Digital Bits Skeptic

Podcast: Download

by Kevin Bridges
Article ID: 1410

What do you think of when you hear the words “out of body experience”? Perhaps you imagine an ill-fated victim of a car accident, a spirit floating inside an ambulance looking down at EMTs as they try frantically to revive his broken, unconscious body.

Explore the wilds of the Internet and you’ll get plenty of variations on the “out of body” theme. Plenty of people claim to have out-of-body experiences, saying “I’ve had one of those!” Or “I’ve had a dozen!” Or “I had one last night!” Did they all have traffic accidents? Do that many people fall off the roof trying to take down their Christmas lights? How accident-prone can a person be?

No. Further study shows that many out-of-body experiences happened in the security of a person’s own bed. It’s usually very late at night or in the wee hours of morning.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to debunk this one, does it? It’s called having a dream!  Elementary, my dear Watson.

However, a closer look at the experiences paints a different picture.

If an out-of-body spirit sees a tree fall in the forest, can the spirit hear the noise?

The general scenario involves a body shaking and vibrating and then a sensation of floating up out of the body and being able to view one’s own bedroom from a ceiling’s perspective.

Personally, I’ve had more dreams about being naked at my old high school than I’ve had about floating around in my bedroom.  But every one of these people will tell you that the experience isn’t like a usual dream – there is no strange dreamlike logic and plotlines, and it doesn’t physically feel like a dream – it feels real.

Then maybe it isn’t a dream.  But if it’s not an actual out-of-body experience, what else could it be?

For some of us, it’s too improbable – too much of a stretch of logic – to think that these people not only have souls but that these souls sometimes go out to play.  But a closer look at the techniques to induce an out-of-body experience shows us just how this could happen without a supernatural element.

Out of body techniques include instructions like this:

1) Lie down in a comfortable bed or kick back in a recliner.

2) Completely relax your whole body.

3) Enhance the relaxation with visualization techniques. For example, imagine yourself walking down some stairs, and with every step you descend, have your heart rate slow and your breathing grow deeper and slower.

4) Eventually you will fall into a self-induced trance.

5) During this process, say affirmations. Repeat to yourself: “The out-of-body experience is completely natural.  I will use this technique every night when I sleep. I am more than my physical body.”

6) Using these techniques, your soul will rise away from your body, and your consciousness will follow.

Anyone who’s heard the word “hypnosis” is right now cocking a skeptical eyebrow.

Many excited people out there are learning self-hypnosis without realizing it. In the books and websites with instructions for getting out of your own skin, many teach the same techniques that others use to quit smoking or lose weight. The process to coax your soul from your body is the same one you can use to stop eating three desserts after dinner.

With this in mind, let’s again look at the out-of-body experience.

Read a thick book about people’s souls flying around like thrown confetti. Spend an hour on a forum devoted to the topic. Then go lie in bed and repeat to yourself that you are going to have an out-of-body experience.

What would you expect to happen?  I’d be surprised if someone doing this didn’t have a supposed out-of-body experience.

If the out-of-body experience isn’t a dream, should we assume it’s reality? Not yet. There are other explanations available, possibilities that don’t presume the supernatural. We’d need to first rule those out before a supernatural explanation would make sense.

Although now that I think about it, just because the out-of-body experience isn’t real doesn’t mean I don’t want to try it. I could even write a book about it and teach another generation of people just how easy it is to fool oneself.

All you have to do is relax.

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 149

You remember the book I’m writing, right? It’s “The League of Scientists”, about a group of science geeks who investigate supposedly supernatural mysteries. Well, the book publication process is moving along – we’re now in the final stages of proofing, finalizing the internal artwork, planning advertising, and I’ve also started writing book #2. You’ll be able to buy it soon – the release countdown is less than a year away.

That’s all fine, and it’s old news to some of you. But I didn’t want to write this article without giving you some other important information. I told you before that “The League of Scientists” book #1 will have a “skeptic celebrity” endorsement, a mini-review we could perhaps put on the book cover, website and other advertising copy.

I’ve finally got it. It’s in my hands. I have my book review from a Skeptic Celebrity.

You wanna know who it is?

Take a guess. My original clues: it is a man, he’s appeared on TV (cable and nationally-broadcast), he has written books and has been interviewed by most high-profile skeptical podcasts. This person is not John Stossel, though this person and John share multiple weird similarities.

I told you that the Digital Bits Skeptic audience would be the first to know, and I meant it. I’m putting this here, even before I update LeagueOfScientists.com!

The skeptical celebrity for The League of Scientists is Joe Nickell.

For those of you who don’t know who Joe Nickell is, there’s a lot to learn. Here’s a portion of his bio:

“Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) – an international scientific organization – and an investigative columnist for Skeptical Inquirer magazine. He was formerly a professional stage magician and private investigator for a world-famous detective agency. Presently, he appears to be the world’s only full-time, salaried professional paranormal investigator.

Utilizing his varied background, Nickell has become widely known as an investigator of myths and mysteries, frauds, forgeries, and hoaxes. He has been called ‘the modern Sherlock Holmes’, ‘the original ghost buster’, and ‘the real-life Scully’ (from ‘The X-Files’ ). He has investigated scores of haunted-house cases, including the Amityville Horror and the Mackenzie House in Toronto, Canada.

Nickell is the author (co-author or editor) of more than twenty books.

He has appeared on numerous national TV shows, including CNBC’s ‘News with Brian Williams’, ‘Dateline NBC’, ‘TLC’s Best Kept Secrets’, ‘Larry King Live’, ‘Oprah’, ‘Ricki Lake’, ‘Jerry Springer Show’, ‘Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious Universe’, ‘Unsolved Mysteries’, ‘Politically Incorrect’, ’20/20′, A&E’s ‘The Unexplained’, ’48 Hours’, and ‘Exploring the Unknown’, in addition to several documentaries on the Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic Channel, and many others. Nickell has been profiled in the New Yorker magazine and on the Today show.”

That’s just a small sampling from a very large data set. The man is smart, he knows his stuff, and he has helped change the world for the better.

And yes – the reason for this article – he did read and review “The League of Scientists and the Ghost in the Water”. Here’s a portion of what he wrote:

“This adventure of The League of Scientists is… a wonderful introduction to scientific detective work and critical thinking skills – all wrapped up in a delicious mystery! Although the exploits are shared with young readers, this seasoned detective looks forward to the League’s next adventure.”

Joe Nickell
Forensic, Historical, and Paranormal Investigator

One of the reasons I specifically picked Joe to review my book was that, frankly, I really respect the guy and think he does an incredible job in a unique profession. Another reason was just as important: Joe Nickell is a real-life adult equivalent of the stars of my book. Like The League of Scientists, Joe investigates supernatural mysteries with two very important tools: an open mind and the scientific method.

You may wonder at what I said above about Joe Nickell and John Stossel sharing multiple weird similarities. I’m not kidding. They do! Check it out:

“Nickel” and “Stossel” each contain seven letters.

“Joe Nickell” and “John Stossel” each start with the same two letters – “JO”, and end with the same letter – “L”.

While Stossel is a consumer advocate, and Nickel is a paranormal researcher, they both, arguably, are also detectives.

Both Joe and John have mustaches!

…the similarities are frightening, aren’t they?

Special thanks goes, of course, to Joe Nickell. The man is incredibly busy, and not only took the time to read and comment on The League of Scientists, but he exchanged several letters with me in the process.

Thanks, Joe! I hope my work does you proud.

Podcast: Download

by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality
Article ID: 148

“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”

- Carl Sagan, American Scientist (1934-1996)

How many times have you heard someone claim that their products, theories or beliefs are “Scientifically Proven”? They often do this before completely taking over your brain and gaining absolute access into your wallet.

Almost anyone can claim that their ideas are “scientifically proven” or “scientifically tested”. Judging by how gullible and ignorant most of us are, it really doesn’t take much for this claim to convince someone.

What is science?

So, how can you tell which claim is truly scientifically proven and which one is not? To understand, we first need a basic understanding of what science is, and how to ensure that those who claim to be “scientifically proven” have followed the required procedures to really deserve that title.

Okay, let’s get to work. What exactly is science? Science is a method, a procedure, a technique by which we use to examine our surroundings and gain knowledge from them. With sometimes painstaking accuracy, science produces precise unbiased data. It’s not a belief system. Science is fact-based, not faith-based.

For example, mathematics is a form of science: one plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. No matter how many times you repeat the process, it will produce the same results

Expecting others to believe that one plus two equals four (without using any systematic scientific method to prove it) is not the right method of gaining knowledge and it is always prone to error.

Another example of a factual approach is in the court of law. The court looks for evidence first before making a verdict. The judge and jury do not start with a conclusion – they develop one based on available evidence.

“While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”

- Judge William Overton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (1939-1987)

The scientific method

The 10 Commandments of Science (inspired by science journalist “Potholer”)

1. Thou shalt base thy conclusion on the evidence.
2. Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess subjectively.
3. Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence. Just claiming something is a fact doesn’t make it a fact.
4. Thou shalt use large sample sets.
5. Thy tests shall be double-blinded.
6. Thy tests shall have observable controls.
7. Thou shalt cite thy sources of information.
8. Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable and backed up by evidence.
9. Thy opinion is not a fact.
10. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Don’t lie!

Well, actually, the above are not really divine commandments, but they’re a good basic guide to scientific observation. All scientific knowledge is based on two things: observation and logic. Thus, good research follows these rules to produce true scientific data and genuine knowledge. As we said earlier, such rules are applied in the court of law to preserve or uphold justice. The rules exist to ensure impartiality, fairness and the most truthful of results.

Now that we’ve understood the basics of science, let’s go a little deeper to see what exactly is involved in this whole scientific procedure thing. We’ll create a scenario, apply the basics of the scientific method, and see what happens…

1. The Problem

Based on the flow-chart image above, let’s imagine a scenario:

One day a young scientist named “Nick” was researching a seemingly supernatural or mysterious natural phenomenon. At this stage, we say, “Nick is working on a problem.”

2. The Hypothesis

Later, Nick gets an idea on how to explain this mystery. At this stage, we say, “Nick has a hypothesis.”

3. The Prediction

To see whether his hypothesis is right, Nick enters the next stage. He makes a prediction about what should happen with this phenomenon under certain circumstances.

4. The Experiment

Nick then performs several experiments and measurements. He collects plenty of data, and continuously tests his hypothesis using the scientific method. When his scientific research and experiments are finally over, Nick may discover that his prediction was actually wrong. If so, he can change his hypothesis and start over again.

However, if Nick’s prediction was correct, he writes down his results on a paper and submits it to a scientific journal. This is not just any publishing house. It’s not a group of friends or select scientists, and not to his own selection of people whom he thinks is best to be peer reviewers for his results. It has to be a scientific journal. This is so Nick’s work can be peer reviewed.

Note: There are many science and pseudoscience magazines that are not really scientific journals. Please refer to this link to a partial list of legitimate scientific journals.

5. Peer Review

The scientific journal then gets other scientific experts of the same field (often from all over the world) to go through Nick’s paper specifically looking for mistakes or errors before it’s approved to scientific standards. It doesn’t matter if Nick is a well-known, experienced scientist. Nick could also be a highly intellectual person, with all the necessary credentials, never been wrong before. He could hold numerous degrees and represent a prestigious scientific organization. Nick may also have others who agree with his ideas. These credentials still do not excuse his paper from being submitted to be peer reviewed and thoroughly scrutinized.

Regardless of the excuses, scientists who have not had their paper peer reviewed have a higher probability of errors or fraudulent results. This is what makes legitimate science more reliable and keeps out the proponents of pseudoscience or bad science. It is this same process that helps guarantee legitimate results. The peer review process isn’t absolutely 100% error-free, but it’s the best process we have for analyzing claims and determining which claims are least likely to be wrong.

Psychologist Dr. Keith Stanovich explains it this way:

“…one important way to distinguish charlatans and practitioners of pseudoscience from legitimate scientists, is the former often bypass the normal channels of scientific publication and instead go straight to the media with ‘their findings.’ One ironclad criterion that will always work for the public when presented with scientific claims of uncertain validity is the question: “Have the findings been published in a recognized scientific journal that uses some type of peer review procedure?” The answer to this question will almost always separate pseudoscientific claims from the real thing…

Not all information in peer reviewed scientific journals is necessarily correct, but at least it has met a criterion of peer criticism and scrutiny. It is a minimal criterion, not a stringent one, because most scientific disciplines publish many different journals of varying quality. Most scientific ideas can get published somewhere in the legitimate literature if they meet some rudimentary standards. The idea that only a narrow range of data and theory can get published in science is false. This is an idea often suggested by purveyors of bogus remedies and therapies who try to convince the media and the public that they have been shut out of scientific outlets by a conspiracy of ‘orthodox science.’

…the failure of an idea, a theory, a claim, or a therapy to have adequate documentation in the peer reviewed literature of a scientific discipline is very diagnostic. Particularly when the lack of evidence is accompanied by a media campaign to publicize the claim, it is a sure sign that the idea, theory, or therapy is bogus…

“The peer review process is far from perfect, but it is really the only consumer protection we have. To ignore it (or not be aware of it) is to leave ourselves at the mercy of the multimillion-dollar pseudoscience industries that are so good at manipulating the media to their own ends….”

6. Publication

Coming back to Nick’s progress: If Nick followed the scientific method meticulously while conducting his experiments and got all of his data and calculations accurate, then there shouldn’t be much of a problem for his paper to be published after being peer reviewed. Otherwise, Nick would be advised to make some amendments or adjustment before it is published, if it was not rejected completely altogether.

7. Replication

The next stage is the replication process, where other independent scientists re-check the results. Like the peer review process, the replication process is also an essential scientific element.

Again, psychologist Keith Stanovich explains it this way:

“Scientific knowledge is public in a special sense… scientific knowledge does not exist solely in the mind of a particular individual. In an important sense, scientific knowledge does not exist at all until it has been submitted to the scientific community for criticism and empirical testing by others. Knowledge that is considered ’special’ – the province of the thought processes of a particular individual, immune from scrutiny and criticism by others – can never have the status of scientific knowledge. Science makes the idea of public verifiability concrete via the procedure of replication.

In order to be considered in the realm of science, a finding must be presented to the scientific community in a way that enables other scientists to attempt the same experiment and obtain the same results. When this occurs, we say the finding has been replicated… It ensures that a particular finding is not due simply to the errors or biases of a particular investigator. In short, for a finding to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be possible for someone other than the original investigator to duplicate it…

Both creation science and intelligent design propose that life on Earth was created magically by some supernatural creator the humans call God. These ideas have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community for the very reasons explained above. And so, the proponents of creation science and intelligent design (which are pretty much the same thing), often turn this scientific replication requirement back on the theory of evolution. This how their argument sounds:

“Evolution involves events that cannot be repeated or reproduced in the laboratory, so it does not depend on science in the usual sense of the word.”

- creationism.org

The fact is, such experiments on evolution can indeed be repeated or reproduced in a laboratory. Science is based on observations. It does not make claims without evidence to back itself up. So, I suggest the proponents of creationism to read the writings of or watch the video Cosmos by the American scientist Carl Sagan (1934-1996).

In one applicable part of the video, Dr. Sagan says:

“We mix together and spark the gases of the primitive Earth: hydrogen, water, ammonia methane, hydrogen sulfide all present, incidentally, on the planet Jupiter today and throughout the Cosmos. The sparks correspond to lightning also present on the ancient Earth and on modern Jupiter. The reaction vessel is initially transparent: the precursor gases are entirely invisible. But after ten minutes of sparking, we see a strange brown pigment slowly streaking the sides of the vessel. The interior gradually becomes opaque, covered with a thick brown tar. If we had used ultraviolet light simulating the early Sun, the results would have been more or less the same. The tar is an extremely rich collection of complex organic molecules, including the constituent parts of proteins and nucleic acids. The stuff of life, it turns out, can be very easily made.

Such experiments were first performed in the early 1950’s by Stanley Miller, then a graduate student of the chemist Harold Urey… Under the right circumstances in the test tube, short nucleic acids can synthesize identical copies of themselves… (Of course) no one has so far mixed together the gases and waters of the primitive Earth and at the end of the experiment had something crawl out of the test tube (yet)… But we have been performing such experiments for only some thirty years. Nature has had a four billion year head start. All in all, we have not done (too) badly.”

There are other examples where proponents of pseudoscience have taken to undermine legitimate science in order to support their own “scientifically proven” claims. Nevertheless, a pseudoscience remains a pseudoscience until proven otherwise by legitimate scientific method. Here are links to partial lists of known pseudosciences:

Lists of pseudosciences (from Wikipedia)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (from RationalWiki)

8. Falsifiability

Falsifiability is another important scientific concept. A claim cannot be scientific or be subjected to scientific inquiry unless it is falsifiable.

Other than passing the replication process, Nick’s experiments must be able to be refuted and retested. The term “falsifiable” here does not mean that Nick’s experiment is false or has to be made false. For example, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in elaboration of the original quote from geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, said that if there was a single fossil mammal (like a rabbit) in the Precambrian rocks, it would completely blow the theory of evolution out of the water.

Evolution is based on three principles: variation, heredity and selection; if any of these were shown to be flawed, then the theory would also be false. In addition, any of the following would also falsify the theory as well:

• If it could be proven that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be proven that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be proven that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications; my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.”

- Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist

Evolution is falsifiable, unlike the ideas of intelligent design or creation science which are deemed not falsifiable at all – they make no predictions that can be tested. If a claim can’t be falsified, it doesn’t mean it’s good or bad. It just means it’s not based in science. That’s one of the primary characteristics of pseudoscience or bad science.

Anti-evolutionists may claim that scientists will never ever allow the theory of evolution to be falsified. They may say that scientists use dishonest methods to prevent this from happening. They may also say that the theory of evolution is actually the theory of “evil-ution” from the Devil and is a scientific conspiracy to stop people from believing in the existence of God.

This is certainly not how science works.

One difference between a scientist and a pseudoscientist is that a legitimate scientist is willing to reexamine facts objectively. A legitimate scientist is also willing to reconsider a theory (even one as widely-accepted as the theory of evolution) if observations and experiments present a new discovery that contradicts or falsifies old ideas.

“…a scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of the facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.”

- Judge William Overton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (1939-1987)

“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”

-  Karl Popper (1902-1994), Austrian Philosopher of Science

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

- Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German Scientist

9. Theory versus fact

As you can see from the above scientific stages, it’s not easy to be “scientifically proven”. There are many rigorous standards of filtering processes that need to be overcome, and only after this painstaking screening processes does a hypothesis finally become a theory.

Scientific “theory” is not the opposite of “fact”. For example, the theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity and the theory of electromagnetism, is indeed a fact. You might think, “Well, if it is a fact, then why call it a theory? Why not simply call it a fact?”

In science, nothing is infallible. Nothing is absolute, like it is with creation science and other pseudosciences. Scientific theories are supported by observable evidence. The theory has to also be consistent with new theories in other fields. New technologies based on that theory have to work. For as long as this occurs, then a theory – for all intents and purposes – is a fact and can be added to school text books and other scientific journals.

At the same time, this does not mean it can’t be updated or modified when new and improved data is discovered. Even pillars of science like the theory of gravity and the theory of electromagnetism are always open for new updates or modifications. Such updates and modifications might not overturn the previous theories; they can just compliment them and give us a better understanding of how something works.

Science is self-correcting, cumulative knowledge

As said earlier, nothing is infallible. Errors occur from time to time, but with the technology, experience and cumulative knowledge, errors are minimized and the process is self-correcting. It’s unwise to dump all scientific theories and go back in believing in the supernatural, superstitious assumptions, or unsubstantiated claims.

Science can’t guarantee perfection, but it does guarantee that mistakes will be corrected.

Back to our example of Nick the researcher. Let’s say Nick is secretly a mad scientist, and he comes up with a different kind of hypothesis, and also plans to abuse his scientific knowledge by taking advantage of a gullible public to make money from it.

Nick realizes that if gets his data inaccurate, he will not pass the peer review process. His paper would be rejected. So instead, Nick cunningly fakes the results to make it seem as though his hypothesis was accurate. Based on his fake data, Nick’s fraudulent paper manages to convince the peers and it gets published. To make it more interesting, let’s imagine that Nick has also managed to corrupt some peers with bribes. Unable to resist the offer, the peers approve his paper and Nick becomes published.

This is one of the reasons why some people say they have no confidence in the scientific procedures – it can be manipulated to support a hypothesis. But, what these people don’t realize is that even if Nick’s paper gets published, there are other independent researchers and scientist out there. When they can’t replicate Nick’s results, when Nick’s evidence isn’t consistent the hypothesis, the theory will no longer be accepted by the scientific community. Nick will also suffer loss of credibility – he can say “goodbye” to his career as a legitimate scientist. He can however, try his luck in a field that would accept his dishonesty – say that of pseudoscience.

Bad science will always be exposed for what it truly is. In the meantime, it’s important to ensure that whatever your children learn in science class has been thoroughly tested, verified and supported by evidence.

Fundamentalists don’t criticize researches when they come up with theories that explain electricity, or the role of vitamins in health, but they think scientists get things hopelessly wrong whenever they research about the origins of our species and the universe.

What do you think would happen if legitimate science also worked like religion? What if pseudoscientists presented their own unfalsifiable ideas and called it science, without going through all the processes mentioned earlier? The video below presented by Professor Richard Dawkins will provide you with the answer.

“Science is the single most consistently reliable method we have for determining an understanding of reality.”

- Matt Dillahunty

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 147

Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here.

Okay, okay, okay! I hear you! I hear you… and you, and you and you and – don’t think I forgot – you!

I wrote the previous podcast intending to stop publication of the podcast itself. And, well… I’ll just skip the detail and get to the point: I’ve changed my mind. I’m not going to stop the podcast.

Why not? Because I learned a lesson. That lesson is: “just because you don’t hear anyone doesn’t mean you don’t have fans”. If you can’t parse the triple negative, it’s okay. I’m still not sure that sentence makes any sense. What I’m saying is that, since I never got feedback about the podcast before, I figured it didn’t have many dedicated fans.

Now, there’s a more dangerous counterpoint to that lesson. Something like, “if you don’t hear anyone, there may not be anyone there”. Luckily, in my case, that version appears not to be true. The Digital Bits Skeptic podcast does have regular dedicated listeners. Listeners who like it enough to tell me they didn’t want it shut down. They spoke up. And I heard them.

The new plan: I’m going to do something similar to what Aiden said in the previous article comments. That is, I’ll keep the podcast, and do everything I’ve been doing, but my publication times won’t be weekly. I’m not sure what that schedule is yet, if it’ll be regular or sporadic, but the podcast and articles will continue.

Thanks again to everyone who gave feedback supporting the podcast. You know who you are. While I don’t have room to thank everyone here and now, your feedback directly contributed to my keeping the podcast. For those who felt differently, I appreciate that information too. But, since I think I can still keep the podcast going with the revised publishing timeline, I’m going to try it.

Stay tuned.

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 146

Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here.

I’m making some changes. I’d like to tell you about them. What’s more important, I’d like to get your opinion. There are specific things in my mind, but I’d like to develop some of the details with you.

I’ve got three things to talk about:

1) Fan Highlights

Midway through the brilliant series “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy“, by Douglas Adams, there appears an immortal alien named “Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged”. After getting fed up with every living thing in the Universe, Wowbagger decides to visit all of them, and one by one, insult them.

I’m kinda doing the same thing, only the opposite. And on a much smaller scale. Specifically, I’m going to try to thank each and every one of my fans. Podcast listeners will know I do this already, right at the beginning of the audio, I have a “fan highlight”. But until now, the website readers never knew about it.

Visit DBSkeptic.com now, and you’ll see a new section in the sidebar called – appropriately – “Fan Highlight“. If you’re a DBSupporter, you’re on there. If you’re a fan in some other way, like being a member of the Digital Bits Skeptic fan page on Facebook, rest assured you will be thanked… …eventually.

2) The podcast versus the website – which do you prefer?

The Fan Highlight moving to the website ties in with this topic – I’m going to stop the podcast. The website’s staying. I’ll still continue to produce and write articles, but I won’t do the podcast.

[Update: The podcast is staying. Thanks to all who let me know their opinions!]

My question to you: Do you listen to the podcast? If the podcast stopped, would you then be willing to visit the website to read the articles, or would you sever ties completely? (Keep in mind you can sign up for email notifications for every new article, or keep in touch via Facebook.)

My reasons for doing this reflect from looking at my website and podcast traffic stats. Basically, I can see that my website stats are changing in an upwardly direction, but my podcast traffic is not. For whatever reason, I’ve plateaued. …and besides, have you heard my speaking voice?

3) Article publication times

For the last three years I’ve kept pretty much on a weekly release schedule. I’m thinking of changing this. One reason is the podcast – having a podcast does put an obligation to produce material on a regular, frequent basis. If there’s no podcast, I don’t have as much of a deadline pressure.

I could extend the time between articles, which would allow me and others to take more time to write longer and/or higher-quality stuff. And no promises yet, but I might also then be able to increase the payment amounts for the article writers.

My question to you: How important is it to have articles like what’s here once a week, versus longer publication times?

It’s a weird thing, having a podcast and website. Even though I know I have weekly listeners and readers numbering in the quadruple-digits, I rarely get feedback of any kind. I’d love to hear your opinion. Just drop a note at the end of this article.

In today’s world, things must change and adapt to new conditions, or stagnate. I’ve identified new conditions, and I want to modify what I do. That’s why I’m making some changes. Evolution is a good thing. And luckily, DBSkeptic.com is intelligently designed.

[Due to this article's length, there is no podcast - do you really want to hear my voice for thirty minutes straight? Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go read my daughter a bedtime story. ...That poor kid.  -Andy]

By R.C. Symes
Article ID: 145

Jesus conducted about eight nature miracles, seventeen individual healing miracles, seven exorcisms and three resuscitations from the dead, according to the Christian New Testament. What was the purpose of Jesus’ miracles? Were they historical facts or religious myths?

A biblical miracle is usually defined as a supernatural intervention by God, either directly by Him or through His agent, in the course of nature or the affairs of people. A miracle is an extraordinary occurrence, beyond what is experienced in the normal course of events, and signifies a divine sign or mission. In the New Testament, miracles are referred to as signs, wonders and mighty works (but never called miracles). Space prevents examining all of Jesus’ so-called miracles in this essay, therefore I will only examine a selection. My articles about the miracles of Jesus’ birth and resurrection are here:

“Myths surrounding Jesus’ birth“

“The resurrection myths about Jesus“

The many miracle-workers – putting miracles in context

History is replete with reported miracles, more frequent and more stupendous in ancient times than today. The validity of miracles depends upon the reliability of evidence and witnesses. The Old (i.e., Hebrew) Testament relates about 76 miracles over a span of several thousand years, from a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, to Jonah living in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights and then being coughed up unharmed. There were reports of miracles in ancient Greece such as the healer Asclepius (ca. 300 BCE) raising men from the dead. In the first century BCE in Palestine, a Jewish scholar named Honi the Circle Drawer was famous for successfully praying for rain during times of drought. In the first century of the Common Era, Hanina ben Dosa, a contemporary of Jesus, was a Jewish wonder-worker who healed the sick and could control rain. The Bible records that there were miracles performed by exorcists (Mark 9:38-41) and sorcerers (Acts 8:9-11). Apollonius of Tyana was an itinerant Greek philosopher and contemporary of Jesus who reportedly cast out demons and raised people from the dead. Luke says the apostle Paul healed a man crippled from birth and he was consequently hailed as a god (Acts14:8-18). There were reports that the Roman emperor Vespasian (d. 79 CE) healed a blind man with spittle. It is claimed that Islam’s Prophet Mohammed (d. 632) once split the moon in two, and there are claims that Christian saints performed many miracles over the centuries. Reports of religious miracles have continued into modern times. For example, healing miracles have been claimed in the name of saints of the Roman Catholic Church and American Protestant evangelists. The modern Hindu milk miracle shows Hindu statues drinking milk from spoons:

Miracles over the centuries have been claimed as marks of power, holiness or divinity. Skeptics will claim that there is no reliable evidence to verify that miracles happened and that they are a result of superstition, pious tales or outright frauds. For example, they will argue that walking on water violates the natural order and therefore it could not happen at a particular place without happening everywhere else at the same time. Likewise, skeptics will claim that healing miracles are exaggerated or psychosomatic. They ask if such miracles can happen, then why won’t a loving God regenerate the limbs of amputees? Believers will claim that God can change natural laws when He wants, create new substances and heal disease by divine intervention, all beyond our comprehension. All these wonders are the prerogative and power of an omniscient and omnipotent God. Most religions, often using the same line of reasoning, will claim that only the miracles of their god or holy ones are valid, and that those of other faiths are fakes. Wherein lies the truth?

The miracles associated with Jesus need to be placed in context, namely, the cultural history and societal norms of first century Palestine. Over ninety percent of the people around Jesus’ time were illiterate, but steeped in Jewish history as related in the Old Testament. They were also exposed to Greek and Roman religious myths as a result of past conquests. The masses were superstitious and believed in magic (Acts 19:19; 13:6-12), witchcraft (Galatians 5:19-20) and supernatural intervention (Mark 16:17-18). They had no understanding of modern astronomy – sacred texts told them that the earth was flat (Zechariah 9:10; Psalm 19:4; Matthew 4:8), and that it did not rotate but was fixed in place on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8; Psalm 93:1). Jews believed that above the firmament (dome of the sky) there were seven layers of heaven (once Paul was taken up to the third heaven as described in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4). God or demons caused earthquakes, floods, droughts, sea storms, solar eclipses and other natural phenomena. Nor did the people understand modern medicine – for them, disease was usually a result of sin, evil spirits or direct punishment by God (e.g. John 5:13-15; Luke 13:11; Deuteronomy 28:27-29). Mental illness was believed to be a result of a person possessing demons (Matthew 9:32-34), or was a punishment from God (1 Samuel 16:14-16). Rarely could potions and talismans cure the more serious diseases such as chronic illnesses and demon possession – only miracles and exorcisms by holy men or God were successful (e.g. Acts 5:15-16; 19:11-12). Bacteria, viruses and psychoses, the real causes of illnesses, were unknown, as were the causes of natural phenomena such as the movement of tectonic plates (earthquakes), high and low pressure areas (weather conditions), and planetary movements (solar and lunar eclipses). The ordinary people of Jesus’ day were ignorant, superstitious and gullible when it came to understanding nature and disease. The gospels relate that the man named Jesus had the same understanding of nature and disease as the people of his day.

The Gospels and Book of Acts that describe the miracles of Jesus and his apostles were written in Greek many decades after the death of Jesus, which was around 30 CE. The earliest extant Christian accounts of Jesus the Christ (i.e., the Messiah) were penned by Paul, and the seven authentic epistles ascribed to him are dated around 50-60 CE. Unlike the gospels that came later, Paul’s epistles have few if any details of Jesus’ life and teachings, despite the fact that many witnesses would likely still have been alive during Paul’s lifetime. The absence of details of the historical Jesus in Paul’s writings is remarkable because there were occasions when he could have used such information. For example, Paul laments that “we do not even know how we ought to pray” (Romans 8:26), yet he fails to cite the Lord’s Prayer as a model here or elsewhere in his writings, which would lead us to conclude that he had never heard of it! Apparently Paul and other epistle writers were not aware of any oral traditions about Jesus’ miracles either. If there were none based on eyewitnesses’ testimony, where did the miracle stories come from? The stories of miracles first appear in Mark, the earliest gospel, written about the year 70. Mark’s community was unsatisfied with the vagueness of the life of Paul’s Christ, so the author of Mark searched Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Prophets and the Psalms, for inspiration to create details for an historical Jesus, the prophesied Messiah.

Before discussing the sources of Mark’s miracle material, it is important to remember that much of what he wrote was copied, sometimes word for word and other times modified, by the gospel authors of Matthew (ca. 85) and Luke (ca. 95). Of the 35-odd healing and nature miracles in the synoptic gospels (i.e., Mark, Matthew and Luke), only three are unique to Matthew, and seven to Luke. John’s gospel (ca.100) has only seven miracles of which just two (Jesus feeding the 5,000 and walking on water) are common with the synoptic gospels. Recent biblical scholarship has shown that all these authors wrote their accounts decades after Jesus’ death, were themselves not eyewitnesses to his life, lived in different countries than Jesus did, and spoke a different language than he.

Mark’s premise is that Jesus is the true Messiah (God’s anointed one), and always has Jesus refer to himself as “the Son of Man” (meaning God’s agent of power and authority). This also was a Messianic title (see Daniel 7:13-14). However, Mark understood that most Jews in his day thought that Jesus was a failed Messiah because he was crucified. According to Mark, Jesus is not the traditional warrior king promised in Psalm 2:1-9, but is even greater. He is God’s anointed one who will bring His kingdom to earth in apocalyptic fashion (Mark 13:24-27). Mark believed that Holy Scripture foretold that the Messiah had to suffer and die (see Isaiah 53:1-6; Psalm 22:1-21; and Mark 8:31). For Mark, proof that Jesus is the Messiah is confirmed by the Easter story.

Why did Mark compose a narrative about miracles? Miracles alone were not marks of the Messiah according to first century Jewish belief, since other wonderworkers were found in the past and in contemporary times. But miracles could also be signs of God’s chosen prophets and a means to gain a following. Mark also uses miracles as signs of the nearness of the coming to earth of the new Kingdom of God for which Jesus, as the Messiah, was the precursor (“Thy Kingdom come…on earth as it is in heaven”). In this new world the wicked would be judged, the forces of evil overthrown, and disease, pain, suffering, want and death would be banished. Mark begins to establish this belief in his gospel after he relates that Jesus performed numerous miracles:

“Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do men say I am?’ They answered, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others one of the prophets.’ ‘And you,’ he asked, ‘who do you say I am?’ Peter replied: ‘You are the Messiah.’” (Mark 8:27-29).

The first written reports of Jesus’ miracles are found in Mark, but Mark was faced with a challenge – he was not an eyewitness to these events and there were no examples of miracles in the earlier epistles of Paul and others, and few, if any, oral traditions about miracles. Since Jesus was the Messiah, certain characteristics would be expected of him, and a reinterpretation of Old Testament prophecies would serve Mark well. He used the book of Isaiah for his inspiration for the type of messianic miracles of Jesus:

“See, your God comes with vengeance, with dread retribution he comes to save you. Then shall blind men’s eyes be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb shout aloud…” (Isaiah 35:4-6).

Also from Isaiah:

“But your dead live, their bodies will rise again….” (26:19); and “The spirit of the Lord God is upon me because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to bind up the broken-hearted….” (Isaiah 61:1).

This same theme is reiterated in Matthew’s gospel, when in reply to the query of John the Baptist’s disciples whether Jesus was the one who is to come, Jesus says, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind recover their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life, the poor are hearing the good news” (Matthew 11:4-5). Jesus reached out to the marginalized and outcasts of Jewish society to bring them into his movement for the new Israel. For some believers, these wonders by Jesus serve to fulfill prophecy and legitimize Jesus as the Holy One of God.

Where did Mark find details for specific miracles? Mark knew that holy men of the Old Testament performed miracles. For Mark, the great leader and miracle-worker Moses, who established the first Covenant between God and the Israelites and led them out of slavery, is to be superseded by a new and greater Moses named Jesus. He will establish a new and superior Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), conduct greater miracles and lead the people to a new promised land, an eternal kingdom of God. Elijah the prophet (9^th century BCE) who rose to heaven in a fiery chariot was expected to return to earth and precede the coming of the Messiah. He, along with his disciple and successor Elisha had performed miracles such as multiplying food and raising people from the dead. Mark draws on these Old Testament stories to model events in Jesus’ career. However, since Jesus the Messiah is greater than the prophets and holy men of the past, his miracles have to be greater, and more numerous. Elisha doubled the number of miracles Elijah did, and Mark has Jesus double Elisha’s.

Gospel stories about Jesus’ miracles are a midrash – contemporizing and reinterpreting – of Old Testament events in order to illustrate theological themes. Among the many miracles in Mark’s original narrative, there are two sets of five miracles each. Each set begins with a sea-crossing miracle and ends with a miraculous feeding. He uses this literary construct so his readers will recall the role of Moses leading his people through water towards the promised land, and feeding them with manna from heaven. Jesus does something similar. And with each water and feeding miracle, there is one exorcism and two healing miracles that are to remind readers of the works of the prophets Elijah and Elisha and how Jesus surpasses them. The parallels between events in Jesus’ life to those in the lives of Moses, Elijah and Elisha and others are too close for a coincidence. This points more to constructing religious myths in the gospel for theological reasons, than to reporting historical facts.

Weather control

A midrash nature miracle is found in Mark’s gospel when Jesus stills a storm that nearly swamps a small boat that carries him and his disciples. They marvel that “even the wind and the sea obey him” (Mark 4:36-41) which is copied by Matthew 8:23-27). Particular details of the storm at sea were obviously copied by these gospel authors from the book of Jonah whose author had used Psalm 107:23-30 as his model. For example, before the storm Jonah had gone below into the hold of the ship, lain down and fallen sound asleep. So the captain approached him and said, “How is it that you are sleeping? Get up, call on your god. Perhaps your god will be concerned about us so that we will not perish” (Jonah 1:5-6). Mark, paralleling Jonah’s story, has Jesus in an open boat with waves breaking over it. He writes, “Jesus himself was in the stern, asleep [!] on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, ‘Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?’” (Mark 4:38). Matthew, in his gospel, drops the rather rude “do you not care” and substitutes “Lord, save us; we perish” (Matthew 8:25). The scene stealing and word plagiarisms are obvious, especially when comparing the Greek version of the Old and New Testaments.

Walking on water is another example of Jesus’ power over the sea. For the faithful, this is a reminder of how Moses parted the marshy Sea of Reeds (likely at low tide with a favorable wind) to allow the fleeing Israelites to walk across the seabed (Exodus 14). Jesus is the new and greater Moses because not only can he still a storm, but also he has no need to part the sea, for he can walk on water! (See Mark 6:47-53, Matthew 14:24-34 and John 6:16-21 that draw on Psalm 107:28-30, and Job 9:8 where Jesus is like the One who “walks on the waves of the sea”.) Despite the gospel authors using numerous Old Testament stories as a basis for Jesus’ miracles, it is incredible that biblical literalists still claim that these miracles are eyewitness accounts of his life.

Disease as sin

Mark’s miracles were not only signs of Jesus’ power or compassion, but also a means for him to instruct first century Christians about his understanding of Jesus. Healing miracles, for example, could be subversive to the established order. If disease were a result of sin, then consequently when Jesus cured people their sins were forgiven. This was a challenge to the Temple priests who held the monopoly over the rites of forgiveness. This challenge is set out in Jesus’ healing of a paralyzed man at Capernaum, where he says, “Is it easier to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Stand up, take your bed and walk?’ But to convince you that the Son of Man has the right on earth to forgive sins’ – he turned to the paralyzed man – ‘I say to you, stand up, take your bed, and go home’”(Mark 2:5-12). When Jesus healed people’s illnesses, he was at the same time forgiving sins – both were signs of divine power in Mark’s view.

Jesus accepted that demons caused illness and the need for exorcisms was normal. The Bible describes how he talks to unclean spirits who are tormenting a man called Legion who was in the country of the Gerasenes. He was unclean (for he lived among the tombs of the dead), chained (cf. Psalm 107:10), mentally out of control, crying aloud (cf. Psalm 107:6) and cutting himself with stones. Jesus completes his exorcism by allowing the legion of unclean spirits to enter into a herd of 2,000 pigs (unclean animals for Jews) that then rushed over a cliff and were drowned in the sea (Mark 5:1-13). However, Matthew reports that there are two madmen, not one, and that they are located elsewhere, in the area of the Gardarenes (Matthew 8:28).

There is some dispute as to how this event could have happened historically since neither Gerasa nor Gardara have cliffs adjacent to a body of water. Nevertheless, these gospel scenes recall how God worked through his prophet Moses to drown the legion of unclean Egyptians in the sea, just as Jesus does with the legion of unclean spirits. A secret political allusion in this story may be to driving the Roman legions out of Palestine with the coming of the Kingdom of God. Was it just a coincidence that a boar (pig) was the emblem of the 10^th Roman Legion that was occupying Jerusalem in Mark’s time?

To fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy, Mark has Jesus heal a blind beggar near Jericho (Mark10:46-52) which Luke repeats almost word for word (Luke 18:35-43). However, Matthew changes the same tale to two blind men whom Jesus heals by touching their eyes (Matthew 20:29-34). On another occasion Mark claims Jesus heals many at Capernaum (1:32-34), but for Matthew this is not good enough – it has to be all who were healed (8:16-17). As well, Mark has Jesus cure a blind man at Bethsaida by spitting in his eyes and laying his hands on him, but he has to repeat the cure because it was not entirely effective the first time (Mark 8:22-25). He also heals a deaf man with a speech impediment by putting his fingers in his ears, spitting, touching his tongue and groaning (Mark 7:32-35).

Both Matthew and Luke omitted these stories because they were embarrassed at how Jesus’ healing methods too closely resembled those of the magicians of the time, and how the miracle for the blind man needed a second attempt.

It is interesting that healings change according to the bias of the gospel authors.

Despite omitting some of Mark’s miracles, Matthew and Luke need to fulfill Isaiah 35:5, so Matthew creates a miracle where Jesus, by means of exorcism rather than spittle, heals a man who is both blind and mute (Matt. 12:22-24). Luke follows suit, but his subject is only mute (Luke 11:14-15). These examples illustrate that the life of Jesus was a creative rather than a factual biography. John has only one miracle of healing a blind man, but his story is greater because this man was blind from birth. He is cured when Jesus anoints his eyes with a paste made from Jesus’ spittle and the blind man washes it off in the pool of Siloam (which means ‘sent’). John uses the miracle as a lead-in to a chapter of theological discussion demonstrating that Jesus was sent by God to do His work and to give light to a blind world (John 9). On another occasion, the miraculous feeding of 5,000 people serves to reveal that Jesus is the bread of life (John 6).

Given the motives and consequential variations in healing miracles by the four gospel writers, it becomes clear that the miracles are more mythical than they are historical.

Intentional limits to miracles

There are many other examples in the gospels of Jesus as the healer of the sick and disabled. But there are hard questions for those who believe that these miracles were real events and expressions of his compassion for the ill. They are these: why did Jesus, whom Christians today recognize as the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving, do so few individual healings during his career? And why, for example, did the compassionate, omniscient Jesus also not save thousands from illness and death in his day and millions in the ages to come, by providing knowledge about cures for diseases – from penicillin to the simple task of boiling polluted drinking water to kill bacteria? And what was Jesus doing during the 27 years prior to his public ministry? There is not a word in the canonical gospels about any teachings or miracles by Jesus prior to his adult baptism. This despite Matthew and Luke claiming a divine birth for Jesus, and John stating that he was God from all eternity.

Further examples of the fictitious nature of the gospel miracles can be seen by their dependence on replicating miracles found in the Old Testament, particularly by Elisha. Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the 5,000 (found in Mark 6:30-44 and the other three gospels) has its origins in the story of Elisha feeding 100 men with only twenty barley loaves and having some left over (2 Kings 4:42-44). However, Jesus’ does a greater miracle by having his disciples feed fifty times that number with only five loaves of bread and two fish. Why five loaves and not another number? For Mark, the loaves are symbolic of the five books of Moses, and the twelve baskets of scraps left over are symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel. John in his gospel assiduously copies the details in 2 Kings by stating that the loaves Jesus multiplied were barley loaves, and they belonged not to the disciples, but to a servant boy, as was the case with Elisha (cf. John 6:9).

In order to end with a feeding miracle in the second set of his literary construct, Mark  repeats the story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (this time for 4,000 people with seven loaves and a few fish). Luke and John have no record of this second miraculous feeding. In the second feeding Mark has the disciples wonder again how all these people will be fed, even though Jesus has previously fed the five thousand! Does this sound credible?

This miracle story is really a literary device Mark uses to provide Jesus with an opportunity to admonish his disciples for not understanding the significance of these feedings of both Jew and Gentile (Mark 8:14-21). Jesus sounds like Moses in his exasperation with his people for their unbelief (Deuteronomy 29:2-4). Mark is obsessed with secret meanings throughout his gospel and the disciples’ failure to understand Jesus and his mission, as do the people of Mark’s day.

Resurrection miracles

The awakening of Jairus’ dead daughter by Jesus (Mark 5:21-4, 35-42) has its origins in the story of Elisha doing the same thing to the dead son of the Shunnamite woman (2 Kings 4:18-37). The meaning of “Jairus”, by the way, is “he will awaken”. Is this name historical or just a nice literary touch? Just as the Shunnamite woman falls at the feet of Elisha and pleads for him to save her child, so too does Jairus with Jesus. Respectively, both Elisha and Jesus on their way to the children hear that they are dead, ask for privacy to conduct the miracle, touch the children, who then awake and get up, and the parents are overwhelmed. In another example unique to Luke, there is the miracle of raising the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-16) that is based on Elijah raising the widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17-24). Again, the parallels and the wording are just too close for these gospel versions not to have been copied from the Old Testament.

The gospel of John does not have the aforementioned resurrection miracles, but has an even more dramatic one (John 11:1-53).

Jesus raises Lazarus from a tomb four days after he was dead (Jewish belief was that death was certain after four days as by then the dead one’s spirit left the body, never to return). Why do none of the other gospels mention such a stupendous event? Why is Luke silent about Lazarus’ resurrection, especially since he claims to have examined traditions handed down by eyewitnesses and others, and has “gone over the whole course of these events in detail…so as to give you authentic knowledge….”(Luke 1:1-4)?

It seems there was no oral or written traditions about this miracle available to the other gospel writers. It is in reality, an invention of the author of John who uses Lazarus’ resurrection as an incident to manifest Jesus’ divine power. In John’s gospel, miracles cause faith in Jesus as a divine being, whereas in the synoptic gospels faith is necessary for the success of miracles. According to John, the raising of Lazarus is the reason the authorities begin plotting the death of Jesus. In addition, Lazarus’ resurrection was a literary device to prefigure what would happen to Jesus on a greater scale. Lazarus is nowhere to be found in John’s gospel after his resurrection and supper with Jesus and the disciples at Bethany. He is never mentioned again in the New Testament, either as a follower of Jesus or as an active figure in the history of the early church.

This story has all the markings of a religious myth, not historical fact.

The miracle of changing water into wine

Lastly we come to what is claimed by the author of John to be the first of Jesus’ signs (miracles), namely, the changing of water into wine at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11). As Moses “worked the miracles for the people and everyone believed” (Exodus 4:30-31), so too would John’s Jesus. Just as Moses transformed water into blood (Exodus 4:8-9), Jesus turns water into “wine from the blood of the grape” (Deuteronomy 32:14). After the wine has run out during the partying, Jesus orders that the six large jars used to store water for Jewish purification rites be filled with water that he then changes into wine (about 180 gallons worth!). This wine is acclaimed as the best wine saved for the last, an allusion to the Messianic wedding feast where Jesus comes as the bridegroom to save Israel (Isaiah 62:5; 25:6-9). The fact that purification jars are used also alludes to Jesus as the wine/blood of the new covenant that surpasses the old covenant with its purification rites using water. To carry the wine allegory even further, John later has Jesus say, “I am the vine, and you the branches. He who dwells in me, as I dwell in him, bears much fruit…” (John 15:5), and “… my blood is real drink.” (John 6:55)

The idea for the miracle at Cana may also have been influenced by the myth associated with the dying and resurrected Greek god Dionysus. He was the god of wine and revelation. On the evening of Dionysus’ festival day, three empty pitchers were left locked in his temple and miraculously were full of wine the next day. John also draws on details for the Cana miracle from the story of Elijah where he miraculously makes flour and oil appear in the empty jars for the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings17:8-24). John even transposes the widow’s words to Elijah into Jesus’ words to his mother – “What have I to do with you?”

Why is this great feat of changing one substance into another – a feat that John claims revealed Jesus’ glory and led the disciples to believe in him – never mentioned in the other gospels or epistles? This omission must mean that there were no oral or written accounts of this event in the 70 years prior to the writing of John’s gospel, and therefore, that it was entirely John’s invention.

Conclusion

This brief survey of the miracles of Jesus shows that their origin, nature, and theological underpinnings have more to do with religious myth than true history. Albert Schweitzer in his groundbreaking treatise, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, writes that the essential character of religious myth is “nothing less than the clothing in historic form of religious ideas, shaped by the unconsciously inventive power of legend, and embodied in a historic personality. Even on a priori grounds we are almost compelled to assume that the historic Jesus will meet us in the garb of old Testament Messianic ideas and primitive Christian expectations” (3^rd edition, p.79). Surely, the miracles of Jesus fit this mold.

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 144

As some of you know, I’m writing the first book in what will hopefully be a young adult mystery series called “The League of Scientists“. It takes place in the “real world” – it’s not fantasy or science fiction. It’s about the adventures of friends who use critical thinking and applied science to solve seemingly-supernatural mysteries.

It’s already been accepted by “Science, Naturally!“, a traditional book publisher, but it’s not yet available in stores. It should be available in late 2010 or early 2011.

Here’s the latest:

Things have gone very well with the book, of which the full title is “The League of Scientists and the Ghost in the Water”. While I’m sure future efforts will be faster, it took me quite a while to write it, even when I don’t have the length of a standard adult book. My comparatively short 35,000 words still took a lot of keypresses.

I’ve been meeting with the cover artist on a weekly basis to design and approve the artwork. After more than 70 hours of work (which includes conceptual designs as well as the actual final oil paining), we’re pretty much done.

The book itself has its own website at LeagueOfScientists.com, but some of you may have seen it elsewhere. You can follow it on Facebook and Twitter, and of course here on Digital Bits Skeptic. I’ve also had it mentioned and introduced on the “Swift Blog” of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I’m very lucky to have the JREF’s continued interest and promotion. Special thanks to outgoing President Phil Plait and the Randi.org editor Brandon Thorp.

I also have a surprise. You know how some books have a “famous person’s quote” on the book jacket? Mine will have one of these, too. And the person I’ve got to do the promotion… well, let’s just say that most everyone in the skeptical community – and many outside of it – have heard of him.

This skeptical celebrity is…

…going to remain a surprise for just a little longer.

I can’t say who it is right now. While he’s already committed to getting me a review and a quote, I don’t yet have it in my greedy electronic hands. Heck, worst case is that he may not actually like the book! So, I’ll let you know after I have the review. Believe me, the Digital Bits Skeptic audience will be the first to know. Your only hint is that this person is not female. That cuts the field by quite a bit. Record your guesses, good luck, and I’ll let you know later if you guessed right.

What’s next? If there’s anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of the publishing process, speak up and I’ll give some detail. But to keep things simple, I’ll just say that, for the most part, the book is completely done, and what’s next is the actual draft revision, proofing, and then publicity and publication.

And, yes, I’ve already started writing The League of Scientists #2. That’s right – you heard it here first! The current beta title for this work in progress is “The League of Scientists and the Magician’s War”.

I’m still in the outlining stage right now – because these books are mysteries, I can’t just start writing them without a general direction of where I’m going. I, just like you, have to figure out the mystery, only I have to know “whodunnit” a little bit sooner than you.

So, the first book – “The Ghost in the Water” – is pretty much done and will hopefully be available within a year, assuming the publisher keeps to their schedule. Book #2 – who knows?

Depending on how life’s treating me, I can be a really pessimistic guy. In this case, I think my personality flaw is appropriate: if I keep my expectations low, no matter what happens with the book, I’ll be happy with the results. Hopefully you will be, too.

Podcast: Download

By Nicholas Covington
Article ID: 143

Can miracles occur today?

Let’s look at the evidence by examining three kinds of miracles: One type is “Marian apparitions”. Another is the spontaneous remission of cancer, in which malignant tumors reduce or disappear, and can’t be attributed to any standard medical treatment. The final type is what I call “mundane miracles”, seemingly inexplicable and fortunate events which people attribute to the supernatural.

I wrote this article for two reasons. First, I am genuinely curious about these strange events. They need explanation, and could perhaps tell us something meaningful about reality. Second, the faiths that we Westerners are most familiar with (like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all depend upon the idea that miracles occurred in the past. If there is insufficient evidence that miracles occur today, or if there is evidence against miracle claims, this presents difficulty for those who want to argue that miracles occurred in history.

Imagine the following: you’ve poured yourself a glass of soda, then you set it down and walk out of the room. When you walk back in, there is more soda in your glass than when you left. How do you explain this? Did someone add soda to your glass, or did more soda somehow emerge spontaneously? Since you have experienced the law of conservation every moment of your life without a single exception, it’s extremely unlikely that it’s been broken here. On the other hand, you have probably experienced people playing jokes, or a faulty memory. These second set of alternatives must be deemed far more plausible than the first, unless some extremely strong evidence is discovered which vindicates spontaneous soda generation.

Let’s examine some modern-day miracles.

Marian apparitions

From 1900-2007, Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, allegedly made 386 reported appearances.[1] Out of all these, the Catholic church has deemed only eight as authentic. The rest are undecided or negative. How are these appearances judged? According to one source, the Catholic Church judges a Marian apparition as authentic based on the following criteria[2]:

1) The facts in the case are free of error.

2) The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere and respectful of Church authority.

3) Errors in doctrine are not attributed to God, Mary or another saint.

4) Theological and spiritual doctrines presented are free of error.

5) Moneymaking is not a motive involved in the events.

6) Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result, with no evidence of collective hysteria.

These criteria are rather problematic. For one thing, how do we know that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are correct? We don’t, so using doctrinal correctness as a criterion to judge these apparitions is spurious. Other criteria, such as “the facts in the case are free of error”, “the person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere…”, “Moneymaking is not a motive” and “Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result” are really only preliminary questions. The sanity and honesty of the witness must certainly be established before we begin to investigate whether the apparition was real. However, the fact that we have established that the witness is sane and honest does not by itself indicate that the apparition actually occurred. Roughly one in two hundred people are schizoid personalities and are prone to hallucinate, even though they are otherwise sane and normal people.[3]

The Church’s criteria do not allow us to establish that these apparitions are real beyond reasonable doubt. At best, they act as a filter to remove some obviously false Marian apparitions, though even this is questionable. One could always wonder if some extremely well-documented and genuine Marian apparition has been discarded because it collided with Catholic dogma. I certainly hope this isn’t the case; I hope the Church would sooner change its dogma than ignore a powerfully convincing apparition.

I do not have the time or resources to sift through the 358 negative cases. If someone has information on one of these cases that shows it is genuine then I will consider it. But, for the time being, let’s just focus on the eight supposedly authentic cases.

Only five of these apparitions were witnessed by multiple people. I believe it is fair to discard the other three. Psychologists have shown that about 8% of men and 12% of women (who exhibited no signs of mental illness) had at least one hallucination in their lifetime.[4] It is therefore not surprising that, over 107 years, three honest individuals exhibiting no sign of mental illness would hallucinate the Virgin Mary, especially given the fact that millions and millions of Catholics lived during that time period.

What about these five apparitions witnessed by multiple people? Let’s look at two of the most popular cases. First we’ll examine the appearance of the Virgin Mary in Fatima, Portugal. Here’s what one source said [5]:

“Many agreed that a major miracle had occurred. Only the children saw the Virgin appear, however. One of those who witnessed and reported the strange solar phenomena was Avelino de Almeida, a reporter who had ridiculed the so-called miracles at Fatima in previous articles. His photographer did not see it, but shot pictures of the mesmerized crowd looking into the sky. There is no independent verification of the solar phenomenon, and no movement or other phenomenon of the sun was registered by scientists at the time.” [Emphasis mine]

Paranormal researcher Joe Nickell points to three reasons for thinking that nothing supernatural was involved in the Fatima “miracles”[6]:

1) The reports of the “sun miracle” are contradictory. Nickell writes,

“Some claimed that the sun spun pinwheel-like with colored streamers, while others maintained that it danced. One reported, ‘I saw clearly and distinctly a globe of light advancing from east to west, gliding slowly and majestically through the air.’ To some, the sun seemed to be falling toward the spectators. Still others, before the ‘dance of the sun’ occurred, saw white petals shower down and disintegrate before reaching the earth.”

2) The sun is viewable by everyone in the world, and yet no one outside of Fatima reported seeing anything unusual about the sun that day, indicating that the events could be explained better by, as Nickell put it, “mass hysteria and local meteorological phenomena such as a sundog (a parhelion or “mock sun” – see the picture above for an example).

3) Several eyewitnesses said they had been staring into the sun prior to the event. What they saw may have been due to optical effects that result from what’s clinically called “temporary retinal distortion.”

Next we travel to Egypt, where a series of Marian apparitions took place in Zeitoun, between 1968 and 1971. Two researchers described the apparitions like this:

“Witnesses’ descriptions varied between two main types: small bright, short-lived lights nicknamed ‘doves,’ and more enduring, less intense, diffuse patches of glowing light.”[7]

I’m surprised by this. When someone says that they have seen Mary, the mother of Jesus, one would think that they saw something like an actual woman, hovering in mid-air and radiating brilliant light, who left no question as to who she was. But, no, these people saw amorphous lights and interpreted them as being Mary. From this fact alone I’m tempted to dismiss the entire incident, and indeed, to dismiss all similar apparitions of other religious people. For example, the reports of Jesus’ post mortem appearances in the earliest accounts (from the apostle Paul), are sufficiently vague. Here we might suppose that the early Christians simply saw a flash of light or something similar and assumed it was Jesus, just as people saw a flash of light in Zeitoun, Egypt and interpreted that as Mary.

Let’s also mention a possible cause of such appearances. Here’s an explanation from the previously-quoted article:

“Canadian neuropsychologist Michael Persinger of Laurentian University and his American colleague John Derr (1989) analyzed seismic activity in the region from 1958 to 1979, and found an unprecedented peak in earthquakes during 1969. They state that ‘The ‘narrow’ window of significant temporal relationship between luminous phenomena and earthquakes is within the classic time frame of more acceptable antecedents (e.g., microseismic activity) of imminent earthquake activity.’ It appears that the Marian observers were predisposed by religious background and social expectation to interpreting the light displays as related to the Virgin Mary.”[8]

This is curious: what does it mean that there is a significant link between earthquakes and ‘luminous phenomena’? According to Persinger and Derr, seismic activity can actually cause flashes of light. Although the mechanism behind this is not completely understood, there are certainly some good reasons to think that luminous phenomena are caused by seismic activity. Persinger and Derr did another study in which they found that the number of UFO reports in the United States sharply increased in the 1960’s when the U.S. experienced more seismic activity than it had in several decades.[9] Furthermore, areas of the U.S. that experienced the most seismic activity also produced the largest number of UFO reports.

Spontaneous remissions of cancer

A “spontaneous remission” occurs when a cancerous tumor reduces in size or disappears, and the change cannot be attributed to the ordinary effects of medicine. This first intrigued me when I listened to Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University. He discussed it in episode 401 of the Infidel Guy show. Habermas proposed spontaneous remissions as being possible modern day supernatural occurrences – miracles. Habermas also hinted that those who interpret such things as miracles would make them more open to believing that miracles occurred in the past.

The discussion might make me believe in a supernatural aspect of reality, including the existence of gods. Specifically, if there were observed and well-documented miracles. I knew I had to research this. Initially I was open-minded but skeptical: doctors and scientists do not know everything about cancer, and so what appears miraculous or mysterious to them may have some unknown non-miraculous explanation. Humanity simply does not yet know enough to deem these things “miraculous”.

During my research I found that spontaneous remission often coincides with a feverish infection.[10] That is extremely strange if the remission is caused by a supernatural power. Can’t a guardian angel get rid of cancer without causing a fever? Further research indicated that there were natural explanations for these infections. For example, an infection may “reactivate” the immune system which then can remove the tumor.[11] Although explanations such as this are only plausible (and not proven), any plausible natural explanation defeats plausible supernatural explanations.[12]

The supernatural spontaneous remission hypothesis prompts many other questions. For example: why don’t the supernatural powers simply prevent the growth of these cancers in the first place? Why is it that the angels/gods/whatever only cause spontaneous remission of cancer 20 times per year?[13] I hope that, if some must be neglected and not cured, it’s because the supernaturals are working on other important issues, like world hunger.

Mundane miracles

When I was young, I attended church. One Sunday, a traveling evangelist came and told us a story about something that happened to him in Africa: his car was low on gas, and didn’t have enough to get to where he needed to go. But, he started the car anyway, and decided to drive as far as he could. Surprisingly, he managed to finish his trip, and when he looked at his gas gauge it showed the same amount of gas as before – it hadn’t changed. This evangelist believed that this was a miracle.

I believe this man was telling the truth (I knew him fairly well and saw that he wasn’t talking about these things for personal gain), but I disagree with his interpretation of the event. The car I own now has a terribly inaccurate gas gauge: when I come home at night, it might say I have a quarter-tank left. When I start the car again the next morning, it will say I have over a half-tank of gas. The evangelist’s gauge may have been malfunctioning around the time that this incident occurred. In fact, dirt and corrosion can disturb wiring connections and cause a gas gauge to read incorrectly.[14]  I happen to know that the areas of Africa that this evangelist visited often had unpaved dirt roads. You do the math on that one.

If this is indeed a miracle, we must also ask: why is it that God kept this man’s car from running out of gas in Africa, but failed to keep millions of poor men, women, and children on that very same continent from starving to death? It just doesn’t add up.

This is an example of the rather mundane miracles that people claim to experience. When we add to this the frequency of exaggeration, outright lying, illusion (like being fooled into thinking something occurred when it only looks like it occurred, like watching a magician’s trick and seeing the impossible), trickery (did someone trick the person into believing a miracle happened?), hallucination, and bad reasoning, we see that these kinds of reports are not good evidence that a miracle has occurred.

Conclusion

Whenever you hear a miracle claim, don’t believe it unless you can get solid answers to questions like:

Who witnessed the event?

What do we know about the witnesses?

How many people witnessed the event?

Might they have ulterior motives for reporting what they did?

In their own words, what exactly did they see, and does that make sense?

Are there any plausible natural explanations for what they saw?

Always explore and question accounts of “miracles”. Nothing can be taken for granted in these investigations, because people often interpret highly unusual (but inconclusive) evidence as pointing to the supernatural, when it is clear that they have no business in doing so.

References

1) JC Tierney, “Marian Apparitions of the Twentieth Century” (2009)

2) The Marian Library, “How does the bishop of a diocese go about verifying an apparition, and what does it mean if ecclesial approval is granted?”

3) I discuss this in my article “Jesus’ Resurrection and Mass Hallucinations” (2009)

4) Peter Slade and Richard Bentall, Sensory Deception: a Scientific Analysis of Hallucination (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1988), p. 69.

5) Sacred Destinations, “Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima” (2009)

6) Joe Nickell, “The Real Secrets of Fatima”, Skeptical Inquirer, November / December 2009.

7) Robert E. Bartholomew and Erich Goode, “Mass Delusions and Hysterias: Highlights from the Past Millenium” Skeptical Inquirer May / June 2000.

8 ) Ibid.

9) John S. Derr and Michael A. Persinger, “Luminous Phenomena and Seismic Energy in the Central United States” (1990) Journal of Scientific Exploration 4, pp.55-69.

10) Uwe Hobohm, “Fever and Cancer in Perspective”, Cancer Immunol Immunother (2001) 50: 391-396.

11) Behzad Niakan, “A Mechanism of the Spontaneous Remission and Regression of Cancer” Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals (1998) 13: 209-210.

12) The reason that I feel justified in stating that any plausible natural explanation is sufficient to defeat the claim that something supernatural has occurred is because a natural explanation only assumes that the natural world exists (which of course is proven), while supernatural explanations assume the existence of an unproven supernatural realm. Natural explanations carry a lot more weight for this reason, and must receive more preference than supernatural explanations of otherwise equal value.

13) Challis, G. B., & Stam, H. J. (1990). The spontaneous regression of cancer: A review of cases from 1900 to 1987. Acta Oncologica, 29, 545-550. Challis, G. B., & Stam, H. J. (1990). The spontaneous regression of cancer: A review of cases from 1900 to 1987. Acta Oncologica, 29, 545-550.

14) Randy Rundle, “Troubleshooting Your Gas Gauge” (1997).

None of the scientific literature which I have cited actually argues that spontaneous remission of cancer is miraculous. These claims are made mostly by nonscientists, such as those mentioned in this article.

Podcast: Download

By Nicholas Covington
Article ID: 142

In my journey of skeptical thinking, I have gradually realized the quirks in human thinking that so often lead me astray. I want to share these habits of good skepticism so others may have a better chance of finding truth.

1) Your belief will not change reality

I have noticed a tendency to gravitate towards beliefs which I want to be true. These beliefs don’t always match the facts, and are not borne out by sober investigation. We have a strange superstition that we seldom recognize: sometimes we think that choosing to believe something will actually make it true.

Members of cults will often deny strong opposing evidence in order to keep their membership. UFO believers will often not abandon their beliefs even when confronted with more down-to-earth explanations that explain the facts just as well or better than the alien hypothesis. People think that simply choosing to believe something will make it true.

Belief never makes anything true.

2) Look for the best overall explanation of the facts

Some people advocate one position because there is some evidence in its favor. Others advocate an opposite position for the same reason – they see evidence to do so. Most of these disputes can be settled by asking a very basic question: when we consider all the data, each hypothesis, and the simplicity of each position, does one hypothesis stand out as stronger?

Here’s an example: there is currently a debate in the scientific community over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or from some other group of reptiles. While the dino-bird enthusiasts can cite an impressive list of feathered dinosaur fossils and similarities in bird and dinosaur anatomy, the dino-bird opponents undermine those links by citing a few small but significant differences between dinosaurs and birds.

Another example is the creation-evolution controversy. Creationists often explain away the results of radiometric dating. They say that radiometric decay rates were faster in the past, without realizing that faster decay rates would have radioactively fried every living thing on Earth.

A third example is the geologic column. Creationists say that even though sediments that form layers of rock would usually take millions of years, there was a great big flood that must have been responsible for creating it.

When you view the debate this way, it really isn’t hard to see that the old Earth hypothesis simply and comfortably explains the facts, while the young Earth hypothesis offers strained and complicated explanations for the most straight-forward data. When we take a bird’s eye view of the issue and compare which explanation is the overall best explanation (in terms of simplicity, explanatory power, and so on) answering the question is simple.

3) Use authorities carefully

If someone cites an expert in order to persuade you of something, be cautious. Does the quotation simply assert an opinion, or does it try and demonstrate the reasoning behind its assertion? Is the expert in question really an expert? Numerous creationists, such as Kent Hovind, claim to have credentials when in reality they do not. Is the expert’s opinion representative of his field? Anyone can find a certified medical doctor who will promote some quack healing treatment, and so it is always good to know if the expert’s opinion is considered fringe within his own field.

4) Don’t confuse a possibility with a probability

People often try and prove things to an absolute certainty. Or they refuse to give up a belief until it’s disproven with absolute certainty. Very little human knowledge is literally 100% certain. Thinking in terms of absolutes can often be impractical, because a lot of human knowledge (besides conceptual knowledge such as ‘one plus one equals two’) relies on weighing a claim with the doubts we may have about it.

Yes, technically it is possible that man never went to the moon, but it is not plausible to suggest that so many human beings are being so dishonest in such an incredible conspiracy. It is far more plausible that they are simply telling the truth, that there is no conspiracy, and that we did go to the moon.

5) Dissect your thoughts

Whenever you hear an argument for something, try and distil the argument into its most concise form. If you write the argument down as a syllogism, it’s easier to spot a fallacy. A syllogism is type of argument that contains a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.

Here’s an example:

1. All roses are flowers.
2. Some roses have thorns.
3. Therefore, some flowers have thorns.

Formulating a syllogism puts all possible assumptions and fallacies right out in the open. This allows you to logically track the process of an argument to ensure it makes sense.

These are just a few habits that I’ve learned over the years, and they have greatly strengthened my thinking. What have you learned that has made you a better thinker?

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 141

imagine

the Creation of the Universe

watch

a true God in His Act Of First Creation

time

is forever

and never

space

is an infinite

pinprick

there is nothing

except One

who is Alpha and Omega

the Creator gathers to Himself

energy

in an effortless collection of All That Will Be

after an eons-long mental glance

at a Very Long and Holy Checklist

He begins

there is an explosion of pure thought

a torrential rush of raw, primal creation

Light

Darkness

The Heavens

The Firmament

Man and Woman

God

holds the creation aloft in one cosmic hand

He

turns it back and forth

examining

with multiverses of experience

and a perfectly-evolved

I

that sees All

when  He speaks

this too is a miracle

as the Universe hears the first words after its own wondrous birth

the Lord of all looks down on creation

reflecting these works of His might

He stops, considers and says with a shrug

“Sorry. Let’s call it ‘Version 1′, all right?”

Noah’s Ark

The ark itself wasn’t a mistake, but a symptom of a bigger problem. It’s a great story for kids, until they get older. They they start asking how and why. It’s quite a puzzle when you have a loving god murdering almost everyone alive, when the god created those people in the first place.

So we have the story of Noah’s Ark: in probably the biggest admitted mistake in all of humankind’s existence, God says, “Sorry, world, you’re just not working out. I’m going to destroy you and try again. Hey, Noah, ‘Humankind 1.0′ is acting a little buggy. I’m going to reboot the computer in a little bit. Trust me on this – Get in a boat.”

And yea, God said, “Whoops. My bad.”

The Tower of Babel

Here we have the massive, intelligent, ambitious culture of Babel, whose accomplishments are symbolized by the construction of a gigantic tower. Worried that the people of Babel won’t need him anymore, God curses the people of Babel into speaking many different languages. As a result, people can’t communicate and the tower project is dropped faster than Noah’s Ark after the Great Flood. The culture is destroyed.

If being unified by the same language is really such a threat, what does today’s God think about globalization and the Internet? Sure, he’s tried to disperse and confuse humankind with some difficult and scary languages. But, so far, Fortran, COBOL and BASIC haven’t done too much damage. The Tower of Babel is certainly here today, only we’ve built it not with bricks but with electrons.

The creation of Lilith

You think Eve was bad? Then you do not want to mess with Lilith. According to the text of the Jewish Talmud, Lilith was a demon seductress – a succubus – who lived around the time of Adam and Eve. Some traditions describe her as Adam’s first wife. Others describe her as Adam’s post-Eve lover. And love they did – she and Adam were parents to many strange non-humans.

One interesting point about Lilith comes from the anonymous medieval text, “The Alphabet of Ben-Sira“. God created Adam from scratch – collecting up dust, dirt, mud, snips, snails and puppy dog tails. Eve was created from parts of Adam. Not so with Lilith – she too was created from scratch, just like Adam, and was then introduced to him. The world’s first argument - the first ever Holy Squabble –  was about Lilith’s equality to Adam. Lilith refused to submit – socially and sexually – and so Lilith was banished and demonized.

The snake in the Garden of Eden

The evil Satan – disguised as a snake – enters The Garden of Eden and tricks Adam and Eve into eating the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The next step, then, is to banish those stupid humans.

Couldn’t God have predicted this? Yes. So why didn’t he do anything to prevent it? Why allow Satan access at all?

If you have a child who doesn’t know any better, and the kid screws up by messing with something they didn’t understand, it is right to blame the child? Or do you blame the parent?

Parents are responsible for the behavior of children. They’re not always accountable, but it’s easy to argue they should be, at least in the case of the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were mentally just little innocent tykes, barely out of their fig-leaf diapers. In today’s language, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the Internet. And the forbidden fruit, I suppose, is represented by some weird Japanese porn. You don’t let your little innocent kids browse the Internet unsupervised. Yet God, in all His knowledge, seems to have no experience with parental controls.

The existence of Satan, demons, and various Bad Things

Yes, yes, I know: “Without the contrast of evil, we wouldn’t have good.” I’m not talking philosophy, I’m talking the practicality of taking a loved creation and willingly subjecting it to pain and grief.

Say that you are God. After a hard week creating the Universe, you finish icing your cosmic cake with The Garden of Eden and humankind. And then you allow Evil Incarnate to just hang out with your children? A good parent allows children to learn from mistakes, but still prevents the children from really hurting themselves. God failed in His moral responsibility to his creation. At the very least, the Garden of Eden should’ve had better critter control.

Why is there no creature able to deal with the Evil Serpent? Where is the Mongoose of Truth?

Conclusion

This is just a brief look at the Christian God’s most popular and well-known stories. And even in these, mistakes are easy to find. If you treat Biblical stories as literal interpretations, God made a lot of mistakes. If you treat them as educational allegories, they still don’t make sense when analyzed critically. I mean, really, take almost any religious story of creation, and what we know today about evolution: do we really need a supernatural explanation as to why men have nipples?

Unfortunately for us, God never gave us a Mongoose of Truth. Luckily, we don’t need one. We learn from our mistakes and evolve. In this way, we make our own destiny.