Redirection notice

Please redirect your browsers to http://godless-in-mk.com/ for future updates.

Ghost hunting

Mention the TV programme "Most Haunted" to most people and if they've heard of it they'll probably remember two of the cast in particular - Derek Acorah and Yvette Fielding.

Following these broadcasts many ghost-hunting groups were set up including one in Milton Keynes where I live. Now the thing about England, especially this neck of the woods, is that it's sometimes difficult to heave a brick without hitting something historic. This article is about an investigation at the Swan Inn at Great Horwood. The A421 route is Roman and just outside Buckingham itself at Thornborough there are two Roman burial mounds - so people have been living and dying in this area, and leaving traces behind, for nearly two thousand years.

Have a read through the report of the investigation. Ok, it's a local newspaper story but the standard of the work carried out is pretty common. One critic of these standards is Hayley Stevens, a paranormal researcher. Hayley appeared on the Fundamentally Flawed vodcast and while I respect her professional work I do have issues with how she interacts with people.

The thing is that Hayley, and many others, have been critiquing the low quality of the research being undertaken for years and people are still asking these groups to turn up and investigate ghostly sightings.

It's as though they won't be told.

Equally, and as I mentioned on FF#77 post show hangout, there are no barriers to setting up a group, there are no qualifications to pass and no statutory public liability cover required.

Furthermore, as I said in The Place, it seems to be a part of the human condition to want there to be "something" rather than it's people being uneducated or stupid.

Therefore, we're left in a state where there are people who believe in ghosts, other people who think ghost hunting or investigating ghost sightings is fairly straightforward (but whose investigations are actually very amateurish), and there are no restrictions to anyone calling them a ghost hunter or practising as such.

The cynic in me sometimes considers the prospect of setting up as a psychic, a medium, a healer or as a ghost hunter because it all looks like taking candy from a baby and people simply won't be told, and if anyone is going to take the candy then why shouldn't be me ?

Then that old nagging sensation called personal integrity comes a-knocking and I stop thinking about it.

It's really annoying sometimes.

Christmas (part 3) - Christmas in the UK

I was lucky enough to be asked on as a guest to “The Place” podcast by the New Covenant Group – you can watch it here.

It's two hours long but worth a watch.

I did try to explain some of the differences between the UK and USA expectations and experiences of the season, particularly Christmas Day but it was 2.30am and I'd like to clarify some of the points that I made.

Firstly – music. We do have a tradition of playing festive music in shops in December (and even late November), but eventhough there are pop songs that include religious themes they are not played very often.

The sort of songs that you might hear are

:: PPL's Top 20 most-played Christmas tracks of the decade:
1. All I Want For Christmas Is You - Mariah Carey
2. Last Christmas - Wham!
3. Fairytale Of New York - The Pogues feat. Kirsty MacColl
4. Merry Xmas Everybody - Slade
5. I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday - Wizzard
6. Do They Know It's Christmas? - Band Aid
7. Driving Home For Christmas - Chris Rea
8. Stop The Cavalry - Jona Lewie
9. White Christmas - Bing Crosby
10. Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow! - Dean Martin
11. I Believe In Father Christmas - Greg Lake
12. Wonderful Christmas Time - Paul McCartney
13. Merry Christmas Everyone - Shakin' Stevens
14. Step Into Christmas - Elton John
15. The Power Of Love - Frankie Goes To Hollywood
16. Happy Xmas (War Is Over) - John And Yoko
17. Rockin' Around The Christmas Tree - Brenda Lee
18. Winter Wonderland - Darlene Love
19. Stay Another Day - East 17
20. 2000 Miles - The Pretenders

source

and the two songs that I mentioned by Cliff Richard

“Mistletoe and Wine" by Cliff Richard

“Saviours Day” ditto

The most common time for an argument on Christmas Day is actually 10.13am - source. Indeed Christmas Day for alot of people is a very sad time and many do get depressed - source.

I would argue that "Mistletoe and Wine" is not very popular because it tells people how their Christmas should be and loads the event with a great deal of expectation that ends up unfulfilled and the Fairytale of New York is popular because it does the opposite and admits that the event often begins with a mix of hope and regret, and will include a raging row.

Next, I ought to explains Nativity Plays - and the way that although they appear to be explicitly religious they are actually far less so and instead, because of the need to be as inclusive as possible, the cast will include characters that are simply not mentioned in the Bible, often to the wry amusement of parents in the audience. Nonetheless, it is a popular event and a rite of passage for Primary School children.

Finally, the Pantomime is another Christmas tradition and is a musical comedy play based on children's stories such as Babes in the Wood, Cinderella, Snow White and Dick Whittington. The key features are audience participation ("He's behind you !", "Oh no he isn't", celebrities, awful jokes and garish costumes.

In summary, the UK Christmas experience is different to the USA and is not as overtly religious.

We are indeed two nations separated by a common festival.

Christmas (Part 2) – Co-opting the symbols

Once more unto the personal stuff. I live in England, this means that what I see everyday is the flora and fauna of Northern Europe. The stars that I see are oriented based on the latitude that I live in too. So, whether it's looking down, across or upwards whatever I see is based heavily on where I live, and whatever I see is going to be a heavy influence on what I believe.

As the seasons turn the flora change. Every Autumn the deciduous trees shed their leaves and the ground is covered with browns and golds as nature appears to go into shutdown. Nights become longer, days shorter, colder and wetter. In the midsts of these changes some flora do not change – ivy, holly, mistletoe continue to grow, the latter even on a tree that otherwise appears to be devoid of life. Whereas most plants fruit from Spring onwards the holly tree bears fruit in Winter, and eating very, very small amounts of those berries can induce hallucinations and heighten awareness (I bet you lot didn't know that), although taken too excess will result in poisoning and maybe death. Mistletoe is often thought of in conjunction with holly, and is asserted to be an antidote to poisoning as well as a cure for barreness in animals (which obviously explains the whole kissing thing excuse).

Tree worship more generally has a long history, again dating back to pre-Christian times in many countries and there are tales of Christian missionaries taking steps to eradicate it using force (or just an axe). During the leafing months the strongest and oldest tree is the Oak, but during Winter that mantle passes to the Pine or Fir tree as the tallest evergreen. In most cases the tree is not on it's own on a windy hill but in a sacred grove (if one did not naturally exist then there was nothing wrong with some judicious woodsmanship to create one).

The point that I'm trying to get to is what is the history of the symbols that we associate with the season ?

I think that a case can be made that people used whatever was around them and picked on whatever was odd amongst the noise of the mundane. People in England, generally speaking, do not worship grass, or brambles, or nettles, or dandelions, or privet for that matter (Monty Python and the Knights who say “Ni !” notwithstanding).

Christians, in seeking to obliterate any existing faith path were not above using force, or appropriating festivals, symbols and stories and overlaying them, sometimes with the most amazing use of spin, to turn those things into reinforcements of the Christian worldview.

If an oak was sacred to Thor then chop the thing down (thanks St Boniface). Otherwise co-opt whatever it was and invent an appropriate back story. As an aside I was in Paris in June and climbed the Eiffel Tower (well it was rude not to) and on the way down from the Second Level to the First I passed a family from the USA where the mother or auntie was speaking to a younger girl, about 14, who was clearly impressed by the structure and was being instructed

“This should remind you of your baptism ceremony, that was awesome too.”

I thought “It's a fucking marvel of human engineering not an excuse for brain-washing.”

Nonetheless it was being co-opted to reinforce the faith.

Anyway, my point is that many of the things that we associate with Christmas have actually got nothing to do with Christianity, they are the renamed refugees from earlier beliefs.

Christmas (Part 1) - The reason for the Season

I'm not a Christian but I will be celebrating a festival called “Christmas” on the 25^th December, so doesn't that make me a hypocrite ?

It's part of the regular dialogue between Christians and non-Christians in early December every year with Christians proclaiming that Jesus is the “Reason for the Season” and non-Christians countering with examples of pre-Christian winter festivals such as Saturnalia or Sol Invictus.

Again, drawing on my previous experiences of a non-Christian faith path but also as a Skeptic, I take a slightly different view. I do not cite Saturnalia or Sol Invictus but instead look to the sacred landscape. The evidence at sites like Stonehenge and Newgrange demonstrates a clear ability to note a significant date in architecture that predates the arrival of the Romans in Britain by more than a thousand years.

At Stonehenge it is possible to use the site to note both the Summer (at sunrise) and Winter (at sunset) solstices. At Newgrange it is also possible to use the site to note the Winter (at sunrise) solstice.

Both Stonehenge and Newgrange are major works of human endeavour in their creation, development and maintenance over many centuries.

From those two examples, one in Wiltshire, England and the other in County Meath, Ireland it is clear that dismissing pre-Christian festivals noting a recurring annual event close to the 25^th December by focusing on the Roman festivals of Saturnalia or Sol Invictus is mistaken.

In other words the reason for the season is not Jesus but the Winter solstice which is a naturalistic event and the evidence is in the landscape, and still there for us to see.

The Argument from Miracles

Firstly, I haven't read up on this subject so this is all basically just what I think and probably has as much validity as a coherent train of thought as the words found on the back of a cornflakes packet.

Nonetheless...

This is one of the major lines of argument put forward as evidencing the existence of the Christian god and it's something that interests me from the perspective of a non-Christian faith path.

There are a lot of problems with the argument as far as I can ascertain and I'm going to focus on these four, if you know anymore then let me know.

• the problem of observation
• the problem of cause
• the problem of intent
• the problem of need

Skeptics focus on the problem of observation – how do we know that a miracle has taken place, and indeed what is a miracle ? So let me put forward some of my own definitions.

What is a Miracle ? The problem of observation

A miracle is an event that enables the the passage from one state of affairs of an object to another state of affairs where the cause of that event cannot have a naturalistic explanation. The first state of affairs and the second state of affairs can be observed and investigated using a naturalistic methodology.

There are a number of differences between a naturalistic and non-naturalistic cause

• a naturalistic cause can be reproduced on demand, it is predictable, and it is falsifiable
• a non-naturalistic cause cannot be reproduced on demand, it is not predictable and it is not falsifiable.

This is leaving aside the most common complaints that the observations of the first and second state of affairs is usually anecdotal and some time after the fact with no certainty that the object in the first and second state of affairs are the same object or that the event is a single non-naturalistic instance as opposed to a series of naturalistic events that had been edited to produce a gap.

Thus the most common challenge thrown down to Christians - “Why doesn't god heal amputees ?” would only be counted as a miracle if the person with a missing limb has their identity verified, then verified again after the limb has reappeared and no significant time has passed that might be accounted for by extensive reconstructive surgery and recuperation.

However, no such challenge has been met by Christians. Instead we are presented with an anecdote of a person who may have lost a limb and then some time later has had that limb restored. We are unable to verify that the person before and after is the same and even if they are the same we then need to be assured that they haven't been through a naturalistic surgical procedure to reattach the limb.

Christians offering these examples seem to resent being asked for verification and examination in order to check that a miracle has been observed. Yet the requests seem no more than would be required to validate an insurance claim for property damage to your house. Is this your house, was it in a good state of repair, when did the damage occur, what was the cause of the damage, please provide three written estimates, here's your cheque less the excess.

In order to move on let's lower the evidential hurdle. We'll accept a standard that the Christians will put forward.

There was an object, it was in one state of affairs and then it was in another state of affairs and the cause appears to be non-naturalistic.

If any Christians would like to tweak that definition then let me know.

The problem of cause

Moving on to the next problem – which cause or which god or which supernatural entity is responsible for the event.

If we define what a miracle is by how it appears to be then Christians must examine all such claims of a miraculous event without specifying the cause. It should be possible to collect together a sizable number of anecdotes about those events and strip out the features that identify the suggested cause and to “blind test” those descriptions. Perhaps this has already been done.

The results of what a Christian thinks is a miracle from a list of Christian and non-Christian caused miracles where there are no identifying features would be enlightening. 

My own history comes into play too – I followed a different faith path before I became Skeptic and I was aware of claims of miraculous events from people who followed that faith path. I was also aware of claims from Islam and Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism too. The anecdotes looked very similar.

In which case, if we accept that miracle is a miracle because it looks like a miracle rather than it can be verified to the degree that I've proposed then it follows that in a blind test it may not be possible for the follower of any particular faith path to identify miracles that can be assigned to one specific supernatural entity as opposed to another. That's leaving aside if we can verify that miracle – and do so for miracles from more than one faith path.

The problem of intent

Christians can, of course, rebut that by saying that the Christian god either only provides miracles for Christians and that the cause of the non-Christian miracles is the devil engaging in a deception or that the Christian god does provides miracles for non-Christians in order to fulfill some purpose.

Let's think about that – the devil provides miracles for non-Christians in order to deceive them. Of course this just raises more questions

• how does the Christian know that they are not being deceived by the negative spirit of a non-Christian faith path ?
• If the devil is providing miracles for non-Christians and god is providing miracles for Christians then how can they be differentiated ?
• As a side note if the devil is providing miracles then does it matter – is the miracle not the important thing ? Remember the oft quoted phrase about being prepared to make a deal with the devil for a positive outcome for someone that you have a deep emotional connection to.

Next, if the Christian god is providing miracles for non-Christians for some unknown purpose then how does the Christian explain that the major effect is to reinforce the non-Christian beliefs of those benefiting from and witnessing the miracle ?

The problem of need

This is not an obvious counter to the argument from miracles but I think it is actually very powerful.

When and why do you need a miracle ?

In the past people would have been praying and invoking their gods and goddesses far more regularly than they do now. Naked assertion perhaps, but think about it

- if you're ill do you go to your GP or the church to pray

- if you're poor do you go to a loan company or to the church to pray

- if you're under attack do you call the police or do you go to the church to pray

We have progressed a great deal over the centuries due to the developments in medicine such that if you are ill you are far less likely to pray because you will have a degree of confidence in the medical services being provided. Praying for a miracle, if it happens at all, occurs when that degree of confidence falls below a certain threshold. The difficulty for Christians is that for a great many treatments that fall in confidence does not occur today whereas it might have occurred many decades ago.

The need for a miracle has decreased. Without that need the justification for the existence of a supernatural entity has equally decreased. We simply don't need god as much as we used to. What we do need is a good medical service, decent housing, affordable credit, and jobs with a living wage. This is all stuff that we can influence ourselves. A god is not the necessity that it once was.

So, in summary -

• we cannot be sure, based on the quality of evidence provided that a miracle has been observed

• we cannot be sure that only the Christian god provides miracles

• we cannot be sure of the intent of the miracle provider

• we do not need miracles as much as we used because of the development of our civilization has taken over to satisfy those needs.