I'm an atheist. But this is perhaps a trickier issue than it might seem at first glance. Yes, the claims of "water witches" are objectively untrue. In a very

I'm an atheist. But this is perhaps a trickier issue than it might seem at first glance. Yes, the claims of "water witches" are objectively untrue. In a very real sense, it is fraudulent to charge for such "services." However, the supernatural claims of any religion are equally untrue. And just about any major organized religion expects money from its followers either directly or indirectly in terms of donations, tithing, tax breaks, etc. In an objective sense these practices are all just as fraudulent as a "water witch" charging for their services. And this is where the trickiness arises - do we want to single out some religions for debunking, while allowing others' claims to go unquestioned? I don't like the idea of marks forking over money for these fraudulent water dowsing services provided by "water witches", nor the idea of a publication like the NYT lending any credence whatsoever to such antiscience. But I'm also not in love with giving established world religions a free pass while picking on the smaller and less centralized religions. It's not too long ago that we literally burned "witches" here in America, and unfortunately it is common throughout history.