The Gnostic Gospels

Here's the latest question:

Hello [atheist] and [Christian],
I have wanted to pose a topic to the both of you and haven't quite found a good one until now so here it goes! I hope you are able to have some fun answering this one!

I have recently learned about the Gnostic gospels. Do you think the discovery of these gospels discredits the belief system of Christianity or do you think the exclusion of these documents is justifiable as with any biased writing or "advertisement" would have done? If the ideas communicated in these gospels were to be widely accepted, the need for structured religions and places of worship may be in jeopardy, what are you thoughts on the subject?

Also, the De Vinci Code, obviously fiction, was loosely based on some historical facts. What is your opinion on the church's (Catholic) ban of the book/movie? Do you think the Catholic church (or most religions) tries to prevent people searching and finding answers for themselves?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts,
A searcher for the bigger picture

Dear Searcher,

While I don't think the Gnostic Gospels discredit Christianity, they do throw in some doubts. Of course, the same could be said for the Torah, Qur'an, and various other religious texts. While there are some parallels between the world's religions, each of them contradicts the other by implying that their belief is the correct one.

Whether the exclusion of the writings is justifiable is actually beside the point. The First Council of Nicaea, which was instrumental in the assembly of the Bible today, convened to figure out which "gospels" to include in their scripture. If it didn't fit with their trinitarian view of the religion, it was considered heretical and dismissed. So, everything included only supported their pre-conceived notions of what Christianity was.

Concerning the need for structured religion and places of worship, there is no need for that, now. Every Christian has, or should have, a Bible. They should read through it an see if they can come to their own conclusions. Instead, they go to church once a week (or twice a year), say they belong to a certain denomination, and don't really question (or maybe even care) what they are told by the authorities of that denomination. I realized that even before I left my beliefs behind.

On a side note, even if something is widely accepted it doesn't make it true unless it has some solid support. Regardless if the Gnostic gospels were accepted, they would still be using 2,000 year old manuscripts to support their beliefs. If it doesn't have some external corroborating evidence, then it's only conjecture.

The only "historical fact" the Da Vinci Code was based on is the approximately 18 years not discussed in the Bible, and the landmarks untilized for dramatic purposes. Every other part was just conjecture and a way to give him a plot. Regardless, they are also upset that a prequel is being filmed. Anyway, the church never banned the movie. They just told their congregations not to go see it or read the book.

Concerning religions preventing people from searching, I think this is a two part problem. The first is the churches themselves, of course. They don't want you to search for answers, because that search will probably lead you outside of their domain. If you find answers you are more comfortable with, which hopefully make more sense, it'll be harder for the churches to retain control.

Second is the people themselves. Finding answers is difficult, and accepting those answers can be even more so. So, most people are contented, and may even prefer, being told what the answers are. They have someone in authority telling them what the truth is, and they can just go about their lives without thinking about it. They don't have to worry about those gray areas that life is full of, because the people they listen to have already painted a black and white line for them.

Hopefully this helps give you my point of view.

Psychic Kids and then some

I'm going to do my best to answer this without peeking at my DH's answer because I have a pretty good idea where he stands. Let's just say that this is yet another area where we agree to disagree :)


So, the questions regard a new show on AE Network called Psychic Kids. Don't feel bad if you've never heard of it. It sure was news to me. Here we go.

Do you think this show ispotentially harmful to the children taking part? Do you think it'spossible they have some kind of extra-sensory perception that others don't? What about their senses being more developed (or less squelched) becausethey're children? Would you let your child be on this show? Do you thinkthe parents are exploiting their children or letting them have a rareopportunity for fame? Finally, can you contrast your answers to the abovein re: to this show vs. the boy on Jesus Camp who was "saved" at age fivebecause he was looking for "something more from life" and wanted to becomean evangelist? Do you feel the experiences these children will have (beingon a psychic show and getting attention and recognition for that and beingan evangelist and getting attention and recognition for that) are differentor similar? If different, do you feel one is better than the other? Why or why not.


First things first. I want to believe in the paranormal. That's me. Is it valid? I truly believe so. It is beyond arrogance to presume that the world we experience through our 5 senses is all there is. Forget for a minute the more sensational claims of telepathy, spirit contacts, psychkinesis etc. What about the woman who dreams her sister is in danger only to wake and find that she was just in an accident. How about the twin whoses finger hurts when 5 miles away his brother just slammed his in the door. These certainly aren't normal occurances but they do happen. Same goes for deja vu, hunches, intuition. How many people pursue a certain course of action based on a feeling. Yes, some of that is attributable to experience. Not all.

Science, as of yet, cannot concretely explain away these things.

Now, what about the more sensational claims. I just don't know. I've never met anyone who claims to possess these abilities. We've all seen plenty of roadside and TV advertisements for palm-reading, tarot reading, and the like. It doesn't take ESP to read someone and figure out what they want or need to hear; just time, practice and charisma. But I try not to let the obvious bullshit take away from my belief in the possibility of more. And it makes a kind of sense to me that children may be more open to whatever else is out there. They haven't yet been taught how to see the world or how to interpret what they are seeing and feeling.


As for the show itself. The way I understand it (having not actually seen the show), the hosts, a psychic and a clinical psychologist bring together 3 children with some form of psychic ability and attempt to help them explore and come to terms with their gifts. Sounds like a great idea. But do they have to do that on television???. If these children are indeed receiving input from something beyond the 5 senses, this cannot be the best method to help them come to terms with it. It is exploitation plain and simple. I have a hard time believing in any altruistic motives when it takes place in front of the camera. Are the hosts willing to work with these children if there wasn't the publicity for themselves involved? Tv is about selling, ratings, noteriety. I have to wonder what the hell their parents were thinking!! Childhood is hard enough but do these kids need the added burden of their peers bullying and teasing; and you know that will happen. I can definately say there is no way I would allow sweet pea on any kind of show like this. It's exploitive and potentially harmful.

Regarding Jesus camp. Again, I only know what I've read about it, having neither the desire or interest to watch. My gut reaction is these children are being indoctrinated. I won't go quite so far as brainwashed but it seems pretty damn close. I can easily say that I was indoctrinated into religion--12 years of Catholic school will do that for you. These kids have been taken to the extreme by, I'm assuming, the profoundly fundamentalist adult influences in their lives. It doesn't appear that they are receiving a well-rounded world view but instead are focused so narrowly in their education that their attitudes and beliefs have been pre-programmed. I have to wonder how much of what they say is actually coming from them.

Now, as for the boy who was "saved". I don't know what he means with that. Again, it seems like something he was told, not necessarily came up with for himself. Hell, my brother called himself "saved" and at the time that meant accepting Jesus as his Saviour (I'm fairly certain he's lost again)--Sidebar, do you think that's what JJ Abrams is getting at ? Anyway, so I really can't compare it in any meaningful way with the PK's show. As for the noteriety the children will experience. I think the JC kids will have a much easier time of it. The majority of them are home schooled, they are raised in a household and more than likely a community which espouses the same "values" that are touted in the show. However, the PK kids are exploring something that is mocked, ignored, and/or sensationalized. Whatever positive, if any, experience they get from their 5 minutes of fame will likely be dwarfed by the negative that will follow. And just a sidenote--It's shameful to realize that those people who look at their children with pride for being devout charismatic Christians will turn to the PK kids and accuse them of conversing with demons. The double standard is ridiculous.

To sum up. Both shows deal with children looking for guidance, looking for answers from an adult authority figure. MISTAKE!! I don't think there are definitive answers. There are thoughts and ideas. Anyone who tells a child, or anyone else for that matter that he/she has the answers that they are looking for, is delusional. Give the child the means to find their own answers. Support them, don't try to control them. In that respect, the PK show has the better idea; the form it uses is totally screwed up.

I'm off to post this and read DH's reply.

I am perfectly convinced that I have both seen, and heard in a manner which should make unbelief impossible, things called spiritual which cannot be taken by a rational being to be capable of explanation by imposture, coincidence, or mistake." — Augustus De Morgan

Make of this what you will.

I just liked it.

Questioning Psychic Kids (they should have seen this coming)

Well, not really advice. I want your opinions on what you think of this
show: http://www.aetv.com/psychic-kids/ . Do you think this show is
potentially harmful to the children taking part? Do you think it's
possible they have some kind of extra-sensory perception that others don't?
What about their senses being more developed (or less squelched) because
they're children? Would you let your child be on this show? Do you think
the parents are exploiting their children or letting them have a rare
opportunity for fame? Finally, can you contrast your answers to the above
in re: to this show vs. the boy on Jesus Camp who was "saved" at age five
because he was looking for "something more from life" and wanted to become
an evangelist? Do you feel the experiences these children will have (being
on a psychic show and getting attention and recognition for that and being
an evangelist and getting attention and recognition for that) are different
or similar? If different, do you feel one is better than the other? Why
or why not?

Looking forward to your answers! I'd been meaning to ask some people about
this one and I think you two might be the perfect pair. I'm really not
being snarky at all, I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

Thank you so much for asking this. This should really make the conversations between my wife and I interesting.

According to what I've read so far, this show seems to be a combination of Ghost Hunters and Sylvia Brown. Ghost Hunters uses technology to try to find ghosts. Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand the technology they are using. This is very common in the "paranormal research" field. They use scientific equipment in an attempt to lend credence to their beliefs, but many who actually use the equipment for real world applications find the practice questionable (at best).

For instance, here's a video on the K2 meter. The K2 meter is an electromagnetic field (EMF) meter, that just senses electromagnetic fields in the vicinity. The video shows a gentleman who explains why the light jumps the way it does, with no need for ghosts.

Also, there's the electronic voice phenomena (EVP). EVP is the audible equivalent of paradolia. Record some white noise, listen real closely, and your mind will make the sounds fit something you want to hear. Here's a good post regarding EVP.

Anyway, if you do some research you will find that the way the equipment is being used, and their explanations for what is going on, don't concur with how the equipment actually works.

One of the first things I do when I check out a website (or show) about the paranormal is look for warning signs. Well, I went to the website you showed and the first thing I see is a video of the children being "instructed" on how to use the paranormal equipment. The instructor seems to word things in a way to influence the children.

"Some believe orb activity represents a basic spirit manifestation. That's one theory.
Flash orbs are probably the most common."

When someone uses the word theory, quite a few people associate it with the scientific term (i.e. the Theory of Gravity). However, the "orb activity" thing she talks about is a hypothesis that hasn't gained any ground since it was introduced.

Also, notice how she brushes over "flash orbs" before going on to explain EVP (don't get me started on that again). Flash orbs are when the flash reflects off dust particles in the air, and is the only theory that doesn't use conjecture. However, she doesn't explain that to the kids.

Now to the crux of your questions. As far as the children actually having the psychic powers, that would be impossible to tell from a TV show. Footage can be edited to show pretty much anything they want. However, the video clips of the childrens' "talents" has me skeptical. Looking at the video of Morgan, the first thing that jumped out at me was her cold reading (well, after the "crystals" and "energy" bit). After her psychic "analysis" she tells the woman that she found something wrong with her "brain", "top of her head", and "headaches". This was very vague, and open to interpretation. However, the woman being talked to had recently had surgery to remove something (benign) from the top of her head. To me, that throws the reading into the "shotgun" category. The girl gave three different options for what could be wrong, but what the woman cites is actually something that has already been remedied. The reason I called it a "shotgun" is she said three things but none of them were technically correct, but the person hearing it wasn't thinking critically enough. So, one of the three was on the paper, but still not in the scoring rings.

I don't have time to go through all of the videos, but judging by the sampling I have went through I can't find anything that says the children have any psychic abilities. This is after editing has been done to make it more palatable.

Now, as for being harmful, physically I would say no. Mentally, I think it's very detrimental. The parents, the producers, directors, and the other adults that are on the show with the children are enablers. Instead of having the children look critically at what they believe, the adults are encouraging them to just go with it. How can a child be expected to question things if no one else around them does?

There's no way I would put my daughter onto a show like this. Even if she showed some form of psychic ability, putting her on a TV show would make me feel like she was being exploited. Besides, if someone wanted credibility and money, they could take a test and get a million dollars. It would thicken the wallet and shake up the scientific community. However, the prize had been offered since 1964, so the chances of someone actually claiming it are looking pretty slim.

I've only seen bits and pieces of Jesus Camp, but the similarities between the Jesus Camp kid and the children on the show are interesting. Both are having delusions enabled, and encouraged to go on without questioning.

As for whether the parents are exploiting the kids, I think they are but I don't think they think they are. There are a large number of people who believe in these things, and it would give them some pride to think their child is capable of it. The worst I can say is the parents (and everyone else involved in the show) are guilty of ignorance.

These questions bring up some very interesting points, and thank you very much for asking them.

To a Soul in Need

Oh, I am so glad you came to me for help!!



I'm feeling that you are a little lost and confused right now. THAT"S OK. You're reaching out and that's what matters. But I'm afraid you might not be ready for some of the hard truths I'm going to tell you. So prepare yourself.



My sister has had back pain and stomach issues for some time. She has seen doctors about it and the pains go away, and return. sometimes they go away for years sometimes weeks. Recently see went to what she refers to as "her voodoo doctor". This guy tells her not to drink milk or any single dairy product (she is not lactose intolerant and has no allergy to milk), so her back pain has not returned for a few months (like all those times before when it didnt return). She assigns the relief to the voodoo doctor.



Aren't we being a wee bit condescending, refering to this person as voodoo ( and the proper term dear, is vodun). Can you say with any certainty that this person has not helped your sister? Let it go dear, and be happy for her.



My wife think homeopathic means good. Despite the fact that there is literally no ingredients in the homeopathic remedy. We arent talking about natural rememdies, such as aspirin or aloe. We are talking about things that are so heavily diluted that there is literally nothing in there.



All right, let's take a look at this. I'll grant you that the overall efficacy of homeopathic treatments are not as encouraging as some of the more traditional remedies. However, practitioners will tell you that it is also a more time consuming process and requires great patience to find the proper remedy. Those looking for a quick fix are bound to be displeased. Does this mean we should just chuck it out the window??? Please, if a problem is plaguing us, should we not give every possible solution a chance



Most of the poeple around me beleive in some form of a being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all good (or any partial combination of those). For them to be right there has to be some creature that is capable of manipulating every single electron in the universe, they have to be able to read every single mind and/or has to always be looking out for all of us. Despite the fact that this creature has never been detected directly, or even indirectly. They claim this thing exists despite and feel that it is not their onus to prove it.



First of all, if 90% of the population believe in something (and I think that may be a conservative estimate), who are you to tell them they are wrong. Why don't you just admit that they may be right and try to belive what they do. I couldn't hurt, could it. After all, you must admit that Pascal had the right idea.

My final piece of advice today. Open you mind and your heart to the wonder of the world around you. There's much more than meets the eye. Let your skepticism go and embrace the now!

Now, I do wish I had more time to address your other issues, but I must really go and re-align my chakras.

[/snark]

Your Humble Christian Consultant

Okay, a little history about me. Imagine if you will, a young, naive Catholic girl falling head over heels in love with a Pentecostal raised boy. They do the usual pre-canna teaching as required by her church, get married in that church (as she wanted) and go on to live a, for the most part, very happy life together. They have wonderful discussions about hopes, dreams, life, beliefs. And then on day, several years later, her DH (darling husband) tells her that after much soul searching, he no longer believes in God.
This had caused our youngish, not quite so innocent woman (me) to do her own soul searching. After some time, I realized that I can't in good faith call myself Catholic. It's the way I was raised, but there's too much church doctrine that I don't believe is right. This is why my part of the post labels me a Christian.. Because for now, I believe in Christ and his teachings. I say for now because I am in a constant state of self-exploration and discovery. For me, God is...it's as simple as that, it's what I feel. And this, I believe, is a large part of the differnece between those who believe and those who don't. Logic vs. feeling.
Anyway, fast forward to a few months ago when I jokingly say to DH that any advise he gives could be a he said/she said. Well, I thought he forgot about it. Then about a week ago he brought it up again and wanted to know if I was in. So here I am, willing to give anyone who wants it, my opinion. And that's all it is...what I think and feel. And please be patient with me, I am nowhere near as blog savvy as my other half:)

Help!!

We got our first email, and it's a doozy. At first, I was tempted to just laugh and let it go, but then I thought further about it. This would be a good test for me, I think. So, here we go.

Dear atheist, dear Christian

I'm not sure if the Christian will answer, but I will.

I have this problem where 90% of the people around me believe strange things. They don't seem to care that there is no evidence for the things they believe or worst, they assign completely unrelated things as evidence that their strange things exist.

Only 90%? If that's not a conservative estimate, can you tell me where you live so I can move there?

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Please do.

My sister has had back pain and stomach issues for some time. She has seen doctors about it and the pains go away, and return. sometimes they go away for years sometimes weeks. Recently see went to what she refers to as "her voodoo doctor". This guy tells her not to drink milk or any single dairy product (she is not lactose intolerant and has no allergy to milk), so her back pain has not returned for a few months (like all those times before when it didnt return). She assigns the relief to the voodoo doctor.

This is an example of confirmation bias. When pain comes and goes it's much more difficult for a doctor to diagnose what is wrong. That also means it is harder to treat. Because of this, many people end up going to "alternative" medicine practioners. Since the doctors weren't able to figure out and treat what was wrong, some people assign any relief to the practioners methods. Unfortunately, it's rare that they actually do a critical analysis of it.

My wife think homeopathic means good. Despite the fact that there is literally no ingredients in the homeopathic remedy. We arent talking about natural rememdies, such as aspirin or aloe. We are talking about things that are so heavily diluted that there is literally nothing in there.

Short of putting her through a course in chemistry, the best I can recommend is having her read this and this.

My mom thinks we all have "energies". These energies are what connect us to the things around us. When we feel bad its becuase the energy is low or bad. Where we feel good its becuase the energy is good or powerful.

I don't want to seem dismissive, but is your mother a Star Wars fan? Probably not, but having her watch any of those movies and seeing her reaction to the Jedi could be interesting, and a good way to start a discussion.

I really wouldn't have much of a problem with this if it were benign. But my sister is being bilked out of loads of cash. When my daughter was teething my wife gave her suger tablets with literally nothing in them for the pain, and my mom eats chemicals that supposedly makes her undectable energy stronger. All bad things for all of them. But thats just the people closest to me.

Perhaps showing each a few examples of why it is harmful will help.

Some of my friends were surprised we chose to have our daughter excersize her immune system as a child rather than getting the deadly ir incapacitating diseases later. We injected her with harmless or dead versions of the diesease which has been shown to protect her later, especialy if everyone around her gets the same immunological excersize. My friends tell me that they put all sorts of nasty things in the injections, like Mercury! Despite the fact that when they took out these 'harmful' preservatives, the rate of autism kept on rising, they just kept on presuming the injections were bad even though these horrible diseases now occur at a rate that is an order of magnitude lower than just a few decades ago.

Ah yes. The people who think Jenny McCarthy knows what she's talking about. However, those honest about vaccination/autism have Amanda Peet on their side. Oh, and they also have those little pesky things called facts.

But its even more than my friends and family. Most of the poeple around me beleive in some form of a being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all good (or any partial combination of those). For them to be right there has to be some creature that is capable of manipulating every single electron in the universe, they have to be able to read every single mind and/or has to always be looking out for all of us. Despite the fact that this creature has never been detected directly, or even indirectly. They claim this thing exists despite and feel that it is not their onus to prove it.

Wow, I'm not the only one who believes in Cthulhu? Okay, I'm kidding, a little. I understand your frustration, and I've found it very difficult to explain why the person making the claim of a supernatural beings existance is the one who has to support it with evidence. Perhaps you can use something (almost?) everyone knows to explain the reasoning. For instance, the "innocent until proven guilty" that's supposed to be required in the U.S. courts.

Again, I really wouldn't have a problem with this if they kept it to themselves, but as a nation it makes us waste billions of dollars on things that have been shown to have no efficacy. They continue to be funded simply becuase of this belief, and I have to pay for it. They make me say werid things when I have to go to court to evaluate my peers. Worst is that becuase I don't bleeive in this ridiculously powerful being that we can not detect in any way, I am the one who is weird, I am the one who must be without morals, I am the one who is going to a fire laden place for all of eternity (never mind that this place exists on no map, has been seen in no telescope and no one has ever returned from there to report on it).

Deep breaths. Now, count to ten. Deep breaths, again. Feeling better now? Me either. It is frustrating, but the alternative is staying quiet and letting them keep knocking down straw men.

Clearly I see that people are hurting themselves by beleiving in these things, worse, they hurt other people. It would be immoral of me to stand by while they continue to hurt each other.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

What should I do?

Point out the errors in their thinking. Also, keep in mind that it's very difficult to reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. You may not even be able to change that persons mind, but you could have an effect on one or more people overhearing the conversation.

In the meantime, I would suggest reading to ease your mind. A book such as The Demon-Haunted World by the late Carl Sagan, or Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer would not only give you some entertainment but help hone your thinking skills.

Most of all, remember that this life is the only time you have to make a difference.

The Atheist

A few months ago, I read a piece in the Ask Laskas advice column. Even before that, her responses were less than stellar, but that one caused me to do some digging. It seems that the most popular advice columnists don't have any training (except previously giving advice to others) in psychology or anything that would qualify them to counsel people.

Ask Laskas has a MFA in non-fiction writing, and even Ask Amy (who I actually like) only shows an unspecified degree from Georgetown University.

At the end of the post, I (half-jokingly) suggested starting my own column. Several of my blogging buddies supported, and encouraged, the idea. My wife even suggested an interesting spin to it. Her suggestion was a he said/she said style, but we'll actually be bringing more to it than that. Since she's a Christian, and I'm... well not, this could be a chance for people to compare our two philosophies in one place. I'm involved (although I haven't contributed in a while) in another such endeavor, but that's slowed down a bit.

Since then, I've been debating about it more and more. The more I thought about it, the more the idea appealed to me. I won't go into the reasons, because after five months of thinking about it they've become too many to list easily. However, the end result is this blog.

So, I'm going to be putting up the contact information for me and my wife, soon (see "Contacting Us" on the top right). You can email either one of us, or both of us. You can use whatever advice we give as you see fit. You can mix and match, choose one side, get a third opinion, or whatever you want. All I'm here for is to give my honest opinion on whatever situation you ask me about.

So, let the questions begin. I look forward to helping in any way that I can.