It's Friday afternoon; how about something fun? Well, maybe fun isn't quite the word—perhaps schadenfreude is better. That's what I experienced watching this video of famous skeptic James Randi exposing faith-healer/televangelist Peter Popoff as a fraud:

(Here's a follow-up video detailing Popoff's "ministry" and fall—and which mentions the depressing fact that Popoff is still out there making millions selling "holy water.")

If you're not familiar with Randi, he's a fascinating character. In addition to exposing Popoff, he's publicly debunked quite a few psychics/charlatans over the years, including James Hydrick, Sylvia Browne, and Uri Geller.

But there's something else to consider: it's fun to watch Randi discredit fake psychic claims, but as you'll note if read his regular website updates, Randi is out not only to debunk the fakes but to illustrate the foolishness of believing in something without concrete evidence. So far as I can tell, he considers Christianity and religious belief to fall into the same category as the psychic claims he debunks: unsupported by evidence and thus foolishness.

As you watch the videos, ask yourself: how would you distinguish your faith in the "unseen things" of Christianity from the faith that many others put in psychic powers? Could you explain that in a way that a skeptic like Randi would appreciate, or does your faith look to an outsider like just another set of crazy beliefs? I Corinthians 2:14's words about foolishness and spiritual blindness spring to mind, but how would you explain that to a skeptic who says it's just an excuse for a lack of evidence?

(Some links courtesy of metafilter.)