Seems faulty at the start, anyway:

The power of prayer has long been controversial, but a new study in a leading psychological journal finds some of the first scientific evidence that it truly works – at least on the person doing the praying.

While previous studies have looked largely at the people being prayed for, investigators flipped the research model to examine those who personally engage in the religious practice. They found that even a single prayer for a loved one led to increased self-reported willingness to be forgiving of that person.

Self-reported willingness. How can that actually be measured and verified? How precise is that? And forgiving of that person in terms of what level of behaviour? I could more easily forgive someone I love for wearing my new earrings without asking than I could for sleeping with my spouse.

Though the research leaves open the possibility of divine intervention, investigators don’t claim any “miraculous event.” They instead focus on scientifically quantifiable factors, such as prayer’s ability to prime a more selfless state of mind.

Again, how did they measure this state of mind? Not that I want to be critical of psychology here, but really. How did they measure it, with more self reporting? How do they know everyone’s being truthful?

“This is not an attempt to proselytize; our position is one of absolute neutrality,” says study co-author Frank Fincham, a world expert on relationship science. “What seems to be operative here is that people experience a selfless love when they pray; they appear to be connecting more with humanity and feeling more positively toward humanity as a whole. That’s what leads them to be more willing to forgive.”

The new study, published in the journal Psychological Science, draws data from 119 people over two experiments.

How did they measure that which “appears to be” a human connection? Was it not there before the prayer?

In the first “experiment” people praying for their romantic partner claimed more feelings of forgiveness than the ones who recorded thoughts about their partner instead. In the second, three groups of pro-prayer people were given tasks – pray for a friend, pray about a topic, and think positive thoughts about a friend.

People in the first group were much more likely to be forgiving of that friend than those in either of the latter two groups, which notably showed no significant differences between them. The first group also expressed more “selfless concern” during the testing period.

Fincham suggests that the findings illustrate prayer’s ability to insulate relationships and regulate emotion in cases of conflict. But does that have to do with the prayer (as in direct line to god) or the act of praying and how the mind sorts out ideas in the process?

While Fincham says religious communities are “overjoyed” at the findings, critics such as Richard P. Sloan – author of Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine – are skeptical that prayer can, or even should, be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

“There’s been this tendency to try to justify religious ritual and spiritual practices based on their effectiveness … It’s a ridiculous trivialization,” says Sloan, a professor of behavioural medicine in psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center. “They’re making prayer into some sort of spiritual vending machine, where you deposit something in it and you get a desired outcome.“

That’s a good line. But really, isn’t that how people who pray often treat it? Give me this and I promise…give me strength and help me to…

So Sloan doesn’t want people to try and measure the effectiveness of prayer? Why would that be? Because it’s been shown by other studies that prayer doesn’t make a lick of measurable difference? How dare they try and tell believers that it’s a waste of time beyond this personal good-feeling level? That’s pretty much what these so-called experiments have discovered anyway. Self-described willingness to be more forgiving. For the self, not for the person being prayed toward. To make your self feel better about something. To make yourself feel like you’ve made a difference. To make yourself feel like you’ve helped simply because you’ve acknowledged a problem.

It’s not. (edit 5:06 pm Wednesday — fixed the link to the site in question. People need to tell me when links are bad. Surely there’s some button people can click that will send a comment my way…)

So, I popped a couple comments into a post called Attention Atheists about the so-called miraculous painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe which I didn’t know existed. I’m not into art, me.

Lewiscrusade was hoping the inability of scientists to explain the “miracles” of this particular fabric art would be enough to turn an atheist’s heart. Well, better luck with the next one, Lewis. Later on in my post I reveal the research proving just how flawed that “miracle” concept really is.

Here are my comments (prior to researching this myself):

As I am not one who’d know anything about fabric, let alone historical fabric making in Mexico circa 1500s, I can’t explain why it’s endured as well as it has. I don’t know anything about the history of paint mixing either for why it hasn’t faded.

Doesn’t automatically mean I’d conclude a miracle happened (or more than one). It just means I don’t know.

This atheist says it’s not proof enough.

Researchers have claimed it’s not painted because no brush strokes are noticeable and the pigment doesn’t seem to be animal, plant or mineral based. Should we surprised to discover they’re laughably wrong? Better researchers got better results which will be revealed below.

Sorry, just thought of something else – A better miracle would be if it miraculously turned up painted in a style not reminiscent of anything being done at the time – like a Picasso style or Dali.

I mean really. It has all the same imagery as other art had at the time, which helps everyone who knows art from that time period understand the meaning of it and infer whatever they want out of it.

He (or she) also provides a link to Science Sees what Mary Saw which is about getting digital imagery of the tilma to study it in detail, but goes under the silly assumption that the picture really was magicked onto the cloth by the holy virgin Mary herself, apparently.

Though the dimensions are microscopic, the iris and the pupils of the image’s eyes have imprinted on them a highly detailed picture of at least 13 people, Tonsmann said. The same people are present in both the left and right eyes, in different proportions, as would happen when human eyes reflect the objects before them.

Tonsmann said he believes the reflection transmitted by the eyes of the Virgin of Guadalupe is the scene on Dec. 9, 1531, during which Juan Diego showed his tilma, with the image, to Bishop Juan de Zumárraga and others present in the room.

I’m a convert! I’m a convert!

Not.

I’m pretty damn skeptical of Mr. Tonsmann, in case it wasn’t obvious. More from Science Sees:

The scientist began his study in 1979. He magnified the iris of the Virgin’s eyes 2,500 times and, through mathematical and optical procedures, was able to identify all the people imprinted in the eyes.

The eyes reflect the witnesses of the Guadalupan miracle the moment Juan Diego unfurled his tilma before the bishop, according to Tonsmann.

In the eyes, Tonsmann believes, it is possible to discern a seated Indian, who is looking up to the heavens; the profile of a balding, elderly man with a white beard, much like the portrait of Bishop Zumárraga painted by Miguel Cabrera to depict the miracle; and a younger man, in all probability interpreter Juan González.

Also present is an Indian, likely Juan Diego, of striking features with a beard and mustache, who unfolds his own tilma before the bishop; a woman of dark complexion, possibly a Negro slave who was in the bishop’s service; and a man with Spanish features who looks on pensively, stroking his beard with his hand.

In summary, the Virgin’s eyes bear a kind of instant picture of what occurred at the moment the image was unveiled in front of the bishop, Tonsmann says.

Doing more research into this for my own nefarious purposes, I find pictures blown up, highlighted and coloured in that supposedly “confirm” Tonsmann’s delusions conclusions, almost like they know it’s impossible to pick all that out without being told what to believe we “see.”

Too bad all the scientific theory is coming off Catholic websites and every “news” source is a copy of someone else’s article, or a paraphrase. Creepy how there doesn’t seem to be a First Source to any of this.. ooeooweeooewwee.. start the Twilight Zone music.

According to this enlightening article at Experience Festival the Skeptical Inquirer debunked Tonsmann’s theories back in 1985 (yet another case of pareidolia). It also explains the pigment paint problem, plus (breaks added for eye relief):

In 1979 Philip Serna Callahan studied the icon in (The Tilma under Infra-red Radiation) with infrared light. He stated that the portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle had been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no paintbrush strokes.

Another study was commissioned in 1999 to Leoncio Garza-Valdés, professor of Microbiology at the University of Texas at San Antonio, by the Archbishop of Mexico, Norberto Rivera Carrera in hopes of proving the age of the cloth. Garza-Valdés had previously done similar studies to the Shroud of Turin. Garza-Valdés states in an interview in Proceso that he found three distinct layers in the painting, with the first layer showing a signature; M.A. and a date, 1556.

The bold is mine, as usual. So who’s M.A.? And don’t try saying the Virgin Mary signed it. Mary of Arimathea? Yeah right. Some unknown artist lost credit on this thing in order for someone else to push a religion onto the “heathens” at the time.

He also states that in the first painting the virgin had a child on her left arm and was lighter skinned. The original painting shows striking similarities to the original Lady of Guadalupe found in Extremadura Spain.

A comparison picture is here showing the difference between the statue and the cloth as painted now.

A second virgin was painted over the first one and this portrait shows facial features of strong native american origin; and is painted 15 cm to the right of the current depiction. Apparently this second virgin was painted by Juan de Arrue around 1625. Garza-Valdés also found the fabric to be made of hemp and linen, not agave fibers, as popular wisdom holds.

Very interesting. Also interesting is the fact that the microscope was invented by a couple Dutch dudes in 1590 and Galileo improved on their design prior to 1625, giving de Arrue a possible aid for painting those supposed microscopic people into the virgin’s eyes that Tonsmann claimed he could name by sight.

Finally the end:

Since 1993, the apron has been protected by bullet-proof glass in the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City and an automated mechanism transfers the icon to a safety vault every night.

So much for miracles saving the thing forever. Praise Science!

All hail the mighty Science! Three cheers for Science, accessible to all! No matter what they want to use it for! Hip hip Hooray! Hip hip Hooray! Hip hip Hooray!

(Although I’ll bet a cookie they’d call bullet-proof glass part of the miracle, too…)

The snake offering Eve temptation!

In my frying pan! Just now! It’s totally amazing! And since I’m hungry, I’m going to drizzle all the goodness that is syrup all over it and enjoy every bite of this breakfast!

(A real sign would have noodly appendages, by the way…)

I read too many blogs. I know I got this Asimov essay via P.Z. Myers but I don’t recall who mentioned the black swan effect recently. Props are due, but to whom? Ah well, anyway.

Quoting Isaac Asimov first:

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of “That’s how it looks,” because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth’s surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.

We have since learned that the earth isn’t flat. We’ve also learned that the earth isn’t entirely spherical either. Asimov wrote this article to respond to a critic who thought each wrong was an equal wrong and they aren’t. Spherical is far closer to the right description than flat is. Each new discovery about the earth and the universe gets us closer to understanding it. Some discoveries negate earlier assumptions.

As it should be.

This leads nicely to the black swan idea. I can’t recall if I knew they existed, but they do. But, back in the day when people only ever saw white swans, it was very obvious and not necessary at all to assume all swans were white ones because that was all people ever saw. Once word got out that there were black swans in the world, this long-held assumption was proven false.

Assumptions hit the dumpster every day once new information comes in. Look at everyone who assumed Tiger Woods was the ideal husband. Now you can vote on your favourite mistress.

Over the years a lot of this has gone on in a lot of realms, not just in space and nature and human nature. There is always more to know and understand and discover.

Of course, there’s always the battle of cognitive dissonance to consider. No matter how much proof there is that an assumption or belief is false, there will still be people able to ignore contrary evidence and rationalize their opposite or flat-out wrong positions.

Perhaps that’s a topic for another post?

When Jesus isn’t stamping eggs, he’s startling drivers by appearing in their car windows in Tennessee to make sure they aren’t picking their noses or drive-dialing.

Jonesborough resident Jim Stevens admits he’s not a particularly religious person, but even he is awed by what he has seen nearly every morning for the last couple of weeks on the driver’s side window of his Isuzu pickup truck.

It was two weeks ago today that an image, resembling the face of Jesus, made its first appearance on the window. Stevens, who said he has a “bum shoulder,” was having friends from Rogersville help move some items. He entered his truck from the passenger’s side to put his drink inside the vehicle. He said when he went around the truck to the driver’s side, the image was there. Initially, Stevens said he figured the image would go away and that would be the end of it.

But since it first showed up, a morning dew has led to the appearance of the image. Later in the day, when the dew from the morning evaporates, Stevens said the image goes with it. However, when the dew returns the next morning so does the image on the window. Even rolling the window up and down has not stopped it from reappearing.

It could just as easily be Issac Newton.

Why is this news?

Well done, Jesus, for not watching the calendar. Really missed a golden opportunity here. Does He care nothing for the makers of wholesale chocolate products?

So apparently, some chicken popped a Jesus egg out of her tooshie on a small farm in Burleson, Texas.

Tracy went to gather the eggs from the chicken coop Monday night, as he does every day. But this time one egg in particular caught his eye.

Unlike the others, this egg isn’t smooth and a very noticeable cross is indented on the top.

The Norell’s say the egg was laid ’straight from heaven’ and is a message of encouragement that comes at the right time.

“This time of the year, we get so taken up with the presents and money and we forget about the reason,” Pam explained. “I think he [God] was just telling us he is the reason for the season.”

The Norell’s haven’t quite decided what they’ll do with the egg yet. It goes without saying; the couple says eating the egg is not an option.

I think a real miracle would be if this chicken laid nothing but cross stamped eggs. I’m thinking she might have stepped on this one, hence the indented, vaguely chicken foot shape of it.

But anyway, good time of year to publish stupidity and dress it up as news. It’s not like anything else is going on in the world right now worth reporting on…

…am I too cynical when I feel like asking why the deed’s been done?

A Christian group will once again camp out in front of City Hall and offer to pay off up to $10,000 dollars in parking tickets for any passersby.

Organizers say the Dec. 12 event is an example of how easy it is to receive God’s grace.

We’ll pay your parking ticket, but you have to give your soul to Jesus or burn in hell.

What a deal.

The Grace Gift Parable giveaway was first held in 2004, when Treasure Valley church leaders doled out nearly $7,500 to delinquent parkers, including one woman who arrived with more than a dozen tickets.

Montie Ralstin, Jr., the pastor at Boise Valley Christian Communion, says the event is to help people understand that even though they’ve made mistakes, forgiveness is available.

So they can’t do it just to be nice in a hectic festive season. They’re doing it to prove they’re holier and more virtuous than anyone else, yes?

I wonder how much of that “nearly $7500″ went to that one woman’s inability to watch a clock. I wonder if her habits have improved or if she still hangs onto all of them every year on the hopes that this gang will pay them again. I wonder if others have done the same.

Forgiveness is all well and good, but are they really helping people solve a money problem? No. This might boost church attendance, but it’ll take more than a “thank you Jesus” to make these delinquents better time and money managers.

I’ve never had a parking ticket in my life. I’ve never had a speeding ticket. I’m too law abiding to disregard speed limits and meter readers. I don’t credit a deity for my ability to bring enough change and/or leave earlier, either. And, I’d rather overpay a meter than get a fine for underpaying, you know? Why more people don’t think that way is beyond me.

The $10,000 for this year’s event was donated by area businesses and the Christian Churches of the Treasure Valley.

How much of the ten grand is coming from business coffers? Are they getting credit for the good deed as well, or will Treasure Valley act as if all the money is theirs, look how saintly we are to give this all away.. ?

Next year, how’s about people agree to follow the laws of the land, as well as laws of the gods, eh?

Better late than never. So, about a dozen of us found space at a local cantina a couple nights ago to chow down on some good food and talk about how crazy other cultures are. We hit on a few strange things North Americans believe but a couple of the girls each had trips to the East and stories to tell about their experiences in Tibet and Taiwan. We also talked about the sad state of Africa with their child witch hunts and albinos being cut up and sold for their (not so) magical parts. I left when talk turned to chiropractics, but only because I was tired. Apparently Canada has been allowing that body cracking for children and babies but is going to start insisting on some evidence that it’s scientifically useful. They never thought to insist upon evidence based treatment before? Scary thought.

Anyway, the woman who’d been to Tibet suggested an interesting theory to explain how superstitions may have developed. First she mentioned London Zoo’s behavioural click training of Lucifer, an Asiatic lion they have (catalogue number 666):

Sound quality’s poor, but when Lucifer responds to the clicks and sit commands, the actual purpose of the paws up routine is to make sure they’re not getting damaged by paddock life, and allows the trainers to eyeball his overall health, without having to drug the big guy every time they want a good look at him.

Then she mentioned some studies done with pigeons. B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning experiments were originally designed to see how well rewards could be used to create a desired behaviour.

If the goal is to have a pigeon turn in a circle to the left, a reward is given for any small movement to the left. When the pigeon catches on to that, the reward is given for larger movements to the left, and so on, until the pigeon has turned a complete circle before getting the reward.

That’s also called positive reinforcement. But Skinner didn’t stop there. He also checked what would happen when the reward wasn’t obviously connected to a behaviour, but instead connected to time of day.

In six out of eight cases the resulting responses were so clearly defined that two observers could agree perfectly in counting instances. One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a ‘tossing’ response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return. The body generally followed the movement and a few steps might be taken when it was extensive. Another bird was conditioned to make incomplete pecking or brushing movements directed toward but not touching the floor.

In English: whatever behaviour a bird was engaged in at the time the food appeared (grooming, turning, etc) would be repeated if the bird associated the act with the reward.

So how screwed up do they get when rewards are even more random and not happening in timed intervals? Bird brain chaos. So long as the reward comes soon enough after the act (some birds would do the action 5 times in 15 seconds) the conditioned behaviour gets cemented. If repeated acts don’t net them any food, they stop assuming that behaviour will get them what they want.

Which leads to the idea of superstition in human beings. A book I need to borrow again is Amen, Amen, Amen by Abby Sher. Abby grew up with a serious case of OCD, made worse by the death of loved ones, and began assuming her ritualized behaviours would somehow make a difference for who lived and died. That’s a very extreme case, but superstition works much the same way.

Someone who just sat through a porn movie and then had a tornado rip through the yard might bizarrely assume the porn movie had something to do with it. That seems to be the idea in the head of Tifatul Sembiring, Indonesia’s Minister of Communication and Information Minister. Immoral behaviour causes hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Irony – an information minister spreading misinformation as truth. But how many superstitious locals will take him up on that and actually think what they like to do in their free time is going to bring bad weather to their island? What century are we living in again?

The woman who’d been to Taiwan talked about their superstitions around the number four, since it sounds very similar to their word for death. They’ll build narrow fourth floors into buildings just so people can’t actually use them, but so people living or working on the fifth feel like they’re really on the fifth instead of the fourth with another name. People don’t even want their ID cards to have any 4s in them. Crazy, but true.

And entrepreneurs take real advantage of people and zany beliefs about lucky numbers and other nonsense.

Taiwanese customers indicated they would be just as willing to pay NT$ [New Taiwan dollars] 342.63 (approximately $10) for a pack of eight tennis balls as they were to pay NT$227.10 for a pack of 10. To put that in perspective, consumers who held positive superstitions about the number eight were willing to spend 50 percent more on 25 percent fewer units–all because in Chinese, “eight” sounds like “prosper” and “wealth.”

Well, somebody’s prospering and wealthy, but I doubt it’s the buyer in this case. Sheesh.

Anyway, think about the power of the mind vs the nature of reality today. What are you believing for no provable reason?

The link.

The story:

A Massachusetts woman says rust-colored residue on the bottom of her iron strikes a remarkable resemblance to Jesus Christ.

Mary Jo Coady, in Methuen, Mass., says she noticed the image on Sunday.

Coady says an image of Jesus Christ that she sees in the pattern on the bottom of the iron has reassured her that “life is going to be good.”

The question:

Will she iron her underpants with it? God probably wants her underwear to be wrinkle free, too…

(ht @vizhnet)

It’s been a beef of mine for some time, that the gospels don’t have enough information about Jesus’ early years. This is not quite the fault of the writers, as none of them ever met the man. All they could write about was what people decided to tell them about the man. If it was covered in any other writings back then, they never made it past the cut when it came time to assemble the New Testament as it stands today. Whether or not he had siblings, or a wife or children, and where he might have gone to school, weren’t as as important as creating a mythology around his birth and death that was similar to other gods and therefore an easy tale to pass along as truth of divinity (because all the others were a total sham, you know that right? We’ve got the only true one…).

I’ve heard suggestions that Jesus may have spent time away learning the tenets of Buddhism to bring home to his people, but education via Glastonbury druids is a new one on me. A new film has come out suggesting it’s possible Jesus made it all the way to what is now England. The title of the picture comes from William Blake’s poem Jerusalem.

And Did Those Feet explores the idea that Jesus accompanied his supposed uncle, Joseph of Arimathaea, on a business trip to the tin mines of the South-West.

Whilst there, it is claimed he took the opportunity to further his maths by studying under druids.

Unsurprisingly, the documentary stops short of concluding the visit did take place, noting ‘Jesus’s shoe has not turned up’. However, the makers insist that while the visit is unproven, it is possible.

The theory is that he arrived by sea, following established trading routes, before visiting several places in the West Country.

In the film, Dr Gordon Strachan, a Church of Scotland minister, says it is plausible Jesus came to further his education. The country is thought to have been at the forefront of learning 2,000 years ago, with mathematics particularly strong.

Ted Harrison, the film’s director, said: ‘If somebody was wanting to learn about the spirituality and thinking not just of the Jews but also the classical and Greek world he would have to come to Britain, which was the centre of learning at the time.

And how would a young man, a carpenter’s son, discover that and have the means to seek it out? It’s a nice story, but can’t be proven any more than his rising can, no matter how much money gets thrown toward filmmakers.

But anyway, this is a good reason to put in an Arrogant Worms video – Jesus’ Brother Bob (because you can’t prove there wasn’t one)!