Thirty or so years ago, very few of us – obviously including Uri Geller – had any notion that today’s easily-available technology would catch up with simple tricks. I offer you here a video selection made back in 1976 which has now popped back into existence to further expose one of Mr. Geller’s limited repertoire of tricks. In this excerpt from the video, as you’ll see, he tries to convince his audience that a bent key continues to bend as they watch it, and in this he is very successful. You can hear the comments:
(Begins at 1:12)
Geller [to the child, Ken]: Lift your hand.
Announcer: Now lift your hand, Ken. Lift your hand. Do you see any keys bending?
Geller: No…
Child: I see one.
Geller: Oh yes, this is bending!
(Frame #1 taken from here at 1:26)
Announcer: One key is bending.
Geller: Wait a minute, I have to show this to the TV. Yes, this key is going. [pause] Yeah, wait a minute, I…
Announcer: Yes, definitely, it’s a big thick brass “Shlage” or Shlage-type of key, just like the one he bent last night for us.
Geller: I don’t know what this key is for, but you see what I’m doing, is I’m stroking it very, very, gently. And yeah, it’s curling up more. I don’t know how well you can see…
Announcer: You see that, Ken? It’s really happening.
Child: It’s bending even more.
Geller: Yes, this will curl up a little more here. Um, you see, I’m putting an energy into it. Can you see this on the…
Child: It’s incredible.
Geller: There’s no… there is absolutely no heat. Ken, touch the key and you’ll see, but touch them under, under where it’s bending. Do you feel any heat? There is absolutely no…
Child: Yes…
Geller: You do? There is really no heat. It’s, ah, you touch it, I mean you touch it, you can see if there really is heat or not.
Announcer: No, it’s just the body warmth. The body warmth, and it’s continuing to bend.
Geller: I just want to show it to the camera...
[applause]
Bystander: There goes another one!
Announcer: The key that he has bent is fastened to a key cluster and another key is beginning to bend on the cluster fastened below it.
(Ends at frame #2, at 2:17)
Here we see the usual "ratcheting" move that Geller has always used to
produce the bending illusion, simply tilting the tip of the key upwards
slowly to give the effect of it bending.
So, in 51 seconds of merely showing this key – which was on a huge cluster of keys that was produced from nowhere and run through by Geller – he has created the illusion that convinced the observers that they’d seen it continue to bend! And it didn’t change one bit…!
To establish this, I asked Rich Montalvo (our media manager) – who manages somehow to get this page up in time every week – to prepare a video comparing one frame – noted as # 1, above – from the video just at the point where Geller has announced that one of the keys he’s holding has bent, and a second frame from the point where the audience and the host of the show have become convinced that they’ve just seen it bend even more. As can be plainly seen, there has been no change whatsoever in the shape of this key, even though spectators swore it was bending! Now, technology has allowed us to easily demonstrate that this is so.
Interestingly enough, I had no idea of the existence of this video, until it was sent to me by a believer who felt that it was very convincing and proved Geller’s powers! On the contrary, it very plainly exposes his trick!
If there’s been any doubt in your minds about my contention that Uri Geller is about to announce that he’s been lying all these 30+ years about not being a conjuror, that should vanish when you learn that the December issue of the Academy of Magical Arts Newsletter features a photo of him embracing Gay Blackstone – wife of the late Harry Blackstone. There’s no text mention of this, just the nonchalant introduction of this association so that Geller can try casually slipping into the fraternity as if he’d always been there. As I’ve said here on SWIFT, that’s not going to happen. His lies and hyperbole are so evident and damning, that he’ll not escape them…
The Newsletter even spelled his name wrong, so there’s some hope that the Magical Arts Newsletter recognizes the trick…
AN ARGUMENT
Reader Jay Roessler, in Hinsdale, Illinois, writes:
I have been an admirer of yours for many years, beginning with an appearance on the Tonight Show where you proceeded to perform psychic surgery on Johnny Carson, without leaving a single mark.
Randi comments: Here’s an example of how telling and re-telling a story can change the content. This gentleman refers to a program in which I “operated” on an audience volunteer – while Johnny watched…! Jay continues:
I have read a number of your books, read your weekly SWIFT column, and enjoy your quarterly "’Twas Brillig" and occasional television appearances – when they actually allow you to make your argument without interruption or editing. I guess my point with all this obsequiousness (is that a word?) [Randi: yep!] is to tell you that I have learned many skills on HOW to think (as opposed to WHAT to think) by reading your works as well as those of many other skeptics, and I’d like to think I’ve used those skills to improve the quality of my life, as well as the quality of my arguments for or against various issues.
One of these issues, if not the greatest, is the issue of God. I must agree with you in that I do not believe in a higher being, certainly not in the God as sold, or proclaimed, to me throughout my comfortable suburban WASP-ish life. My arguments against believing in a higher being have usually fallen in line with many skeptics and scientists, essentially that there is no evidence to support the idea of a God. But recently I’ve had an epiphany of sorts, not a revelation that I’ve been wrong, just as to how the argument may be framed. It is an argument I’ve never heard a skeptic or atheist make, so I thought I would share it with you and ask if I’m on the right track, or is my reasoning flawed.
Lately when conversations have turned to religion and I, eventually, reveal that I do not believe in God (I still can’t shake using the capital G), after the gasps and responses of "I’ll pray for you," I have justified my opinion by saying "The Bible admits that man created God, not that God created Man." You may understand their confusion. My argument:
In Exodus 20:3, God’s first commandment states in its second sentence, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Randi comments: In my New English Bible, this is translated as, “You shall have no other god to set against me.” Same impact and significance, however, in what follows. Jay continues:
1. God does not say that there are no other gods. God simply says, in effect, that any other gods shall follow me, not come before me. Apparently humans may worship other gods, but God is superior to them all, much like Zeus was superior to the rest of the Greek and Roman gods. However, Genesis states that God created the heavens and the Earth, making no mention of creating other gods. If humans are allowed to worship other gods (just not before God), and God did not create them, where did these gods come from? One can only infer that these other gods are, well, man-made. And if God is essentially acknowledging that lesser gods may be worshiped and they must be man-made, does it not follow that all gods, including God, Himself, is man-made as well?
Jay, I think not. This could be inferred, but it’s not so stated…
2. Let’s say that the second part of the last sentence of the first commandment is, well, a typo, and God simply said "Thou shalt have no other gods," forgoing the "before me" part. Again, doesn’t this essentially concede that humans may actually consider having other gods, yet are commanded not to? And is this not, effectively, an admission that gods are selected by humans? Again, begging the question that, well, God himself is potentially selected by humans, and a man-made being?
Strangely enough, my friends don’t seem to understand my argument. Of course, maybe I’m on the wrong track anyway.
I thank you for your indulgence in my cockeyed hypothesis, and I would appreciate any critique or assistance you may offer regarding my attempt at a rational thought (difficult where the Bible is involved).
Please keep up all your good works. You have been a great, positive influence on me, and I know many, many others as well. As one who used to enjoy the predictions of psychics, I now know to make all these people of extraordinary claims simply prove that which they claim. As you know they always fail, but I am richer for your guidance in seeking truth, not fantasy.
I’m flattered, Jay, but I think your argument – whether the King James translation or the more recent New English Bible version is used – could just as effectively be that the very reference in Exodus to “other gods” strongly suggests that this particular one wants to be above them all, and thus is not the only one…! In any case, thank you for this interesting argument.
SOKAL RE-CREATED
Reader Tomasz Witkowski writes about an Alan Sokal-style of hoax done in Poland. Refer to randi.org/jr/2006-08/082506yet.html#i5 for a previous mention of the original delicious affair. Tomasz gives us a description of his hoax taken from “Poor Pothecary,” a site run by a technical writer living in Devon, UK., which covers the debunking of bad science:
Via Modne Bzdury via Bad Science, this looks interesting. A psychologist in Poland, Tomasz Witkowski, has announced how he conned Charaktery, a scientific monthly focusing on popularizing psychology, with a Sokal-style hoax article about a fake psychotherapeutic method. Here’s his original article, “Wiedza prosto z pola” – “Knowledge straight from the field” – written under the pseudonym Renata Aulagnier:
Here’s the Witkowski article:
I don’t know Polish, so have had to get the drift by machine translation. “Knowledge straight from the field” leads with a postulated scenario: that a patient could be MRI-scanned to measure their morphogenetic field. If the morphogenetic resonance is out of kilter, the patient can be exposed to appropriate influences to correct it, such as listening to different kinds of music in various proportions, or going into a large crowd of people with the correct vibes (e.g. a theatre or a football stadium) to get into tune with their field. Thus psychotherapy could be achieved without lengthy analysis, issues of resistance, disclosure of embarrassing sexual secrets, etc.
But this is not science fiction, the article says, and goes on to describe a "Strasbourg experiment" in which such a technology has been developed (the idea inspired by Carl Jung and Henri Bergson, the mathematician from Lacan – who "first discovered the possibility of employing mathematical topology in the analysis of the structures of intellectual diseases," and the mechanism from Sheldrake.
Randi comments: this is a reference to Rupert Sheldrake, who we’ve previously dealt with in SWIFT. Moving on:
Witkowski’s motivation appears to have been disillusionment at the quality of peer review – despite Charaktery here on his explanatory page, Witkowski’s particular indictment of Charaktery is that not merely did the piece get past the editorial system, but the editors actually collaborated in expanding it with uncredited material from writings elsewhere about Rupert Sheldrake.
This is currently all over the Polish blogosphere. As I said, I don’t know Polish, but if anyone who does would care to translate properly, it looks rather an excellent sting. (Having various professorial-level academics on the editorial board, he argues that it’s been playing to the popular market by publishing articles about topics like neuro-linguistic programming and morphogenetic resonance. And as he describes here on his explanatory page, Witkowski’s particular indictment of Charaktery is that not merely did the piece get past the editorial system, but the editors actually collaborated in expanding it with uncredited material from writings elsewhere about Rupert Sheldrake.
Interesting indeed. We can now share with another scientific community our guilt at being naïve …!
MY RECENT RANT
A comment by reader Chad Eisner re one of my most recent SWIFT complaints – to be seen last week at randi.org/joom/content/view/141/27/#i8 – rather thoroughly chastised me for lacunae in that item. Wise words from such authorities as Noam Chomsky and Stephen Pinker were brought in to confront me, and I felt quite scolded.
I should add here something that should have been in that item: Dictionaries do not define words, but give meanings, derivations, pronunciation, and – most importantly – their common usage. All of these but the derivations are subject to periodic change, and may vary from edition to edition. I’m struck by the word “route,” for example – meaning a path of travel. I pronounce this as “root,” as I learned it when a child, but I seem to always hear it used as “rout” in conversation, on the media, and in public addresses. I note, too, that Webster’s offers the pronunciation as both “root” and “rout,” though I would apply that latter usage to the disorderly flight of a defeated army…
Thank you, Chad. I guess I’m an old fuddy-duddy. Yes, that’s in Webster’s, too…
THE LATEST HIGH-TECH NEWS
This is straight from the Condé Nast website, and can’t be improved. I’m not at all surprised that Fox was the agency that gave rise to this item:
Fox Business continues to push the boundaries of what constitutes business news. Last week it was genital cosmetic surgery; this week it’s astrology.
On [a recent] edition of the morning show Money for Breakfast, co-host Peter Barnes interviewed astrologer Constance Stellas about the upcoming Federal Reserve Board meeting. Displaying charts she had drawn up for the meeting and for Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, she predicted a half-point rate cut.
Alas, the cosmos must’ve been having an off day. The actual rate cut was 0.25 percent.
Or maybe Stellas was simply outside her area of expertise? According to her website, she reads the stars to determine "what colors, sounds, tastes, and feng shui are best for you." She’s also the author of The Everything Sex Signs Book: Astrology Between the Sheets, which "combines astrology and psychology to uncover a potential lover’s preferred seduction style, fantasies and turn-ons."
Now I ask you: would you place any confidence at all in the Money for Breakfast show or in Constance Stellas…? As for my own personal belief in astrology, I’m a Leo, and we’re told that those born under that sign are very reluctant to accept such claims…
INVOLUNTARY COMEDY
Please, go to youtube.com/watch?v=15u6fHkICxc to see a very effective discussion regarding evangelical matters. From The Chaser’s War on Everything, it requires no comments to support it…
POSSIBLY A CONVERT
A reader in Melbourne, Australia, writes:
I would like to relate to you something that happened to me yesterday, but would prefer that my story remain confidential to protect the other party from any embarrassment. Please excuse the length of the email.
A while ago, a work colleague of mine had mentioned in passing that he believed in psychics and loved John Edward’s Crossing Over. Yesterday, I decided to show him a short clip from the “Talking to the Dead” episode of “Penn & Teller’s BS” and described to him cold reading and hot reading techniques in detail.
His response, which I am sure you have heard many times, was, “Yes, there are a lot of fakers out there, but there are good ones too. I’m definitely a believer.” At this point, I simply said, “Fair enough, but at least you now know of things to look for when assessing whether a psychic is genuine or not.”
A few minutes later, he opened up his bag and brought out a book by Allison Dubois and told me “Allison is the real deal, you should read this book, I’ve read four of her books, etc, etc.” He relayed the story of Dr. Gary Schwartz’s testing of Allison that proved she was a psychic, etc.
He said, “Allison did readings of people over the phone from different parts of the world and didn’t get any feedback until the reading was over.” You can’t cold read without feedback. I then told my work colleague of the Forer personality test experiments and a similar experiment I saw performed by the Amazing Randi many years ago on television. I told him that people are more alike than unlike and general comments can fit with a large percentage of the population who are just itching to shoe-horn it into their own lives.
I asked, “What accuracy did Allison get with these readings?” My colleague said, “80%.” I replied, “So did Forer.” My work colleague replied, “I don’t care, I’m a believer.”
Well, I thought, it’s time to bring out the big guns. I directed him to www.randi.org and the million dollar challenge. I also mentioned the JREF has challenged both Allison Dubois and John Edward who both refuse to take the bait and that no one has passed the preliminary tests of the million dollar challenge.
I then brought up the video from www.randi.org showing you debunking a British medium in 1991. We watched the tape together and I regularly paused to discuss the techniques she was using. I particularly pointed out where the psychic went from one person of the audience with the name “Jimmy” (a miss) to another person with the name “Doris” (a miss) and the second audience member told the medium to go back to the name “Jimmy” (turning a miss into a hit). He was particularly surprised at the 30% audience connection with the name “Taylor” and the 55% audience connection with the “grandfather with a heart condition.”
Randi comments: That was “psychic” Maureen Flynn, on my Granada TV series, “James Randi, Psychic Investigator.” We have audio cassettes of this reading available…
My work colleague then replied, “This medium is awful. She’s not very good at all.” I replied, “Is she awful because she’s awful, or is she awful because I’ve told you how she is doing it and your looking at it objectively for the first time?”
That was it! That was the comment that set off the light bulb in my colleagues head! He all of a sudden went quiet. He then said the video was very good and he would have a browse around randi.org over the weekend. He also admitted that a completely convincing reading he once received from a psychic may have been shoe-horning as well. He even jokingly said, “You’re going to turn me into a skeptic.”
I can unashamedly say that it was a wonderful feeling putting someone on that first step to critical thinking and rationality. I completely understand what has kept you motivated, Mr. Randi, and thank you for your wonderful website, which, of course, I couldn’t have done without.
A JUST COMPLAINT
Reader Todd Weekley, in Boston, Massachusetts, writes:
Thank you, as always, for your tireless efforts to educate people. I always look forward to Fridays because of SWIFT.
Last week’s column contained an article about the EPFX device and the Food and Drug Administration’s response. I have noticed in past [SWIFT] items involving the FDA (and other government agencies) a level of disbelief that the agency has been so slow to catch on. The result is an accusatory tone (e.g., "for years, the [FDA]...did nothing to warn the public"). While I agree that the FDA has dropped the ball on some subjects, and has been subject to corruption (e.g., during the Nixon administration), they generally do a pretty good job of protecting the public, particularly when they are as woefully underfunded and understaffed as they are.
Understood and acknowledged, Todd. And with the present science-bashing and “faith-based” administration, I don’t know whether we can expect any improvement when things change politically, and I note with alarm that their would-be successors are all dexterously weaving woo-woo into their campaign speeches. It’s difficult to understand how we as citizens have allowed these agencies to have become so underfunded, and yet not made much of a fuss. Here on SWIFT, we’ve made a huge fuss…
My guess is that, with the number of applications for new products being reviewed, site inspections, post-market surveillance, and the like, those who work at the FDA have very little time to read SWIFT. Certainly, the mentions of quack drugs and devices that turn up from time to time would assist their enforcement division, though I feel a more proactive effort on the part of the JREF (and possibly the readers of SWIFT) of sending a quick note to the FDA alerting them of a questionable product, would result in a more efficient use of their resources.
News, Todd: we make sure that these agencies receive regular copies of SWIFT, but those can go right into the spam basket if intercepted by a person who does not support our point of view, right?
FDA has identified market surveillance as an area that needs to be improved, and is calling on the industry, medical care providers and patients/users to help by reporting adverse events. I would add notice of unapproved products, such as the EPFX, to that.
In the future, please keep the staffing and financing issues of the FDA in mind when you start pointing fingers. If they had known about this product for the entire time and done nothing when they could, then I fully agree with your criticism. However, for the most part, they are doing the best they can with the resources they have; this one may have slipped past the radar that is already clogged with countless bogies. Want better results? Encourage Congress to send more resources their way.
That’s just what we do here on SWIFT. But reaching the deaf and then restoring their hearing, is difficult…
IN CLOSING…
Many of you have commented about the strange person Bill Perron who has been flailing about in the Comments section of SWIFT. Here’s my own brief observation:
We made a decision, long ago, not to casually remove posts or posters from this site, unless matters got so “colorful” that such an action would be called for. Bill Perron’s presence here has been rather less than colorful – more of a muddy gray, but he is presently more frustrated than usual. For example, he says that we
…complained to Youtube to get the Bill Perron ten thousand dollar “Honesty Challenge” removed.
Well, that never happened. We reserve our complaints for more important matters than his mere aggravation. And, Perron is – again – not reading text correctly. It’s not “woo” that we battle against, as Perron seems to think, it’s “woo-woo,” with which he is very familiar, as a leading practitioner of that art.
Why doesn’t this man simply state what he thinks this grievous “lie” is that I told…? I’m sure we’d all like to know, so we can get his blathering off these pages! I assure you that I’m not about to cater to his demands for interaction; that’s what he’s hoping for, and that’s not “in the cards” now, or ever. We’ve now blocked Perron from this area until he decides to share this “lie” with us all, after which we will/may remove that ban. Your move, Perron…
I’d like to be able to close this week with better news, but it appears that Texas education is continuing its slide into oblivion. The Texas Education Agency – who just dumped their director of science, Christine Castillo Comer – see the item at randi.org/joom/content/view/138/27/#i7 – after superiors accused her of displaying bias against creationism and failing to be “neutral” over the teaching of evolution, has now recommended allowing a Bible-based group – the Institute for Creation Research – to offer online master’s degrees in science education!
Seriously – no joke intended – I ask whether Texas will next consider allowing degrees to be offered by the Church of Scientology, Sylvia Browne’s Church of Novus Spiritus, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. These churches claim extragalactic blue octopi, warm snow in Heaven, and Eternal Meatballs for All, which are just as ludicrous, juvenile, and irrational as the equally unsupported claim of a 6,000-year-old Earth! Surely these woo-woos will want in on the Texas action, I’d say.
As regards Mr. Roesller's theological argument, I believe he is partially correct in his interpretation of those passages, but drawing conclusions that do not seem warranted. As I recall, Judaism was originally henotheistic--meaning that they recognized the existence of multiple gods but worshiped only one. It took a while for them to decide that there weren't any other gods at all besides theirs. So in that case, the verse "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" makes sense. On the other hand, I don't think the conclusion that these gods were created by men is justified, nor do I think anyone would really buy it. After all, Christians believe in angels, and they're not mentioned in the Genesis account, but no-one concludes that therefore humans made them.
Further, I imagine that monotheists now would just wave away that interpretation of Exodus 20:3. They might claim that it means "don't worship false gods", or "don't raise other things (like money) into a god that you put before me."
Sorry, I just don't think anyone's going to have their faith shaken by that line.
... written by mlw,
December 21, 2007
I couldn't find any other place to put this. In response to something I read about your scepticism about people being able to levitate things. My mother in law, long deceased, was one of the most sceptical people I have ever known. However, in the early 20th century, while attending Columbia University, she became friends with the daughter of a man who was interested in such phenomena. One day she was called to the house of her friend (I believe the surname was Quakenbosh)and when she arrived there was a man there who levitated the common household furniture. Needless to say, she did believe in what she saw.
... written by janderson,
December 21, 2007
Skemono said: --- Further, I imagine that monotheists now would just wave away that interpretation of Exodus 20:3. They might claim that it means "don't worship false gods", or "don't raise other things (like money) into a god that you put before me." ---
But that's not even the best reference to "other gods." Feast your eyes on this:
Exodus 7:10-12 --- 7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. 7:11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. 7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods. ---
I'm sure there are other parts of the old testament where the powers of those "other" gods are successfully demonstrated, if anyone wants to dig them up.
It's also interesting to consider the transition from the monotheistic god of Judaism to the more marketable three-in-one god of Christianity. However, I think that one could argue that Satan constitutes another deity, and he's featured quite prominently in the Torah.
... written by jbspry,
December 21, 2007
I think that ultimately, you will not convince a person of faith with rational arguments however good. Those who believe do so because their reason does not give them what they need and faith does. They have already renounced reason and evidence when they embrace faith, and arguments contrary to their beliefs are precisely what they are running away from.
... written by ChuckHash,
December 21, 2007
I think it's time that Perron admits that he is really Robert De Niro disguised in an unusual moustache.
mlw, your comment above is merely another anectode. Somebody being fooled by a magic trick is proof of nothing.
... written by DrMatt,
December 21, 2007
The old joke was to spice up any particularly ludicrous statement by adding on the end of it: "in bed." The new joke works just the same, except instead, you add "in Texas."
... written by prettyblossom,
December 21, 2007
As a native hebrew speaker I can tell you not o rely to heavily on the english translations of the bible. I wouldn't rely to hard on the hebrew modern phrasing either, except that it might be closer to the original script (as much as it's possible to pin down any original script in a book that is based on oral tradition and even after it got written it got edited at least 3 major times). The 2nd commandment in hebrew does imply the existance of other gods, but mostly it just implies that people shouldn't worship false gods. The 3 books of law in the Torah (1st part of the old testament) were each written in different times - as the tolerance for other gods and forms of worship dropped, the laws got changed to represent it. One of the traditional 12 tribes of israel are actually the priests of other gods that lost their jobs during on of the reforms. In short - the bible was written by human beings and not by any devine creature, so there's no point to trust it to make any logical arguments.
... written by mmacnair,
December 21, 2007
I agree that the conclusions in regards to the ten commandments may be questionable (or not, I haven't considered it that deeply although I am definitely a non-believer), but I don't think the quality of the translation from Hebrew is really that important. It may be important when it comes to understanding the beliefs of the ancients, but modern believers use modern translations and treat them as the word of God. I think it's perfectly acceptible to criticize their beliefs based on the actual text they use to develop them and not based on the original source material. Now if you want to get into differences between King James, New American, or what have you, that can be an interesting discussion.
However, point well taken that the original and the translation often diverge. And you can't discount changes in culture and attitudes which affect the way the text is interpreted even by a native speaker. We are constantly translating, even when reading our own language...
... written by brettdbass,
December 21, 2007
ChuckHash:- I think you'll find that Perron is actually a certain Sir Terry Wogan, avec moustache de comedie...
... written by Lubab,
December 21, 2007
Regarding Randi and Roessler's 'innovative' bible explanation, Rashi, the most prominent Jewish commentator on the Bible, specifically rejects the explanation of 'other gods' they offer, in his writings almost a thousand years ago citing their theory as denigrating to God. Instead he gives two alternative explanations which explain these words as not referring to real God's, but rather as impotent and inanimate creations that were worshiped by other nations of the time. See accompanying translation for a further point on this.
Secondly, nothing should be derived from the phrase 'to set against me'. The translation is arbitrary as the words cannot be translated verbatim into English.
A highly respected and authoritative translation by Jewish scholars translates the verse as: 'You shall not recognize the gods of others in my presence.' This destroys both your inferences, from the first half of the.verse - 'God's of others' NOT 'other God's' - and from the second half of the verse, which translates simply as 'in my presence.'
I continue to be amazed at how many contradictions, inconsistencies, and purported errors in the Bible 'discovered' recently, have been answered by commentaries written hundreds of years ago.
Janderson wrote: "But that's not even the best reference to "other gods." Feast your eyes on this ....."
Here too Jewish tradition explains that Satan (as well as evil, and the witchcraft performed by the magicians of Egypt) is not an entity distinct from God, but is dependent on God for its energy and existence. How this works is too complicated to explain here.
... written by RvLeshrac,
December 21, 2007
But where does that explain the rods-to-snakes? If it was merely 'the work of the devil,' then why do we not now have individuals turning rods into snakes? Why do psychics have such horrible failure rates?
Assigning deities to events listed in the bible doesn't make them (or the deities) any more real or accurate.
... written by Apreche,
December 21, 2007
As an ethnic jew who is also an atheist, and a skeptic, I have taken a slight interest in what early monotheists believed, and the secular origins of the religion. It does seem to be the case that early monotheists did believe in the existence of many gods. However, they believed that one of those gods was superior to all the others, and they worshiped only that one. They seem to also believe that there one god battled and destroyed the others. While of course, gods doing battle is purely the realm of mythology, it does seem that the judeo-christian deity has in fact mostly done away with his competitors.
To anyone is more interested in this topic I suggest reading Douglas Rushkoff's soon to be completed comic book series Testament published by DC/Vertigo. It is quite excellent.
... written by marc,
December 21, 2007
Mr. Roessler explicitly stated his own uncertainty of the validity of his argument. First, many Christians believe that Biblical translation was "divinely" guided. That is why they have a particular affinity for the King James version. Under their assumption, literal interpretation is allowed. Unfortunately, as Randi notes, there is plenty of wiggle room. While an individual to whom this argument is presented is required to exercise a little thought in refuting it. Granted, many true believers simply dismiss criticism as blasphemy without a second thought, but we are focusing on those with at least a touch of curiosity. Little exercises like this can help develop the foundations of skepticism. I have never told my kindergartner that God or Santa Claus do not exist. Nor do I plan to. I do, however, force him to consider the plausability of certain magical aspects of each. He has been rather ingenious in his 5-year-old mental yoga thus far, but he has already accepted that magic isn't real. It is only a matter of time before he discovers the truth about gods and god-like entities for himself. Non-bullet-proof arguments like Roessler's are paving the way.
... written by marc,
December 21, 2007
I am a victim of the danger of altering the post just before hitting the "Add Comment" button. This is how I hoped it would appear:
Mr. Roessler explicitly stated his own uncertainty of the validity of his argument. Many Christians believe that Biblical translation was "divinely" guided. That is why they have a particular affinity for the King James version. Under their assumption, literal interpretation is allowed.
Unfortunately, as Randi notes, there is plenty of wiggle room. An individual to whom this argument is presented is, however, required to exercise a little thought in refuting it. Granted, many true believers simply dismiss criticism as blasphemy without a second thought, but we are focusing on those with at least a touch of curiosity.
Little exercises like this can help develop the foundations of skepticism. I have never told my kindergartner that God or Santa Claus do not exist. Nor do I plan to. I do, however, force him to consider the plausability of certain magical aspects of each. He has been rather ingenious in his 5-year-old mental yoga thus far, but he has already accepted that magic isn't real. It is only a matter of time before he discovers the truth about gods and god-like entities for himself. Non-bullet-proof arguments like Roessler's are paving the way.
... written by bigjohn756,
December 21, 2007
After reading that the Texas Educational Agency was touting The Institute for Creation Research as an advanced education option, I decided to check the courses offered. Here are some excerpts from a few of the course descriptions.
In the Astro/Geophysics curriculum:
AG 505 GEOCHRONOLOGY
"...that together indicate that nuclear decay was grossly accelerated during a recent catastrophic event in earth history and that the earth is therefore young."
AG 507 PALEOCLIMATOLOGY
"Climates before and after the Genesis Flood."
AG 513 CREATION AND COSMOLOGY
..the basics of cosmology, outlines the big-bang theory, and contrasts it with several creationist cosmologies."
In the Biology curriculum:
BI 504 ADVANCED COMPARATIVE ANATOMY/LAB
"...identifying the similarities and differences of gross anatomical structures of representative vertebrate animals and their relevance in the Creation/Evolution controversy."
In the Geology curriculum:
GE 502 GEOLOGY OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD
"...the primary geological and geophysical evidences for a global flood."
It goes on and on in much the same way. See for yourself, if you think you can stand it, at : http://www.icr.edu/index.html
Now, I have to clean the vomit off of my keyboard...I live in Texas and it's making me sick to see what's going on here.
... written by Diverted Chrome,
December 21, 2007
Jay's comments are obvious to any Rabbi, Doctorate of Theology and (most, if they paid attention) Hebrew grade school grads. This may be a bit base for readers of this blog; Exodus was written by and for Jews. Though Xtians and Moz may have borrowed it to suit their whims, it was not written with those two religions in mind (predating them by many centuries). During times that Jews lived under Roman rule, it would have been plainly acknowledged that there were other Gods: Roman, Egyptian, Greek, etc. The Jews believed their God sided with them, as they were his "chosen" people. This is mentioned throughout the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) and Jewish (i.e. old) Testament. It's no surprise, it's Judaic history! As pointed out above, there are many references to multiple Gods in the Old Testament. But then, Christians have no business referencing the Judaic stuff anyway. They wouldn't get into as much logical trouble if they stayed in their pwn Testament. As pointed out, much of the Old Testament simply does not translate well to English (if you research King James you'll see his motivations). Jay, this is one of the main reasons kids have to learn Hebrew for their Mitzvah. People can argue about how Jewish interpretation has changed to fit whims but what was written at the time is still there (as Apreche correctly points out). They believed (naturally) that their God was better then the other Mediterranean Gods. Lubab correctly point out inference mistakes. As always, if you want to figure out the Old Testament, you go to a rabbi, not a priest. It's simply not their designated territory.
... written by WIscienceteacher,
December 21, 2007
The courses offered at ICR are UNBELIEVABLE! I noticed one comment in the course description about how they will teach you about bias in interpretting the fossil record. As if they have a clue about being unbiased at the Institute for Creation Research! As a science teacher, this infuriates me!
Happy Winter Solstice, Everyone!
... written by Zirconman,
December 21, 2007
I think the staff to snakes bit is a throwback to pagan rituals involving phallic symbols. The glory and the power go to the god with the meaner wiener...
... written by Eric Haas,
December 21, 2007
Here's a mention of another god in the Bible:
Judges 11:24 - Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.
Here the Bible is trying to legitimize a claim made by Yahweh, by comparing it to a similar claim made by the god of another nation. This would make absolutely no sense if Chemosh were considered to be a false god.
... written by anyvainlegend,
December 21, 2007
"Laughable" is all I can say to brettdbass's suggestion that Bill Perron is the alter ego of Sir Terry Wogan. One is a veteran television and radio presenter in the UK. The other is a turkey in cape who lives in LA. Not in that order...
... written by metzomagic,
December 21, 2007
bigjohn756, hi,
Whoa! That ICR site you pointed us at:
http://www.icr.edu/index.html
sports DNA sequences on its front page graphic. I suppose that's supposed to have some kind of over-arching significance, like what... 'God' made DNA!? Frankly, I couldn't go further than that. I was afraid of what I might find.
MetzO'Magic P.S. Oops. I couldn't resist. Hazarded a quick look at the student 'handbook'. the first para under 'Conduct' says:
"Since the ICR Graduate School recognizes the freedom of each student to develop in response to the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and since graduate students are already recognized as Christian leaders in the community, it is expected that they will exemplify a God-controlled life of righteousness and morality without administrative attention or regulation."
Well, that firmly rules me out. Think I'll stick to my secular 'religion'. [ROTFLMAO]
... written by Mr. Gordy,
December 21, 2007
Here is another polytheistic claim from Deuteronomy 32:8-9
32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. ("children of Israel" should be read, according to The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4QDeut "bny ’lwhm" as "sons of God")
32:9 For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
According to Dan Barker and Annie Gaylor's Freethought Radio podcast July 22 06 episode "Elyon" gets translated as "Most High", and "Yahweh" as "Lord". These are two different gods. In other words, The Judeo-Christian god Yahweh is one of the many sons of the God Elyon (A pagan Deity that predates the Israelites) and receives as his inheritance Israel.
... written by CWS,
December 21, 2007
Well, bigjohn756, I also live in Texas. That was an interesting list of courses. Now that you've cleaned the vomit off your keyboard, think about this for a second - Texas will just make that "academic" path possible, which is disgusting, but what IF the country elects Huckabee as the next Head Pastor....er, I mean President? Then, will they be "required" courses for any degree at UT??? Damn, it is getting scary!
... written by CWS,
December 21, 2007
I forgot to say, for those not paying attention to the news, that Huckabee is one of THREE GOP candidates who "don't believe in evolution".
... written by Vodhin,
December 22, 2007
In "Exposed Again," it actually almost looks like the key bent in the other direction- just a smidgen. I have made a composite image if Geller's key here, merged from the two photos:
I believe they dropped it some years back, but the ICR used to have an oath required by all, ahem, 'graduates' of its 'academic' programs wherein the grad would swear to never ever make a scientific finding that in any way contradicted the word of the Holy Bible. That is precisely the way of the Dark Ages.
... written by Legacy76,
December 22, 2007
Apologies in advance for the caps, but...
TO THE VISITOR WHO IS A FAN OF JOHN EDWARDS AND BUBOIS, WELCOME! I hope that you learn something. I certainly have.
... written by BubbaB,
December 23, 2007
RE: Shaking faith in God/god/gods/etc.
I've taken to presenting this argument: "Since Satan is the great deceiver, how do you know you haven't been deceived?"
It's usually met with all sorts of variations on "God is love", "God is what's good", etc. Which then can be countered with "How do you know that all those before you haven't been deceived?"
Finally, unable to come up with *ANY* viable counterargument, they usually end with "You just have to have faith" or "I'll pray for you". Seems people don't like the very foundation of their faith messed with.
... written by Weatherwax,
December 24, 2007
It seems to me Bill Perron is showing typical stalking behavior. Frantically flailing around trying desperately to get Randi to respond to him.
... written by borealys,
December 24, 2007
Regarding the pronunciation of the word "route" ... I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's a dialect thing, rather than a language change thing. Based on my own experience (as a Canadian resident with a large number of relatives and friends in the US), the line between who says "root" and who says "rout" is drawn very neatly along the Canada-US border. (I and all of my friends up here say "root.") Of course, I spent two years studying phonology under a professor who was very interested in Canadian dialect variants, and the pronunciation of the word "route" never came up, so the distinction may not be quite as neatly-drawn as I've always presumed it is.
... written by avillarrealpouw,
December 25, 2007
The idea that Bill Perron and Sir Terry Wogan are the same is a very bad and irresponsible joke. If you are talking about a passing physical resemblance, there is one but only if looking from half a city block away. If it is about similarity of ideas, you are either lacking in explanations or simply insulting without a reason.
... written by Walk,
December 25, 2007
avillarrealpouw,
Yes, this IS an insult to Sir Wogan, although I’m sure Brettdbass didn’t mean any harm.
... written by Armitage Shanks,
December 26, 2007
Geller is going to quietly slip in behind the current popularity of "mentalists". It's his route (rhymes with coot) out of the story he's built up around his "powers". For the very reasons, methinks, that you state in your opening paragraph.
... written by KevinDW78,
December 26, 2007
I think "rout" (r-ow-t) is a more British pronunciation(?). Some people also pronounce charade as "sha-rod" instead of "sha-raid". Personally, I blame it on watching too much Patrick Stewart playing Captain Picard.
... written by KevinDW78,
December 26, 2007
On the whole Bible discussion - is anyone else in agreement with me that instead of Bibles, we should have "missionaries" going door to door handing out Ayn Rand and Carl Sagan? I mean, it's obvious the whole Bible thing isn't working toward advancing mankind, maybe we should try some different books for a change.
... written by Eric Haas,
December 27, 2007
Kevin, the trick is getting people to read them.
... written by euclid@hcoop.net,
December 27, 2007
Kevin: Wow, just imagine a world where all the smart people deny they have any responsibility to society and seclude themselves in remote areas to worship the dollar.
Oh wait. It seems we already live in that world -- and it sucks.
... written by KevinDW78,
December 27, 2007
Wow, just imagine a world where all the smart people deny they have any responsibility to society and seclude themselves in remote areas to worship the dollar.
Wow. That statement is about as ignorant and accurate as saying that "Les Miserables" was about some students protesting in France. You (intentionally or unintentionally) completely missed the message.
... written by tracer,
December 27, 2007
DO NOT QUESTION THE WISDOM OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
... written by euclid@hcoop.net,
December 28, 2007
Kevin:
It may have been short, but it wasn't ignorant or inaccurate. The underlying message in all of Rand's books is that you should live for yourself and nobody else. That message is drilled into your head 1000 times over using the most absurd straw-man situations ever found in literature.
If Les Miserables were written by Ayn Rand the heroes of the book would be The Thénardiers.
... written by Weatherwax,
December 28, 2007
I don't know which of Randi's book you've read, Kevin, but I never got that message from any of the ones I've read.
If nothing else, Randi's lifestyle belies any such statement. He could easily be conning the population at large, instead of devoting his life to exposing the vultures that live that way.
... written by prosfilaes,
December 29, 2007
euclid@hcoop.net was referring to Rand (Ayn Rand), not Randi. It's not accurate to say they worshipped the dollar; the subject of money never came up in Anthem, and in the Fountainhead, the hero of the book refuses to compromise for money. I do find it a horribly unrealistic philosophy for a tribal species like humans, but it was in response to a set of philosophies that told people to let themselves be screwed over in the name of "us", "us" usually being lead by someone who enjoys living high on the hog and lording over the lower scum in the name of a bogus philosophy.
... written by Weatherwax,
December 30, 2007
I never really got into Rand. Her philosophies may have started out well, but her movement quicky degenerated into a very destructive cult, with her as the absolute dictatorial leader. (See Michael Shermer's 'Why people believe wierd things.')
... written by Cheerful Dragon,
December 31, 2007
I know this is late, but I only just found this site.
Regarding the English translation of original Hebrew texts, the King James Authorized version certainly wasn't arrived at by divine guidance. It was a few dozen men who were 'experts' at Hebrew, Greek and Latin sitting down together and thrashing things out. Where there were different possible translations they picked the one that sounded best, not the one that was most accurate, because back then the Bible was most often read aloud. Nuances in the Hebrew language were ignored as untranslateable. So anybody who bases their faith on the English version of the Bible, claiming it to be 'the word of God', is on shakey ground before they start. The recent changes, making it less gender specific ('Lord' stays, I think, but words like 'shepherd' are out) and using more modern language just make matters worse.
At school my Religious Education teacher, an ordained Anglican vicar, told us that the Bible contains laws, parables and myths, and very little fact. He certainly wasn't a Creationist. I guess most British schools, even those tied to a particular brand of Christianity, don't have the same weight of "you will believe" that seems to affect some US states.
... written by KevinDW78,
December 31, 2007
The point I was making is that all of Rand's philosophy says base your life and decision on Aristotelian logic, reason, and rationality. She then extended that practice into the socio-economic realm. In response to euclid, the Thernardiers were robbers and looters. The term "looter" is exactly what Rand uses to describe the evil people of the world. You also might note that Ayn Rand whote introductions for the publications of Victor Hugo's books.
... written by jburman,
January 06, 2008
Dear James Randi,
I am writing to thank you for your courage to find the truth. From your work I have gained inspiration that the scienific method is our best tool with which to search for truth. Currently, I am a Ph.D. student in Neuroscience. My work has linked a gene that causes neurodegenerative to a new intracellular pathway. A small step in the great story of science, that has been inspired in part by you and your work. Thank you so much for helping me find meaning and a reason for life. Let's keep hope alive and spread truth seeking to all!
beside you time,
Jonathon Burman
... written by nweaver,
January 08, 2008
You know the Flying Spaghetti monster is superior, as his noodly one offers the stripper factory and the beer volcano.
... written by Steel Rat,
January 17, 2008
I've always pronounced it as "out" with an r on the front. Seems the most right to me. After all, in computer networking, you don't have "rooters" do you? Anyway, root is pronounced "root", therefore route is different, like "about", "without", "lout", etc.. Let's not lapse into the Canadian mass mis-pronunciation of all words with "ou" in them. ;)
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment (login is on the left column under the PEOPLE section). Please register if you do not have an account yet.
Announcer: One key is bending.
Geller: I just want to show it to the camera...
Show/Hide comments
Further, I imagine that monotheists now would just wave away that interpretation of Exodus 20:3. They might claim that it means "don't worship false gods", or "don't raise other things (like money) into a god that you put before me."
Sorry, I just don't think anyone's going to have their faith shaken by that line.