It's about time I wrote a little something about a graphic novel that made waves, not only in my life, but also in the entire comic book world back in the day. Obviously it's Watchmen. I built that up pointlessly didn't I? If you're not familiar with the graphic novel or the comic book genre, here's a brief overview: Watchmen was written by a wizard called Alan Moore, the legend behind swamp thing, V for Vendetta and From Hell, a beautiful read! It was illustrated by Dave Gibbons, who did Rogue Trooper and The Originals. Watchmen was originally published in 1986 and has since become iconic.
When I was a child Watchmen would have been way too advanced for me. They looked the part, but I would never have considered them as 'proper superheroes' like Spiderman or Captain America. It's a pleasure to digest a mature themed comic book world. Trying to scrape some sort of enjoyment from modern comics when you reach your forties is like thumbing across into the meaty bits only to find it's all soft. You might try to convince yourself it's working, by appeals to the nostalgia of youth, but that never compensates for the intelligent stimulating goodies you need!
Just in case you did not know, be warned, the Watchmen universe is cynical, dark, political and very gritty. The setting of a story following a group of retired group of superheroes, whose interests unite them once again to investigate the murder of one of their own! Along the way, they uncover a conspiracy that threatens to destroy the world as they know it. A great premise and it flows well.
Watchmen Noir is only one of the many versions of Watchmen graphic novels on the market. 'Before Watchmen' came out, a prequel set of comics that telling the origins and backstories—the reviews weren't great. I never bothered to collect them. In general many spin-offs detract from a very well made original story. Sad.
Watchmen Noir is a lovely hardcover, black and white edition, that does retain the very noir detective feel it wants. The story was a pleasure to initially read. However, without colour, I got confused once or twice with minor visual references to the plot. Watchmen is a page turner, the intrigue saturates its many characters; combine that with the heavy hardcover format, it brings substance everytime you hold its hard-edged spine.
The film version closely recreates numerous iconic images and panels from the graphic novel, but it goes its own way with other areas such as its different ending, slightly different characters but the graphic novel holds it's own with that dark atmosphere and feeling of threat.
I was so excited with the big HBO Watchmen Show they announced years ago. All the right words like 'critically acclaimed' were said so I watched it and I was totally confused. It was supposed to be a sequel to the original comic, no, I can't accept nothing but the doomsday clock as the sequal to the original comic. As always, the comic was a hundred times better! As I said: a spin-off that detracted.
Doomsday clock was the cherry on this cake. It was great to see the Flash, Batman and Superman, part of something with the likes of Dr Manhattan, Rorschach and Ozymandias. I am biased, a fan.
If you want start enjoying graphic novels then I do – as you might have noticed – recommend reading Watchmen. It's a decent starting point, if you like it, try DC rebirth or DC Black Label. If that's not your thing, explore non-superhero stuff like Preacher, Transmetropolitan, Maus or Sandman.
What’s the difference between aninvisible, intelligent, non-material, non-verifiable presence, and an invisible, intelligent, non-material, non-verifiable presence that has decided to pop out for a bit of fresh air? Nothing, they are indistinguishable to us.
Identify the Problem
There could be something beyond our human scope, but no human could detect this type of presence anyway, right? People do aimlessly debate the claims of such invisible, undetectable, non-material presences until the cows come home—there’s no proof, they’re undetectable! Undetectable, indeed; until the gifted or the ordained claim to see the presences, which nullifies what the spirit is supposed to be! Any analytical atheist would agree, that the simplest explanation is most likely the case, as with Ockham's Razor. Why bother trying to communicate with an empty room?
Taking The Jungian Perspective
What authority has set the invisible, intelligent, non-material, non-verifiable presence, 'breed standard'? The answer needs no mentioning. This spirit in the room resonates with Carl Jungs archetypes of both the Shadow and the Anima/Animus, the latter emerges in dreams, visions, or inner experiences influencing perceptions, taking on an almost 'other' quality. Similarly, the Shadow is repressed within all of us, we have our own. A dark influencing force, almost ghostly or paranormal that also provides that sense of 'other' that we can't fully explain. Now, we should consider what paranormal activity everyday people have claimed to have experienced.
Anecdotal Reports
People have been experiencing strange presences, ghosts, elves and poltergeists (that we often call the paranormal now) since the dawn of history—in doing so, suggests these presences cannot be invisible, intelligent, non-material, and non-verifiable. Only a week ago, my boy said the rocking chair started rocking by itself, so he filmed it. The kitchen is a tad odd during the evenings; we have no idea why things have unnaturaly fallen off the kitchen surface or what makes noise in there.
The Mechanics Behind The Moans
In other parts of the house, family members have seen strange shadow people, and shadow insects, that bear no religious or spiritual significance to anything. As well as that, we’ve noticed unexpected smells of tobacco and aftershave—we don’t smoke. I won't get into the ghost stories told by the extended family about their houses. Many of us tend to rationalise a creepy incident away as an over active imagination or we ignore it, because these things don't follow logic. My point is; any moaning ghost will need a voice box to moan, just as our rocking chair poltergeist will require both energy and matter to rock it—the breed standard is all wrong!
Science and the Paranormal
The absence of scientific evidence for a spirit signifies very little; every culture across the globe has its own criteria for what their spooks are supposed to be, a djinn, a fetch, a banshee, poltergeist or a dybbuk—Japan and China have countless types of ghosts!
Phenomenal Relativity of Interpretation
When dogmas emerge, people start to expect their spirits to behave like a class X, Y or Z, but the paranormal isn’t like that, it’s defined as unexpected, not predictable or explainable. There is no stream of constant paranormal evidence that science can readily study. You can’t do it. These weird happenings aren't timetabled like the number nine bus. It's similar to ball lightning or England winning the world cup.
How We See Things
Stephen Hawking could not see his black holes; a problem with detectability existed for him. Perhaps a similar situation exists with spirits; you see, in the end, Hawking saw the gravitational effect of a black hole moving the cosmic bodies that surrounded them, maybe occultists do something similar with presences? Like the cosmic community, many people have been affected by unseen forces of a paranormal kind.
Any discrepancies between an invisible, intelligent, non-material, non-verifiable presence, and one that has buggered off somewhere, comes down to choice; self trickery, possibly a deliberate decision to join a collective of believers.
To Wrap it Up
Now, on the other hand: what is the difference between an invisible, intelligent, non-material, non-verifiable presence, and a direct experience of an unexplained phenomena shared with a co-worker? Witness accounts often involve seeing, hearing, smelling, as well as feeling presences or ghosts, a physicalism, which not always invisible, can they hold a substantial presence. The spirit in the room is the most compelling character of all!
I can't remember what I was doing the last time I was called a 'simp' by my teenage boy; it definitely had something to do with me helping my better half. I wasn't really taken aback by the cheeky bugger, given his sense of humour. Who cares, I thought, I was being called an NPC or one of those sims from that domestic simulation game, The Sims? Well, I had it all wrong and, days later I found myself lecturing the poor chap about the shortcomings of incels and the malignant narcissism of that Andrew-S*dding-Tate bloke who beats women or something? Admittedly, I was quite impassioned and I criticised him just for entertaining that horsesh*t in the first place.
Of course, I felt guilty for overly stressing my displeasure. I failed to give him his due credit for not being pulled into it; he was just curious, because he found their views stupid.
A spectrum of misogyny exists across social media, it marginalises women, transgender people, slams homosexuality, basically everything except this cult logic of being a 'real' manly man. The weak herds of unique sheep follow. A social contagion of this kind will never be good us.
Anyway, looking at the insult: 'a simp' is internet slang, hurled at submissive men who offer so-called 'excessive' affection to women—usually a wife or partner in hope of obtaining sexual favours! It comes from simple/simpleton. These 'macho men' well on the misogyny spectrum, call any guy a 'simp' for not embodying the idealism of the superior sex. Yes, it really is that simple, or is it?
Certain men fit this definition well. For instance, imagine all the sons and daughters who have faced being fleeced out of their inheritance by their fathers gold-digging fiancé. These things happen, it's a true story. Frustrated as any offspring would be in these powerless scenarios; patriarchal ignorance always plays the key role in this notion of a simp.
The best of us make mistakes, our smartest can be deceived, even Andrew Tate himself. However, in my own family, there are weak men. Not all guy's can be strong. Steven, my brother in law—I shall call him this for privacy reasons—is dominated by his wife. He works a full week plus overtime; groggy unchanged toddlers are thrown at him the second he walks through his front door, his dinner is never cooked, and the house is always a shambles. This 'simp' is expected to cook, clean and look after the children, while his wife enjoys her leisurely pursuits. Now, it's an observed truth that all couples find their own areas of dominance and submission, it's natural. My better half is like a practical genius with DIY, and to be honest, I have no idea what I bring to the table!
kids'll buy into this internet dogma, just as they lapped up dubstep!
However, Steven, is burning out. His partner is visibly parasitising off of him, and to his own disservice, he allows it. Even after she committed adultery and told him about it, he apologised to her! Sharpened his carnal skillset between the sheets, wined and dined the woman, and then, he let her sod of to Magaluf with her friends. We were all baffled, because he is so desperate to keep the horrible woman—anathema to any 'alphas' out there. It continues to this day; she was found out again! covertly dating while he babysat for her. Trying out the word 'simp' to describe the men in this blog feels wrong, regardless of how accurate it might appear by definition.
Omar Moran would also be called a simp, he has been married all of my life. A spirited man, unique, enjoys his tomfoolery, somewhat highly strung, hardly a rocket scientist, but not an ignoramus. Above all, he means well and, he's just like Steven with his wife. Jill his partner permanently forbade him from attending church. Omar is known as being, 'under-the-thumb' but it goes further than this. His wife, Jill, always has the final say. This dialogue is based on something I witnessed at a friends house:
Omar Moran: I do fancy some chips from the chippy, I'm starving!
Mick: And me, come on, we'll walk over and fetch some.
Omar Moran: Yeah, kebab meat and chips'll do nicely. What you having, Jill? (asking his other half)
Jill Moran: I'm okay, not very hungry.
OmarMoran: Oh, uh, I think I'll leave it then, you know, Jill's not having anything, so uh. . .
Mick: What?! But, I thought, you, er said you fancied. . . aren't you hungry anymore?
It's a given fact, alpha types who bully women are mentally weak; submission is a strength, and the submissive allow people to be dominant, I suppose. A line exists between the doormat and the gentleman. However, it's up to every one of us to challenge this stupid reasoning that attacks the dynamics of relationships.
It's a different kettle of fish when your partner's a psycho!
Since his apology for asking a boy to suck his tongue, the Dalai Lama's reputation has taken a hit. I'm not plunging into the ugly talk of paedophile accusation, as such; I don't think there's enough evidence. More to the point, I can't help but wonder about this man's dedication, his meditating and years of reflecting on Buddha wisdom before finding Satori and eventual awakening.
It looks like I'm sprucing him up, but, what I'm saying, is—to be enlightened on earth, is to be a very insightful mind living among regular people. Okay, there's always been a contrast between the illuminated and common folk across any myriad of religious culture. However, the ultimate goal of the Buddhist is Moksha, the liberation from death and reincarnation. Now, what I find sad—but, at the same time quite interesting—is that when the illuminated mind of the Sage is touched by dementia, it shows us that nothing is sacred. It's almost paradoxical; mindfulness at the minds decline.
Of course, cognitive and neurological issues, can affect anyone, but senility seems especially insulting to our western construal of the Buddhist ethos. The Buddhist teachings on non-self, suffering, but also impermanence, hold relevance in the face of such cognitive endings. The Buddhist calling for resilience of the mind over the physical body and it's mental desires, might offer some consolation. I am reluctant to hurl this unique sheep or any of his fellow grass munchers onto the paedophile pyre just yet. Yes, I clearly speculate The Dalai Lama is diminishing, but also, I'm saying he isn't morally perfect either; in three interviews he made questionable comments about women, and three times he publically apologised for them.
I still don't see an Epstein or a Gary Glitter in this man, however, the Dalai Lama did acknowledge that he knew child abuse was happening in Buddhism; is it really fair to compare him to what the Pope is to the Catholics, given the difference in position, culture and structure? I doubt it, but I do know that I make the same unconscious assertions with Joe Bidens senility, regardless of his politics or his accolades.
The image is still in my mind. A tongue sucking request made to a boy in a room of people—no one rushed to intervene! Those four walls full with modern Buddhism itself, which; let's face it, let both the religion and that poor boy down. Idolised men get away with way too much; I'm nodding toward the many scandalous clergy cover ups. After Saville and the BBC we have hardly moved on. Don't get me wrong, we everyday people call out pedophilia quite admirably, disgust at it, and righteously oppose it! Many of us might share the same feelings of frustration and discomfort when watching YouTube videos showing children pullaway from Joe Biden, for example. Why aren't the top brass prioritising the safeguarding of children? Maybe paedo-ring blackmailers still exist in high places?
Tongue sucking is bizarre. However, personally, neurocognitive deteriorated will cause a person to exhibit uncharacteristic and unwanted behaviours. I recall visiting my grandad, he was a mild mannered gentleman and everyone loved his respectable sense of what's proper. He always wore a shirt and tie. It was unbelievable to learn of his violence to female staff and shouting at other residents in his nursing home—he dragged an elderly woman out of bed! This wasn't the grandad I knew and loved. As the Alzheimer gradually took him, we watched him respond to hallucinations and tell us his peculiar recollections of his day. We wanted him to pass away because he was being eaten alive. We couldn't mourn him, it was like we had been mourning him with every visit. If my grandad or your grandparent could act this way, then so could some holy man.
I want to make a comparison. There're no previous convictions nor any evidence that suggested Prince Andrew was guilty of child molestation, but in their droves people accuse him. He lied, fair enough, association with Epstein, that photo and the damning story; yes, it all smeared him, but that stuff isn't primary evidence, unlike what was used to prosecute Rolf Harris. That being said, a rigorous investigation into The Dalai Lama and his entourage for historical offenses would be a great idea.
I know I'm being biased here; fully aware there is no evidence of senility, but as we have seen, neither was this just innocence and playfulness. Their circle may have legitimate incentives to retain The Dalai Lama's health information from the public. I do, however, concede, that my speculation is a stroll down conspiracy theory street. There has to be a strong message in this story, no matter who you are: never peer pressure kids into doing pervy things!
Is it Irrational to Believe in The Elves, The Dwarfs, Fairies and Goblins?
3 min read
Who might argue, that belief in The Elves is irrational? Just because there's no empirical evidence to support them doesn't mean they're not real, no? Whoever says the burden of proof sits with believers, clearly don't believe.
Why do you need evidence for Elves?
All sorts of clever arguments exist that focus on design of the cosmos and cause, which have been refuted by philosophers and scientists. In fact, some atheist hardliners insist that belief in Elves can do more harm than good, for example: the public might believe an ailment they have, is in fact, Elf-shot, leading them to unwisely seek an insufficient remedy from a witch, only to die, because it was brain cancer all along.
When Our Beliefs are Unhelpful...
Apart from The Elves, The Gnomes can also make people feel terrible with regards to our sense of self-esteem and self-worth. The Journal of Religion and Health published a paper claiming that worshipping such judgemental things will likely result with feeling shame, especially surrounding sexual practices (Rowatt, Wade C. et al. 2010).
Benefits of the Invisible Folk
Belief in The Elves and other special folk we can't see, might be 'reasonable' according to the likes of William Lane Craig (2008) and others who hold an explanation for their own faith. Evolution of Regression, published a piece by Bull (2021), suggesting believers might be able to think in metaphorical terms, and articulate complex ideas about abstract objects. The claim still stands and is not proven.
Why is it Always About Proof?!
The Dwarfs, The Goblins and The Elves are great but, I can't accept them without at least seeing a smudge of the mythical in my mundane world. For example, we never see falling dragon sh*t crushing cars, only to be reported on by Mary Nightingale on The News at Ten. Evidence is quite useful.
What Spitituality?
In terms of psychological benefit, belief in any form of Elf can be glamoured up to look healthy; psycho-babble and new age shpeel might say all spirituality is healthy for life. However, it's only healthy, if you're notthat particular theistic satanist waiting outside St. Lukes with a can of petrol and a box of matches.
References
Bull, S.H (2021) I Think Stuff That Doesn't Exist is Real. In U. R Saul & D. Face (Eds.) Evolution of Regression.
Rowatt, Wade C. et al. (2010) Beliefs about God, Peer Influence, and Risky Sexual Behavior among College Students. Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 50, no. 4, 2010, pp. 772–788.
Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics (3rd ed.). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
Is it Wrong to Say We Are Smarter Than Our Religious Brethren?
Doubting and Thinking
7 to 9 min read
An analytical atheist could be quite a compelling character. This modern archetype often standing as the critic of traditional faith. I'm always shamefully plugging my other blogs. Anyway, according to recent studies, if you believe in god, you're more likely to score 5-6 points lower on an IQ test than non believers!
One study specifically looked at the connection between atheism and IQ, and it was published in the journal Intelligence in 2013. It analysed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which included over 20,000 participants. Individuals who identified as atheists or agnostics had higher verbal intelligence scores than those who identified as religious. Mental, right? Why? Well, read on...
So, we humans all use our verbal reasoning to conceptualise words for problem solving and reasoning. However, non-believers and believers alike had very similar non-verbal intelligence scores (Nyborg, 2013). Non-verbal intelligence is that ability to address visual, wordless issues.
Tests and Results
Yes it's often said, (most likely consolidatory) that IQ tests are only an estimation of intelligence; an assessment of how candidates perform at taking that actual test. Duh, yeah! It's just like how a beep or push-up tests estimate fitness by assessing those particular physical activities. Intelligence has more dimensions to it than fitness does, it is very nuanced.
So, shouldn't we label atheists as presumptuous whenever they say they're generally smarter than believers? Comparatively, if football players say their fitness is higher than non football players, are they right? If trends show between the two groups significant show a result it appears as if you have a fair evidence based argument! But do you?
So yes, okay, IQ tests only represent specific aspects of our intelligence, namely: mathematics, language, problem solving and recognising patterns. Our philosophical potential, on the other hand, that sneaky machiavellianism, and common sense, as well as athletic intelligence and that vital emotional intelligence (more accurate for success in life) are not included.
Mensa target specific areas: art, design and social communication do not come under the focus of IQ testing. They can't be assessed on a paper. We know that police fitness tests don't typically measure paper work or issuing cautions, but yet, aren't they still classed as part of policing? Excuse the poor example, I am only trying to raise a simple point — tests are quiet limited.
In 2010, a meta-analysis was published in the journal: Personality and Social Psychology Review, which analysed data from 63 studies conducted over 80 years and noticed a slightly statistically significant negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence (Zuckerman et al, 2010).
This negative correlation simply means, 'more' having a downward connection with 'less,' for example: the more you eat, the less hunger you have. This correlation generally showed: the more religious one might be, the less IQ points they usually score! Does this portray an absence of intelligence or a non-use of critical thinking? Research implies that if the religiously leaning suddenly began to doubt, and critically assess instead of readily believing, they would develop an analytical attitude, which would sow seeds of logic and reason.
Far enough, but are we consigning the faithful in the dunce's corner now? Of course not! Authors clarified that religiosity and intelligence is a complex relationship explained by numerous factors, including that one negative correlation! Higher IQ sits with those who’re naturally inclined to critical thought and analysis. Curious minds will see patterns, doubt figures and question theological challenges in theism. They may find little satisfaction given how insufficient explanations equate to nothing.
Another study was published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science in 2017. Believe it or not, but this one reckons that religious folks are more likely to take-up conspiracy theories than atheists are! It also says believers are less likely to engage in analytical thinking when compared to non-believers (Gervais & Norenzayan, 2017). Dont forget, these are general findings and does not imply every religious person.
The thing is, not all conspiracy theories are off-the-wall codswallop are they? Take Russian interference with the 2016 election or Cambridge Analytica, for example. The Covid 19 leak is now considered to be real! In the eighties or nineties a journalist called Gary Webb, was branded a conspiracy nut, but when he uncovered a CIA drug trafficking conspiracy he was vindicated! Such accusations are not helpful.
Going on these studies, you could be forgiven for asking: 'Does this suggest atheists have bigger brains?' it makes sense, since bigger brains have always been associated with being smart. Pietschnig et al (2022), found previous studies are fuzzy as to what degree brain size reflects IQ score. It must be said, brain size as in cerebral memory development from knowledge acquisition, is not the same as the raw cognitive application of intelligence.
Meta-analysis of 86 studies with over 26,000 people discovered this connection was nothing to write home about. The areas of correlation between brain size and IQ score have reduced over time, not because of our brains changing, but because of uncertainty around the data recorded in previous studies and the ongoing understanding and definitions surrounding intelligence.
Rest assured, the claims in these studies cited above have all been criticised. Critics have argued that these studies may have been subject to selection bias. On the other hand, the same critics often fail to explore critical thinkers who are, in fact, also religious. Only one faith was mentioned above all others in the studies (Christianity) with some allusion to other Abrahamic religions. Sadly, the studies left out eastern religion such as Vedanta, Daoism or Zen for example. It fails to represent polytheism, be it modern reconstructed or Hindu. All religions and cultures hold their unique perspectives and concepts meaning the data is biased in its sampling.
It is vitally important to question if the relationship between one's faith and their intelligence is decreed by intelligence. Do you think an IQ test certificate can prove an atheist is smarter than you or your fellow religious peers? I believe IQ has little to do with a person's attraction to a faith.
References:
Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2017). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(7), 742-749.
Nyborg, H. (2013). The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 41(6), 678-689.
Pietschnig, J. Gerdesmann, D. Zeile, M. Voracek, M. (2022) Of differing methods, disputed estimates and discordant interpretations: the meta-analytical multiverse of brain volume and IQ associations [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211621
Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., & Hall, J. A. (2010). The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(4), 353-374.
Zuckerman, M. Li, C. Lin, S. & Hall, J. A. (2020). The negative intelligence–religiosity relation: New and confirming evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(6), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219879122
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)