Category Archives: beliefs

beliefs, medical, science, thoughts

The Dawkins Delusion

4 Comments

As regular readers will know I don’t do God or gods (of any gender).  In fact I don’t do dogmatic belief systems at all, preferring to find my own way and my own ethics, intellectually.  Which of course does not mean that I can’t appreciate many of the great things which have been done in the name of religion; that I don’t abhor the many bad things; that I am amoral; or that I would ever deny anyone’s right to believe whatever they wish as a crutch to get them through this life.

I am not a theist; neither am I an atheist.  I prefer to say that, while I find the notion of some all-supreme being inherently unlikely – literally fantastic – I simply do not know; and further I doubt that we can ever know.  Which should not stop us seeking and pushing back the intellectual envelope.

I am as suspicious of atheists as I am of theists.  For atheists are just as bigoted – sometimes more so – than theists.  Richard Dawkins is a case in point.  His aggressive “new atheism” is just as dogmatic, inflexible and demanding as the belief system of any theist fundamentalist.  Indeed I would go so far as to label Dawkins himself a fundamentalist – albeit one who doesn’t fly plane-loads of innocents into office blocks.

I was pleased therefore to see in next week’s Radio Times (23-29 January) the most measured and comprehensive demolition of Dawkins and his ilk under the title The Dawkins Delusion.  It was written by novelist Howard Jacobson who presents the first programme in Channel 4’s series The Bible: a History.  And it isn’t that Jabobson is a believer: he describes himself as an atheist “who fears all fanaticism bred by faith” which includes Dawkins et.al.

Sadly the Radio Times article isn’t on their website, but I feel sufficiently enraged by Dawkins’s bigoted anti-bigot stance that I’ve broken the rules and put a scanned copy online here (although it will be removed forthwith if I am requested to do so by Radio Times, or if I spot that the article is available elsewhere online).

Jacobson’s opinion, although not new, is important and deserves a wider airing.

beliefs, medical, personal, science, thoughts

Things What I Don't Do

1 Comment

Over recent months I’ve come to realise that there are whole categories of things and activities which I just do not do and cannot engage with. These are things which the vast majority view as important, if not life critical. In general these are things which, contrary to majority opinion, I think are boring, actually not important or (in a couple of cases) just plain wrong. Here’s my controversial list of things what I don’t do …

[Aside: Before you lay into me, remember that these are my personal opinions.  I’m not saying they have to be your opinions too.  You are free to believe whatever you wish as long as you don’t expect me to join you!]

Golf. Pointless. Expensive. Over-hyped. Environmentally damaging. And time-consuming.

Boats. I never could relate to water. I hated learning to swim. Don’t even like putting my head under the shower to wash my hair. Something to do with being in control, I think. And anything to do with more than a small dingy is only standing under a shower tearing up £20 notes. Boring.

Twitter. I might take some notice when someone can really, rationally, explain to me what the point is. Actually totally unimportant. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn’t mean we should do it.

IVF. In my view this is fundamentally wrong. If a couple cannot have children then generally Nature knows there is some good reason they shouldn’t. I also suspect it is being over-used just because your modern girlies can’t conceive easily as they’ve all been on the pill for too many years. Again, just because we have the technology … And no, this isn’t sour grapes just because we don’t have children: we planned not to have children.

Stem cells. For me the jury is still out on this. Yes, I see the apparent medical benefits. But I’m not convinced it isn’t going to turn out to be something with unforeseen adverse consequences. And I’m also not convinced of the overall ethics. Again, just because we have the technology … But mostly I don’t do stem cells because I find it a deeply boring field of study.

Climate change / global warming. This is another which falls into the deeply boring bucket. I know the theory is that it’s important, and maybe it is. But as soon as politicians get involved there are instantly too many vested interests and parochialism. But for me it is just deeply boring, because it is so ubiquitous.

Africa. See comments above about things being ubiquitous and boring and the involvement of politicians. We (white man) has basically fucked up Africa over the last 2-300 years. Perhaps the most respectful thing we can do now is to stop meddling and let the Africans sort themselves out, like we should have done from the start. But most of all this is in my deeply boring bucket. I’ve been assaulted just too much about this over the years — I have issue fatigue.

Elephants. Well for me they just go along with Africa as being deeply boring and so over-done that again I have issue fatigue. Yes OK so they’re endangered. That doesn’t mean I have to take them to my heart. Similarly for polar bears; and even tigers are getting to that bracket.

iPod, Wii, xBox etc. See comment above about Twitter. Really what is the point? Just totally, totally, unimportant and irrelevant.

Mainstream classical music. Boring. Dull. Overdone. Tinkling audio wallpaper at best — especially Mozart and Haydn. With a very few exceptions. Some music pre-Bach or post-Beatles is interesting, but even then by no means all. And no, it isn’t that I don’t like music; I just hate what everyone else likes.

H5N1 Avian Flu. In general I find odd and emerging diseases interesting, in a forensic way, but this appears to have been blown up out of all proportion. More cynical vested interests? Politicians trying to frighten us to keep the great unwashed under control? I don’t know. But as it appears to have been a knee-jerk over-reaction — which does the scientific/medical community no favours — I can’t get interested. The same with H1N1 Swine Flu.

Cars. Oh dear. No, sorry guys, it isn’t necessary for everyone to drive and have their own car. Neither of us drives, we never have done. OK, I accept we live in a city, which helps, but we do OK without driving. We have a good relationship with our local cab company and give them a lot less money than we would spend on running a car. And we get a lot less stress and hassle — not to mention that not having a car is much greener. Again it is all down to politics and vested interests: we have to make and sell stuff to keep the world turning. Err … maybe if we didn’t do this we wouldn’t be in the climate change mess we are? Let’s put the money into decent public transport (and that includes taxi services, ‘cos you can’t run a bus from here to everywhere). Oh, and sorry, cars are deeply boring too.

Yes I know I’m mad; eccentric. Just remember: “blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light”.

beliefs, current affairs, people

Professor Edward Schillebeeckx RIP

Yesterday’s Times carried a full page obituary of Professor Edward Schillebeeckx, who died just before Christmas at the age of 95.  Schillebeeckx was probably the greatest Christian theologian of our time and one of the influential thinkers behind the work of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

Although I’m now a non-Christian atheist, I was in my younger days for a while close to the Roman church and Schillebeeckx was certainly an influential thinker amongst more liberal and intellectual Catholics along with the even more controversial Teilhard de Chardin.

I am unworthy, indeed insufficiently knowledgeable, to make further comment and will leave you all to read the Times‘s most interesting obituary of Professor Schillebeeckx.

beliefs, food+drink

Recipe of the Day: Almond Biscotti

No, I don’t intend to write a recipe every day but I have long wanted to do recipes more regularly than I do – as I try things out and they work well. And now that I’ve retired hopefully I will have the time to return to cooking more frequently.

Original photo and recipe by madstfri

Biscotti (which is only Italian for biscuit) are the nice little almond morsels one sometimes get given with coffee or with a dessert, especially in continental cafés. They are dead easy to make and I suspect may become a Christmas tradition in our house.

For 25-30 biscotti you will need:

2 large eggs
175g sugar
50g butter (preferably melted)
200g blanched almonds (toasted if you can be bothered)
250g plain white flour
30g ground almonds
1 teasp baking powder
pinch of salt
2 teasp vanilla essence
1 teasp almond essence

Blend together the eggs and sugar.
Add all the other ingredients except the almonds and blend to make a sticky dough.
Now add the almonds and mix them in.
My recipe says to let the dough rest in the fridge for an hour; but I don’t bother.
Cover a couple of baking sheets with baking parchment.
Spread the mixture onto the baking sheets making a long shape about 6-8cm wide and 1cm thick. Don’t worry if it is uneven; no-one will even realise.
Bake in a pre-heated oven at 175°C for 25 minutes. (If you have a fan assisted oven, you’ll want to use the fan if you have used more than one baking sheet/shelf.)
Remove from the oven and allow to cool on the baking sheet for 10-15 minutes.
Carefully remove the baking parchment and cut with a sharp knife into approx. 1cm slices. Angle the cuts to get the authentic look.
Now return the slices to the baking sheet, with one cut side down, and re-bake at 175°C for for 10-15 minutes.
Cool and store in an airtight box.
Serve with coffee or ice-cream desserts; or use as presents.

Notes:
You can use a food processor for all the mixing, it’s much quicker.
If using a food processor go gently when mixing in the almonds as you don’t want them smashed up.
Do not be tempted to over cook or you will get a hard result.
The biscotti will be a bit soft after the first bake so you will need to cut them carefully.
How long you make the second bake depends on how crunchy you like the end result. I find 10 minutes is about right: crunchy when cold but not too tough on the teeth.
There are a number of variants on this: some add a small amount of instant coffee, or citrus rind. Or you can leave out the ground almonds (if so add just a small amount more flour), the vanilla essence or almond essence.
For a really rich result you can part dip the biscotti in melted dark chocolate. Personally I think they are scrummy and rich enough without.
The end slices, which may not be good as presents, could be used for that Christmas Day trifle.

beliefs, quotes, thoughts

Welcome Yule!

1 Comment


Today, 21 December, is Yule, the Germanic peoples’ mid-winter festival held on the Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year – and doesn’t it feel like it this year with snow falling, as I type, across much of the UK. Wikipedia has a reasonable summary of the origins of Yule – there are others here and here – so I won’t repeat them except to say that like most pre-Christian festivals it was a time of feasting – indeed in many traditions it was the major feast of the year. And like many such events it was also a health and fertility rite which has descended to us in the form of Wassail, only on this occasion it is predicated around rebirth – the rebirth of the sun from it’s winter retreat and thus hope for the year to come.

Most religions have their mid-winter festival of rebirth and or light. Light to lighten the darkness of winter and celebrate the rebirth of the sun, the giver of life. Hence the bonfire traditions, the burning of the Yule log (yes, originally a big log, not a chocolate cake!), the Scandinavian feast of St Lucia, etc. So the old pre-Christian Yule has become assimilated by the Christian church, along with the Roman Saturnalia, St Lucia and New Year to make their feast of Christmas.

So in concelebration with our wise, pagan forebears I wish you all

God Jul and wæs hæil
beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, nudism, personal, science, sexuality, thoughts

Taboo!

2 Comments

I’ve been thinking recently about our taboos. What I find curious is where we individually draw the boundary lines between what’s acceptable, what’s unacceptable and what falls in the grey area between. This is partly because some of my views are diametrically opposed to the norms of our society, but also because as a society, and as a collection of individuals, we seem to be sleep-walking into far too many important decisions.

We can probably all agree on a common set of things we think should be outlawed: child abuse, female circumcision, rape, gratuitous animal cruelty. And a set of things which are (generally) OK: sweets, alcohol, blood transfusions, prison for offenders. Although I know there are people who will abhor even these.

Most people would not discuss – and are not comfortable with – pornography, nudity, sex, bodily functions, incest or death. And then of course there are things which are for many on the borderline: animal cruelty for food (aka. abattoirs), abortion, stem cell research.

But this is not where I, personally, would draw the line. For me there is no problem with pornography, sex, nudity, bodily functions and I think even death (it is after all an inevitable consequence of life, at least as we know it). Incest I would say is borderline at worst and under some circumstances OK – why should a brother and sister not have a loving sexual relationship if they wish, as long as they remain aware of the possible dangers.

For me – and I stress this is just my personal opinion – there are far more important things to worry about and which I find at best questionable and at worst objectionable; some I would probably class as obscene – not a word I use lightly or often. The above list of common taboos is a good start to this list with most of them, at least some of the time, being in the obscene category.

However my questionable or unacceptable list contains other things most people find OK: IVF, male circumcision, genetic modification, airport expansion, a federal Europe, positive discrimination, religion, capital punishment, cosmetic surgery (for the sake of personal vanity rather than as a real medical necessity). And my jury is still out on stem cell research.

What I find interesting about this is not that I have different opinions (I’m an eccentric; I expect to have my own, different opinions) but that so few people appear to do likewise.

Society’s taboos, taken as a whole, are essentially the aggregate set of beliefs the majority of individuals find abhorrent – at least as enacted by the great and the good we elect to speak on our behalf and make law (politicians, religious leaders, etc.). It is only by people with differing opinions questioning and challenging this status quo which eventually results in the shift of the agreed set of taboos. Such is how we make progress.

All of this has so far left aside the more personal things. Do you have to be totally private, behind a locked door, in the bathroom or bedroom? Why is sex with the light on such a no-no? Are you OK with sleeping in the nude? As many will realise by now I am pretty open. We’re comfortable with social nudity – indeed any nudity. We both sleep au naturel and prefer it that way. Doors are never shut (except possibly to exclude the cats, and even that is rare). We actively dislike net curtains. We share the bathroom. In fact I think the only thing I have any possible hang-ups about is someone watching me wipe my arse – and even that isn’t a discomforting as it used to be. I was also wary of seeing my late father’s ileostomy – I felt this was intruding too far onto something private to him, although it didn’t seem to worry him; and let’s be fair it is not the most tasteful of things. Why I felt like this I don’t know; it surprised me. Indeed having been brought up to be slightly bohemian, think for myself and have my own opinions, I find it rather odd that I have any taboos at all.

As one of your “working thinkers” (to quote Douglas Adams) what I find distressing is that the majority of people don’t think about such things. There was a research finding a few years ago, which I now cannot place, that found 5% of people are unable to think; 5% of people can think and do so; the remaining 90% of people can think but just don’t. Even sadder is that many of this 90% are content to be told what they think by others, and that means mostly the tabloid press, politicians (who usually seem to have a vested interest) and religious bigots – plus a few cranky academics and do-gooders who manage to get “air time”. But then, despite the fuss some of this “silent majority” make, they probably don’t actually much care as long as someone keeps them in the credit card debt they’ve become attuned to.

Come on guys, wake up at the back! If you want things to get better you need to engage your brains and think through the consequences of your (our) actions. Think about the long term consequences of IVF, air travel, stem cell research. Use what brain cells you have; engage in dialogue with other people. Nobody asks that you are high-powered philosophical thinkers, just that you think as best you can about what is right and make up your own mind. If you then decide you’re happy with the consequences of these things, that’s fine. If you’re not, then you need to be heard. Doing nothing leaves those who do think to fight it out with those with vested interests – and the outcome may well not be the right one – or the one you actually want, whatever that is.

beliefs, current affairs, medical, science, sexuality, thoughts

Harrah! More Please!

1 Comment

There’s a wonderful article over on the BBC News site. Well the article isn’t actually wonderful, it’s pretty hack, formulaic BBC journalism about a TV show. It is the idea, intelligence, thoughtfulness and guts behind the programme which is wonderful.

The programme was on BBC3 last evening and follows a couple of teenage girls and their mums as they visit various people in UK and Netherlands so the girls can discover for themselves about whether they’re ready to lose their virginity. Clearly this had to involve a lot of very open discussion between the girls and the people they met (including a group of teenage boys who were asked some pointed questions by the girls) and between the girls and their mums. From reading the item (sadly I missed the programme) clearly the mums were struggling to cope – but cope they did and I get the impression everyone came out of it much stronger and better balanced.

But why does it need a TV programme to get people to do this? OK so not everyone will take on for themselves a 2000 mile journey. But everyone has a surprising number of local resources to draw on: parents, teachers, doctors, health workers, not to mention their friends, peers and relations. Why can’t people talk about these things? Openly? I just don’t get it. Everyone (almost) has sex in some form or another at some time. Sex is an important part of life so why not admit it and be open about it? Reading and writing are important in life and we get taught those at a very tender age, and hone our skills over many years – some more than others, but everyone improves and learns. So why not sexuality?

Hopefully this programme will be repeated, and repeated, and repeated. And used by schools. And parents everywhere. Maybe, just maybe, it will start the revolution in (most people’s) thinking about sexuality and their bodies that our society so desperately needs.

Incidentally one interesting fact which is often overlooked: Holland has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate and the lowest rates of sexually transmitted infections in western Europe. Britain has almost the highest. Despite a very open attitude to sex, teenagers in Holland start having sex on average one year later than in the UK. Why? Because the Dutch are pragmatic and willing to discussing sexuality etc. openly; they don’t treat it as dirty and hide it in the coal-shed like we do. I lived through the sexual revolution in order to do away with coal-sheds!

Parents and teenagers (even sub-teens) everywhere please note!

arts, beliefs, current affairs, nudism, thoughts

Nudity Does Us All Good

1 Comment

Picture: BBC

I’ve written before about my attitudes to nudity and our bodies (see for instance here, here and here) and I return to the subject quite unashamedly especially as Channel 4 TV’s “Life Class” (which I admit I have not been watching) has created a bit of a backlash in certain circles. So it was good to see a couple of articles last week coming out in favour of nudity and trying, quietly and sanely, to redress the balance.

The first was written for BBC News’s online magazine by life model Sarah Snee (who is herself also an artist). The piece went under a banner Starkers for Art; here are some snippets of what she has to say:

As a student strapped for cash the allure of making money modelling for art was too much to resist. But there was another motivation – self exploration.

“I was intrigued by the idea of being naked in front of strangers,” says Sarah. “Especially at the age of 20 when you’re still getting to know your own body and developing your own sexuality. It was a very romantic idea, a bohemian idea […] My first time was daunting. I was wondering what people thought of my body. Was I attractive enough? Did my bum look big? The things most people would be concerned with.”

Despite being under the intense scrutiny of a room full of pupils, male and female, Sarah found she quickly became used to being under the artist’s gaze. “It made me feel more confident about my body. I felt liberated. I feel more self-conscious wearing a bikini on holiday with friends than I did when I was naked in front of strangers.”

“People say to me isn’t life modelling really weird? Isn’t it a bit sexual? Of course there are men who have this idea they’re all going to draw these naked women and it’s going to be thrilling […] But the artists don’t view you sexually. They see the body as a series of lines and shadows, a piece of art.”

The second piece, titled Nudity does us all good, was by Jemima Lewis in last Saturday’s Daily Telegraph. Again Jemima Lewis has a refreshingly down to earth view of nudity, and echos my view that nudity is not only normal but we would all be better adjusted if we grew up with nudity and understanding our bodies. This is (part of) what she has to say:

[…] who are these children who have never seen a naked body before? And more importantly, why not?

Going naked in front of your offspring is one of the duties of parenthood. Studies show – and common sense suggests – that children from households where nudity is commonplace grow up to feel more comfortable in their own skin. We need the background scenery of other people’s bodies – dumpy, scrawny, dimpled or lean – in order to be reassured that our own peculiarities are normal.

Especially now, when most public images of the human form are airbrushed into a preposterous lie, children ought to know what actual people look like under their clothes.

Some of my favourite memories of school feature middle-aged men and women disporting themselves in the buff. Our A-level teacher, like many artists, preferred her life models on the well-fed side, their rolls of fat allowing for plentiful chiaroscuro.

Although it is a long time since I picked up a sketchpad, those life classes, combined with the tireless domestic nudity of my parents, are proving more useful to me now than ever.

As my wife’s uncle used to say: “If you see anything God didn’t make, heave a brick at it.”

beliefs, personal, sexuality, thoughts

On Morality

1 Comment

An online contact, who I won’t name, has asked in a posting if it is OK to have a relationship with someone with a diametrically opposed morality; to what extent is it acceptable to compromise to support one’s partner and make the relationship work; and whether this is cowardly. What follows is an edited (and slightly extended) version of my response.

Standing up for your principles (what your morality tells you is right) is not cowardly. This is generally called “sticking to your principles” and is normally seen as “a good thing”. However we all have to make compromises in life and we each have to be comfortable with where we draw the line. Love will distort that line, and where it is in the sand, just as it does everything else. But love is not all powerful and (at least in my view) is not an excuse for casting all morality aside. Each situation has to be assessed anew and on its individual merits. If you are in “this situation” again you may find your compromise is different. You can only make what seems the best decision for you based on the available information at the time; no-one can do better than this.

Morality is a personal thing. Even if you are a strong adherent of a moral code (eg. Christianity) your morality will differ, albeit maybe only subtly, from the code as laid down. If you are like me and make things up for yourself then your morality may well be totally askew to any other morality. That does not mean either (any) is wrong. An individual’s morality is what works for them; and they may have the challenge of moral beliefs which are self-contradictory. (For instance a person could be a pacifist and yet believe that dictators should be overthrown by any possible means.) If one is going to think through ones own morality one has to grapple with such problems – as indeed do more collective moral codes. In addition your morality may change over time as you have new experiences, find new knowledge, etc.

Your morality is not my morality. Accepting those differences is part of being able to get along together and a part of freedom of speech. I may not agree with your morality or views, but I will defend to the death your right to hold and express them – that is part of my personal morality.
The morality which society as a whole has is only the aggregate of all our individual moralities, usually as expressed and enacted by those we “elect” to have these opinions for us – politicians, clerics, etc. Collective morality also changes over time by thinking people like me and you kicking against it where it disagrees with our personal morality; pointing out where we see it as in error; trying to convince others of our view – and often being badmouthed by the likes of the tabloid press in the process.

Noreen (my wife of almost 30 years! Eeeek!) has a Christian belief although not of the “regular church-going” or “happy clappy” sort. I used to share this belief; but my viewpoint as changed. I am now an atheist; I have no belief in God(s) although I do still hold many of the same underlying “do as you would be done by” morals, but expressed differently. Noreen and I respect each others’ opinions, and we discuss them openly even though we don’t agree about them. This works for us; it might not work for either of us with a different partner; or for any other couple.

You have to uphold your morals in your own way, and that at times may mean compromise. That’s fine as long as you don’t bury it all and then feel resentful later – that way lies bitterness and trauma like divorce or mental illness. That means you have to be open about your beliefs, be prepared to discuss them and respect alternative views. A partnership, any partnership – sexual, work, friendship, marriage etc. – is a continual exercise in compromise if it is to work. Where there is insufficient compromise for both (all) parties the partnership will fail. And there are no absolute right or wrong answers in life, only the answers that work best for you at the time – which is not the same as outright expediency or situation ethics.

Keep banging those rocks together.

beliefs, history, personal, topographical

Ghost Stories

4 Comments
Antonia over at Whoopee has asked us to post our real-life ghost stories. So here are my two, not-quite-ghost stories.

Theobald’s; Early ’60s
I was brought halfway between Cheshunt and Waltham Cross, about 13 miles north of London and just in Hertfordshire. And I actually lived about 5-10 minutes walk from the site of the long vanished Tudor Theobald’s Palace – built by Lord Burghley and later exchanged by Robert Cecil for James I’s Hatfield House.

Part of the grounds of the old palace were a local park which I visited regularly so we got to know the park keeper. Behind the park was the early-Victorian Old Palace House, built on the actual site of the old palace.


This is of the back of Old Palace House in the 1930s; it wasn’t a lot different when I knew it. Notice the two Tudor windows salvaged from Theobald’s Palace.
By the time I got to know the house it was uninhabited and had passed into the ownership of the local council, so on a Sunday it was under the stewardship of the aforementioned park keeper. Thus it was that we got to help ourselves to apples (gorgeous old varieties) from the wonderful old orchard and also on one occasion to go round the inside of the house.

The house was interesting, but of course slowly becoming derelict having been unoccupied for some years. So it was cold and dank, even on a hot summer’s day. Walking round the house (I guess I would have been 12, maybe 14) we had our small Cairn Terrier sized dog with us. We went up the main staircase to the first floor. But the dog would not, absolutely would not, go up to those stairs. I had to carry her up; she was shaking like a leaf. What it was I don’t know but there was something up there that terrified her. And it did strike me as especially chill.

We never did find out any more, although I have found this on the Paranormal Database:

Location: Cheshunt – Old Palace House, Theobald’s Park
Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown
Further Comments: It was claimed that this building was haunted by a number of ghosts, though details are sketchy

A few years later the old house burnt down; as far as I know it was never concluded whether this was “suspicious” or an accident. Except for a large specimen walnut tree the orchard was grubbed out and became an extension of the park.

Follow the links to find lot’s more about the interesting history of the Cheshunt and Waltham Cross area at British History Online.

Norwich; Summer 1973
My only other experience of ghostly presence was when I was a post-graduate student in Norwich. I was friends with a couple (let’s call them B and J) who, at the time, were devout Catholics and lived in a flat (part of a Victorian house) halfway between the city centre and the university.

One hot summer Saturday afternoon I was working in my lab and B was also working 3 labs along from me. We had agreed that I would eat with them that evening and then we’d go out for a few beers. I finished my experiments in mid-afternoon and B said to go on to theirs and he would follow. I duly did so.

When I arrived J open the door and said “Thank God you’ve arrived I been struggling with this presence all day and can’t banish it”. On a baking hot summer’s day I walked in the door and was hit by this wall of freezing cold – real freezing cold, not just a cool house. It tuned out that J had been beset by this “demon” all day and could not banish it from the house – we were great believers in the power of the mind to control these things. She and I set about working on it together and eventually managed to banish it as far as the bathroom.

B arrived an hour or two later and before anyone said anything his comment was along the lines of “What on earth is wrong; what’s happening?” J explained. As I recall we spent the rest of the evening finally removing the presence from the house. We didn’t resort to bell, book and candle, but we were pretty close to doing so. Luckily the presence never returned.

I would have to say, in all honesty, that I’m fairly agnostic about ghosts and presences although these two events were real enough (horribly real in the case of the latter). As Hamlet observes (Act I, scene i):

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.