It’s Friday afternoon; how about something fun? Well, maybe fun isn’t quite the word—perhaps schadenfreude is better. That’s what I experienced watching this video of famous skeptic James Randi exposing faith-healer/televangelist Peter Popoff as a fraud:
(Here’s a follow-up video detailing Popoff’s “ministry” and fall—and which mentions the depressing fact that Popoff is still out there making millions selling “holy water.”)
If you’re not familiar with Randi, he’s a fascinating character. In addition to exposing Popoff, he’s publicly debunked quite a few psychics/charlatans over the years, including James Hydrick, Sylvia Browne, and Uri Geller.
But there’s something else to consider: it’s fun to watch Randi discredit fake psychic claims, but as you’ll note if read his regular website updates, Randi is out not only to debunk the fakes but to illustrate the foolishness of believing in something without concrete evidence. So far as I can tell, he considers Christianity and religious belief to fall into the same category as the psychic claims he debunks: unsupported by evidence and thus foolishness.
As you watch the videos, ask yourself: how would you distinguish your faith in the “unseen things” of Christianity from the faith that many others put in psychic powers? Could you explain that in a way that a skeptic like Randi would appreciate, or does your faith look to an outsider like just another set of crazy beliefs? I Corinthians 2:14’s words about foolishness and spiritual blindness spring to mind, but how would you explain that to a skeptic who says it’s just an excuse for a lack of evidence?
(Some links courtesy of metafilter.)
Loading ...
January 7, 2008 at 12:31
I would say. “Let’s take a hard look at what we accept as evidence.” There is a lot of trust being put in unseen things on both sides.
I have not viewed all of the videos, just the Hydrick one. I don’t think it objectively proved anything. It was a skeptic’s dream. The judges were all undoubtedly skeptical, and they were quick to render opinions about the lack of static-electrical force being a problem. I did not see empirical evidence and analysis to prove that significant static electricity was not present. It was a made for TV demonstration. That makes the whole thing contrived and unreliable.
Just to be clear, I think Hydrick was a fraud. But Randi comes across as a fraud if he preaches about science and rationalism and does not fully exercise both. He admits that he’s not a scientist, but he is evangelizing for science. It is dishonest of him not acknowledge where his methods fail to support his conclusions. He should be prepared to go all of the way. But the skeptical public settles for scientific hucksterism (infant stem cell research), so Randi gets a pass.
The outfit promoting the Hydrick video is the Rational Response Squad. I recall a debate they staged against Kirt Cameron and Ray Comfort. The debate was about the existence of God. Cameron and Comfort proposed to prove the existence of God without referring to the Bible. I admire their courage, but it was a foolish proposal. The Bible is the one place where God is revealed most clearly. It is stupid to attempt leave it out, which they could not do anyhow. Cameron and Comfort came off looking weak and unconvincing to most people. They even half apologized for using the Bible.
The RRS people came off just as badly (IMHO), but seemed to succeed on the grounds that Cameron and Comfort failed to keep the Bible out of their presentation. The RRS team alluded to being former Christians, but they demonstrated an appalling ignorance of Biblical knowledge. Their presentation of facts was laughable too, but they seemed to think they proved there point. It was another made for TV spectacle, mostly pointless entertainment.
What ever we do, we should not have to apologize for our apologetics. We shouldn’t make stupid claims to garner the attention of the crowd. We’d better know as much as our opponents. In the case of the Bible, we need to be more knowledgeable than our adversaries. A believer with an education in science is the better person to debate a scientific huckster. We’re supposed to be as wise a serpents while we’re being as harmless as doves.
January 28, 2008 at 23:51
I know Randi used to offer a reward to anyone that could prove Gods existence but I couldn’t find the offer now. This is the first I’ve ever heard of the “RSS” squade? or their “Kirk Cameron Ray Comfort debate?” And Reb you are absolutely correct. Leaving out the Bible would be like evolutionist ‘trying’ to prove evolution without the Origin of species. I know the drdino website used to offer a reward for the proof of macro-evolution but they don’t seem to anymore? Psalm 14, Psalm 53.