Oral Robert's City of Faith

  Oral Roberts was one of the first of the extremely successful televangelists.
In the 1960's, Roberts preached that God had told him to build a university in
his home town of Tulsa, Oklahoma. In 1977, God then told Roberts to add a large
hospital.  During this time, Tulsa's administrators and doctors disagreed with
Roberts, telling him that a large hospital was ONE thing the city did NOT need.
Still, Oral Roberts persisted with the project, insisting that his vision was
a divinely inspired one.

  It was while raising money for the medical complex, that Oral Roberts
received a divine vision of a 900 feet tall Jesus:

  "I felt overwhelming holy presence all around me.  When I opened my
   eyes, there He stood...some 900 feet tall, looking at me...He stood
  a full 300 feet taller than the 600-foot-tall City of Faith.  There I
  was face to face with Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.  I have
  only seen Jesus once before, but here I was face to face with the King
  of Kings.  He stared at me without saying a word; Oh! I will never
  forget those eyes! And then, He reached down, put His hands under the
  City of Faith, lifted it, and said to me, 'See how easy it is for
  Me to lift it!'"(Martin Gardner, ON THE WILD SIDE, Prometheus Books,
  1992, p 188)

  After Oral Roberts reported this vision to followers, millions of dollars in
donations quickly poured in. Oral Roberts kept up the momentum by announcing
that he had been divinely assured that the cure for cancer would be discovered
at his medical research center.  In 1984, Roberts noticed an angel in the corner
of one room, who was "so tall his head touched the ceiling." Soon, small angel
figurines were being sent in return for donations, to remind believers of
Oral's divine vision.

  In the following years, however, it became apparent that the hospital
complex, as a BUSINESS venture, was a disaster-- and that even the millions
of dollars that were donated for it were not enough to prop up its finances.
(For example, out of its 777 hospital beds, the highest occupancy rate for
the hospital was an average of 148 beds in 1984.) (Ibid, p 189).  In addition,
because of the success of televangelism, other ministers were getting into
the act--and the competition was drawing important sources of donation
money away from Oral Robert's ministry.

  In 1985, Roberts closed his dental school and gave the law school to Pat
Robertson's CBN university.  Pressed harder for more donations, Oral Roberts
came up with his most dramatic public declaration to date: In 1987, Roberts
warned his flock that God had told him he would be "called home" unless he
quickly raised $8 million.

  Donations quickly poured in--but there was a great deal of publicity and
suspense generated over whether this would be "enough" money to save Oral
Robert's "life".  (Some skeptical bumper stickers read during this time,
"Send Oral to Heaven in 87"). Close to the deadline, Oral claimed that even
Satan himself had intervened to prevent him from raising the money.--
Specifically, Satan had gotten into his room one night, and attempted to
strangle him in his bed. Fortunately his wife had rushed in and saved him.

   After it appeared Oral Roberts might STILL come up short of the $8
million needed, a Forida millionaire and owner of a dog-race track, sent
Oral the final amount needed--a check for $1.3 million. The financial crisis
had TEMPORARILY been averted (not to mention any sudden "moves" to heaven).

  Roberts had many skeptics at this point--including other theologians. A few
ministers and preachers had decided that enough was enough, and wrote articles
decrying Robert's tactics. They also seriously questioned the authenticity
of his vision of the 900 foot Jesus.  However, not all evangelists agreed
that Roberts was a fraud!  (For example, I saw an article by the reverend
Billy Graham where he courageously spoke out against fraudulent faithhealers--
Yet, in the same article, he specifically singled out Oral Roberts as a
preacher who was NOT in this category.)

  It was around this time that stories of Oral's miracles became more dramatic.
Although faithhealing had always played an important part in Oral Robert's
ministry, Oral now claimed to have RESTORED TO LIFE, people who had died during
his revival meetings.  According to Oral Roberts, "I had to go back in the crowd
and raise the dead person so I could go ahead with the service." His son,
Richard vouched for his father that he had seen indeed, "dozens and dozens and
dozens of documented instances" of faithhealers raising the dead. (Ibid)

  By 1989, Oral Roberts announced the closing of his City of Faith. A more
"tame" Roberts no longer claimed that the "Devil" was the cause of his
financial problems.   However, God was talking to him again.  Roberts warned
that he would be with Jesus, at the rapture proceeding the Second Coming,
and even help him rule the earth during the millennium.  According to Roberts,
"Watch what happens to ORU [Oral Roberts University] when I get back." (Ibid)

Magician's Perspective on Faithhealing

  The magician James Randi has devoted his life to exposing what he considers
to be fraudulent practices by faithhealers.  According to Randi, faithhealers
always start out the same way: They begin by emphasizing that to be cured, one
must have ABSOLUTE, unquestioning FAITH in God.   As mentioned in Chapter 1 of
this section, faithhealers are not held accountable for failures--because they
have WARNED the believer that it was through THEIR OWN FAITH that they will be
cured!

   Not surprisingly, this can leave devastating PSYCHOLOGICAL damage to the
believer.--For the "victim" too often experiences incredible guilt for "not
believing enough". In my personal opinion, these faith-healers are the lowest
dregs of society, because they prey on one of the most vulnerable segments of
the population--the sick and physically disabled-- who are so desperate that
they have been known to throw away all of their medication to demonstrate
their total faith to these hucksters.

  Some evangelist healers have been caught engaging in various "tricks" and
"show-biz stunts", to give them the impression of wielding "great mystical
powers". One of the most impressive tricks is the supposed psychic ability
to "call out" members of the audience, to tell them personal information, such
as personal ailments and the like.  Randi came early to several performances
to observe how this was done. According to him, it was very simple how the
preachers obtained their information.  Very often they sent out "front men"
or their wives , and simply "asked people" for this information. Sometimes
"healing cards" were passed out asking for this information.

   In other cases, Randi found other tricks used by televangelists such
as hand signals by associates in the back of the stage.  Randi's most
famous expose' was of on the supposed miraculous "calling out" powers
of the famous televangelist, Peter Popoff.

  To best understand Randi's expose', perhaps a little background about
Popoff would provide some insight:  Per Popoff, he's been the recipient of
miracles--all of his life!  When he was a child, his father changed water
into wine for a congregation in war-torn Berlin.  His mother sliced up a
small piece of bread into enough food to feed ten people.  During his own
ministry, his wife Liz and he once traveled over fifty miles to another
service in a car that had only a nickel's worth of gasoline in it, because
God revealed to him how to do this. Another miracle performed by Peter
Popoff regularly on his show was to "call out" people from the audience--
and in this way, amazing his audience by his detailed knowledge of their
names, needs, and illnesses.

   James Randi, utilized his magician background, to discover that Popoff
had a tiny hearing aid in his left ear, connected to a high-frequency
receiver.  Appearing on the Tonight show, Randi played the audio recording
he had made of Mrs. Popoff's voice. In the recording she could clearly be
heard transmitted to her husband the needed information, just before he
miraculously "called out" the individual.

  After Randi's exposure, some of Popoff's own employees left him. Yet
Popoff was able to continue on the airwaves. (Federal and state prosecutors
have traditionally been reluctant to interfere with anything related to
religion, and that proved to be true in this case too.)

  Televangelists, such as Popoff, have made millions in tax free donations
from their faithful followers.  It is perhaps not surprising that holy relics
have made a come back of sorts too (apparently by popular demand!) According
to a former aid to the televangelist Peter Popoff, his boss sent out in the
mail such items as a holy shower cap, holy gloves, golden prosperity envelopes,
special red faith strings, mustard seeds, holy ribbons, blessed shoe liners,
sanctified handprints, red felt hearts, and sacred handkerchiefs each
holding drops of Popoff's holy sweat.

Other Examples of Questionable "Healings"

  *James Randi investigated the faithhealing claims of the Christian
television evangelist W.V.Grant.  Grant's "miraculous cures", included
lengthening a short leg, and curing numerous ailments including arthritis
and cancer. According to Randi, the leg-lengthening was as simple as a
"Boy Scout camp trick" and only involved the clever positioning of the leg
so that it only "appeared" to be shorter to the audience BEFORE the "cure".

  *James Randi and some associates investigated a number of famous faith
healers (in addition to Popoff). Time and time again, they reported that
they found trickery everywhere they went.  For example, men and women who
were presented to the faithhealer in wheelchairs--had in actuality walked
into the Church earlier and been graciously asked to sit n the wheelchair
by the evangelist's organization. In the circus carnival atmosphere of the
"healing", there was never any chance to protest. (One of Randi's MALE cohorts
dressed himself up as an overweight middle-aged woman.-- "She" was asked to
sit in a wheelchair and was "cured" on stage with the others, when asked to
stand up and walk.)

  *The Reverend Ernest Angley is another famous faithhealing evangelist.
He was imprisoned briefly during a tour in Germany in 1984, after a Swiss
woman--Anna Berner, had died of a heart attack during one of his healing
sessions.  German law requires a license to practice medicine at public
gatherings, which of course the Reverend does not have.  Angley's defense?
He claimed that it was not HE who healed, but God-- he was merely an
instrument of God's power.  (See Section VII, Chapter 1 on faithhealer's
techniques).

  The Reverend Angley's wife, Angel, had died in 1970 of colitis. The Reverend
explained why his powers (through God) had NOT cure her: It seemed that she
had received an "annointing" some five to six weeks before her death.  At
that time, Angel had told her husband that she wanted to go to heaven--but
was reluctant only because she didn't want him to be lonely.  Angley told
her: "I will tell you one thing...if the Lord ever starts to take you, I
promise you I won't stand in the way."

  She died shortly afterwards, and the Reverend reflected sadly how:
"I made such a bold promise, I didn't think I would ever have to face it;
but in just a few weeks, suddenly, I was confronted with the horror of
keeping that promise. Angel was dying."


  Some faithhealers are clearly harming the health of their followers.
For example, the Rev. Peter Popoff once told his audience to throw away
their medication--and instead place their faith in "Dr. Jesus" to heal them.
After the performance, Randi and his associates looked at what medication
had been thrown on stage.  They found such life-sustaining drugs as insulin,
digitalis, and nitroglycerin tablets, had been tossed away in the religious
frenzy of the show.

Amazing Healings at the End of Pat Robertson's Shows

  Gerald Straub, who was the producer of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast
Network before he left the organization (Footnote: Straub was fired for sexual
misconduct. His ex-wife remained with Pat Robertson's organization), wrote a
book on his experience in the Christian fundamentalist group.  Although he
believed in Pat Robertson during his years there, he later reflected on his
experience and came to the conclusion that he had been sold a false bill of
goods by the fundamentalists.  In his book, SALVATION FOR SALE, Gerald Straub
wrote on the "miracles" that he slated as producer, towards the END of every
one of Pat Robertson's shows:

  "Pat would join hands with Ben Kinchlow, the co-host, close his eyes
  tightly, and begin to pray.  He then might indicate that God was
  healing someone of cancer of the womb, doing away with the need for a
  scheduled operation,....[etc, etc].  Pat's awareness that God was
  healing specific medical problems afflicting particular chosen people
  was known as a 'word of knowledge'... God told Pat about the people
  he was healing so that the person would acknowledge it and proclaim
  the miracle.  God knew whether the person being healed was watching
  the show live via satellite or on a two-week tape delay in some small
  city...

  "I used to muse that if these healings were REALLY happening, WHY
   were they relegated to the last few minutes of the show?  If God
   knew who was watching, either live or on a tape delay, wouldn't He
   also know how long the show was? Beyond that, if this activity was
   legitimate, I would think Pat would want to fill the entire show
   with it, but instead he chatters about politics, the economy, or the
   Supreme Court for most of the show and lets God do His healing thing
   during the last few minutes.  Although, as the producer I did write
   this miraculous exchange into every format, I never really understood
   this aspect of production.  But not a soul at CBN ever questioned
   what was happening.  I just assumed that someday I would understand."
  (see additional quotes by Straub on his experience as a fundamentalist
  in Section XI, Chapter 1. Emphasis on words is mine).

Examinations of FaithHealing Cures by Medical Professionals.

  Louis Rose, a British clinical psychologist, examined in his book FAITH
HEALING (1968) some modern faithhealers--such as Harry Edwards, Christopher
Woodward, and Christian Science practitioners. He told how he examined
literally hundreds of purported cures over the years, in search of ONE case
that was clearly cured by a faithhealer. To count as a "cure", this could NOT
include only a vague sense that the patient "felt better" or  a progressive
disease that seemed to have stabilized for the time being--It was also
important to document the miraculous cure, as some illnesses are misdiagnosed,
and some illnesses (such as cancer) go into remission on their own. Thus, to
count as a "cure", Rose searched for a "demonstrated pathological state
[that] has been entirely eliminated".

  Louis Rose examined 95 instances of reported cures in detail.  In 58 of
these cases, there was insufficient medical or other records to confirm a
cure. In 22 cases there were records, but these were clearly at odds with
the patients' claims. In other cases, there was temporary improvement,
followed by a relapse--or improvement following conventional medical
treatment.  The following were some typical cases examined by Rose:

  * M. R., a boy aged 9, was suffering from pseudohypertrophic muscular
dystrophy.  When he was examined in December 1951, he was free of spinal
deformity.  He later visited Mr. Edwards (the faithhealer) who told him
he "would get better and that he had straightened his back." The family
general practitioner wrote in February 1953: "I am sorry to report that in
my opinion the condition is very definitely worse." [p. 164]

 *Mrs. M. H. was the subject of an article in a well-known pictorial
magazine: the patient sent in her own history.  After several X-rays and
anesthetic examinations, the hospital could do nothing more for her: she
had been obliged to continue wearing her surgical belt for thirteen more
years and could not get out of bed without it, but in 1949 she went to a
healer at whose hands she was 'cured'"

  "When I examined the hospital records, they revealed that Mrs. M.H.
   had had an appendectomy in 1934 and a curetage for certical erosion.
   In 1936 there was a barium investigation revealing nothing more than
   visceroptosis and in 1943 there was a further examination, all with
   negative findings. Her doctor subsequently wrote in terms which did
   not substantiate her claims or those of the publication and gave his
   opinion that there was a large factor of functional exaggeration. "
   (pp 156-7)

  * A biopsy was carried out on this patient in June 1953, and a week later
Mr. B. was informed that he was suffering from cancer of the larynx calling
for a major operation.  Mr. B. applied to Harry Edwards for direct healing,
and during the interview his hoarse voice began to improve in quality and gain
in volume.  Then on 21 July 1953, Mr. B. was re-examined under an anesthetic
in hospital and informed that the pathologist's report was at variance with
the previous one.

  Independent examination was arranged and a later report ran: "In all Mr. B.
has been examined by five throat specialists, one of whom is considered the
greatest authority on cancer in this country.  The two specialists who
examined him after he had had the direct healing from Mr. Edwards both
reported 'no cancer now.'  One of the surgeons wrote to me in December
1953: 'I doubt if anyone will give a definite reply... My own belief is that
it was pure fortunate coincidence that this man had a piece removed for
biopsy and it had happened to contain all of the carcinomatous tissues.'
(p 158)

  In 1974, William Nolen, a surgeon from Minnesota wrote a book entitled,
HEALING; A DOCTOR IN SEARCH OF A MIRACLE. Nolen visited several popular
faith-healers in the years preceding the writing of his book.  Probably the
most famous of them during this time was Kathryn Kuhlman --who reportedly
cured hundreds, even thousands of people during her healing sessions.  Nolen
attended one of her healing sessions, but saw no evidence of any miraculous
healing:

  "At one point a young man with liver cancer staggered down the aisle
   in a vain attempt to claim a "cure". He was turned away, gently...
   When he collapsed into a chair I could see his bulging abdomen--as
   tumor laden as it had earlier".  (p 59) Nolen concluded that "all the
   desperately ill patients who had been in wheelchairs were still in
   wheelchairs.  In fact, [the] man with ... kidney cancer in his spine
   and hip...was now back in his wheelchair.  His 'cure', even if only a
   hysterical one, had been extremely short-lived" (p 60).

  Dr. Nolen followed up twenty three people who were allegedly healed by
Kathryn Kuhlman's sessions.  Kuhlman had declared one woman to be cured
of her lung cancer.  Nolen found that the cancer remained.  Another woman
with cancer of the spine had tossed aside her brace in obeying Kuhlman's
command to run across the stage.  The next day her backbone collapsed--
Four months later she was dead! In fact, Nolen's follow up found that
NONE of the twenty three "cured" patients "had in fact been miraculously
cured of anything."

  The more Nolen studied Kathryn Kuhlman's faithhealing sessions, the more
doubtful he became that "any good she was doing could possibly outweigh
the misery she was causing". (p 89)

  In addition to Kathryn Kuhlman, Dr. Nolen also investigated the claims of
other faithhealers.  He found no miracles--but only more suffering.  Nolen
thus raised the following question--Does faith-healing help or hurt people?

  His conclusion was that in some cases of functional disorder or psychomatic
illnesses, faithhealing may be of some help--especially where suggestion may
play a role, and the autonomous voluntary nervous system is involved.  However,
even in these instances, any relief from symptoms may only be temporary.  And
certain conditions--such as growing a limb or curing a diseased gall-bladder
or a hernia are NOT responsive to just willing it to go away.  Nolen recognized
that there are cases where cancer goes into remission.  However, there are far
fewer cases (probably one in a thousand or even ten thousand) where the cancer
goes completely into spontaneous regression. According to Nolen, modern
medicine does not know the causes for this.--But there is no evidence to suggest
that they result from miracles, or to the intervention of a faith-healer!

Criticism of Faithhealing Practices by Religious Groups.

  There are preachers who have spoken out against the practices of some
faithhealers.  For example, in 1961, The United Church of Canada, along
with other major religious groups issued the following statement AGAINST
faith-healing:

  "Faith-healing is not a legitimate ministry of the Church and should be
  actively discouraged and resisted wherever it is practiced." However,
  by 1967, the general trend among Christian denominations was to advocate
  a belief in the power of faith-healings, while cautioning against
  fraudulent practices by a minority.  This can be seen by the  modified
  version put out by the same United Church of Canada who wrote about the "bad"
  faith-healers theology:

    (1) It is based upon an inadequate theology which often assumes
   sickness to be a divine judgment.
    (2) It has a naive view of the distinction between "natural" and
   supernatural" healing.
    (3) It works--when it does--usually by suggestion and hysteria, and
   the patient may suffer a relapse that leaves him worse off than he was
   before.
    (4) People who are not healed may feel that God has rejected them and
   suffer morbid guilt feelings and spiritual shipwreck."

  Unfortunately, the trend today appears to be for more conventional
religious organizations to maintain their silence, on the issue of
fraudulent faithhealers.

Characteristics of Modern FaithHealers

   David Alexander wrote an amusing article regarding the characteristics of
fraudulent faithhealers which appeared in the magazine the HUMANIST.
In it, Alexander noted how:

  * Faithhealers are generally HIGHLY secretive about their finances--both
      what is donated, and how the money is spent by their organization.

  * Their churches are always in some kind of crises.  Indeed, "Most faith
      healers belong to 'The Church of Perpetual Crisis'".

  *  The devil is always plotting against the faithhealer's church.
      A large donation by the faithful will thwart the evil designs of the
      devil against the faithhealer's church.

  * Successful modern faithhealers typically live in palatial mansions,
     and live a first class, wealthy life style.

(The above was taken from "A Closer Look At Today's FaithHealers"
 by David Alexander, THE HUMANIST, September/October 1988 p 8)

Skeptics' Approach to Accepting Miracles

  The classical skeptic, David Hume (1711-1776) noted that miracles are
claimed by EVERY religion. However believers of one religion are frequently
skeptical of miracles claimed in another religion.  For example, one does not
see Christians persuaded by alleged Hindu miracles, and vise versa.  The
reason for this, is that most people have had some experience that taught
them that not all miracles are true. Hume's conclusion was that it was the
individual's PRIOR beliefs that determined which new claims would or would
not be accepted as genuine.

   As a rational approach to miracles, Hume suggested that whenever a person
makes a fantastic claim of a miracle, one must consider which is the GREATER
miracle (and therefore the least likely event): Either (1) the miracle took
place as claimed, or else (2) the person claiming the miracle is either
mistaken or lying.  For example, if a person claimed that they saw a person
restored to life, one must seriously evaluate which was the greater miracle--
(1) That the miracle truly happened, or instead, (2) that the person is
mistaken/lying.  Per Hume, one should always "reject the greater miracle."
That is, the more likely scenario is the above example would be (2), that
the person was mistaken or lying.

Hume stated his general maxim as follows:

   "... no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the
   testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous
   than the fact which it endeavors to establish". (David Hume, "Of Miracles",
   Section X).

(David Hume made a distinction in Section XII "Of the Academic or Skeptical
Philosophy" on the difference between "antecedent skepticism" which was the
method employed by Descartes in doubting everything initially, and "consequent
skepticism".  The latter method, Hume argued, recognizes the "consequences"
of our fallible senses, but corrects these through reasoning. Per Hume, "A
wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.")

But What About "Genuine" Miracles?

  Some religious individuals will respond to the above, that skeptics are
TOO close-minded to acknowledge when GENUINE miracles may occur. This is, of
course, an important point--and should be kept in mind by all skeptics--
religious and nonreligious ones alike!

   Of course, the problem is that there is obviously a great deal of fraudulent
practices going on in the faithhealing business (which, as we have seen goes
back to ancient times).  Thus, the insistence by any miracle worker to keep
the details of their healings shrouded in SECRECY-- ie refusing to invite
doctors, scientist, not to mention magicians to validate the "miracle"-- should
be met with skepticism.  If the miracle worker strongly denounces any scientific
investigation as contrary to faith (ie because "Satan himself is involved",
etc, etc)--then this is probably just a smokescreen to cover fraud.  Although
it is true that SOME medical professionals are not receptive to miracles,
there are a large number of medical professionals who are religious as with
the majority of the population--and would be glad to validate one, if one
really exists!

  Arguably, it would only take ONE scientifically documented miracle to
PROVE that miracles occur.  As we have seen in Chapter 3, there are documented
cases of spontaneous remission--which have been dubbed as miracles by some
religious groups.  However, when examined more carefully, these cures are of
a type that appear to happen to others at times -- who have not asked for
divine assistance, or so interpreted their experience.  There is the issue
therefore, that these type of cures might be related to the functioning of
our natural immunity system.

  Modern medicine and treatment usually takes days--even months to work.
There are some type of cures that are virtually unknown to happen--and would
be immediately dubbed as a miracle by most individuals, if they occurred!
As one example, missing eyes and/or limbs, are NOT known to grow back on their
own--especially not instantaneously.

  Unfortunately, skeptics who have followed up on reported miracles-- have
always been able to point to inadequate documentation and verification of the
miracle. Because they HAVE uncovered instances of fraud and errors in
reporting--a high standard of testing for TRUE miracles does appear to be
very necessary.

  Also rarely mention is the fact that many religious/pseudo-scientific
organizations have a strong FINANCIAL incentive for claiming miracles.
That is, people can make fantastic incomes by FALSELY claiming miraculous
powers, and asking people to donate money (tax free) to experience this.
Whistleblowers and skeptics, on the other hand, too often pay for their
expenses out of their own pockets--Not to mention that typically their
findings are NOT gratefully received by the public.

  On the other hand, clearly some skeptics TOO EASILY dismiss ALL reported
miracles as fraudulent EVEN BEFORE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATING THEM!-- Their
rationale is as follows: Since after thousands of years, there is NOT one
clearly documented case of a miracle--and numerous documented cases of fraud--
then all extraordinary occurrences are almost certainly fraudulent.  This is
the position taken by a DOGMATIC RATIONALIST. (It will be recalled from Section
VIII, Chapter 4, that a dogmatic rationalist is one who never questions his
assumptions.) To maintain an "open mind", it is important to investigate both
NATURAL or SUPERNATURAL phenomenon behind alleged miracles.

  This does NOT mean that one should jump in and BELIEVE in all claims of
miracles and magic! A good example of this would be to believe in VOODOO magic.
(Note: No similarity to ex-President Reagan's economic policies during the
1980's is intended here)  Voodoo magic appears to work only on those who
"believe" in its powers. Maintaining an open mind would mean honestly listening
to the facts-- both pro and con, regarding the existence of voodoo supernatural
powers-- and applying the scientific method (using Hume's maxim) in testing
these, where possible. Now, more than likely, ALL claims of voodoo can NEITHER
be COMPLETELY proven nor COMPLETELY disproven. In such a case, a healthy but
tolerant skepticism might be called for-- but NOT a dogmatic skepticism which
never openly listens to the other side.

Favorable Reporting on the "MIRACULOUS" by the News Media

  It is a fact that the news media loves to SENSATIONALIZE!  After all, as any
businessman will tell you--exciting stories SELL more newspapers/attract
larger television audiences than routine, everyday stories. Some magazines
such as the NATIONAL INQUIRER, the GLOBE, the STAR, and the SUN are dedicated
entirely towards the publication of stories regarding the fantastic, the
supernatural, and the miraculous. A small sample of headlines are included
below:

  *Magic of Exorcism Cures 33 People of Arthritis Agony
  *Water Hailed as Ulcer Treatment
  *Amazing Psychic's Startling Forecasts
  *Psychic artist sketches the Dead
  *Elvis Presley seen in Iraq [note: Presley has been seen almost EVERYWHERE]
  *Elvis Presley seen in Grandson's Operating Room
  *New York Psychic sees John Lennon's Ghost
  *Catholic Priest in Argentina Exorcises Boy of Twelve (whose demon
    gives him incredible strength and x-ray vision)
  *Finnish Oceanographer Discovers Deep-Seas Species of Fish that Might
    be Descended from Survivors of the Lost Continent of Atlantis
  *D-day for the long-feared invasion of America by hordes of Extraterrestrials
    is Growing Near (warns a UFOlogist in the article: "It's just about time
    for them to make their move"]
  *Daily Gays' Disease [ie AIDS] Caused by King Tut's Terrible Curse"
  *Woman Gives Birth at Age 90
  *Miraculous Cure for... [you name it--AIDS, cancer, arthritis...]

   Occasionally, these sensational magazines are sued for publishing
MISinformation.  But they make so much money from their publications, that
litigation is just a cost of doing business. For example I read (in a
reputable newsmagazine) where the above mentioned ninety year old woman had
brought a lawsuit to one such sensational magazine for FALSELY publishing
that she was pregnant.  The lawyers of the publication eloquently argued in
court that "Everyone knows these stories are NOT real!" That is, the public
just likes to have fun, and no one is really getting hurt.

   Unfortunately, fringe stories are so popular with readers, that it is
difficult for even more illustrious and respected publications to sometimes
resist getting in the act.  For example, when NBC ran several documentaries on
such subjects as 'The Bermuda Triangle', 'In Search of Noah's Ark, and the
"UFO Incident', they were criticized by NEW YORK TIMES Boyce Rensberger and
others, for presenting schlock under the guise of real scientific reporting.
Nevertheless, these stories were defended by an NBC spokesman, who argued,
"They are done as entertainment, not as news"! (Curtis D. MacDougall,
SUPERSTITION AND THE PRESS, Prometheus Books, 1983, p 83)

  CBS got into the act with its 1993 showing of "Noah's Ark".  This show
claimed that "archeologists" had "proof" that Noah's Ark was still sitting
on top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey.  CBS refused any responsibility for the
accuracy of the special, stating through a spokesman that, "When we bought
the special, it was as an entertainment special, not a documentary special."

  If this disclaimer had been placed in the opening titles to the show, then
CBS would have correctly discharged its responsibility. However, by its
silence, CBS acquiesced in allowing untrue statements and hoaxes to be
incorrectly portrayed as scientific facts!  Thus, in this case CBS did not
fulfill its role as a respectable news station, but instead acted along the
lines of an UNREPUTABLE, sensational magazine, such as an NATIONAL INQUIRER!

  TIME magazine later dubbed the CBS showing of NOAH'S ARK as a "pseudo
documentary". (See Time's "Phony Arkaeology--in a Pseudo Documentary, CBS
Falls Victim to a Hoaxer", July 5, 1993). According to the TIME article,
NOAH'S ARK presented a "hoaxer" named George Jammal, who claimed to have
"traveled" to Moiunt Ararat in Turkey and brought back a piece of Ark with
him.  (In one especially moving scene presented on NOAH'S ARK, Jammal held
the fragment of wood before the cameras, exclaiming  "This piece of wood
[ie from the ark] is so precious-- and a gift of God"!)

   IN REALITY, per TIME magazine, George was an actor-- who had never even
traveled to Mt Ararat.  He invented a fictitious sidekick character named
"Vladimir" (whom he claims on the show had died in an avalanche near
Mr. Ararat.)  The "ark" wood held by Jammal, was created  from a piece of
pine "soaked in juices and baked in the oven of his Long Beach, California
home." According to Gerald Larue, professor emeritus of biblical history
and archeology at the University of Southern California, "Carbon-14 testing
would have revealed that the wood was a modern forgery"!

  The show, of course, claimed that it had strong evidence that the ark was
on Mt. Ararat.  To explain WHY such important information had never before
been disclosed, the CBS NOAH's ARK show came up with some INCREDIBLE
explanations.  For example, the show stated, that the U.S. government
possessed satellite pictures PROVING the Ark's existence, but refused to
release these to the public. (The show did NOT explain how ex-President
Ronald Reagan, a great fundamentalist favorite, "happened" to also
participate in this secret "cover up", during his tenure as President.)

  Another false statement made on the show was that the Turkish government
knew of the existence of an ark on Ararat, but refused to let archeologists
examine the site. Actually, the Turks HAVE found the remains of an ancient
boat--although not on Ararat, but on another high mountain 17 miles away.
Also they have protected the area for archeologists (information the show's
producers were given, but ignored) so that tourists won't come and cart
everything away.

   According to Gerald Larue in the Summer 1993 issue of FREE INQUIRY, the
NOAH'S ARK television show was put on by fundamentalist Creationists who
purposely EXCLUDED information so that the viewer might not suspect that they
were only seeing the Creationist point of view. For example, the Reverend Tim
LaHaye, co-founder of the Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell, was introduced on
the show as an "author and researcher."  The creationist leader, Henry Morris
was presented merely as a "hydraulic engineer". The show presented a few
shots of more conventional archeologists, but statements were very short, and
obviously carefully edited to only agree with the show's hypotheses.

"Psychic" Documentaries

    Most pseudo-documentaries are over "psychic" phenomenon (such as the
NBC "UFO" showing above.) In 1977, NBC aired another show entitled PSYCHIC
PHENOMENA: EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN (narrated by Burt Lancaster), which purported
that "psychic" doctors in the Philippines possessed mental powers which allowed
them to enter their hands directly into their patients. (The idea is that they
can therefore operate without the conventional incision, anesthesia, and pain.
Note: This illusion can easily be created by bending the knuckles and pressing
them into the body, to make it appear that the fingertips have extended inside.
Tissues, blood, even eye sockets can also be produced by a magician's "sleight
of hand" trick, to make this effect even more dramatic). When NBC received
numerous protests by scientists over the show, a spokesman replied: "We can't
imagine anybody taking it [the show] seriously." (Martin Gardner, "Cruel
Deception in the Philippines", DISCOVER, August 1984, p 8)

  However, there was at least one person who appeared to have taken this last
show TOO seriously.  His name was Andy Kaufman (who played a zany mechanic on
the tv show TAXI)-- Kaufman had lung cancer. Both the STAR and NATIONAL ENQUIRER
circulated sensationalized stories, of how Kaufman sought out the miraculous
powers of these psychic healers, reportedly because of the NBC show. According
to the ENQUIRER, upon returning to California from his trip to the Philippines,
Kaufman was so impressed by his psychic surgery, that he told reporters:

   "The [conventional] doctors don't know everything".

  What of course was NOT reported, was that Kaufman relapsed soon afterwards,
and died in an LA hospital. (Ibid)

  The fact is, that the media loves to promote the miraculous whenever possible.
For these make sensational headlines--which translate into great sales. News
magazines get into the act as well. I remember when a baby was found in the
aftermath of a powerful earthquake in Mexico--more dead than alive.--All the
national newspaper headlines and television aired sound bites that dubbed it
the "Miracle" Baby, because doctors were shocked how the baby could have
survived so long trapped in the rubble of the earthquake.  The baby died a
week or more later. HOWEVER, there was NOT ONE story (seen by this author)
that paused to reflect on why this "miracle" was so short-lived!

"Negative" Reporting on Agnosticism by the Media

  The flip side to over-sensationalizing the "miraculous"-- is to EXCLUDE
information that might detract from the nature of the "miracle"--For
the news media also tends to shy away from any NEGATIVE reporting on the
miraculous.  (This explains for example, the absence of reporting on the
death of the "miracle" baby above.)

   Another example can be found in the September 1989 edition of LIFE
magazine in an article entitled "Finding God on Flight 232". In this story,
over a hundred people (most of them in the first class section), had died
in a crash of Flight 232, after the plane was forced to make an emergency
landing in a cornfield.  Included among the survivors was Peter Wernick,
an agnostic who with his family was able to safely walk away.

   Although Wernick's views (which were decidedly different from those of
other fellow passengers) were completely omitted by the LIFE article, they
were published by the DAILY CAMERA, (a newspaper in Boulder, Colorado
close to Wernick's home town).  According to the DAILY CAMERA:

  "...Wernick said he simply never thought of seeking the intervention of a
  supernatural power in which he does not believe... Although he is generally
  able to recognize his minority status in a country saturated with Christian
  values, Wernick said, the hours after the crash were difficult.  The
  survivors were gathered in a room at a nearby hospital.  'It was hard to
  hear all these people who thought God chose them over others--a rabbi died,
  the mother of young children died.  It got disgusting after a while.'"
  (FREE MIND Volume III, Number 6 November/December 1989, pp1-2)

  The LIFE reporters had spoken to Wernick, but chose to ignore his statements,
instead focusing on how the OTHER members felt they had been miraculously
saved from this disaster.


So What's the Harm in a Little Creative Imagination?


   It could be argued that sensationalizing miracles is one means of adding
some interest and excitement to our relative ordinary, humdrum lives.  That
is, what's the harm in being just a little creative in imaging a little
excitement in our lives?

  There is absolutely nothing wrong with creative imagination!  Indeed,
creative imagination is vital for new breakthroughs and discoveries to take
place!  Almost all innovative discoveries and inventions occurred after a
person had a dream--and then strove with hard work and the best technology
of their time--to make his/her dream come true.  One of the greatest legacies
of the ancient Greeks, was their unbounded journey into the world of human
creativity and imagination.

  One of my favorite quotes on the importance of creative imagination comes
from L. Frank Baum, author of the wonderful WIZARD OF OZ series.  Per Baum,

  "...Imagination has brought mankind through the Dark Ages to its present
   state of civilization.  Imagination led Columbus to discover America.
   Imagination led Franklin to discover electricity.  Imagination has
   given us the steam engine, the telephone, the talking-machine and
   the automobile, for these things had to be dreamed of before they
   became realities.  So I believe that dreams--day dreams, you know, with
   your eyes wide open and your brain-machinery whizzing--are likely to
   lead to the betterment of the world.  The imaginative child will become
   the imaginative man or woman most apt to create, to invent, and
   therefore to foster civilization.  A prominent educator tells me that
   fairy tales are of untold value in developing imagination in the
   young.  I believe it." (L. Frank Baum, THE LOST PRINCESS OF OZ, The
   Reilly & Lee Co., Chicago, 1917 in the introduction.)

 The difference, of course, is that children are TOLD that fairy tales are
not real--ie that their world of imagination is NOT necessarily the same
as the world of REALITY.  This is probably what Baum meant when he emphasized
that day dreams must be coupled with one's "eyes wide open and [his/her]
brain-machinery whizzing."  Thus, one may love stories about fairies,
leprechans, Santa Claus, etc--but keep his/her "eyes open" to the possibility/
likelihood that they are NOT real.

So What Harm is Caused if People Believe Fairy Stories/Superstitions
   ARE "Real"-- If This Makes Them Happy?

  Although it may be argued that SOME superstitions (such as psychic healings)
can physically harm a person--still in the majority of cases, this relationship
is not so clear cut.  That is, in MOST circumstances, many people might ask:

  "Just what IS the harm in BELIEVING in pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo--if
it makes a person FEEL BETTER?"

  Take astrology, for example. Most local newspapers carry a full column
dedicated to astrology in it--with typically less space (if any) devoted
to reporting on science. (There are some important exceptions-- for example
the NEW YORK TIMES does not include an astrology section in their newspaper.)
Still, for most people, reading horoscopes is acceptable, even desirable--for
it's fun to "believe" in astrology.

  According to Isaac Asimov (in his introduction to Hy Ruchlis' book, CLEAR
THINKING, we all still have the responsibility to ourselves and to society--
to not throw away our human reason--just because it makes us "feel good":

    "It may be argued that believing in nonsense--in astrology, for
  instance -- gives you a greater feeling of assurance in your dealings
  with the world; that following some cultist's peculiar beliefs makes
  you feel that God loves you and all is well.  What's wrong with doing
  what makes you feel good?

    "You might also argue that crack and heroin make you feel good.
  Does that justify the use of drugs?

    "False thought may make you feel good, but in the long run it
  contributes to the misery and anguish of the world, so that all of
  us will end by being part of an unhappy and, perhaps, dying society.
  It is a kind of drug more dangerous and insidious than any that
  primarily affect the physical body."

  The dangers of society's uncritical acceptance of quasi-science and
mysticism were strongly expressed in Martin Gardner's famous book, FADS AND
FALLACIES IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE.  According to Gardner, such complacency can
lead to "ultimate disaster".  As an example, Gardner noted that the rise of
power of Adolph Hitler was preceded by a popular wave of quasi-science and
mysticism in Germany after World War I. According to Gardner,

  "If the German people had been better trained to distinguish good from bad
  science, would they have swallowed so easily the insane racial theories
  of the Nazi anthropologists?" (Martin Gardner, op cit., p 7)

It "DOESN'T MATTER" What A Person Thinks--Because "NONE OF US ARE PERFECT!"

  A common response to Asimov, Gardner and others is this:  "What does
it matter if one believes in superstition, or not?  After all NO system of
belief is 100% accurate!"

  There are (in my opinion) serious flaws with this argument.  While
it is agreed that NO INDIVIDUAL has perfect knowledge--still this line of
reasoning does not consider DEGREES, or gradations of errors. For example,
an individual whose beliefs are 90% correct, is closer to the truth than
someone whose views are 90% false! Perhaps an illustration would be helpful
here.--Take a Western medical doctor and a primitive witch doctor.  It is
agreed that NEITHER of these individuals will ever be PERFECT doctors. Yet
MOST people would want to take their chances with the medical doctor than
the witch doctor--because the odds are much greater that they will be helped.

  In essence, the belief that it doesn't matter what a person thinks--is
diametrically opposed to the scientific paradigm--which argues that the
study of sensory data from the world CAN advance knowledge.  Actually, if
Darwin is correct, and humans are the evolved product of countless mutations
of living creatures--then at least SOME development of sensory organs must
have developed, in order to account for their survival.  That is, those
animals who were out of touch with reality--would likely have been EATEN by
other animals who had developed an improved sensory perception.  In turn, it
would be their offspring who survived the harsh realities of the law of the
jungle.

  There is also a SECOND flaw with the premise that it doesn't matter what
one believes.  For some "false" belief systems INSIST that their members
do NOT question their assumptions or beliefs (threatening disbelief or example
with some terrible punishment--such as eternal damnation in hell).  Thus, if
the individual does not maintain an open mind, then there is no real way for
them to "correct" or "improve on" their erroneous belief.

   A tragic example of this (described in more detail in Section IX Chapter 3)
was where a Christian scientist couple was coerced by CS Church officials
into NOT taking their baby to a doctor--this despite his terrible fevers and
convulsions. It turned out that the child had meningitis, an infection of
the brain/brain stem.  Weeks later, the couple finally took their baby to
the hospital. However, doctors told them that they had waited too late--that
their baby could have easily been cured if they had just treated him earlier.
Their baby died shortly afterwards. (The couple are now Presbyterians and
are convinced that their earlier belief system prevented them from following
their natural parental insticts to bring their son to the doctor.)

  The above is an example of why it is important to keep an open mind towards
any belief system--weighing the consequences if IT TURNS OUT TO BE WRONG.
The Christian Scientist couple now say that their earlier belief system
PREVENTED them from bringing their sick child to a doctor. They paid for
their error with their son's death! Of course, they were made to feel that
the consequences of DISOBEYING their Christian Science healers, was to
jeopardize their immortal souls.  However, AFTER his death they seemed able
to weigh this threat with either the possibility of Jesus' forgiveness, or
switching to another Christian denomination.

    An entire SOCIETY can have an erroneous belief system, nevertheless held
as true. For example, "most" individuals today, consider the hysteria leading
to witch trials, to be the result of a false belief system, which was predicated
on the existence of witches. There are of course many other examples, such as
the racial superiority ideology of the Nazis.

  Therefore, to argue that it "doesn't matter what an individual believes
because everyone makes mistakes" is a false statement!  True, most ideological
beliefs cannot be 100% PROVEN to be false-- (for example, no one can "prove"
that fairies do NOT exist!)-- Still, one can objectively gather a great deal
of physical evidence that might lead one to assess a "high probability" that
these belief systems are false.

The Importance of Toleration Viz-a-Viz True and False Belief Systems

  Although I have argued that belief systems are NOT EQUAL--ie that some are
more (or less) fallacious than others--this does not mean that it is always
easy for any one to have perfect knowledge as to "which ones" are right and
wrong.  For this reason, it is important to TOLERATE ALL belief systems, and
engage in critical, honest discussions in an open forum--even when we do not
personally agree with them, or hold them to be of equal value. (An exception
to this exists, only when the other party threatens nontolerance AND physical
violence/deprivation of basic freedoms.)

 Toleration acknowledges:

  (1) that none of us are perfect. Even a low error rate means that SOMETIMES
we can STILL be WRONG. (We should always be open to this possibility!),

 (2) that the other individual's arguments might possess SOME kernel of truth,
no matter how small it is, and

 (3) that even when false, the presence of opposing viewpoints can serve
to cause others to re-evaluate their own philosophies, and in so doing--
possibly enrich these with new depth and examples.

 Thus, it is important for an individual to be able to choose for themselves
what to believe in--even if it is wrong! In this, I am of course reminded
of the line attributed to Voltaire in his confrontations with his arch-rival
Rousseau:

  "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death
  your right to say it!"