Who Ruined Britain

[corydoras]

....

they say blind faith and they have a point

I'll say Amen to that.

[The Flying Tench]

No one thinks you are mad tench, not even me, but a bit of critical thinking would not go amiss. There are no ghosts, demons, leprechauns or tooth faeries. There is not on jot of evidence, I mean evidence the likes of which might stand up in a court of law, empirical evidence that anything supernatural exists.

 

Well you may not think I am mad, but Chesters does! 'mad or extremely gullible'.

 

As for critical thinking, I think I am quite up that street. At school we were told when we were about 12 that you should never believe anything you were told unless you were given good evidence, and my twin brother and i gave the teachers a fair bit of stick from that day on questioning nearly everything they said! Incidently, twin brother is now an academic brain researcher and also believes in demons - the biblical sort, not of course the type in television fantasies!

 

It's an interesting question about whether the evidence would stand up in law. My understanding is that the courts rely on 'expert witnesses'. Now it would be very hard to get an expert witness to stand up in court and say they believe in tooth fairies - but ghost and demons, that is another matter. As I have said, there are plenty of psychiatrists, for example, who believe in demons - as well as even more, no doubt, who don't - though some of these I think will still refer patients with 'possession syndrome' to an exorcist because - it works. As for ghosts - surely, isn't it an open question?

 

An interesting book on this kind of issue is 'Deliver us from evil' by John Richards, the result of a church study group on the area. He (or they) concluded that there were several explanations of ghost manifestations - imprints from the past (eg a phantom lorry that was seen hurtling along where a road had been, to the extent that accidents were caused; poltergeists (noisy footfalls in the next room, objects being thrown about) thought to be a kind of psychic energy emanating from an individual; demons (spirits); and, more cautiously, there is some evidence of souls who haven't found it 'easy to leave' - even though I'm not sure how the last one fits my theology - but I base what I believe on evidence, not my prior assumptions! Case studies, of course, are given to illustrate all of these. My understanding from others, borne out also through my own more limited experience, is that all these phenomena yield to prayer.

 

Incidently, on the question of standing up in court, it gives the example of an astrologist, Evangeline Adams, had up in court in New York in 1932. In defence she offered to do a blind horoscope on any birth data given by the judge. Her personality sketch based on this was so accurate that she was found not guilty. (For what it's worth, my non-expert understanding is that astrologers don't tell anything by the stars - much is just clever psychology, but the 10% real scary stuff is through spirit guides).

 

Let me finish with just one of the many case studies. Rev George Tarleton was phoned by a policeman to say they had a 17 year old boy in hospital who had been in a trance for 3 days staring at the ceiling. It had all begun when he went to a ouija session. The boy had been so violent even the father had been scared to go near. When they had said they wanted him to stay in hospital he had 'clawed his brother to the ground and ran off into the night. It's not clear how he came back, but since that time he had been in the trance and no-one could help him. Papers had already been signed for him to go into a mental hospital. George Tarleton writes ' I commanded the spirit.. to leave him. Within 5 minutes he had returned to normal, much to the amazement of all'.

 

3 questions:

 

1. How do you explain what happened?

 

2. Much of the credibility of science is that 'it works. I suspect I could have helped the boy in the same way as George T, though I'd have been pretty scared. Would you have been able to help?

 

3. Even if if if some other explanation could be produced, was what George T did beneficial or otherwise for society? Should he be castigated for believing in 'demons and all that kind of nonsense'?

 

John

[Newt]

For those among you who are proud of only believing what you can see, hear, smell, taste or touch, consider how narrow our sensory range is.

We cannot hear low or high frequencies that are well within the range of many animals so if a being of some sort were speaking at 50Hz or 12,000Hz, we would not be aware of it.

We cannot see very far into the infrared or ultraviolet so could easily miss objects or beings that only radiated outside our range.

 

Certainly we could use instruments to extend that range but unaided, we'd be unaware anything was happening.

 

I feel certain that there are senses we totally lack so not only would we be unaware but we could hardly build instruments to measure what we didn't know existed. How do animals react to earthquakes that haven't happened yet? We know they do but are pretty clueless as to exactly how they know.

 

Doubt all you want but be very careful about holding with a certainty that things you've not had evidence of do not exist.

[Huge_Vitae]

For those among you who are proud of only believing what you can see, hear, smell, taste or touch, consider how narrow our sensory range is.

We cannot hear low or high frequencies that are well within the range of many animals so if a being of some sort were speaking at 50Hz or 12,000Hz, we would not be aware of it.

We cannot see very far into the infrared or ultraviolet so could easily miss objects or beings that only radiated outside our range.

 

Certainly we could use instruments to extend that range but unaided, we'd be unaware anything was happening.

 

I feel certain that there are senses we totally lack so not only would we be unaware but we could hardly build instruments to measure what we didn't know existed. How do animals react to earthquakes that haven't happened yet? We know they do but are pretty clueless as to exactly how they know.

 

Doubt all you want but be very careful about holding with a certainty that things you've not had evidence of do not exist.

Very right Newt, I don't know if anybody else saw or has heard about it, I saw a Documentary last week about a dog that has been trained to react to the signs its owner, a severe epileptic, is going to have a fit. It gives her up to 20 mins warning, sits, barks and then leads her to her bedroom.

 

The Dog is near 100% accurate and nothing else, Human nor Machine can come close to its sence in this matter.

 

If you showed this to a million people and asked them to rate the dog on a scale of 1~10, 1 being scary and 10 being fantastic I suppose you would get mixed results.

[Huge_Vitae]

Let me finish with just one of the many case studies. Rev George Tarleton was phoned by a policeman to say they had a 17 year old boy in hospital who had been in a trance for 3 days staring at the ceiling. It had all begun when he went to a ouija session. The boy had been so violent even the father had been scared to go near. When they had said they wanted him to stay in hospital he had 'clawed his brother to the ground and ran off into the night. It's not clear how he came back, but since that time he had been in the trance and no-one could help him. Papers had already been signed for him to go into a mental hospital. George Tarleton writes ' I commanded the spirit.. to leave him. Within 5 minutes he had returned to normal, much to the amazement of all'.

 

3 questions:

 

1. How do you explain what happened?

 

2. Much of the credibility of science is that 'it works. I suspect I could have helped the boy in the same way as George T, though I'd have been pretty scared. Would you have been able to help?

 

3. Even if if if some other explanation could be produced, was what George T did beneficial or otherwise for society? Should he be castigated for believing in 'demons and all that kind of nonsense'?

I doubt the truth in your example John, I doubt it actually happened, certainly would not have occurred in this Country.

 

Therefore my answer to question 1) would be "No."

 

Hypothetically my answer to 2) and 3) Is IF it is accurately reported, If it works, don't fix it.

[The Flying Tench]

I doubt the truth in your example John, I doubt it actually happened, certainly would not have occurred in this Country.

 

The story was from a booklet by an English vicar recounting his own experience. I accept that it is the kind of area where rumour and exaggerations could occur, but in this case any distortion would have to come from the man himself - which seems unlikely to me, but admittedly I have never met the man. I have read of many such stories from UK and overseas, but the only cases I have witnessed personally have been less dramatic - though sufficiently similar to give some credence.

[chesters1]

Very right Newt, I don't know if anybody else saw or has heard about it, I saw a Documentary last week about a dog that has been trained to react to the signs its owner, a severe epileptic, is going to have a fit. It gives her up to 20 mins warning, sits, barks and then leads her to her bedroom.

 

The Dog is near 100% accurate and nothing else, Human nor Machine can come close to its sence in this matter.

 

If you showed this to a million people and asked them to rate the dog on a scale of 1~10, 1 being scary and 10 being fantastic I suppose you would get mixed results.

the dog just see's what i do i know when my mrs is going to have a fit if i'm watching her for about the same time ,i could be distracted doing something else all that dog has to do is be near ,he's not on the computer playing games or engrossed in a tv prog etc.

my mrs gives of subtle signs she doesnt know she's giving out but if you observe they are there.

most of the time i'm not watching her so i miss the signs the dog probably has more free time to just watch

 

for the disillusioned and "foretelling" its all subtle mind games and derren brown would be the first to admit it nothing more than illusion and as for mr Tench's "trance" perhaps no more than self induced coma ,coma victims on recovering tell us they can hear (and perhaps see) whats going on around (hence this new idea of talking to them) our visiting vicar getting rid of those naughty demons may have just woken the coma person up as other things seem to ,i for one having a stranger talking to me mentioning god would have me out of a "trance" in a trice mostly so i could take the mick

unfortunately the courts use of "expert witnesses" is no more true than any "Expert" on earth as we have seen with "expert witnesses" or mere "experts" using nothing more than their opinion no need for "facts" to cloud things is there

i could be an "expert" on Intrepid reels i probably have the largest collection of data on them and an impressive collection but i'm man enough to admit i dont know everything about them and others may have facts i dont possess but unfortunately from what i see of "experts" on the TV or Media they believe they know everything but unfortunately not expert enough to admit there are holes in their knowledge which could turn around 100% whatever they are consulted on (just as i can be in anything).the words "may", "could" and "perhaps" seem to be taken as "will" ,"will" and "definitely" because he's an "expert" nothing more needed! real evidence is not needed when experts are about.opinions are just that in non experts but in experts opinions become fact

 

the human brain is an awesome bit of wiring it can summon up god or demons ghosties or goolies all by itself just as it can reduce pain or imagine a lost legs still there ,no doupt you can switch bits off (or at least reduce its workings) by brain surgery or psychiatry or merely self hypnosis so its all in your head as are voices from god brahma or any other "force" the problem comes when you dont realise its all in your head (the reason no-one else appears to hear those people speaking to you nearbye is a bit of a clue) and act out those voices instructions ,it could be good things (god had a word) and off you go helping people or it could be bad stuff (shall we balance it saying its the devil) and of you go wiping out class rooms the fact is though its all in your head a mental abberation not some outside "force" having a chat IMHO

 

as for my "sign" it never appeared so perhaps gods mouthpiece on this arrangement had prior appointments ,i knew it wouldnt they never appear to sane people mind you were a bit short this week so a "sighting" of mary could just provide a bit extra in entrance fees to my garden for the god afflicted catholics there she goes again beckoning whats that blood coming from her eyes blimey what a thing too see must be a sign ,yup off full coffers sure beats a boring steeple fund any day

and yup people will be cured of something or other even if its not real the brain has remarkable ways of doing things ,i just wonder if i can list all those prospective wheelchairs and walking sticks on ebay " this gods work is tiring you know and all those descriptions to write !!!our tv "ministries" probably just recycle them into the next TV sermon

 

if god were a good god why does he allow sufferening of the innocent ?bugger i forgot the church has had two thousand years to dream up reasons he doesn't ,those darn "mysterious ways" take a lot of hassle out of dreaming up plausible ones ,or indeed real ones

Edited October 20, 2008 by chesters1

[Emma two]

I didn't know that the religion 'thing' was/had been done in this thread, and must confess to not having read it until this morning as until very recently I have confined myself to the fishin' threads only. It is encouraging to see so many thoughtful and informed opinions from all perspectives. As a general point i belive that is is extremely healthy to be able to have these kinds of debates.

[chesters1]

its a typical AN outlook on life outside fishing

[Alan Stubbs]

I've read this thread with interest and am surprised it hasn't had a mention in the Fortean Times!

 

I believe faith to be an intensely personal thing and proselytisation is unacceptable. I have no right to force my beliefs on others, but feel they have no right to inflict theirs on me.

 

On the other hand, it's good to debate an issue from a purely theoretical point of view and allow personal conclusions to be drawn.

 

I'd probably have more faith in the church if it wasn't for the people running it, who seem to want to be all things to all men and in the process become as nothing to anyone. The current lack of leadership in the Church of England is a case in point.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Alan Stubbs