paranormal events are exciting, interesting, and entertaining. The result of the super-stimulated society in which we live is that we create a need for ever more excitement in our lives that boring old facts and reason cannot satisfy. The paranormal, however, offers people a false reality of delusion and deception — but never boredom.
Nick, I'm sure, is delighted that his simple, logical, explanation was so well accepted by the person who called him, even though a certain amount of disappointment was expressed. This is a positive step forward, recognizing the probable nature of what was once a mystery. We could use more of this sort of reality-grasping, and we should encourage it.
Harold "Hal" Puthoff is one of those fumbling scientists who — with his colleague Russell Targ — gave us the delightful experience of having Uri Geller paraded before the media as a genuine wunderkind, the "paradigm" that had been so long sought after by parapsychology. That delusion lasted for several years, until real scientists got around to examining the claims. I take pride in the fact that my first book, "The Magic of Uri Geller," in 1975, was largely responsible for bringing the attention of real science to these fatuous claims.
Targ and Puthoff reacted to my book strongly, of course. They put out a lengthy attempt at rebuttal in the "International Journal of Psychoenergetic Systems" — now defunct — in which they stated, incredibly:
In Flim Flam, [Randi] gives something like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I had the opportunity to confront Randi at a Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in tape-recorded interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points. He even said he would correct them for the upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP group. He did not.In case one thinks that it was just a case of our opinions vs. his opinions, we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: He said that in our Nature paper we verified Geller's metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this. He said that a film of the Geller experiment made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but by us and we just put his name on it. We showed up with an affidavit by Pressman saying that indeed he did make the film. Etc., etc."
I hardly know where to start, seriously. First, there were exactly 24, not 28, points that Puthoff refers to, a fact could have been ascertained simply by his looking at the book. I'm sure that a copy is available to this researcher, and copies a-plenty are reasonably priced here at the JREF — though that item moves very slowly; hardly anyone orders a book that is about a discredited performer. Puthoff's memory serves him poorly in this respect, and in other respects, as we'll see up ahead.
Yes, he did confront me at a meeting on one occasion, and ranted at me about the book. If he also tape-recorded that meeting, I was unaware of it, and he certainly did not inform me he was doing it, nor did he ask my permission to do so. However, I'm pleased that he did make that recording, since we now know that we can check my statements against the recording.
Ah, but wait! Puthoff says, "[Randi] admitted he was wrong on all the points." That's a lie, Dr. Puthoff, and it's a knowing lie, a purposeful deception, a mendacity. I said no such thing, and today, as then, I stand by the 24 points you refer to — ALL of them. But Puthoff continued: "[Randi] even said he would correct them for the upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP group. He did not." Another lie. I said nothing of the kind. What I did say, was that I would handle the matter of his proudly-brandished 24 points, in the upcoming Prometheus paperback. That book came out in 1982, and pages 217 to 227 discuss this matter in detail. Next week, I'll publish that material here, so you can see what lies Puthoff is engaged in.
Still dealing with just the above two paragraphs by Puthoff, so chock-full of misinformation: "[Randi] said that a film of the Geller experiment made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but by us and we just put his name on it." Nowhere in my writing does such a statement or even an inference to that effect, appear. I've always believed that Pressman filmed the farce, and have never made the statement that Puthoff quotes.
But, most important of all: I have written to Dr. Hal Puthoff asking for a copy of that evidential tape-recording that he says he made, catching me in the act of admitting that I was wrong. I have not received a response, to this day. Why? I think that my readers know full well why Puthoff is so silent and will not answer this simple request.
To emphasize my point, here is the text of a repeat letter I sent out on April 19th, 2004, to Dr. Hal Puthoff at The Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. Certified number: 7003 0500 0002 3034 8232.
Dr. Puthoff:I have had it thrown up to me several times that you possess an audio tape-recording that you say you made during a conversation we had at some un-named conference, years ago, perhaps in 1980. You have said that there were statements that I made on that occasion, which I do not recall having made. I'm now being called to account on these quoted statements.
I have written you previously about this, asking if I might have a copy of this tape-recording. I'm of course willing, as I told you before, to pay any expenses of preparing such a copy, and of mailing it to the address shown on this letterhead.
I am also willing to state that I have no intention of pursuing any legal action against you concerning the making of a recording without my knowledge or permission. I am prepared to send you a notarized document to that effect, if you request it.
This letter will be published on my web page (www.randi.org) as part of the weekly update that will appear for one week beginning Friday, April 23rd, 2004, well after you have received this postal mailing, so that you will be assured that this letter is authentic.
I await your response.
(Just as this page went up, I received a response from Dr. Puthoff. That will appear here next week in full.)
The long-running application of Natalya Lulova is now officially closed. It was opened on November 6, 2001. It's now been a year and two months since she re-applied, and her new lawyer has been running us through a series of acrobatic stunts that have established the reality of my experienced opinion on such matters — the young lady just doesn't want any more of any testing procedures or discussion thereof, though her mother appears to want to continue. The girl created her monster and nurtured it, it grew in ways that she'd not anticipated, and now she can't kill it. Yes, she'll continue to be a minor celebrity in her community in Brooklyn, but her story will soon lose its luster, and the believers will drift away.
Others doing the same blindfold trick: Margaret Foos, Mai Takahashi, and the kids whose parents paid handsomely to have them taught "eyeless sight" via El Instituto Más Vida in Mexico City, all backed down when it came time to really be tested; Natalya has now joined their ranks. Though I notified her lawyer two months ago of this closing of the application process, I received no response; she had been writing me in strident fashion demanding reactions to her silly and capricious demands, but now we receive nothing. The case is closed, after two sets of failed tests, 899 days (two and one-half years), and much back-and-forth between the JREF and Lulova's two lawyers.
This brings me to a discussion which has been active on the JREF Forum, namely, the question of why I don't rush into print to report each and every application that's made for the million-dollar prize. I have patiently tried to explain that we simply don't have time nor personnel to pursue such a vanity, but complaining seems to be a major pastime for many who show up on the Forum. What I do intend to do in this matter, is to have one of our interns look over the files of the applicants and do a breakdown of the different kinds of claims that have been submitted, and a summary of how they were handled. It's impossible to enter into much detail on very many of them, though you will have noticed that I've run some detailed discussions of a few of them here in recent months.
Our volunteer Kramer is getting together a plan whereby we will construct a CHALLENGE log, and a new area of the JREF Forum in which members can discuss the claims and the status of the investigations, preliminary testing, and what-have-you. We'd be posting daily updates and keeping things as current as possible, keeping in mind that updates would consist mainly of new applications, and very few notes on actual testing due to the fact that so very few applicants ever get to the preliminary testing stage.
Years ago, in 1985, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) held a conference in London, UK. In an article published in one of the myriad of UK periodicals devoted to woo-woo matters, a Pastor Jack Brock expressed his astonishment that the speakers on that occasion "delivered their homilies in humorous vein with nary a hint of contemptuousness or patronization." True to form, he concluded his article with a despairing commiseration for the CSICOPers:
They may all be right. But how impoverished they must be as individuals to go through life without the inner mental warmth of faith — not religious faith, simply the readiness to consider that life can hold something more exciting or ethereal than the sad limitations of the human condition that we recognize as our lot in having journeyed halfway towards our eventual oblivion.
I seldom find a better example of just how poorly the believers understand the true skeptics' view of reality, and though I would like to think that is only because of ignorance, I must opine that they assign this bleak view to us in order to more easily exult in their planned and defensive refusal to accept things as they are.
On a similar note, a writer who has entered into lengthy discussions with Jacob Spinney — who many of you met at The Amaz!ng Meeting 2 — sent me some of his rhetoric — just under 2,000 words! — copied from his encounters with Jacob, questioning why anyone would choose to lead a moral life if the fear of Hell were not present. I'd written here on our web page:
I have often had people ask me, "If you don't fear Hell, why would you live a moral life?" This is just about the most insulting, patronizing, demeaning, question that can be asked. It implies and assumes that without fear of dreadful retribution, anyone will steal, rob, murder, lie, or do anything at all, to benefit the self.
The writer went into a massive discussion of how it's not fear of Hell, but:
"Fear of God," (which literally means an acknowledgement of who he is and a yieldedness to his authority and Lordship), is why Christians accept Christ and Christianity.
Really? Well, it's fear, in any case, no matter from where it's derived. And isn't this Hell place where folks go if they don't "yield" — praise, obey, fear, placate, worship, and openly recognize this insecure all-powerful thing? Included with the package we have: burning brimstone, torture, drowning, pain, torment, really sleepless nights, and a variety of other nasties, I'm told.
I responded:
I don't think Spinney has any problem with this, nor do I.
I've referred to this previously, though I don't remember where. Just a few years ago while I was walking along a beach in Australia, I fell behind the other two who were walking with me because I spotted a few pieces of broken glass in the sand. I began picking them up and dropping them into a stray plastic bag that I'd also found, simply thinking that it was the right thing to do. I had no images of being awarded a medal, of receiving a halo in Heaven, of even being congratulated by my companions — in fact, they thought I was collecting shells.
I've done this sort of thing from time to time, simply because it seems to be the right thing to do. In the example just quoted, I must admit that I had images of kids running across that beach and being injured; that was followed with the satisfaction I had just knowing that perhaps I had forestalled such an accident. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT THING FOR ME TO DO! I didn't have to think twice about it, I didn't fear any penalty, I didn't anticipate any reward or thanks. In fact, I just hoped that my companions wouldn't notice what I was doing, so I wouldn't have to go through a long explanation — as I'm doing now.
I don't steal, or rape, or kill — but not because I'm forbidden to do so by some rules written in a book; it's because it occurs to me that the rightful owner of that property would probably be damaged by my action, and/or that force and coercion are not what I'd want used against me. I won't go on and on with this, because I have other things to do.
And I'm a confirmed atheist.
In any case, Jacob Spinney handled this matter very efficiently, discovering along the way that his opponent declined to ask the pertinent questions that Jacob threw up to him. That's expected….
Jacob will be joining the JREF in Florida in June as an intern along with Jonathan Pritchard — for Jonathan's second such service. We've got lots of work lined up, guys….
In the Tampa Tribune, columnist Daniel Ruth commented on a recent Bush TV speech:
Who knew that George W. Bush was so infallible, he makes Pope John Paul II look like Uri Geller?
For the moment, I won't make any comments about a recent particularly vile and libelous attack that has appeared on the JREF Forum; legal actions are already underway and will be reported on as they develop. That scurrying sound that you hear is one grubby trying to claw his way underneath Sylvia's crowded rock....
