Ethics for Magicians and Mentalists

I'm a magician who dabbles from time to time in a bit of mental magic. There are others who specialize in one field or other. There are those who see the fields as one and the same, and others who see them as completely different. Personally, I see them as two branches of the same tree. They use similar methods, and both are related to performing the impossible. The difference isn't the substance, but the "flavor."

There are forums and clubs and groups of friends who gather, both online and in person, to discuss this art form. Generally, I steer clear of the topics related to pure mentalism, because that's not my specialty, and because I often find myself getting pissed off when I read about it (such as the time I saw Uri Geller on the cover of a magicians' trade journal). But this evening, I broke down and peeked at the mentalists board on a forum, and found a topic in which people were discussing Sylvia Browne (if you're unfamiliar with Sylvia Browne, I suggest you visit www.stopsylvia.com for more information--that site, maintained by Robert Lancaster, has an amazing wealth of information). Anyway, the point is, I was prompted to post a discussion of ethics for mentalists and magicians, because apparently, common human decency are in shorter supply in my profession than I had thought.

I'll begin by trying to explain the difference between magicians and mentalists. A magician uses trickery, sleight of hand, psychology, and various other means of deception to accomplish the apparently impossible. Mentalists do exactly the same thing, but they specialize in apparently "mental" or "psychic" feats. Basically, mentalists are magicians whose effects are apparently accomplished with mental powers.

Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller, were they legitimate entertainers, would fall into the category of mentalists. Their apparently psychic feats seem to happen by mental power alone. But of course, they aren't really doing these things--it's all trickery.

So, back to the forum topic. A guy mentioned Browne, and here are some samples of comments posted to the forums.

While Browne is just a normal medium who earns a living like everyone else, I've always felt that the extent she takes it goes just a little bit far. Even among mediums there is a level of decency and more importantly caution that Browne doesn't seem to exhibit.

Another responded:

This may be the case, but she's out there doing it and making a living at it! That puts her on the top rung of the ladder. Who is to say what is the level of decency when it comes to this area?

She is quite a PRO!

And the same person later commented:

You guys are just too funny. LOL

No one twist arms to make people listen to her. Since you guys are talking about taking the high road when it comes to dealing with people, would one of you mediums (here) tell me where to buy/find the rule book for mediums and where it talks about the levels of decency and caution. You know, where it states that mediums must exhibited these trates. Anyone?

So I guess the levels of decency and caution is really something that you guys thought up on your own. How nice of you to judge others with what you think is right.

I could care less what other mediums do or their methods, but really would like to read this rule book that you guys must be getting your infomation from. I want my copy.

To be fair, there were some level-headed responses as well, such as the gentleman who remarked:

Who is to say? Anyone who finds her pronouncements to parents of missing children reprehensible. Anyone who thinks the parents of Shawn Hornbeck did not deserve to be lied to like Sylvia lied to them. Anyone who thinks her comments regarding Opal Jo Jennings were vile and disgusting.

I am one of those people, and I have no qualms about saying Sylvia Browne is a predator who takes advantage of the grief of her victims to line her pockets and does not care what harm she brings to them.

I take issue with a lot of mediums, but I will be more circumspect with most. Browne, however, is at the far end of the spectrum and deserves no respect, no circumspection, and no kind words.

Eventually, the conversation devolved into people referring to the Bible as the aforementioned "rule book," and I stopped reading at that point, as I suspect you probably already know what my thought are on that kind of thing.

But here's the thing, Sylvia Browne doesn't just earn a living like anyone else. What she does is fraud, and it's the worst sort of fraud I can imagine. She tramples the loving memories of the bereaved for a quick undeserved dollar. As Penn Jillette said about these psychics, they are in a very real sense, motherfuckers. Nor is Browne just making a living like anyone else in the sense that she charges something like $600 for a 30-minute "psychic reading," during which time she spends most of those few short minutes reading off the names of your guardian angels, rather than providing the "service" she's supposed to be.

And then when she gets involved in missing persons cases or anything related to that, she sends investigators on a wild goose chase, diverting attention from the proper investigation which could actually save lives. Listening to people like Browne will at the very least rob you of your money, likely cause emotional distress, and quite possibly cost lives.

When we get into this debate, though, we see people talking about the other mediums, such as ones on that forum. The fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as an honest "medium." There are honest mentalists, sure. They're legitimate entertainers and don't claim to be real psychics anymore than Hal Holbrook claims to be the real Mark Twain.

Yes, magicians and mentalists, even the honest ones, use deception. It's part of the game. But there's a big difference between lying to people from a stage as part of a show, and lying to people and claiming it's all real. It's what separates legitimate magicians from those scumbags who need to be behind bars.

But, since people seem to want a rule-book, I thought I'd provide some thoughts on ethics for magicians. Whenever someone joins a magical society, the first thing he or she needs to do is swear an oath. Generally speaking, it's all about protecting secrets. "I swear on my honor I will not tell how it's done." That sort of thing. I think we need some additions to these oaths. Magicians need to start policing their own ranks, because there are a few motherfuckers out there who give us all a bad name.

First, and most importantly: Thou shalt not claim real powers. Sure, by all means pretend to have powers while you're on stage. But don't start opening up psychic hotlines, or giving psychic readings to the bereaved on television programs, or pretending to assist police in finding missing children. If you do that sort of thing, you need to be behind bars.

Secondly, in situations in which people are likely to think you might have real powers, I think it is only prudent to publicly disclaim said powers. It's not going to hurt your performance to begin a show by saying "I don't have real powers--it's all trickery--but I bet that we can still have a good time."

We don't expect a magician who does a watch stealing routine to actually go out and steal watches. It's all part of the act. By the same token, I don't expect an entertainer with a psychic routine to pretend to be a real psychic. Anyone who steals watches is a thief and needs to be behind bars, and the same is true of anyone who claims psychic powers.

It's not that difficult to tell the difference between legitimate entertainment and fraud. Magicians, mentalists--if you're claiming real powers, watch your backs. There are a lot of us who are sick of this shit, and we're not going to take it anymore. Everyone else, I urge you to not take it anymore either. If you're not mad as hell already, you better get there soon. Law enforcement--start putting the frauds behind bars. We need a purging of our industry, and it's time we start enforcing some very basic ethics. We need to stop tolerating the rampant fraud in this business. Anyone who even hints at having real powers should be immediately barred from magical societies, shunned by the community, and sent packing. Because the longer they're allowed to stay, the more people will begin to associate them with the rest of us, and that's the last thing anyone needs.

You Want To Bet?

I was recently directed toward an article by a gentleman by the name of David Wong (author of the novel, "John Dies At the End," which has been sitting on my reading list for quite a while) entitled "10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On." Mr. Wong seems like an agreeable enough chap. His message basically boils down to "can't we all just get along," and that's a message worthy of hearing from time to time. But occasionally, no we can't, and there are some things I resent being told to agree with.

So you can follow along with what I'm on about this time, you can read the original article here.

In his introduction, Wong begins by arguing that if you celebrate someone's death, you're pretty much a prick, and makes the case that just about all of us can agree on that one. Well, okay...he then talks about atheists celebrating the death of Jerry Falwell. Well...okay...actually celebrating his demise may be a bit of a dick move, and if so then I'm guilty as charged. But the fact of the matter is, Falwell had nothing but venomous bile to spew, and the world is better off without his hateful message clogging the minds of his followers (some of whom, no doubt, could easily be moved to commit actual acts of violence against homosexuals, abortion providers, atheists, pagans, or anyone else who doesn't fit into the neat little Christian box Falwell and his ilk want to force us all into). I don't so much celebrate his death as I do his being silenced. And I'll be perfectly clear, because there are still people like him around (**cough**patrobertson**cough**), I don't advocate violence, and I certainly wouldn't celebrate his death, say, at his funeral. He did have a family who, despite their obvious faults in not disowning that goon years ago, should be respected in their grief. But for pete's sake, don't tell me I can't be glad he can't shout his message anymore.

Now, on to his ten points (the introduction was just a little freebie).

1. You can do terrible things in the name of either one.

Okay, this is the point at which he tips his hand. This man is not an atheist. He's revealed a complete lack of understanding of what atheism actually is already, and he's only just begun to make his first point. Atheism is not a belief system. It's a lack of one. You can't do terrible things in the name of a LACK of a belief.

The larger point he's trying to make, that both Christians and atheists can and have done terrible things is certainly valid. On the one hand you've got the Crusades, the troubles in Northern Ireland, Hitler, the 9/11 terrorists, those who would bomb abortion clinics, and their ilk. On the other side...well...Stalin. So yeah, both sides have some bad apples. We're agreed that both Christians and atheists are mostly good people and that there are murderous fucks in both camps. But the point is not quite that simple.

We realize that a murderer who happens to be a Christian or a murderer who happens to be an atheist does not reflect on the entire belief system or lack thereof. The only question is whether or not the belief system (or lack thereof) actually leads someone to commit these acts. In the case of, say, the Crusades or the 9/11 attacks, it was a religious belief that caused these people to act as they did. One cannot say that about atheism, because it's impossible to do anything in the name of nothing. Atheism isn't even a thing at all. It shouldn't even be an -ism. It's just a lack of a belief in a god. And while you can kill in the name of a god, you can't kill in the name of no god. Can't be done.

He also postulates that it's impossible to calculate whether the volume of violent events would go up or down if either side were to "win" (meaning one or the other side completely goes away). Of course, if we're talking about absolute certainty, he's correct. But we don't need absolute certainty. We can look at prison statistics and find that Christians overwhelmingly outnumber the atheists in the prison population (even accounting for their larger representation in the population at large). We can look at the history books. But most importantly, we can just sit down and use our heads. Let's imagine Christianity away for a minute. What changes? No more killing in the name of the Christian god. Now let's imagine atheism away. What changes? Well, we don't lose any potential motives for violence as we do in the previous case. Instead, we gain however many atheists there are as potential "murderers for Jesus." So yes, we do have a pretty damn good idea which way that turn of events would swing.

2. Both sides really do believe what they're saying.

Mostly, I'll give him this one. He seems to take the Christians to task at least as much as we atheists (for which I give him much credit), because they seem to think that we're all just lying about our lack of a belief out of some stubborn sense of rebellion. Nonsense, and he's right in calling it so. And I generally do assume that the Christians believe what they're saying to...up to a point.

I do think that many simply parrot arguments they hear from the pulpit without actually bothering to think for themselves about what they really believe. It doesn't mean they don't really believe it, but it does mean they haven't thought about it. Generally speaking, I think if you put much thought to it, the god thing just sort of collapses under the weight of its own stupidity.

3. In everyday life, you're not that different.

He had me 100% (or at least 95%) until he actually started trying to explain it. Then he goes into talking about morality and thinking we live as if there were some magical skydaddy lawmaker deciding what is or is not justice. Bullshit! Biblical morality is barbaric and obscene. It's true, Christians and atheists have mostly the same morality, but it ain't from the Bible, it ain't from a God, and it sure as hell ain't Christian. We're mostly the same in everyday life because we're a product of the same culture(s). We share evolutionary and cultural history, and our morality comes from that. Not from a god.

4. There are good people on both sides.

Agreed. Just one thing to say. Atheists don't claim our own good people as being good because they're atheists. They're good people because they're good people and they happen to not believe in a god. Christians would do well to do the same. Martin Luther King, Jr. (mentioned in the article) was a great man. One of the best. And though he painted his speeches with a Christian brush, he was good because he was good, not because he was a Christian. Religious beliefs or lack thereof are largely incidental to whether or not someone is good. They only seem to play a role when some religious people (and I hasten to add that it's and extreme minority) kill in the name of some god.

5. Your point of view is legitimately offensive to them.

Well, I'll give it to him. People shouldn't be so damned easy to offend, but it is the case. He's very careful not to let this point intrude on the area of which side is factually correct, so it's pretty agreeable. Christians and atheists do piss each other off. And in day to day life, I think we can all do a lot better to get along. But there is definitely a place for ranting debate. Like in our books and blogs. This is a debate we need to have before the bombs start falling in another holy war.

6. We tend to exaggerate about the other guy.

Absolutely true. I do think the Christians tend to exaggerate more than the atheists do, which makes sense, since all the science and data are on our side--all they're left with is exaggeration. But yes, we all do exaggerate. I do it, too, but I attempt to make it clear in my own writings when I'm exaggerating, and when I'm using the more extreme examples of Christianity in order to make my point. I do realize that most Christians aren't as stupid as the Jerry Falwell types, but I tend to write more about that type because a) I want to make a point, so I use the extreme examples to illustrate what I'm talking about and b) I fear those types more than the average Christian you meet in day to day life.

7. We tend to exaggerate about ourselves, too.

Again, I agree. I think he takes his examples too far (I would think this was intentional, to further make his point, but I don't think, based on some of his other examples, that he's doing so). And again, I think the Christians are more guilty than the atheists. But whoever does it more or less, we all do exaggerate about ourselves and the other guy.

8. Focusing on negative examples makes you stupid.

Bullshit! Granted, it is asinine to focus on negative examples as if they were representative of everyone on the other side. But we're having a debate here. We're going to call the other side on their shit. It's part of the game. So yes, I'm going to talk about Fred Phelps. No, I'm not going to say all Christians are like that (that really would be stupid), but I will talk about him as one possible negative outcome of Christianity. And that's a fair point. I'd welcome Christians to come up with a negative outcome of atheism if they can find one, but so far they've been unable to do so.

9. Both sides have brought good to the table.

It depends. PEOPLE from both sides certainly have. But Christianity itself has never really done anything for us except "bad" things. Atheism, being nothing more than a lack of a belief, hasn't done anything good or bad. But Christians and atheists have both done lots of good, and some have done bad. Talk about people, you've got me on your side. Talk about beliefs, you're going to lose me.

He does go on to lose me by talking about religion making humanity sacred and giving us morality and other nonsense. And it is nonsense. Religion hasn't done jack or shit for humanity. Just because religious people have, doesn't mean the religion gets the credit.

10. You'll never harass the other side out of existence.

I agree, as long as the point is phrased precisely this way. Being vile and harassing people isn't going to win the war. Yes, there's a place for it. Yes, it's important to point out how silly those Christians are from time to time. But the real place we need to have this war is in the debate halls. We need to have an open dialogue. When exposed to the light of reason and open debate, religion withers and dies. It can only fester under a cloud of ignorance.

Wong's point is to lead by example. I agree with that too. We should all strive to be good people, to be rational people, and to make the most of our lives. Lead by example, debate the points, and try to be respectful rather than harassing. I do think that's one point we really can all get behind.

On Censorship

This week, the Internet's been all a-twitter about Huckleberry Finn. Under normal circumstances, I would be pleased to know that people are talking about a wonderful classic work of literature. This time...not so much. You see, what they're really screaming about isn't Huck Finn. It's censorship.

So, what's this really all about? It's pretty simple. Racial issues play a major role in Huck Finn. By no means is it a work of racist literature, or the work of a racist author. Quite the opposite, in fact. But it takes place during a time when racism was the norm, and hence, the word "nigger" appears repeatedly throughout the text. And, same as it ever was, people who are not content to be offended on their own have taken it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of the rest of us and file complaints against the book in the schools. More and more, school districts have been giving in to the whiny little bitches and pulling it from their required reading lists, relegating it to the optional reading lists, or banning it outright from their libraries.

Seeing this as an opportunity, publisher NewSouth Books plans to release an edited version of Huck Finn, in a single volume with Tom Sawyer, in which all instances of the word "nigger" are replaced with the word "slave." Sure, their intentions are honorable enough. They see that this word is causing schools to ban the book, so they've decided that it is better for students to have access to a censored version than no version at all. For myself, I see their point. It's definitely a valid one. But it is also one I very strongly disagree with.

The simple fact of the matter is, I would much rather if people would go to bat for the book, instead of caving in to the small-minded morons who would see it banned because of the presence of a single word. Yes, yes, it's an offensive word to many people. But why should it be so? I've never understood this fear of words. Words are sequences of letters or sequences of sounds and nothing more. Yes, there are words that express offensive ideas (to some, "cocksucker" or "motherfucker"--to me, "faith," or "god"). But is it not the idea which is offensive, not the sequence of sounds we arbitrarily use to describe it? You can say "freaking" all you want, but if you don't mean anything different that when you say "fucking," all you're really doing is cowardly giving in to the myopic thought police. I'm not saying there's no place for "freaking," but I am asking you to think about the way you use your language.

"Nigger" is an offensive word, because it reflects racism. Racism is a disgusting topic, but it is also a real topic, and Huck Finn deals with racial issues. The word only has power because people find it offensive, and the book is powerful because it makes use of that word, with all its baggage, to deliver its point to the reader. By replacing the "offensive" word with a "less offensive" one, we deprive the author of his intended meaning. Nevermind the point that "slave" is not only NOT less offensive, but also less accurate to the story.

Getting back to the question no one seems willing to answer, though: is it better to have the censored version than no version at all if they're going to be banned from school libraries otherwise? My kneejerk reaction would be to say that yes, it would be better. But honestly, upon a bit of thought, I'm not so sure. Putting aside the truly proper course of action (which may involve taking legal action (or at the very least, sparking community outrage) against schools who remove the book from their libraries), we're still leaving these students with a half-assed (at best) literary education if we teach them that it's better to accept a censored version of a classic work when parts of that work are deemed offensive than to accept the work as it is, and to learn to intellectually explore the work, good and bad, and form one's own opinions. Is the point of literature (or one of the points of literature, anyway) not to spark an internal dialogue in the reader? To explore new ideas? To rethink old ideas? If we censor any work of literature, we're sending a message to these students that some ideas cannot be explored. Well, news flash folks! Racism exists. It existed more in the time period in which Huck Finn takes place, and it still exists today. Sweeping it under the rug and pretending everything's okay won't make it go away. It will only make it fester.

Here's a little thought experiment. Let us imagine that some day, the word "raven" is deemed offensive to certain ornithological communities. What is a level-headed school board (or publisher) to do but to replace the word with the far less offensive "cuntpickle" in works of classic literature?

The Cuntpickle

by Edgar Allan Poe

(Edited by Bob Lewis)

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow - sorrow for the lost Lenore -
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me - filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
`'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door -
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -
This it is, and nothing more,'

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
`Sir,' said I, `or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you' - here I opened wide the door; -
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, `Lenore!'
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, `Lenore!'
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
`Surely,' said I, `surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore -
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -
'Tis the wind and nothing more!'

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately cuntpickle of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door -
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door -
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door -
Bird or beast above the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as `Nevermore.'

But the cuntpickle, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only,
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered -
Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before -
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.'
Then the bird said, `Nevermore.'

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
`Doubtless,' said I, `what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore -
Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore
Of "Never-nevermore."'

But the cuntpickle still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.
`Wretch,' I cried, `thy God hath lent thee - by these angels he has sent thee
Respite - respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!'
Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil! -
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted -
On this home by horror haunted - tell me truly, I implore -
Is there - is there balm in Gilead? - tell me - tell me, I implore!'
Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that bends above us - by that God we both adore -
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels named Lenore?'
Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'

`Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting -
`Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!'
Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'

And the cuntpickle, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted - nevermore!

I can already hear it coming--it's such a minor change, it doesn't really hurt the narrative. It's just much less offensive to some people. This is a good thing. It's better to have the edited version than no version at all. Well, I'm sorry, but unless you'd rather read The Cuntpickle than The Raven, leave Mark Twain the fuck alone! I'm sick of this censorship bullshit.

I've been quiet for a while now. But now it's 2011. I'm back, and I'm ready to kick some ass. Let no idiot go unpunished and no rant go unranted. And the first ones against the wall are the myopic ignoramuses who think censorship is EVER acceptable.

The Big Problem Science Has With Religion

I've just been linked to a story I've seen before, entitled "the little problem science has with religion."  Since it's been around the block a few times and its author is unknown, I'll take the liberty of posting it in its entirety here.  I'll provide my thoughts and retorts throughout.  Quoted text is taken exactly as it was presented, without any alterations to the text or format, except to break it up for my commentary.

Note: Forgive the formatting errors in the quotations.  I'll try to fix it when I have the time, but I wanted to get this online quickly.

[quote]

"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand....[/quote] This immediately identifies the story as a fiction.  Professors simply don't push antireligion in the classroom, and they certainly don't pick on students for their religious beliefs.  That's the fastest way to be out of a job.  But, even as a fiction, it could still be an interesting philosophical dialogue.  Let's see where they go with this, shall we? [quote]"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?" "Yes sir," the student says. "So you believe in God?" "Absolutely!" "Is God good?" "Sure! God's good." "Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?" "Yes." "Are you good or evil?" "The Bible says I'm evil." The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment, "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?" "Yes sir, I would." "So you're good!"[/quote] A reasonable, if a bit over-simplistic, observation.  Helping the sick is, by any reasonable moral standard, a good action. [quote]"I wouldn't say that." "But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't." The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?" The student remains silent.[/quote] The student remains silent for a reason.  The professor's argument is valid.  Sure, there have been a few apologetics offered to counter this problem before, but none have stood up.  As the old saying goes... Is god willing to prevent suffering but not able?  Then he's not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he's not good. Is he neither willing nor able? Then why call him God? Is he both willing and able? Then why is there still suffering? [quote]"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?" "Er...yes," the student says. "Is Satan good?" The student doesn't hesitate on this one, "No." "Then where does Satan come from?" The student falters, "From God." "That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?" "Yes sir." "Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?" "Yes." "So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil." Again, the student has no answer.[/quote] Technically, this is flawed logic on the professor's part.  Presumably, God's creation of evil could have been a mistake, error of judgement or other faux pas.  However, if one assumes that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, as Christian doctrine teaches, the thought that evil could be a mistake is out of the question. Even the Bible makes this point perfectly clear, in Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." With this in mind, it's no wonder the student has no answer, as his own Bible goes against what he's been taught to believe. [quote]"Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?" The student squirms on his feet. "Yes." "So who created them?" The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question, "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?" The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do." The old man stops pacing, "Science says you have five (5) senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?" "No sir. I've never seen Him." "Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?" "No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't." "Yet you still believe in him?" "Yes." "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"[/quote] Here's where we run into a bit of a snag.  Science is not limited to human perception.  Science attempts to overcome the limits of human perception through experimentation, because we know our senses are flawed.  You don't have to see something to know it's there.  You do, however, require EVIDENCE.  And evidence can take many different forms. [quote]"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith." "Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."[/quote] This is true.  There is no evidence, so science does have a problem with religion.  That doesn't mean we need to be able to see God, but in order to be accepted by science, we need some sort of evidence.  Faith, or belief without evidence, is the surrender of the mind. [quote]The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?" "Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat." "And is there such a thing as cold?" "Yes, son, there's cold too." "No sir, there isn't." The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain . . . "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold.' We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest-458 degrees." Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 Fahrenheit) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."[/quote] True.  I suspect any professor would realize this, and only use the word "cold" colloquially, but the student is not mistaken. [quote]Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer. "What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?" "Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. What is night if it isn't darkness?"[/quote] Surely a professor would see the trap by this point.  That he'd walk into it again betrays the absurdity of the story. [quote]"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?" The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?" "Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must also be flawed." The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time, "Flawed? Can you explain how?"[/quote] Yes, please explain.  This is where the story gets interesting. [quote]"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains . . "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we canmeasure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought." It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the a bsence of it." Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"[/quote] Oy vey!  There's a lot to talk about here.  Firstly, whether God is finite or infinite, measurable or not, there must be SOME evidence for his/her/its existence, or there's no reason to believe it.  I don't care if you can measure every detail of what it is, where it came from, what it can do.  I just want to see some evidence that it's actually there. True, science has not completely cracked the problem of human consciousness, though there have been remarkable advances.  The difference is clear, however--we know that we think from firsthand experience.  We can measure brain activity, and begin to understand the processes.  Not only do we have evidence of human consciousness, we are well on our way to understanding it through experimentation. Granted, death is not the opposite of life, in the same way that cold is not the opposite of heat.  But this is irrelevant.  If you're making claims of an afterlife, provide some evidence.  Otherwise, what's the point? Finally, evolved from a monkey?  I thought we'd dispatched that misconception years ago.  Humans are great apes.  We didn't evolve from any modern species, monkey or otherwise.  We share a recent common ancestry with chimpanzees, a slightly more distant ancestry with other primates, more distant still with all mammals, and so on.  All life on earth shares a common ancestry, but we did not "evolve from monkeys."  This is a straw-man argument. [quote]"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."[/quote] A good answer.  The professor should have schooled the student in basic middle-school biology, but I'll give him a pass in that he properly answered the question (avoiding the straw man) without derailing the conversation. [quote] "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going; a very good semester, indeed.[/quote] Here is where things really fall apart.  Firstly, everyone who has witnessed a birth has witnessed evolution first hand.  Many scientists, particularly biologists, have witnessed speciation within the laboratory.  But the point isn't witnessing it firsthand.  The point is a preponderance of evidence.  We have amongst other things, fossils and genetics, each of which provide massive evidence demonstrating the fact of evolution. [quote]"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"[/quote] False.  We have witnessed it in life and in the laboratory, and have massive evidence of its history.  The very basics of evolution are middle-school level science.  The basics of the scientific process are taught in grade school.  This student has demonstrated an absolute lack of knowledge of both. [quote]The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean." The student looks around the room, "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."[/quote] But of course they haven't SEEN it.  But there's evidence of it.  For instance, the knowledge that the brain controls nerve function in the body through experimentation.  It then follows that, when witnessing nerve function, this serves as evidence of the presence of a brain.  It's not a question of sight, for cryin' out loud, it's a question of EVIDENCE. [quote]"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?" Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers, "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."[/quote] No one who can attain the position of professor would be unable to conceive the arguments I've just presented, even if flustered by a snippy student.  This is a ridiculous answer.  Furthermore, a good professor doesn't expect his students to believe or trust his lectures, but to be prepared to learn from them, and challenge themselves intellectually with them.  If legitimate flaws can be found, a good professor would be pleased with any student who could find them.  Needless to say, the "flaws" this student points out are not legitimate. [quote]"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues, now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?" Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil." To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."[/quote] Well, I would have to take issue with believing in "evil" as a thing.  It is simply a label we ascribe to certain actions we deem unworthy of our respect.  Even with that in mind, the argument is a non sequitur, because while darkness is in fact the absence of light, "evil" however we may define it, is a proactive behavioral choice carried out by humans. [quote]The professor sat down. If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail it to your friends and family. PS: The student was Albert Einstein.[/quote] Obviously nonsense.  Albert Einstein was an atheist, as he repeatedly confirmed in his correspondence. Bob

Lowest Common Denominator

It occurs to me, after a bit of sleep and further reflection, that what I was really talking about last night was the lowest common denominator.  It seems that all too many performers try to make their craft appeal to the lowest common denominator in any given audience, and I think that's wrong.  I think that's why so few actually hit "art."

Magician are too afraid to inject a bit of literature or philosophy into their act, for fear of alienating those in their audience who don't read, or may not "get it."  Balloon artists content themselves to work for children, twisting cute little animals instead of balloon sculpture like those shown here.

There's nothing wrong with working for children, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be accessible to the masses.  But consider aiming at a higher target.  Don't be elitist, but a reference to Shakespeare during a magic trick will enhance the experience for those who do get it, and will simply be overlooked or forgotten by those who don't.  You can aim high and create art without sacrificing audience appeal.  I think that's a worthy mindset to consider.

Searching for Art

It's after midnight once again and I'm sitting in a cold dark room with nothing but my computer, my thoughts, and a fresh pack of cigarettes to keep me company.  A dangerous situation because it often leads me to start thinking about strange little bits of philosophy.  In this case, I got to thinking about art.  What is it that makes something artful?

Traditionally, art was a term used to describe anything done with great skill or mastery.  But during the Romantic period, this definition changed (I think for the better), and art began to be viewed as a human pursuit equal to but separate from religion and science.  I would, of course, argue that religion should be disposed of and that art and science should take their places as the two leading instruments or expressions of human knowledge and experience, but that's neither here nor there.  The important part is that art is created in order to provoke thought or emotion.

This is separate and distinct from any number of skillful acts that I think do not deserve to be called "art."  Eugene Burger, one of magic's leading philosophers, makes a distinction between "stunt" and "magic," in that, though a stunt may be impressive, it doesn't point to anything beyond itself.  It simply is what it is.  There's nothing wrong with stunts, but they are not art.  Art should point beyond itself to something more profound.

In an episode of the comedy show Family Guy, a teacher instructs his class to remember the proper performance hierarchy: legitimate theatre, musical theatre, stand-up, ventriloquism, magic, mime.

It's an old prejudice, and is unfair to any number of performers.  But why is it still so commonly held?  Because the lower one falls on that hierarchy, the less likely one is to be working toward something artistic.  Entertaining, sure.  But art?  Sadly, all too rare.

Within the first few pages of the first volume of The Art of Astonishment, Paul Harris describes the reactions he received when he told people he was working on a book about magic.  I can certainly relate to his experiences.  One thought he was talking about children's magic.  It's another old prejudice that says magic is only for children.  Another insisted that he knew some card tricks.  It was only when Harris, instead of using the word "magic," said that he was working on a book about the moment of astonishment, that he was able to generate what seemed to be legitimate interest in what he was doing.

Roger Ebert, the noted film critic, recently wrote that video games can never be art.  In that case, he was more wrong that the video game industry deserved, but is it really any surprise?  It's somewhat understandable that an older man without gaming experience will lack understanding of the artful qualities of a video game, but it is also true that game designers could make more of an effort to truly create art, instead of just a fun game.  Some do, and I admire them greatly.

I was recently reading through the pages of a forum for magicians, looking to learn and share my limited knowledge as I was able, when I came across a section devoted to those who "table hop," or stroll at parties.  I don't particularly like the term "table hopper," as it immediately conjures images of a performer, little better than a beggar, going from table to table soliciting tips, rather than attempting to create an artful and memorable performance.  In all too many cases, the term seems to apply.  For the few exceptions, it is useful only in that it (somewhat) accurately describes the performing venue.  Within the pages of this forum, one finds many balloon twisters--performers who make balloon animals for children.

A repeated topic of conversation is the poor treatment of these performers by parents who feel cheated when the performers have to "cut the line" in order to get home or to their next gig on time.

Let me make myself clear.  If you want to perform for children, more power to you.  But in any consideration of "performance hierarchy," whatever your prejudice may be, can you think of anyone lower than a balloon twister?  I can't, and I think that's a shame.  Sure, they're not traditionally artistic, as painting can be.  But why should these performers confine themselves to the hell of working for overprivileged children, instead of creating art?  I've seen what a masterful balloon twister can create when not working for six-year-old yuppies-in-training, and it's quite impressive.  Sometimes, it even reaches a level of--dare I say it?--art!

Likewise, magic shouldn't be just for children, but should be used to create thoughtful or emotional experiences for audiences.  All forms of performance art should be thought of first and foremost as ART.

Am I a voice in the wilderness?  Whatever your skill, whatever your talent, whatever your interests...stop wasting your time with meaningless stunts or simple unartistic creations for children.  Start working on making your performance REAL ART.  Then, and only then, will a wider variety of performance arts become readily acceptable.

I've performed stunts.  But I don't want to be a performing monkey anymore.  I'm not going to do stunts.  I'm going to create art.  And I hope you will to.

When Words Fail

Sometimes, even for a writer, words just aren't enough.  They fail to express.  They fall short of communicating emotions.

And yet, what is one to do when words are all one has, and they still fail?

Stephen King once said, "The most important things are the hardest things to say.  They are the things you get ashamed of because words diminish your feelings--words shrink things that seem timeless when they are in your head to no more than living size when they are brought out."

Nuff said.