Christianity, not true and not good

Life in the Universe

I think I figured out how the Universe could be teeming with life.  It’s not our kind of water based life.  It’s  supercomputer robotic life.  It can live on planets hostile to us and travel years in interstellar space; powered by electric sources in no need for food or creature comforts. 

How could they arise?  Creatures like ourselves created them.  We are fast on track to produce computers powerful enough and intelligent enough to be considered a form of life.  Our computer technology has only been around for about 60 years.  Consider where it might be in another hundred. 

Once intelligent robots learn to reproduce themselves, they will be a form of life.  We are the evolutionary link to the ultimate intelligent life in the Universe..

So, where are they?  Their communications are probably not detectable by our technology.  They could be on a planet with no sign of biological life.  Maybe there are flying saucers after all.  They would be capable of maneuvers we could never stand.  They may be watching us with no desire to contact..

The Human Flower

Paul Donohue

“Full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste it’s sweetness on the desert air” Thomas Gray’s Elergy written in a country churchyard.

How does one like me reconcile the conviction that the human race will be gone in less than a hundred years due to global warming, resource depletion, population increase. I have studied the issues carefully and concluded that there is no hope. Climate scientists at MIT and Hadley in England project a 10 degree F rise in average temperature by 2100. If that happens, the human race will die.

My first reaction was to condemn the human race as inadequate to the task of survival. From an evolutionary perspective, we are not fit . We have succumbed to myths that we are immortal and this world and life is only a stepping stone to eternal life. Religions have won the day by promising things that can never be proven wrong. But they have compromised human survival by promoting endless growth of population and resources believing that God will provide.

But then I developed a new less critical view. Considering all of nature, the universe is indifferent to survival. There are billions of lifeless galaxies and stars. Galaxies collide, stars explode wiping out any planets. Most planets are lifeless balls of stone and gas. Where life has evolved, countless animals and plants suffered painful existence and became extinct. The universe or any god does not care. I have often thought that if there were a God who made it all, then it is very inefficient and wasteful or just not all powerful. So, I don’t believe there is one.

And so it is with humans. The universe does not care. We are products of nature and nature does not care. We can flower and show a brief flourish and be gone. Humans struggled for centuries in a difficult existence. Our numbers barely grew for thousands of years. Many died painful and horrible deaths. The universe did not care.

About 200 years ago, we discovered that carbon sequestered over the millions of years by plants and animals could be burned to produce heat energy. We harnessed that energy in engines and it made all the difference in human advancement. Food increased, which led to population increase which led to knowledge explosion and to great progress and the flowering of humanity.

So now we are a beautiful flower and the universe could be thought of as pleased. Are we wasting our sweetness on the desert air, never to be observed by any other possible intelligences? Will we flourish and quickly die as the forces that have propelled us become exhausted? I think so. It’s too bad, but it is the nature of the universe.

But, is it possible that humans with our intelligence can rise above our natural fate? It’s possible, but if we are to succeed we better get moving. We will need political leadership in the U.S. to switch to renewable energy. So far, the U.S. which emitted the most CO2 has retarded progress by not cooperating with international efforts. Change seems impossible in today’s political climate. Most Republicans and energy companies are against action on global warming. Nothing will be done until some bad things happen like severe heat waves or famine.. Hopefully it will not be too late. Survival will require a world view based on rationality and science which so far, we do not have. We will have to abandon our hope for an afterlife and face the reality that this is it. Our main ethic must be to keep humanity going for the benefit of this world and future generations.

Have Mathematicians Found God?

The short answer is maybe; if God is defined as that which exists and causes all else to exist. Such a God may have to be spelled with a small g and not be a person at all. It would be totally unlike the human like God described in the scriptures. Philosophers have long speculated that an abstract realm exists in the form of gometric and mathematical relationships. The triangle or tetrahedron have inherent existence without the need for a God. They would preceed God. Now mathematicians have found the ultimate geometric shape dubbed the monster group. It has nearly 200,000 dimensions and "more symmetries than atoms in the sun". They have also proven that it is the largest group possible. Scientists are finding that this group unerlies string theory; the most basic theory of how the universe is formed. Atomic particles are formed out of these symmetries. String theory posits that our universe may use only 11 of the dimensions. Three expand to create space while the others collapse to form the particles.
Why would such a symmetry group be thought of as God? One of the most intriguing "proofs" of the existence of God is the ontological proof that posits thatt if we can think of a perfect being, it must exist because perfection requires existence. The "proof " is probably a little nutty since I can't think of a perfect being. But, some mathematicians can think of the most complicated symmetry group which like other symmetry groups like the triangle must exist. If as string theory unfolds in the future and it is found that all of nature forms as variants of this group then it can be thougth of as the reason things exist as they do. Thus it would have many of the properties ascribed to God. Whether it is conscious, knows what it is doing or just acts is unknown. So, keeping the small g may be enough.

Morality, Me and Intelligent Design

Human Morality
One of the most daunting challenges to the human race is the question : what is moral behavior? How should humans act out their existence? What is important for humans to do? Religions consider that they are repositories of moral truth and proscribed moral behavior. They would all answer this question with the admonition to prepare for the afterlife by following their teachings. And, the most important virtue is Faith in their teachings. The teachings of most religions center on a code of beliefs with some emphasis on charity toward others, but most religions teach intolerance toward non believers. They can all be dismissed as systems of power gaining based on fear and ignorance. Kind of like a virus that has infected humanity due to our ignorance and fear or death. There is no evidence any religion is true. All are based on dubious historical records. How could it be otherwise? Religion based morality is basically counter productive to human survival.
The question of whether it is more moral to subjugate one’s intellect to belief in ancient scripture is basic to what is moral for man to do. It would seem even if God created man, He would want him to use his intellect to find out new truths. It is most easy to see the error of blind Faith when considering other peoples religion. For example, most Christians would think it an error for Moslems to devote their lives to memorizing the Koran rather than learn modern knowledge. While Christians have moved forward from this medieval thinking, there are still many who consider the Bible literally true and use it to form political and moral thinking . Many are convinced that humans are soon facing the end of times when Christ will come back to Earth.
Even religionists must realize all morality is made up by humans. Humans wrote the Bible. Morality is based on what humans think is good. Even from the Bible, people select what they think is moral behavior, otherwise we would be stoning people for minor transgressions.
John Stewart Mill believed the highest good was the greatest good for the greatest number. That may not be too good in today’s world of over population and excessive consumption at the expense of nature. A moderate good for the optimum number may be a better compromise.
Kant postulated that we should act in such that our actions could be a universal code of conduct. But what about the couple who thinks it’s moral to have ten children? Should everyone have ten children?
The golden rule (do unto others as you would have others do unto you) is a good start, but what if I am a fundamentalist who would want to be forcibly converted if he went astray? Would that justify torture of those judged to be heretics?
If we look to Nature, we see that all Evolution proceeds through a ruthless competition for survival coupled with the continual genetic modifications. Man is no exception. Our rise from earlier hominoid forms involved lethal competition. For example, it is very likely that early man killed off the Neanderthal.
Man’s moral behavior has taken a big step away from this type of competition if for no other reason then the danger it would pose to civilized society. Laws and civil society have generally made good efforts to define moral behavior that will contribute to the general welfare. But, one problem is the continual presence of wars which have institutionalized competition.
I would like to submit my formula for what is good moral behavior. Since we humans find ourselves alive and existing in this world, we can define our obligation to keep it going . Any other actions will ultimately lead to the extinction of our race. So as far as humans are concerned, we should act to sustain the human race. If we don’t, we will prove ourselves defective in an Evolutionary sense and deserve extinction. To sustain the human race, we must also act to sustain nature and the environment. That includes animals in nature’s balance. For example, it would not be moral to drive a species of fish to extinction just to feed more humans.
What about our individual lives. We must live them to insure our own lives and comfort, but no actions should impact negatively against human survival. This morality would be the most consistent with Evolution and scientific understanding of the human condition. On an individual level, the highest good is to achieve a balance between our own goals and those of others. Next is to develop our talents to promote our own prosperity and the welfare of humanity.
There are those who believe “natural law” is the basis of morality. Most of those people I know who promote this are Catholics who think birth control is against Nature. I disagree completely. Man must act contrary to Nature. If we conformed to Nature, we would be competing and killing ourselves more than we are. Nature in Evolutionary terms involves a terrible struggle for existence and procreation. Man’s finest efforts are to rise above Nature and set our own agenda. That agenda must be our survival.
If we examine the fruits of religion based morality, we see that most of it is against human survival.
The Catholic church, by far the most important Christian religion promotes a reckless population explosion based on strange notions of natural law. The results are the destruction of the planet with a possible collapse of society. The Church doesn’t care about the here and now. Their focus is the afterlife and they wouldn’t mind if modern civilization collapsed and a more primitive society formed such as in the middle ages where they held ultimate power.
All religions have tolerated or even promoted war as a way to spread right thinking. Today we have a world where wars rage, we have excessive nuclear weapons build up. Production of nuclear weapons by my sense of morality is wrong. The simplistic thinking better dead than red would be wrong. It assumes living societies will not change for the better in the long run.
Who speaks for the human race? If we don’t wake up and put our survival first, we will become extinct. Our ultimate moral obligation is to future generations to keep this wonderful world going.



Why Me

Probably our most intriguing question is what am I? How does my sense of self arise? I sometimes ask my wife, why am I me and you, you? Then I think, if I were you and you me, we would still have the same question. Why am I me and not anybody else? I think even if science ultimately develops thinking conscious machines, it will never figure out the subjective sense of self.
Religions teach that we have a soul that is unique to us and the soul is independent of the body and survives death. Even if that were true, why would I be that soul. Actually it’s hard to justify the existence of an immortal soul. Our brains are composed of billions of neurons connected electrically with trillions of synapses. Stroke victims where parts of the brain are destroyed show that all that hardware is needed for consciousness. Specific functions can be lost by a stroke such as the understanding of prepositions or recognition of faces. If a soul is so spiritual, why does it require all that hardware? It would be easier to believe in the soul if the brain were composed of featureless jelly. Another problem with the spiritual soul is the results of split brain studies. Some patients with severe epilepsy have required the severing of the connection from one half of the brain to the other. When tested, they show a split in consciousness with one each half conscious of things the other half is unaware of. If the soul were spiritual, would that be possible?
Since all questions about life can be understood as due to evolutionary processes, it would seem that the individual sense of self would be no different. Thus, the sense of self would have survival value. A life form is more likely to fight for survival if it feels it’s one life is in danger. This is seen even in the lowly bugs and spiders running for their lives to preserve themselves from the swatter. If they didn’t experience themselves to at least some degree, would they care? Similarly for all the higher animals and humans, the fight for self preservation is our strongest instinct. If we didn’t have a sense of self, we wouldn’t care.

Intelligent Design
I recently watched a DVD from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute on infectious diseases “2000 and Beyond confronting the microbe menace”. As a non biologists, I was surprised to learn how complicated the process is of infectious bacterial invasion into the cell. It got me thinking about Intelligent Design. I was wondering if the proponents of Intelligent Design believe that all biological processes were designed by a higher being or that the natural mechanism of Darwinian natural selection sometimes is operative. The multistep process of bacterial invasion would seem from a Intelligent Design perspective as “irreducibly complex” a standard they use to identify biological processes that could not have occurred by natural selection. But, if that were true, then the intelligent designer (god) would have gone to great lengths to create the infectious agent. If so, it would seem malicious or not intelligently designed. But, if they were to admit that natural selection were the cause, then why not other equally complicated processes.
Proponents of evolution have shown how very complicated systems can arise by natural selection.
It seems to me simpler not to blame anyone, but to understand how natural processes can lead to astounding complexity by Darwinian Evolution.

Is Christianity True and Good?
Christianity has become more influential in recent years with the rise of the religious right in America. The influence is felt in government restrictions on family planning, abortion, stem cell and cloning research, gay marriage, vouchers for religious schools, government money for religious charities, a foreign policy based on good and evil, the war against Islamic extremists and imbalance support for Israel. Now with Mel Gibson’s Passion, we are influenced to move back to a medieval view of Christianity where suffering is considered good. In the past this view has lead to a fixation on suffering and a setback for human progress from medicine and social science.
Since these views affect us all, it is fair to question if this ancient religion is true and good. The problem is the average person has never been informed of recent advances in knowledge that cast doubt on the truth of Christianity from historical analysis of scripture, scientific scrutiny of man’s origins, or from a test of usefulness for mankind. Most people would be shocked at this statement since they have been taught all their lives that Christ and Christianity are the best things in the world. The American press avoids reporting anything that might offend religious people. Consequently Americans are poorly informed and very religious compared to people of other developed nations.
Here is a brief review of the new thinking:
1-The historical evidence for the Jesus of the gospels is questionable. A large number of recently published books that reexamine the evidence for the existence of Jesus conclude that he did not exist. These include: “ The Christ Conspiracy, The Jesus Puzzle, The Jesus Mysteries, The Great Deception, Deconstructing Jesus, Did Jesus Exist? ” and others. Reviews can be seen in Amazon. The basic arguments are that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, were written many years after the purported events by unknown authors and derive much of their teachings from earlier similar religions.
The recently discovered tomb of Jesus and family does indicate that a Jesus did exist who fits the family relation ships described in the gospels. So, Jesus may have been an influential leader who was put to death, but the details of the gospels were later embellished with miraculous stories including the resurrection. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, the Jews were dispersed and there was no checking on later reported stories. The Jews closest to the events described in the gospels didn't believe Jesus resurrected, only those later and further from the scene. The story of Jesus fit into the previous myths of crucified saviors.
The recently discovered Gnostic gospels support the view that when Christianity started, many believed that Jesus existed as a spirit, never in the flesh. They were known as Gnostics and lost out when Christian dogma was defined hundreds of years later by Constantine. He made Christianity the law of the land and brutally suppressed dissenters as heretics. The combination of Church and State continued through the dark ages maintaining orthodox belief through the terror of the Inquisition. The belief that suffering is good helped to promote brutality.
2-There is no evidence for the need for salvation. Christian redemption is based on the account in Genesis of the sin of Adam and the need for a savior. Scientific evidence shows that man evolved from earlier hominids. There is no evidence for Adam and Eve or the fall of man. A savior is not needed. The concept that God must suffer and die to make up for some ill-defined crime is strange by today’s standards.
3-Christianity has not been useful for mankind. When it took over as the dominant view, ancient wisdom was suppressed and humanity was plunged into 1500 dark years of ignorance and suffering. Christianity did not promote values we take for granted today. Rather, the virtues we value today ( human progress, capitalism, freedom, democracy, science, education, and women’s rights) were hard won during the Enlightenment by modern non religious thinkers. Since the Enlightenment taught us to remove the influences of the Church in our government and our thoughts, it is clear that we attained our modern, enlightened world despite Christianity, not because of it.
Maybe the worst influence of Christianity has been the acceptance of war. A good book on this subject is "Disciples of Destruction. The Religious Origins of War and Terrorism." Today, we inherit a world saturated with weapons and war. Humanity is in danger and still far behind where it should be relative to our numbers. We may may become extinct as a result. Even influential thinkers are coming to this view. An interesting book by Martin Rees is "Our Final Hour". Maybe in the Cosmic scheme, only those worlds that can outgrow religion will survive. Certainly ours will not if we don't.
Many scholars, and even many clergy would agree with these objections, but elect to go along and keep quiet. Some are locked-in to what they learned as a child and can’t do anything else, others think that since man does not understand life’s riddles, why rock the boat. Christianity is comforting and gives many people a feeling that life is worthwhile and helps them cope. They don’t care if it is true or not. They feel that today, Christianity is basically good and useful. I don’t agree. I feel that mankind’s greatest moral imperative is to keep the Earth and human race surviving. Christianity does not value this goal and instead pursues an afterlife that may not exist. My hope is that mankind survives to learn the truths of the universe.


Why SETI?
SETI. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence is probably the most important enterprise ever in human history because it may save us from extinction. It comes at a time when our race is rapidly expanding in knowledge, technology and population; but, we are still mired in ancient thinking and don’t really know what we are doing or why. How would SETI help? Our problem is that we are stuck in a backwater of the galaxy with no other world to relate to. We desperately need to find another. Even if the other were just as nutty as we, it would help just to know there were others. It would help us to form realistic goals for humanity.
It seems all existence requires a relation to something else. In the natural world there are packs, herds, schools, flocks etc. In humanity, man, wife, child, tribe, country, faiths etc. All join to create the existence we all enjoy. Even one concept of God posits that his existence requires a relationship within a trinity.
The problem with humanity is that we have no real peer group to relate to. To fill the void, we have fabricated many views both religious and secular. Most world religions have us related to a god who will fulfill our needs and promise us meaning. Followers make up relationship to the God, be it Jesus, Allah, Buda ..
It would be ok, but these relationships form religions which influence governments which influence our world’s agenda, mostly toward a spiritual world that doesn’t add to our survival on Earth.
Secular views, mainly Communism and Fascism have tried to replace religion and fabricate human goals of a Utopian society. The results have been disastrous due to disregard for human nature. The American ideal of freedom and democracy has been a good compromise, but falls short of a long term goal since it is vulnerable to growth of powerful factions.
How would SETI help? If we discovered another civilization, it would be the most important event in human history. Our entire view of ourselves would be altered forever. We would learn much and we would give much.

What is Consciousness

What is Consciousness?
I just finished reading most of Susan Blackmore’s book; “Consciousness an Introduction” and it got me thinking. It’s amazing to consider our consciousness and how it arises. Is it purely a feature of organized matter in the brain or is there something more, a spiritual soul or some quantum connection?
She presents many theories but of course, no conclusions. The field is considered the most difficult to understand by scientific means. The biggest mystery to me which she doesn’t directly cover, is why am I me? Each one of us has a conscious mind, but, why am I me and not anyone else? I think this something we will never figure out.
My own thinking on consciousness is closest to that of N. Humphrey as described by Blackmore. I think consciousness arose by an evolutionary mechanism to allow animals to survive in the world. In our own highly developed brains, it is basically memories of memories. Our brain has nerve cells that instead of reacting to the senses, react instead to other cells that hold memories of sense experience to recreate the feelings. The interactions create a model of the world in the brain.
I think I learned more from PBS series on the brain a few years ago. Scanning techniques showed almost flame like waves continuously flowing randomly within the brain. The brains of multiple personality patients showed different patterns for each personality. The waves are signals flowing through the neurons between the memory cells to recreate feelings of past experiences and form a model of the world. Even dogs showed the same waves but to a lesser degree than humans. We are conscious of the world to a greater degree and I am sure some people are more conscious than others depending on their education and intelligence. It’s amazing to ponder that the universe is ordered to be understandable, and we may have a little copy, to the degree we are capable, in our brains. Carrying this thinking a step further, I wonder if the universe is in some way conscious?
The evolution of consciousness may have proceeded as follows. First there were single cell organisms, then cells developed that could react to the environment to enhance survival by detecting heat, cold, light, touch and sound. Multicelled animals formed with specialized cells. Nerve cells detected environmental stimuli and muscle cells produced movement to avoid threats. Nerve cells evolved further becoming memory cells to store sensory experience. Memory cells collected to form the brain. Sensory and muscle cells formed in the limbs. This allowed a fish or animal to find food or avoid predation by use of past experience.
As brains evolved, those with more and more memory cells developed models of the world to enhance survival through planning . Animals could find food, by migration and avoid predation. As brains size increased, more of the cells were free to engage in cross talk, creating consciousness .
The sense of self may also have survival value in the sense of self preservation. This is seen even in the lowly bugs and spiders running for their lives to preserve themselves from the swatter. If they didn’t experience themselves to at least some degree, would they care? Similarly for all the higher animals and humans, the fight for self preservation is our strongest instinct. If we didn’t have a sense of self, we wouldn’t care.
My next book to read is by Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee “ On Intelligence” . The description seems roughly along the lines I have described, but for the purpose of creating computers that are truly intelligent and conscious. Blackmore devotes a lot of consideration to whether this is possible and how we would ever know if a computer were really conscious. Perhaps if we could see the same flame like waves, in a machine, and if we could know why they create consciousness, we would know. I do suspect however that without sensory memory, the feeling of consciousness cannot exist.