Just how far will a Christian go to dodge their burden of proof?

I've posted before on the "mixed up burden of proof" and the problems that religious people have with it.  I've said before that the burden of proof is always on the person making the claims.

And yet, religious people just don't get this very simple concept.

It's come to my attention recently that once again people - especially Christians - are attempting to shift this burden of proof from the claimant to the respondent.

Part of this seems to be due to a persistent "Atheism is a religion" meme.  This is the idea that atheists take the non-existence of a deity on faith, not on evidence, and therefore atheism is no different than a religion.

I'll freely admit that there are atheists who deny the possibility of any deity or deities.  And I'll agree that they do so on philosophically shaky ground that leaves them as vulnerable to the charge of "faith" as any religious adherent.

This is exactly why atheists have pointed out the difference between so called "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", or the differences between explicit and implicit atheism.

Personally, I'm an explicit, "weak" atheist.  I have never found enough evidence to convince me that at least one deity exists, and so I live my life as if no deities exist.  However, I could be wrong.  All it would take to convince me that I'm wrong is sufficient evidence.  And if I received such evidence that at least one deity existed, I would change in a heartbeat to live my life as if a deity existed.

This willingness to change one's mind when presented with evidence is not a hallmark of religion.

I recently ran into a cartoon by Christian web cartoonist Adam4D, which demonstrates this frantic attempt to shift the burden of proof of God from the Christian to the atheist.

The cartoonist then segways to a teleological argument using the Watchmaker Analogy.  Of course this argument has multiple problems.

As pointed out by judge John Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the argument from design is subjective.  Even Professor Behe couldn't show that there was any real way of determining something was created through a natural process or through a divine process - only that it "looks complex".  In other words, it was only through subjective terms that a Christian can claim that a tree is divinely created and a snowflake is not.

I often hang out in the online discussion forum of Reddit, and recently I've again run into a Christian who has tried to assert that atheists are making a positive claim that must be met by a burden of proof.  Like many such discussions, they go nowhere very quickly as the Christian in question refuses to admit that any other response is logical.  (You can click on this image to enlarge it.)

Here you will see that the username "cousinoleg" has asserted that there are only three positions that one can take in regards to a claim.  These three positions are either ignorance of the claim, acceptance of the claim, or denial of the claim.  This has left cousinoleg in a very vulnerable position in this discussion.

This method is not very reasonable.  The reaction to a positive claim might not be denial that the claim is true, but merely an assertion that the respondent does not believe the claimant.

Or a positive claim could be met with a counter claim that invalidates the first claim.  If it is not the claimants burden to prove that what they say is true, then a counter claim will automatically annul the original claim until it is proved false.

For example, let's take Adam4D's original cartoon, and modify it, for educational "Fair Use" purposes.

Click here to see this modified cartoon enlarged.

Here we can see that if the claimant denies his or her duty to prove their claims, then those claims are immediately subject to being countered by an opposing claim - that also is not required to be proved.

More simply put, my claim that invisible elves exist disproves your claim that a God exists.  If you are not required to prove your claim of a God, then I am not required to prove my claim of elves.

Finally, this entire blog post should be completely unnecessary.  I've taken pains to write it all out because lots of religious claimants just don't seem to get this.  Frankly, Christopher Hitchens said it best:

"What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Steorn introduces salable product. Still no "Free Energy"

I just received a press release from Steorn. You might remember this company from my previous blog posts.

To summarize, Steorn dramatically advertised that they would demonstrate a mechanical "over unity" or perpetual motion machine back in July of 2007. Steorn announced that they would demonstrate this machine at the Kinetica Museum in London England, but the demonstration failed when it experienced "technical difficulties" due to the machine having an unforeseen sensitivity to light which caused it to fail. That was the last we heard about a public demonstration of their equipment.

Personally, I think their machine had an allergy to skeptical observation - but perhaps I'm too cynical? Seriously, I thought they were hyping impossible vaporware in order to attract gullible investors. I believed that they had no intention of creating any sort of real product.

Well, I was wrong, and I'm not afraid to admit it!

The press release from Steorn today has announced the foundation of a new laboratory. But better yet, it announced the availability of test equipment designed to support those "organisations developing rotary and magnetic systems." Here are Steorn's first two products in this lineup:

• A Hall-effect based sensor to measure the amount of magnetism of an object.
• A torque sensor - designed to measure the magnetic force component of torque.
  

These products seem to be geared for inventors who are experimenting with over-unity systems. These could be anyone from garage inventors to small firms.

On the Steonlab website, the products look sleek and beautiful. They are easily of Tektronix quality in visual appeal. They also come with software packages that create reams of data and graphs automatically.

You have to be a specially accepted member of the Steorn website before you are allowed to view product pricing, so I don't know how much this equipment costs. However, I read the Steornlabs legal Terms and Conditions with interest:

Every order placed via our Website will be subject to acceptance by Steorn. We reserve the right to decline any order without providing a reason for doing so, regardless of whether payment has been received by us. Should we decline an order where payment has been received, the payment will be refunded in full.

Wow, that's not creepy or paranoid at all is it? You don't see Tektronix doing something as silly as this.


I think Steorn has found a way to make a product that they can actually sell, without coming out and admitting that perpetual motion or energy machines don't actually work. I think that their product will be geared to those individuals who fervently believe in "over unity", but who don't have the foundational knowledge to realize that they can duplicate these sensors in their own labs using off-the-shelf parts. (Hint - buy a Hall Effect sensor, and hook it up to a Tektronix digital storage oscilloscope. Learn to use the basic skills you would learn in a freshman Physics lab to subtract environmental forces from the forces you intend to measure. Learn to use Excel to make your own graphs.)

If you don't have the training or ability of a competent electronics technician, I guess the Steorn equipment would be pretty valuable to you.


In this press release, Steorn also mentions the release of "ZeroF passive magnetic bearings" due out sometime this summer. But I'm not sure what that could be. The name seems to suggest that these bearings will be free of magnetic flux, which would be useful if your perpetual motion machine is allergic to unforeseen electromagnetic energy. (Light, for example.)

Steorn also announced that it's over unity machine, the "Orbo" is due out by the end of this year. Finally! I can't wait to get one. I plan on feeding the output energy from my Orbo into the input and create my own mult-megaton explosion!

But I guess I'll have to do that in a dark room.

A day with James Randi

A long time ago I watched Johnny Carson's guest "The Amazing" James Randi on the Tonight Show, as Randi exposed Peter Popoff and conducted "psychic surgery" on a willing Tonight Show audience member.

Mr. Randi was so entertaining that I immediately liked him. But that was just the impression I got of him from television. I wondered if he was different in real life.

Today, I had the chance to put that to the test, in a style that I hope Randi would approve. I got to meet him, share breakfast, talk with him and listen to his wisdom. And I have to say that I was right, Mr. Randi IS different in real life than on television. On television, Randi is merely an entertaining and interesting person who comes across as a nice guy too.

In real life, Randi is all of that, cubed and squared again!

First, I'm impressed with how quick he is mentally. It's hard to keep up with him. I was able to contribute a little from my specialty in Engineering (Remember Randi, don't cut the RED or the BLACK wires! You need them for your iPhone!)

And I think it might be difficult to keep up with Randi even physically. I didn't have much opportunity to test that theory, but the sense I got was that he was full of boundless energy, like the energizer bunny.

I did get a signature on my copy of Randi's book Flim-Flam! This book came out back in 1982. I purchased this book back in 1997 when I was starting my journey in deconverting to become an Ex-Christian.

When I was growing up, I was a believer in a lot of things. Besides being a Christian, I believed in things like psychic phenomena and dowsing. This book kicked a large hole in the side of my woo-woo beliefs. And it gave a thirst to learn more.

It was books such as this that gave me my start in real rational thinking.

I've been gratified to compare things on his speech today to the things I've been doing as a skeptic. My best comparison is that I tested Randi's claim that the Counterfeit Detection Pen was pretty much useless.

Even today, two years after my original post on the detection pen, I still get several hundred hits a month on that page, and I'm in the top Google results for "DriMark Counterfeit Detection Pens". Not too bad.

And while my pages on Homeopathy are still as relevant as I first wrote them, Randi told us about some twists that might help my readers better visualize the sheer scales involved in Homeopathy, and from his information, I realized I need to make my Homeopathy page more current.

I took some time to take a short QIK video of Randi during his speech this evening, but I realized almost immediately that it was the wrong tool for the job, so I stopped. Still, you can see the video that I do have here.

All in all, it was a good day today, a day that started with, and ended with James Randi. Any day like that is a Good Day!


Still, there is a sad note that I must end on.

Peter Popoff went out of business because Randi exposed his lies. He was a liar for Jesus, and what he was doing was immoral. James Randi gave him a good drubbing on the Tonight Show, and he almost immediately went out of business. You would have thought he would have stayed out of business. But that hasn't been the case.

Peter Popoff is back, and not only is he back, but he is doing the same thing that he was doing way back then, with one exception. Now he makes MORE money at it than he did before Randi exposed him. Take a look at this:

Kafirgirl Tattoos

If you're coming here to see what tattoos Kafirgirl is talking about... I don't have any photos!

And although Kafirgirl promised ME a photo, I won't promise that YOU, my readers, will get to see. I won't post her photo online unless I'm given a very clear instruction to do so. If you want a photo of her tattoos, it is up to you to go to her blog and beg her nicely. She may or may not show you, at her whim. No promises.

However, I can show you the images that she is talking about. Here it is, based upon my "fleur de pensée", or "flower of thought" symbol. The flower of thought, or Pansy, has been a symbol of Freethought since 1885, and is arguably the oldest secular symbol in America. It's still used by the Freedom from Religion Foundation even now.

I turned the symbol into an icon, inspired by the "fleur de lis" of my boyscout days. Kafirgirl has taken the symbol and turned it into a monshō, or Japanese crest.

Like any atheist or secular symbol, some will hate it, and some will love it. If you like it, say so! And if you don't - well, I guess I have to live with that.

------
Update 27 Sept 08
KG sent me a pic of the tattoo. It looks great, and I must say I'm humbled by the compliment that Kafirgirl has paid me by liking this symbol enough to commit it to her skin.

The difference between Secular and Christian marketing

I got an email this morning from my close and personal friend, Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church in Columbus Ohio. Pastor Parsley, if you haven't heard, has founded not only World Harvest Church (with over 5000 members) but 9 other ministries, including the Center for Moral Clarity. He also hosts the television show "Breakthrough", on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

And apparently I'm his good friend. Really, I had no idea! But today he sent me a "personal invitation" to become one of his few "Platinum Covenant Partners".

Okay, yes - I have no illusions about my relationship with Pastor Parsley. The email I received is a very slick marketing campaign designed to get me to part with $50 of my money (or MORE, because this isn't a payment, it's a voluntary donation with a $50 minimum!)

I've mentioned Christianity before as a modern "Den of Thieves", where radio preachers on the Bott network hawk their products as faithfully as any soap commercial. And there was the amusing case of Christian book stores selling all sorts of religious kitsch, some of which is created in Chinese sweatshops. (What Would Jesus Sell?)

This campaign from Rod Parsley is pretty slick. Not only is the email well made, It has email tracking technology built into it (Smartmailer), so his organization knows that I've opened and read this. (I'll probably get future offers now too. Whee!) And since the tracking goes to smartmailer.net, it is probably created and managed by PitneyBowes as a "business solution". There is probably some targeting involved too. It isn't their fault that they emailed an Atheist, after all - I sign up at many ministries and religious-political organizations. (I wonder how many people on the CVAAS mailing list are religious moles? I don't mind, I'm just curious.)


Really, I sympathize with Pastor Parsley. He's trying to grow his organization. I've been trying to do much the same thing. I've given away "secrets" in growing our membership, and I've written on how to communicate (or not) with the local community. And in all honesty, the marketing terms "Product, Price, Place and Promotion" are things that I keep firmly in mind when advertising Secular events, like the upcoming James Randi lecture. (You DO have your tickets, right?)

And I really can't be too hard on churches who sell religious-themed products. Everything from bibles to prepackaged sermons to Christmas cards. CVAAS has been seriously investigating selling items too. If it is done right, it might be a good way to boost our operating budget - of which we have darned little! Our first "product" is a yearly membership.


I'd like to take the opportunity here to say, "Hi" to Pastor Ken, "a pastor starting a new church", who seems to be going through much of what I'm going through. In his comment he gives me some pretty useful tips in building our organization.

Ken, I really do appreciate what you are doing here with the advice. But I think there is a basic difference in our members and how we operate.

As an ex-Christian, I have some familiarity with the way that a church might be run. I've discussed tactics and strategy with my ministers before. And I think that the very basic difference in Secular and Christian methods could be summed up as the difference between house cats and squirrels.

In this parable analogy, I think that pastors use methods based upon the squirrel. To make a living as a pastor, you've got to put everything you have into it. You live, eat, breath your new church, you invest your time and money as assiduously as the squirrel hides away his winter food. In a very real way, you are providing for your own future. And if you have a family, you are providing for their future too. The congregation you build will determine if your children go to state college or to a private university. The only time you have to indulge your areas of interest outside the church is after you have worked hard on "stocking up".

Every son or daughter of a pastor that I've been friends with has spoken of how little time they get to spend with their father.

As the President of a secular organization, I have to use the methods of the house cat. I have a full time employer who takes care of my needs. I have to sit in his window and rub against his knees to ensure that I'm being taken care of, but doing so gives me a large portion of each day (and weekends and vacations) where my boss allows me to do as I like. But even though a large fraction of my day is technically "free" from work, I'm only allowed to spend a portion of that time building a secular community. There are other demands on my time. I have to take care of me and mine during this time. Clothes need washing, the pantry needs stocking, the car needs servicing. And I invest time with friends and family because they are important too.


I am aware that the analogy isn't perfect. I realize that a lot of new pastors have a "day job". But still, things are different. I do use my own money to support my secular organization, but I do so because I can afford to do so. It comes out of my money for hobbies. (Which is why I haven't bought that new table saw or band saw for my woodworking hobby!) A pastor with a day job would invest a great deal more into his new church - even going so far as to turn his own home into a church.

There are purely secular organizations which are able to afford full time officeholders. But there are far fewer, in my opinion, than churches. I think the difference may be the deep obligation that religious congregants feel toward the church. There is a long cultural tradition that encourages tithing of time and money, and this tradition comes bundled with a large sense of guilt for those who shirk what they think is their responsibility. Congregants come with a built-in "carrot and stick" that ethical pastors use sparingly to encourage participation. (I have my doubts about Pastor Parsley.)

Secular members are cat-like in that they are fiercely independent. I try my best to teach people to think critically, so I can't act surprised when they question my goals and motives at every turn. You don't "herd cats".

But I can take a lesson from someone I admire, fellow blogger "Berlzebub" who was able to raise thousands of dollars for a fellow atheist in need. What Berlzebub discovered is that although critical thinkers don't herd, they do respond to events. Like a cat responding to a laser pointer, secular people will respond to a narrowly focused, interesting, and worthwhile event.

Ken, developing a "presence" and an "identity" is good. But long term campaigns don't seem to work for freethinkers. Although it is possible for a secular organization to set a long-term goal, most members of that organization won't be interested in the day to day effort required to get there. It's not like being a "footsoldier" in "God's Army". It's more like being a member of a fanclub. To get them to participate, I need to have an event that they can focus on.


I could be completely wrong on all of this. I'm an engineer, not a business or marketing major. I've had classes in leadership in the military, but military leadership has more in common with the Church than with a secular organization. This is just me trying to get a handle on the things that I've noticed, and the differences that seem apparent to me as an ex-Christian.

I think there is much that secular groups can learn from churches on the subject of building membership. But I also think that many things won't apply because of the difference in basic cultural expectations. In some cases we will have to use different methods. And we'll need to invent some methods of our own - like the laser pointer.

Free Energy

I've been reading a recent comment thread on "Fuelless (sic) Engine Plans" at the Above Top Secret website. I found the website after a skeptic on the thread linked to my postings on the Steorn perpetual motion machine fiasco.

The thread starts with a question about the company, "Creative Science and Research" that claims to offer the plans for "fuelless (sic) Engines". I've never heard of the company before. A brief glance at the website does cause me to be suspicious. Lots of big promises of new technology that you can make from junkyard scrap according to their plans. Of course their plans are all for sale. They have testimonials in the form of customer letters, but no real mention or even links to the science behind the technology.

The whole pitch smells like snake oil, but hey, I could be wrong. Perhaps it is possible, for a mere $70.00, to build a 350 Horsepower (260 Kilowatt) Free Energy Motor that can be slaved to an AC Generator ($70 for plans) and then used to run your house. (They don't say how to do AC / AC conversion to get the correct frequency - but they do sell plans for a DC / AC 60 Hertz inverter for $25.00)


The Above Top Secret forum thread continues with plugs for Tom Beardon's MEG device. (James Randi has handily tore the MEG to pieces.) It mentions a couple of other bits of pseudoscientific crud, and there some discussion about a guy who claims to make a cell phone interceptor out of a television remote control, an electret microphone, and a steel salad bowl. (I had to look that one up - there's a Youtube video of this supposed feat that is gut-splittingly funny to anyone who has a clue about modern cellphone compression and modulation methods - the idea that the guts of a standard television infrared remote control have any bearing whatsoever is hilarious.)

But I'm not really interested in these various bits of woo, no matter how entertaining.

The reason why I'm writing is that one skeptic seemed to go a bit overboard in poo-pooing everything that forum members brought up. And I think what was triggering his skepticism was the insistance of others in the forum in using the words, "Free Energy" in place of the words "Ambient Energy".

There is a such a thing as "Ambient Energy", and it can be tapped for use. It is both "Free" in that you can get this energy without paying for it, and it is also NOT free, in that the energy has to come from somewhere.

When I was young I lived in a trailer park with my mom, my sister, and some other guy. Through the magic of Google Street View you can see where I lived here. Not far from me were some high tension, high power lines. The kids in the neighborhood figured out that on a dry day (unusual in Houston) you could hold a fluorescent bulb under the the high power lines and watch it light up. One artist has actually made a display out of this, using hundreds of fluorescent bulbs. You can see that project here.

So, if you lived near some high power lines, wouldn't it be possible to create some sort of antenna system to pick up the radiated energy, and use it to power your home? This would be "Free Energy", right? Not quite.

The energy that you could pick up from your antenna goes through a load (your home appliences and such) and then to Earth ground. This would act as the secondary "coil" of a transformer where the high power lines act as the primary "coil". The power to your home would be created by induced EMF from the power lines, and attaching your antenna to a load would oppose this flow of power through counter-EMF. The high power lines would experience a "load" in your location from having to drive your antenna, and the power company might have to increase the amount of electricity generated to compensate. The power company could detect the additional load, and depending on the size of the load they might investigate. If they find your antenna system, you could be charged with theft of power.

The forum also talks about using an onion as a battery - which is very possible. Lemon batteries are a standard demonstration in many science classes. This is also not "free" energy. Lemon trees get their energy from the sun in order to produce lemons, so a lemon battery is very indirectly (and inefficiently!) tapping energy from the sun.

Another battery discussed is the "Earth Battery". I had to investigate that. Earth Batteries work off of Telluric Current, which are caused by differences in electrical potential in the Earth's crust, allowing an electrical current to flow from point to point. Telluric currents are powered by the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field and the solar wind. Telluric currents were not discussed in my physics or electronics classes - I'm guessing that they would discussed under soil science. However, ground loops are a big problem in electronics, and they are somewhat similar.

The big problem in harnessing telluric currents is that they are unstable. They waver in position, and fluctuate in intensity. Sometimes they disappear entirely, especially during drought.

Although there is "free" ambient energy here, it also ultimately comes from the sun. It is not easy to harvest it either. And I have to wonder what effect there would be on the Earth's magnetic field if a couple billion humans were tapping the Telluric current? Lenz's Law would work here too - eventually damping the magnetic field (and maybe affecting the Earth's rotation? I dunno. "Dammit Jim, I'm an Engineer, not a Scientist!")

And this is what I wonder about when people start talking about "free" (meaning "ambient") energy. We can harvest energy from the oceans, from the wind, from heat chimneys, but there is a price to pay in our environment. In most cases, that price is very small, even unnoticeable.

But what happens when several billion people are harvesting energy from their environment? I certainly don't know, but perhaps it should be investigated.

Science Fiction writer Larry Niven talks about the problems on the other end of free energy - that civilizations may have to deal with the waste heat that is the primary by-product of abundant cheap (or "free") energy. This isn't just a greenhouse effect, this is actually adding heat to the planet as a byproduct.


As a skeptic, it is really easy to be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of snake oil salesmen, some of which are merely cons, and others who actually believe in their own products. The knee-jerk denial is something that we all have to guard against, and I'm just as guilty as anyone else.

Still, there are ways of rating claims to see if they stink of pseudoscience. Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" and Dr. Robert Park's "Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science" are good starters. Richard Feynman's lecture on "Cargo Cult Science" is also good to help determine the difference between science and woo.

I also think that those people who enjoy poking around in the "Borderlands of Science" must also be careful in their terminology. It is too easy to slip into language that isn't based upon reality, and from there slide a little bit further into the realm of magical thinking.

I think it fair that skeptics demand more precise language in these fuzzy areas, that greater evidence must be demanded than for more mainstream claims, and that in these areas experiments must have unequivocal, repeatable results.

The Amazing James Randi to lecture in Fresno on October 2nd!

The "Amazing" James Randi will appear in Fresno as part of the University Lecture Series, hosted at California State University, Fresno.

Randi will give his lecture on "Pseudo-Technology in the New Millennium" on Thursday, October 2nd 2008 at the Satellite Student Union on the California State University, Fresno campus. (map)

From the description of this lecture:

The average citizen is suspicious of science and technology. James Randi addresses this unfortunate misunderstanding in an effective and entertaining fashion by asking the right questions — and then answering them.

From satellite television to the Internet, society is bombarded with carefully designed misinformation. Much of it is simply age-old cons repackaged for the new millennium. From U.S. patents issued for devices that control your computer with ESP to multi-million dollar studies funded by federal agencies to study imaginary "E-Rays;" from new age dowsing rods designed to detect drugs, to magnets designed to relieve pain, our society continues to be susceptible to "snake oil" claims that drain corporations and our government of millions, if not billions, of dollars annually.

Mr. Randi will also describe something interesting to myself, the use of the "Counterfeit Detection Pen", a technology based upon the starch / iodine reaction. I wrote about this in my personal blog, and showed that through experiment that counterfeit detection based solely upon this pen would in fact pass things like coffee filters as "genuine currency".

If you've never heard this fascinating gentleman speak before, now is an excellent time to change that. I've listened and watched him speak in podcasts and in videos online, and I have to say that he really deserves the label, "Amazing".

Ghost hunting and the (lack of a) Scientific Method

Since I’ve been talking about the “science” of ghost hunting, I thought that now would be a good time to have a brief interlude and discuss how to do good science.

The scientific method is about creating a model of examined evidence or data, then trying out different hypotheses in order to attempt to explain what is going on. A good hypothesis makes predictions about the model that are testable, and the successes or failures of those tests are used in order to modify or even discard the hypothesis.

The biggest weakness with the scientific method is human bias. Good scientists try to guard against bias by setting up each experiment in a very careful manner, through peer review, and by being scrupulously honest in reporting any possible reason why their experiment might be fallacious.

In the words of Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Richard Feynman in his lecture on “Cargo Cult Science”:

It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong -- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest; but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest; it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will -- including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.

We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.

…

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself…” Here is where I think that ghost hunters fail miserably.

Ghost hunting is inherently a practice with a set goal in mind. Ghost hunters don’t proceed to a house with the intention of cataloging the phenomena that are happening in the house, (phenomena like creaks, footsteps, rattles and cold spots). They don’t catalog this data, create several models, and then create a testable hypothesis that they can use to predict future data.

No. Ghost hunters go to hunt ghosts. The data that they discover, regardless of validity, is used to prove or disprove that a ghost exists on the property in question. The entire idea that “ghosts exist” is never in question.

Their entire methodology is biased and therefore suspect.


I can understand the attraction of ghost hunting. It’s exciting and fun. I’ve done it as a young adult, when I was much more credulous.

And there is also something in us that abhors the idea of someday ceasing to exist. All adults have had times when they contemplate their own mortality, and thinking that our consciousness will some day come to an end is extremely disturbing to most of us. How much more comforting to think that our consciousness will continue after death? How much more comforting to think that we have proof – however tenuous – that we will continue?

But again, we must be scrupulously honest with ourselves, we must learn to think critically and learn to smell out when we are being fooled or conned… even if we are fooling ourselves.

Most scientists learn this ability to detect cons – even comforting cons – during the course of their training. Unfortunately this knowledge is picked up through a sort of ‘osmosis’, and was usually not stated explicitly until Dr. Carl Sagan spoke of it in his book, “The Demon Haunted World”.

Dr. Sagan’s words have a special bearing on ghost hunters:

More than a third of American adults believe that on some level they've made contact with the dead. The number seems to have jumped by 15 percent between 1977 and 1988. A quarter of Americans believe in reincarnation.

But that doesn't mean I'd be willing to accept the pretensions of a "medium," who claims to channel the spirits of the dear departed, when I'm aware the practice is rife with fraud. I know how much I want to believe that my parents have just abandoned the husks of their bodies, like insects or snakes molting, and gone somewhere else. I understand that those very feelings might make me easy prey even for an unclever con, or for normal people unfamiliar with their unconscious minds, or for those suffering from a dissociative psychiatric disorder Reluctantly, I rouse some reserves of skepticism.

How is it, I ask myself, that channelers never give us verifiable information otherwise unavailable? Why does Alexander the Great never tell us about the exact location of his tomb, Fermat about his Last Theorem, John Wilkes Booth about the Lincoln assassination conspiracy, Hermann Goring about the Reichstag fire? Why don't Sophocles, Democritus, and Aristarchus dictate their lost books? Don't they wish future generations to have access to their masterpieces?

If some good evidence for life after death were announced, I'd be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote. As with the face on Mars and alien abductions, better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy. And in the final tolling it often turns out that the facts are more comforting than the fantasy.

These are all cases of proved or presumptive baloney. A deception arises, sometimes innocently but collaboratively, sometimes with cynical premeditation. Usually the victim is caught up in a powerful emotion—wonder, fear, greed, grief. Credulous acceptance of baloney can cost you money; that's what P. T. Barnum meant when he said, There's a sucker born every minute." But it can be much more dangerous than that, and when governments and societies lose the capacity for critical thinking, the results can be catastrophic — however sympathetic we may be to those who have bought the baloney.

In science we may start with experimental results, data, observations, measurements, "facts." We invent, if we can, a rich array of possible explanations and systematically confront each explanation with the facts. In the course of their training, scientists are equipped with a baloney detection kit. The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. If you're so inclined, if you don't want to buy baloney even when it's reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there's a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

What's in the kit? Tools for skeptical thinking.

The tools in the “Baloney Detection Kit” include the following:

• Independent confirmation of facts or data
• Encourage debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view
• Arguments from authority carry little weight
• Use multiple hypotheses to explain the model, and then let those hypotheses compete against each other to develop the best explanation.
• Don’t get too attached to your hypothesis.
• Data that is vague or of poor quality can be explained by many different hypotheses – so quantify, or precisely measure your data in order to develop a more compelling hypothesis.
• Every link in a chain of argument must work, or else the whole chain of reasoning fails.
• Use Occam’s Razor when discriminating against two hypotheses that explain the data equally well.
• Hypotheses that can’t be tested are not worth much. Skeptics must be able to follow your reasoning, duplicate your experiments, and get the same result, or else the hypothesis in question cannot be verified.
• All experiments must include control experiments. Variables must be separated in experiments. “Double Blind” experiments are useful in negating compromising biases held by the experimenters.
• Understand and recognize fallacies of logic and rhetoric.

In my next blog entry, I’ll explore some ghost hunting methodology and compare it to the scientific method. I’ll also discuss how ghost hunting methodology stacks up to the scientific integrity as discussed by Dr. Feynman, and how Dr. Sagan’s “baloney detection kit” can be applied to ghost hunting methods.

Stay tuned!

Measurement errors – more on EVP and Ghost Hunting

So, Mickey Burrow recorded what he thinks is a ghostly voice. But before we examine more about "Electronic Voice Phenomena", or "EVP", I want to explain something about measurement errors, and why measurement errors are so important to ghost hunters.

Also, my apologies – I know I said I'd keep this short, but yet again I have something over 1000 words.


Let's start by making a measuring stick. We want to measure things in the real world, and we want some sort of accuracy, but maybe we're a little sloppy about it. So we'll use something handy. I happen to have a used pencil here, I have no idea how long it is – but I've been using it for a while and it still fits comfortably in my hand. Maybe it's half the length of a standard new pencil. We'll call this my "measuring stick".

As you might think, my measuring stick is handy for measuring the length of my desk. My desk is almost 17 measuring sticks in length, and only a little over 8 measuring sticks wide. This is accurate enough to figure out where to place my desk in my computer room. My computer room, incidentally, is about 28 by 33 measuring sticks in size.

Hey, this works pretty well! (I think the desk will fit riiiight over there.)

What about smaller things? Let's see, my laptop is a little over 2 and a half measuring sticks by 3 measuring sticks. Hm. That's kinda awkward, so I'll just round it to 3 by 3 measuring sticks. My coffee cup is 1 and 3/5ths tall, by 3/5's of a measuring stick wide. I'll just round that to two measuring sticks tall and one measuring stick wide. That's close enough, right?

Now I'll pull out a standard American Quarter, and measure it to be 1/5th of a measuring stick in diameter, and a little over a hundredth of a measuring stick in thickness. I'll round down the quarter to zero by zero measuring sticks in size.

Hey, according to my handy measuring stick, my quarter doesn't exist! How about that?

The problem that I've run into here is the problem with measurement errors. If I measure everything in terms of my measuring stick, and I can only use rounded values of my measuring stick, then there will always be a point where the measuring stick isn't very useful. The stick works just fine if I'm trying to figure out where to put my desk in my computer room. It works fairly well when I'm trying to figure out the proper placement of my laptop and coffee cup on top of that desk. But the measuring stick fails utterly at helping me figure out where I should place my favorite Quarter. According to my measuring stick, my quarter has a width and thickness of zero, which isn't very useful.


What does this mean to electronics?

I have a digital multimeter here. It's a “Fluke 77, series III” digital multimeter. According to it's specifications, it has a maximum resolution of 0.1mV, with an accuracy of 0.3%. I'm going to tell you now, that 0.3% accuracy is an optimistic specification. You can take my word for this, or you can read this PDF from Fluke.

Accuracy is is related to uncertainty and uncertainty is something that Scientists and Engineers can never eliminate. It's part of nature, and we just find ways to increase accuracy or live with inaccuracy. My little Fluke 77 multimeter is pretty accurate, but still it is slightly affected by temperature and by the basic nature of its input circuits. It is also affected by its limits of accuracy.

The accuracy of a standard voltmeter circuit isn't linear. This is a fancy way to say that the accuracy isn't the same across the entire range of measured voltages. Fluke gets around this by creating a sort of pseudo-linearity, by breaking up the volt meter range into 5 separate voltage measurement ranges. The most accurate of these is the 300 millivolt range, and we'll use that in the following example.

If you look at table 1-1 on page 1-6 of the PDF manual, you can see that in the 320mV range the accuracy is: (+/- 0.3% +1) That '+1' means that the meter is only able to resolve to one significant digit in this range. In other words, if I try to measure a voltage that is 310.94 millivolts the multimeter would think that it is somewhere between 309.9972 and 311.863 millivolts due to the +/-3% accuracy. But it would round it off to somewhere between 310 and 311.9 millivolts, because only one digit to the right of the decimal point is 'significant'.

Can you see that this is very much like my arbitrary measuring stick? Still, the measurement is still very useful at this point.

But remember what happened when I tried to use my measuring stick to measure a Quarter? We get the same sort of thing with the multimeter if we try to measure a signal that is somewhere between 0.01 and 0.05 millivolts.

The Fluke just can't do it. And what's worse, it won't round the measurement up – like we did with the coffee cup. Because of the nature of the circuit, we might see a reading of between 0.0 and 0.1 millivolts on the multimeter, but there would be no way to tell if it corresponded with the real world, or if it was just sort of “made up” internally due to the temperature and the inherent noise of the electronics. Even the age of the electronics could have an adverse and cumulative effect – which is why I have to get my multimeter calibrated on a regular basis to ensure it remains accurate!


But what does this mean?

At this point of an explanation, I usually notice that the eyes of my audience are glazing over. I'm sorry, I really tried to simplify it.

What this means is that my poor little multimeter is a poor tool for detecting voltages smaller than a certain point. At a small enough voltage range, the circuit becomes vulnerable to it's own internal instability (semiconductor noise) and it is vulnerable to changes in temperature, age of the electronics, and even to the electromagnetic interference of the environment. It does not “measure” these influences, it doesn't even correspond to these environmental changes in a one to one fashion. It merely becomes less accurate.

What this means is that any piece of digital electronics that samples the environment has a point beyond which it literally can NOT determine what is real, and what is not. Digital voice recorders are a great example. If you were to physically remove the microphone of a digital voice recorder, and then hit the “record” button, you would be recording the internal noise of the circuit, which may or may not correspond to the actual state of the circuit due to uncertainty. If you were to play that back, and amplify it, it is possible that your pattern-seeking brain could hear “voices” in the resulting random static.

This is in effect what ghost hunters do. They force their equipment to measure beyond the limits of what the equipment is capable of recording, and then claim what they hear is more than audio pareidolia, that it is in fact a ghost. Yet they can't prove it is anything more than random uncertainty, beyond the capability of their tools.

If you use a ghost hunter's 'measuring stick' you would believe that the world is jam-packed with Quarters. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. There's really no way to tell. But ghost hunters build their careers on thinking that maybe this time they are really measuring something.

The Pseudoscience of Ghost Hunting, Mickey Burrow's "Pacific Haunting Investigations"

Pacific Haunting Investigations founder Mickey Burrow has been pretty popular in the Fresno Bee lately. I think it's time to expose his supposedly “scientific” methods for what they really are. So let's do some ghost hunting!

Because of the amount of material that I'll be presenting, I'm making this a multiple part series to cover everything. This first entry will be a bit long, but I'll try to keep future entries under 800 words.

First, I'd like my readers to know something about me, and my colleague Richard from CVAAS. About myself – as a younger man I used to hunt ghosts, made audio recordings, checked out supposedly haunted houses and I ran into things that were difficult to explain. Richard has taken the further step of receiving training in basic ghost hunting from a locally recognized and very popular ghost hunter. We have both, to the best of our abilities, investigated the methods that ghost hunters use, and we are both of the opinion that ghost hunters do not use or apply the methods of science. I'll also show that ghost hunters, and Mickey Burrow in particular, are not open to criticism of any sort.


Let's start with some background.

I read in passing back in April of 2007 in the Fresno Bee of the supposedly haunted Cal Fire station in Raymond California. The ghost, named “Homer” by the firefighters, was supposed to have thumped and bumped his way around the fire station, turning the lights on and off, and was a shadowy presence in the corner of people's eyes. It got so bad that the firefighters ignored or encouraged Homer's supposed shenanigans, and finally begged the ghost to follow when Cal Fire built a newer state of the art station half a mile away.

The story of Homer's activities barely registered with me, and I mentally filed the story with other local ghost stories, giving it as much credibility as the historically inaccurate stories about the Andleberry Estates.

But all that changed when one Mickey Burrow, founder of Pacific Haunting Investigations decided to investigate Homer.

There are many other ghost hunters in Fresno and the Central Valley. These are the same people who would do sleepovers at the Andleberry Estates, who would get a quick sound byte on television during Halloween, and who would then disappear back into obscurity, ignored by everyone except for other ghost hunters. The difference between these ghost hunters and Mr. Burrow, is that Burrow is a “Crime Scene Investigator!”

(cue dramatic music)

Mr. Burrow asked for, and received permission from Madera County to investigate the now abandoned Raymond fire station for evidence of Homer. His past experience as a CSI put a whole new spin to the idea of ghost hunting, and the result was that Fresno Bee reporter Charles McCarthy wrote a 650 word story about him in the Local section of the paper. Here is a quote from this story:

According to Raymond folklore, Homer is the last name of a young couple who lived on the site in the 1930s. In a jealous rage after learning that his 17-year-old wife had a gentleman visitor, the husband stabbed her to death with a Bowie knife. He then hanged himself, with barbed wire, from a large oak tree that still stands near the old station's front gate.

Cal Fire crews moved last spring to a new station, and Madera County in June paid the private property owner $91,000 for the 1950 barracks, kitchen and garage on 1.69 acres along Road 600. The county plans to locate a community senior center there while keeping a volunteer fire engine in the garage.

All but inviting Homer to join them in their move to a new station a half-mile down the road, the firefighters pried a granite cemetery grave marker from the old station's concrete floor and took it with them to the new station. The marker reads: "'RIP Homer."

Apparently Homer didn't follow. Madera County Fire Department Division Chief Roscoe Rowney said there have been no reports of Homer's presence in the new station.

At the old station, however, alleged Homer activity continues.

Burrow and two associates last month paid a preliminary visit to the site. He turned on an "electronic voice phenomenon" recorder in front of the office area but heard nothing unusual.
When he returned to Fresno and turned on the recorder, there was a faint voice advising him to "turn around."

What is Electronic Voice Phenomena?

As a younger man, I used to place a tape recorder on gravestones in the local cemetery, and then my friends and I would drive home and listen to the tapes in the safety of bright lights. We would hear spooky sounding heartbeats, voices, or other unexplained noises.

It was a lot of fun.

But random noise on a tape, called “Electronic Voice Phenomenon” by ghost hunters, is merely our pattern-seeking brains finding supposed meaning in randomness – in the very same way that we can see bunnies and sailing ships in the clouds that float overhead, we can hear voices buried in the random hiss of a recorder.

Ghost hunters of the 1980's had the theory that a ghost was able to impose his or her attempts to communicate directly upon the magnetic media of the tape recorder using electromagnetic means. This seems to make some sense, but then why would a recorder be necessary at all? Just lay a blank tape on a gravestone, and then play it back later.

Jackie Meador of the Central California Paranormal Investigators is also quoted in this Fresno Bee article. Ms. Meador teaches "Paranormal Studies" classes at the Cesar Chavez Community Education Center in Fresno. (Click here and search for "ghost" for upcoming classes.) According to Ms. Meador, EVP can be recorded on audio tape, or with one of the more modern and inexpensive digital audio recorders. These recorders are usually under $40, and can easily record 60 hours of audio – perfect for leaving the recorder in a haunted house or near a gravestone for a weekend. It can then be picked up and examined for ghostly voices later.

The use of a digital recorder to capture ghost voices knocked out the theory of direct ghostly electromagnetic manipulation of media. To directly manipulate the storage of a digital recorder would require advanced knowledge of WAV or MP3 compression methods, and a working understanding of the mathematical algorithm behind them. I doubt that the 1930's version of Homer understands the necessary math and electronics needed to directly imprint an MP3 or WAV file onto a digital recorder, and if he did have that ability wouldn't he have a lot more to say than, “turn around”?

The newest ghost hunting theory of EVP says that ghosts actually manipulate the “white noise” of the environment or the electronics to produce noises that are then recorded. The poor ghosts aren't strong enough to invest much energy into this sort of effort, so their words are buried in the surrounding background noise. It takes a sharp ear to pick those words out of the random noise.

This leads to a problem with very quiet environments, where there is no background noise. In these cases a ghost supposedly has nothing to work with, and therefore can't speak. But the Ghosthunting Store can help a person out here by selling you a CD of professionally recorded White Noise, which you would play in the ghostly environment while recording.

Another theory is that a digital recorder's analog to digital conversion process actually generates a layer of white noise that is, “conducive to EVP formation.” Hm. As an electrical engineer, perhaps I should be designing inherently noisy digital recorders and selling them to ghost hunters? There would seem to be a market here – but I'm just too honest to exploit it.

This also leads to the question of just how the ghost is able to discern and locate the Analog to Digital conversion chip from the rest of the electronic parts on the recorder circuit board. Do ghosts become electrical engineers after death, or does the afterlife offer classes on hobby electronics?

Instant EVP, just add random noise! In what way is this any different from spending a lazy afternoon gazing at the clouds and discussing the shapes that you see? The scientific term for this is called, “Auditory pareidolia”, and is no different from seeing Trolls in your Laundry. A better explanation is that the context in which we perceive influences how our brains fill in the blanks. But you don't have to believe me on this, go check out the research for yourself.

This is the quality of investigation that we can expect from Mickey Burrow. I'll continue with more on this tomorrow. Don't be spooked! Stay Tuned!

Calladus on Skepticality!

I'm appearing in today's issue of the Skepticality podcast (Skepticality issue #72). I had the pleasure and honor of talking with fellow geek Derek Colanduno, who interviewed me for Skepticality.

For those of you unfamiliar with Skepticality, it is the official podcast of Skeptic Magazine, so the hosts of Skepticality work together with Michael Shermer. My interview served to announce the upcoming debate between Shermer and D'Souza, hosted by the New Covenant Community Church and to plug the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics.

Others mentioned in this podcast are CVAAS co-founder Richard, who has been gracious in developing the CVAAS website and is perhaps even more involved with CVAAS than I am; and Scott Hatfield, writer of the blog Monkey Trials and all around defender of science and evolution.

For those of you who have found your way to my blog through the Skepticality podcast – if you want a skeptical taste of what I write I recommend my entry titled, “Testing the counterfeit money detector pen by DriMark". James Randi has said in the past that these sorts of pens can be fooled with spray-on starch – well, being a Skeptic I didn't take even the Amazing Randi at his word, and instead I tested his assertion. The article that resulted from that test has been extremely popular.

Calladus (yes, ME!) to speak at Fresno Pacific University

I just got word today that Fresno Pacific University has agreed to host a discussion (perhaps a short debate?) between myself and New Covenant Church College Pastor Loren Pankratz. This came out of the first lunch discussion I had with Loren as something that might interest both of us.

The details are still being worked out – what I know at the moment is that this will take place on Thursday, April 3rd, at the Fresno Pacific University main campus located at 1717 S. Chestnut Ave. Fresno, CA 93702.

The time for our presentation will be limited – probably about 30 minutes for both of us . We're still discussing possible topics. However, since I'm not a biologist I've asked for evolution to be off of the table. (Although I might be tempted to speak on genetic algorithms, hardware evolution or cellular automata.)

There is seating available for up to 400 students – but at this point I don't know how many will be in attendance.

At the moment, I don't know if this event is open to non-students or not. As I find out, I'll post it in my blog, along with time and exact location.

Partly, I'm extremely excited about this event, and partly I'm seriously concerned. I'll be representing CVAAS and all of Atheism and Skepticism to as many as 400 really smart students who have spent the last couple of years learning how to refute Atheism at this private religious college. Although, I do have hope! FPU is an accredited college, and it does seem to use evolution in order to unify biological concepts.

Me, I'm just some guy, you know? While I'm well-read in apologetics and secular philosophy, I don't for a minute believe that there isn't someone (many someones!) who can stump me.

Suddenly, I have a great deal of sympathy for Daniel. Except I don't get the “pray to a friend” life-line!

Debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer in Fresno - April 18th

As you can see, I’ve been away from my blog for a while. Mostly this is for work reasons, but a smaller reason is due to some exciting upcoming events, and possibly even some changes.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on making an announcement that is pretty major to the secular community in the California Central Valley. So, as this post title says -


Michael Shermer will be debating Dinesh D’Souza here in Fresno, on April 18th!

The debate is hosted by the New Covenant Community Church, with some small assistance by the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics. New Covenant asked CVAAS to assist with this event, and perhaps assist with other future events as well.

Also, on April 19th, there will be an apologetics symposium held by the New Covenant church, which will conclude with a moderated table discussion between CVAAS and New Covenant members.

Here is the tentative event agenda:

Debate
Debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer

Debate topic: "Does God Exist?" (Subject to change)

Date: Friday April 18th
Time: 7 PM
Fee: NO FEE is required to attend this event
Location: California State University, Fresno - South Gym
- 5241 N Maple Ave, Fresno, CA 93740
(Google Map, Campus Map)

- Seating is limited to the first 1,000 who show up. Seating opens at 6PM, so come early!

- For those who are coming from out of town to attend this event, please email me and I will save a seat for those in your party.

CVAAS will be hosting two tables at this event. Stop by and say hello!


Apologetics Symposium
(How to witness to nonbelievers and unchurched)

Date: Saturday April 19th
Time: Welcome address at 8:00 AM
Fee: $20 per person for this event
Location: New Covenant Community Church - Main building
- 1744 E. Nees Ave, Fresno CA 93720
(Google map)

Schedule: (Subject to changes)

8:00 AM - Welcome address by Dinesh D'Souza

Speakers: (Starting at 8:30 or 9:00, ending at 12:30 - 1 PM)

- Dr. Craig Hazen, Director of the M.A. Christian Apologetics Program for Biola University
- - Subject: Challenging Religious Pluralism

- Bishop John-David Schofield of the San Joaquin, CA Episcopal Diocese (Fresno Bee Article)
-- Subject: Moral Issues

- Dr. Chap Clark, associate professor and director of youth ministry programs at Fuller Theological Seminary
- - Subject: Parenting

- Alan Shlemon, a speaker for the Stand to Reason Christian radio talk show
- - Subject: Logic and tactics for witnessing

Break for lunch (12:30 AM – 1:15PM)

1:15 PM - Moderated table discussion between CVAAS and New Covenant church members, followed by questions from the audience. Held in the Student Ministries building. The moderator will be Molly Award winner Scott Hatfield of the blog “Monkey Trials”. The theme of this discussion is yet to be decided.

I have been told that Atheist and Skeptic organizations from as far away as Los Angeles and Sacramento will be convoying to attend this event. If you are a Skeptic or Secular person living in the California Central Valley, this is your opportunity to come out and show your support!

===============
29 Feb 08 - Update:

I forgot to include a link to my description of my first visit to New Covenant Community Church. You can go there and read about my return to (any) church after an absence of 8 or 9 years.

Also, you can find out more about this event from the New Covenant Community Church "In Defense of Faith" debate and symposium website. If you will be attending the April 19th symposium, you must register at their website. However, the symposium on the 19th is free for students.

4 Mar 08 - Update:

I'd like to extend a welcome to those who have found their way here from the Skepticality podcast. Thanks for stopping by!

"Spiritual Medium" admits, "We are all liars!"

I've mentioned before that I enjoy reading the Postsecret website. People are encouraged to put their secrets onto a post card and mail them anonymously to Frank Warren, the creator of the site. Sending anonymous secrets to a stranger so they can be read by all seems to be emotionally cathartic for the sender. It also helps the reader realize that other people are experiencing similar difficulties (or joys) in life.

The last Postsecret post card that I wrote about was from a minister who said (indirectly) that he felt other ministers knew that religion was a scam, a scam he was in on.

This card is something like that, from someone who is respected for a non-existent ability to talk to the dead. I feel sorry for this person because he is trapped by his (or her) "respectable" position. Perhaps he or she is making a living talking to the dead; like John Edward or James Van Praagh.

Wouldn't it be interesting if this card actually was from Edward or Van Praagh?
Hm... Maybe I don't feel so sorry... those creeps have made a bundle by raping the emotions of the bereaved.


I once believed in mediums. I used to think the Ouija board actually worked. I've since realized I was only fooling myself. And I'm not the only person to come to that sort of realization. Even skeptics can deceive themselves that ghosts exist. And although it is easy to fake psychic powers, or fake being a medium, (link 2) it is also easy to believe in your own fake fortunetelling.

Of everyone that a "ghost whisperer" or psychic has to fool, the easiest one to fool is yourself.

And if you make a living at talking to or promoting ghosts, or being a psychic, I guess you have to find a way to live with yourself. Perhaps you are merely "telling stories" for entertainment value - but you should be prepared to offer a disclaimer. CSI writer Philip Howard related an anecdote about that:

A listener once asked a popular national storyteller if she believed the ghost stories she related. “I believe they paid for my children’s college educations,” she replied.

I enjoy a great ghost story.

A new name for Atheists, Skeptics and other freethinkers in California

The “Name Our Group” contest is over, a winner has been selected, and from the winning entry a name has been created.

The contest winner is Richard, with the entry “Central Valley Atheists and Skeptics”. Richard won because our group wasn’t concerned with cute acronyms – instead we wanted to identify our core values and our community. (Yes, Richard wins the Amazon gift certificate!)

Although this was the winning entry, this is NOT the final name we chose. Our name is, “Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics”. We’ve already registered the domain name www.cvaas.org and have the start of a website there. Over the next month that site will grow (slowly – probably) to include resources for all flavors of non-believers, rational thinkers, skeptics and their supporters who live in the southern and central areas of the California Central Valley.

There are a lot of non-believers throughout the California Central Valley, and many of them think that they are unique and alone. It is easy to believe this when you see the signs and billboards that dot Highway 99 - the highway that bisects the valley from Stockton to Bakersfield. These signs usually advocate tearing down the walls between church and state, and use religion to condemn women’s reproductive rights. It is hard to believe that there are critical thinkers here – the same place where the Freepers are headquartered, where the Promise Keepers and Intelligent Design draw big crowds.

This is why we use the word “alliance” in our name – because we hope to create a gathering place both online and in the real world for those Atheists, Skeptics, Secular Humanists, and other flavors of rational and critical thinkers who live throughout the Southern and Central San Joaquin Valley; a place where we can recharge, combine our strength, and speak up to remind the religious that they do not speak for everyone here.

So, if you are an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Skeptic, a Secular Humanist – no matter what you call your flavor of critical and rational thought, then take a moment to check out the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics.

Bookmark our website, Join up, and volunteer to help us out. We need a few dedicated people to help us spread the word, organize meeting venues, and show everyone that we are a presence here.

And let’s have some fun too – because the Central Valley isn’t as gloomy for non-believers as it seems!

Name Our Group Contest - Final Day!

Today is the last day of the "Name Our Group" contest.

Tomorrow, I'll gather up all the entries and submit them to the other group members in Fresno so that they can review them and prepare for voting during next week's meeting.

Remember, there is a $25 Amazon Gift Certificate waiting for the entry that gets the most votes!

Name Our Group Contest update

I'd like to remind everyone that there are two more weeks in which to submit a suggestion to the "Name Our Group" contest.

As I said in the original "Name Our Group" blog post, the Fresno group of Atheists, Skeptics, Secular Humanists, and Freethinkers are looking for a good name that is URL friendly and is inclusive for our diverse group of non-believing rational thinkers.

So far, we've had about 20 responses via email, and maybe another 10 or so via comments to the original post. There are about 40 or so suggestions among these entries.

Remember I am offering a $25 dollar Amazon.com gift certificate to the person who creates the winning entry. There is no restriction on the number of suggestions that any one person can submit either. And, even if no one comes up with a suggestion that we actually use, we will still pick what we think is the best of all suggestions and I'll reward that person with the Amazon gift certificate!

You can check the original post for contest rules, and if you have any suggested names for the group you can submit them via email to calladus+contest@gmail.com.

Again with the Atheist symbol

Last week I created a new symbol for Atheists and Non-believers: the Fleur-de-pensée. Alexc3 left a comment to another post and suggested using Inkscape, an open source vector drawing program that can save files in a scalable vector graphics format.

So, I recreated the Fleur-de-pensée in SVG format. Now you can download the image and scale it, or edit it to your heart's delight. And as I said before:

I'm releasing this symbol to the public domain, free for anyone to use, with only one restriction.

The only requirement that I make is what this symbol represents. As long as anyone uses a symbol that is recognizably based upon or derived from the Fleur-de-pensée, it will always represent scientific, skeptical and rational inquiry into our natural world, without the need to resort to the supernatural. It also indicates a willingness to explore ethical questions that originate with humans and benefit all humanity while respecting individual human rights.

I created 3 different Fleur-de-pensée image files that you can download: Inkscape SVG format, plain SVG format, or Adobe Acrobat format. The two SVG formats contain the Fleur-de-pensée inside of a ring – which can be removed using a graphics editor if needed. The Adobe Acrobat PDF format has two images, the Fleur-de-pensée within a ring, and by itself. Scale the PDF document and then cut and past it as you please.

It would be neat if this image gains acceptance among Non-believers, and truthfully I hope it does. However I'm realistic, and I know what the track record for Atheist symbols is like. If you like this symbol, then give it a chance – link to it, download it, use it. Even play with it.

Name Our Group! (Fame and Wealth awaits!)

Back in January of 2003 I took over the Fresno Atheist Meetup Group on meetup.com. I had become tired of waiting for the group to actually meet, so I became the organizer and put out an email that there would be a meeting at the local diner, even if it was only me there reading “Atheism” by S.T. Joshi. I was as surprised as anyone that people actually showed up.

Since then, the membership of the group has grown and shrunk several times, but it seems as if we've finally started to define our focus and to attract a core group of members. Now we wish to expand our member base and become more active in our community. We've made plans.

But we still don't have a name for our group, so we're asking for your help. Here is your chance to gain (a modicum) of fame and wealth!

Well, an Amazon.com Gift certificate at least. Keep reading...

Our group is actually 3 groups on meetup.com. We combine the Fresno Atheists, the Fresno Skeptics, and the Fresno Secular Humanism groups. Our most famous member doesn't identify himself as an Atheist, but instead as a rational thinker and promoter of science. The consensus of our group is that if you put your beliefs up for discussion, you had better be able to offer sufficient evidence for them!

We agree that the “Atheist” label is only a small part of what defines a person, specifically it defines what a person is not. We define our group more broadly to include Freethought, Skepticism, and the promotion of science, rational inquiry, and human rights. Separation of Church and State is also a core value. Our membership is made up of those who can accept having their beliefs scrutinized. By itself, that is a pretty tall order.


We've defined two primary goals for our group to start out – with the agreement that other goals may come later.

First, we want to become a “presence” here. Fresno is located in the center of the San Joaquin Valley, and all through this valley there is no appreciable organization that supports non-believers or skeptics. We want to change that.

Every Halloween the local media gushes about ghosts. They happily quote religion during other holidays. The Fresno mayor (Bubba) has no problem with holding religious events at City Hall. We're the headquarters for the Freeper community who has no problem with linking patriotism to Christianity.

We would like to be that little voice of reason in our community that speaks up to remind these people that they do not speak for everyone. We want to be in the Rolodex when a reporter looks for “a local skeptic” to quote, even if we're merely a 30 second sound byte in opposition to a 10 minute news story. That will still raise awareness. We want to use our voice to promote rational inquiry and science.

Second, we wish to grow and become better organized. There is a great opportunity for growth in today's marketplace of ideas and our group wants to capitalize on that. Our first steps in growth will be to create a real web-presence for ourselves and leverage that with better local advertising.

We have tenuous links to the other Skeptic and Freethought groups in California that we would like to strengthen. There have been local Freethought groups on the city and state campus and we would like to see if we can support them, or arrange for mutual support. We would like to be able to invite speakers, give demonstrations and educate the public about rational thought, skeptical inquiry, and the methods of science.


So now that we have a stated philosophy and a couple of goals, we need a name that embodies these. And this is where you can help, hence the contest to get things started. And every contest needs:

Contest Rules

1. Although you are welcome to discuss possible names in the comments section of this blog (or elsewhere online) first preference will be given to naming suggestions that are emailed directly to me at: calladus+contest@gmail.com. So if you come up with a name that's sure to win, email it!
2. The name should be URL friendly or have a URL friendly acronym, and be at least somewhat easy to remember. Joke acronyms are funny, but we don't want one. (Yes, we've already heard of the Fresno Atheist and Rational Thought Society - creating these generates seriously bad non-Karma, and everyone knows that's much worse than the regular kind of Karma.)
3. Preference is given to those names that includes or refers to our group definition and indicates our goals.
4. This contest will end on August 31st, at which point I'll gather all the suggestions into one email that will be sent to all of our group members.
5. Our group members will discuss and vote on the best name at our meeting on September 6th . The winner will be announced September 7th.
6. We reserve the right to make changes to the winning suggestion, or to create a name based upon or inspired by the suggestion.
7. The winner will receive an emailed coupon for a $25 gift certificate from Amazon.com, paid for by myself.
8. Enter as often as you like, with a different suggestion each entry, or multiple suggestions on one entry. I'll acknowledge all entrants to let you know I received the email.
9. Spamming my email box gets you sent to Google's spam, and suggestions from spammers won't be considered!

This is your chance to help us out. Frankly, we're stumped as to what we should call ourselves. It seems like all the “cool” names have been taken. Help us out, and I'll send you a coupon to get something off of your Amazon wish list.

-----
6Aug 0900 - Update - Thanks Mike for pointing out that I do allow multiple suggestions per entry. So I made a slight revision to rule 8.