Digital Bits Skeptic

Podcast: Download

By David Annis
Article ID: 1340

Today I heard an advertisement on the radio urging me to go back to college.  “College graduates make a million dollars more over a lifetime,” the advertisement said. It directed me to a website where I could find a college to attend.  South Dakota State University has a page that breaks out the earnings differences in great detail. We get information like, “Workers with bachelor’s degrees receive a 48 percent higher wage rate.  Those with a master’s, Ph.D., or professional degree receive the highest earnings differentials— about 70 to 96 percent higher than a high school graduate.”  Politicians and pundits use the higher earnings of college graduates to advocate education as a boost to our national economy.

Colleges use graduates’ higher earnings to convince potential students that attending will increase their income and is an investment worth making.  A University of North Texas webpage tells us “college graduates with a bachelor’s degree earn about 80 percent more per year than those who only complete high school.”  The University of Wisconsin ‘Going Back to College’ page has a section called “Value of a Degree and You”, and includes a calculator that shows how your income compares to your state average and those of people with different education levels in your state.

Unfortunately, I believe that increasing everyone’s education level by a couple of years wouldn’t significantly increase our GDP.  I first began to think about the issue skeptically while talking with faculty of a second tier university. They expressed the sentiment that they were doing a disservice to their students, saddling them with debt to pay for a degree many would not complete, and which most would never use in the working world.

I began by looking at college completion rates. I found that slightly more than half of students complete their planned four-year degrees.  Being saddled with large debts for a degree that you never attain does seem less than ideal.

Then, I thought skeptically about one of the core contentions: that additional years of education will make you more productive and lead to increased income.  The studies of how much education adds to earnings were done by selecting a sample of people and looking at their incomes and level of educational attainment.

Correlation, though, is not causation.  There could be underlying factors that make certain people both more likely to finish college and to have high incomes.  For example, having rich parents might make you better able to forgo income generation so that you have time to study. College completion may actually be a measure a student’s motivation to have high earnings, a factor which would affect the student’s income.

Just getting into a selective college might affect workplace earnings.  Admission to college requires obtaining good references and the ability to write a coherent essay, for example.  These are also important when applying for a job.  Perhaps those who already posses such skills when applying to colleges earn more than those who do not.  Writing skill may lead to better performance reviews. Those who are better able to tap a social network get better references.

Employers may require a college degree because limiting the applicant pool to those with degrees is used as a screening mechanism. Whether or not it is true, employers may believe that those who have completed college are smarter, harder working, or more motivated than those who have not.

If the college education is merely used by employers as a sorting mechanism, as a way to narrow the pool of applicants, then adding two years of college to every resume will have virtually no effect on the productivity of the country or overall wage levels. Employers would merely add two more years of college to their requirement for each position, and would achieve the same effect as what we see today.

Finally, I want to mention one other theory about how college increases earnings, though I don’t believe it is a big component.  Tyler Cowen argues that college education works via the placebo effect; it doesn’t better prepare you for work, it just makes you think that it does.  By changing your expectation of success and reward, it changes your behavior, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I suspect that the real financial value of a college education is far less than correlation would make us expect.  How much less is a question I can’t answer.  Still, for some, college does provide students with certain advantages over others who don’t attend. While I don’t think we can say that a college degree equals a certain amount of increased income, I still want my children to graduate from college.

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 1339

Let me tell you about an adventure my family had a few weeks ago. I should also say that I’m not a doctor, and nothing you read here is official medical advice. This is my understanding of what happened in this specific case. I have to lead with this information because, while the story starts out fun, it ends in the hospital.

My family went on vacation. Unfortunately, after just a few days, my daughter, Ally, got the flu. She’s four years old, and this was a bad flu, the kind that really wipes you out. My wife and I had to take care of her full-time. We decided to ditch the vacation and come home, but not before stopping off at the local hospital to see if Ally was okay. And she was, the doctor told us. Just a standard flu. Keep her hydrated, wait it out, and she’ll be fine soon. For controlling her fever, we also got a prescription for Motrin (that’s a brand name ibuprofin used for fever and various aches and pains).

On the ride home, I called Ally’s pediatrician, and he agreed with the other doctor.

But after five days, Ally was still wiped out. She hadn’t eaten in that entire time. She couldn’t eat anything without having to give it back within the hour. She could barely keep down water.

The fever was gone. She just had continual nausea. While she was really weak, every once in a while she would move on her own. She’d burst into tears and say that her back hurt. She’d then flop around to change position, and that seemed to help. My wife and thought this was just because she’d been laying in that position for so long, her muscles were cramping up. I get backaches after sleeping the wrong way overnight – my daughter had been laying in the same position for almost a week.

We brought Ally to her pediatrician’s office, and were reassured that – again – it was just a regular flu.

Then we found blood in Ally’s urine. We drove to the emergency room.

When we got to the E.R., the doctors, thankfully, were excellent. When we described all that had happened, one of the first things they said was, “We think she’s having problems with her kidneys. Has she mentioned having any back pain?”

That was one of those times where I felt like a complete failure as a parent.

Yes, we said, she has complained of back pain. The doc was right: Ally was in the process of kidney failure.

From there, they moved very quickly. I’ll keep most of the details to myself because, well, I want them private. But here’s one to give you an idea of what the parents and child had to go through: Ally went into surgery to have an IV inserted into her neck. Minutes after she woke up from the anesthesia, they started kidney dialysis. The neck IV was hooked up to a big machine that looked like a giant clothes washer. It took the blood out of her body, cleaned it, and put it back in.

That was day nine. Nine days of no food, little water, bad sleep, the physical trauma of a bad flu and, as we found out, kidney failure.

Luckily, that was the worst of it. Things turned around very shortly after the dialysis. It was just what her body needed, and having a machine clean her blood gave her kidneys a chance to recover.

Things are fine now. The rest of the story is just recovery. After a week in the hospital’s intensive care, we got to go home. Ally needed help walking again, but after a few wobbly trips to the hospital’s children’s activity room, she recovered with a speed I can only envy. We’re now home and we’re healthy.

I told you the whole story so you can understand how we got to the point we did. I tell you this so you can prevent something similar from happening to someone you know.

Remember earlier, when I mentioned that Ally was given Motrin for fever control? According to the kidney specialist, the Motrin was probably a contributing factor to Ally’s kidney failure. Even if she had just one dose.

Motrin, ibuprofin, asprin, and “NSAID” drugs

Motrin, ibuprofin, asprin, and similar drugs are part of the same class. This class is called “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs“, or NSAIDs.

NSAIDs are used for fever control, pain reduction and a few other things. However, they have bad side effects when used in the wrong way, or when used under the wrong conditions. They also work the kidneys hard.

Based on our conversations with the hospital doctors and Ally’s kidney specialists, here’s what we think happened:

Ally got the flu. At the beginning of the flu, she may have also had a small existing infection that didn’t show any symptoms. (This happens, and often the body can fight off such a thing without having the infected person realize there’s a problem.)  This weakened her kidneys.

She got some Motrin for fever control. This NSAID drug did its job, but it stressed her kidneys.

She was dehydrated from the flu. This weakened her kidneys even more.

After a few days of this, Ally’s kidneys couldn’t take any more. They started bleeding and shut down.

When the doctors realized this, they gave her tons of liquids and electrolytes through an IV, gave her some other drugs to reduce the kidney damage and jump-start her metabolism, and they also did the dialysis.

This is one of those situations where – not too many years ago – this problem would kill someone. Luckily for us, today’s medical technology is advanced enough that we can monitor what’s going on, and replace the function of the kidneys so that they can take a break and recover.

My wife and I spoke with the kidney specialist for quite a while. There were four interesting points the specialist made that I want to make clear:

1) She said don’t use Motrin or any ibuprofin on children if that child has a chance of being dehydrated. You’re better off giving the child acetaminophen. A brand name acetaminophen is Tylenol. Its effects on fever and pain are similar to those of ibuprofin, but acetaminophen is processed by the liver. Ibuprofin is processed by the kidneys. The short version: If a person is dehydrated, that person should not take any ibuprofin (like Motrin). Take an acetaminophen (like Tylenol or Children’s Tylenol) instead.

2) For adults and children, if you must take an ibuprofin like Motrin, take it with a lot of water. Let’s examine my own favorite headache medicine – a bottle of Motrin. Nowhere on that bottle does it say anything about water intake or dehydration. I also have the original prescription detail sheet from Ally’s hospital-assigned Motrin. (And it does give warnings. They’re buried in the small print, but they’re there. It says, “TAKE THIS MEDICINE with a full glass of water.” It also says, “DO NOT lie down for 30 minutes after taking this medicine.” …do those sound like reasonable instructions to give to a kid who’s been vomiting all day, and is so weak she can’t even sit up on her own? What’s also strange is that the Motrin prescription with the “take with water” warning was for 100 milligrams. The Motrin bottle with no such warnings was 200 milligrams – twice the strength of the prescription! I would think the larger dosage would have more warnings, but the opposite is true.

3) She said that if Motrin was brand-new and released into the marketplace today, there’s no way it would qualify as an over-the-counter medication. It would be prescription only. It’s a powerfully effective drug. In fact, the specialist said that they sometimes need to intentionally shut down people’s kidneys for certain kinds of treatments. And the drugs they use to make this happen are indeed drugs like Motrin – others in the NSAID class.

4) There’s small print on a lot of medicines that says, “Only take the smallest effective dose.” Heed this warning. Sure, if I have a headache, it’s tempting to just take a double dose of Motrin. But I’m potentially damaging my kidneys when I do so. And if I’m really dehydrated, I could really damage my kidneys. For the record, the specialist also said that you need to be more careful with children than adults – NSAIDs don’t affect adults as much as children.

Got all that? Let me cut to the chase:

If Tylenol or any acetaminophen will do the job, don’t give children Motrin or any ibuprofen. If you do give a child ibuprofin, make sure they’re well-hydrated.

That’s my story, and what I learned from it. It’s easy to think certain medicines are safe, and the prevalence of Motrin in every pharmacy, grocery store and doctor’s office gives a false sense of safety. In Ally’s case, it wasn’t just the Motrin that hurt her kidneys. It was a combination of problems, of which the Motrin was probably one of them.

Be careful, everyone. Go drink some water.

And, you ask, what about now? Is Ally recovered? Well, I- …actually, excuse me for a minute, someone wants to ask me a question. Hi, Ally! What’s up?

“Daddy, can you come play with me?”

Hey, sorry everyone. I’ve gotta go.

Podcast: Download

By Navin Kumar
Article ID: 1338

Of all the interesting, insightful models produced in the last two or three hundred years of economics existence (I’m not including the models of financial markets: those are neither interesting nor insightful) few have achieved more long-range influence than the population model of Thomas Malthus.

The model (and the idea behind it) is so simple that it can be taught to school children. Human population – says the model – increases exponentially. Assuming every couple has three children, the growth in a population with 200 people grows like this: 200, 300, 450, 675. On the other hand, growth in the field of agricultural output is arithmetic and goes like this: 200, 300, 400, 500. At this rate, the growth in population will soon outstrip growth in food.

Malthus’ two-century-old prediction says that any increase in prosperity would soon be “consumed” by an increase in population. This is one reason why economics is labeled as ‘the dismal science’. This idea, though – that humanity’s increasing consumption of natural resources will outstrip our ability to raise those resources – is the driving idea behind modern concepts like sustainable development. This idea is also called a “Malthusian famine”.

Yet, in the 200 years of the theory’s existence, a famine caused by failure of food production has never occurred. Famines are typically caused by things like drought or flood, followed by a failure to deliver food to affected areas. For one thing, production has more than kept up with population growth. “Between 1820 and 1992,” writes Ronald Bailey in Earth Report 2000, “world population quintupled even as the world’s economies grew 40-fold.”

It’s worth asking where these predictions went wrong or – to put it in geeky terms – what systemic error in thinking lead to such incorrect conclusions? The short answer is that technological innovation is faster than population growth. But this is a hard idea to wrap one’s mind around, so an explanatory model is worth looking at.

Imagine a tiny little 14^th century French village. The village has a population of 101 people: 100 wheat farmers (who own an acre of land each) and one guy who fancies himself as an alchemist but invents and sells fertilizer to pay the bills. Over the period of his life, he will increase the productivity of each acre of land by a bushel of wheat. Where the land was previously producing 10 bushels, it is now producing 11. Thus, where 100 farmers were producing 1000 bushels of wheat, they are now growing 1100 bushels. The change: +100 bushels.

Now imagine a village of 1010 people: 1000 wheat farmers and 10 inventors – the same ratio as the small village. Each of the inventors is just as productive as the alchemist was – that is, they all produce innovations which increase the productivity of each farmer by +1 bushels. But there are now ten alchemists. So the total increase in the productivity of each farmer is +10. And there are now a thousand farmers. So the total change: 1,000×10 = +10,000 bushels.

Notice the population grew tenfold but the change in production was a hundredfold. The reason: more innovators, whose productivity-enhancing techniques can be applied to everyone.

Note also that this model doesn’t factor in a whole bunch of stuff that might cause production to grow even faster. For example, the original alchemist sells to 100 people – but a person who goes into research in the larger village has a market of 1000. This increases the incentives to invest in research and more people will become fertilizer inventors. So instead of 1 inventor for every 100 farmers, you might get 3. Furthermore, collaboration is now possible. While a single inventor, by himself, might produce +1 bushels, two working together might manage +3 bushels, further increasing the rate of innovation.

To summarize: the larger a population is, the more innovators there are, the more incentive there is to invest in research (as the result of a larger market) or to become a researcher and to collaborate.

Of course, this over-simplification of reality (which is what all models essentially are) is loaded with flaws. For starters, I’ve completely ignored the question of whether or not the land has a ‘carrying capacity’: for example, if there’s a limit to which it can grow more wheat. I’ve ignored the question of whether there is a limit to how much we can extract from nature. I’ve ignored the possibility of patent wars between increasingly competitive innovators that would hinder innovation. I’ve ignored how a population must invest heavily in education to continue producing scientists (which is not happening in populous places like India). There’s even a possibility that there is a “limit to science”: that at some point in the future anything that can be invented, will be. If you can think of any more problems with the model, please let me know in the comment section.

All these are important, but I’m not going to deal with them right now. The value of a model lies in its’ ability to explain an idea – not to prove it. (The people who claim that they use a model to predict the outcomes of complicated social, financial or technological events are self-deluding frauds.) The point of this thought experiment was to explain how some researchers can get so far off the mark: they didn’t see innovation as a result of population. People solve problems. Problems are limited – but the number of people available to throw at problems increases constantly.

Podcast: Download

By Navin Kumar
Article ID: 1337

1.8 trillion US dollars. That’s the cost that Climate Change will inflict upon the United States by 2100 . But there is a problem with the 2008 NRDC report that generated this figure: it’s based on 2008 technology.

One of the oldest problems facing long-term forecasters is that no one can tell what technology is around the corner. In his 1968 book “The population bomb“, Paul Ehrlich predicted, “In the 1970s and 1980s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Oddly enough, 1968 was also the year in which the phrase “Green Revolution” was coined.

What people frequently fail to notice is that the scientific controversy around Global Warming is (or, anyway, ought to be) as much social as it is physical. The global temperature going up by a few degrees is not a problem in itself – problems occur because we get an increase in the use of air-conditioning, more expensive electricity, the rising demand for water, et cetera. If possible, I want to avoid debating this physical science and focus on the social aspects.

By “social aspects”, I mean how humans react to climate change, especially when there are also changes in technology. To see why this is a problem, lets look at the NRDC report. At one point, the NRDC looks at energy consumption and concludes that by 2100, “climate change will increase the retail cost of electricity by $167 billion and will lead to $31 billion in annual purchases of air conditioning units”. However, the increase in the cost of electricity is calculated by looking at the impact of higher temperatures on power generation plants with the technology that is being used now. If global warming (and energy prices) turn out to be as large problems as is projected, it wouldn’t be very surprising to see cheaper, more efficient air conditioning units hit the market. Indeed, the increasing efficiency of air conditioners is responsible for the fact that the amount of electricity consumed by AC units remains steady (as a fraction of the total electricity consumed by homes) even though the number of air conditioners bought has gone up dramatically.

The same logic can be extended over the other sectors where the NRDC claims there will substantial damage: agriculture, for example. The NRDC claims that although the crops won’t be too badly affected in the first half of the century, the second half of the century (after temperature increases beyond six degrees Fahrenheit) will see crop yields fall dramatically. To see what’s wrong with this projection, put yourself in the shoes of a 1958 agriculturalist and try to guess what the global yield will be in 2008. (This puts Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 predictions into a different – and more error-prone – perspective.)

The NRDC seems to have forgotten that by 2050, hardier, heat resistant crops will be developed, especially if companies believe that a huge market for them is around the corner. To be fair, the NRDC does wonder about “the speed and accuracy of the farmer’s response to changing conditions…in view of the large year-to-year variations, it seems unrealistic to expect rapid, accurate adaptation.” Although this lack of savvy on the part of farmers is questionable, the loss of crops is not the real cost. Instead, the bigger picture must include the cost of adaptation.

The ability of forecasters to predict the reactions of humans is terrible, and this includes those forecasters who have a strong incentive to be right. In a move that has since become a standard case study in economic textbooks, OPEC cut oil production in the mid 1970s in order to increase prices and make more profits. They succeeded for a while with the price of petrol quadrupling in many parts of the world. However, by 1980 prices had fallen back to their pre-crisis levels. When oil prices hit the roof, people began to look for ways around it. Although they found it difficult to change habits (and vehicles) in the short run, as time went on, people bought more fuel-efficient cars and drove less, automobile companies invested more money in research to produce more fuel efficient cars and marginal players in the global oil market (such as Britain) began to search for oil fields. Eventually, OPEC had to step up production again.

It’s the same thing with Global Warming predictions. Even if accountants were to include the current rate at which AC efficiency is rising, it wouldn’t be good enough because they can’t determine the effects of AC  research and the AC efficiency increase spurred by an ever-increasing global temperature.

(For those of you who think that research into more efficient methods will happen regardless of the situation, remember that the new lightweight SUVs didn’t exist until oil prices rose in the late 2000s.)

To summarize, scientists are unable to predict leaps in technological advance. Technological advances are what will determine the costs of global warming.Therefore, scientists are unable to predict the costs of global warming. Since we can’t accurately know these costs, can we say that “the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action”? No, we can’t, because we can’t prove that statement either way.

Podcast: Download

By Nicholas Covington
Article ID: 1336

“And when we say also that… [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He… was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”

“…And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Æsculapius.”

-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapters 21-23.

I’m tired of misinformation in two extremes: On one hand, we have nontheists who claim that Jesus is a carbon copy of Osirus or Dionysus, but often not giving the reader the primary sources to back this claim up. On the other hand, we have Christian apologists claiming either that no pagan parallels to Jesus exist, or that all the parallels are vague, general, and weak. My intention is to end this campaign of misinformation by describing the pagan parallels to Jesus as well as the differences.

I have divided this essay into two sections: The first discusses gods for which I have found a great number of parallels (Romulus and Heracles), the second discusses gods for which I have found only one or a few parallels. This is not the final word on the subject, as I am sure there are a great many parallels I have yet to discover. Let me also note that I have gone out of my way to make sure my sources are, as much as possible, pre-Christian. Most of the texts I cite were written when Christianity was a rare and little known sect (and therefore unlikely to influence other cults. [For a good review of the estimates of how common Christianity was in the first century, see Richard Carrier, Not the Impossible Faith, chapter 18]).

Major pagan parallels to Jesus

Romulus

This was written about by Titus Livius (who died in 17 CE) in his book The Early History of Rome and by Plutarch in Numa Pompilius (written circa 75 CE, around the same time Mark’s gospel was written).

Romulus parallels:

Romulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth god Vesta sworn to celibacy (Early History of Rome, 1.3-1.4). His mother claims that the divine impregnated her, yet this is not believed by the King (there is a certain irony to this since Romulus is later hailed as “God and a Son of God”, meaning that his mother’s seemingly far-fetched tale was true after all). Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, are tossed in the river and left for dead (A “slaughter of the innocents” tale which parallels that of Matthew 2:13-16).

Romulus is hailed as the son of god. He is “snatched away to heaven” by a whirlwind (It is assumed that the gods took him), and he makes post mortem appearances (See The Early History of Rome 1.16). In his work Numa Pompilius, Plutarch records that there was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus’ death according to Mark 15:33). He also states that Romulus is to be known afterwards as ‘Quirinus’; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a “triple deity” similar to the concept of the Trinity). This information may be found in the second paragraph of the translation of Numa Pompilius (hyperlinked above).

Romulus differences:

Although Jesus and Romulus are both known as kings, Jesus makes it clear that his kingdom is not an earthly one as is that of Romulus (John 18:36). Furthermore, the life of Romulus is mainly composed of military conquests and other such things which do not bear the slightest parallel to the life of Jesus as told by Paul and the gospel writers.

Heracles (Hercules)

This was written about by Ovid (who died about 17 CE, according to Funk and Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia) Diodorus Siculus in the Library of History Book 4. Diodorus lived from 90 to 21 BCE (According to his entry in Funk and Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia).

Heracles parallels:

Heracles is the Son of a god (Zeus). In Library of History 4:9:1-2, it is recorded that Zeus is both the father and great-great- great grandfather of Heracles, just as Jesus is essentially his own grandpa, being both “The root and offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16) as he is part of the triune God which is the father of Adam and eventually of Jesus. Both are doubly related to the Supreme God. Diodorus writes that,

“For as regards the magnitude of the deeds which he accomplished it is generally agreed that Heracles has been handed down as one who surpassed all men of whom memory from the beginning of time has brought down an account; consequently it is a difficult attainment to report each one of his deeds in a worthy manner and to present a record which shall be on a level with labours so great, the magnitude of which won for him the prize of immortality.”
-Library of History, 4:8:1

Jesus is also said to have done a very large number of good works. John 21:25 says that: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

Hera tries to kill Heracles as an infant by sending two serpents after him (Library of History, 4:10:1) yet Heracles survives by strangling them. This parallels Herod’s slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:13-16).

Heracles makes a descent into Hades and returns from it with Theseus and Peirithoüs (4.26.1), just as Jesus descends into Hades as well as a spirit prison (See The Testament of Benjamin verse 9 and 1 Peter 3:18); Though Jesus does not bring anyone up from it.

After death, Heracles’ body is not found and he is assumed to have been taken by the gods:

“After this, when the companions of Iolaüs came to gather up the bones of Heracles and found not a single bone anywhere, they assumed that, in accordance with the words of the oracle, he had passed from among men into the company of the gods.” (Library of History, 4:38:5)

In another version of the myth (found in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Book IX, 211-272), Heracles dies in a fire, so that his flesh is burned up and only his spiritual self (‘that which no flame can destroy’) is left. Zeus carries him up to heaven. This parallels Jesus’ agonizing death, as well as his ascent to heaven.

Heracles differences:

Heracles makes no post-mortem appearances as Jesus does (this is in all gospels except Mark, of which the last twelve verses are a later addition). Heracles is not credited as being a wise man or a teacher and does not heal the sick as Jesus does (though he does perform “Twelve Labors” which are super-human tasks but certainly do not parallel the works of Jesus). Heracles is poisoned and sets himself on fire to relieve the pain; Jesus was crucified. These parallels simply show some basic themes of Jesus’ life (being the son of god, the slaughter of the innocents, being taken by God at death) were present in Greco-Roman mythology.

Minor pagan parallels to Jesus

Dionysus

Pausanias wrote of the Dionysian water-to-wine miracle in the 2^nd Century CE (about the same time as the gospel of John was written). It is likely that this ritual had been around for many years, and so it is therefore more likely that John borrowed this miracle story from the Dionysus cult than the other way around.

Dionysus parallels:

Dionysus was also the son of a god who had taken on mortal form. One miracle story in particular bears strong resemblance to a gospel story, the transformation of water into wine:

“Greek traveller Pausanias reported in his Description of Greece that in Elis, three pots are brought into the building by the priests [of Dionysus] and set down empty in the presence of the citizens and of any strangers who may chance to be in the country. The doors of the building are sealed by the priests themselves and by any others who may be so inclined. On the morrow they are allowed to examine the seals, and on going into the building they find the pots filled with wine. Paus. VI, 26, 1-2

This Dionysian wine ritual was incorporated into Christian imagery by the Gospel of John. According to this gospel, the first public act of Jesus was to transform jars of water into wine–the typical Dionysian epiphany miracle. By employing this well-known Dionysian convention, the Gospel at its outset establishes the presence of Jesus as a divine epiphany. 10 To dismiss the Dionysian use of wine simply as the occasion for mere drunken revelry and debauchery–which did occur–would be as misleading as to understand the Christian use of wine similarly–which also occurred, for example, according to Paul, in the sacramental excesses practiced by the Corinthian church ( I Cor. 11:17-22).” [Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction by Luther H. Martin, p.95

Osiris

Isis, the mother of Osiris, was called “The Great Virgin” (p.13, James Stevens Curl, The Egyptian Revival).

Osiris was killed on the seventeenth day of the month and his body was found on the nineteenth of the month (Jesus was killed on Friday and raised on Sunday: In each case we see the “three day” motif, [See Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 39]). Though it is not quite clear in Plutarch’s work, it appears that Osiris was raised sometime after his corpse was found, torn into pieces, and put back together again by Isis (Osiris is mentioned as being alive again after these events).

It is interesting to note that while Osiris was amongst the people, he “gave them laws” and “taught them how to worship the gods” (Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 13); Just as Jesus had given his disciples new commandments (Not to even look upon a woman lustfully) and taught them how to pray (See “The Lord’s Prayer” in Matthew 6:9-15).

Perhaps the biggest difference between Osiris and Jesus is that Osiris is very clearly a lunar deity, while Jesus is not. Furthermore, Osiris is dismembered into fourteen pieces, a tale which bears no resemblance to anything in the gospels.

Mithra

Listen to what Plutarch says about the Zoroastrian beliefs:

“Theopompus says that, according to the Magi, one of the Gods shall conquer, the other be conquered, alternately for 3,000 years; for another 3,000 years they shall fight, war, and undo one the works of the other; but in the end Hades shall fail, and men shall be happy, neither requiring food nor constructing shelter: whilst the God who hath contrived all this is quiet and resting himself for a time, for that God may well slumber, but not long, like as a man reposing for a moderate space. The religious system of the Magi is of the aforesaid character.” (On Isis and Osiris, 47, emphasis mine).

Compare to Revelation 7:16 and 20:14 (which discuss things to happen after the apocalypse): “Never again will they hunger, never again will they thirst. …Then Death and Hades were cast into the Lake of Fire.”

In chapter 46, Plutarch also tells us that Mithras was seen as a “mediator” just as Christ was a mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).

Inana

The goddess Inana descends into the underworld, is killed and hung on a nail, left dead for three days and three nights, is resurrected, and ascends into heaven (See Inana’s Descent, verses 164-175 and 273-281). This story dates no later than the second millennium BCE, and so preceded the New Testament by millennia. Besides the death and resurrection of Inana, the story contains no parallel to the Jesus story.

Buddha

There is an old Buddhist tale in which a disciple of the Buddha is able to walk on water because of his great faith. This story is a near exact parallel to the story of Peter found in Matthew 14:22-33. You can read the story for yourself here, in this old translation of the Dhammapada.

One may think it incredible that the early Christians would have known about a Buddhist legend. However, Randel Helms informs us that there were Buddhist missionaries telling this tale in the Middle East as early as the second-century BCE. (See page 81, Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions).

Zalmoxis

Zalmoxis was written about by Herodotus, who lived in the fifth century BCE, long before Jesus.

Zalmoxis taught the Thracians that:

“neither he, nor they, his boon companions, nor any of their posterity would ever perish, but that they would all go to a place where they would live for aye in the enjoyment of every conceivable good. While he was acting in this way, and holding this kind of discourse, he was constructing an apartment underground, into which, when it was completed, he withdrew, vanishing suddenly from the eyes of the Thracians, who greatly regretted his loss, and mourned over him as one dead. He meanwhile abode in his secret chamber three full years, after which he came forth from his concealment, and showed himself once more to his countrymen, who were thus brought to believe in the truth of what he had taught them.” (Herodotus, Persian Wars, 4.95, emphasis mine).

This needs some explanation: First, it needs to be said that when Herodotus speaks of Zalmoxis building an underground apartment into which he disappeared, this must be interpreted as a sort of ‘rational explanation’ on the part of Herodotus. The Thracians did not believe Zalmoxis merely hid. They thought he was really dead, otherwise they would not have accepted his reappearance as proof of the afterlife Zalmoxis taught.

So the parallels we have are the following: Zalmoxis was said to have risen from the dead, just like Jesus, he promised his followers an eternity with “all good things” which sounds an awful lot like the Christian heaven, and Zalmoxis’ resurrection was taken as proof that there would be an afterlife, as it was with Jesus (1 Cor. 15:14 “If Christ has not been raised… Our preaching is useless…”).

Besides the monotheism present in this belief, there are a few stark differences between Jesus and Zalmoxis, namely what Herodotus reports in Persian Wars 4.94:

“To this god every five years they send a messenger, who is chosen by lot out of the whole nation, and charged to bear him their several requests. Their mode of sending him is this. A number of them stand in order, each holding in his hand three darts; others take the man who is to be sent to Zalmoxis, and swinging him by his hands and feet, toss him into the air so that he falls upon the points of the weapons. If he is pierced and dies, they think that the god is propitious to them; but if not, they lay the fault on the messenger, who (they say) is a wicked man: and so they choose another to send away. The messages are given while the man is still alive. This same people, when it lightens and thunders, aim their arrows at the sky, uttering threats against the god; and they do not believe that there is any god but their own.”

Pythagoras

Here is a story of Pythagoras which comes from Chapter 8 of Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras:

“One day, during a trip from Sybaris to Crotona, by the sea-shore, he happened to meet some fishermen engaged in drawing up from the deep their heavily-laden fish-nets. He told them he knew the exact number of the fish they had caught. The surprised fishermen declared that if he was right they would do anything he said. He then ordered them, after counting the fish accurately, to return them alive to the sea, and what is more wonderful, while he stood on the shore, not one of them died, though they had remained out of their natural element quite a little while. Pythagoras then paid the fisher-men the price of their fish, and departed for Crotona. The fishermen divulged the occurrence, and on discovering his name from some children, spread it abroad publicly. Everybody wanted to see the stranger, which was easy enough to do. They were deeply impressed on beholding his countenance, which indeed betrayed his real nature.”

The story parallels one found in John 15:5-11, where:

“[Jesus] called out to them, ‘Friends, haven’t you any fish?’

‘No,’ they answered.

He said, ‘Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.’ When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’ As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, ‘It is the Lord,’ he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. Jesus said to them, ‘Bring some of the fish you have just caught.’ Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.”

Although Iamblichus (the writer of “Life of Pythagoras”) was born over 100 years after the gospel of John was written, the Pythagoreans had already been around centuries before the Christian movement, and therefore anything Iamblichus recorded may very well have been around long before the Christians.

Furthermore, the fact that John records the exact number of fish (153) which just so happens to be a triangular number, certainly of special importance to the mathematically-inclined Pythagoreans, indicates that the Christians borrowed from the Pythagoreans (not the other way around).

Finally, John’s story neglects to say that anyone bothered counting the fish! So how could John have known? The detail makes sense only in a story in which Jesus intuited the number of fish, which again suggests that the Pythagorean story is original.

There are other parallels between Pythagoras and Jesus (Pythagoras was the Son of a divinity, conceived when his father was away on a business trip [as Jesus is conceived when his mother was unmarried, and therefore had to abstain from sex] and taught in parables, see chapters 2, 8 and 23 of Life of Pythagoras), but I do not see any clear evidence that the Christians stole those elements from the Pythagoreans as we see in the fish-catching story.

Conclusion

How should one interpret these parallels? Perhaps some of these parallels, such as those between Zalmoxis and Jesus, are merely the result of similar human brains coming up with similar ideas. Perhaps others, such as the resurrection-after-three-days of Inana, are the result of similar Middle-Eastern cultural beliefs (See Richard Carrier, “The Spiritual Body of Christ”, published in The Empty Tomb).

Even more important is Dennis MacDonald’s suggestion: “Can one understand why the author targeted the particular antecedent and how she transformed it to serve her own ends? Marcan imitation frequently satisfies this criterion by exalting Jesus at the expense of the vices or weakness of the heroes in their models.” (Page 9, The Homeric Epics and Mark). Perhaps it is worth asking why the gospel writers may have borrowed these stories, and how the differences may reflect a desire to convey a different message. I believe I’ve spotted why Matthew altered the story of the Buddhist disciple walking on water. But I’d like the reader to study the passages and see for themselves. What do you think?

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 1335

This is it, everyone! Digital Bits Skeptic episode 100! And to start things off, I’d like to make the following point:

A 100^th episode means nothing.

That’s right – I’m going to be skeptical about myself. About Digital Bits Skeptic. About big round numbers.  What does 100 mean to me?  Does the fact that I’ve kicked out 100 episodes mean anything?

I answer with all the passion at my disposal: I say, “No! It means nothing!”

Yes, I can see celebrating a person living 100 years. That’s a huge accomplishment for any human, and, while 99 and 101 are also to be celebrated, 100 puts that long life in perspective. Whenever any human can add an extra digit to their tally of years, they’ve gotta be doing something right. (Or, in the case of superior genetics, they had something right done to them.)

I can see celebrating an institution that’s lasted for 100 years. Say, for example, 100 years of a political movement. Or a country’s existence. Yes, of course you’re free from the shackles of whomever, and you’re out from under the tyrannical heel of those you rebelled against. That’s a lot more legitimate than a podcast.

I’m sure that during the year 100 AD, they really whooped it up. In fact, let’s check the source of all knowledge: Wikipedia tells us the following things happened in 100 AD:

1) The Chinese invented the wheelbarrow. Somebody had to be the practical culture.

2) The Christian Gospel of John was written. You’d think it’d be many years earlier, but I guess not.

3) In India, a bunch of really, really good friends got together to compile the Kama sutra.

Strange…  I see nothing about anyone celebrating the change from 99 AD to 100. Maybe people had other things to distract them, like the Kama sutra.

Let’s get our critical thinking caps on for a moment. What does 100 mean? First of all, I didn’t really hit 100 episodes. I’m technically at 101, because the first podcast I did has an episode number of ‘0’, not ’1′. I know, I know… it’s not the smartest thing I’ve done. But I have a computer science background, and it made sense to me.

What about the articles? Some of you may remember the Digital Bits Skeptic of 2007, when I wasn’t even podcasting. Even after I started podcasting, not all articles were converted into an audio version. In fact, at the time of this writing, there are 116 articles available!

Finally, I simply don’t want to brag how Digital Bits Skeptic hit episode 100. I feel too self-serving. I feel too egotistical. I feel lame.

But who am I to say such things? I’m just an electronic nobody, shouting from an unusually dark and funny-smelling corner of the Internet. You won’t take my word for it. So let’s get someone here who has the authority, the personality of grandeur, to make an impression on you.

Let me say hello to one of the skeptical kings of this era. Hello, James Randi.

RANDI: I’m James Randi.

ANDY: Um, yes. Hello, Randi. So, what do you think about Digital Bits Skeptic, and this 100-episode anniversary?

RANDI: Our language skills should be carefully controlled and restrained. Used with great care. Meanings are often confused.

ANDY: I agree! Very much. We’ve got to be careful in our communications, so that fans understand the exact meaning of what we’re trying to say. So, about my podcast, Digital Bits Skeptic.

RANDI: Yes!

ANDY: My philosophy is that 100 episodes really isn’t a big deal. You certainly have a long, incredible career. An “amazing” career, right?

RANDI: No. That term is so overused. I hope that you feel thoroughly scolded.

ANDY: I do. Sorry. But taking your own life into perspective, at what point do you think things are worth celebrating? For example, how long would I have to be podcasting, before it’s impressive?

RANDI: Thirty years.

ANDY: Th… Thirty years?!

RANDI: Absolutely.

ANDY: So, everything I’ve done so far… The work I’ve done to get to this point. Is this at all significant?

RANDI: No, absolutely not.

ANDY: Well, okay… But, have you even listened to Digital Bits Skeptic?

RANDI: Yes.

ANDY: So, what do you think?

RANDI: This was a triumph of human ingenuity, and a direct result of talent and technology.

ANDY: Well, thanks, I suppose. I’ll just keep on doing what I’ve been doing. Any last words of wisdom? You’re obviously an inspiration to a lot of people. Certainly to me. What about you? Who inspires you?

RANDI: I’m inspired and supported by what Sagan, Feynman, Dawkins, Asimov, and so many many others have given me.

ANDY: That’s good to know. Anything else?

RANDI: Living an honest life requires bravery, and a dedication to reality.

ANDY: Words to live by. Thanks again, Randi!

[The preceding interview was not actually with Mr. Randi, but was just a bunch of sound clips taken out of context and used without permission.  I didn’t contact Mr. Randi, because I assumed no skeptical leader would give me the time of day.]

So, the question you might now be screaming is, “why is Andy talking about the pointlessness of having a 100^th anniversary episode, while still having a podcast that points out he’s done 100 episodes?”

That’s a good question.

The answer has nothing to do with me. It’s really about you. Yes, I’m the guy who gets the articles and podcasts out there. And yes, I do some writing myself. But you – the person listening to this right now – give or take a couple episodes, you are responsible for the rise to 100 and beyond. If I didn’t have visitors confirming my belief that this is important, I wouldn’t be doing this. But I do, so I am.

Some of you I know on a friendly basis, like the always-growing number of Digital Bits Skeptic writers. But most of you, I have no idea who you are. That’s frustrating, but okay: I see increasing visitors, more Digital Bits Skeptic supporters, and good conversations in the article comments. To me, that says a lot. In fact, it’s enough for me to keep going. So, the point of all this, the reason to illuminate the number 100, is to just say, “thank you”.

So. Anyway. What were we talking about? Celebrating the longevity of a podcast?! Commemorating a body of work?! Let me just (ironically) shut up, and get to producing more episodes. That’s the important part. Anything else is nothing more than a pointless exercise in vanity. And that means I’d better stop. Right now.

Some of you remember I had to delay last week’s episode because of illness in the family. The illness has gotten worse. I’m delaying again this week – there will be no new article or podcast this weekend. There’s a little four-year-old girl who’s in the hospital, and she’s got some problems we need to fix before doing anything else.

I can’t dedicate time to posting or podcasting until this is resolved. I’m sure you’d do the same in my case. I hope to be back soon. Stay tuned.

Thanks,

Andy

We’re done with the ads for now. I’ve removed them.

DBS still loses money. But to use a needlessly graphic analogy, the loss is more of a quiet warm trickle than an Excalibur-induced spurt.

Thanks to all subscribers for making this change possible!

If the site suddenly gets a massive influx of readers and traffic (due to the obvious and inevitable worldwide acceptance of skepticism), or requires more expenses, or loses a bunch of subscribers, or I find a system that shows more appropriate advertising, I may end up putting the ads back in. “Re-adding” them, as it were.

For now, goodbye, ads! Take your greedy mouths from my site, and instead plant your filthy kiss on those more deserving of your divine truth, weight loss methods and food supplements! Begone, purveyors of the supernatural! Away with ye, pro-credulous proponents! I can “manifest my life’s dreams” on my own, thank you very much.

Back to business.

Andy

Podcast: Download

By Nicholas Covington
Article ID: 1334

Abstract: This article is a rebuttal to Gary Habermas, who defends the Jesus’ resurrection appearances against the hypothesis that these appearances were simply hallucinations.  A plausible natural explanation of the facts concerning the origin of Christianity is presented and compared to the traditional Christian explanation (that Jesus was raised from the dead). It is shown that the acceptance of the empty tomb, appearances of Jesus to his followers, conversion of the Jesus’ skeptical brother James, and the conversion of Paul as fact does not warrant the conclusion that the resurrection occurred.

Gary Habermas is perhaps the most articulate defender of the historical fact of Jesus Christ’s resurrection. He wrote an article[1] which attempts to defend the resurrection appearances against the explanation that they were simply hallucinations. What follows is a rebuttal to the points Habermas makes (his words are in italics):

“[T]he chief examples of ‘collective hallucinations’ provided by Zusne and Jones were group religious experiences such as Marion apparitions.  But these citations simply beg the question regarding whether such experiences could possibly be objective, or even supernatural, at least in some sense.  In other words, why must a naturalistic, subjective explanation be assumed? This seems to rule them out in an a priori manner, before the data are considered.”

Habermas’ objection is correct: We must not assume that the miraculous is impossible. However, there is good evidence that group hallucination may be caused by suggestion. To give one example[2], there was a report of a man who found a group of people gazing upward. When he inquired what they were looking at, he was told that there was a crucifix in the sky. He walked up to another person in the group, shook his arm, and told him that there was no cross. The individual appeared to “wake up” from some trance-like state, and agreed with him, and that there was no cross. This would probably not happen if what the group was seeing was at all objective. In this case, it was not.

“Further, the collective hallucination thesis is unfalsifiable.  It could be applied to purely natural, group sightings, simply calling them group hallucinations, too.  On this thesis, crucial epistemic criteria seem to be missing.  How do we determine normal occurrences from group hallucinations?”

That would be quite easy: By determining whether the group was exposed to emotional excitement, expectation of seeing something, hypnotic suggestion, hallucinogens, etc. In the case of Jesus’ followers, it is plausible that they were exposed to all (except, perhaps, hallucinogens).[3]

“Even if it could be established that groups of people witnessed hallucinations, it is critical to note that it does not at all follow that these experiences were therefore collective.  If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception?  Rather, it is much more likely that the phenomena in question are either illusions — perceptual misinterpretations of actual realities — or individual hallucinations.”

No one says that the group has to see precisely the same thing. For example, let’s take Jesus’ appearance to the five hundred reported in 1 Corinthians 15. We don’t have reports of individuals, but it is completely possible, for example, that some saw Jesus in white linen with a pure, unblemished body, and that others saw him in black with pierced hands and a wound in his side, and others saw Jesus in yet another form. It simply is not established that Jesus was seen exactly the same way by everyone present. Furthermore, it is not clear that everyone present at that instance saw the risen Jesus, since those present in a hallucinating group who do not share the experience will often not speak up.[4]

Zusne and Jones argue that ‘expectation’ and ‘emotional excitement’ are ‘prerequisites’ before such group experiences will occur.  In fact, expectation ‘plays the coordinating role.’  But this scenario contradicts the emotional state of the early witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection appearances.  Even psychologically, the early believers were confronted face-to-face with the utter realism of the recent and unexpected death of their best friend, whom they had hoped would rescue Israel.  As those recent events unfolded in a whirlwind of Jesus’ physical beatings, crucifixion, and seeming abandonment, the normal response would be fear, disillusionment, and depression.  To suppose that these believers would exhibit ‘expectation’ and ‘emotional excitement’ in the face of these stark circumstances would require of them responses that would scarcely be exhibited at a funeral!  All indications are that Jesus’ disciples would exhibit the very opposite emotions from what Zusne and Jones convey as the necessary requirement.

I believe Zusne and Jones refer to ‘emotional excitement’ in the broad sense which includes fear and anxiety (not simply the type of ‘excitement’ one gets from going to a music concert). Emotional excitement (in the broad sense) is known to increase one’s suggestibility, opening one up to hallucinatory experiences.[5] Now, as for expectation: It is often asserted that Jesus’ followers never expected him to rise from the dead. This completely ignores the fact that the gospel of Mark records Jesus predicting his resurrection (Mark 10:32-34)! In a debate with Gerd Luedemann, William Lane Craig attempted to answer this objection by pointing to Luke 18:34, which says that the disciples did not understand what Jesus meant when he said this. Yet Luke is certainly later than Mark, so Luke’s account should not take precedence over Mark. Moreover, even if the disciples really did not understand what this meant, they may have come to understand it after his death.

(1) Even individual hallucinations are questionable for any believers who felt despair at the unexpected death of Jesus just hours before.  Their hopes and dreams had suddenly been dashed.  Extreme grief, not exuberance, would be the normal response.

No one is arguing that the disciples were “exuberant” after Jesus’ death. Here Habermas has again confused “emotional excitement” as including pleasure, which is not always the case.

(2) The wide variety of times and places when Jesus appeared, along with the differing mindsets of the witnesses, is simply a huge obstacle.  Men and women, hard-headed and soft-hearted alike, all believing that they saw Jesus, both indoors and outdoors, by itself provides an insurmountable barrier for hallucinations. The odds that each person would be in precisely the proper frame of mind to experience a hallucination, even individually, decreases exponentially.

Jesus’ earliest appearances come from Mark, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 (I reject the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John due to the fact that they were most likely written much later than the first sources, and clearly show a great deal of embellishment). According to these sources, the women saw an angel in the tomb and subsequently Jesus appeared to Peter, James, the five hundred, and Paul. Essentially, we have a handful of private appearances and one mass appearance. These are not difficult to explain psychologically, as we shall see.

(3)  Generally, hallucinations do not transform lives.  Studies have argued that even those who hallucinate often (or perhaps usually) disavow the experiences when others present have not seen the same thing. Critics acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were transformed even to the point of being quite willing to die for their faith.  No early text reports that any of them ever recanted.  To believe that this quality of conviction came about through false sensory perceptions without anyone rejecting it later is highly problematic.

We do not know if anyone else had a different hallucination when Jesus appeared, or if they would have spoken up to dismiss the Jesus hallucination. Furthermore, the culture we live in today is much different than first-century Palestine. One study showed that widows and widowers often hallucinate about their dead spouse, and yet very seldom tell anyone about the experience.[6] This is understandable, as the widow or widower might fear being branded with the stigma of mental illness. However, in the ancient cultural context we know that this was not the case. The Apostle Paul reports that he received his gospel from the personal revelation of Christ himself (Gal. 1:11-12). There are many other examples in the early church in which visions and such were taken as communication from the divine.[7] The point here is not what the early Christians hallucinated, but that those having hallucinations (especially with holy subject matter) would probably have been encouraged to do so, and would’ve been admired for their “abilities”. The acceptance of their peers also meant that such experiences would be taken seriously.

“(4) Of course, if the appearances were hallucinations, then Jesus’ body should have been located safely and securely in its grave just outside the city of Jerusalem!  That body would undoubtedly be a rather large disclaimer to the disciples’ efforts to preach that Jesus was raised!  But hallucinations do not even address this, so another naturalistic thesis is required.”

Although there are naturalistic hypotheses to account for the empty tomb,[8] we need not bring them up here. Habermas has not in this article presented any evidence for the empty tomb, and the usual list of evidences for an empty tomb have been adequately rebutted elsewhere.[9] Furthermore, even if we did have to add another naturalistic hypothesis to account for the empty tomb, this would not show naturalistic explanations of the evidence untenable.

“Still other issues also impede the hallucination hypothesis.  While these are perhaps not as weighty, they still count:  (5) Why did the hallucinations stop after 40 days?  Why didn’t they continue to spread to other believers, just as the others had?”

These experiences did not stop. Visions of Jesus occur throughout church history[10], and still occur today.

“(6) The resurrection was the disciples’ central teaching, and we usually take extra care with what is closest to our hearts.  This is what drove Paul to check out the nature of the gospel data with other key disciples on at least two occasions, to make sure he was preaching the truth (Gal. 1:18-19; 2:1-10).  He found that they were also speaking of Jesus’ appearances to them (1 Cor. 15:11). “

I do not doubt that there were early Christians who genuinely believed they saw Jesus, and I do not see this as a problem for naturalistic explanations of what happened then.

“ (7) What about the natural human tendency to touch?  Would no one ever discover, even in a single instance, that their best friend, seemingly standing perhaps just a few feet away, was not really there?”

I don’t believe that any of the early reports (Mark and Paul’s letters) say anything about touching or attempting to touch the risen Jesus. In any case, one study has shown that one-third of grief hallucinations include seeing, hearing, and speaking with the deceased, so being able to touch as well would not be much of a stretch.[11]

An alternative account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ

To be clear, let me explain what I am proposing as a natural explanation of William Lane Craig’s “four facts”:

FACT  #1:  After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

FACT #2:  On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

FACT #3:  On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

FACT #4:  The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Think of the situation the disciples faced after Jesus’ crucifixion:

1.  Their leader was dead.  And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah.  The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal.

2.  According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23).  The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!

3.  Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world.  All the disciples could do was to preserve their Master’s tomb as a shrine where his bones could reside until that day when all of Israel’s righteous dead would be raised by God to glory.”[12]

I have no problem accepting facts 1 and 3. I question fact 2, although I will accept it for the sake of argument and remain agnostic about which naturalistic explanation for it is correct. I disagree with fact 4, on the grounds that:

1. Jesus himself never said he was going to establish a kingdom on earth, quite the contrary (John 18:36). Whether one takes the saying in John as original to Jesus or not, it cannot be denied that the earliest Christians may have come to understand Jesus’ kingdom in such a way.
2. Cognitive Dissonance may explain why the disciples still believed that Jesus was the messiah, even after his death. As one psychologist described it:

“Cognitive Dissonance Theory has shown how individuals cannot easily dismiss a belief or attitude they hold, even when the attitude is directly contradicted by evidence or events. People will sooner adopt farfetched ideas to explain events than relinquish their preconceptions.”[13]

A good example of Cognitive Dissonance can be found amongst the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” who predicted that the world would end in 1975;[14] This year came and passed, but did not convince many within the group to abandon their religion.

Perhaps an even more damning counterpoint to this defense is provided by Rodney Stark:

“…Nor would the Jews have been so easily put off by the facts of the Crucifixion. Indeed, the cross was a symbol used to signify the messiah in Hebrew manuscripts prior to the Crucifixion.”[15]

Mark 6:14 undercuts Craig’s third point, which states that some believed Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead! It is hard to see how our earliest gospel could attest to this had the concept of a single resurrection before the general resurrection been unthinkable to first century Jews.

Let me now return to explaining the individual and collective appearances to Jesus, attested by Mark and 1 Corinthians 15. I contend that these may easily be explained by the examples of hallucinations (both individual and collective) which I previously cited. Although the works I cited dealt with grief hallucinations of widows and widowers, we must not forget that Jesus probably held a place in the heart of his followers that was similar to that of a spouse.

Alternately, we could understand the post-resurrection appearances in the following way: Studies have shown that individuals who join cults often have schizoid tendencies,[16] and that schizoid personalities (which make up more than one-half percent of the population[17]) are more prone to hallucinations and “anomalous perceptual experiences”[18]. Therefore, the early Christians would have been prone to hallucination, like hallucinating Jesus.

Other facts relevant to this discussion are the conversion of James (who was supposedly skeptical of Jesus’ claims during his lifetime, see John 7:5) and the conversion of Paul. William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas often argue in their debates that James would not have thrown off his initial skepticism unless he really did see Jesus, and furthermore that he would not have hallucinated Jesus because he had no subconscious desire to see Jesus. Yet this does not take into account how Jesus’ gruesome death may have emotionally affected James. Perhaps seeing Jesus’ gruesome death made James more open to belief in Jesus’ divinity.

As for the conversion of Paul, there is some evidence that he was epileptic. According to D. Landsborough, there is a personality type which occurs more frequently in epileptic individuals:

“This personality structure includes increased concern with philosophical, moral and religious issues; increased and extensive writing on religious or philosophical themes, lengthy letters, diaries, poetry; diminution of sexual activity; aggressiveness. Paul’s personality would seem to bear some resemblance to this description.”[19]

Comparing the two explanations of Jesus’ resurrection

I propose that all of the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection may be explained with one or both of these hypotheses:

1. The individuals attracted to early Christianity were analogous to those joining cults and fringe religious movements in the present day.
2. If one accepts the empty tomb, then a second hypothesis may be needed to explain it, some of which I have previously listed: Jesus’ body was stolen, the women went to the wrong tomb, or Joseph of Arimathea moved the body before the women came to the tomb.

By contrast, the proposals of William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas require more hypotheses, all of them requiring more extreme assumptions, including:

1. God exists.
2. God intervenes in the world.
3. Raising Jesus from the dead would be something that God would have been inclined to do.

Obviously, each of these hypotheses is highly contentious in the spheres of philosophy and religion, for even if one believes in a God who intervenes in the world, one may not believe that God was inclined to raise Jesus from the dead. For example, if one believes that God does not perform miracles to or through false prophets, and that Jesus was a false prophet,[20] then one will not believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

My theory is simpler and more plausible – I explain things through known phenomena that both theists and non-theists can agree exist. Therefore, I conclude that it is most probably correct.

REFERENCES

[1] “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories” Originally published in the Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001

Accessed: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm

Accessed 6/22/09

[2] Page 90, Charlie Broad, Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research Routledge, 2000.

[3] Jesus, in his cultural context, played the role of a shaman. See:

Page 104, JJ Pilch, “Altered States of Consciousness in the Synoptics” published in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2002.

Shamans usually understand very well how to use the power of suggestion:

Page 137, DC Dennett, Breaking the Spell, Penguin, 2006.

Suggestion may induce hallucination:

Page 111, DH Radcliffe, Illusions and Delusions of the Supernatural and Occult, Kessinger Publishing, 2006.

After Jesus’ death, it is possible that Peter or James took over his role, and also acted as the shaman (thus accounting for the appearance to the five hundred mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11).

[4] See Page 117, Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study in Magical Thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989.

[5] Page 111, DH Radcliffe, Illusions and Delusions of the Supernatural and Occult, Kessinger Publishing, 2006.

[6] WD Rees, “The Hallucinations of Widowhood” Br Med J  1971;4:37-41 (2 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.4.5778.37

[7] See Pages 114-115 and 214, Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak Vol. 2, ACU Press, 2002.

[8] For instance: Jesus’ body was stolen, the women went to the wrong tomb, or the Joseph of Arimathea moved the body before the women came to the tomb.

[9] See Jeffrey Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig” Published in “The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave” Ed. By Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Prometheus, 2005.

[10] See Pages 114-115 and 214, Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak Vol. 2, ACU Press, 2002.

[11] A. Grimby, “Bereavement among elderly people: grief reactions, post-bereavement hallucinations and quality of life” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica VL: 87 NO. 1 72-80 (1993)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1993.tb03332.x

[12] The “four facts” presentation is taken verbatim from:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351

Accessed 6/22/09

[13] Page 152, Marc Galanter, Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion, Oxford University Press, 1989.

[14] http://www.4jehovah.org/help-1975-prophecy.php

Accessed 3/27/09

[15] Page 62, Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, HarperOne, 1997.

[16] Day, S., & Peters, E. (1999), “The incidence of schizotypy in new religion movements”. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 55-67.

[17] Torgerson S, Kringlen E, Cramer V, “The Prevalence of Personality Disorders in a Community Sample” Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol 58, 590-596

[18] McCreery C. and Claridge G. (1996), “A Study of Hallucination in Normal Subjects-I. Self-Report Data” Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 739-747.

[19] D Landsborough, “St. Paul and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1987;50:659-664

[20] The predominant view in New Testament scholarship today is that Jesus predicted that the end of the world was to come in his day. See Bart Ehrman, “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium” Oxford University Press, 2001.

Podcast: Download

by Kevin Bridges
Article ID: 1333

A synchronicity is another word for coincidence.  The difference between the two is that, with a synchronicity, there is more to the event than mere coincidence.  Events in a synchronicity are said to be a part of a deeper framework.

Everyone who uses this word has their own share of stories where “it just couldn’t happen by chance!” A common example is thinking of an old friend, and then shortly after, receiving a phone call. Guess who just called! Another example is, when singing a song to yourself, you turn on the radio and hear that very song. (In most stories I hear that the person was singing the exact same part of the song that was playing.) Some stories are more extraordinary. Carl Jung, the psychologist who coined the word “synchronicity”, told an oft-cited tale about a scarab beetle:

“A young woman I was treating had… a dream in which she was given a golden scarab… I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside… It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes… which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment.”

Synchronicities, if you choose to call them that, can go from shrug-inducing to world-rocking.  There is simply no way some of these things can happen by random chance. What are the odds?

But, that’s really the question, isn’t it? What are the odds? What are the real-world statistics for any of these chance occurrences?

A person’s first reaction may be indignation: “Well, it’s too complex to calculate!”  You have to know the odds of uncountable real-world events to know the odds of the result.  Let’s just call it one-in-a-million, and go eat lunch.

The odds truly are impossible to calculate, but not just because the systems involved are so complex.  The impossibility comes from the fact that there are no repeatable parameters to define a synchronicity.

I’ll put it another way: After noticing that your new post office box is the same number as your girlfriend’s birthday, and you rented it the day before her birthday, what would you say the odds were of that happening?  For the statistically uninclined, we’ll use something we can all agree is pretty unlikely: one-in-a-million.

But, what are the odds that tomorrow you experience a synchronicity – any synchronicity?  The odds aren’t one-in-a-million any more, are they?   Maybe one-in-a-hundred? With those odds, you might notice a synchronicity every three months and ten days.  Or does one-in-fifty sound better?  Maybe. You agree with me now, but the next time it happens – the next time you find your middle name spelled out in the alphabet soup – you’re right back to saying “one-in-a-million”.

And that is the problem. There is no specific definition for a synchronicity until it has happened.  All analysis must be done after the fact. You don’t know the parameters until after your old friend has called.  They include how often you think of the person, and how often the person calls you, time of day, and a number of other things influencing the call. And don’t forget, if you’re going to go through this level of effort, it’s just as important to figure out the odds for this specific situation happening, as well as any kind of synchronicity.

I sat down to write this article, and then a recently-neutered cat walked into the room, yowling. What are the odds of this happening? It’s true that the two things don’t seem to be related. But if they did, it would be as meaningful as any synchronicity.  After all, what are the odds that a freshly-neutered cat would walk in my room when I started writing?  One in a million? But if I post this not-so-amazing event on a paranormal forum, do you think anyone will pay attention?

Yes, the odds of any one synchronicity happening are very low.  But, when you confuse a specific synchronicity happening with any synchronicity happening, you’re awarding the wrong odds, since the odds of any synchronicity happening are quite high.

I’m not saying that a synchronicity isn’t supernatural.  What I am saying is that, in a world without the supernatural, wild coincidences would still occur, because you don’t need the supernatural to have synchronicity.  All you need is the human mind.