Ghost Pictures

                Although I think that ghost photography is either faked or due to natural explanations such as flaws in the film, dust in the lens, or exposure issues. I really enjoy viewing them and I thought I might mention a few of the famous one’s with some links to the pictures. One of the most famous ghost images is the brown lady. Even if you do not know this one you have probably seen it on the cover of a book about ghosts, a paranormal magazine, a documentary or a number of other places. It is from the 1930’s and the picture followed a number of reports of sightings. The picture and an overview of the history can be found on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Lady_of_Raynham_Hall

Another famous ghost picture is that of a little girl in a fire when by all accounts no girl was there. It is thought to be the ghost of Jane Churm, who was famous according to rumor for starting a previous fire by accidently lighting a thatched roof on fire with a candle. The picture was taken when someone took pictures after seeing the fire and they did not see the girl nor is there any reason to believe a girl would have been there.

Some fun ghost pictures are listed on this site:

http://www.ghoststoriesandpictures.com/ghost_pictures_2.html

Why do people, like myself, enjoy looking and reading things about the supernatural even if they do not believe?

Response to Jenny on psychics

                I think psychics work by predicting likely outcomes based on the physical appearance of a person and what the person says about themselves to say vague things that are likely to happen to them. A psychic may tell a person in their 30’s with no ring on their finger that they’re going to be married in the next couple years. It is vague, more than possible and the person leaves happy. Psychics may use some things they overhear. It has been rumored that television psychics do so by listening in to people in the waiting room through cameras and such, but I’m going to assume that this generally is not what occurs. Most psychics warn people in advance that their knowledge is going to be vague and encourage people to fill in the blanks. This leaves them a lot of room for their guesses to be correct. Also seemingly specific statements can be vague when you start to think about them. For instance, a new person is going to enter your life in the next month and they are going to say something that really gets you thinking. In reality a month is a long time and what you determine as getting you thinking are likely to increase if you expect it to happen. A psychic could also say that they see that an elderly family member in your past that you never quite got over the loss of. This sounds specific but it is true of a very large number of people. This would work well in a personal setting but even better with a T.V. psychic. They are working with a large crowd. If someone says I’m seeing a young man who says he died in a car accident in a crowd of people coming to a performance of a psychic, some audience member is more than likely to relate this because there are so many and many are looking for closure. It sounds specific but it really is not.   Basically I think psychics are scams that are good at manipulating people, but I also think they can be fun to go see especially with a group of friends. If you do not take it seriously it can make a good joke and an interesting experience.

                How much of television psychic’s material do you think is accurately portrayed in the show and how much do you think is the result of careful editing?

Response to Jenny on destiny and fate

Destiny and fate are the same because they both refer to an event or course of events that will inevitably occur in the future. People use them interchangeably in conversation. I do think that people use the work destiny when referring to future positions. It seems more common to say someone is destined for greatness than fated but I think this is not because of an actual difference, but because of the way people get used to speaking. Destiny and fate suggest a deterministic worldview because the assumption in both is that all future events are predictable, but the concepts also seem to suggest that we can know what will occur before it happens. Because of the intricacies of cause and effect and the multitude of causes it would not be possible to predict a person’s life. This does not mean the life is not determined by causes, just that we cannot know all the causes that will lead up to the future of a person’s life. The unpredictability this creates means we cannot say someone is destined for greatness or that their fate is to be poor. People cannot understand what will happen before it does and this is what is usually meant when we say something is destined or fated.  Fate and destiny can be used to comfort people. When someone works really hard at something and does not succeed they are often told that “it wasn’t meant to be” but fate and destiny can also be used to trap people. For example, as someone in a long line of poverty you are destined to be poor. It can make people feel like their life will fall along a predictable path and therefore never improve. This is not what people mean when they say that the world is deterministic.

Are fate and destiny spiritual terms?

Representing naturalist and supernaturalist views in society

Clark’s description of naturalism and supernaturalisms coexistence seems to favor naturalism. He finds that both naturalism and supernaturalism should be up for discussion on neutral ground but all policies, laws and such should be founded on empiricism. This means that all decisions people have to act upon will be based upon a method that assumes that the naturalist view is right. Faith is not involved in an empiricist method of making decisions. Although I agree that laws should not be based upon faith because this leads to discounting others views and potential intolerance, if naturalism and supernaturalism are to co-exist comfortably one cannot overwhelm the other to such a degree. We teach a naturalistic view in school, base our laws on it and tell supernaturalists that their views are equal because they are free to talk about them. Naturalists are free to talk about them and use them to impact society. Empiricism cannot encourage a supernaturalist view because it cannot be explained materially and this is all empiricism allows us to test for, materially based phenomena. Empiricism then clearly favors the naturalist. On the other hand, supernaturalist views are never able to be proved wrong and as such they encourage authoritarian figures to try to force people into their viewpoint. In order to prevent people from being able to force a worldview onto other people methods of making laws and decisions have to changeable and adapt to information as it comes. This makes empiricism the better method for society, but it is not a comfortable coexistence. Supernaturalists may rightly feel that their views are being glossed over when it comes to education and law making. This results in the religious messages becoming disguised as naturalist views and people feel misled. When people say marriage is between a man and a women they often mean that it is against their religion, but they cannot be taken seriously when making a law if they come right out and say this. Then they have to say it differently and people may resent them or dislike them for hiding their messages.

Is it possible for religious and non-religious views to be represented equally and fairly in a society?