Due to discontinuity in the font sets on this blog, I have shifted my writings over to www.ericjohnsa.wordpress.com.

New interests and curiosities bring other divisions of reality under the focus of investigation and provide fresh opportunities for disputation. It's fascinating that old endless debates on logical and metaphysical issues involved in free-will, conscience, duty, and merit are as fresh today as ever. If you're a genuine critical thinker, you are always traveling in a circle which inevitably drawsa flexible line around premises of principle and conclusions of detail, finding no point at which criticism can stop. 

To agree with a truth and not act on it is just as unintelligible as a man who knows a truth and is ignorant of it at the same time. What use is correct knowledge if it is not acted upon? None. If words are but to you empty sounds, exhalations of breath over the vocal chords of a noisy organism, and nothing more, then where might you even start finding meaning in anything? Surely you must bear in mind there is extraordinary value in a simple rearrangement of 26 letters in the English alphabet which are sufficient to convey every single idea in the history (and future) of human knowledge. But even further, what's most fascinating is that there are limits to what can be accomplished through the use of language. 

If your disposition, arguments and use of reason can be compared to that of a child, what does this say of you? You cannot be accused of arguing from the thoughts of infants, since we are incapable of concluding what passes through their understanding before they express it. And there is certainly a time when young children begin to think since their words and actions assure us that they do. But when a child is at last thought capable of rationality and basic reasoning, their notions lie completely open to everyone's view, as they are incapable of holding back. Are you that child? Are you easily led into flashy curiosities on metaphysical issues, perfectly willing to suspend your adult critical thinking skills by denying the magnificence of all creation, and moving on to make infantile philosophical intonations for all to see and hear?

What hope does the soul bring in the world with it?  The most primal ultimate truth.  The need to connect with God.  We do all at base level recognize this truth.  To silently hold that this notion is imprinted on us while simultaneously proclaiming the mind is ignorant of it, is to try and make this impression nothing.  More clever and increasingly sophisticated  arguments are not needed to try and explain this away.  It is only in vain when a man runs around trying to extinguish truths imprinted on our primary understanding of the meaning of life.

The saddest realization is knowing a man will live and die at last in ignorance of many truths his mind was capable of knowing.  Even children are not ignorant of things “learned” adults spend a lifetime denying.  Doubtful expressions, mind you, are sometimes the mind's way of requesting more information about the world around us and our place in it.  This is not in and of itself a bad thing unless the expressions of doubt are a smoke screen to disguise one's refusal to undergo the pains to obtain deeper understandings.  Most people's way of arguing is as frivolous as their supposition itself is false.

If we simply retrace the steps by which the mind attains certain truths, we can sensibly interpret the construction of our mental faculties.  For example, we as children extract meaning from the world around us by using our physical senses.  We learn the use of language to describe objects, and even animals can learn this basic behavior (though obviously on a far less complicated scale that humans can).  But as we grow, we also adapt the use of language to describe invisible thoughts, dreams, hopes, mathematical abstractions, and even on to grand theories about the constitution of the universe itself.  Am I making the claim that our use of language is what makes us uniquely human?  Of course not.  The human machine is far more complicated than that.  It's just one of many simple tools we use everyday and of course take for granted.  I fear the incompleteness of the foregoing arguments might have the strength to persuade us to receive sufficient comfort in a bare understanding in uses of terms, and this isn't my goal.  My simple point is thus:  despite all our acquired knowledge, if we are truly thoughtful and intelligent, we return full circle back to the start point.  The need to connect with God.

If you believe the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of religious faith is no more than than petty and pointless nonsense, unfit for the serious mind, then you are free to go celebrate your ignorance in whatever way seems best to you. If, however, you seek deeper meaning, let us move forward here.

Is there any benefit to be found by focusing your faith and reasoning in what turns out to be a high probability game of chance? Something deep in our souls tells us no. If our approach to faith rests merely on the tenet of “well, what have I to lose if I'm wrong, if correct then everything is mine to gain...” Surely this desperate approach to faith is last in a line of pathetic attempts to justify the hardness of an unbelieving heart. It is soulless.

If the foundations of your faith were that weak and underdeveloped, based on a near mechanical calculation (as a gambler placing bets on his own life), then what's within you to resist any other self-proclaimed deity that may come along? If there was one to arise (like the Mahdi) and proclaim “I am the expected one from god, confess me, and all shall be well with you after death in paradise,” are you prepared to yet again weigh on a scale the potential benefits of infinite gain vs. eternal loss? No one serious in the faith finds any tendency within them to resort to this kind of weak theological virtue. We must be strong and live our lives with resoluteness.

Any self-appointed philosopher is at best a learned fool. If I am unable to avoid melancholy delusions, impressions, and intuitions that lead to dark suspicion and fear, I will have accomplished nothing. I do not seek such an ill-balanced self-constructed mental formulation. I am also well aware that he who knows sloth is content with any excuse that even hints at the possibility of unexpected growth, so I wish to avoid that trap as well. Even though some men appear propelled from birth onto the planet completely incapable of happiness despite intellectual posterity, this shall never be the path I follow either. 


When directly confronting controversy, there is little safety for even the well intentioned thought explorer. I recognize that abstract postulations and generalized speculations about sensitive matters brings with it isolation and episodic grief as necessary accoutrements. Nonetheless, I seek no deterrence or hindrance in my journey. True freedom from self-bondage is my goal, and not just for myself. If I may clear away some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge for others, I will proclaim at least some measure of achievement. 

To invade someone's sanctuary of ignorance is always a good service to human understanding. The interesting thing we find is that during closer inspection into the workings of a man's mind and a stricter examination of his motives, we find who he really is, despite any civilities of his other outer self expressions. No matter the approach, I expect never to have the good fortune of being rightly understood everywhere by everyone. That was never my chief design.

The beauty and power we behold in nature. We do seek, with great eagerness, to find our right place in it. The sort of life that is right for man. We should undergo a philosophical self-examination without fear of what may await us in our quest to answer this very personal question. Why personal? Because it's your life. What's right for me to pursue may differ from yours. Here we are again faced with the idea of relativity. Mind you I say nothing here about moral relativity, which is rubbish. But we are unique in this world, each with special endowments that enable us to accomplish some feat impossible to others. And do we not feel that special inward urging to use what gifts we have for the good of others, and feel quite unsatisfied if we are unfruitful with our talents? Think of the delight we seek in deep spiritual satisfaction. The power to produce this delight does not reside in nature.  

Truth itself is not relative to believers. Believers are relative to truth. Tolerance is not a matter of allowing what everyone believes to be a “form” of truth. Tolerance is simply not treating others disagreeably if they are in some way different from you. Logic attempts to codify all principles of valid reasoning. It's important to emphasize the inescapability of logic, its undeniable presence in everything we think and say. Logic can either be true or fallacious. When disentangling truth and its adjuncts from insidious falsehoods, there are a few things to keep in mind.

Laws of non-contradiction function in aspects of philosophic thought, and help support sound logic. For example, something cannot be both red and non-red simultaneously. A number cannot be 4 and 5 simultaneously (at least not in our recognizable physical dimension). Too many people nowadays lazily think everything is up for grabs, so to speak, that there are no absolutes, that science or philosophy has somehow worked its way around logic. Not so. We can only reason from the bedrock of a true belief if that belief cannot also be false. The laws of logic are the solid foundation for all thought, impervious to skeptical doubt.  

What do think of yourself? What do you think of your place in this world? These are questions we must in some way deal with unavoidably. A healthy measure of tolerance for our differences, we find, enriches our lives sometimes delicately, sometimes profoundly. Only with mindful posturing toward one another may we embrace that vital life principle of self-love, an inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is useless fakery (pretense).

Each of us must do what seems best to him, and accept the full ramifications of potential incorrectness either way. We may, if we wish, pretend to discard the ultimate riddles in life (ie: what is the meaning of life, where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going...). But might we at once notice nearly all questions seem to concern merely ourselves? What if it really isn't about us? Have we genuinely prepared ourselves for that potentiality? If so, how might we live differently?

We choose. Choosing not to choose is itself by definition a choice. If man chooses life apart from God, no one can show him beyond reasonable doubt he is mistaken. If a man chooses a life in pursuit of a connection with God, no one can prove him mistaken. The tables are never turned. You simply must choose your own place at the table and sit.  

The new and quite unimproved blogger software has been in my view intentionally maligned to create discontinuity in the font sets.  Despite my best efforts, the blogger software refuses my corrective efforts, and insists all letters be different sizes.  This, mind you, is not by my design.  Therefore, read at your own risk, and bring the matter to google... maybe they'll be less likely to ignore your begs for remediation as they have mine.

We live in a world subordinated to completely objective reality governed by solid truth determined by evidence upon which we must base our faith and believe. As the unexplored mind can only know its own ideas, and we know a sense of obligation comes only from intense desires, might we do well to focus all mental acuity in the direction of our ultimate hope? In our thinking, we find nothing which someone has not thought absolutely truthful while another has thought it entirely false. This is only a competition of beliefs though, not a competition of truths. There can be only one truth. We should make every attempt to adjust ourselves to it.


Twisting and turning beliefs about truth to our own desires and whims is almost always immediately disastrous. For example, if in war, I am told landmines are ancient technology nobody could possibly utilize, yet I notice in front of me flying body parts thrusting upward chaotically toward the sky, despite my inability to see and fully comprehend the nature of landmines, I would be well advised to place my faith in the unknown and presumptuously conclude they still exist, and not in small numbers. Morals based on ancient religious practice might seem jaded to the modern mind that begs independence (and simultaneous dependence), and one may feel less tempted than ever to lend those ancient doctrines a respectful ear, but if you look around you, the disastrous results of disobedience are all around.

Our untrained minds are just as easily capable of grinding out falsehoods as well as truths, so be on guard. There is a battlefield for the mind. And you must choose sides. Once you realize what's really at stake, there is overwhelming urgency enveloping your consciousness to act rightly. For in one sense, we are sensibly just another part of the organic universe, a carbon-based life form gravitationally bound to a ball of rock hurling through space at unimaginable speeds. At times, life can seem insensible and purposeless. And in another sense, much unlike other creatures, we are very spiritual in nature. We helplessly feel propelled to fulfill some greater purpose. We're seekers. We're great explorers. We have a need to know. A need to connect. Not just with one another, but with the Divine Creator of all.

Believe truth, avoid error! Isn't that always our goal? Sometimes, difficult thought it may be, we must invest intellectual risk in order to arrive at correct knowledge. There is no knowledge we should ever fearfully regard as off limits and we are free to explore. We should not lament the sometimes grueling process that learning entails, nor be taken aback if we discover that what we once held as truth turns out to be lies. We would not, for example, regard as worthy a general who told his soldiers it's better to avoid battle lest you incur a wound. In our discomforting world, there are times, despite all our caution, where injury is unavoidable. We should not, therefore, exude unreasonable nervousness about this.


The most useful intellectual investigator is always one whose eager curiosity is seldom easily satisfied. But can pure intellect alone, without aid from “the heart” (a term used to describe our soul), ever decide how to sift through the world of moral relativism? I think not. The two must work in unison if they are to reach any accord. If in your heart you refuse a world of adherence to moral reality, you will find your intellect never attempting to enforce what seems to it only an indifferent and odd biological phenomena. But the heart wants what the heart wants, and it can get quite feisty if it doesn't get its way.


Moral reality (or morality) simply suggests some things as better than others, best thought of as an instruction book for a complicated machine. We're well advised to follow instruction books usually... unless you prefer risking driving a Ferrari blindfolded down the wrong side of a highway to be good life advice. You are free to accept your own form of risk.

For many of us, our faith is faith in someone else's faith.  What conditions should normally be present in our minds for confirmation of what we call 'truth'?  We can all claim to know something, but to know for certain that we know is quite another thing.  It is not enough to use pragmatism as a formal basis for a belief system, since what we deem as practicality isn't a necessary condition for actuality.  Truth is not always what is most useful to believe, or what best meets our desired goals.  You sometimes have to ask yourself if what your depicting by your belief actually has the properties ascribed to it.

Many of us feel it to be impossible to be even temporarily removed from our beliefs in order to compare fresh propositions with objective facts.  All we ever know is that something appears true only if it corresponds to what we want to believe as true.  But is something true only if it agrees with our set of beliefs?  Of course not.  Here's an example:  A college student undergoing the usual conversion to atheism as a result of the proselytizing efforts of the so-called intelligentsia (who proclaim religious beliefs untrue) might find great utility in discovering the adult version of Christianity (which is sophisticated and quite different from their child's interpretation of theology they usually hold).  

Never be too easily convinced of an atheist's arguments if they claim Christianity exists on insufficient evidence, as if sufficiency of evidence was really something they cared about.   From the atheist perspective, they have faith the evidence is absolutely sufficient, just the other way around.  They believe wholeheartedly in everything anti-christian to the extent they consider no other options.  Or worse yet, they treat religious faith as a weakness in our nature from which we must free ourselves, not even in the least bit recognizing they are simply converting allegiances to another type of faith.  If a hundred old or new beliefs are completely ruined in our progress toward truth, we must still march on.

What is truth? Is it relative? If something is true for you, would it also be true for me? There is quite often some confusion between what truth is and what a belief is. Most of the proponents of the idea of relativity of truth make the argument you aren't being tolerant if you believe something untrue to them may be true for others, or vice versa. In this case there is a confusion over the definition of tolerance. Tolerance is tolerating people whose beliefs are not true (or those who hold beliefs you think are untrue). Beliefs are true according to reality making them true or not, so it doesn't matter what you believe is true, truth is absolute. Just because someone's beliefs are false presents no reason for them to be persecuted or unaccepted as people – that is tolerance. You might attempt to persuade someone whose beliefs are not true to believe in something true, but that would not be an exercise in intolerance, it would be an attempt at persuasion. So we shouldn't explain tolerance as acceptance of any belief as true, that makes truth not a matter of they way the world really is... and that whole line of reasoning is all a big mistake.

Tolerance is a mater of not taking the truth of a person's belief to be a reason for tolerating that person or not. Tolerance has nothing to do with the truth of a person's beliefs. Some people think philosophy creates an atmosphere of questioning truth wherein we arrive at relativistic conclusions, and nothing is further from the truth. Philosophers are quite happy with truth, they think the truth is objective, and the misunderstandings of relativistic views of truth arise as confusion of words. Questioning is a way to get you thinking, and questioning something doesn't necessarily imply you doubt something. For example, there might erupt a new activist group that springs up somewhere collectively agreeing the Earth is flat. They could argue how all their experiences as far as they were concerned created this truth for them. However, clearly we understand what they call “truth” is merely a false belief that doesn't conform with reality. And it would not be an act of intolerance to attempt to persuade them to believe the truth.

Justifying a reason that entitles you to a belief is inadequate. It is not enough to claim belief in something only because you wish it to be true. Conversely, wishing for something doesn't necessarily demonstrate belief. If there are sufficient reasons to have a wish justified by a belief that is based on evidence, we call that being rational. But if your knowledge is a rational belief purely based on physical evidence, could you still be wrong? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

Let's go over a quick example that only a goodhearted skeptic would point out: Suppose I'm expecting a customer in the store any minute. You tell me a customer has arrived at the door, yet you are trying to deceive me. It just so happens a customer arrived at the exact moment of your attempted deception. In this case, my belief is true. I have good reason to believe it's true since you told me so, and you have a reputation for honesty. But I don't know with absolute certainty the customer has arrived since it was only an accident that I got it right.

The entire idea behind what we claim as knowledge has myriad conceptual limitations, and we should always think carefully and systematically. Correct beliefs aim at objective truth . Truth is the primary thing beliefs are required to be if they are to add up to knowledge.

If you were trying to convey to another your philosophy of psychology on such issues as the problem of knowledge, the nature of good and evil, theories of child development, and the sort of life man ought to live, would your answers be preconditioned or well thought out?  What is it that keeps us from expressing our deepest thoughts and presenting our sentiments to another for critical evaluation?

Since none of us as adults wants to be on the receiving end of angry criticism, and we're all preconditioned since early childhood on how to respond to others, would a parent not be well advised to condition their children well in advance how to receive critical evaluation of their thoughts without fear of condemnation or harshness?  In other words, be patient and gentle with your children as they're learning and growing.  Never assume they're farther along than they are, and try to explain everything about the great big world around them.  Remember the adult brain doesn't fully develop until one reaches around 22 years of age.

We all need correction once in a while, but we're so turned off by it.  And it's not usually because we're unwilling to change, it's that we don't like the attitude of the one offering the criticism, so we shut it out.  Protecting ourselves from change is a great danger.  Every day in every way, like it or not, we are changing into a who and a what... different from yesterday.  We all need critical evaluation once in a while in order to grow.  I love the famous inscription at the temple of Delphi that says “Know Thyself,”  to which I always add, “Know thyself at thine own risk.” Output or input of reason plagued by anger results in nothing less than tragedy.

Psychology is the science of the mind. Isn't it fascinating our mind is so complex, it takes an entire branch of science to try and understand it? And psychology is only concerned with the output of consciousness, or behaviorism. It takes entirely different medical scientific branches to unravel the biological secrets of the mind. In order for a discipline to be respected as a science though, it must posses reliable explanatory power (ie: such as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation which mathematically explains in quite some detail why objects fall toward the center of the Earth).

Like all sciences, psychology has its controversies. Some suggest the scientific method must be employed in order for a discipline to qualify as science, but it isn't clear what all that method entails. Conversely, physical sciences can be understood as particular modes of explanation as opposed to simply a method. There are, nonetheless, no universal laws in psychology known to be true. All in all, explanatory sketches can provide possible information about how something is derived and the high probability of it's outcome, but that's it. What use, you may then say, is there in a science that cannot be reducible to known laws? There is much use indeed, despite inherent difficulties.

Participants in psychological events are unique. There are a variety of potentialities that are not coequal with philosophical determinism. While events are often entirely predictable with presumptuous over-familiarity, they are often sufficiently unknown in advance to qualify as deterministic. Psychology is a science that offers endless fascination. What really makes people tick? What would it take for you to lay out your thoughts for another and invite objective examination? Can you trust this as a healthy process for unleashing that which is burdening you?

The term “hero,” as we normally use it in everyday language implies bravery, prodigious achievement, one who surmounts hindrances and sacrifices for others – all in the face of personal danger. While we all agreeably espouse such virtuousness as universally awe-inspiring, with the ambitious elevation of individual excellence that border-lines pretentiousness, we must remember the important secret benefit from altruism that produces deep self-fulfillment is often hidden and quiet. Mostly no one knows or sees these micro-events of integrity... what you do when nobody's watching. But you know. And therein lies the greatest satisfaction of all. Knowing you obeyed your conscious and did what was right, considering others first, then yourself. Doing right is always its own reward.

When confronting authority, is there a difference between questioning and doubting? What kinds of institutions do you want around you? Do we seek far more than just a venue that celebrates our leaders and champions of business and culture? Should we hold community sacred spaces that celebrate the lone poet or artist? Should we slow down and learn appreciation for the “finer things” in life? If so, how might we benefit? Along this line of pleasantness... Are there certain social requirements we hold one another to that are ultimately designed for our own good? Is it an impingement on freedom to require young ones to attend school? If one is subsequently punished for noncompliance with this communal standard which is based on a mutually shared goal, should this be viewed as an attempt to hold one down, or bring one up to what we all agree as the minimum standard or “prototype”? I don't think society's insistence that we at least do the bare minimum of what's required of us should ever be confused with pushing you too hard toward excellence. I'd hate for you to actually put forth a real effort toward something and bruise your pinky.

Teachers of scientific naturalism, in lock-step with their high-priest religious counterparts, realize they only have a few years to indoctrinate gullible “students” into believing their heart-felt propaganda or else students learn to think for themselves all on their own, trying to make philosophical sense of the world around them without any guidance. And we can't have that now can we? A society full of independent critical thinkers who take responsibility for their own knowledge? Surely that responsibility is too great to bear. It's much easier to offset blame on pedagogues and other outside forces isn't it?

The latest trend in higher learning is the attempt to use traditional philosophical dogma to reinforce the religion of atheism which is entirely dependent on the creation myth known as Darwinism. Irrespective of the distance traveled around the globe in search of meaning, you always return full circle to the epistemological start point. Epistemology is the discipline in philosophical academia that deals with how we know what we know, or the nature of human knowledge. I've noticed the exact same embarrassing arrogance religious teachers have shown over the centuries about scientific knowledge and philosophical dogma is precisely replicated by educators of naturalism in our present day. Both accusers pitch identical premisses in their arguments. Science claims its doctrines cannot be falsified, as do religious teachers. The battlefield for the mind is ongoing. Why? Because your mind is what controls you. It's the most important battle you'll ever fight.

I have debated evolutionists for 24 years, and have heard virtually every argument under the sun. I've also had plenty of time to filter the more highly polished quibbles through my captious mind, and have found fault with all. Anyone who knows me realizes I criticize everything, all the time... that's just how I do things. And of course I'm familiar with the debates front-lining Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and others. Their arguments against religion mostly center around all the evil perpetuated by mankind in the name of their various gods, moving on to poke fun of beliefs in supernatural miracles that cannot be tested with scientific certainty. What's always struck me as odd is their own failure to admit weakness in the faith that nothing intelligently guides itself into something. Just because an idea cannot be physically tested doesn't nullify it's accuracy. Religion has always presented itself outside of naturalism, so this is nothing new.

The question for many isn't “is there life after death,” but rather is “is there life after birth?” What is life anyway? And are you really living it? Whether or not your intentions point you in one direction or another, you will leave a legacy at the end of today. Like it or not, you're leaving a mark. What, if anything, of value are you leaving behind in your path? Are you on a path that others would be well advised to follow and pursue? If so, great! Keep going and growing. If not, maybe it's time to write yourself a reality check.

Far too many people suffer from unmet needs that could easily be attended to by others. The problem is we forget to ask, or we ask the wrong way. Anyone can toss out a laundry list of wants with absolutely no idea how to obtain any goal and become bitter that others aren't doing everything for them. This is taking the lazy path in life. It's rarely considered commendable or praiseworthy. But if life is viewed through the correct lens, a little help is better than none. Right?

Much of what is passed on as humanistic wisdom is little more than the remains of superstition and mysticism disguised with overly positive affirmations and moral platitudes, usually stressing such virtues as peace, love, gentleness, social equality, and the like. Now on one end, who doesn't like positive thinking? And who can't benefit from fluffy feel-good platitudes once in a while? I notice one common weave among all new-agers though, they all uniformly eradicate any and all feelings of guilt. I don't make the suggestion this is any grand discovery of sorts... I'm just pointing it out. And who am I to say this isn't a good idea for society? Isn't guilt traditionally abused by teachers of religion to the extent people are driven off? Yes, I think it is. Surely. But what about an appropriate amount of guilt. Isn't it necessary if you want the meaningful life? In one sense, guilt is a motivating emotion that tells you something is off, needs correcting, alerting you to something that requires immediate attention to prevent your life careening into a ditch. All pain, however unpleasant, serves some purpose. But controlling guilt so it doesn't control you... ahh... that's the enigma.

The stale residue of traditions and customs no longer relevant to the modern world are all too easily cast off by people accused of having itching ears that only want to hear tickling messages that please them. And almost on cue, once traditionalists identify people who have itching ears that want tickling, then it's time to quickly retreat into their caves, occasionally peeking out toward the sky, thinking they are somehow excused from tending to the world's troubles. But here's as wake up call - none of us is off the hook yet, so to speak.

Now in one sense, we are very right in seeking pleasant things... in fact we're commanded to. But one must not stay there, tempting as it may be. I have learned the meaningful life requires balance. Going the right distance with your pleasures and knowing when to stop. Enjoying the highs and riding out the storms. It's the natural ebb and flow of life. Everything isn't peaches and cream, but life isn't a bowl of thorns either. I think you should give your all, but also know when you've given it. I think God is sending out a wake-up call across humanity. I think very few have gotten it right with their lives. And I am under no delusion that I am part of that few. I think He's trying to shake us out of our comfort zones. I think it's revolting that the modern religious person retreats in fear back to an all-too-comfortable societal sub-culture, a “click,” if you will... ignoring a lost and dying world right outside their stain-glassed widows. The "Conservative" brand of media culture (bought and controlled by powerful interests) would have you live in terror, apart from the world that needs you... religiously buying and consuming and producing. And of course the "Liberal" brand of media hasn't gotten it right either... mostly just seeking to be a pest to Christians. But who would have you care about producing for God? Does anyone care what He wants? What is the work of God? I'm not trying to provide answers, just ask questions... to get us all thinking,.. and hopefully, moving.

Remember the famous Salem witch trials (that occurred in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692)? This absurdity led to the execution of 19 people. In Europe between the years 1470-1750, there were an estimated 40-100,000 such executions that took place. What changed? A difference in perspective maybe? This iconic example, however exotic, demonstrates the monstrous potential that mass delusion presents. There is a distinct danger in placing the whole of your faith in poorly investigated rumors or media reports. More often than not, these are all just special pleading arguments motivated by reasoning to get to a desired even if invalid conclusion, and then are used to explain away why the evidence makes it seem like others have been engaged in a hoax or a cover-up. Arguments are an opportunity to resolve differences of opinion and discover hidden premisses, factual errors, and flaws in logic. This should be the goal. But remember its important to use these tools to improve ones own beliefs and not just to prove why other people are wrong. Remember to resist the natural tendency to use pattern recognition to connect the dots. Just because someone benefits from something in some way, doesn't necessarily imply it was designed in advance for that purpose. Sometimes the way in which you view the world determines how the world looks back at you.

Notice how quickly and easily panic spreads through a crowd of people. Fear based motivation is the quickest and easiest way to manipulate others, and its often used in excess. The usual outcome after the fear subsides (in mentally healthy people) is that they poke their heads out of the sand and look around, quickly understanding there is nothing to be afraid of. In one sense, as emotionally driven social creatures, we're biologically conditioned to defensively adapt and respond to the panic and fear of others in our community, even if the widespread panic is entirely delusional. There are also symbolically created panics that involve entire nations who fear loss of cultural, moral, or existential identity. But sometimes you have to slow down for a minute, take a deep breath, look around you, and realize there is nothing to be scared of. Mass hysteria is sometimes unnecessarily caused by faulty information sources that literally act as a contagion, and often have misogynous roots deeply seated in the desperate desire to maintain control of our minds. So what's the lesson? Be a critical thinker. Be wary of informational sources that tap into your anxieties, because your fears will control you. Never evade the hard questions. Face the fears head-on. And nine times out of ten, you'll come to understand there was nothing to be spooked of after-all.

It's easy to lose yourself in the phenomenon of a group dynamic, wherein critical thinking skills are suspended in the interest of “fitting in,” or “not making waves.” We all have an innate need to belong somewhere, that's natural. But we must be on guard against mass delusions which always linger over an excitable, passionate crowd. Remember to resist the social and emotional tendency to adopt to other people's beliefs instead of holding your own. Standing your ground requires a self-control far from surrender. A delusion is a fixated belief one keeps despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and even completely healthy people are subject to illusory influences. Basically, a delusion involves impaired testing of realty and being compelled by nascent patterns we envisage around us. When we see a pattern of action we think is against us or our interests, we unnecessarily open ourselves to the possibility of paranoid delusions. But what's really going on? We accuse others of failing to listen to us when we state our needs and desires - but do we not return the favor? Is this just a little hypocritical and a waste of time? Remember that time = life; therefore, waste your time and waste your life. I also wish to stress the importance of avoiding the delusion of hopelessness, which sometimes is an accoutrement to inwardly held and staunchly guarded depressive episodes. Don't start off expecting little more than failure, but don't also go to the other extreme with grandiose delusions thinking the whole world is eager to cave in to every squeaky wheel. In social negotiation, when presenting ideas on stage and inviting disputation, always be prepared to find a way that works for everyone. We can all win if we work and stick together, bearing burdens and keeping hope alive, as long as our hopes are firmly grounded in reality.

In debates, a common misconception people arouse is what many refer to as the bulls-eye sharpshooter fallacy. Simply stated as an analogy, imagine a shooter blowing a hole in the side of a barn and then running up to it and drawing a bulls-eye around it, proclaiming victory. What then is the philosophical significance of choosing interpretive criteria after you know the outcome? What does it say? In this type of post-hoc analysis, one clearly feels unsure of their strengths in advance and uses reinforcement techniques of pattern recognition and confirmation bias to delude themselves and others. While on the surface this seems remarkably weak and ill-contrived, it happens more often than we realize in a variety of situations. How you may ask do we avoid this type of self-delusion? Honesty. Brutal honesty. We need honesty with ourselves first, then with others. While many fully supportable arguments can be advanced in favor of the view that those swimming against the tides of trouble the world knows nothing about need active assistance rather than criticism, the best way to illicit helpfulness from others is through friendly admissions of humble limitations. But, can you be strong, right, and humble? Surely. It's quite difficult to maintain consistent composure during battles everyone insists you're losing, but remember that persistence wins over resistance every time. If you know you're right, stick to your guns. Never back down in the face of fear. I don't think anyone should overestimate the quality and accuracy of their own knowledge and claim victory prior to a thorough trial of all the evidence.

There is a term used in statistics known as “regression to the mean.” In every day terms, it’s also sometimes called the drunken walk of randomness - a recurrent phenomenal thematic sequence of actions that, after noticeably wobbling to the left or right a little bit, return to the statistical average in the middle just by sheer randomness alone. Or simply put, the seeming effects of randomness undergo an eventual regress to the mean. Since the mathematical probabilities controlling unlikely events occurring in a row one after another are not ultimately as foreseeable as they sometimes appear, there should be less excitement in minor oscillations or deviations from the norm. What I'm saying is this: there is an illusory effect brought upon us by mathematical randomness whereby we think we see a pattern that isn't really there. Our minds, clever as they are, sometimes play tricks on us. We needn't rely on high probability guesses to provide us solid framework on which to build our lives. I spoke yesterday briefly on the logical fallacies gamblers find themselves trapped in, which is mainly faith in past random events being a good predictor of future events, which is a mathematically and statistically false assumption. All that being said, I now want to twist and turn some terminology and logic around to arrive at a point. Are we better served placing our time and energies on something in the middle - which has the best potential for a favorable outcome, even if our well-intentioned desires point us to the far left or far right? Should we gamble our lives and future on that which is actually governed by randomness and chance alone? Do we really have the power to choose our battles more wisely? What errors in thinking occur from the lack of intuitive understanding of randomness, knowing in advance our minds are conditioned to seek patterns even when there are none?

Anyone who knows me realizes I love the sciences. In particular, I love astronomy... looking out at the night sky and enjoying the starlight that's traveled millions of years through space to enter my visual spectrum. It's truly fascinating and awe inspiring. What then, you may ask, is my agenda here? I'm having fun. Turning on its ear the hypocritical and accusatory lines of reasoning used by those who ultimately cling to the religion of atheism. And we all know how feverishly annoying converts to the religion of atheism are, don't we? They constantly proselytize our children, and prey upon the weak minded masses who are easily misled. Why do I call it a religion? Simple. Atheism, among many things, is based on a philosophical assumption of faith in a set of beliefs about statements of fact that are are either true or false, filtered through the imagination using tools of confirmation bias. Every complaint ever hurled at religious people fires right back at the hypocritical accuser. Let's get started with this: Gambling is an exercise in probability, and casinos count on the fact that people are awful at probability (remember the definition of innumeracy – which is ignorance of science and numerically based statistics) . If you flipped a fair coin 20 times in a row, what are your chances of hitting heads each time? 50/50. That's always it. But how often do the teachers of atheism, who are nothing short than the regnant priests of a powerful orthodoxy, admit the mathematical improbability of even the simplest of compounds purposely self-organizing out of our vast universe? Peptides and polypeptides, which are the building blocks of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, which are the building blocks of life would not even self-organize in a controlled test tube with other corrosive fluids if not manipulated by a designer in a lab-coat with preset purposes and intents. For even the simplest forms of life to self-organize out of nowhere in our vast universe, it would be like flipping a coin 9 billion times in a row and hitting tails every time. What are the odds if you're a gambling man? Not very good. So who's the real fool? And this is just the beginning of the necessary difficulties. Here's a thought experiment for you to have fun with today: Squash a bug on the wall, then watch to see if, given enough time, all the chemicals and life-constituents self-reorganize into some other higher life form and fly away. Why not? All the chemicals known as a requirement for life of the bug are within half an inch of each other... so the chances for some mysterious life-force to guide it back into organization from a state of chaos has a much higher probability than if you scattered the bug's entrails all over the galaxy.

Let's take another look at confirmation bias – which is looking for clues after the fact that seem to fit the pattern we want to see. If you start with a piece of writing you've decided in advance is true, despite forthcoming evidence to the contrary, you find a reality that is very constricting. The most classic example of “prophetic” writings (which are in actuality vague lines of poetry indecipherable to the “untrained” eye) that I can possibly think of is Nostradamus. People who foolishly place their faith in his “quatrains” always retrofit the evidence by mining large amounts of social data throughout human history and seeing what fits. Surely through such a pointlessly grueling process you can find matches to some of his ridiculously written phrases if you look hard enough. History has proved that whenever he made specific predictions about times, names, dates, and places, he failed miserably. Wow. What a surprise. Being able to explain things after time has passed is not a good predictor of the future. It's a desperate cling to that which you must at least recognize on some level as shaky ground. But why insist on standing in quicksand, gasping for air, barely hanging on? If you have a need to believe, welcome to the human race. We all do. Now, you need to focus your belief on that which has the highest probability of correctness. Give yourself a fair shot. Be open minded to truthfulness. Unless there is of course no such thing as “truth.” What if there is no such thing as truth, just facts and beliefs? Is that enough? We'll take a look at that soon. Come along for the ride, I'm about to take you to the ocean.

What is a cognitive bias? We have it all the time, unaware. It's a subconscious tendency to think in a certain way, a bias, if you will, toward thinking along certain pathways with resultant illogical perceptual distortions, inaccurate judgments, and illusory correlations. It's closely related to confirmation bias in many cases. We all too often seek a preferred pathway of thought that is most reassuring and pacifying. Do we as adults really need pacifiers? Are we not strong enough to think independently? Surely.

We always test our own theories, usually with a closed mind, and ignore alternative possibilities we fear are different than what we want to believe as true. An example? Take an astrologer or tarot card reader – they use a technique known as “cold reading,” which relies heavily on confirmation bias. The “psychic” tosses out many statements (or “evidences”), knowing the human brain is very good at pattern recognition and cannot help but to draw inferences (remembering all the “hits,” and none of the “misses”), so the victim unknowingly dupes themselves and searches out connections that seem to confirm the “psychic’s” reading. Then afterwards the unfortunate person vastly overestimates the accuracy of the reading, not in the least bit recognizing the high probability of some guesses (ie: “how many of you know someone whose name starts with the letter “m”). Now I don't want to pick on victims of astrology (NOT to be confused with astronomy) or tarot-card readers too much because we all fall prey to stupidity more often than we care to admit, but I do wish to stress here the importance of independent thought. Think for yourself. Be strong. Test your own conceptions.

Remember, you can get outside and explore this great world if you're firmly grounded in your values. You'll find yourself living out your values (which often make decisions for you) more often than not. The only way you know if you truly cherish something is if you make it a part of your life. Do you really love your neighbor as yourself? Beliefs, insofar as they are expressed in words, do not always reveal the true intentions of the mind. Be the change you claim you want to see in others. Walk it out. I did. You can see what others have to offer without prejudging them prior to your rational investigation. And never be judgmental, be curious.

It's really amazing how we as such little tiny human beings in the cosmos are as greedy, arrogant, and vain as we really are. If you think about it, what is really ours? Human civilization and inequality begin when someone is shrewd enough to pick up a rock, use it to mark a place on the ground, and declare “This is mine!” and then find someone foolish enough to believe him. Does not the rock and the ground it sits on truly belong to God? Maybe? It's so hard to unwind our selfish thinking. Even though there are many promises about God meeting our petty needs, we still don't believe. If "civilization" started with communication (ie: the example provided), then we should continue with it today. We must try harder to understand one another. We must try harder to empathize with one another. We need to try harder to bear one another's burdens. Remember, it's not really yours anyway. So quit being selfish. Give yourself away. Be willing to give it ALL away. Then you can find true liberation from the tyranny of "self."