Ghosts!

Do ghosts exist? That’s a tough question. Many people have told me stories of supernatural encounters with entities they describe as “ghosts”. They were in their home late one night, and they saw the distinct features of a small child at the end of the hall. They rubbed their yes, they shook their head, and the child was still there. A moment later, it vanished.

Are these people crazy? Certainly not. Are these people lying? Certainly not. Then how do we explain what they saw?

Before I begin the discussion proper, I would like to make the following statements:

1. I do not believe that ghosts exist.

2. I am not going to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts.

Please keep those in mind as I continue.

As I mentioned, I will not attempt to disprove the existence of ghosts. I will, however, attempt to prove that such a question is answerable. Whether or not I currently have the ability or technology at my disposal is irrelevant. Whether or not I would ever actually succeed in such an endeavor is equally irrelevant. All that I wish to convince you, the reader, of is the fact that if ghosts do exist, then that is provable (or disprovable).

To steal a quote from my father, “To measure is to know.” I believe completely in this statement, taken out to the extreme. Everything that is can be measured. If something cannot be measured, then it probably does not exist. It may be the case that we lack the proper tools to measure it, but that does not mean it is not a measurable thing.

To put it another way: Everything in the universe is subject to a rule. If there is an exception to that rule, then we did not understand the rule. There are no exceptions.

Let’s say that someone sees a ghost. Humans see things by catching reflected light (and a specific spectrum of light, no less) with the eye. That is what it is to “see” something. I don’t know the exact science behind it, but this layman’s understanding is all we need. Reflected or refracted (or whatever) light is a measurable phenomena. If a ghost is something that can be seen, then it is something that can be measured. The same system can be applied to “hearing a ghost”. Sound occurs when vibrations travel through a medium (like the atmosphere) and are picked up by our ears. That is a measurable phenomena. These are the definitions of what it is to see or hear something. There is no other way in which humans see or hear things external to them.

If ghosts exist, then they are measurable. There are no exceptions to this. If we cannot currently “measure” a ghost, then simply do not understand ghosts well enough, or lack the proper technology.

It may be the case that ghosts do exist. I am fully willing to admit this possibility. But if they do exist, by any definition of the word, then they are measurable and therefore provable (or disprovable).

Response: Maybe ghosts do not reflect light or cause vibrations, but instead put the sensations into our minds directly. In this manner, they make us see or hear things without causing the external stimulus normally associated with said phenomena.

The brain is a measurable thing. Our ability to understand and measure it are not perfect, not by a long shot. Brain waves are measurable things. If a ghost is affecting the brain in some manner, then that is a measurable thing. Again, if a ghost exists, then it is not an exception to the rules. If a ghost exists, then it is measurable in some manner, whether by sight, sound, brain waves, or some other spectra or energy wave – even if we haven’t discovered that wavelength or spectra yet.

Under God

The inclusion of “under God” within the American Pledge of Allegiance is flagrantly unconstitutional. It openly acknowledge a divine being as supreme ruler, which presides over our nation.

Before I delve into this matter, let’s take a look at some historical facts.

1. The United States Constitution contains no mention of the word “God”, or any of his many nicknames.

2. Until 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance contained no mention of any deity or supernatural entity.

3. On June 14, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill adding the phrase “under God” to the Pledge. He did this after attending a spirited sermon by Rev. Dr. George McPherson Docherty at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. Eisenhower, a recently baptized Presbyterian, fervently supported the Reverend’s religious reasons for including the phrase.

4. The above bill was signed in a time when Atheist Communism was the hated enemy of the United States, and accordingly Christian conservatism and patriotism were extremely popular.

5. Pres. Eisenhower announced the following phrase after signing the above bill: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”

To be honest, #5 wins the argument for me. For the sake of thoroughness, I will continue the discussion further.

Response: The phrase “under God” endorses no particular religion, it simply acknowledges a generic, all-encompassing “God”, and does not favor one religion over another.

This response is transparently weak, but I thought I would include it, just in case. The inclusion of any mention of any supernatural entity has already “picked sides”, in favor of the believers. Atheists don’t want it to say, “under no God”, they simply want it to contain no mention of any god at all. The Pledge of Allegiance should be utterly neutral when it comes to religion – it shouldn’t mention it at all. I am pledging myself to a nation, not a deity. I want that nation to be guided by reason and justice, not faith and dogma.

Response: The phrase “under God” does not endorse or establish religion, it only acknowledges the nation’s religious heritage, in particular the role of religion for the Founding Fathers. Thus, the Pledge is a secular act rather than an act of indoctrination in religion or expression of religious devotion.

The above argument was one presented by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presided over the Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District (2004), in which the father of a 13 year old girl sued the school district for forcing the girl to recite the Pledge (including the “under God” phrase). It pains me to see such an argument presented by someone so high up in our judicial system. It genuinely does. It took me less than ten minutes to find the citation that refutes his perspective (numbers 1-5 above). This was not a secular, historical ‘nod’ to the religious perspectives of our Founding Fathers. This was a pious act, with every intention of promoting Christianity within the nation.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the Founding Fathers, as they are often gestured toward by religious individuals during these conversations as a justification for the inclusion of Christianity within our government.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant men. I have nothing but respect for them. I think that they had among their ranks some of the wisest and sharpest individuals the world has ever seen (Franklin, I’m looking at you). It is a fact that these men believed in the God of Abraham. However it is also a fact that they sought to create a nation free from any sort of repression, coercion, or indoctrination. If I had to sum up the intentions of the Founding Fathers in regard to our nation, I would use the following words: Freedom, liberty, and justice. I would not use words such as piety, Christianity, or faith. It wasn’t faith that made this nation. It was bloodshed and reason. It wasn’t faith that guided the Drafters of the Constitution, it was enlightenment and cultural evolution. It was not the God of Abraham that allowed us to defeat the British, to abolish slavery, or give women the right to vote. It was the lives of countless young men and women, and the dispelling of antiquated, archaic, and base beliefs that do not deserve our praise and admiration, but our contempt and dismissal.

Let’s not lie to ourselves about our nation and our intentions. Keep your ancient, bloodthirsty Semitic sky deities out of my government.

End of the World

I am finding myself increasingly boggled by the actions of my fellow human beings. Over the last month or two, I have been seeing an increase in the “May 21 – Judgment Day” posters and preachers. These people, of which there are apparently quite a few, believe that the world will end tomorrow, Saturday May 21 2011. They honestly believe that angels will sound the trumpets, releasing the seals and sending the world into a cataclysmic nightmare after all the Christians have been transported up to heaven. How modern, reasonable people can dilute and deceive themselves into believing this prediction is beyond my ability to comprehend. Some of these people, over the last months or even years, have gone so far as to quit their jobs, stop saving money for their children’s college education, and squandered all of their funds on spreading the news of the coming Apocalypse. These people should not have been allowed to reproduce.

Just so everyone is clear, the guy behind this movement, Harold Camping, is a 90-something year old retired civil engineer turned preacher who runs a very fundamentalist Christian talk radio show. Here is how he knows the world is going to end tomorrow. (He says he is 100% certain of this, that there is no chance or doubt involved). Ready? Here we go:

Some numbers repeat a lot in the Bible, and these numbers are associated with particular themes. The number five is associated with “atonement”, ten with “completeness”, and 17 with “heaven”. If we multiply those numbers by each other, then square the total, we get 722,500. If Jesus hung on the cross on April 1, 33 AD, then it will have been 722,500 days since then on Saturday, May 21, 2011. Oh ya, and for some reason, it’s going to start at 6 p.m. (pacific standard time, of course).

Yep. That’s his basis for claiming the world will end. Also, he had originally predicted that the world would end on Sept. 6, 1994. Nothing happened that day. He then changed his prediction immediately thereafter, to March 31 1995. I’m pretty sure the world didn’t end then, either.

Now, I’ve read the Bible. I honestly have. I am fairly certain Jesus actually tells us, in plain-as-day language, when Judgment day will occur. Spoiler Alert: he said it would happen within one generation of his death. Twice. He says this twice (see my post about Prophecy in the Bible). I am also fairly certain he never says that 722,500 days after his crucifixion the world will end.

Some believers are very reasonable people. Some of them are brilliant, and I respect their perspective and arguments. Sadly, people like Harold Camping and the Muslims claiming the US didn’t respect Islamic burial rights in regard to Bin Laden are making it harder and harder.

Anyway, see you all on Monday.

Musings on Reproduction

I was at Jamba Juice this morning, enjoying a delicious and healthy breakfast with my girlfriend, when I spy a young couple entering the establishment. The man and woman, who were no more than 30-35 years old, had three children scampering about their feet. The variance between the children's ages was no more than 1 or 2 years. In addition to all of this, the woman was very pregnant.

Many people would see this scene and think, "How adorable." I, however, thought to myself, "How selfish."

How is it, in a world where millions of parent-less children are starving to death every year, can we justify reproducing to the levels of this couple? What reason, besides the fulfillment of the desire to reproduce, do we have for creating so many new humans? Overpopulation is one of the most prevalent and dire issues plaguing the global ecosystem, and it is one that we all seem to welcome with open, loving arms.

News flash, everyone: we aren't still recovering from The Flood. Each new person you create adds to one of biggest problems we face today. Creating a new life is one of the most dramatic and influential endeavors a human can undertake, especially in a global society as interconnected as the one we live in.

Please, for the sake of us all, stop making so many babies.

Musings on Individuality

Here is a brief musing I wrote some time ago. Nothing fancy here, just a fun thought.

What does it mean to be an individual? What is the opposite of an individual? Is it a group? Or maybe it is a “Plurality”, which does not necessarily mean that the person is part of a larger group, but that the person is splintered or is validated by things outside of itself.

A true individual is someone whose explanation of actions and of the self starts and ends with the individual. The individual’s actions flow out from her, they do not have an antecedent. There is no such thing as a compelling outside force, as all forces that drive action are internal. There is no scapegoat, no excuse, only complete responsibility for everything that makes up the self. There is no appeal to Nature or Nurture, no traumatic childhood experience that compels action. The individual is praiseworthy of every accomplishment and blameworthy of every failure. The individual feels compromised when performing acts in concert with others. The feeling of loss of autonomy is disconcerting to the individual. The individual does not wish her voice drowned out by others or added to the greater din of the crowd. The individual wishes to be seen and herd, not as part of many, but one standing out from many.

The plural person sites things outside herself. The plural person is a product of external forces, Nature and Nurture, and the pressure of peers. When asked “Why?”, the plural person will say “They made me do it!” The accomplishments and failures of the plural person are never her own – they belong to the external forces at work within her. The plural person exists most comfortably when around others. The plural person needs external forces to guide her, as the source of her action is not within. The plural person feels right when singing in chorus, when cheering at a sporting event, and when applauding the conclusion of a show. The hum of the collective and the sway of the crowd are pleasant to the plural person.

True Individual- one person in number, in action, in intent, and in cause.

Plural- more than one person in action, in intent, and in cause; not necessarily more than one person in number.

Who gets to be a Christian?

This short essay was inspired by conversations with actual, practicing Christians. It starts with an earnest question, one I am still cannot answer. If anyone can offer further insight into this question, please don't hesitate to post a comment.
-----

Who gets to call themselves a Christian? Who is allowed to join the club, and who is denied entrance?

*for this discussion, I am referring to Christianity as the sub-category of all religions that believe Jesus was the Messiah (which is also often referred to as “Christianity), which is distinct from Catholicism and contains such groups as Protestants, Evangelicals, Born-Agains, and etc.

This question is easily answered when it comes to Catholics – they have a special organization with a leader that presides over every individual within that organization across the globe. To be a Catholic is to be a member of the Catholic Church.

What does it mean to be a Christian, then? The answer is somewhat reminiscent of Islam – it simply requires the Admission of Faith. Most Christians would say that an individual must “accept Jesus Christ as his or her personal lord and savior” in order to be classified as a Christian. The belief that faith alone can align an individual with god is distinct from the Catholic belief that faith, plus admittance into their club, is required to align with god.

To believe in Jesus as the one, true god, and to follow the Bible’s teachings – that’s another way of putting it, I suppose. What further criteria is there for a Christian? I earnestly wish to have this issue clarified, as it seems to me to be quite ambiguous.

If the above is true, why is it that so many Christians are quick to say “They are not a real Christian” when referring to so-called Christians that cast a negative light on their faith? What right to they have to question another’s faith? I guarantee that so-called Christians feel just as much conviction, emotion, and faith in regard to their adherence to Jesus as the one true god. I’m sure he or she has accepted Jesus his or her personal lord and savior. What is the difference between them and you, oh arbiter of Christendom?

For argument’s sake, let’s put down some reasonable criteria for deciding who gets to decide on the members of the Christianity Club, taking some inspiration from the Pope. I will repeat for emphasis: this is not the criteria for being Christian (which would be more lenient), this is the criteria for being an individual with the authority to judge who is Christian and who is not.

Arbiter of Christianity

1. Must have read the Bible, from cover to cover, more than once.

2. Must know the general contents of each book of the Bible.

3. Must attend religious gatherings with great frequency and consistency.

4. Must understand the cultural climate of Biblical times, to allow for proper interpretation.

5. Must accept Jesus as personal lord and savior.

6. Must have faith in Jesus’ power to save souls.

7. Must attempt to follow Jesus’ example as much as possible (including charity, humility, honest, unconditional love for all humanity, and absolute adherence to pacifism).

I am being very generous with Numbers 1 and 2. The Pope can probably recite whole books of the Bible from memory (and in two or more languages); I’m simply requiring a basic level of Biblical comprehension. Number 3 is not too tough, either. Number 4 is not outrageous to require, it is vitally important for examining both the Bible and Jesus’ life and actions. Numbers 5 and 6 are easy enough. Number 7 should be expected of the Arbiter of Christianity, of course.

I think I have presented a very reasonable set of criteria that would give someone the authority to judge who is a Christian and who is not, in fact, I think I am being overly lenient. I am being especially lenient to prove a point, of course. I ask any Christian that thinks that the members of the West Borough Baptist Church are not real Christians to take a look at the extremely basic criteria I presented above. Look at that criteria and ask yourself, do you meet each requirement?

Never actually sat down and read the Bible, cover to cover? No authority.

Didn’t retain any information from your Bible reading? No authority.

Can’t quote the Bible to back up claims? No authority.

Only attend religious gatherings on occasion? No authority.

Don’t have knowledge of the culture and history surrounding Biblical times? No authority.

Violent, in action or in words? No authority.

Turn down a homeless person’s request for money? No authority.

Habits of acting jealously, untruthfully, or maliciously? No authority.

Focused on accumulating material wealth? No authority.

I will repeat the question again, for added emphasis: Who are you to say who is a Christian and who is not?

Compare yourself to, say, a member of the West Borough Baptist Church. I would bet my bottom dollar that most the members of said church have read the Bible several times, and can quote verse at the drop of a hat. They can recite various scriptural passages in order to back up their (insane and hateful) claims. Can you quote the Bible? You assert that they are not real Christians – can you back that up with line and verse references? Again, I bet they can back up their (insane and hateful) claims with said references. So who are you to say that you are “more Christian” than them?

This critique applies not only to Christianity, but to Islam as well (and any other faith, for that matter). Modern, moderate adherents to various faiths are quick to disavow the actions of the “extremists”. But you know what? I am fairly certain that those extremists know your religion better than you do. I am fairly certain they’ve read and studied their religious text more frequently and fervently than you have. I am fairly certain that their level of faith reaches summits yours has never achieved.

I ask anyone who adheres to an Abrahamic religion (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) to answer the following question regarding faith:

Is your faith strong enough that you would hijack an airplane filled with innocent people and fly said airplane into a building filled with more innocent people, taking your own and thousands of innocent lives, in order to fulfill your god’s wishes?

That, my friends, is real faith. That is someone who really believes.

I’ll ask it one last time: Who are you to question the faith of others? Who are you to say who is Christian (or Muslim) and who is not?

Side note: When it is all boiled down, stating that “They aren’t real Christians” is just a clear example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Fallacies are just that: fallacious, and therefore not a credible or powerful line of reasoning, especially when the individual making such a claim is in no position to arbitrate who is a Scot and who is not.

Bible Accuracy Series - Part 6: Closing Statements

Here's my final thoughts on the series. Thanks for reading! Up later this week: Who Gets to be a Christian?

So, Jesus. I don’t believe you about earthly things, so how am I to believe you about heavenly things?

The God of Abraham is, allegedly, very well informed. Some argue that he has omniscience, or close to it. Such a being, unbound by  constraints of time and space, that created the world and all things in it, must surely have a good grasp on the nature of that world and the events that transpired within it. Surely, if such a being were to create (or instruct others to create) a single book in which his guidance is contained, he would want that book to be accurate. Surely such a being would want to have accurate portrayals of human life, of mathematics, of engineering, and history. Why then, if such an omniscient being created (or inspired, sanctioned, and/or approved) it, does the Bible contain such flagrant inaccuracies and false prophecies? The answer is quite simple, and the sooner we accept that answer, the sooner humanity can move forward, as a whole, into the future.

That answer is, of course, that the book was not written, inspired, sanctioned, or otherwise created by a powerful divine being – it was created by relatively uneducated, simple people living in a remote part of the world thousands of years ago. Those people were terribly afraid of death, of the unknown, and of their fellow man. They were superstitious, xenophobic, and violent. They beat their women and children, tortured and killed people for imaginary crimes, and made blood sacrifices.

Do doctors consult ancient Babylonian birthing techniques when delivering children? Do politicians follow the principles of state laid out by the ancient Egyptians? Does the C.D.C. follow the guidelines used by clergy and doctors to handle the Bubonic Plague in medieval Europe? Certainly not. Why, then, do we continue to make any reference (moral or otherwise) to a document equally, if not more, ancient and full of error? What wisdoms are found within it that are not found in hosts of other books or easily derived through the modern applications of ethics and reason?

RESPONSE: We have learned a lot from studying what people in the past have written. Philosophy is founded on that principle – look at Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato, to name a few. Da Vinci may have lived several hundred years ago, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t great insight found in his writing! So it is with the Bible.

History has a lot to teach us. We would be foolish not to closely examine what has happened previously in human history when making decisions about what happens today and tomorrow. There is great insight in wisdom in many ancient texts, this is true. However, there is an important detail I really cannot stress enough:

Many people (the vast majority in the United States, for example), believe that the Bible is more than just an ancient text written by an ancient people. They believe it is different than, say, the Iliad or the Symposium. The difference between the Iliad and the Bible, in the eyes of these people, is that the Bible is true. That detail, that great leap, represents an entirely different approach to a text. The belief that a text is an accurate reflection of reality, that the contents were created (or inspired) by an all-powerful and all-knowing being carries with it a host of assumptions and biases – objectivity is entirely lost.

Now, don’t get me wrong, the Bible has a few bits of good advice within its six to seven hundred pages. The passages that state that lying, stealing, and killing should not be done are good examples of good advice. The places where Jesus calls for an unconditional love for mankind – also good. However, these recommendations are in no manner unique, nor were they unique at the time of their writing. Philosophies about forgiveness, honesty, and charity have been circling the globe since long before Jesus was crucified. For example, Jainism dates back as far as the 6^th century BCE, and contains a lot of very good advice on how to treat other humans (without the clear calls to violence contained within the Bible or the Koran).

I will reiterate for added emphasis: without the assumption that the Bible is true, what does the Bible offer us, today, in the year 2011? Why is it we still cling to a book that claims that, when the world ends (which Jesus claimed would happen within one generation of his death), a seven-headed, ten-horned red dragon will battle the angel Michael and his heavenly army immediately following the Virgin Mary giving birth to a figurative Jesus man-child that rises up to God’s throne before she flees into the woods for 2,300 days? Seriously, read the Book of Revelation.

Bible Accuracy Series - Part 5: Age of People in the Bible

Missed a few days! Here's Part 5 of the series. Tomorrow, the conclusion.

Age of People in the Bible

People in the Old Testament lived to be very old. So old as to defy our understanding of human life expectancy and human life spans. Without using self-referential justification, the reported ages are nonsensical. Consider the following individuals, whose ages exceed 900 years before they died:

Enosh, 905 [Genesis 5:11]

Kenan, 910 [Genesis 5:14]

Seth, 912 [Genesis 5:8]

Adam, 930 [Genesis 5:5]

Jared, 962 [Genesis 5:20]

Methuselah, 969 [Genesis 5:27]

The winner, Methuselah, lived to be very close to 1,000 years old. This goes against everything we know about human biology, let alone the biology of most animals on Earth. There is nothing in the fossil records that indicate humans have ever lived to be the ages described above. We think it remarkable, today, with all of our medicine and technology, when a person breaches the century marker. A person approaching nearly a millennium is something out of fantasy, not reality.

RESPONSE: God changed the life expectancy and life span of humans at multiple points in the Bible (from 900 to 120, and then finally to 70-80). The ages of the Old Testament individuals is consistent with this.

-This is self-referential justification. It is the same as saying “the Bible is right because it says it’s right”, and in no way provides evidence or credibility to the claims made therein.

RESPONSE: There is no theoretical limit to human life span, we simply succumb to disease or violence. The individuals in the Old Testament were free from disease and war, allowing them to live to be the indicated ages.

-Fossil evidence shows that bacteria, viruses, and other maladies have been around since long before humans arrived on the scene. There is no indication that humans were free from all afflictions in the time of Methuselah, unless we accept the Bible as self-referentially justifying (which we should not, as nothing can be justified in this manner). Lastly, and to be quite frank, this response (though supported, in part, by current biological studies) is backwards. It attempts to suggest that people were healthier 2,000 plus years ago than they are now, with all of our advances in science and medicine. This is not only unlikely, but counter to what our entire culture is structured around (the process of advancement).