…and this is a 
The Credulity of Americans is Unquenchable
by Juno Walker
An evangelical pastor and his wife are making money off their 11 year-old son's book about his near-death experience. If you think I sound cynical, you're correct; unfortunately, it seems there are far too few Americans who share my skepticism.
But first, a little background about the story: the son, Colton, was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery for a burst appendix. Upon coming to, the boy recounted how "he had died and gone to heaven, where he met his great-grandfather; the biblical figure Samson; John the Baptist; and Jesus." He said he even noticed that Jesus' eyes were a sparkly blue. (Now, keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, and while it's not impossible for him to have blue eyes, the boy's description more closely mirrors the typical Anglophilic portrayal of a long-haired, pasty-white Jesus with a goatee. Also keep in mind that Colton was only about 4 years-old when he had his "vision." Do you think the images of Jesus he had seen up to that point would portray Jesus as a typical Jew of his day, or as an Anglo-Saxon hippie with blue eyes?)
Colton's 163-page book has sold astonishingly well: there are currently more than 1.5 million copies in print, and it is on the New York Times best-seller list for two weeks now. Clearly many Americans have a strong need for this type of feel-good rubbish.
What's not clear is whether he actually had a near-death experience, per se - I haven't read the book (I refuse to spend money on it), and this article in the NYT isn't clear; it merely says that he woke up from surgery and claimed he had died. Colton's parents believe him, of course. They believe him so much that they published this book for him. And although Colton's father says he was simply hoping for the publisher to break even, and that he plans on giving away most of the royalties, he is in fact keeping some of the money for "home improvements." Well, there's a nice plus. But as a Christian - and as a pastor - wouldn't that money be better spent for the poor, the homeless, the sick, or other Christian goals?
Now, every parent wants to believe their kid. No parent wants to intentionally belittle and condescend to their child. And, given the parents' religious faith, it's easy to see how they are inclined to credulity.
But isn't it more likely that something else is at work here? I mean, when you become a Christian, you make a commitment to a set of beliefs, a dogma, and the nature of a dogma is that you can't doubt it and believe it at the same time. For example, a Christian can't claim to be a Christian and doubt that Jesus was the son of God, or that he was raised from the dead. That's the essence of being a Christian - at least from an evangelical point of view. And the typical believer can't venture too far into the exegetical disputes over literal versus metaphorical interpretations; the theological ground there is too shaky - the fate of his eternal soul depends on it!
So the temptation to believe what would otherwise be met with a healthy skepticism and gentle patronization (e.g., if Colton woke up and said he died and met Alexander the Great), is so strong as to blind one from the more obvious explanation. The parents, of course, claim that Colton made reference to things that "there's just no way he could have known." The example they give is that the mother had had a miscarriage but never told Colton about it; but Colton had referenced it directly. This is a common refrain among those who have had near-death experiences.
But we know that our brains absorb a lot more stimuli via our senses than our "conscious minds" can register. I don't intend to get into a discussion of consciousness - other than to say that no one really knows how to explain it yet - but there is literature out there documenting research and experiments related to human perception and human memory - but all too few people read this stuff.
And for all you parents out there - how many times have you been surprised at something your child has repeated to you that you were convinced they never could have known? How many times have you heard them parrot something that you swore they couldn't hear or couldn't understand?
What's particularly sad is the effect this experience will have on Colton himself, as well as the effect his book will have on other credulous families with children. For his part, Colton, 7 years later, "now plays the piano and trumpet, is fascinated by Greek mythology, listens to Christian rock and loves Nebraska football." That seems innocuous enough; but listen to what he says about his book: ""People are getting blessed, and they're going to have healing from their hurts...I'm happy for that."
He's happy that people will believe a delusion as long as it makes them feel better. We are breeding generations of children who will gladly accept a lie instead of truth, so long as it makes them feel good. But one day, at some point in their lives, they will have no recourse to any real resilience in times of real crisis; they're used to digesting the superficial bromides and platitudes our culture relishes. They won't be able to digest a truly harrowing physical or psychological experience.
And don't get me started on the further dampening of scientific curiosity and thinking this type of anecdote permits - and almost encourages.
And you know that if Colton were born a Buddhist, he would have seen the Buddha; if he were born a Muslim, he would have seen Muhammad; and if he were born a Hindu, he would have seen Krishna - or any of the other myriad deities in the Indian pantheon.
Stories like this one, especially when presented uncritically in a venue such as The New York Times, makes me truly pessimistic about the future of humankind.
By the way, there's a poll by the Today show on this subject. Help it out.
Do you believe in heaven?
Colton Burpo had a near-death experience at the age of 4 during which, he says, he not only sat in Jesus' lap, but met a sister lost to a miscarriage and his late great-grandfather -- things of which he could have had no knowledge, his parents say. Do you believe there is a heaven?64% Yes.
28.6% No.
7.3% I'm not sure, but I hope so!
Comments
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
March 21, 2011 3:10 PM
Vote early, vote often. You don't even need to clear cookies on this one.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
March 21, 2011 3:11 PM
About that blue eyed Jesus -- Black on Earth, but very very white in Heaven. :)
Posted by: Lee Picton
|
March 21, 2011 3:13 PM
Maybe this also says something about why it is so easy to convince so many to vote against their own best interests. I mourn for my country.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
March 21, 2011 3:17 PM
See how quick this turned into political bullshit?
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
March 21, 2011 3:19 PM
Maybe just maybe, it's not in *anybody's* best interest to be ruled by people who have utter contempt for them.
That even fundies can be right about that one.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 21, 2011 3:20 PM
I question whether most people capable of being this delusional would actually recognize a harrowing experience. If you can convince yourself of religion why not convince yourself that things aren't so bad?I am more concerned with the people who will use this comfort as a deflection from action that could actually make a difference. Grief and fear are potent motivation and when people avoid them with a fairy tale I cannot but think they will do less to improve life than if they were to embrace being human.
Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen
|
March 21, 2011 3:21 PM
Where is "I hope not, it sounds like a tedious bore?"
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
March 21, 2011 3:21 PM
Ha, well, there are a number of Jesus's and Napoleons in certain known settings. Maybe I could make a killing writing about them.
Nah, I guess not. It's a story about how we're not really going to die, and our little children will be in heaven if they meet with some horrible fate. Napoleon in the asylum doesn't have quite the same appeal.
NDEs have been given a good going over many times, and there's not much point in doing so again. There's never been any convincing evidence that unexplained knowledge was ever gained in any of them (a lot of credulous claims otherwise, nothing impressive), and the whole tunnel thing is not uncommon in stressed brains (high g forces cause a reduced visual field as well).
To the non-credulous, it's so obviously a bunch of wishful sap. To the credulous, it's welcome "confirmation" of their biases, and nothing's going to prevent them from believing what they wish to believe.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
March 21, 2011 3:23 PM
So Colton had this experience when he was 4, he is now 11, and the book was published a few months ago. That is plenty of time for vague comments he made at the time to take on more concrete form, with prompts from his parents that they didn't even realize they were giving. After all, that is how so called psychics work: they make vague comments that their clients then add information to, and later on the client remembers the "psychic" as having said something quite detailed that s/he couldn't have known, like this
P: "I see a man, B something, Bruce, Bryce . . ."
C: "Brian, could it be Brian?"
P: "Yes, Brian. Something to do with money . . ."
Client later to friends, "OMG, she knew all about my sleazy ex-BF Brian who stole my paycheck to buy drugs!"
Posted by: pilotkono
|
March 21, 2011 3:27 PM
Why don't these people ever meet Joe Schmo, or Clyde Shagnasty? And they always have their memories wiped, (read Embraced by the Light, Eadie.) Ketamine anyone?
Posted by: Robin J
|
March 21, 2011 3:27 PM
Are there any cases of people having near-death experiences, seeing deities they didn't expect, and changing their religion as a result?
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
March 21, 2011 3:28 PM
Oddly enough, it's hard to find reports an NDE that clashed with pre-existing religious beliefs. Christians have a Christian experience, Hindus have Hindu experiences. It's almost as if it's all in the mind. How unbelievable is that?
Posted by: MikeMa
|
March 21, 2011 3:29 PM
Voted. No, of course. Lots of damned fools out there but the No count is rising. Yeah squid.
Posted by: cowalker
|
March 21, 2011 3:29 PM
Hmm. When he was four my son went under the table at pre-school with a pair of scissors. When he came back up with long cuts in his sweatpants, he told the teacher that the damage was done in the Iraqi civil war. (This occurred during Desert Storm while his sister was building a diorama of a Civil War prison.) Dang. I should have had him write a book.
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
March 21, 2011 3:38 PM
Geez, couldn't they even have put in an option for "Yes, but that's got nothing to do with this poor fantasizing kid and his attention-whoring parents!"?
(Not that I'd pick that, or anything).
Posted by: Noddin
|
March 21, 2011 3:43 PM
how do you quench credulity?
Posted by: Copyleft
|
March 21, 2011 3:47 PM
They don't need to think that their son is lying; indeed, he may not have been, then or now.
Simply say to Mr. & Mrs. Burpo: "Your son Colton was not lying. He was, however, mistaken. A lot of people have weird dreams that they mistake for real-life experiences."
End of excitement.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 3:48 PM
See how quick this turned into political bullshit?
Maybe because the problem is too much gullibility to begin with?
If the US focused more on critical thinking to begin with, then maybe politics wouldn't be the nightmare it is now.
religion: Not helping since the appearance of language.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 21, 2011 3:51 PM
Wait, he said that he died... Did the medical personnel confirm that his heart stopped at any time during the procedure? I'm obviously not buying that he met Jesus or anyone, but I'm not even convinced that he had a near death experience at all.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 3:52 PM
Are there any cases of people having near-death experiences, seeing deities they didn't expect, and changing their religion as a result?
probably.
I've know several people who have changed their minds about things after hallucinations induced by LSD, or even vivid dreams.
now if ALL people had the exact SAME vision, EVERYWHERE...
I might be more inclined to at least take a closer look.
Posted by: PKMKII
|
March 21, 2011 3:52 PM
I generally liked this blog post, but I have to take issue with this paragraph:
First off, the notion that doubt is a big no-no in Christianity, or any other religion, is a gnu atheist strawman argument against theists. Most mainstream religions do not disavow followers who have doubts, and most see a follower who never has doubts as someone whose never really thought about their religion.
Second, it's laughable to imply that most theists are scared to make a distinction between what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically. The millions of Catholics using birth control is testament enough to that. Again, gnu atheist strawman argument.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
March 21, 2011 3:55 PM
Dad is gonna keep the money for home improvements? How about keeping the boy's royalties for him so when he's of age he can decide what to do with it?
PKMKII, the heart stopping is not a reliable indicator of death. I know this from personal experience.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 3:56 PM
Most mainstream religions do not disavow followers who have doubts
how is THAT not a strawman itself?
Posted by: CatherineCanny
|
March 21, 2011 3:57 PM
How could he have possibly known of the miscarriage if the mother kept it a private matter? How many four-year-olds have a working knowledge of their grandparents, much less their GREAT grandparents? Yes, children are incredibly perceptive, but knowing about a private family fact and being able to talk about a great-grandfather, seemingly at detail?
Posted by: satan augustine
|
March 21, 2011 3:58 PM
What's this near-death bullshit? I only believe those who've had actual death experiences.
Taking the word of someone who nearly died is like taking sexual advice from someone who almost had sex.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 3:59 PM
The millions of Catholics using birth control is testament enough to that.
again, this too is a strawman.
this does NOT mean that Catholics are not admonished against using birth control, and we have documented cases, especially in South America, of people being removed from the church upon discover.
so what you're really saying is, you're not afraid of being CAUGHT, and that is entirely relative to where you live, oh person of privilege, and NOT anything to do with the church.
so, IOW, the strawmen are all of your own design.
You should hire yourself out to theaters, as you sure are good at projecting.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 4:03 PM
Taking the word of someone who nearly died is like taking sexual advice from someone who almost had sex.
well, could be a cautionary tale?
:P
How could he have possibly known of the miscarriage if the mother kept it a private matter?
because maybe it's not the kid that's lying, but the parents?
Kid could easily have overheard some discussion about the issue, since it likely was a very significant event.
Moreover, how many years in between the kid's surgery, and the publication of the book? How many years to fuck with the kid's memory and "polish" it?
yeah.
Posted by: satan augustine
|
March 21, 2011 4:03 PM
@ PKMKII
You missed the qualifier in that paragraph, the second half of this sentence:
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 21, 2011 4:04 PM
Because children overhear things? Usually embarrassing or too personal things you really don't want them to know.Posted by: PKMKII
|
March 21, 2011 4:07 PM
@Ichthyic: I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
March 21, 2011 4:08 PM
He may not have been the one providing the detail. As in my psychic/client scenario above, the parents may have been providing the details in trying to figure out what the boy was talking about and then later misremembered who actually said what. After all, the book was written almost 7 years after the experience. Memories are notoriously unreliable after all that time. Shoot, memories are unreliable after a shorter time period than that. Read Elizabeth's Lofton's work on inducing memories in children for examples.
Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀)
|
March 21, 2011 4:09 PM
This very good article doesn't even bring up the point that the parents ADMITTED this story took form over SEVERAL YEARS. He didn't wake up on the operating table and blurt out all of it at once. Rather, they kept ASKING him about it, and he kept supplying "newly remembered" details!
CatherineCanny: I was never supposed to know about two different miscarriages in MY extended family, and yet I know perfectly well. When the family knows, sooner or later the kids WILL find out. There is nothing magical about wide-open little ears.
Posted by: machopineapple
|
March 21, 2011 4:09 PM
This book was ghost, er, "co"-written by Lynn Vincent. I'd say it's been political bullshit from the get-go.
Posted by: Larry
|
March 21, 2011 4:11 PM
They really set that old believability bar pretty high right out of the chute for that kid. From now on, any time he does something bad, he just needs to mention jebus was somehow involved and he gets a free pass.
Sweet!
Posted by: Larry
|
March 21, 2011 4:11 PM
They really set that old believability bar pretty high right out of the chute for that kid. From now on, any time he does something bad, he just needs to mention jebus was somehow involved and he gets a free pass.
Sweet!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 4:11 PM
@Ichthyic: I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.
more projection on your part.
Posted by: BeamStalk
|
March 21, 2011 4:13 PM
Gah, my mom bought me this book to "show me what Heaven is really like" it is worthless.
@Ichthyic: It was published in 2010 and the events occurred in 2004 so 6 years to polish the story. It is still a terd.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
March 21, 2011 4:13 PM
If you watched the Today Show piece this morning, Matt Lauer asked the mother about her son's knowledge of the miscarriage. Her reply was something to the effect of
"How does one tell a 3 year old that mommy lost a baby in her belly".
I thought, well...just like that.
Mystery solved.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 21, 2011 4:15 PM
[George Bernard Shaw] I see someone else felt the same as I. From the sidebar.Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 21, 2011 4:28 PM
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 21, 2011 4:31 PM
PKMKII #21 wrote:
I agree with your main point here -- that having doubts is not only common, but accepted and even appreciated in most Christian sects (even evangelicals) -- but I don't agree that all the 'gnu atheists' would reject this, as if it was part of a creed. Like you, I think the writer is perhaps using too broad a brush. Although the simple belief of the small child is supposed to be admired, "Faith" is often seen as more valuable because of the doubts: one struggles then to overcome them, as if one is trying to keep hope in the face of great odds. They seem to see it the way we might view optimism ... as judged after a successful outcome. The babe who never doubted charms us, but the more mature person who had to work and discipline themselves inspires us.
What gnu atheists would probably agree on, though, is that religious faith is not like the secular versions of hope, trust, confidence, etc. It's confirmation bias, a commitment to stand by an idea as if being loyal to a friend, and it is error and weakness, not virtue.
The religious only value doubt if you then overcome it. That's the point of faith. Courage is not the absence of fear, but the mastery of it: faith is not the absence of doubt, but the mastery of it. The believer is not interested in discerning truth: they're trying to show that they are reliable when they make a commitment to a 'Truth.'
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
March 21, 2011 4:31 PM
PKMKII (#21):
Irrelevant, since the post explicitly references evangelical Christianity (hence the quite justified accusations of strawman-ism levelled against you).
Within evangelical groups, doubt may not be grounds for disavowal as such (and the original post did not claim that it was, so ditto on the strawman-ism), but it is not uncommonly treated as a moral lapse, a falling away from ideological purity, something to be "prayed away" or resolved by pulling the doubter closer into the circle of groupthink. It is far less common to find it treated as a natural, reasonable intellectual position.
Posted by: Deen
|
March 21, 2011 4:37 PM
The bits I've seen of the boy in TV appearances left me with two impressions:
1) The father did most of the talking, and
2) When the boy did speak himself, it sounded like something he had memorized.
Maybe I'm biased, but did anyone else have the same impression?
Posted by: wmsnedden
|
March 21, 2011 4:42 PM
I wonder that no-one seems to have pointed out to this Christian minister that his son's alleged experiences appear to contradict the Christian scripture. According to the gospels, people don't die and immediately go to heaven. It isn't until the last day when the graves will open and the those who have died will be resurrected to face judgment. Only AFTER that point will the faithful get to go to heaven. So little Colton couldn't have spoken to his great-grandfather in heaven 'cause he isn't there yet!
You'd think a Christian minister would be better acquainted with his own doctrine!
Posted by: spaninquis
|
March 21, 2011 4:43 PM
@43 Deen
Yes, I had the same impression.
When the boy was asked to describe heaven, he started to say "It's a vac..." then changed it to say it was fill of colors and people and animals. Sounded like he was going to say it was a vacuum. Not the hard A in vacation, but the soft A in vacuum.
And Animals? So all dogs really go to heaven?
And conveniently, Dad's a minister. Talk about bias.
Posted by: KG
|
March 21, 2011 4:44 PM
Tosh. That's nothing to do with taking anything metaphorically: it's simply disobeying what is known to be a literal instruction, and cannot sanely be interpreted in any metaphorical way. I have to conclude that you don't know what "metaphorical" means.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
March 21, 2011 4:45 PM
@43 Deen
Yes, I had the same impression.
When the boy was asked to describe heaven, he started to say "It's a vac..." then changed it to say it was fill of colors and people and animals. Sounded like he was going to say it was a vacuum. Not the hard A in vacation, but the soft A in vacuum.
And Animals? So all dogs really go to heaven?
And conveniently, Dad's a minister. Talk about bias.
Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀)
|
March 21, 2011 4:45 PM
wmsnedden: the Christianity I was raised in, which seems to be basically identical to this pastor's, did indeed teach that you go to heaven right away. After all, Jesus talked about Moses' bosom bla bla.
Deen: You're not alone, everyone who looks at it with a critical eye agrees the kid is speaking from rote.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 21, 2011 4:46 PM
wmsnedden,
You aren't using the bible to determine what heaven is like are you? I mean, there are thousands of different interpretations of that book, many grossly incompatible. Clearly the truth is evident because this child actually went there.
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 21, 2011 4:49 PM
wmsnedden #44 wrote:
Ah, but you said it right there -- the account appears to contradict scripture. Once you read it using a combination of the best scholarship and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, you will see that there are no contradictions at all. Unless you are trying to prove that there IS a contradiction: then scholars and the Holy Ghost shout out, very plainly, that there are problems!
They are all very well acquainted with their own Christian doctrine: it is written on their own hearts, after all.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 4:54 PM
I don't agree that all the 'gnu atheists' would reject this
like I said, PK was the one propping up an army of strawmen.
projection isn't a defense mechanism solely associated with the religious, but boy is it represented there mightily.
Posted by: Juno Walker
|
March 21, 2011 4:54 PM
@ PKMKII
I was born into born-again Christianity - the evangelical, Biblical-literalist type - so I can only speak for evangelicals. And not only my own experience and that of my immediate family; I work with and I am an acquaintance of a number of others.
If one takes the Bible literally - especially regarding Jesus and his alleged atonement - then one cannot doubt the propositions about Jesus' character and actions as recorded in the gospels and expanded upon in Paul's writings. Of course, in reality, doubt DOES creep in; but this is where the believer either 1) prays for help with his unbelief; 2) sees it as a test, but "knows" he's saved regardless; or 3) tries to ignore it.
Of course, there may be other remedies, but those are the ones I've encountered most in my experience, and the experience of those evangelicals with whom I've had conversations.
Juno
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 5:08 PM
All of them with living grandparents?
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 21, 2011 5:08 PM
Apparently this dead or alive thing is confusing for the more dishonest idiots among us. They can't even keep their own delusions straight. (N.B.: if you're reading this, you're probably in category number one.)
1) Alive and awake
2) Alive and asleep
3) Alive and faking death (e.g., for fraud or self-defense)
4) Alive and unconscious (as during surgery)
5) Alive and having had a "near-death experience"
6) Alive and comatose (or "brain dead")
7) Mostly dead
8) Dead
9) Dead and alive, in an "afterlife" without "spiritual death" ("heaven")
10) Dead and dead, in an "afterlife" with "spiritual death" ("hell")
11) Deities and other fictional characters, which may not be describable as either alive or dead
Question for the godbots: which of these states is unsupported by evidence?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
March 21, 2011 5:09 PM
I have heard that there are rare examples of traumatic near-death experiences, ie ones not evocative of a heaven, but rather a hell.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
March 21, 2011 5:11 PM
Sastra:
Can I open 'em up and read it for myself? Please?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x1CsKko.p.keyee5Rk.DLZd7ts9OdS.ilqZgGw--#2a28e
|
March 21, 2011 5:11 PM
My mother was an extremely private person. I didn't find out that she had had a miscarriage until I was 47. I told her I was going to have a procedure done at a certain hospital. She said that that's where she had her miscarriage, about a year before I was born. None of my siblings knew.
About a year before my mother died my younger sister called and said that mom had gotten a call from her sister. She said, "I never knew she had a sister." I told her she also had a brother. My older sister and I were the only ones who knew she had half-siblings.
BillyDee
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 21, 2011 5:17 PM
Comatose is not brain-dead. People can wake up from comas; but if you're brain-dead, you're dead.Posted by: thorlax
|
March 21, 2011 5:18 PM
Sigh. If they would only read the good book. Matthew 22:30 Jesus speaking: no marriage or given in marriage in heaven. All are like the angels (no gender; no age differences). Oh how disappointing when they won't be able to meet Mom and Dad, Grandma and Aunt Sue.
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 21, 2011 5:18 PM
The child's account of heaven is inaccurate: he forgot to mention the magic sparkle flying rainbow ponies. What's heaven without them?
The comments under the Today Show poll are sad. Is there a heaven? "Absolutely, otherwise life would not be worth living." Wouldn't it be the other way around?
Posted by: Kevin
|
March 21, 2011 5:19 PM
@53 Ing...hopefully, that doesn't include living with the DEAD grandparents.
Really, try to keep up. We're talking dead Granny.
Posted by: PKMKII
|
March 21, 2011 5:20 PM
@Ichthyic: It's a strawman argument if you're inventing it out of the blue, i.e. "This is what a typical gnu atheist thinks." It's not a strawman argument if it's responding to an actual argument. I fail to see how I can be accused of creating a strawman argument about a gnu atheist, when it was a gnu atheist who made the argument in the first place in this blog. I didn't create it, I responded to it.
Second, who ever said I was religious? I specifically prefaced my original comment by saying I liked the bulk of the post. Sounds like someone is trying to reduce the world to a false dichotomy.
@Iain Walker: Okay, he's referencing evangelicals. It's still not immediate grounds for banishment to express doubts in your faith in an evangelical church. Sure, they want you to overcome those doubts. But I was addressing the claim that doubts at all are verboten.
@KG: The vatican ban on birth control is based on an interpretation of a Bible passage. If a Catholic is using birth control, then obviously they don't buy into that interpretation of that passage.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 21, 2011 5:21 PM
Interesting. Some other possibilities: vaccary, vaccination, vaccine, vacuity, vacuous....
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 5:22 PM
What's heaven without them?
no, see, it's you're own PRIVATE Idaho.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 21, 2011 5:27 PM
You're right. I shouldn't have put them together. I didn't mean to suggest with the "or" that they were equivalent, just alternatives in a similar conceptual category, even though as you say they are not at all the same.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 5:27 PM
No it's a strawman if they never said it, regardless if someone else said it. You also read poorly clearly.
Posted by: wockrassa
|
March 21, 2011 5:28 PM
Not necessarily. Buddhism is quite explicit that Gautama passed into "parinirvana", which is essentially a state of total non-existence.
Of course, Gautama also claimed that he "remembered" all his "previous existences" after he was "enlightened", but there are a couple things wrong with that claim.
1. He didn't talk about ever having been a dinosaur, despite having allegedly been fish, birds, grasses, etc.
2. Buddhism explicitly teaches that there cannot be a soul, since there is nothing permanent, eternal, or unchanging in the universe.
It's #2 that makes Buddhists squirm a little when you try to pin them down on "rebirth" and "reincarnation". The sneaky ones will tell you that the terms are different, and Buddhism is about "rebirth" - but the honest ones will tell you it's a load of hooey infused into the belief system because it came into existence in the Indus River valley, which was overrun with belief in reincarnation at the time. (And still is.)
As to Colton's "vision" - well, sounds like the imaginative narratives all very young children come up with. It takes more than mere credulity to accept these statements as true; it takes a deliberate, willful desire to ignore reality.
Posted by: KG
|
March 21, 2011 5:28 PM
How do you know she did, fuckwit? Do you believe everything any con-artist tells you?
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
March 21, 2011 5:35 PM
When my son was four he accidentally knocked over a lamp. When I asked him what happened he said that Superman fell down and broke his stomach. Obvious proof of the existence of Superman!
As for the "how did he know about X, Y, or Z?" you're forgetting the power of leading questions. "And did you see great-grandpa?" "Did you see Jesus?" "Did you talk to him?" "Did you see your little sister?"
In Hamilton, Ontario, some years ago there was a huge Satanism and child abuse scandal, with small children revealing all kinds of bizarre details about black masses, cannibalism, sacrifices, sexual acts, etc. After a long investigation, the most expensive in Canada to that date, a judge found the mother and her former boyfriend guilty of sexual abuse and making the children eat shit, and ordered the children into foster care. No actual evidence of dark rituals was ever found.
I'm having trouble finding details about the Hmailton case but here's a lengthy report about a similar case in Nottinghamshire. Some of their conclusions:
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 21, 2011 5:35 PM
Do you really believe they were able to keep perfectly hush-hush around their children about a wanted pregnancy?Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 5:41 PM
It's not a strawman argument if it's responding to an actual argument.
an argument that doesn't exist except in your own mind, as Sastra detailed for you.
again, you really need to check your delusions at the door.
Posted by: CJO
|
March 21, 2011 5:41 PM
The vatican ban on birth control is based on an interpretation of a Bible passage.
It is? Which one?
AFAIK, it is not. It is Catholic docrine based on various pronouncements of figures in the early church like Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and good ol' Augustine of Hippo.
And (again, AFAIK) these pronouncements were not made based on any specific passage in scripture. Take as an example this from Clement's writings:
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted".
It's just always been Catholic doctrine, based on nothing but the authority of ancient bishops, and thus appears to have nothing to do with literalism one way or another.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 5:44 PM
If a Catholic is using birth control, then obviously they don't buy into that interpretation of that passage.
Tell me, is the Pope a reliable authority on Catholic Dogma?
again, you're not only strawmanning atheist arguments, but doing the same for Catholics.
as to why we assumed you were religious, perhaps it's because YOU chose to focus on Catholics?
Strangely, the OP wasn't even about Catholics...
hmm
Oh fuck me, I'm too tired to play this stupid game with you, moron.
fuck off.
Posted by: hje
|
March 21, 2011 5:54 PM
Why didn't he also get to meet the embryos that failed to implant (the ones his mother never knew about)?
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 21, 2011 6:01 PM
Ichthyic #71 wrote:
It's hard to figure out whether or where the "straw man" argument is here, because PKMKII gave what I think was a reasonable interpretation of what Juno Walker wrote and then wrote or implied that "This is what a typical gnu atheist thinks." The writer made a "a gnu atheist strawman argument against theists."
Ok. Assume she did (debatable, but for the sake of argument.) Did PK mean that Juno is a "typical" gnu atheist and this is what she, herself, thinks? Or did PK mean that this is what any typical gnu would think? I'm not sure.
My point was that gnu atheists have varied views of what faith means to the faith-full. There's some disagreement within. Disagreeing with one 'gnu' doesn't necessarily mean you found a flaw in gnu atheism.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
March 21, 2011 6:07 PM
I guess you realize that you're named after the Cathars, who were wiped out by the Roman Catholic Church for various heretical thoughts, including a belief that men and women were of equal rank. Their version of Christianity was called the Albigensian Heresy: look it up. It took years of repeated crusades. In one of the final campaigns, a Roman Catholic bishop ordered the massacre of a city of 20,000 people, of whom about 10% were Cathars. "Kill them all! Christ will know his own." Nice church you have there.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
March 21, 2011 6:19 PM
I thought the ban on birth control in RCC doctrine was based on the preformation hypothesis of inhertance...that each sperm* has a little ensouled homunculus in it, and spilling your seed is equivalent to killing millions of little dudes.
*Or ovum if you are a fucking ovist.
Posted by: raven
|
March 21, 2011 6:22 PM
Not quite true. Most of the mainline Protestants don't have any problem tossing huge chunks of the magic book.
Catholics never did bother with it much, preferring to listen to weird old magicians who claim to talk to god routinely and make up all sorts of weird stuff. Saints bodies have magic powers which is why they dig up their honored dead and rip the bodies apart for relics.
The US fundies are explicitly literalists and they own US xianity right now. That's where you get morons who think the earth is 6,000 years old, Noah had a boatload full of dinosaurs, and jesus will show up any day now and kill 7 billion people and destroy the earth.
The fundies created the gnu atheists.
Posted by: Protoplasmoid
|
March 21, 2011 6:26 PM
My response to this fantastic joke. beleive me, it was worthy of this. I mean that without sarcasm.Also on states of brain function and near death experiences.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
March 21, 2011 6:27 PM
PK: First off, the notion that doubt is a big no-no in Christianity, or any other religion, is a gnu atheist strawman argument against theists.
Y'all are looking to deep to see PK's misuse of "strawman". Right at the beginning of the conversation, PK claims that that a proposition about Christians is a strawman against Christians.
That "notion" can be wrong, right, improperly contextualized and so on -- but it's not a strawman, except insofar as it's the unsupported premise for further arguments.
"I claim that Christians believe X" can not be a strawman. Arguing against X without showing that Christians actually believe X as a way to avoid arguing against actual Christian beliefs would be a strawman.
Unfortunately, PK doesn't show the latter -- no one is misrepresenting Christian belief as being dogmatic in order to find themselves an easier target, but are in fact claiming that in Christianity doubt is considered either a personal failure or a test from God to be overcome.
That's possibly wrong (but in fact is actually a correct description of creed-based religions), but can't possibly be a gnu atheist strawman.
Wikipedia has a good description: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Apparently, PK hasn't even bothered to read the wiki page on his usage. Everything that follows is even worse.
My prediction? We will also see a torrent of incorrect usages of "ad hominem", Godwin and the entire panoply of internet game winners played by the pseudo-intellectual denizens of the chat rooms. If he's really good, he'll pull out a "confirming the consequent" -- that one can actually subtly be misuse, by being applied outside of pure tautology.
Specify, specify, specify. If you're reaching for a stock phrase and not describing exactly how it applies here, you're most likely abusing the term.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 21, 2011 6:27 PM
Reading Colton's story, it's clear he was one very sick little boy. Ruptured appendix, rip-roaring peritonitis. Not good. It's also clear from the news coverage that his medical records do NOT say he died or needed resuscitation, just that he was very sick and needed two surgeries.
It is very, very common for patients to report having vivid visual experiences under anesthesia. Roughly a quarter to a third of all patients do so.
Sounds like a not-story here...as in not evidence of the existence of heaven or life after death.
Posted by: Blondin
|
March 21, 2011 6:40 PM
I must make a special effort to locate Colton's book when every I am in a book store...
and move it to the appropriate section - 'Fantasy/Fiction'
Posted by: makyui
|
March 21, 2011 6:45 PM
@Markita Lynda:
That's a fantastic point. The "Satanic Panic" back in the 80's, which was based entirely on children's testimonial, described all kinds of horrific practices and things that didn't actually exist at all. It took YEARS to finally convince people that none of it had actually happened, and many people's lives were ruined by it. Some of it still lingers today in the memories of religious kooks who still want to believe that there's a global satanic conspiracy.
All of it was started when some kids made a vague statement, and through the prodding of parents and therapists and investigators, it bloomed into a nightmare.
Why would ANYONE think that this is proof of anything when it's been shown in the past how easy it is to manipulate children into spinning tales, especially when they're getting positive reinforcement from their parents and other people?
Posted by: wanderinweeta
|
March 21, 2011 6:48 PM
@PKMKII
That's PK - MK - II? Second generation?
So am I, in a sequence of four.
I don't know about "most" theists; who does? And many theists, notably Christians, routinely interpret anything inconvenient as metaphorical, whereas anything that gives them an edge up on their neighbours must, obviously (to them), be literal.
So yes, you're right, at least in part.
However, the original statement read, "And the typical believer can't venture too far into the exegetical disputes over literal versus metaphorical interpretations; the theological ground there is too shaky - the fate of his eternal soul depends on it!"
Juno is not saying that theists are "too scared"; but that there is only so far that one can go into examining these distinctions without endangering her certainty, and maybe even her salvation (depending on whether she's in the once-saved-always-saved camp, or not). Which is demonstrably true.
Posted by: Chaos Cryptic
|
March 21, 2011 6:50 PM
Blondin, I'm sure everyone here appreciates the sentiment, but please don't actually do that. From what I understand, it gets very frustrating for the people who end up having to re-shelve such books, even if they agree with you.
Posted by: makyui
|
March 21, 2011 7:13 PM
Bleh, hang on a sec. I had a specific case in mind while talking about the Ritual Abuse scare as a whole. My mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
Goes to show how memory isn't as reliable as we want it to be, heh. And yet people want to take the word of a kid with stale memories from when he was four at face value.
Posted by: Kevin
|
March 21, 2011 7:22 PM
...you don't need his medical records to know that.
The boy's alive. He was never dead. Nobody who was EVER dead has EVER come back from DEATH.
And by DEATH, I mean "dead", as in the current medical definition of brain death. A non-beating heart is not evidence of death. Not breathing similarly is not evidence of death. Only a dead brain is evidence of death (and even THAT has to be taken with a pinch of skepticism in certain situations).
Nobody who was resuscitated from near death experiences were actually "dead". Nobody who claims to have had a "near death experience" was anywhere close to actually being dead.
Terri Shiavo had a "near death" experience. The nearer you are to death, the less likely you will be to be able to report on that experience should you be successfully revived. But neither Terry Shiavo nor anyone else has actually been DEAD and come back.
No. Not him either. Bronze Age myths do not count.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 21, 2011 7:25 PM
Hey now,
Jesus was not bronze age.
Posted by: raven
|
March 21, 2011 7:28 PM
Not at all. I just saw someone whose heart stopped twice in one week. By some miracle (not really, he is a health care professional), trained people were around and got it started again. Wasn't very old either, early 40's.
He now has a pacemaker. Another miracle, this one of modern technology.
Posted by: jdanielclements
|
March 21, 2011 7:28 PM
I read this story somewhere else, and I can swear it was slightly different: The boy's story did not emerge until some years AFTER the supposed event.
Sorry, I can't seem to find that source, so maybe I am deluded, but that is what my brain is telling me.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
March 21, 2011 7:29 PM
A claim that was never made in the article. That's what a strawman is, a claim that was never made that you're attacking anyway.
What the article implied is that doubt is heavily discouraged in evangelical denominations (which, in the United States, are mainstream religions).
Posted by: jdanielclements
|
March 21, 2011 7:39 PM
Found a couple references on the web: Apparently he started telling the stories four months after the operation. For what it's worth.
I can imagine it was after hearing four months of praising God for his recovery.
Posted by: Leroy
|
March 21, 2011 7:43 PM
I know it is very difficult to believe in an afterlife, but most near death experiencers do just that. I can't judge whether the youngster is telling the truth or not because each NDE is unique. I have been there. The research on near death experiences is extensive, I will leave a link. http://wp.me/pvtV5-Sm
Posted by: Marie the Bookwyrm
|
March 21, 2011 7:54 PM
What a coincidence. The local news had a story this evening about this kid and his book. I couldn't believe that they were presenting it as a fact. They couldn't even say 'he claimed to have visited heaven'. Made me want to spit!
Posted by: Juno Walker
|
March 21, 2011 8:00 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Oz does an episode on near-death experiences because of this...
Juno
Posted by: Daz
|
March 21, 2011 8:09 PM
Leroy:
Great. Got any Credible sources?
I started clicking the links under "A few of the scientists that have been researching near death experiences over the past thirty-five years include", and particularly liked Melvin Morse's page. Headings such as:
Is reincarnation the act of "tapping in" to a universal memory bank?
and
Are ghosts and angels really "trapped energy"?
and
Can people be "taught" to use abilities like remote viewing and telekinesis if they were asked to focus on them?
...really don't fill me with that much confidence in his bullshit-filtering abilities.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
March 21, 2011 8:13 PM
[ahem]Salemwitchtrials[/ahem]
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
March 21, 2011 8:27 PM
Well, at least no one's burning at the stake over this. Yet.
Progress?
Posted by: makyui
|
March 21, 2011 8:53 PM
Haha, Carlie, yes. Exactly.
Leroy:
Huh? Lots of people believe in an afterlife and do so very easily. If you mean, "It's very difficult for you lot to believe in an afterlife", then maybe you're on to something -- but that's because the evidence for it is shit.
Well, of course they do. That's why they claim to die and come back. That's why they claim that this weird dream of theirs that seems to coincide with their expectations of the afterlife is somehow proof that not only is there an afterlife, but it's their idea of the afterlife.
So what?
Posted by: j-brisby
|
March 21, 2011 8:57 PM
I thought Satan was the one with the goatee. Every picture of Jesus I've ever seen, he was sporting the full Red Green.
Posted by: scornucopia
|
March 21, 2011 9:25 PM
“Working knowledge” is a peculiar choice of phraseology. As I understand the idiom, one can have “working knowledge” of (for example) a theory, a field of study, or a device, with the implication being that one's working knowledge enables one to use said theory/field/device without actually understanding it in minute detail. It seems like a category error to apply the term to knowledge of persons — unless the child's grandparents are relativity, linear algebra, a toaster, and a lawnmower.
Posted by: rover serton
|
March 21, 2011 10:01 PM
I'm so glad to see this here. We have a unique opportunity. We KNOW what religious teaching will allow sick children to see thier lost relatives AND Jesus! Everyone with any doubt should follow this kids Dad to learn the true path to heaven.
Who knew, heaven has animals? Wonder if I can take my bow?
This kid is a goldmine and not just to his parents.
Posted by: Snoof
|
March 21, 2011 10:39 PM
Don't be absurd. Nobody was burned at the Salem witch trials. They weren't barbarians.
They were hanged (or in one case, crushed). Much more civilised.
Posted by: mikeyB
|
March 21, 2011 10:47 PM
I couldn't resist. I was curious on how credulous these people are so I went ahead and downloaded the book. From a quick glance -I'm not dissapointed. Below are some relevant passages. Strikes me as guided word association and child exploitation. Read it and you be the judge.
"[I hung up and leaned against the kitchen counter, processing. Slowly, I began to wrap my mind around the possibility that this was real. Had our son died and come back? The medical staff ever gave any indication of that. But clearly, something had happened to Colton. He had authenticated
that by telling us things he couldn’t have known. It dawned on me that maybe we’d been given a gift and that our job now was to unwrap it, slowly, carefully, and see what was inside. Back ownstairs, Colton was still on his knees, bombing aliens. I sat down beside him.
“Hey, Colton, can I ask you something else about Jesus?”
He nodded but didn’t look up from his devastating attack on a little pile of X-Men.
“What did Jesus look like?” I said.
Abruptly, Colton put down his toys and looked up at me. “Jesus has markers.”
“What?”
“Markers, Daddy . . . Jesus has markers. And he has brown hair and he has hair on his face,” he said, running his tiny palm around on his chin. I guessed that he didn’t yet know the word beard. “And his eyes . . . oh, Dad, his eyes are so pretty!”
As he said this, Colton’s face grew dreamy and far away, as if enjoying particularly sweet memory.
“What about his clothes?”
Colton snapped back into the room and smiled at me. “He had purple on.” As he said this, Colton put his hand on his left shoulder, moved it across his body down to his right hip then repeated the motion. “His clothes were white, but it was purple from here to here.”
Another word he didn’t know: sash.
“Jesus was the only one in heaven who had purple on, Dad. Did you know that?”
In Scripture, purple is the color of kings. A verse from the gospel of Mark flashed through my mind: “His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.”
“And he had this gold thing on his head . . .” Colton chirped on enthusiastically. He put both hands on top of his head in the shape of a circle.
“Like a crown?”
“Yeah, a crown, and it had this . . . this diamond thing in the middle of it and it was kind of pink. And he has markers, Dad.”
My mind reeled. Here I’d thought I was leading my child gently down this conversational path but instead, he’d grabbed the reins and galloped away. Images from Scripture tumbled through my mind. The Christophany, or manifestation of Christ, in the book of Daniel, the appearance of the King of kings in Revelation. I was amazed that my son was describing Jesus in pretty much human terms—then amazed that I was amazed, since our whole faith revolves around the idea that man is made in God’s image and Jesus both came to earth and returned to heaven as a man.
…..
What did Colton mean when he said Jesus has markers?
What are markers to a little kid?
Suddenly, I had it. “Colton, you said Jesus had markers. You mean like markers that you color with?”
Colton nodded. “Yeah, like colors. He had colors on him.”
“Like when you color a page?”
“Yeah.”
“Well, what color are Jesus’ markers?”
“Red, Daddy. Jesus has red markers on him.”
At that moment, my throat nearly closed with tears as I suddenly understood what Colton was trying to say. Quietly, carefully, I said, “Colton,where are Jesus’ markers?”
Without hesitation, he stood to his feet. He held out his right hand, palm up and pointed to the center of it with his left. Then he held out his left palm and pointed with his right hand. Finally, Colton bent over and pointed to the tops of both his feet.
“That’s where Jesus’ markers are, Daddy,” he said.
I drew in a sharp breath. He saw this. He had to have.
We know where the nails were driven when Jesus was crucified, but you don’t spend a lot of time going over those gruesome facts with toddlers and preschoolers. In fact, I didn’t know if my son had ever seen a crucifix. Catholic kids grow up with that image, but Protestant kids, especially young ones, just grow up with a general concept: “Jesus died on the cross.”
….
I realized I was starting to accept that, yes, maybe Colton really had been to heaven. I felt like our family had received a gift and, having just peeled back the top layer of tissue paper, knew its general shape. Now I wanted to know what all was in the box.
“Well, what did you do in heaven?” I ventured.
“Homework.”
Homework? That wasn’t what I was expecting. Choir practice, maybe,
but homework? “What do you mean?”
Colton smiled. “Jesus was my teacher.”
“Like school?”
Colton nodded. “Jesus gave me work to do, and that was my favorite part of heaven. There were lots of kids, Dad.”
This statement marked the beginning of a period that I wished we had written down. During this conversation and for the next year or so, Colton could name a lot of the kids he said were in heaven with him. He doesn’t remember their names now, though, and neither do Sonja nor I.
This was also the first time Colton had mentioned other people in heaven. I mean, other than Bible figures like John the Baptist, but I have to admit that I sort of thought of him as . . . well, a “character” more than a regular person like you and me. It sounds kind of dumb since Christians talk all the time about going to heaven when we die. Why wouldn’t I expect that Colton would’ve seen ordinary people?
But all I could think to ask was: “So what did the kids look like? What do people look like in heaven?”
“Everybody’s got wings,” Colton said.
Wings, huh?
“Did you have wings?” I asked.
“Yeah, but mine weren’t very big.” He looked a little glum when he said this.
“Okay . . . did you walk places or did you fly?”
“We flew. Well, all except for Jesus. He was the only one in heaven who didn’t have wings. Jesus just went up and down like an elevator.”]"
Posted by: horrabin
|
March 21, 2011 10:51 PM
Are people really, really "gullible"?
Posted by: Daz
|
March 21, 2011 11:24 PM
horrabin:
I s'pose if they can square away the doctrine of the trinity, then that lot's child's play. The 'science' seems to consist of collecting loads of anecdotes and then believing them.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 22, 2011 12:30 AM
Yep, that's right, they didn't deem fit to write down the names and then forgot them. Because that's just the kind of trivial shit people forget. Not at all because naming names can make the story falsifiable or get their asses sued by the dead kids' relatives. I LOLed. Did Jesus mention anything about those nasty dead kids messing with his buttons? Can we keep this phrase as a Pharyngula meme? I promise to take good care of it.Posted by: makyui
|
March 22, 2011 2:27 AM
Looks like the poll got double-bombed. The Yeses went up tenfold since eight PM.
Oh well, it was worth a shot.
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
March 22, 2011 2:40 AM
Yes 52,002 votes 66.2%
No 18,494 votes 23.5%
I'm not sure, but I hope so! 8,106 votes 10.3%
To avoid possible "its from Pharyngula" filter copy the link and paste into a new tab or window. The "referer" info is then lost.
Posted by: Icaria
|
March 22, 2011 3:39 AM
From the poll comments:
It just occurred to me that means that this person, regardless of whether they believe in an afterlife, doesn't think life is worth living. It's like saying 'my truck wasn't worth buying until I bought that flat screen'. If life is only qualified by an afterlife, then life itself is inherently lacking in worth. You have to wonder what kind of miserable lives some people have.
Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes
|
March 22, 2011 4:10 AM
That's probably because most of them don't know the passages mentioned and do think that the Pope is an old man who doesn't know anything about sex anyway as a prequiste of his job. They like the idea of heaven and they like weddings and chritianings. They also think that you cannot be burried if you don't have a priest to do so.Now "How can the box remember his great-grandparents?"
Let's face a few facts (I know, novelty concept)
-usually around preschool-age, kids realize that their parents have parents, too, which leaves the question where all these people are
-it's not too far fetched to assume that the boy got told that they're in heaven
-Great-grandpa is usally not a dark family-secret. He's mentioned frequently, there are pictures around.
-"Daddy, how is it when you die? "Well, it's like you are asleep and then you wake up in heaven"
Now, it really is an inexplicable mystery how the boy could have imagined to have seen his great-grandpa...
Ehm, no. I don't believe that the entire crew of Winnie the Pooh lives with us, neither do I believe that there's an invisible walrus called Antje living with us who has a pink car and a nasty tendency to do all the things my daughter is forbidden to do. But I love making believe. I put out a plate for Antje, I fasten her seatbelt and I grounded her for not letting my daughter sleep. ;) I don't think my daughter believes herself either, because we never taught her about any invisible creatures being real, i.e. god.@"fake memories"
Some years ago there was a child abuse scandal here. It started when some over-enthusiastic Kindergarten-teachers noticed that the kids were drawing dinosaurs with very long tails (note that in German "tail" is a synonym for penis). I know, really something you wouldn't expect in a Diplodocus, a long tail...
And since their parents just had split up and the kids were unhappy, this got turned into a story of sexual abuse with (un)professionals asking the kids questions like "Did daddy touch you there and there, did daddy do this? Are you really sure he didn't do it? You really can tell me that he did it."
Years later,after a whole family had got torn apart, people had spent time in jail, the kids had spent a lot of time in foster care and so on, they finally came to the conclusion that nothing ever happened. But those kids had now to deal with the fake memories of sexual abuse the same way kids with actual memories of sexual abuse have to.
So much for the accuracy of memories, especially in children.
Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο)
|
March 22, 2011 5:40 AM
@ PZ
Yes the Byzantine iconophiles liked to picture a jeebus modeled after a young castrated (after puberty) slave from the north, having the features Xtians now attribute to him. Likely the poor bugger had to stand in as sex toy as well...
Posted by: makyui
|
March 22, 2011 6:31 AM
Icara:
Which makes it especially hilarious when they then accuse us of taking all the meaning out of life.
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 22, 2011 6:47 AM
theophontes @112, um.
Look at the byline.
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 22, 2011 6:51 AM
Sastra @60 FTW.
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
|
March 22, 2011 7:27 AM
Sounds like the "PT Barnum Effect" to me.
I.e. "There a sucker born every minute."
"Daddy Pastor" is cleaning out the sucker's wallets.
Posted by: Brother Roberts
|
March 22, 2011 7:59 AM
I firmly believe that I had sex with a beatiful movie star (she will remain unnamed here to protect her reputation) because when I awakened the evidence remained in my pajamas.
Posted by: emf1947
|
March 22, 2011 8:17 AM
It's interesting that the boy described the "markers" as in the center of Jesus' palms and feet. Defenders of the Shroud of Turin's authenticity make a big deal out of the nails having been put in the wrists, because if they had been driven into the palms they wouldn't have held the weight of the body.
Posted by: humanapexx
|
March 22, 2011 8:19 AM
Without the childish heaven fantasy preachers would have to get real jobs and there would be no more daily suicide bombings. It's fair to say the people who believe in heaven have no moral values, they're gullible idiots, they're severely mentally ill, and they're wasting their lives.
I tell these cowards "You're already living in a real heaven. If you still wish for a magical heaven you're being greedy (and a few other things)."
I wrote 21 posts about heaven in my blog.
Posted by: Alan
|
March 22, 2011 8:22 AM
Right now it is 66.6% Yes. Hahaha!
Posted by: Mold
|
March 22, 2011 8:39 AM
Scam. Beats preaching to the ill-paid Goobers of Nebraska.
Notice how Mom is oddly missing? Like she is of less consequence than two manly men writing.
Oh, I do quite agree with posters who mention children pick up the most personal of family information.
Despite the teechins' of some...children are not born stoopid.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
March 22, 2011 8:44 AM
[cherry-picking theists, here is grist for your mill]
People who believe this nonsense make me rethink the value of Sir Francis Galton's idea
[/end over-the-top, ridiculous, venting, hyperbole]
Posted by: Billy C
|
March 22, 2011 9:53 AM
I have read the book, and have some nitpicky corrections, which I'll put off for a moment.
You know you're in for a ride, when the second page of text (xvi) includes the wisdom: "Now, as a pastor I'm not a believer in superstition."
How exactly does that work?
Colton doesn't wake up from surgery and start spouting revelations like Dorothy Gale returning from Oz. It's months later before he says anything, and he pops off a revelation or two every once in a while over the course of years. As related, the insights are short and declarative and having made the announcement, Colton goes back to playing.
I recognize this pattern: it reminds me of my boy as a toddler when he had an imaginary friend. Kevin wasn't around all the time but now and then my son would announce about what Kevin was doing, where Kevin had been, and things Kevin knew. Having shared the information, my son would go back to whatever he was doing.
Every once in a while, Kevin knew something surprisingly insightful. I wonder how I would have reacted if my son had decided to call his friend "Jesus" instead of "Kevin."
As for the miscarriage, the parents say they never told Colton about it -- but they had told his sister, who is several years older and could handle the information.
Dear Burpos: I grew up in a family with four kids. It is impossible to tell only one child anything.
Corrections & comments:
"Upon coming to, the boy recounted ..."
-- No. The boy didn't start recounting until months later.
"What's not clear is whether he actually had a near-death experience ..."
-- Depends on what you mean. He was not clinically dead, and the parents do not claim he was. The parents believe that Colton was "taken up into Heaven" while alive, and cite Biblical precedent.
" ... it merely says that he woke up from surgery and claimed he had died."
-- Neither Colton nor his parents make this claim.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
March 22, 2011 10:02 AM
PKMKII (#62):
No, but then no such claim was made in the original post.
This claim was not made either. The original post asserted only that:
"when you become a Christian, you make a commitment to a set of beliefs, a dogma, and the nature of a dogma is that you can't doubt it and believe it at the same time. For example, a Christian can't claim to be a Christian and doubt that Jesus was the son of God, or that he was raised from the dead. That's the essence of being a Christian - at least from an evangelical point of view."
This seems to me to be a claim about two things. Firstly, that certain beliefs constitute an essential part of evangelical doctrine, and doubting them calls into question one's status as a believing evangelical Christian. This is a relatively abstract question of religious taxonomy, of how we classify people based on their actual, positive beliefs. It's not a claim about how evangelical communities treat doubters or backsliders, whether in principle or in practice.
Secondly, it's a claim that there is a psychological tension between faith and doubt, given the presuppositions of evangelical dogma. It's about how, as an evangelical, one is supposed to regard doubt. Doubt is a falling away from one's commitment to dogma, something to be remedied rather than indulged. Again, this falls considerably short of a claim that doubt is forbidden in evangelical circles.
Now, these claims may be true, false or only true in part. But they are not the claims that you are attacking.
Also, in this context, "doubt" is a somewhat vague term. It can range from mild uncertainty to outright skepticism. Evangelical communities tend to be rather more forgiving of the former than the latter. So if you were thinking primarily in terms of doubt-as-mere-uncertainty as opposed to doubt-as-active-skepticism (and I suspect Juno may actually have had the latter in mind), then I can see why you made the point you made at #21. You were still attacking a non-existent claim, but at least your apparent confusion is understandable.
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 22, 2011 10:16 AM
Brother Roberts | March 22, 2011 7:59 AM:
From that it is clear she did not remove your pajamas. Therefor - she was having sex, not with you, but with the Care Bears™ on your pajamas.
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 22, 2011 10:19 AM
humanapexx | March 22, 2011 8:19 AM:
How does this attitude differ from that of Dr. Pangloss?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 22, 2011 10:30 AM
Does anyone in history have any knowledge of this? To me it always seemed odd that the Romans would nail anyone to a cross when nails would be somewhat expensive compared to the much cheaper and equally effective rope?
I mean it's not the nails that kill you it's the suffocation/exposure so rope should work just as well.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 10:42 AM
I was using the term 'dead' here in the sense of clinically dead, as in the cessation of cardiorespiratory function, not in the more modern sense of cessation of brain function (legally dead), hence my further comment about no evidence of resuscitation efforts in his medical records. It is possible to be clinically dead for a period of time. I'm a living witness to that fact.Clinical death is the definition of death most lay people mean when they are discussing NDEs, and it's the most likely one Colton's parents would have been referring to...which is why I went looking for evidence of a period of clinical death in Colton's records.
Unfortunately, this definition is outdated, as it doesn't really imply death at all, as you rightly pointed out, just imminent death if resuscitation isn't prompt. Most medical professionals prefer the term cardiorespiratory arrest to describe this condition.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
March 22, 2011 10:55 AM
"We know where the nails were driven when Jesus was crucified, but you don’t spend a lot of time going over those gruesome facts with toddlers and preschoolers. In fact, I didn’t know if my son had ever seen a crucifix. Catholic kids grow up with that image, but Protestant kids, especially young ones, just grow up with a general concept: “Jesus died on the cross.”"
Yeah, which is why your kid, after seeing a picture of Jesus with blood on him (a minister doesn't have books around with pictures of bloody jesus? hard to believe) refered to it as "markers" and not blood. Whoo boy there are some credulous people in this world.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
March 22, 2011 11:27 AM
Ing (#127):
As far as I'm aware, the Romans don't seem to have had a universal, standardised crucifixion technique. The shape of the cross could vary, as could the method of attachment (nails, ropes or possibly both). Also, bear in mind that nails could be extracted and reused. The only known skeleton of a crucifixion victim from the 1st Century was apparently only identified as such because the nail still embedded in one foot was bent (and presumably too inconvenient to yank out).
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
March 22, 2011 12:22 PM
Makyui, in the Hamilton, Ontario, case and the McMartin Pre-school case, the police and social services departments worked separately. In the Broxton case, they worked together and pooled their information, which seems to have helped them to draw a sensible conclusion and saved a lot of money and grief.
The McMartin case is particularly egregious. I don't understand how it can be legal for the prosecution to keep exonerating evidence secret from the defence.
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
March 22, 2011 12:26 PM
The poll and comments are down- probably because of all the mean old atheists who kept shooting holes in the ridiculous farce.
Posted by: PTW
|
March 22, 2011 12:28 PM
They appear to have stopped taking responses on the poll. Or maybe hit their end time? Why do I think they took it down when we showed up?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 1:16 PM
Many hospitals I've worked in over the years had pictures of Jesus on the walls of the patients' rooms or in public areas. If the kid was in a Catholic or Baptist hospital, he could have seen one hanging on the wall of his hospital room.His description of Jesus sounds so like the iconic Jesus depicted in pictures or the children's bible - nail holes in hands, rather than wrists, blue eyes, royal purple sash and white robe, etc. It's too cliche.
I'd be much more impressed with his OBE if he'd given an accurate description (in a child's words) of the endotracheal tube in his throat (during surgery) and the names and descriptions of dead people he met in 'heaven' that his parents had never met and knew nothing of prior to his comments. Verifiable details, not vague and parental-enhanced descriptions of well-known iconic imagery.
Posted by: Don
|
March 22, 2011 3:13 PM
Poll was up for me just now. And we're losing the statistically meaningless contest.
Posted by: makyui
|
March 22, 2011 3:44 PM
Even a more historically accurate description of Jesus would've been a hair more impressive, instead of basically working off every reused white-Jesus picture ever. Unless Jesus actually does get all Anglo up in Heaven, heh.
I wonder what Daddy would've thought if Junior said Jesus was dark-skinned and brown-eyed.
Posted by: Darren Garrison
|
March 22, 2011 4:00 PM
You can find the book on the internet, if you care to look. What the news reports don't tell you is that the "descriptions" started FOUR MONTHS after the surgery, and trickled out over the next few years. Some choice quotes:
Angels care not for the music of Queen:
“Colton, you said that angels sang to you while you were at the hospital?”
He nodded his head vigorously.
“What did they sing to you?”
Colton turned his eyes up and to the right, the attitude of remembering.
“Well, they sang ‘Jesus Loves Me’ and ‘Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho,’” he said earnestly. “I asked them to sing ‘We Will, We Will Rock You,’ but they wouldn’t sing that.”
Jesus had a rainbow-colored horse:
“Hey, Dad, did you know Jesus has a horse?”
“A horse?”
“Yeah, a rainbow horse. I got to pet him. There’s lots of colors.”
A longer passage where Colton describes Jesus just like modern illustrations depict him:
“What did Jesus look like?” I said.
Abruptly, Colton put down his toys and looked up at me. “Jesus has markers.”
“What?”
“Markers, Daddy . . . Jesus has markers. And he has brown hair and he has hair on his face,” he said, running his tiny palm around on his chin. I guessed that he didn’t yet know the word beard. “And his eyes . . . oh, Dad, his eyes are so pretty!”
As he said this, Colton’s face grew dreamy and far away, as if enjoying a particularly sweet memory.
“What about his clothes?”
Colton snapped back into the room and smiled at me. “He had purple
on.” As he said this, Colton put his hand on his left shoulder, moved it across his body down to his right hip then repeated the motion. “His clothes were white, but it was purple from here to here.”
Another word he didn’t know: sash.
“Jesus was the only one in heaven who had purple on, Dad. Did you know that?”
In Scripture, purple is the color of kings. A verse from the gospel of Mark flashed through my mind: “His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.”
“And he had this gold thing on his head . . .” Colton chirped on
enthusiastically. He put both hands on top of his head in the shape of a circle.
“Like a crown?”
“Yeah, a crown, and it had this . . . this diamond thing in the middle of it and it was kind of pink. And he has markers, Dad.”
(lengthy redaction)
Suddenly, I had it. “Colton, you said Jesus had markers. You mean like markers that you color with?”
Colton nodded. “Yeah, like colors. He had colors on him.”
“Like when you color a page?”
“Yeah.”
“Well, what color are Jesus’ markers?”
“Red, Daddy. Jesus has red markers on him.”
At that moment, my throat nearly closed with tears as I suddenly understood what Colton was trying to say. Quietly, carefully, I said, “Colton, where are Jesus’ markers?”
Without hesitation, he stood to his feet. He held out his right hand, palm up and pointed to the center of it with his left. Then he held out his left palm and pointed with his right hand. Finally, Colton bent over and pointed to the tops of both his feet.
“That’s where Jesus’ markers are, Daddy,” he said.
I drew in a sharp breath. He saw this. He had to have.
Colton likes playing with plastic swords-- and wouldn't you know it, there are swords in Heaven. But they are too dangerous for a dead child to play with:
“... Sonja said offhandedly to Colton, “Well, I guess that’s one thing you didn’t like about heaven—no swords up there.”
Colton’s giddy excitement vanished as quickly as if an invisible hand had wiped his smile off with an eraser. He drew himself up to his full height and looked down at Sonja, who was still sitting on the floor.
“There are too swords in heaven!” he said.
Surprised at his intensity, Sonja shot me a sideways glance, then kind of drew her head back and smiled at Colton. “Um . . . okay. Why do they need swords in heaven?”
“Mom, Satan’s not in hell yet,” Colton said, almost scolding. “The angels carry swords so they can keep Satan out of heaven!”
(a little redacted)
"I decided to lighten the mood. “Hey Colton, I bet you asked if you could have a sword, didn’t you?” I said.
At that, Colton’s scowl melted into a dejected frown, and his shoulders slumped toward the floor. “Yeah, I did. But Jesus wouldn’t let me have one. He said I’d be too dangerous.”
Colin got to visit the future, where people fight dragons and stuff:
“There’s going to be a war, and it’s going to destroy this world. Jesus and the angels and the good people are going to fight against Satan and the monsters and the bad people. I saw it.”
I thought of the battle described in the book of Revelation, and my heartbeat stepped up a notch. “How did you see that?”
“In heaven, the women and the children got to stand back and watch. So I stood back and watched.” Strangely, his voice was sort of cheerful, as though he were talking about a good movie he’d seen. “But the men, they had to fight. And Dad, I watched you. You have to fight too.”
Try hearing that and staying on the road. Suddenly, the sound of the tires whirring on asphalt seemed unnaturally loud, a high whine.
And here was this issue of “heaven time” again. Before, Colton had talked about my past, and he had seen “dead” people in the present. Now he was saying that in the midst of all that, he had also been shown the future. I wondered if those concepts—past, present, and future—were for
earth only. Maybe, in heaven, time isn’t linear. But I had another, more pressing concern. “You said we’re fighting
monsters?”
“Yeah,” Colton said happily. “Like dragons and stuff.”
(redacted)
“Um, Colton . . . what am I fighting the monsters with?” I was hoping for a tank, maybe, or a missile launcher . . . I didn’t know, but something I could use to fight from a distance.
Colton looked at me and smiled. “You either get a sword or a bow and arrow, but I don’t remember which.”
My face fell. “You mean I have to fight monsters with a sword?”
“Yeah, Dad, but it’s okay,” he said reassuringly. “Jesus wins. He throws Satan into hell. I saw it.”
Also, God is a Smurf:
“What does God look like?” I said. “God the Holy Spirit?”
Colton furrowed his brow. “Hmm, that’s kind of a hard one . . . he’s kind of blue.”
Posted by: Neil
|
March 22, 2011 4:00 PM
It's probably already been mentioned, but I find it very hard to believe that a child in a very religious family wouldn't know about a miscarriage, even if it happened ten years before his birth. It can be a traumatic experience for any expecting mother and family of course, but most of the really religious people I've known who have had one, (or even know someone else who has) can't go a month without mentioning the "lost child". And the narrative usually involves seeing them in heaven, being a "completed family", even morbid details and guesses at how the heavenly fetus looks now, personality traits, etc. They want me to believe that they went at least one to two years without ever mentioning it in front of the kid?
Bullshit. They're not even good liars.
Posted by: Darren Garrison
|
March 22, 2011 4:14 PM
Oh, and Jesus really, Really, REALLY "loves" children.:
No matter what new tidbits he revealed, though, Colton had one
consistent theme: he talked constantly about how much Jesus loves the
children. I mean that: constantly.
He would wake up in the morning and tell me: “Hey Dad, Jesus told me
to tell you, He really loves the children.”
Over dinner at night: “Remember, Jesus really loves the children.”
Before bed, as I helped him brush his teeth, “Hey, Daddy don’t forget,”
he’d say, garbling the words through a mouthful of toothpaste foam, “Jesus
said he really, really loves the children!”
Sonja got the same treatment. She had begun working part-time again
by then, and on the days she stayed home with Colton, he chirped all day
long about Jesus loving the children. It got so that it didn’t matter what Bible
story she or I read to our tiny evangelist at night, whether from the Old
Testament, the New Testament, about Moses or Noah or King Solomon,
Colton wrapped up the night with the same message: “Jesus loves the
children!”
Finally I had to tell him, “Colton, we get it. You can stop. When I get to
heaven, you are exonerated. I will tell Jesus you did your job.”
We might have grown weary of Colton’s nonstop message
Posted by: makyui
|
March 22, 2011 8:20 PM
...Well, that just made my stomach churn.
And Sastra, looks like you got your wish:
Although he doesn't say it's a flying horse, but Jesus is an elevator, so Iunno.
Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο)
|
March 22, 2011 11:15 PM
@ John Morales #114
***theophontes blushes profusely***
Sorry, that comment should have been addressed to Juno Walker.
It is bad enough that I read Pharyngula while I am supposed to be working... I have now been commenting too.
(Oh pooh! Now I am writing this response from work as well. Is this a sign of addiction?)
Posted by: Juno Walker
|
March 23, 2011 4:09 PM
Hello all -
Here is one evangelical's recent take on the issue of "doubt": In Praise of Confidence.
Best,
Juno
Posted by: brianmike99
|
May 9, 2011 2:31 AM
I was very encouraged to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this special read. I definitely savored every little bit of it and I have bookmarked you to check out new stuff you post.
Animation Courses