"The holy man then said he needed to conduct a ritual that could only be done at night, outdoors, and after he had slept with a woman, drunk alcohol and rubbed himself in ash."
If your credibility is going to be finished, might aswell go out with a bang.
If you look at the series of videos on YouTube, then you'll see this (the outdoor, night-time bit, at least) actually happens.
The rationalist chap gets cheesed off at being groped and pawed at, and finally agrees to a night-time outdoor ritual. which the channel airs as well. Predictable results, except this time the 'guru' signs off saying the effects of his actions manifest themselves 'gradually'.
You just managed to offend a guy gratuitously. Plenty of people are able to be rational and yet hold religious beliefs. And all you do is to dismiss everything as superstition.
I, for one, can't say for sure that I "know that gods and goddesses don't exist". And you are trying to shove down your disbelief down my throat. Fundamentalist atheism is still fundamentalism. Please stop.
I had no intention to offend and I am sorry if I did. It was not, however, gratuitous. Religion is something you must seek and imposing a religion upon kids (or merely teaching it as if it were the truth - or worse yet: that there is a truth) may damage them for life.
They are able to be rational about everything except their religious beliefs.
Belief in gods and goddesses does not jive very well with Occam's razor or the complete lack of empirical evidence.
I can't say for sure that gods and goddesses don't exist, but I also can't say for sure that there isn't a giant invisible elephant following me around.
But if I claimed there was a giant invisible elephant following me, I'd likely be committed or medicated.
I don't intend to shove anything down your throat, but please...
Do not exist as physically-independent entities, yes. That means you define "existence" as in "this rock exists."
They might be quite real (and even somewhat powerful) as entities populating one's subconscious mind. That is the position adopted, by the way, by some buddhist schools. In that sense, the gods might "exist" very well.
The programs running on your computer "exist" on the same level as the subconscious gods anyway.
By your definition everything exists for the mere thought of it influences your future state, therefore it exists. This a corruption of language and serves no use but to confuse people and lend credence to charlatans.
Careful with fundamentalist materialism (as with any fundamentalism in general). At the end of that road lie all sorts of aberrations such as "computer programs do not exist" and so on. Really? There's a whole industry built on the opposite idea. :)
EDIT: Are you also saying that the subconscious does not exist?
It's pretty funny having this sort of conversations with compsci people. They tend to be pretty hardcore and either-black-or-white on issues that do not lend themselves to this sort of treatment at all.
I don't see how you can say a computer program doesn't exist? It exists as a state in a computers memory.
I have no opinion on the subconscious -- in fact I don't really know what it is. It may refer to certain mental processes and then I'd say it exists, but in my opinion it is a very general term. I think that psychology is still too early to say for sure what does and does not exist.
If I had an irrational fear of 1000 legged toad and it affected my behavior it doesn't mean that it exists. Now of course we get into all sorts of epistemological problems that aren't solved about our knowledge of reality, etc...
What you say is that the fantasy that god X exists is real and has measurable effects. Like software, it's not the software that makes the computer run, but its manifestation in electrical charges their representation creates in the processor's data lines.
Benign as in it wasn't some overly mystical, witchcrafty black magic voodoo - any Hindu worth his prayer beads would recognise his 'chants' off the bat.
Not benign in the "what could possibly go wrong" sense :)
It's not benign in the sense it makes children, who will, hopefully, become adults one day, believe in magical things. Prayer solves no problem and believing some mystical entity is to blame for bad things that happen removes responsibility from the people to correct and or prevent it.
No. It's simply bad.
If, someday, we find out gods and goddesses really exist, it will be (I hope) a nice surprise. In the meantime, it only makes sense to educate kids that humans are in charge.
I see what your trying to say; and I do sympathise. Really there are two situations though (and I think youir mixing the two together and making a general statement).
Firstly parents teaching a child about their own religious views. Now I personally think that the correct way to do this is to present those views and allow the child to make a choice; but I don't think I can turn round and tell a parent instilling their views on a child that what they are doing is wrong. They are trying to teach the child things they believe to be correct and are doing so in good faith and with love. I am hopeful that our society now is modern enough to give the child their own choice later in life.
On the other hand we have people teaching religion to children generally. For example here in the UK primary schools are supposed to have so many hours "worship" each week. I find that kind of thing just sickeningly horrible (partly because I consider organised religions pretty evil (or non-benign) entities). Unfortunately it doesn't worry most parents (who may not have beliefs - but just shrug their shoulders at the "brainwashing" and say it's not having an effect). Removal of choice is something I despise.
With all that said this is not really a topic worthy of a forum like this. :)
I used to hold that view, but why single out religious views? Why not teach people to respect everyone else's views no matter how vile?
Respect the racist's views, it makes them feel better -- who cares it if may cause them do evil.
Respect the scam artist's views, he feels that what he does is right.
etc..
Just because most people claim to believe in magic and fairy dust doesn't mean it's true, and if they are offended because you:
1. Don't believe in the same fairy dust they do
2. Point out errors and inconsistencies in their views
3. Behave in a way inconsistent with their views, that poses them no harm
Then maybe they aren't as firm in their beliefs as they thought.
That man is very brave. The guru could have used a nasty poison to kill him. It could have been something that is absorbed through the skin (the guru could have had it on his hand and had his hand protected by a skin like cover).
So, yeah this sceptic was lucky the guru was not especially evil and ingenious.
I think he just assumed that the number of people who are actually capable of cold blooded murder in public are very few, and that the number of people who know how to get and use poisons properly is even smaller.
Everybody can come up with a movie plot scenario where something is possible, but the actual risk of him dying was actually very small.
You mean evil and insane. If he had actually died, you better believe there would be a huge investigation, and the poison would more than likely be discovered.
The grin on that image is legendary. I was wondering, why didn't the guru refuse on moral or legal grounds (if his tricks were effective, he would be committing murder)?
I think most DAs could probably get an indictment for attempted murder if you attempted to kill someone with sorcery, with the probable goal of getting you to plead to assault. Note that "reasonable expectation of success" is not an element of those crimes in the US. (Most of the statutes are specifically written to make impossible murders chargeable.)
Relatedly, you can also be charged with attempted murder for attempting to kill someone who is already dead.
If I were on a jury, I would not convict someone of attempted murder if the person never touched them or initiated any other action (ordering poison, calling his hitman friend, etc.)
Simply put, if I sit here and wish you were dead, and believed my thoughts had the power to kill you, I am not committing attempted murder. I am being an idiot, which is sadly not illegal.
But he could have used it as an excuse so as not to be disproved.
It's always been my one question about charlatans who know they're fake but would take the Randi Challenge (especially when it was televised - see YouTube). If you know you're crap, why do it? Maybe they start believing their own bs after a while?
I think some of them truly believe it. I have a cousin that believes she can talk with virgin Mary. She is educated and I don't think she is trying to trick anybody since she has always been a nice person. I think she is just convinced.
There's a long-held cultural convention that lying isn't morally wrong as long as you successfully lie to yourself first. It may be pitiful, dangerous, or whatever else; but at least it's not evil. This seems to apply to all but a few isolated subcultures.
That "guru"'s particular flavor of religion has very peculiar morals indeed. I don't think I'm exaggerating too much when I say Tantra is basically incomprehensible for the typical Western audience.
Superstition is a really big problem in India. I think it is much worse than what would be predicted purely by the poverty level. I wonder why. Another difference is that while in the US, and I imagine in most countries, superstitious beliefs decline sharply with education level, the correlation seems mild or nonexistent in India. There are many people in my family with one or more post-college degrees, and they are just as superstitious as anyone else.
Of course, my sample size is rather small; I'd love to see data supporting or rejecting my hunch.
"There are many people in my family with one or more post-college degrees, and they are just as superstitious as anyone else."
If "religious" is equated to "superstitious" you can see just as many (educated) "superstitious" people in the USA as anywhere else. (google evangelical christianity. Not all of them are illiterate bumblers) You have "healing crusades" and prayer groups to overturn the Health Care Bill and so on in plenty.
What divides religious belief from superstition? Perhaps nothing.
IMO three things contribute to higher superstition.
1) People are more religious, even in the younger generation. (Having said that, it is important to note that religious != fundamentalist for most young, educated Indians. At least in my circles, religious folks will 'pay respects' to any place of worship they pass by including churches, mosques and temples of various types.)
2) Education in America involves a lot of critical thinking. In many classes you are specifically required to challenge an author, debate and you are encouraged to contradict the teacher. There is almost none of this in India. To me, this is something of a tragedy. I went to a small, secular school with excellent teachers (relatively speaking) and I can count on one hand the number of teachers who encouraged debate in class. It doesn't help that many 'good' schools in India are run by religious organizations like the Catholic church or religious trusts.
3) Until not too long ago, luck was a big factor in success in India. Opportunities were few and far between. When efforts are de-linked from rewards, I suspect many people start subscribing to superstitions.
Edit: I thought of one more reason: 'Respect for elders' really means 'disagreeing with elders is rude' in India. Put together with a much closer knit society, this means that your elders are going to chide you constantly for disagreeing with them, and pretty much going to take it as a personal insult. Suddenly it becomes very hard to develop independent beliefs. I was fairly lucky growing up in a family where we had all manner of debates, including on religion, but I believe that's pretty atypical.
My take on it : The level of chaos in India is extraordinary. It is ubiquitous: the traffic, the government, and the sheer number of people being the top three things that come to mind. On top of this, the justice system is defunct. In such a situation, prayer comes naturally. Faith and arbitrary belief are mechanisms to alleviate the stress and restore mental order, to lend a semblance of "reason" and rhyme to the working of a world that seems so arbitrary and cruel. They dull the mind but they act as an antidote against the external chaos.
I would guess that a sense of security and control over one's life and religiosity are anti-correlated, in any country. I would suspect that the poor, the indebted and the very ill are more likely to be religious.
Superstitions beliefs in the US are more prevalent than you think. The uneducated believe in aliens, creationism and angels. The educated believe in alternative medicine, but fear that electromagnetic RADIATIONOMFG causes cancer and that vaccines cause autism. Instead of Swami Krishna using parlor tricks, we have Jenny McCarthy and Oprah pushing pop books that have scientific words in the title.
The only difference between Indian and US superstitions is that US superstitions use scientific words rather than mystical words. "Evil spirits caused the tsunami" is no less superstition than "global warming caused the tsunami".
but fear that electromagnetic RADIATIONOMFG causes cancer
That is certainly sound science - certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation cause cancers. Why do you think people are advised to avoid prolonged exposure to sunlight (ultraviolet spectrum), or are given lead protection when receiving X-rays (x-ray spectrum)?
Your post is an excellent example on how superstition and ignorance spreads; when someone spouts nonsense and falsities with an air of incredulity. Please, if you do not know what you are talking about, do not speak on it.
"Evil spirits caused the tsunami" is no less superstition than "global warming caused the tsunami".
Well.
When you think about it, global warming couldn't cause a tsunami, whereas evil spirits could potentially cause a tsunami (if they existed). They aren't equivalent statements.
So the first one is potentially true, but incredible, and the second is simply incorrect.
If your proposal is that evil spirits and global warming are equivalent beliefs, I don't think so. Global warming is actually testable (either the globe is warming or it isn't); you can't test for evil spirits. Global warming might be incorrect, and it might be supported by unfounded evidence, but it isn't superstitious.
My proposal is not that global warming is a superstition. My proposal is that many westerners apply mystical thinking, but use scientific words.
For some westerners, global warming, chemicals and emf are mysterious and poorly understood forces which cause all sorts of bad things. This is the essence of superstition and mysticism.
My only problem is that the majority of beliefs that we rely on in a daily fashion become superstition, even though they could hypothetically not be.
Suppose I only superficially know how my car works, for example. Would a belief in my car be treated as a superstitious belief? (Lets say I believe it will get me to work). If not, where do we draw the line between 'magical' thinking and actual knowledge?
A lot of people believe in alternative medicine with a more scientific method that you think: They try it and it works for them, is not superstition.
I have news for you: electromagnetic radiation causes cancer and is able to kill you and kill you fast. That it does is not questionable, the question is how much energy is needed to interfere with the human body. Again no superstition, just being cautious with the live of those you love.
Nobody knows what causes autism, so hypothesis could be done.
A lot of people believe in alternative medicine with a more scientific method that you think: They try it and it works for them, is not superstition.
No, it's the placebo effect. If alternative medicine works better than placebo, it becomes medicine.
I have news for you: electromagnetic radiation causes cancer and is able to kill you and kill you fast. That it does is not questionable, the question is how much energy is needed to interfere with the human body. Again no superstition, just being cautious with the live of those you love.
Large amounts of any of the fundamental forces can kill you. Gravity can kill you. The strong nuclear force can definitely kill you. Even the weak nuclear force can kill you through beta radiation. Of course those forces are also necessary for life to exist.
You're also not discriminating between ionizing (cancer-causing) and non-ionizing radiation. The only ionizing radiation most people get is in the form of UV rays from the sun. Non-ionizing radiation (light, IR, microwaves, radio) is at power levels too low to harm us.
Nobody knows what causes autism, so hypothesis could be done.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the second half of that sentence, but it's incorrect to say "nobody knows what causes autism." The word autism probably refers to multiple conditions that we haven't differentiated yet. All of them involve changes in brain chemistry or brain structure. Some of these changes are caused by genes. Some are caused by environment. That is a much smaller region of hypothesis-space than "we don't know."
You're aware of the amount of religion in the USA, right? I think India may be more diverse in its beliefs, but then it seems (from outside at least) to be more diverse in absolutely everything else as well! (no criticism intended - I am very impressed with the way India manages to stay a relatively coherent nation).
If your are defining Superstition as holding yagyas and poojas then yes the correlation does not exist. But I dont think those two above mentioned things are superstition at all. Like before any major step in india every one in this world like to pray to god or have some ceremony. And that provides just that and nothing else.
I think educated Indian suburban people do not subscribe to Superstition in the way of tantrik and babas but they do still hold havans and poojas before doing anything important. In india we still make a swastik (or any other holy symbol) over a new computer before starting it. And that too is turned on by the elder people of the family even if they are not going to use it ever.
I think educated Indian suburban people do not subscribe to Superstition in the way of tantrik and babas but they do still hold havans and poojas before doing anything important. In india we still make a swastik (or any other holy symbol) over a new computer before starting it. And that too is turned on by the elder people of the family even if they are not going to use it ever.
I cant figure out if your agreeing with randomwalker or not :)
You generally won't find that kind of superstition practiced any more in the US/UK/Europe.
Although you do get a number of people either following a pseudo-science "guru" or one of the more cult-like modern religions.
I don't know about India but I'm guessing he's talking about small superstitions like saying "bless you" after sneezes, "touch wood" (or actually touching wood) after saying something that you wouldn't want to happen or "thank god" after nearly getting hit by a bus i.e. stuff that is technically a superstition but is mostly just a cultural habit.
I wondered that; but what he describes seems a little more ritualistic (signs, elders etc.) than the superstitions / cultural habits (mostly why I was asking really)
The swastika sign is somewhere between a religious superstition and a cultural thing. There are folks who believe that if they don't do that sort of thing it's a bad omen and there are folks who do it only out of respect for tradition.
Having an elder 'inaugurate' something is mostly a result of the "respect for elders" ethos in Indian society. This sounds pretty benign, and in many ways it is a good thing, but it has its downsides. I know people in my generation who couldn't (wouldn't) get married to someone unless their grandparents approved the person!
Here in the US such tactics don't work, despite the US being somewhat to very religious.
Most Christian pastors will say that this would be testing God's powers, a vulgar display, and so he will not do it and hence the pastor's won't try to participate in such a test.
And if there is indeed a God, this entity has by now, quite thoroughly, stated that it is not willing to manifest itself. It would be odd that a God would choose to end this streak by killing a sceptic, but then again, any application of logic to the metaphysical is, by definition, moot.
"Most Christian pastors will say..." Well, genuine spiritual masters in India would say the same, e.g.:
"The way to God is not a circus"* or:
"He who knows doesn't say. He who says doesn't know."
The term 'guru' is meant (from ancient texts) for someone beyond 'teacher' - someone who is a master of him(her)self, of ego-motives, of crass personal ambitions (including petty TV fame :/ ) - someone who is capable of lifting student-disciples "from darkness into light" (light in the sense of enlightenment).
From the perspective of devout and discriminating Indians, the display of tantric / shakti / spiritual power for personal/ego aggrandizement is no more a display of spirituality or holiness than is paedaphiliac "love" a sign of being a Christian "man of God's love."
While Benny Hinn is a faith healer and regularly puts on his show, he will not allow himself to appear in a situation that is not within his control in a manner preferable to skeptics.
I wonder if by accepting the challenge, it indicates that the "guru" believes his own bullshit. That's even more scary/pathetic than thinking he's just a fake.
This reminds me of the video of an old Kiai Master (using chi to physically attack people) fighting a young karate guy. The old guy can't really do anything and gets hit a couple times. It's pretty funny but also pretty sad that the Kiai Master's students led him to believe that he was actually affecting them with his chi attacks, probably over the course of several years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMgVmFzBrus
Ok for the benefit of live outside India and are ignorant of the horrors of "News" Channel which broadcasted this shit of a "program", I would like to just tell you the best "news" bulletins of there's:
My overseas Indian co-workers kept talking about 2012 doomsday prophecies, and I just pointed them to NASA's 2012 page and it seemed to work and they appreciated the information. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
Oh my! I've never seen or heard of such news in India (I live in Bangalore). But just this morning I read news in the paper that a police investigation has been initiated to probe a _bee attack_ during a political rally :P
If your credibility is going to be finished, might aswell go out with a bang.