1. From: "squaww03" Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:55 pm Subject: Sikh miracle

I have a few different ideas as to what this "miracle" is all about. First off, I have a feeling the relationship between the American and the ghuru may have had something to do with a leak of information to the Sikh. There is a possibility that the ghuru knew the names of the American's mother and sister and somehow the Sikh got this information from the ghuru. The passing of information might have been accidental, but maybe the ghuru was even working with the Sikh in some sort of scam to get rupees. Yet it doesn't say anywhere that the American actually paid the Sikh; it only says that the Sikh said he would do it for a fee. If the American did not even pay the Sikh, this scam idea is incorrect.

Another idea in my head has to do with the fact that the Sikh only wrote the names down and did not say or pronounce the names. Because the Sikh wrote the names down so correctly, I think he probably saw the names somewhere and memorized them. If you think about it, if the Sikh had known the names through conversation or from hearing them somewhere or from a voice in his head, he most likely would have spelled them incorrectly. Usually if people only hear a name and don't see it, they have a hard time spelling it correctly since there can be so many variations in spelling a name (even a simple name like Stacy, Stacey, Staci, Stacie, etc.). Furthermore, the Sikh even placed the accent mark in the correct place. This is understandable if the Sikh memorized the names from seeing them somehwere, but is harder to believe is he had HEARD them somewhere. How would he have known if there even WAS an accent mark in the sister's name, let alone where it would be placed? Perhaps the Sikh had possession of some sort of history record or other document about the American where he saw these names and memorized them with perfect spelling.

Another thought to consider is that the Sikh approached the man, not the other way around. The Sikh must have chosen that particular American for a reason. He wouldn't have approached the man without a specific agenda. The Sikh also had a specific piece of information he was offering. This is different than if the American had appproached the Sikh and asked him randomly if the Sikh knew the names of his mother and sister. Or it would have even been more of a miracle if the Sikh had still approached the man but said, "Ask me any question and I will answer it correctly for 10 rupees". Instead, the Sikh approached a specific man and had a specific piece of information he was offering, which makes the situation more skeptical to me.

Yet another thing I noticed about this story is the word choice. The man "claims" nobody in India knew "both" his sister's and mother's name. One can "claim" a lot of things and have no evidence to back up that claim. Perhaps there was somebody the man didn't know about who would have access to this information. Perhaps nobody knew "both" his sister's and mother's name, but someone might have known one name and gotten the other name from someone else.

Besides these thoughts, the only other thing that I find suspicious is that the Sikh was very well dressed and spoke fluent English. I'm not sure what these details could mean, but I think they are either part of an act that the Sikh put on to look smart and approachable or they are hints that the Sikh is intelligent and successful enough to have thourougly developed a scam to use against foreigners. Or maybe the Sikh actually did perform a miracle and there is simply no explaining to do! Not matter how small the probability, it is possible that the Sikh might have randomly written down two names and been correct. If he only wrote down first names and not a last name, he had an even greater chance of guessing the correct names. Although his chances were one in trillions, there is always that possibility.

2. From: "squaww03" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:51 pm Subject: Re: Sikh miracle

Another random idea popped into my head: What if we were not told the entire story? There are many endings that might reveal that the American knew the Sikh all along. This would be supported by the fact that the Sikh spoke fluent English, meaning the two could easily be friends. Also, it does not say anywhere that the Sikh is a complete stranger. Although it says that the American claims that nobody in India knew his mother's or sister's name, it does say that he visited India without anyone's knowledge. The Sikh could be a friend from America that the American did not know would be there because he did not tell anyone he was visiting. If the American did not consider the Sikh as being "in India" (since he didn't know he would be there), the accusation that nobody "in India" knew the two names would not apply to the Sikh. Given these circumstances, there are a number of possible alternate endings.

It is possible that after the Sikh writes down the two names, he looks at the American, laughs, and says, "Remember me? I'm so and so from so and so!". The American responds, "Ah, yes! I do remember you! You had me fooled there for a second. I actually thought you were a stranger who knew all about me."

Or perhaps the two men look at each other, laugh, and the Sikh says, "Now that was a funny little scene we just played out! I though you were going to break your concentration but we actually went along with it for quite some time! Perhaps I should become an actor and ditch the Sikh life." There are so many times where my friends and I just play out silly scenes like that and pretend we're dead serious, then break out of it whenever we feel like it and have a good laugh.

Or perhaps the American is annoyed with his friend, the Sikh, because the Sikh always tries to be funny by putting on these little jokes. This might explain why the American "says nothing". He's probably looking at the Sikh, thinking "Okay I got the joke. Can't he ever just greet me with a simple, 'Hello'? He always has to play some little game".

The number of alternate endings could go on and on, but my point is that I don't want to assume that what is written in the assignment is the entire story of what happened. Perhaps the real explanation is in the part of the story that was not told.

3. From: "squaww03" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:21 pm Subject: Speaking in Tongues

After reading this passage on Speaking in Tongues, I felt like I thought what most people probably thought in criticizing the man's claims. That is, I thought his claims were false because he could have easily faked the whole incident. Moreover, the man even said himself that he was influenced by a number of factors, such as his sensitivity throughout the day, the new sensation of the unique prayers, the energy from being surrounded by a circle of prayer and the knowledge that the man who touched his head was known for his talent in invoking glossolalia. It is quite possible that the man was so involved in the stages that led up to the final moment of his experience that he psychologically fell into the rhythm because it only felt right. After all, who is to say that the boys at his school were faking and not he? There is no way to really PROVE that he was authentically "born-again", so why be skeptical of the other boys' claims and not his? The answer is that he was the first one to make a claim and, thus, people did not get the idea that he was copying anybody. Nonetheless, his claim could have easily been as fallacious as his classmates'.

Another thought that crossed my mind has to do with the article we were assigned to read about cold readings. It says in the reading that sometimes a "psychic" will tell the client that the readings do not work all the time. This is beneficial for the reader in two ways: First, if the reader does happen to succeed, the client will think, "Wow, I must be really special because the reading worked on me". Second, the reader will be cut a little slack if the reading does not go well. My point is that I think Speaking in Tongues is similar to cold readings in that one who is attempting to experience glossolalia feels the same two feelings. If a person experiences glossolalia, they feel special because it does not happen to just anyone. Yet, if a person does not experience it, they might attribute it to the fact that it is so exhalted and holy that they are just part of the huge portion of people who are not lucky enough to have felt it.

These concepts are reflected in the way the writer of Speaking in Tongues became a celebrity at his school and was revered simply for what he experienced (much in the way a client feels special if their reading is successful). His friends did not react by saying, "How do we know he isn't lying?", but instead thought, "How come I'm not lucky enough to have experienced that?" (much in the way a client who does not have a successful reading might say, "Well I guess I wasn't lucky enough" instead of "Well there's probably no such thing as fortune telling"). Thus, when people hear about someone experiencing glossolalia, they don't question the validity of glossolalia itself, but the validity of the person who claims it. This seemingly protects someone if they are putting on an act because the circumstance becomes one of assuming everyone else is wrong and the "special" person is right, instead of the other way around.

Moving on, I also think Brother August may have had more influence on the man than is described. Brother August is the one who invited the boys to the mass, meaning he was somewhat in control of the situation. Perhaps Brother August gave the boys drugged beverages on the way to the mass that induced hallucinations. Since Brother August was a regular at the masses, he would know what time the prayer circles would start and could administer the drugs just the right amount of time prior so that it would kick in during the prayer circles. Perhaps only the boy who experienced the glossolalia accepted the beverage. Perhaps both boys took it, but only one experienced glossolalia because only one went into the middle of the circle and was under the right circumstances. Perhaps Brother August plans it out so that there is a long period of time where nobody experiences glossolalia so that when he does administer the drug to one person, it seems like more of a rare and holy experience (just as the cold reader speaks of a reading only being successful "some of the time). If Brother August were to give the drug to people all the time, it would not be as shocking of an occurrence because the glossolalia would be common.

According to the drug theory, Brother August would have been doing good publicity not only for himself, but for the priest and the prayer meetings as well. First, Brother August would get recognition for having brought the boys there in the first place and for giving the boy an opportunity to be "born-again". Second, the priest who laid his hand on the boy's head would have one more name to add to the list of successful "clients" and would keep his reputation (perhaps Brother August or the boy had some sort of deal worked out with the priest for this purpose). Third, the prayer meetings would gather more popularity because once people heard about how it was possible to Speak in Tongues by attending these meetings, they would surely attend. Just look at how the school, families and friends reacted; all of a sudden, everybody became more religious. All of these effects would also result if, say, the boy were making up the entire ordeal as a planned publicity stunt in connection with the church/priest/Brother August, etc.

No matter how much the boy claims that the experience was real, there is no way to prove what caused his "Speaking in Tongues" and so there is no way to understand what really happened. There is definitely the possibility that it is much more of a physical occurence than a spiritual one. This is in the sense of what he was saying about the vocal cords and how they operate under different situations. Perhaps this occurence was simply a strain of the vocal cords under the stress of being influenced by the man's sensitivity, the prayers, the priest's touch and so forth. Perhaps after seeing even one person speak in tongues, one uncounsciously mocks what one has previosly seen when put in the spotlight and expected to perform.

Another idea I just came accross in remembering the scandals regarding molestations by Catholic Priests is that it is possible that people are forced to pretend to experience such things because they are being blackmailed, have been molested or raped, are offered money, or are threatened by these higher officials. Furthermore, the fact that people all around the world claim to have these experiences might lead someone like a priest to feel like they have the power to join in on these stories and use people as a way to be included in what happens to people in other religions. Picture a priest hearing about people all over the world who have these experiences and knowing that nobody around him has had these experiences. He can use his power to force someone to pretend to have had an experience in exchange for something of his pleasure and nobody would question it because if people in other religions have these experiences, why wouldn't the boy from Notre Dame high school?

4. From: "squaww03" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 8:03 pm Subject: Religious Skepticism

I agree with the arguments made in this article regarding the touchy subject of the feud between science and religion. What appealed to me was that the article was more about curiousity than competition; more about the fairness of including religion in topics to be researched than the outcome of this research. I also liked that the author acknowledged the significance and purpose of religion in society:

"...to believe in religion is more than a question of cognitive assent, for religion has its roots in ethnic or national identity; and to question the empirical or rational grounds for religious belief is to shake at the very foundations of the social order."

Thus, the author is being responsible in admitting the sensitivity of the subject instead of treating religion like a toy that should be dissected and mutilated through scientific research. The article also makes an interesting comparison between the questions that society deems innocuous and the questions that are considered dangerous territory. Two such examples drawn from the article are, "Did Washington cross the Delaware?" and "Was there a Noah's Ark?". Why are people okay with researching the answer to one question and not the other? Precisely because of the aforementioned sensitivity of religion. Religion can be considered the base of humanity and, as such, is considered by some too sacred to tamper with. A lot of people would be in denial if they were told there is no such thing as Noah's Ark because it chips away at the stories that are the basis of their faith. Yet, the point of the article is that just because religion is a sensitive subject, there is no excuse for isolating it from science. I agree with the article that protecting religion from science and inquiry is a "cop-out".

As mentioned in the article, the battle between science and religion is heated and never ending. I find it frustrating, however, that one side of this battle is protected and the other isn't. The battle is unfair: Science is going in with no weapons except those that it has tested on itself. It has no armor on and is excited about the battle because it will study not only its opponent's wounds, but its own wounds in hopes of learning what to do to strengthen itself for the next battle. Religion, on the other hand, is covered from head to toe in armor and has secret weapons that they claim have devastating effects, but instead of religion USING these secret weapons, they inform their opponent that just saying the weapons work is enough. Thus, science can only hear of religion's defense and will never actually get to experience a battle first hand because religion is not willing to prove that what it says about its weapons is true. Not much of a battle occurs. It seems quite unfair that one side wants nothing more than to fight and learn in retrospect and the other side is playing it safe.

I agree with the author that the answer to the article's title, "Should Skeptical Inquiry Be Applied to Religion?", is yes. There is no reason to play it safe anymore and let religion continue to play the role of the infallible. It will only do good to apply science to religion. Whatever the outcome, we will only be learning, (even if it means learning that some of are wrong and others are right). Since most religious people are so into the "faith" of religion, it should make no difference what science says. If science did somehow prevail over religion and prove that religion carries false claims, those who were against science in the first place should have enough faith in their religion that whatever science says should not even deter them. For, if their faith does not withstand the pressure of science, they probably were never truly committed to their religion anyways.

5. From: "squaww03" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 8:39 pm Subject: Cold Readings

I always thought psychics and fortune tellers were more talented in observing people than telling the future. This article simply explains in more detail this very prediction. As soon as I saw the words "fortune teller" in the article, I thought of the movie "Pee Wee's Big Adventure". There is a scene in the movie where Pee Wee Herman goes to a psychic in hopes of learning the whereabouts of his recently stolen bicycle. He puts his coat on the chair and is so emotionally wracked by the disappereance of his bike that he is ready to hear anything. The psychic distracts him with a crystal ball and while Pee Wee is looking in the ball, the psychic takes his wallet out of his coat pocket. She flips through pictures in the wallet and comes across pictures of his bike (where a normal person would have pictures of their family or pets).

Obviously, the psychic assumed the bike was important to Pee Wee and guessed correctly when she pretended to find the answer in the crystal ball and exclaimed, "I see a....bike!" Pee Wee got excited because she "knew" what he had come for and he asked, "Where is it? Where's my bike?" and the psychic basically could have made up any place in the world and Pee Wee would have gone searching for it assuming she was right. This is exactly what the article refers to; the client (Pee Wee) tends to do most of the talking and the psychic is basically told what to say. Because Pee Wee said "Where is my bike?", the psychic knew it had been stolen and the reading was a piece of cake from there because the reader now knew the client's reason for coming. It also helped that Pee Wee was open to anything she had to say.

On a side note, I performed at the Super Bowl and while I was in Houston, I went to a party that was thrown by Maxim magazine. The party was a circus theme, titled "Circus Maximus" and they had a ferris wheel, carnival games and, more importantly, fortune telling. I had just read the Cold Reading article about a week earlier and so I was really excited to go to the fortune teller and try and use what I read to see their tricks. Unfortunately, the line was so long that I didn't have time to get my fortune told, but I did get to see a lot of what was mentioned in the article. First off, the lights were low and there was moody music inside of the tents. The fortune tellers had on the typical hoop earings, head wraps, layers of clothes, and sat at little tables in the center of the tents. They had tarot cards and were doing palm readings and both of them spoke with overdone accents. It was obvious that the whole experience was supposed to be for pure entertainment, but it was interesting how much just the visual aspect of it all was so effective. Just standing outside of the tent looking in, I felt an eery sensation that something otherworldly was going on inside those tents. At the same time, however, I could see the readers watching the client out of the corner of their eye a majority of the time, which is what the article mentioned. They were watching each client's reaction to what was said and proceeded based on the reactions.

I also found it interesting how many people were in line waiting to have their fortunes told. Why are people so drawn to psychics even when they suspect they are bogus? Well, obviously it is entertaining to sit down in the cheesy tent and see if the reader is good enough to guess something right. It also didn't hurt that everything at this party was free, so there was no cash wasted whether the psychic was right or wrong. Some people were in line with friends and it looked like they were getting ready to go on a roller coaster: They clutched each others' arms, saying "I'm scared! These things are freaky! I don't want to do it! I've never done this before!" People are scared to get their fortunes told, yet they still do it for fun (like a roller coaster). It was just interesting to me because I hadn't come across fortune tellers in a long time and they are still just as captivating to people as ever. Even knowing the tricks of cold readings, people still want to have their fortunes told. It is not unlike a magician: Even when a magician tells me the secret to a trick, I do not respond with, "Well, good. Now I don't need to see that trick anymore", but rather with, "Cool! Do it again!" An important thing to note, however, is that I look at such tricks as entertainment and not truth.

6. From: "squaww03" Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:57 pm Subject: Manifesto

This article does a nice job of reminding skeptics that there are certain guidelines to making skepticism a form of advancement rather than a hinderance. One must find a happy medium between denying everything they hear and being gullible. I agree with the Manifesto that research has a lot to do with maintaining this balance and bringing about a type of skepticism that does not simply deny a claim, but finds a more truthful claim to replace it. We've all encountered situations where somebody offers an idea to solve a solution and somebody else says, "No, that won't work. What a stupid idea" but doesn't offer an alternative solution. Such stubbornness raises the question, "Well, do you have a better idea?". A good skeptic should either have the motive of finding a better idea or proving why the current idea is inadequate.

Another tendency people tend to fall into is that of falsely attaching a cause to an effect. The Manifesto uses the example of the 100th Monkey phenomenon. Instead of taking time to think, people too often assume one thing caused another, whereas a little bit of research or thought could shed more light on a situation. Instead of taking the 100th Monkey phenomenon as truth, one should take a moment to think about what really might have happened. This is similar to how Darwin used what could have been a handicap (his slow thinking) to actually help him ruminate on every idea that came to his head. By taking time, one allows new ideas to form in the mind and maintains a welcoming view of the world. The Manifesto also emphasizes this very notion that being open to knew ideas is a key factor in skepticism. One must not take an ornery approach to skepticism, but should rather be motivated to learn.

7. From: "squaww03" Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:44 pm Subject: President's Speech

I found one line of President Bush's speech particularly ironic:

"Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country."

I'm sure a lot of Americans feel this statement holds true for themselves as much as it is intended to hold true for Iraqis. When the leader of our country lies to us repeatedly about something as important as the reasons for starting a war, why shouldn't we see him as an enemy as well?

In light of what we know today about the false claims of Saddam's possession of "weapons of mass destruction", I can't help but think that these "intelligence" agencies that Bush referred to in nearly every paragraph were not so intelligent. I also found it interesting that Saddam had been pressured for 12 years before an ultimatum was given for him to disarm. One thought that comes to mind is, "Why did we wait for so long to take action?" Another thought, however, is "Why would Saddam wait for so long to take action?" If Saddam really did have massively destructive weapons, why would he put up with the UN breathing down his neck for 12 years? One would think after about a year of verbal and military attacks, Saddam would have put those weapons to use. Perhaps this was a sign that he really did not have weapons capable of "killing millions of people".

President Bush also tries to instill fear in the audience by saying that terrorists are not "politely putting us on notice before they strike", yet it is now thought that Bush had clear evidence that there was a planned attack on 9/11, but did nothing about it. Bush seemed to think a smart idea in retaliation would be to announce to the entire world our own plans by running war coverage and governmental speeches on CNN and FOX News all day every day.

Bush's entire speech is dedicated to ostracizing Saddam. He makes Saddam a pariah from the family of the UN, making Americans view him as a pest that needs to be rid of. Yet, Bush tries to make a point that our goal is peace and freedom. One must ask, is it acceptable that our means of reaching these goals are murder and invasion? I think this speech is diverting our attention away from a threat that is much closer to home. Rumors circulate that Bush knew all along about 9/11 and even that he was an accomplice to 9/11 so that his approval ratings would skyrocket in the aftermath (which they did, due to his efforts to console our nation and claim vengance). In knowing now that his claims in this particular speech were false, it is justifiable to second guess his authority and feel betrayed by a leader who lied to our faces. The fact that our own people are losing their lives because of his lies makes it even more of a sensitive issue.

In analyzing the speech in light of what we know today, one cannot be sure how much of it is true. How reliable are our sources of intelligence? How do we know that the government is not informed (even if not "politely") about attacks on our country? At least there is one good thing to look forward to: elections are coming up.

8. From: "squaww03" Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:34 pm Subject: Viruses of the Mind

I think the concept of memetics is something that is thought provoking and testing. I definitely agree with Dawkins that people are programmed at an early age and send and receive data to and from the outside world. All of our senses are like different drives in a computer that receive different types of innformation. I agree that "crazes" are not unlike viruses that spread among teenagers. Being only 18 years old myself, I am still in the midst of these crazes. Being in the entertainment industry, furthermore, I could not escape crazes if I tried. Clothing, speech, slang, makeup, hairstyles, music and dance styles are all transferred from one person to another and catch on like wildfire. Although this concept of viral crazes is obvious, I wonder why it peaks at certain ages? Or why some people have the individuality to ignore crazes and others feel inadequate if they are not living examples of crazes?

The article also clearly addressed the issue of "speaking in tongues" as something that is replicated or copied. This suggests that it is not something that happens naturally, but is rather something that people do because they see or hear of it and then continue in replicatig it. Another issue this article addressed is that of faith. I spoke about faith in response to the "Skepticism in Religion" article, saying that people use faith as a crutch and think factual evidence is not necessary. Memes might play a part in this, for a meme will infect a person's mind and make that person take it for truth, with or without evidence. I find it even more fascinating that some people might find it a virtue to believe the impossible. People could very well be overzealously religious simply because it might make them look like true believers if they believe something really crazy. I had never thought of that before, but it is definitely a thought.

Another point that is repeatedly mentioned in this article is that children tend to pick up the religious beliefs of their parents. Although this has statistical support, I believe it is decreasing in value because more and more young people are branching out to find the belief that is "right" for them. However, this is actually more of a switching of influences. Instead of people copying their parents, they are copying their friends or other people they look up to. For example, Britney Spears strayed from her parents' Catholicism to look into Kabbalah. Was this an independent move to search for truth? Maybe, but it is worth noting that Madonna is a devoted follower of Kabbalah and Britney is a devote follower of Madonna. Parents, therefore, are just being replaced with other rolemodels. The article calls this trend "horizontal transmission" because it diverts from the vertical transission of heredity.

I also agree with the article that science is not so much transferred aimlessly as religion. Yet, I do think it does fall somewhat victim to memetics. Although science is spread because it is accurate and factual, I also think sometimes people will assume science is right just because they have been programmed to think science is right. For example, people tend to always believe statistical information because it involves objective figures such as numbers and percentages. However, statistics are often tampered with or provide information in the wrong context and make things appear differently than they are. People don't always question statistics because they are told statistics are correct, but science is not completely safe from memetics.

9. From: "squaww03" Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:58 pm Subject: FiLCHeRS

I commend James Lett for being able to put the guidelines of critical thinking into such an organized process. I have always incorporated each aspect of FiLCHeRS in my thinking process, but each aspect was always a vague understanding my mind. I knew why certain claims were false and why certain evidence was unsubstantiated, but I had problems explaining this to people if I was ever questioned. For example, if somebody were to ask me if I believed in evolution or creationism, I would say evolution. That person would then argue for creationism, and I would say, "You can't prove anything about creationism!" The response would be, "But you can't prove it isn't true either". I would always know in my mind that there was something wrong with using the excuse of "you can't prove it ISN'T true, so it IS true", but I could never really pin point my reasoning. Lett's article does a nice job of addressing these situations and many others.

I think each and every point of FiLCHeRS greatly contributes to a proper way of thinking. I also think that applying FiLCHeRS to any given claim is a very difficult task and takes a great amount of intelligence from the researcher in the first place. For example, in looking at the claim "All dogs have fleas. Xavier is a dog. Therefore, Xavier has fleas", one would have to be smart enough to stop and realize that the claim "All dogs have fleas" is false. Some people would not pay that close attention since dogs and fleas are two things we associate with eachother and do not seem fallacious when put in a claim together. Thus, I think that FiLCHeRS is a great way for people to improve their way of thinking, but one would have to have a fairly sophisticated way of thinking in the first place. It is almost as if the people who really need to use FiLCHeRs (the ones who make false claims and deny the importance of evidence) are the ones who either don't care enough or who are so used to relying on faith and subjectivity that they would not do FiLCHeRS justice. Those who would be interested and motivated to use FiLCHeRS, on the other hand, are people who already have a critical way of thinking and are searching for truth naturally (otherwise they would not be motivated to us FiLCHeRS). Somehow, the skeptics get more skeptical and the believers fall deeper into their beliefs.

As much as I advocate critical thinking as presented in this article, I also understand the comfortability in believing certain things just because of their appeal. The claims that are worth deep investigations and research are often personal. Religion and UFO's, for example, are extremely personal to people. I have had countless debates about religion, but just recently I had a debate about UFO's. The person I was talking to was so profoundly sure that aliens exist that it felt like we were talking about religion. In essence, aliens were his gods. He had no actual evidence for his belief, other than testimony. He had seen UFO's and knew of other people who have had contact with aliens. Each time I asked him to prove his claim, he would say, "Just wait. I used to be like you. I used to think it was all bogus. But one day you'll understand and you'll just KNOW, the same way I know." I actually felt belittled, like he was telling me that I was ignorant or that it was my fault that I didn't "KNOW" yet. I soon understood, however, that his belief in aliens was something that gave him happiness. It made him happy and excited to "know" something as special as the existence of extraterrestrials. He would be crushed if one day the newspaper came out with an article titled, "Astronomists Have Proven There is No Way in Hell Aliens Exist". His dream would be shattered.

My point is that the issues that are the most debated and researched are the issues that are the most personal. People don't want to succumb to the Honesty requirement of FiLCHeRS. If I were to spend years and years of my life rigourously trying to prove that there is no possible way that aliens exist, the moment my friend realized this truth, he would be devastated. I don't know exactly how this would make me feel: Perhaps I would feel guilty for ruining my friend's dreams. Perhaps seeing his face go numb like the life was sucked out of him would prompt me to say, "Just kidding! Maybe I made an error in my calculations!" just to see him smile again. Perhaps I would regret spending years of my life trying to disprove the driving force of my friend's life.

There are certain things that, while they are important to investigate, are more useful to people when they are neither true nor false. In the end, people will most likely just believe what they want to believe anyway. This makes me think that applying FiLCHeRS to a claim is important, but the results should be exposed carefully. I am not denying the importance of critical thinking (I am the leader of skepticism among my family and friends), but I am merely pointing out that I understand where the people who are under scrutiny are coming from. I will nonetheless have great fun trying to utilize FiLCHeRS in my own thinking and hopefully will become much better at translating my thoughts about falsifiable claims into arguments.

10. From: "squaww03" Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:09 pm Subject: paranormal feats

I ultimately didn't have any reaction to this article. I felt more like I was reading directions on how to shoot a free throw than on "paranormal feats". This is probably because I have never seen these feats as anything magical or extraordinary. There is obviously a secret to them or else people would not do these things all the time without getting hurt. Thus, the parts of the article that explained the physics behind the tricks were not surprising. I already knew that a bed of nails could be lied upon safely because of the distribution of weight and so on.

I will now stray away from delving into a "mood swing" and attempt to critique this article. My main reaction, ultimately, is not towards the revealing of the secrets, but towards the REASON for revealing the secrets. I think it is wonderful that this physics teacher does demonstrations like these to teach his students. If my physics teacher had taken this approach, I probably would not have dropped out of the class on the second day. I think this is a wonderful way for students to become interested in physics because it attaches concepts to specific situations. For example, instead of just learning about the difference between temperature and heat from a textbook, these students learned the difference by watching the specific situation of dipping one's fingers into molten lead.

Another thought that came to mind was, "Who comes up with these feats?" I am curious to know who thought to perform these acts, if there was much experimentation involved or if they were carefully planned out. I also wonder if the motivation was simply to create a form of entertainment or if there was a goal of learning something by making up these feats. Either way, people are learning from them now, thanks to professors like David G. Willey. Not only are these students learning about physics, they are also learning that seemingly "paranormal" feats can easily be explained through real evidence.

11. From: "squaww03" Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:26 pm Subject: Re: Has Lane successfully proved evolution?

I'm in Lane's PHIL 8 class and I am replying to this post because it deals with the pseudoscience of religion. I think this is a great and honest post because it is questioning religion and you guys are really thinking about the effects that religion has on our society. It's true: what if we are just an alien's science project? There are countless possibilities as to what we owe the pleasure of our existence, but the point of this being a pseudoscience is that there is no way to prove or disprove any of these possibilities. We are still at a stand still since the presence of evolution and chance would not change the presence of God. I think this is a great post, nonetheless, because it is taking the pseudoscience of religion and making intelligent observations. I have read too many posts where people aimlessly argue about religion and don't get anywhere. The way to go is to ask questions and offer alternatives, which this post did.

>>You are absolutely right. None of the scientific arguments that could be offered on behalf of evolution or any other theory of being and the existence of the universe do anything to disprove the hypothesis of the existence of a god.

The question should be- what does? It strikes me as kind of peculiar that billions of people earthwide are willing to make life altering and life limiting decisions based on a mythological creature. What scientific proof can be offered on behalf of god. We do have a right to be skeptical, at the very least- if an unknown intelligent being created us, then we were endowed with skepticism and shouldn't shrink back from using it (though it is more likely to think that skepticism evolved to protect us from the hazards that jumping to conclusions could bring). If religionists were approaching this issue scientifically, they would really question all the possibilities surrounding a god. First of all, throw out the "He". I mean, come on, do we think it has a gender? Next, perhaps this being isn't really a diety at all, but just a sort of intelligent life that exists on a level removed from our understanding. We could be like a garden of sorts, tended by an E.T. gardner. Maybe we are some alien kid's science project. And "she" gets a good chuckle at the fact that we call her God. For all we know, we are a freakin' cosmic chia pet. Or maybe, just maybe, god doesn't exist at all. What would that mean for us? Well, we would have to get off our fat butts and start living our life instead of waiting for "god" to make everything better. It means we have to start taking responsibility for the crap that goes on in the world instead of pawning it off on "the Devil". I mean seriously, this is 2004 not 1004, right? The earth is round isn't it? We aren't the center of the galaxy any more, are we? So why do we pick this one myth to cling to, and more importantly- what is it doing to us?

12. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:19 pm Subject: Applying Occam's Razor

Since I am not religious and do not believe in the paranormal, I will attempt to shave down some other areas of my life with Occam's Razor. I tend to selectively believe in fate; that is, when I want to feel better about a missed opportunity, I blame it on fate. The majority of the time, I am okay with admitting that I simply did not get a certain job or chickened out of getting a guy's phone number, but at other times, I am lazy and say, "it just wasn't meant to happen".

If we apply Occam's Razor to situations of misfortune, it is obvious that nothing is "meant" to happen. Things happen for reasons that can be spelled out clearly. For example, if I have a crush on somebody and I repeatedly chicken out of asking him for his phone number, I am my own obstacle. The reason I will not marry this person is because my nerves get in the way of us exchanging numbers, therefore we have no way to get in contact with each other, therefore we have not had an opportunity to hang out, therefore we have not had an opportunity to get to know each other and, therefore, we will not have had any reason to get married. Instead, I am guilty of sometimes being too lazy to admit that this whole situation is in my control and I tell myself instead "he is not the right guy for me".

According to Occam's Razor, I am attributing the situation to a force that is unsubstantiated: fate. In order to address this situation more factually, I could "research" this guy (go to dinner with him, see what he is like, what we have in common, see if we have mutual feelings, etc.) and then come up with a conclusion based on what I have observed. Then, I can still say "This guy is not right for me", but I will be able to support this statement by saying, "We have different lifestyles. He likes to travel and I like to stay at home. He likes to drink and I don't. I don't like his parents and I am not willing to work around them." With numerous conclusions such as these, I will have evidence besides fate to support my claim.

I sometimes wonder why there are times where I am okay with materialistic explanations and there are times when I want to take the easy way out and bring such things as fate or karma into the picture. This violates the Honesty aspect of FiLCHeRS because I am lying to myself to make things easier. If somebody treats me like garbage, I feel better when I tell myself that karma will get that person back in the end. I never truly believe that karma is real and that bad people always get what they deserve, but it nonetheless makes me feel better. The fact that I only resort to making excuses sometimes and not all of the time makes me think that these excuses are literally JUST excuses, nothing more. There is no factual evidence that we are ruled by fate or karma, but when I am too weak to accept the perils of life, I don't care whether fate and karma are true or not.

There are often times when I feel like something is missing from my life and I occasionally wonder if God might fill that void. Each time I try to convince myself that God exists, however, Occam's Razor comes in a shaves that belief away. Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine and she was talking to me about how great God is and how much she loves Him. She asked me, "Don't you just LOVE God?" I told her I don't believe in God and she said, "Are you kidding me? WOW. You must be REALLY strong." I had never gotten that response before. Her comment made me feel like she was using God as a crutch. I think humans are very capable of handling their own affairs without the help of a higher power, so I never thought of myself as "strong" because I don't believe in God. Her comment also made me want to keep Occam's Razor sharp and ready to cut whenever the thought of God crosses my mind because it was suggested that I am strong enough to survive in this world without the help of God.

I also wish to continue applying Occam's Razor to any claims of the paranormal, much as Professor Lane did in his debates with Daniel Caldwell and Joseph Polanik. Their debates reminded me of the conversations I had with my friend over aliens. All Professor Lane wanted was the five digit test. Likewise, all I wanted was physical evidence of an alien. Not a picture of a UFO or a picture of an alien (who could just as well be a man in a Halloween costume or on the set of "Independence Day"), but an alien right in front of my face that I could see, smell, touch, hear and taste (if I wanted to). Those who believe in the paranormal do not seem to get the fact that they are being asked to prove their claims. I will continue to apply Occam's Razor until somebody presents evidence that supports their claim. Like Professor Lane, I would be more than happy to have somebody actually give a counterattack of proof instead of just TALKING about a claim. Until this proof is given, however, all such claims are falling victim to Occam's Razor.

Another area of my life I could apply Occam's Razor to is that of decision making. I often stress myself out when I have a decision to make because I usually want to do two things at once. I lose countless hours of sleep over such decisions because I do not put the decision in its simplest terms. If I were to apply Occam's Razor to decision making, I would realize that it is a very simple eiter/or situation. Either I choose one thing or the other. By thinking of decisions in these simple terms, I can save myself a lot of stress and time.

14. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:38 pm Subject: New Memes

Five new good memes to fill in the blank: "That movie was ______!" "You're new jacket is ________!" etc.

1. high

2. raw

3. stuck

4. shady

5. cold

Five bad memes ("I hated that movie. It was _____" "That girl isn't just ugly, she's ______"):

1. musty

2. a dry heave

3. bitter

4. raid

5. frozen

15. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 1:19 pm Subject: Cargo Cult Science

I thought this was a very effective speech that would have been even more interesting to hear than to read. Feynman does an excellent job of pinpointing exact instances where scientists have lacked integrity, leaving no room for vagueness. The speech made me want to make a change and did not simply inflict guilt or shame for the lack of honesty in science. I agree with everything Feynman said about not taking advantage of scientific knowledge by fooling people or altering experiments to acheive a specific outcome.

Scientists have a responsibility to work honestly and learn from their mistakes, otherwise they are cheating themselves out of one of the most important values of science. Science prevails over pseudo-science because it welcomes mistakes that open doors to new discoveries and warrant truthful and factual evidence, whereas pseudo-science avoids any testing that might shake its grounds. If scientists cut corners for lack of time, energy or motivation, they are denying a major factor of what makes science more dependable. Feynman did an excellent job of making the matter personal and specific so that there is no room for excuse on the part of the lazy scientist.

16. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:18 pm Subject: UFO article

I think this was a decent attempt to organize a structured way of studying UFO sightings. The comparison of the waking state to the dreaming state was interesting and made me realize that there are things that are beyond empirical explanation. I can not prove to anybody what happened in the dream I had last night. Likewise, people who experience abductions or sight UFO's might not be able to prove their experiences. I do feel, however, that dreams are much different than alien abductions. Everybody can experience a dream. If I try to explain to my friend that I was in this crazy realm where I could fly and breathe under water, my friend might say, "What realm was that? I don't believe you. Prove to me that there is a realm where those things are possible". All I would have to say is, "Okay, tonight when you go to sleep, you will be in that realm." Even if my friend does not fly in their dreams that night, they will at least have a dream (and if not that particular night, some time in the next week). My friend would then have experienced the dream realm and would not doubt that anything can happen in that realm.

Now, if I claim to have been in a realm where aliens probed me and gave me a tour of their spaceship, I could not give my friend any evidence that this realm exists. My friend can not enter the alien realm as she can the dream realm. Furthermore, when I am awake, I do not take my dreams as reality, but I do take my alien abduction as reality. This would make my friend even more suspicious of my claims. My point is, although dreams are impossible to explain with hard evidence, they are still believable because everybody has experienced a dream. Not everybody has experienced an alien abduction, so the fact that they are not able to be factually explained adds to their fallibility. Furthermore, that Lane has explained UFO's in terms of the Chandian effect only makes it seem like we should believe UFO stories because they are unexplainable and shaped by personal vies of the world. Does the transfusive quality of UFO sightings save them from needing evidence? I feel like it just makes them fall in to the category of any other such claim (like Elvis sightings, as suggested by Lane).

17. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 3:05 pm Subject: quantum mechanics

I remember reading Entanglement and wondering how a particle could be in two places at once. This article explains this phenomenon by using common sense. There is an isolated electron on a specific path and an electron-positron pair at another point. The positron cancels out the isolated electron and makes it look like the isolated electron is now the electron in the pair. While some may think that the isolated electron made a quantum leap and became the electron in the electron-positron pair, others will use common sense in realizing that the electron in the pair is simply being mistaken for the isolated electron. Since there is no way to tell which electron is which, it is easy to get them confused. I now understand that there are definitely explanations for what I once thought were paradoxical enigmas in quantum mechanics. I have yet to find an explanation as to why a particle cannot be measured in terms of position and velocity with accuracy, but obviously is it possible that there is a very simple explanation for this. I think it is quite interesting to consider our minds as forces that affect our measurements and that if we even think about measuring one aspect of a particle, another aspect with be affected. Also, I have often wondered how much of our existence is purely mental. For example, I sometimes wonder if I get over a cold because of the DayQuil I took or because I psychologically convinced myself that DayQuil made me feel better. I suppose placebos clear this situation up sometimes when people think a pill is making them feel better when it is really just a sugar pill.

18. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 3:22 pm Subject: Francis Crick

I would not be surprised if Crick turns out to be right in his assertions that we mistake our souls for neural impulses. I sometimes think that I feel something in my "soul" when I see somebody that I have a crush on, but then I realize that it's just my heart pumping blood faster. I definitely think it would be devastating for a lot of people to be told we do not have souls. Even people who do not believe in God still believe we have souls. Crick is an incredibly pragmatic man, to a point that he even offends people. The same is true for his partner, Jim Watson. I watched a 5-part series on PBS called "DNA" (it was amazing, by the way) and Watson spoke extensively on his journey with DNA. Watson, like Crick, insisted that our personalities are nothing but neural impulses. People are offended by Watson because he supports cloning and genetic engineering, which is comparable to "playing God". Watson's response was, "If we don't play God, who will?". People like Watson and Crick are so scientifically oriented that they offend those who cling to sentimentality and soulfulness, but I would not be surprised if they turn out to be right in their implications. Perhaps they are just less in denial than the rest of us.

19. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:00 pm Subject: pretext, text and context

I think this is a very well thought out essay that explains different stages in our thinking process. Sometimes it is important to reduce things into their simplest states in order to understand what they mean in the bigger picture (i.e. letters in a book), but this can obviously go too far. I commented in an earlier post how Steven Weinberg addressed this issue in Facing Up. Weinberg also understood that reductionism can sometimes make things even more confusing. In essence, the more we know about the universe, the less we understand. I agree that in order to understand ourselves, it would make sense to first start with the brain and our neurological make up, then our personalities and physical bodies, then our surroundings, families, culture and so forth. Our spirits, however, reside in super-context, and that is what most people are interested in. Is our soul only understandable if we focus first on our pretext, text and context? I think perhaps our spirits (if we even have spirits) are unexplainable and do not necessarily correspond with our physical or neurological constructs.

I also think that any type of analysis splits paths as each person's interpretation comes into play. When reading a book, each person will agree that letters form certain words and that these words are arranged in certain ways to make sentences, but we each interpret books differently. Some people may look too far into certain things. For example, a character's name might be Mary and someone might think this has deep meaning and that this character is supposed to represent pureness like the Virgin Mary. The author, however, might have named the character Mary because his mom's name was Mary and she said she would die happy if he used her name in a book. Thus, although the reader understands what letters, words, sentences, paragraphs and even the moral of the story are, they may be slightly thrown off because they thought Mary was supposed to be innocent, but the author meant for her to represent temptation and iniquity. The same thing happens in real life. Some people interpret things different ways and end up confusing themselves. As much as we can strive to understand our pretext and text, we cannot stop people from diverging in their context and super-text and completely forfeiting everything they learned in reducing themselves. One can understand everything about the brain and its effect on our nerves and emotions, but if this is interpreted as being secondary to spirit or soul or God, has it helped explain anything? I'm sure it has to a certain extent, but there are just certain things that are still unexplainable and beyond this tripartite of pretext, text and context. Nonetheless, it is a very helpful guideline in breaking down a way of looking at various aspects of the universe.

20. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:25 pm Subject: Why I Don't Eat Faces

I have read this book many times and even listened to Lane's lecture on vegetarianism off of his website and I still am not affected enough to stop eating meat. I joined the Vegan group and followed a post's link to a PETA video that showed the process a cow, chicken and pig go through in slaughterhouses, but as much as it disturbed me, I still eat meat. It reminds me of smokers; everybody knows that smoking gives you cancer, causes impotence, harms your children, kills through second hand smoke, supports the tobacco companies and is horrible for overall health, but people continue to smoke. Maybe because it's addicting? I have friends that have no addiction to smoking and only smoke socially every few months, but when it comes down to it, they still smoke. Likewise, I know that eating meat kills animals and that I have the choice to eat meat or not and that we can obviously live without eating meat, but I still eat meat.

I think the fact that I am not in my backyard killing a pig, skinning it, draining its blood and roasting it on a spit makes me feel less attached to the issue. When I eat a pig, it is sliced up, seasoned, and does not look like a pig at all. Unlike Lane, I eat meat because I like the taste of it. When I eat a hamburger with everything but the meat (which I've tried to do many times), I am not satisfied because I miss the taste of the meat. My issue, then, is not that I eat meat because it's just there and I really only like the condiments, but that I actually do like the taste of meat.

I also know that if I were to stop eating meat, there would still be the same number of animals dying every day. Whether or not I choose to eat meat, McDonald's and Burger King will still serve it. I know that the point is for enough people to stop eating it that animals will be saved, but if meat is readily available, I might as well eat it. If animals were anesthetized in the slaughterhouse, would Lane be okay with eating meat? If animals were killed in any other painless way, would it be okay to eat meat? If the hypothetical species that wanted to eat humans put us to sleep first and then killed us, we would not even know that we were dying and would not know the difference. If the issue is simply a matter of the pain that animals feel when slaughtered, then let's put them to sleep. If it's a matter of thinking animals do not deserve to be killed needlessly, I think we are concentrating on a less important issue. I feel like there are too many humans that are dying needlessly for us to be concentrating more on animals. Not only that, but if we can't even keep people from killing themselves (for example, by smoking), what makes us think we can convince people to save animals? Although I do think vegetarianism is a respectable issue, there has not been a turning point in my life yet. If another species comes and kills humans for food, that's the way life goes. Survival of the fittest. The super-species is not going to save the vegetarian humans from going to the slaughter, we would all be killed no matter how ethical we were. Becoming a vegetarian is a purely moral act that I have not yet adopted because I have not been convinced to do so yet.

On Vegan club: 21. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:27 pm Subject: why i am not a vegetarian

I joined the Vegan group and followed a post's link to a PETA video that showed the process a cow, chicken and pig go through in slaughterhouses, but as much as it disturbed me, I still eat meat. It reminds me of smokers; everybody knows that smoking gives you cancer, causes impotence, harms your children, kills through second hand smoke, supports the tobacco companies and is horrible for overall health, but people continue to smoke. Maybe because it's addicting? I have friends that have no addiction to smoking and only smoke socially every few months, but when it comes down to it, they still smoke. Likewise, I know that eating meat kills animals and that I have the choice to eat meat or not and that we can obviously live without eating meat, but I still eat meat.

When I eat a hamburger with everything but the meat (which I've tried to do many times), I am not satisfied because I miss the taste of the meat. My issue, then, is not that I eat meat because it's just there and I really only like the condiments, but that I actually do like the taste of meat. I also know that if I were to stop eating meat, there would still be the same number of animals dying every day. Whether or not I choose to eat meat, McDonald's and Burger King will still serve it. I know that the point is for enough people to stop eating it that animals will be saved, but if meat is readily available, I might as well eat it. If animals were killed in a painless way, would it be okay to eat meat? If the issue is simply a matter of the pain that animals feel when slaughtered, then let's put them to sleep. If it's a matter of thinking animals do not deserve to be killed needlessly, I think we are concentrating on a less important issue. I feel like there are too many humans that are dying needlessly for us to be concentrating more on animals. Not only that, but if we can't even keep people from killing themselves (for example, by smoking), what makes us think we can convince people to save animals?

Although I do think vegetarianism is a respectable issue, there has not been a turning point in my life yet. If another species comes and kills humans for food, that's the way life goes. Survival of the fittest. The super-species is not going to save the vegetarian humans from going to the slaughter, we would all be killed no matter how ethical we were. Becoming a vegetarian is a purely moral act that I have not yet adopted because I have not been convinced to do so yet.

22. From: "squaww03" Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:10 pm Subject: God/physics and pseudo-medicine

The review of Dr. Davies' book shows how confusing all of the possibilities of life can be. Davies sets out to answer questions of life, but does not really answer them. Although we can understand certain things through reductionism, materialism or even holism, there are still gaps. I feel myslef sometimes being as confused as Dr. Davies, thinking that some things are possible and others are not, and ending up contradicting myself. I think Ettinger was not very grounded in his assertion that Davies does not know what is important in life. Ettinger suggested that the big questions in life are, "Why am I underpaid? Why am I underloved? Why do my feet hurt? Why am I under the sentence of death, and what can I do about it?" I don't necessarily think these questions are more important than, "Why are the laws of nature what they are?".

If anything, Ettinger's questions are easily answered. For example, my feet hurt right now because I have been dancing in heels all day for the past three days and I have weak arches. I also have a bone spur in my right big toe and I have plantar faciitis in my right foot. I am underpaid because I chose to be a dancer and dancers do not get the money they deserve for the amount of work they do. Thus, I can easily answer Ettinger's questions, which to me renders them less important if they are so easily answered. Furthermore, the answers to these questions do not improve my quality of life or reveal any magical secret to life. On the contrary, I think what is important about Davies' book is that he presents all of the information he can, whether or not he agrees with it, so that all possibilities are on the table and are considered equally important.

In regards to the homeopathic medicine article, it was all new to me. I have never taken homeopathic medicine, nor do I know anyone who has, so I was not aware of the way they are advertised or presented at all. If I had ever been prescribed a homeopathic medicine or knew anyone that took them, I think I would have been skeptical of them unless I was sure that they were affective and safe. I have never done any type of alternative medicine, but I am the type of person who will take whatever works, as long as it is safe and sanitary. After reading this article, however, I will be very careful about homeopathic claims and will steer clear of pseudo-medical practices.

23. From: "squaww03" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 2:44 pm Subject: my website

https://squaww03.tripod.com/bumblebeetuna

24. From: "squaww03" <squaww03@y...>
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:23 pm
Subject: Godlessness

I really liked this book because it was experimental in a sense that it tested many of the claims that are for and against theism. O'Brien did a wonderful job of being open to knew ideas and questioning both himself and others. What I liked most about the book was that O'Brien acknowledged the role that God plays in peoples' lives, not just whether or not it is possible that God exists. I agree with him that sometimes we are too focused on trying to figure out the existence of God and we overlook the purpose of the belief in God. I do not believe in God, but when I talk to a theist, I realize WHY they believe in God, not necessarily what their belief is based on factually. I don't see the issue of God as an issue of whether or not
He exists, but rather why some of us rely on his belief and others do not. I wrote in one of my earlier posts about an incident when my friend said I "must be strong" for not believing in God. I was taken aback by this remark because I had never been told that before, but this book explains very well why I would get such a comment. Many theists need the concept of God for reassurance and protection. Theists tend to think that atheists are these helpless stranded beings that have no help in the world. Atheists must rely entirely on themselves, and while theists see this as a struggle, I see it as admirable. I think the world is entirely approachable without divine assistance. I really liked O'Brien's efforts to bring this concept of a strong atheist to light. He explained how atheism is not an
abandonment, but is rather freeing. I agree with this sense of freedom that is gained when God and religion are disregarded. I feel much more free to make choices on my own because I live by MY rules, not someone else's. I also feel pleased in knowing that what I believe is a result of my own search for things that I value, instead of a set religion that I must adopt and follow like millions of other people. It is as if I have personalized my own life. I can live as I please and can change as I please. What is brought up well in the book is that not everybody wants to or even can live their life like me. Not everyone is comfortable with going on their own journey and would rather just follow what has been laid out in stone for thousands of years. This is the contextual point of religion and is an important point that O'Brien brings up because many times we fail to look at the overall picture. Instead of me thinking that I am right or happier than a theist, the issue instead is that atheism is right for me and theism is right for other people.

One thing I used to do that is pointed out as a fault in the book is that I used to sometimes "believe" in God just because if He did exist, He could help me at that particular moment. I don't pray before I go to sleep (obviously, since I don't believe there is anyone I would be praying to), but when I was little, I would pray if there was something I thought was REALLY important that I wanted. Of course, the things that are important to a ten year old are frivolous to adults, but I would pray just to cover my bases because maybe if there was a God, He would help me get my new rollerblades, or do well on a test, or have my crush ask me out on a date. Even though I didn't believe in God when I was ten, I would pray JUST IN CASE he did exist so that my chances of getting what I wanted would be greater. O'Brien discourages this attempt to cover one's bases because it treats theism as a sort of game of picking and choosing. Should I have prayed to Zeus and Buddha as well, just in case they exist? Although I see O'Brien's point in asserting that religion is not a game to be tinkered with just to meet one's needs, I do understand why people would try and "cover their bases". After all, if religion serves a personal purpose by being a crutch in times of need or by persuading someone with a horrible life that they will be rewarded some other time for good deeds, it is obviously a tool that is used by people, if not a game. Why wouldn't one use religion to their benefit when they want something? Theists go to God when they need guidance, and I don't necessarily disagree with an atheist choosing when to use God or not. My reasoning is that if I want to pray to God tonight to make me feel like I have better chances of doing well on a test tomorrow, I am doing so merely to make myself feel better. I am not changing my entire belief system, I am simply using the CONCEPT of God
at the moment because it is going to make my life easier. I would be praying not because I suddenly believe in God or because I want to kiss up to Him for the moment just in case there is a heaven, but because at the moment I need some reassurance and it makes me feel better to pray. For me, it wouldn't be any different than wishing on a star. If I were to pray tonight, it would be for the purpose of
having a new sensation of a sort of make believe fantasy world in which there is a higher being that will help me. The same thing would happen if I were to wish on a star tonight; I would be temporarily fantasizing that the wish would actually have an effect on what happens in my future. Why would wishing on a star be okay and not praying to God?

Since I am not sensitive on the issue of God, I don't think it would be wrong for me to pick and choose when I believe in Him. I would not see myself as doing any diservice to religion if I picked and chose when to use it. It would be awkward for me to think, "No, I can't pray tonight, even though I really need SOMETHING to make me feel better. If I pray, that will be hypocritical and I don't even believe in a god and that would be inconsistent with my beliefs..."
Instead, my line of thinking is, "Geez I really feel lousy. What can I do to make myself feel better? Maybe I'll do a little prayer. That sounds fun. Then I might light some candles and meditate on my problem..." and so forth. I do not see a problem with this the way O'Brien does. Perhaps I am just insensitive and don't understand the boundaries of being an atheist. Maybe I also take too seriously the
perception that religion is more of a tool than somethingn to live and die by.

Apart from all of that, I agree with the rest of what O'Brien says. I agree with his opinions on mysticism and their faults. I have tried to point out as well that mystical experiences are different than sensual experiences because we cannot voluntarily get people to experience mysticism the same way we tell someone to open their eyes to experience sight. Mystical experiences are unreliable because two people can have visions that contradict each other. Who is right? Despite the flaws, I agree with O'Brien that mysticism should still be acknowledged and considered when dealing with theism.

As a whole, I think O'Brien's purpose in this book was wonderful and I appreciate his efforts to change the role of the atheist to an inspiring being that is free and strong. He did this while still maintaining respect and consideration for the theist. I think he left the reader feeling neither offended nor praised, but better informed
of the role of religion and the path towards which it should be moving. He made me feel like I can live life according to what is right for me and that it might take some changes and revelations, but that I should follow whatever makes me happy.

Enter content here