The Future of Skepticism

I was listening to an old podcast - Episode 231 - of the SGU yesterday, and a listener asked a question about the future of skepticism.

So first, have we gotten more skeptical?

Jay thinks we have, overall. Our science has progressed a great deal. And our ability to get information with the internet is so much more profound now. But the number of people who believe in woo hasn't gone down.

Rebecca is very optimistic. It's not necessarily about the number of people who believe in weird things, but that we are neutering superstitions and myths and turning them from something dangerous into something that is just a pastime for the wealthy.

There's still a tremendous amount of work to go when it comes to dangerous pseudoscience and superstition, but in general we're doing OK. Our scientific knowledge is growing, and will continue to grow into the forseeable future.

Bob can see it going either way. Skepticism has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years or so, but irrational beliefs have also grown. We'll never get rid of superstitious belief, but in the future it could be marginalized to a degree we haven't seen. But it could also totally go nuts, totally descending into superstition. As science gets more and more complicated and technological, I could see people just giving up on it, and treating it like a religion, that it's so complicated that you have your "techno-priests" that nobody can understand. Who knows if they're telling the truth.

I'm an Evangelist

This picture and quote from the Dalai Lama was put on my Facebook wall by a future relative who we will call Rachel.

Now, considering our mildly confrontational Facebook exchanges in the past, I felt chided and I admit I got a bit defensive in the conversation that unfolded.

I won't bore you with the whole exchange, but here is the key point she made:

Rachel: ..."It basically says that changing the beliefs of others and judging the Life Path of others is not your duty or responsibility, just as it is no one's duty or responsibility to change YOUR beliefs or judge YOUR Life Path. When one makes a mission out of converting others to their way of thinking, they become a missionary... an extremist. And no one likes an extremist. Live and let live!"

Now, I certainly felt she was accusing me of being a missionary for atheism, and therefore an extremist. Which of course, is faulty logic. (I believe that's the slippery slope) In other words, she's saying if I talk about my atheism to try to change another's beliefs, I am an atheist missionary which means I am automatically an extremist. It's excluding the middle and saying if you do it at all, you go to the Extreme! (you have to shout the word extreme like you are in a commercial for the WWE)

I'm glad she posted this picture and said that to me because it helped me to clarify how I go about interacting with people. First, I do not go onto the walls of other people on Facebook and foist my worldview onto them. I do not engage with people unless they come to me first and start the conversation.

If Only It Were True

I live under a (nice mossy) rock, so I am pretty slow to hear about things that are all the rage. During the Superbowl, we were at a restaurant with TVs. (Unfortunately I saw a bit of Half Time and have had Madonna singing "Like a Prayer" in my head ever since... gah!)

Anyway, I saw a commercial for something called Sensa, a weight loss product that you sprinkle on your food. I noticed in the ad they didn't explain at all, so I wrote it down and looked it up later.

Now, the reason I'm writing this article is not necessarily to debunk Sensa exactly, but to talk about what went on in my head as I read their site. I am happy to call myself a skeptic, and I try to use critical thinking and reasoning whenever I can.

So first I went to the site that was in the ad: Sensa.com. The site has an embedded video with an anecdotal story from a TV personality, they offer a free trial, there are shiny pictures of people eating healthy foods, a seriously simplistic explanation of how it works, and several big red buttons to click to try it for free*.

There are a number of logical fallacies, your classic marketing, strewn about. But in the midst of the typical BS, there is a clinical study that is mentioned over and over. A few places scattered about different sites claim that the study was peer-reviewed (by the Endocrine Society?) but there is no mention of that paper on that site, and apparently that journal says they never did the peer review. I also read that the journal that apparently reviewed the study is partly run by Alan Hirsch, the creator of Sensa. Another red flag. So take all of that with a grain of salt!

So here are the findings: 100 control people did not use the Tastants. 1,436 men and women did. The control group lost an average of 2 lbs. The people in the treatment group lost an average of 30.5 lbs in 6 months, which was nearly 15% of their body weight.

This is really important. The participants were not required to change their normal diet or exercise. Also, they were told to stay on whatever diet they were on before they started.

Now, I had read the front of their site, and I found myself believing it. I noticed that I really wanted it to be true, it was all so shiny and wonderful, and there was a study, so it must be real!

Last year I lost 45 lbs through a radical diet plan (eat less, eat healthier and move a lot more.) But I was often hungry, and am even now for large parts of every day, which totally sucks. So I was thinking, I don't need to lose any more weight, but if this could help me feel full, I'd be so happy! And my husband Butch is still trying to lose weight. It could help him too!

I thought it was fascinating that I took everything at face value at first and believed the hype, the surface marketing. When I started reading other things that were red flags, I noticed that I tried to rationalize them! We all do this, I am pretty sure. You'd have to be a Vulcan to not rationalize something that you really wish were true.

The difference is, I didn't just order the stuff and disregard the red flags. I looked deeper and put my Critical Thinking cap back on.

Everything Does NOT Happen For A Reason, But...

My cousin emailed my sister and I today to tell us what is going on in her life. She's in her early 30's, has been married a few years, and wants to have a child at some point soon. She found out she's got some problems that are bigger than just fertility, but that cause infertility as well.

So she's understandably upset. But, she said, "I'm trying to stay as positive as possible and keep one of my favorite sayings in the back of my mind "everything happens for a reason", which is what your nephew just got tattooed onto his stomach."

Now, when I hear stuff like this, klaxons go off in my head and I just want to box their ears and ask, "Why? Why on earth would you think that?"

Of course, they don't know any better. Our culture is infused with this myth. Confirmation Bias and wishful thinking make it seem like there is some cosmic consciousness watching out for us. Even some atheists say it (and believe it). Of course that doesn't make it true.

So here is my question to you, my godless, skeptical friends. My cousin is depressed and facing a difficult situation. She is getting a lot of comfort out of this belief.

What would you do? Would you disabuse her of it? Would you at least try to illuminate her with reality? Would you just say something comforting? Or would you just ignore the statement and talk about the rest of her situation?

I read the email a couple hours ago and it is taking all my willpower not to reply with reason-based facts. She is a nurse so she is not averse to science, but that doesn't mean she doesn't still embrace the standard woo that most people do.

I want to be kind, helpful and understanding. Personally I think believing these myths is harmful in the long run, even if they are comforting in the short term.

Please share your thoughts and how you'd handle it.

Happy Carl Sagan Day - November 9

Happy (slightly belated) Carl Sagan Day! Yesterday was Carl's birthday and that's a good reason to celebrate the wonders of the Cosmos. Not that we need an excuse.

As you may remember, I'm reading The Demon-Haunted World and this is my second post sharing some of Carl's most inspiring and thought-provoking passages.

Science arouses a soaring sense of wonder. But so does pseudoscience. Sparse and poor popularizations of science abandon ecological niches that pseudoscience promptly fills. If it were widely understood that claims to knowledge require adequate evidence before they can be accepted, there would be no room for pseudoscience. But a kind of Gresham's Law prevails in popular culture by which bad science drives out good. (p 6) 

How depressingly true. So what can we do about it? What can you and I do about it? We can drive this point home, to everyone we know, that knowledge requires adequate evidence. Then follow up with what adequate evidence means (such as, not (usually) anecdotes, etc).

This is something you can do even on Facebook, or with your friends and family, or as a blogger. We can all help spread this important information that is obviously not getting to most people.

The Most Precious Thing

For my book club, and for Carl Sagan Day - November 9th - I am reading The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan (kindle edition).

This is one of those books that I never knew about when it came out. Once I became a skeptic several years ago, I just never had a chance to read it. It's one of those books that every skeptic should read, really, so it's about time.

I want to share it with you as I read it. Just the really wonderful bits that are too good to keep to myself.

"My parents were not scientists. They knew almost nothing about science. But in introducing me simultaneously to skepticism and to wonder, they taught me the two uneasily cohabiting modes of thought that are central to the scientific method."  (pg xiii)

This, to me is the greatest gift you can give to someone. The gift of genuine wonder and skepticism. The whole world becomes amazing as it can only do with science. And skepticism helps you avoid falling into delusion as well as to help avoid being duped and scammed.

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have." Albert Einstein (pg 2)

Everything Happens For A Reason?

Just the other night at dinner with my heathen friends, a woman I had just met (who labels herself something like "nonreligious") had this mini conversation with us:

Woman: "Everything happens for a reason."
Me (to myself): cough cough... Bullshit! (I couldn't think of a nice, non-aggressive way to say this so I took another bite of my dinner)
Butch (my atheist husband): "I don't believe that it does. Think about all the bad things that happen to good people."

At which point I can't remember what happened. I think someone changed the subject.

But I get this a lot. And to be honest, it probably wasn't that many years ago that I used to believe it myself.

If you're religious, which most people are, I understand your thinking that God and Satan basically guide you, tempt you and otherwise have a hand in your life. Ok. You have a personal god who is active in your life. You are a puppet.

But when a nonreligious person says it, then I start to wonder a bit more, and of course it makes me reflect on my progress from Christian to Spiritual to Skeptical Naturalist/Atheist.

Just because someone doesn't believe in gods, it does not follow that they automatically don't believe in anything supernatural. Even though I know this intellectually (and went through that spiritual/new age phase myself after becoming an atheist), I still find it jarring.

My question to you, though is, Why? Why do think that there is an invisible force acting in your life?

A Delicate Situation

As you may know, I used to unquestioningly believe in the power of "energy". I became an atheist long before I became a skeptic. I still "knew" that there was an energy force in the universe, that we reincarnated after death, that there was justice in the form of karma, and that people could be healed by energy.

I never had any reason to doubt my beliefs. In fact, I had a lot of selective bias that showed I was pretty good at giving readings (I didn't know it but I was good at warm and cold readings), and I was very good at doing energy healings. People told me they felt better just talking to me. Now I know that just paying attention to people can be help someone feel better. I did reiki healing which is very comforting. I would pay a lot of attention to a person and really listen to them compassionately. The placebo effect did the rest.

Long before I discovered skepticism I heard something about the power of suggestion, so without knowing I was doing science (roughly) I tested out the claim that energy healing is all about just making people feel cared for and is no better than placebo. I "turned off" my healing hands (reiki) several times and people still thanked me and told me I gave them a wonderful healing.

That's when I started getting out of it all. I realized I was just doing therapy for people, and that it was psychological and not "magical" so I gracefully extricated myself from the spiritual community.

I had many friends in the spiritual community back then. Most of them stopped talking to me when I stopped giving readings and healings. One woman, we'll call her Barbara, kept asking me for readings. She would call me all the time, every few days, asking for advice. I am horrible at confrontation, so after trying to tell her I didn't do readings anymore, I broke out the cards and went ahead and tried to help her. I did my best, but I started to feel more and more uncomfortable as time went on.

Homeopathic 'Overdosers' Announce Global Challenge

Consumer rights activists worldwide are being challenged to participate in a global 'overdose' on homeopathic pills, in order to raise public awareness that the remedies are in fact worthless.

The '10:23 Challenge', scheduled to culminate worldwide in February 2011, is a follow-up to the protest staged by the 10:23 Campaign in the UK, which saw almost 400 demonstrators take to the streets across UK to voice their concern at the sales of the pills in leading pharmacy 'Boots', and the support for such 'remedies' on the NHS.

Michael Marshall of the 10:23 Campaign explained the plans for 2011: "This year has been a great year in the UK for raising awareness of homeopathy – with doctors, pharmacists, politicians and – above all – members of the public speaking out against this discredited 'treatment'.

"However, the case against homeopathy extends far beyond the UK - all around the world, people are being told that homeopathy is a valid form of treatment, and often with tragic consequences. It's a global problem, and it requires global action.

"This is why we're announcing the 10:23 Challenge for 2011 - we want to show global unity by gathering protesters from more than 10 countries, and more than 23 cities. Our aim is to have more than 1023 activists publicly gathering over the weekend of 5th-6th February, to make a statement: Homeopathy - There's Nothing In It.

“Of course, safety is our number one concern – not all homeopathy is prepared as honestly and cleanly as the manufacturers state, and can include real ingredients which could be potentially dangerous. With this in mind we urge anyone wishing to get involved to prepare their own homeopathic remedies, or contact the 10:23 Campaign for more information (contact@1023.org.uk)”.

Logical Fallacy Land Revisited

Last week I shared a crazy email I got from some crackpot (yes, that's a well deserved ad hominem attack there) trying to sell me noni juice.

Now, I think I can safely say that juice is good for you, to a certain extent. In many ways, it's way better to eat the whole fruit, because juice usually has a very high glycemic index since it no longer has any fiber in it, and usually has a lot of sugars that get metabolized quickly, spiking your blood sugar levels. But, most juice does have vitamins, some minerals, and antioxidants. While it's good to consume your vitamins and minerals in food, antioxidants have lately been under a lot of study, some positive, some negative. So while it's good to get them in food, it's probably not beneficial to go out of your way to consume huge amounts of them.

So noni juice, which comes from the noni tree in Southeast Asia, probably has some basic goodness to it. But it's not a miracle cure. See the above link to the wikipedia article that says that noni juice has never been proven to do much of anything and can't be sold as a medical cure for anything. It's just juice, people. Overpriced and sold as a multi-level marketing scheme.

The crazy email I shared the other day really tickled my funny bone because it was so ridiculous though. Some of you commented with great rebuttals (thank you very much!), but I thought I'd go through it myself with the name of the logical fallacy in bold after the false claim made. Here's the letter again:

I am an old guy who has lived in more places than most even visit, done more different types of things than most even consider doing, much actually less do. And I have had many more professions than most. (Appeal to Irrelevant Authority. So he's an active old guy who can't hold a job. Irrelevant)

More on Critical Thinking

Here's another great video about critical thinking. QualiaSoup makes some really awesome educational videos.



I transcribed it to make it easy to follow and reference:

Give someone a fish and they'll eat that day. Teach them how to catch a fish and they'll never grow hungry. Proverbs like this remind us how learning skills help to move us toward self-reliance. This is never more true than with critical thinking.

Memorize the solution to a problem and you may master that particular problem. Improve your critical thinking and you'll give yourself the tools to create your own effective solutions to a multitude of unfamiliar problems.

Tips For A Skeptical Outlook

Here are a few points on how to have a skeptical outlook. These come from The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. They're just snippets from some of their older episodes that I thought were worth sharing.

To avoid the ego blow of admitting you were wrong, adopt this point of view:

"My opinions are dependent upon the existing evidence. I could be wrong. If new evidence comes out I'll happily change my opinion to correspond to it."
~
Later, they sum it up a bit differently:

Practice science and skepticism: Attach yourself to the process, not the conclusion. The process has to be valid, has to be scientific, has to be legitimate. Don't be emotionally invested in the conclusion. As long as the process is valid, it leads wherever it leads.

That means if new information comes up, or if someone shows that a different logic is more appropriate, then you can happily change your conclusion because you have no attachment to it.

It's just that you have to get the process right.

That's science in a nutshell. Science is a process. It's about the process, not about the conclusion.

Pseudoscience begins with the conclusion, then they pervert the process. They warp the process to continue to match their forgone conclusion. It can seem very logical and reasonable. It's still not science.
~

This applies to all areas of thought, from science and pseudoscience to religion, politics and just the world in general. If you're attached to your beliefs and ideas, that's dogma. The secret is to be attached to the truth and let it take you where it leads, and always be open to change your mind if new and compelling evidence comes to light.

In this way, learning new things is a wonderful adventure, it's fun and exciting. When you're close-minded and set on your narrow world view, you then have to lie to yourself and others to make your limiting belief make sense to you. You have to close out the real world to keep the little bubble of dogma around you intact. It's not very much fun. You're constantly threatened by new facts and information that threaten you.

Then again, a lot of us have Sacred Cows. A sacred cow is some area in your life that can't be criticized. It could be a person, an institution, a belief, an area of belief, or a custom.

What are your Sacred Cows? Why have you made them immune to criticism? What would help you to hold them up to the light of reason?

What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable?

Here is a question for you. What level of woo would make someone undateable? What about unfriendable? Do you have a limit that you've drawn in your life or do you have a lot of woo woo people around you that you interact with? How do you get on with them? Do you find it difficult? Do you argue with them or are you silent about your woo disbelief?

Woo can be defined as anything supernatural, irrational or lacking in evidence. So it would include religion and any kind of pseudoscience.

On a side note, is there anything that could be defined as woo that you still believe in? If so, why?

For me, I've somehow whittled down my friend list from all woo-lovers to all skeptical atheists. I didn't do this deliberately, but I guess with my skeptical talk and constant questioning (not aggressively, but I really did question all the woo I previously embraced), my woo-loving friends all went their separate ways and avoided me within months of when my quest for knowledge began.

I didn't have many friends for awhile but then found the Morgantown Atheists where I found several people that have become good friends. Also, having HDC has let me meet new people who were rather like-minded as well.

With extended family, I still have to deal with woo, both religious and supernatural. They know Butch (my awesome husband) and I are die-hard atheists so we have come to an unspoken agreement that we don't talk about religion. Or politics just to be safe and have nice dinners together. :P

I think I'm lucky in most respects. My skeptical atheist friends keep things lively by being smart and reason-based (most of the time, we're not perfect, of course). And my extended family gives me an occasional glimpse into woo-land so I get to see what the majority of people are dealing with and believing. It's enough.

Pure Atheism vs Skeptical Atheism

Quite some time ago I noticed that all atheists do not approach nonbelief the same. I, for one, was first a doubter, then an agnostic, then an atheist who still believed in woo, then a full on skeptic and atheist. One of my new friends on Facebook, Cursus Walker, put it clearly the other day in a strange conversation a bunch of atheists had in a new group I joined called People for the Ethical Treatment of Atheists. (lol!)

Cursus Walker said, "I make a distinction between Pure and Skeptical Atheism. The former refers only to lacking belief in gods, while the latter extends the attitude to all supernaturalism."

I couldn't agree more! I like the terms and thought I'd share them with you.

Pure Atheism: A lack of belief in gods.

Skeptical Atheism: A lack of belief in all things supernatural.

As a skeptical atheist, I have trouble understanding how people can believe in ghosts, ESP, life after death, or anything along those lines, while not believing in any gods. So the concepts aren't mutually exclusive. But it still amazes me to run into atheists who use no skepticism or logical reasoning when it comes to supernatural woo. Can't you just feel the cognitive dissonance?

And why do you think that is? Is it a need for comfort? Is it fear of the unknown and death? Is it ignorance in science and the laws of nature? All of the above? Probably.

Of course, as synchronicity would have it, I stumbled upon a QualiaSoup video (thanks to my awesome husband) shortly after and it was so good I have to share it with you here. It's kind of relevant, but excellent in its own right. About 10 minutes long.

Putting Faith in its Place

Celebrating Skepticism With More Podcasts

Awhile ago I shared some podcasts and radio shows that we thought you might enjoy. I have come across a few more that I want to share as well.

• Curiosity Aroused: Investigation, Exploration and the pursuit of truth. This show is built upon the idea that it's fun to seek out the answers to life's questions. This is a Skepchick/Rebecca Watson podcast. This is quite new, so there are only 3 episodes, but it's interesting and well done.


• Skeptics With A K: The podcast by the Merseyside Skeptics Society in the UK. This is entertaining, fun and informative. These guys are like SGU in the UK. They are the ones that did the Homeopathy 10²³ "overdose" event. It was brilliant.


• The Skeptics Testament: this is a fairly new podcast (since January of this year). I just found it and am not sure what to make of it, but I wanted to share it with you. It's a skeptical, critical look at the bible. But I can't figure out if they are atheists or christians. But they seem to know their stuff from what I can tell from the first 2 episodes, and it's informative.


• EDIT: I forgot about The Token Skeptic: a weekly look at superstition, paranormal belief and the science behind it all. The podcast covers a range of ideas and issues, stemming from psychology, philosophy and ethics, science, critical thinking, literacy and education.

If you try these out, let me know what you think! :)

Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy

Want to expand your mind and be entertained at the same time? Here are a list of podcasts and radio shows you can listen to online or on your iPod through iTunes. Most of these are scientific/ skeptical in nature, but I've thrown in 2 religious ones because they are both excellent.

My Favorites:

• SGU: The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe and a 5 minute weekly podcast at the same place; SGU 5x5: a weekly Science podcast produced by the New England Skeptical Society (NESS) in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) : discussing the latest news and topics from the world of the paranormal, fringe science, and controversial claims from a scientific point of view.


• Scientific American's Science Talk (they have other podcasts here): Join host Steve Mirsky each week as he explores the latest developments in science & technology through interviews.


• Reasonable Doubts (Your Skeptical Guide to Religion): A special focus on counter-apologetics. They provide detailed counter-points to the fallacious logic and blatant misinformation used by religious apologists when attempting to discredit skepticism and provide rational arguments for their dogmas. They also defend the sufficiency of reason, science and naturalistic philosophies to provide a satisfactory and morally compelling understanding of the cosmos, human nature, art and culture. They try to do this all with fair-mindedness and humor. Winner of the Peoples Choice Podcast Award for best religious/inspirational podcast of 2009


• The Naked Scientists and another podcast, Ask the Naked Scientists: The Naked Scientists are a group of physicians and researchers from Cambridge University who use radio, live lectures, and the Internet to strip science down to its bare essentials, and promote it to the general public. Each week, listeners of all ages and backgrounds tune in on a Sunday evening to hear creator Dr. Chris Smith, together with his entertaining scientist sidekicks, interview renowned scientists and researchers from all over the world and take science questions on any subject live from the listening public.


• StarTalk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson: a radio show devoted to all things space and is hosted by renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.


• Mr. Deity (video, not podcast, but you can subscribe through iTunes): a webshow that looks at the every-day life of the creator and everything he must endure as he attempts to manage his creation.

My friend and fellow science lover Brent sent me a list of his favorites as well, which is actually what sparked this post:

Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness

If you're like me, and you enjoy dark chocolate, then I have some studies to share with you! I think they'll be helpful for the holidays as well as generally beneficial throughout the year. If you don't like chocolate (WTF, just kidding), see below for swine flu info, and other linky goodness.

Dark Chocolate Helps Ease Emotional Stress: A new study found that eating about an ounce and a half of dark chocolate a day for two weeks reduced levels of stress hormones in people who felt highly stressed. The chocolate also partially corrected other stress-related biochemical imbalances. "The study provides strong evidence that a daily consumption of 40 grams [1.4 ounces] during a period of 2 weeks is sufficient to modify the metabolism of healthy human volunteers," the scientists say.

That led me to a study from last December. It's rather small and involves self-reporting, but it could be a promising line for further research, and could be something you experiment with yourself to see if it works for you:

Dark Chocolate Lessens Cravings: Dark chocolate is far more filling than milk chocolate, lessening our craving for sweet, salty and fatty foods. In other words, eating dark chocolate may be an efficient way to keep your weight down over the holidays (and throughout the year!) The dark chocolate gives a feeling of satiety.

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

Skeptical thinking is such a wonderful tool to have. It means you don't get scammed or BS'ed nearly as much by shoddy news or dodgy advertising. You also get to save money because you'll be less apt to buy gimmicky cure-alls that do nothing but drain your wallet and give you false hope. In his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan wrote about this. It's called the Baloney Detection Kit. (see below for an excerpt)

Michael Shermer recently made a great companion video talking about The Baloney Detection Kit: (approx. 14 min)



Here are the 10 points from the video:

Religious Murderers Get Off Easy

Janet Moses was 22, a mother of two, and was surrounded by people who "loved" her when she died a horrible torturous death. Her family was trying to exorcise the demon they thought she had. 5 of her family were convicted of manslaughter. Their sentence was for community service, and 4 of them have to take a Maori culture course.

That's right, they tortured and killed their relative and received community service.

Justice France acknowledged some might not see the sentences as adequate but his reasons included:

• They were trying to save, not harm, her.


• Sleep deprivation greatly affected rational judgment.


• High level of co-operation with police afterwards.


• No-one suffered more from the death than the offenders and their family.

So, if you suffer when you're drowning your sister for two days, make sure you don't get any sleep, and proclaim that you're trying to save her. That makes it A-OK. How does that make any logical sense?

How Far I've Come!

Last week, I ran some errands with Butch. One of them involved me waiting for him to take a test which he thought was going to be a half hour. It turned out that it was an hour and a half, which was actually good considering they had 3 hours allotted.

I was bored out of my mind after about 12 minutes of sitting in the car, and started to find ways to occupy myself. I got out and wandered around to look at all the different lichens on the trees, but I didn't have enough light to get any decent pictures. I paced , looking at ants, then sat in the car and read my book for awhile, tried not to think about how much Monster energy drink I had consumed on the way there, and let my mind generally wander around. It was excruciating. :P

At one point I noticed that there was a decorative wall that had the top knocked off, around a little flower garden near the front doors (which were locked so I couldn't go in and get rid of the huge amount of Monster now making me miserable). Next to it were lots of bits of broken concrete, but among them, like a shining miracle, was a smooth brown river stone. I picked it up and thought how lucky I was to find something so wonderful in all that chaos.

Miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of god.

[caption id="attachment_1867" align="alignleft" width="331" caption="Neece holding the Miracle Rock"][/caption]

Of course, I was just being silly. It was just a misplaced stone from another flower bed, but I was thinking how easily it is to see something that stands out as somehow special or miraculous. I slipped it in my pocket with a smirk. My sacred touch with the divine (NOT!). It reminded me of the way people see patterns in randomness and claim it to be divine, such as the magical stump and the magical bird shit. It's really nothing more than pareidolia.

Back in the car, waiting patiently, I glanced up at the rear view mirror and saw a sticker that I had put there probably 10 years ago. Now, in the 10 years that we've had this car, this is the only sticker I've ever put on it that was not practical. We have the registration stickers, and the oil change one, but no bumper stickers except this one, which I had placed there because it meant so much to me back then. I wanted to see it every time I got in the car. I wanted to be reminded of this message, which was:

The Universe arranges itself to accommodate your picture of reality!

Now, if you read HDC regularly, I'm sure you are aware that this is utter pseudoscience bullshit. It is completely and totally wrong and anyone who holds this as truth is crazy. I was crazy back then. I believed that thoughts were powerful and could help shape the universe. I was wrapped up in a lot of "spiritual" thinking that was completely bogus.

It was easy to selectively enforce those beliefs back then though. To me, this statement was accurate. It never occurred to me how ridiculous and nonsensical it was. I was a believer in "energy" and a conscious universe (even though I was an agnostic).

So as I sat there, I was amazed at how far I've come over the years. I now embrace science, reason, skepticism and logic, which to me, is much more rewarding, and certainly more consistent and satisfying than the desperate beliefs that were based on nothing more substantial than wishful thinking.