Ghost Feels, Angry Noises

Autonomus Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) is a peculiar condition in which a stimulus (a particular sound, for example) can produce an (often pleasurable) sensation along peripheral regions of the body (back, arms, scalp, etc).  It's on the edge of scientific inquiry right now, meaning it is difficult to confirm scientifically.  In this way, it's much like synesthesia (and I reckon it's a closely related phenomenon), although synesthesia is much easier to quantify since we've been studying it much more carefully for the past 20-30 years. 

So, to put it another way, have you ever been listening to something, and suddenly you get a 'tingling' sensation in your head?  Maybe you've heard a noise that sends 'shivers' down your spine.  Perhaps the last time someone whispered around you, it caused a similar reaction.  Are you able to create these sensations on your own, without the outside stimulus?  That's also part of this condition. 

I think, however, that this doesn't accurately sum up the entirety of the situation.  For example, has anyone ever pointed a pencil (or other pointed object, perhaps a finger) between your eyes, and you feel an actual presence against the bridge of your nose/forehead?  I think that this might be an easy test, as I know from experience that most people do indeed have some degree of this feeling.  I used to perform this experiment in school, asking people if I could point between their eyes and seeing what response it presented.  Not everyone seems to experience it, but most people do. 

Thinking back, I recall one other time that I can distinctly express as being this sort of experience.  Every day during a particular school period, I would have a class with a person.  This person one day decided to start chewing a new brand of gum.  The gum was some kind of mint (wintergreen mix perhaps), but the smell wasn't what got me.  Before my brain even registered the smell, my teeth would start to hurt for some reason.  It made absolutely no sense, as mint was (and still is) one of my favorite things in the world.  I don't chalk this up to simple coincidence either, as this was when I was certainly old enough to realize it.  I even asked for a stick of the gum, so I could smell it, and surely enough whatever specific smell it was releasing (perhaps there was an underlying smell produced by some other additive, I don't know - it's been over 10 years now) caused my teeth to ache fiercely. 

But as of yet, there is no known way to test for ASMR, because it's indicators appear to vary greatly between individuals.  As I've suggested above, I think a good method of test would involve things like the finger/eye association.  I propose further that, perhaps, ASMR is even a more basic function in general.  Have you ever felt like you were falling/moving as a video you were watching accelerated, causing that sensation in the pit of your gut like you're about to hit the ground really fast? 

This brings us to the other part of this tale, misophonia.  Misophonia can be thought of as noises (and it's almost exclusively noises) that can cause you to be as angry as if someone just punched you in the face, or ran over your dog twice.  If you've ever heard a noise that literally makes you want to hit something, or causes you a great deal of anger or distress, or makes you as uncomfortable as a splinter in your toe, then you've experienced misophonia. 

If you've ever heard nails on a chalkboard, and it's cause you to immediately want to stop it, but it also causes those chills to run down your spine (or through your skull, etc), then I think it's safe to say you've probably experienced both things.  I think this sort of thing could also provide another interesting test into the middle ground that probably links the two conditions. 

Unlike ASMR, the DSM now suggests diagnostic criteria for misophonia, although it's a really targeted list that probably doesn't include most of the triggers for misophonia.  I am going to say at this point that I think there's a milder form of misophonia, of which perhaps I am afflicted, whereby hearing a particular type of music for an extended period of time (and sometimes almost instantly) can cause me this sort of annoyance. 

Imagine for a moment that you haven't used the bathroom for a while, and you've been drinking a lot of water.  Suddenly, the urge hits and you need to pee.  However, you can't just yet for whatever reason.  Slowly, the discomfort builds up, but you tolerate it because you have to.  What started as a minor inconvenience/annoyance is now built into something you can no longer ignore.  The line for the bathroom is long, and you're getting more aggravated, and you simply can't go anywhere else.  It's not a great comparison, but I think it's adequate for illustrating the point. 

It's for a similar reason that I don't like the kinds of music I don't like, for example.  A song or two that I simply don't like is like that initial urge.  It's not a bad thing per se, barely even noticeable perhaps.  A few more songs go by, and you notice you just aren't in a good mood like you were an hour ago.  After eight hours on the shift, however, little things start to annoy you, things you hadn't so much as noticed before.  All these songs are one type of song, similar timing, major keys, similar tempo, all autotuned, whatever it is. It starts to dig at your mind like a splinter digs at your foot.  What was a minor irritation to begin with is now an inflamed thing. 

Leaving the annoyance is a relief exactly like that of removing a splinter, or using the bathroom, or stopping any kind of pain.  It can create the ASMR-like experience of pleasure, like a load lifted from one's shoulders.  In this way, I think misophonia works also, not just as an immediate response to a stimulus, but it can also build up over time.  Songs I normally wouldn't care about, or perhaps even enjoy to some extent, become like the thought of getting another splinter.  A glass of water can be refreshing by itself, but 8 hours of drinking water with no pee breaks might just make you angry at the water, and might just cause you pain.

If you enjoyed reading this, leave a comment below!  Even if you didn't enjoy it, let me know your thoughts. 

Peace!

Synesthesia

Have you ever noticed, perhaps while listening to music, that sometimes the music has colors, visible patterns, or textures?  Do you happen to see letters in color?  Does Pi look like a beautiful landscape?

 

 Do numbers sometimes have personalities?

Go visit Li's web comic, you won't be disappointed!

These are all forms of a rather abnormal thing known as Synesthesia.  Strictly speaking, Synesthesia is when a stimulus that wouldn't normally produce a given sensation produces said sensation.  Any of the above are fair examples, as are many others. 

Maybe you've thought this was a completely normal occurrence that everyone experiences.  It's not, and according to some studies, it could be pretty rare.  Then again, it's not commonly tested for, so that's definitely throwing the curve off.  It's also pretty hard to quantify these sorts of things. 

Which is why I'm going to speak from anecdote here, since it's what I have to work with.  I believe I have a rather mild form of synesthesia, typically relating to music/noise producing patterns/colors/feelings in my head. 

Angel Vivaldi's 'A Mercurian Summer' basically sounds like
this album cover feels, in an over-simplified example.

I'm not sure there's a much better way to explain it, so I've taken the liberty of drawing you fine folks a picture, which I drew over a couple days, listening to all sorts of music.  But first, the hard work.  I sharpened the colored pencils I used by hand, into a paper plate.  The shavings kinda reminded me of music, and looked kinda cool in general, so I thought I'd also take a picture of that.  Again, synesthesia is odd.  Looking at this plate of shavings, I get a similar feeling in my head as I do
 listening to some kinds of music. 

Look at those colorful shavings on that round plate with those round designs.
It kinda reminds me of a song. Well, more than one actually, but something like that.

For example, that paper plate, with those colorfully confetti-like attributes, spotting the surface like the simple shavings they are, have a wonderfully staccato feel.  Although, they're not entirely staccato, the colors also kinda correlate to various heights in this sense, where yellow feels much higher in elevation than red, and the black feels abstract, and the circles feel like orbits.  Or something like that.  The circles are pulled in by the valleys and crests that the tiny little flakes of flow create.  It's a colorful feeling, but the feeling isn't as colorful in my head.  Each color has a direction, a flow, much like segments of music. 

Basically, that music feels like that paper plate looks, in a way.  It doesn't tell the whole story, but it gives a snapshot.  Sometimes the colors form waves, or lines of color move in certain directions, or various sensations of distance, all in beautiful neon maelstroms, chaotic but structured.

This leads me to the final picture.  Again, as stated, I drew this over the course of a few days.  First I drew the plain pencil parts, while listening to all the various sorts of music I enjoy.  This particular sort of line drawing was a habit I picked up in middle school or so, and I think it's been related since then or before.  The lines represent the directions my mind feels, the overall shape of a given area therefore dictated by the force directions, creating neat patterns.  Then I colored it in, truest to the color I could find in the box of 12 (hey, for a dollar, I'm not complaining).  Sometimes completely different pieces of music have a very similar color feel or direction feel or space feel.  In summary, this is mostly my impression of music I like.

How music feels to me, in a snapshot. 

See how it originates from the outside, and is absorbed and congealed into a mass, inside my head.  Often times the outside colors are really quite different from how they mingle inside.  This is how the music I enjoy feels, agglomerated into one picture.  The beats set the spacing, in some cases.  In other cases the lyricism (verbal and instrumental) sets the tone.  Sometimes a particular melody sounds especially interesting, and creates a long pathway of meandering wanderlust. 

This also gets into why I don't like a lot of the music I don't like, but perhaps that's a conversation for next time, when I plan to discuss two things related to this: Misophonia and ASMR.

Peace!

On the nature of the law

Recently, a county clerk in Virginia was refusing to issue (and to allow to be issued) marriage licenses.  She refused so far as to end up in prison for contempt.  Some people think she was justified because of her religious beliefs (although she kinda missed the one where women aren't supposed to make these kinds of decisions, because women aren't supposed to hold offices). 

I'm not going to comment on the actions further, except to provide a parallelism.

Hey, I wonder if this photo is relevant to this discussion?
No, I don't wonder.  It's relevant.

So let's imagine, you go into the DMV (BMV, license office, whatever they call it now) because you need to get your license renewed, or perhaps you need tags on that new car you bought, or maybe you simply need a new copy because you lost your old one.

Cars.  Aren't they lovely things?

You happen to notice a bearded man standing behind the clerks.  Maybe he's Amish, maybe he's Jewish, perhaps a Quaker or Mennonite, maybe he's of a sect of Buddhism.  Maybe, just maybe, he's worships Thor, or perhaps Apollo.  You walk up to take care of your business, but the clerks inform you that they can't help you.  You see, this religious fellow who's running the lines decides that it's his religion that technology is an abomination before his religion, and he cannot in good faith issue a car license/tag/et cetera.

ABOMINATION I SAY!  IT IS UNNATURAL AND THEREFORE EVIL!

Being rightfully concerned, you demand this fellow do his job.  He turns you and everyone who wants to get a license away, because his thousand-year-old book says he can't do it.  Never mind that it's the law, and he has to let people get licenses, he's not going to go for it.

But you don't understand, I love my car.  We have a good relationship.
We aren't hurting anyone. It's a legal relationship.  Why can't I get my license?

Where would you stand on this issue?  Would you take the clerk's side on either issue?  I should hope this brings some clarity to the issue at hand.  Of course, I don't expect many Amish or Jewish folk to hold a public office with the sole intent of enforcing their religion, because they actually follow the part of their religion that tells them to respect the laws of the land, whether they like them or not.  It's really a reasonable thing, and it's part of that other county clerk's religion, too.

See you all next time!

Remeber, big words are scary.

Science literacy is important to all of us.  I start this post by way of anecdote, as observed by myself.  I was at work, and a coworker of mine happened to notice a container someone else had packed a lunch in. On the front of the package was the basic nutritional information, in those handy bubbles everyone now seems to be using.  This information happened to indicate that there was, let's say, 460mg of sodium per serving (or however it's presented).  Coworker says that this seems like a lot of sodium.  I point out that it's only about half a gram, and the coworker doesn't know what that means, because he doesn't understand metric.  I point out that it's roughly one percent of an ounce, something along those lines.  He still thinks it's a lot of salt for a lunch meat product to contain. I ask him if he realizes that's only about a gram of salt, give or take, but by this point I've already lost him.  I ask him further if he knows what's in table salt, or what salt is, and he has no clue.

Now, to be fair, he's starting his fifth year of college, majoring in business administration.  Salt is probably not something he needs to think about most of the time, and the metric system is probably not affecting his prospects too greatly.  This aside, this is a roughly 24 year old person who doesn't know that table salt is sodium and chlorine, how much the recommended daily values for each are (let alone a good or bad amount to take in a day), or why it's important to understand metric.  A person who also likes to talk about how he eats his body weight (in lbs) in grams of protein per day (the powdered stuff - apparently he also eats like a dozen eggs per day, too).  In his defense, he does a lot of lifting exercise, etc, so the protein makes sense.

The entire reason I bring this up is to illustrate a thing I've noticed that's even more disturbing.

It's all the salt you love, without any breeding.

First, let's look at this label.  It's a bit hard to see, so let me explain it to you.  This is salt.  It's pink for some reason, and that reason isn't important here.  This fine pink salt (sounds like a euphemism to me, but we'll let it slide) is Non-GMO certified.  That's right, nothing's been done to its genes.

Pictured: DNA structure.  A thing that doesn't exist in salt.

I'm not sure if it's more interesting that a company producing salt sought out a non-GMO certificate (where does your salt come from that you need to worry about genes being in it?), or that the non-GMO organization actually granted them one (although it's literally correct - inorganic things that have no genes can not, by definition, be genetically modified).  It's kinda like if someone advertised gluten-free water.

Except, COMPANIES ACTUALLY ADVERTISE GLUTEN FREE WATER.

I thought I could trust you all to know what water is, but now I'm not so sure.
It's in those clouds.  It's in that lake.  It's in your water bottle. 

That's right. If you follow the link up there, and click on the company's explanation as to why you should buy their water, it's pretty flimsy.

Research indicates that while water is often naturally free of Gluten, certain bottling practices and additives in some brands can cause contamination.  Clara’s bottling practices and additive-free guarantee ensure that every bottle of our water is certified gluten and worry-free.

 Research, they say?  Do they link to it?  Of course they don't, because it doesn't exist.  Water is not 'often' naturally free of gluten, it is BY DEFINITION FREE OF GLUTEN.

But let's get on to the meat of this claim.  They make two positive claims here.  The first is that contaminants can somehow cause gluten to be in your water, through (supposedly very unsanitary) bottling practices.  Think about that for a moment.  They are implying that, somehow, flour or grains (or grain detritus) is somehow getting into your bottle without your knowledge.  Go ahead and try this experiment.  Drop a bit of flour in a bottle of water, leave it sit for a while.  Then come back and see if it looks like the water you get on your grocer's shelves, or the convenience store.  Let me know if it tastes like it.  Any amount of gluten that could possibly be enough to trigger a sensitivity is going to be enough for you to know it's contaminated, on sight.  What I want to know is where this research is so clearly pointing to this position, that there's a water bottling facility in the same factory as a flour mill, and that the contamination is getting through to consumers.  Color me skeptical, but I don't think that's a thing.

So, barring this 'contamination by practices' hypothesis, let's think about the other alternative.  Somewhere, in some water bottling facility, there's some additive that contains gluten.  The only things that are ever added to water in this capacity are minerals.  Minerals do not contain gluten.  Wheat, Rye, Barley, and possibly a few other related grains, contain gluten.  Think about the things you know that contain those things.  Beer, perhaps.  You may have noticed that beer is not water.  Moving on.  Flour, one might say.  Again, the test above.  Put some flour in your water, even a few grams, and see if it seems like the water you buy in the store.  Bread, you say?  Noodles.  Maybe they're adding noodles without your knowledge.  If that's the case, maybe you have trouble noticing things.  If there's noodles in my water, I heat it up and call it soup.

Nonetheless, we have absolutely no evidence (though I would love to see this research they mentioned) of such a thing.  This is a baseless assertion, founded in the idea that your dollar is more important than their ethical obligations.

But hey, at least they're not trying to sell me organic salts for my food.  Acetate salt would probably not taste very good anyway.  But at least it's all natural!  Maybe we can convince people Arsenic is good for them because it's completely natural, too?  No, maybe Cyanide?  Mercury? Come on, won't someone eat some uranium salts for me?  I swear they're all natural!

Conversion Therapies

There is a movement which exists, within primarily the Christian community, that advocates the use of various kinds of 'therapy' to treat the supposed 'sin' of homosexuality.  A simple google search for 'homosexual conversion therapy' yields plenty of information, horror stories, academic studies, et cetera.

The basic premise is that, somehow, placing people (usually minors) in a setting with 'therapists' (usually no licenses, degrees, et cetera) who are there to help drive away the demons (or whatever) that make people homosexual.  These folks use all sorts of therapies, from physical abuse to mental torture, all in the name of making people feel bad about natural processes. 

Here are some links just so you don't think I'm exaggerating.  Some kids are even kidnapped and extricated to other countries.  IN JESUS NAME!  Seriously though, you can google these things, and many more.

Jesus Camp - TBR
Kidnapped for Christ -TBR
Homosexuality is hate speech
Conversion Therapy Advocacy
Kill The Gays Bill author
Coffee with Claire Aug 9, 2015

So I got to thinking, what do you suppose would happen if atheists tried to pull this kind of thing on religious folks.  Kidnapping adults in the middle of the night, to beat the Jesus out of them.  Exorcising Christ out of their children.  Calling them abominations that need exterminating.  Saying that we did not believe in freedom of religion either.  Saying that christians were just recruiting people into the religious agenda. 

When the people who are religious then started to say that this position was overbearing, we would simply call them the reason America is losing its morals.  These detractors who don't agree with us, surely they must be wrong. We'll even ignore the laws to make our point.  Certainly we would want to limit marriage to only people without religion, because religion is corrupting this nation.

If someone was to point out that religious folks have rights too, I'd argue that they're now oppressing MY beliefs, because clearly if anyone can practice religion, my ability not to practice it is infringed.  First it would be acceptance of religious folk, then celebration of religion, then mandates that all people must be religious.

This is clearly a ludicrous position to hold, but it is held in reverse by many religious people.  Many religious people believe that allowing homosexuality will actually somehow force them to be homosexual.  Does me being an atheist force you not to believe in your god?  Although, I know plenty of religious people who would actively try to convert me, it's kinda the fundamental thing of any church.  I know several homosexual people, too.  None of them is trying to 'convert' anyone, so far as I can tell. 

As a full disclaimer, I do not support any of the actions described in that fictional narrative up there.  It is merely designed to illustrate the perspective of the other side.  I do not advocate kidnapping christian children in the middle of the night and shipping them to an island territory in a ploy to change their religion through abuse.  I do, however, advocate freedom of thought, expression, religion, and civil discourse.  I even advocate for the freedom of speech of the people who believe those horrible things.  They may be terrible people, but they're free to preach hate.  They also are responsible for the content of that message, and have the burden of the misinformation they spread.

Peace out!

Anthropic Principle. Or whatever.

Well, it's been a few minutes, hasn't it?  I've started a new job and things are going pretty well.  Let's get right into it.

There's an arguments that creationists (among others) like to make concerning the origin of life in the universe (and occasionally extrapolating it to the creation of the universe).  The argument is such that, for whatever reason, the universe appears to exist in such a way that it favors life.  This argument is usually present in a way similar to the following forms:

Life exists in the universe because it was designed intentionally to contain life.

If the universe (and the laws that govern it) were any different, life wouldn't exist, ergo the universe must have been conceived specifically to support (almost always human) life.

The fact that we can observe the universe means that we exist in the only universe in which life could exist.

This is not the core fundamental part of the anthropic principle, but these are the type of arguments typically made by those supporting creationism (among other things).  I simply wish to point out some of the fallacies that exist in these arguments, perpetually put forth by people who don't seem to care what fallacies are.

So let's start with the third concept, that life exists because it could only exist in this universe.  Already we can see, perhaps, the fallacy at hand here.  The simplest fallacy is that we don't have enough information to know if life can only exist here.  We don't even have a good working definition for what life is yet, but we are getting closer.  Either way, the point remains.  There doesn't appear to be any reason that there can't be an infinite number of other universes with exactly the same laws as this one.  Similarly, in our own universe, 99.9999...% of the space that exists is toxic to any life that lives on earth.

Thus, we can clearly see, having absolutely no other universe to compare to ours.  If the laws are indeed different, then we likely never will.  If they are the same, then it'll be exceptionally difficult to observe them also.  Thus, it is impossible to say what the constraints are that life can exist within.

Let's move on to the larger fallacy that exists here.  The idea that the universe is (supposedly) designed.  This exists in the absence of the evidence of a creator.  If it exists in the same place as those other universes (that is, not in our universe), then it will be completely independent thereof.  In other words, a designer could no more design our universe without existing in it, than could another universe.  We have exactly as much evidence that another universe is affecting our laws as a designer is: none.  If it doesn't exist within our universe, then it can have no effect on our universe.  This is one of the basest things we can observe.

For example, the moon is tidally locked to the earth, and is the primary actor upon the tides of the ocean.  If somehow a thing from another universe were to suddenly change those tides, then by definition it would no longer be outside of our universe.  Similarly, if it has an effect on our tides (read: the properties of our physical universe), then we can measure that effect.  So far we have no evidence of a creator, nor of a second moon popping into existence to control our tides from time to time.

Furthermore, if such an occurrence did happen, we would have to rewrite the entire laws of reality to accommodate it.  So far as we have observed, gravity has never been affected by anything not existing in our universe, and the laws that govern gravity reflect this.  So far as we can tell, these laws have not been violated by anything supernatural (that means outside of nature, literally not in this universe).

But let's also go one step further here.  Some people claim that the anthropic principle (as argued above) defends the belief in their god over others, but this is also patently false.  Let's even presume (for the sake of argument) that the universe is designed by a creator.  This simple fact would not lend credence to any one religion over another, and would rule out all current religions that we are aware of.  The bible certainly got the earth encased in a crystal with Sheol wrong. Anyone who argues that there can be only one designed universe definitely has to deal with various Central American, Native American, Northern European and African myths whereby this universe wasn't the first one created, and certainly wasn't created 13 billion years ago.  The bible and Koran would certainly have to redact any creation story involving a creation period of shorter than a few billion years.  Stars don't form in a week.

This also leads to a further fallacy often committed by the religion, whereby they perceive the idea of design to lend credence to a specific god.  Remember, you can't show us this creator.  If you can't show evidence for why Yahweh makes a more compelling substrate for reality than Yggdrasil or Tiamat, then you can't assert it.  If one says 'look at the design, therefore Jesus,' one is also saying 'look at the design, therefore Yggdrasil, the tree that holds nine worlds.'  This is a tenuous argument, mostly because of the burden of proof.  A person cannot claim that Yggdrasil holds up the nine worlds any more than a person can claim that Allahweh (allah+yahweh) made it.  Also, Ken Ham, if you read this, I've got a post right here that says I'm right and you are wrong.

And lo, acce245 was right about everything.  It's in text right here.  You can't argue with that.  He's got a blog post that says he's right.  He must be right.

Also, anyone who happens to agree with me, feel free to quote that one.

See you all next time.

Crystal Lies Review, Chapter 1

FAIR USE NOTICE: I AM DISSECTING A WORK OF LITERATURE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF CRITIQUE.  SOME PORTIONS WILL BE NECESSARILY QUOTED.  IT ISN'T MY FAULT THIS BOOK IS SHORT ON WORDS.

So, I decided to take a trip to a local used books retailer, in the interest of picking up a few religious texts to do comparative literature analysis (read: to read them and see just what people still believe).  While in the vast religious section, I saw things ranging from I Ching to Confucius; from various translations of the bible to overviews of the Koran; from the Talmud to Mormon and Moravian texts; from the Occult to all manner of Pagan literature.  Oddly enough I didn't notice anything on the Poetic Edda, Zoroastrianism, Assyrian literature (Gilgamesh, for example), or any of the Greco-Roman pantheon literature (to be fair, they did have a mythology section, which I didn't venture toward today - that's where most of it would likely have been I suppose). 

Books I bought today.

However, my eyes fell upon this most interesting piece of soft cover proselytizing, 'Crystal Lies' (subtitle 'Choices and the new age') by F. Lagard Smith.  This first chapter is approximately nine pages long, in a standard font size and spacing, and it still seems like filler.  One of the lines in the first paragraph (and keep in mind, this is 1989) declares the following:

'Never before has a "Christian American" been so severely challenged.  Never before have so many people bolted from traditional religions for a human philosophy which calls into question the very foundations of Christianity.  Is it a great truth that is being discovered by New Agers, or are New Agers falling victim to crystal lies?'

This appears to set out the entire tone of the book.  The next paragraph decries the movement of religious texts to the back corner of book stores, while new-age (defined loosely as anything not in the four Gospels of Jesus, I think) stuff gets vast sections.  He even goes as far as calling the apocryphal texts (of the bible, mind you) new-age, and even implies that Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism are all new-age indoctrination.

Most of those who buy her books are only interested in learning about ... a famous actress.  They don't realize that they are about to be indoctrinated in New Age philosophy.

So we have a man who clearly believes that anyone who picks up an autobiography about an adherent to new-age philosophy will suddenly come to believe it as true as he believes in Jesus (or something like Jesus) himself. This is much like an argument some theists like to make about Dungeons and Dragons (made famous by a Chick Tract, even though it's bullshit).  Simply reading a book or playing a game doesn't make you an adherent of such a thing.  This harkens back to the Witch Hunters of not so long ago, who would somehow magically know what makes a witch, but somehow were never witches themselves. I always wondered how witch hunters could know every aspect of witchery but be immune from being pointed out as a witch. Of course, if it quacks like a duck...

Simply by reading this, you too can become indoctrinated in the idea that 

angels are corporeal beings that can fly you around outer space

because the grim reaper is totally in the bible we swear.

So here's the next quote, and this puts the chapter in perspective.  Remember, he's talking here about literally all that stuff (apocryphal bible texts, Taoism, crystals and chakras, Yoga, meditation, et cetera):

In case you might have overlooked the drift of these subjects and titles, they are books which once were found under the heading of The Occult.  As in witches and witchcraft.  As in Satanism. As in spiritism, mysticism and shamanism.  And they are selling in the millions to mainstream America...

So, in a few paragraphs, he's saying basically anything that doesn't agree with a standard he hasn't even set yet (although he has implied it is the gospels, since he clearly isn't familiar with the old testament's myriad mysticism - some of which is still common today in Jewish sects). He clearly isn't aware of the mysticism of even the New Testament though, either, like the raising of Lazarus; the feeding of the many from the loaves and fishes; healing of the 10 lepers, the blind, and many others; cursing of the fig tree.  Those are just to name a few mystical things from the new testament, for comparison to the things he's calling 'occult.'

NEW AGE IN THE CHURCH

So here's a heading for a section of this chapter.  My review of this book might actually end up being longer than the book itself if this pace keeps up...

The first few paragraphs talk about a fellow named Matthew Fox and how the Vatican silenced him for being too diverse in worship.  Basically, Smith's argument is that because he was including Buddhists, Feminists (and the feminization of god - an interesting concept for discussion later) and Environmentalism, he was silenced by the pope (as though this argument from authority holds water here somehow).  Basically, Smith doesn't like him, so let's talk about him for two paragraphs.  Literally the only thing here is anecdote.  It doesn't even serve his purpose.  Much like in the following paragraph, where he derides 'Protestants' he disagrees with who claim everyone is divine like god, like Jesus (an argument I'm not familiar with, and he doesn't use for anything but anecdote again, so I'll move on).  Although he does argue that these are the signs of fierce aggression among new-age movements, he doesn't really illustrate why.

And that's literally the entire section.  It's roughly 3/4 of a page.

THE NEW AGE'S POPULAR APPEAL

I'm just going to quote the first paragraph of this section, for posterity or whatever, because it's utterly ridiculous.

The influence of the New Age movement is not limited to any one social, economic, or religious group.  It permeates the whole of society, from top to bottom, from the highly educated to young people not yet out of school, from the wealthy to the less fortunate who live in ghettos.  What began as a fad in the sixties--complete with hippies, flower-power, psychedelic drugs, and Indian sitar music--has become the religion of choice in the eighties.

So first, he calls this rough outline of a culture a 'religion.'  That's a pretty broad definition for something you want us to take seriously (whatever the real, old-fashioned, American one he means).  The dichotomies (false as they are) that exist in his mind are an interesting window to his own mind, indeed.  Implying that young people not out of school cannot be highly educated (or that age implies wisdom, rather a contradiction to Jesus?).  Implying that people either have wealth or live in ghettos (rural America has no poverty, apparently).  The idea that hippies of the 1960s was only a fad (because a culture of love and non-violence is so terrible?), and that sitars were their music of choice.  Surely this man has heard of The Beatles, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, or any number of other popular artists of the time?

But again, I expect no less from the man who then goes on to complain that this 'religion of human potential' (yeah, you sodomites, quit trying to realize your potential!  Cant' you see god must've chosen this fellow to speak for him?).  He never actually explains what this religion is, but one can presume that stuff up there is what it is, basically everything he can't understand.

So then he cuts into this discussion between himself and 'one of the most successful law school graduates' where he teaches.  He doesn't give a real name for this fellow, so this story could be complete bullshit, but let's humor it for a moment.  Supposedly this law student develops a system of belief based on quantum mechanics.

Going to stop and discuss this a moment.  The law student actually explains to him, rather cogently, how quantum mechanics works with regard to an observer.  Basically, that our observation of quantum events forces them into various states based on their probabilistic nature.  Although the book doesn't go this in-depth with it (and I doubt this conversation actually happened how it is portrayed in the book - think evolution 'belief' a la Ken Ham), Smith basically tries to say the law student conflated quantum mechanics with spirituality, and how we all make observations and they are all equally valid or something.  This is hard to explain without copying the text exactly, but that's the gist of it.  Basically, Smith tells him that's not true and this somehow crushes the law student.  This sounds much more like a Christian straw man argument akin to that found in 'God's Not Dead.'

Worse yet, the look in John's eye and his responses to my probing of his new world view told me that he was no longer open to a search for truth.

That's literally how this author treats it.  Present him with science he doesn't understand and he'll conflate it with literally everything else he doesn't understand.  Basically, because Smith is holding on to a worldview that's severly out of date, it must mean everyone around him is wrong.  How can photons be waves and particles?  Surely looking at the world skeptically means one is in the wrong, because it questions my personal god.  This is basically Smith's argument. This also makes Smith a terrible person, telling everyone else they are wrong while not advancing an actual reason why Smith might be right.

The last line of this section is the clincher.  Basically making fun of other people because he thinks they feel as pompous about their 'beliefs' as Smith actually feels about his belief.  Just try reading this in the context above with zero cynicism.

If enlightenment is a process, he had completed the process and, at least for now, was one of the enlightened ones.

IS THERE NO TRUTH

No joke, this is another heading.  We're on page seven.  37 lines per page.  8-10 words per line.  Let's pretend 300 words per page.  I might actually be more verbose than this book at this point.  Just wanted to point that out for reference.

Basically, this section tries to convince us (over approximately 3 pages) that truth is somehow not relative, but could be, and that the bible can be both or something.  I really don't understand his point. Let me quote a few things here, maybe you can be enlightened.

I often hear that religion thrives on close-mindedness. And certainly there is abundant evidence that the church is close-minded on a whole range of issues. But that is to be expected of a belief system which acknowledges absolute moral truth. 

One often confuses absolute truth with one's own perception of that truth.

The difficulty of having any meaningful dialogue with those who accept New Age philosophy is their belief that we must abandon rationality.

Spiritual success in the New Age is found in going inward to one's own subjective awareness rather than outward to an external God and to an objective truth about the universe in which we live.

Basically, that last quote kinda sums it up.  He thinks it's better to gain 'objective truth' through God than to actually think about things and act in a good, human way.  Not two sentences later, he even points out that

Once feelings become the standard by which all is to be judged, then no longer can there be any significant dialogue.

He's telling us that people are believing things because it makes them feel good (and be mindful that most people he's talking about are non-violent, literally not hurting anyone, and in some cases actually spreading goodwill)  while giving absolutely no other reason than 'the bible feels right so I'm going to espouse those views.'

Where, then, do we begin in attempting to sort out truth from fiction, objectivity from subjectivity, biblical teaching from secular philosophy?  What common ground do we have?

I really need to call out this point.  The way he is implying that biblical teachings are truth, are objective; anything else is subjective.  This is a common false dichotomy of LOTS OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.  Although, he's tackling this from a Christian standpoint, so I'm going to stick to that.  This is a shitty tactic, sometimes called a straw-man argument, sometimes a false dichotomy, but most definitely an argument from composition: all fallacies.

 Naturally, not everyone agrees that we should look to scripture for the answers to life's questions.  But there must be some point of departure for dialogue...

Here again with the false dichotomy.  He then goes on to quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Basically stating that all morality comes from god, while completely throwing every other religion out (even when several of them make similar arguments), not necessarily because it's right, but because he thinks it is right.

But I suppose that sums up this entire book.  He feels his way is correct, more than anyone else, and so it makes him right.  How is this different than any of the other things he's claiming are false ways to determine morality and truth?  They aren't.