PCD's viewpoint

Have Mathematicians Found God?

2008-12-13T04:55:00.000-08:00

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

2007-05-19T15:53:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-03-14T12:03:00.000-07:00

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

2007-01-24T07:07:00.000-08:00

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.

String Theory

2006-12-13T16:49:00.000-08:00

String Theory

I read Leonard Susskind's "String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design and then "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit which derides it. It seems string theory started out with high hopes of being the unifying field theory of everything. Even though it didn't predict the standard model of particles and forces, the mathematics fitted together "beautifully". Particles are supposed to be one-dimensional vibrating strings of varying modes and space consists of 10 or more dimensions. Over the last 20 years, string theory has become a large field of study in the major universities, but has failed to find a single predictive model. In fact, it has blown up to allow more than 10 to the 500 different solutions for different universes. What's more, only a small fraction would allow forces compatible with the emergence of life. Forces such as gravity, electromagnetism and the weak force must be in a narrow range to allow life. String theory does not restrict these forces to the required specifications for life. What's more, the cosmologic constant in Einstein's equations must be very small to allow galaxies to form. It was thought to be zero, and it is zero out to the 120 th decimal place. In the 121st place it was found to be 2. Calculations have shown that if it were one decimal place larger, galaxies and therefore life could not from. Thus, some physicists have come to the conclusion that an anthropomorphic principle may be at work; i.e. the constants have these values to allow life. Others see this as a tautology. But, of the enormous number of possible solutions to string theory, the anthropomorphic principle can be used to predict the values of the constants, as done in the case of the cosmologic constant. Woit and others see this as giving up on the goal of finding a unique theory of everything and regret that string theory has come to dominate the field of theoretical physics.
My own non-physicist thinking is that the story is not over and maybe when they do find a model that predicts our universe, it will be uniquely required. It seems that a better understanding is needed of how these dimensions fold up to form particles. Maybe by development of new geometric mathematics and it will turn out that the Platonic idea of things forming out of mathematics will turn out to be true.
One thought I had was that perhaps the potential universes are like in a state of quantum indeterminacy, and do not assume specific existence till observed. Then, the wave function of the universe collapses to form a specific universe. Then, the only universes possible would be those that can be observed. This would be a form of the anthropomorphic argument. It sounds nutty, but it would be no nuttier than quantum indeterminacy, which has been proven. The relation of conscious observation to specific existence is quite mysterious but maybe the key to our existence. I don't know if we will ever have a theory to explain that.

Bush, Homos, Abortion

2006-03-16T17:15:00.000-08:00

2004
A bad thing happened to me in 2004. I lost respect and for the majority of Americans.
They reelected George W. Bush; the worst president I have ever experienced.
He failed to prevent 911 by ignoring terrorism threats. He failed to get Osama Ben Laden and instead moved troops to Iraq. He lied and exaggerated the threat of WMD; went against the UN inspection teams and invaded Iraq. Tens of thousands have died. He cut taxes on the richest of Americans and increased deficit to make Social Security insecure so he can eliminate it. He promoted no child left behind to undermine public schools to make way for private school vouchers. He panders to the religious right by giving federal money to religious charities and weakening the American tradition of separation of church and state. His antiabortion ideology has impeded progress on stem cell research and influenced the UN to outlaw therapeutic cloning. He assigned only antiabortion judges. He has no respect for the environment and has impeded international action on global warming. He has helped promote the global population explosion and endangered women by instituting the gag rule. He ran the dirtiest campaign I have ever seen, based on character assassination, lies and exploitation of prejudice toward gays. And then, the height of hypocrisy, Americans said they voted for him because of his morals. Whenever I see a W04 sticker on the SUV in front of me it reminds me of the contempt I have for my fellow Americans.
I hope I will get my respect back, but I am not hopeful. As the price of oil increases due to Bush’s policies, the average spoiled American is going to get mean and ugly.

Homosexuals
It is fairly well established and accepted today that homosexuality is a natural inborn feature of human nature affecting about 3-5% of the population. It would seem that if more people would come to see this fact, then the prejudice directed at homosexuals would decrease.
From an Evolutionary perspective it’s hard at first to see how homosexuality could arise in a population since it would seem to mitigate against procreation. Since life’s features can be explained by Evolution, then homosexuality must have survival value in ways other than procreation. In many animal populations there are redundant males who lose out in the struggle to breed. These include most pack animals; wolves, deer, seals, etc. Thus most males are not needed. Human populations also show competition for mates. Males show aggressiveness and wealth, females show health and beauty in the from of perfect bodies. Some males will lose out in the struggle to breed. Excessive male competition would be undesirable thus a degree of male homosexuality would be beneficial to a tribe. Also, males free of familial responsibility would be free to add to a tribes knowledge and weaponry. Female homosexuality would tend to bind females in cooperative unions helpful in child rearing and gathering food. All these factors would increase the survivability of the tribe in ways apart from direct procreation.
It’s a shame that our society is so polarized in the acceptance of homosexuality. This seem to come mainly from the conservative Christian community. It’s part of the general antisexuality that has defined Christianity since the days of St. Paul. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. In fact an unbiased examination of his life would make one wonder if he was not himself a homosexual. He never married and the disciple he loved most was a man.
Christians should consider all these things. It may lead to a more tolerant attitude.

Abortion
No one is in favor of abortion. In a perfect world, all babies would be born to live happy and useful lives. But, abortion is a fact of modern life. Since science extended the human survival rate and life span, all forms of birth control have become necessary. I am tired of the continual religious political pressure to outlaw abortion. These people should have a lesson in today’s reality and understand the relation of population control to civilization. It is a widely used form of birth control of last resort mainly practiced by poor people. There are an estimated 50 million abortions world wide per year. Still, world population rises by about 100 million each year. The average Russian woman has had seven abortions. In much of Eastern Europe the rate is the same. Where would we be if not for these abortions? World war III may have happened by now. The world population would be about a billion greater and rising faster. Instead, we have hope that man can control his destiny with civilization peacefully advancing.
The reason birth control is necessary is that science has cured so many childhood diseases that the death rate is much lower today than in the past. If the death rate of 1900 were projected forward, half the people alive today would not be here. In earlier times, the death rate was even higher. The problem is that the religions don’t understand it. They think God controls procreation. They continue to argue against birth control and abortion. The forces of religion want to reinstitute poverty ignorance and regain the power they had in the Middle Ages. Over populated Poland had banned abortion. Latin America is firmly controlled by the church. Abortion and birth control is illegal in most countries. Poverty, ignorance due to over population abound. The Church is counting on the excess population immigrating to the U.S. Africa is in desperate condition mainly due to the missionary anti birth control policies. Islam is on the march, planning to dominate by overpopulation. Here in the U.S. the religious right has teamed with the Catholic Church to influence the government, to restrict abortion.
Abortion is going to go on regardless of whether it’s legal or not. The effect of making it illegal is that many more women will die. Too bad for us all that the religions don’t care about the future of the human race. Eventually they will, because the present policies will only make the collapse sooner and more certain.

Does God Exist?

2005-11-07T06:39:00.000-08:00

When I try to think about how God could exist, I come up with the same reasons why I think the Universe exists. Physics and Astronomy have developed scenarios of how the Universe began based on the Big Bang and theories of Inflation, Quantum Mechanics, Strings and Relativity. While I am far from expert on these theories, I have read a lot of popularized science books. The Universe can start from a quantum fluctuation where a pair of particles form spontaneously followed by Inflation, which creates all the energy and particles. It seems that there are eleven dimensions and the Universe is combination geometric relationships. I don’t understand how it can happen, but, I also don’t understand how God happens. The Universe can start as an uncaused cause; a characteristic attributed to God. The Universe may also be eternal in the sense that there was never a time when it did not exist.

It’s amazing that science has come up with natural explanations of how the Universe can come into existence, form atoms, stars, galaxies, and then by evolution, living beings. There are still gaps in our understanding, but the basic framework is there. The alternative is the blind assertion that God did it, which doesn’t really explain anything. How can God happen? Can God take credit for His own existence? Or is God also a product of natural causes?
My own thinking based on fuzzy impressions is that geometric relation ships exist eternally and they can mix and match till they form the perfect combination from which the Universe as we know it springs into existence. If I try to think about how God might exist, I come up with the same thoughts somewhat like the Ontological proof of God which posits that if we can imagine a perfect being, it must exist. But, I’m not sure God is a being or I could imagine a perfect one. I think the Universe is like God, but I don’t think it can reflect on and know what it is doing. There is an enormous amount of randomness and chaos in the development of stars, galaxies and life. Thinking and awareness might be our function.
Mathematicians since the ancient Greeks have thought that geometric relations are eternal. In recent years they have discovered the most complex dubbed the monster which has nearly 200 thousand dimensions. Is it possible that this is a kind of natural perfect combination (god) which in part may collapse to three dimensions releasing enormous energy as in the big bang which started our universe? Aparently many features of the monster are found in string theory, but it is still not well understood.
The idea that the Universe and life is the product of design is getting more attention today with the anthropomorphic principle in cosmology and the Intelligent Design movement to counter Evolution. To me it seems, that our world of nature is the product of randomness with exploding stars, galaxies, tremendous waste of energy and convincing evidence for evolution in the formation of life. But, there may be underlying design in the quantum world of information. The design is in the sense that particles and atoms are all identically formed and capable bonding to form stars and life. The design is like Legos are designed to be made into toys. The question is, is the design from the outside (God) or intrinsic to the nature of matter. Many theoreticians are trying to come up with the theory of everything that may answer these questions. Even if they hit a wall and cannot explain why things form the way they do, it still leaves open the question of how a God could come into existence and do it.
One question I have about quantum mechanics and God is; does quantum indeterminacy prove that an all knowing God does not exist? Experiments on indeterminacy prove that particles such as electrons are normally non localized waves until “observed” when they become specific particles. If a God were observing them, I don’t think this variance would exist. But I don’t really know.
People seem to instinctively believe in God and we all have feelings of something beyond the power of nature. Everyone is uncertain and fearful of death. This uncertainty is exploited by those bent on power and control and the concept of God has become politicized in the form of religion. If there is a God, maybe those with the arrogance to claim to speak for Him might be in the most trouble. For many, the feeling of God is inborn and we have our own minds and being to freely understand the Cosmos and existence. We don’t need scare tactics by those bent on domination.
So, does God exist? I don’t know. Certainly the Universe of multidimensional mathematical space time exists. I am just not sure what other properties we can justify attributing to it. Religions teach that God is all powerful, all knowing and all good. There seems to be no justification to attribute all that to God.
Religions also teach that God has communicated to mankind through their scriptures. There is no justification for that. The scriptures for different religions are different and they are also confused jumbles of unverifiable stories. They contain no new and useful information. For example if Jesus could have taught us about soap and washing off germs, he could have saved millions of lives and demonstrated some advanced knowledge. If God really communicated, He would have done a better job.
Religions teach that we should love God. I don’t know what that means. Does it mean wish Him well? I often feel a sense of gratitude for my life and loved ones, my country and state in life, my health. And I have a feeling of awe at all of existence. But, I am not sure I should thank God. Much of the Universe is random and much of life is cruel. Rather I should be grateful to the people who have gone before me and by their sacrifices have made the world the good place it is.

The Origin of Life

2005-10-22T10:56:00.000-07:00

One of the still unsolved mysteries of nature is how did life get started. Evolution explains how life changes from simple forms to more complex animals, but the mechanism of how life got started is still unknown. My theory is that new life is continuously forming in the oceans, but it’s not possible to tell because it’s similar to the existing life. My theory is based on new findings that there exists up to millions of microorganisms per milliliter in ocean water. And there are equal numbers of viruses present. The microorganisms are called Pico plankton having cells ranging from 0.2 to 2.0 microns in diameter. These microorganisms can reproduce, but, I theorize that the smallest can also self assemble from RNA and viruses. Since the types of these plankton are not well known, it’s not possible to tell newly formed from older established forms.
Another consideration is that I believe there is only one basic type of life possible and it is based on organic chemistry in the form of RNA and DNA. Thus, newly formed life would be the same as older established forms so it’s not possible to tell the difference.
These simple life forms existed in the oceans for billions of years till finally genes formed that allowed the formation of more complex life forms. And the rest is the history of Evolution.

Rare Earth

2005-10-04T05:18:00.000-07:00

I was thinking how people can look at the uniqueness of the Earth for life and see two different things. Creationists see fine tuning of the Universe and Earth as evidence for an intelligent designer while I see evidence for lack of design and evolution out of chaos. How could an intelligent designer create billions of galaxies with billions of stars and have only one planet be suitable for human life? Humans occupy such a small fraction of space and time that any designer would be very inefficient and not intelligent.
To further emphasize this difference, I thought of a way that the existence of an intelligent designer could be tested. If the Universe was created by an intelligent designer for the purpose of making intelligent beings, then because our form of life must be so rare, somewhere there must be a more common form. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has failed to find anything human like so perhaps they are looking in the wrong places. I have read that the more common red dwarf stars might be more favorable than our sun for evolution of life on accompanying planets because of less critical temperature range and less uv radiation. SETI is beginning to look at them. So if a more common abode for life is found, then we might assume the Universe was designed for that purpose. Otherwise, I am afraid it's chaos all the way up.

Life After Death

2005-10-04T04:29:00.000-07:00

Life After Death
It’s interesting to contemplate that no one not even the Pope who recently died will ever know that there is no life after death. If consciousness disappears on death which seems certain, then how would anyone know?
The realm of the afterlife has been exploited by religions to gain power. They promise everlasting happiness to those who follow their precepts and threaten everlasting torment to those who rebel against them. But, they really don’t know. Scriptures reputedly God’s word were written by religious men to gain power and prestige . There is no proof they are true.
How can our consciousness survive death when it can’t survive a stroke or debilitating condition like Alzheimer’s. We are barely conscious of all that is going on around us. The more science studies the brain, the more convincing is the evidence that all our mental states derive from the workings of the trillions of interconnected neurons. If something disrupts them, thinking ceases.
What about ghosts, ESP, other paranormal phenomenon? None have any validity. It is all wishful thinking. Anytime claims of such things are studied, they are shown to be either mistaken or fraudulent.
I once told an undertaker that I didn’t believe in life after death. He said “I don’t either. This is it”. I asked him didn’t he ever see a ghost? He just laughed and said no.
I have actually had two near death experiences. I went down the tunnel toward the light and heard the buzzing. But I woke up gasping for breath, so I concluded that the near death experience is nature’s way of waking us up when we have stopped breathing during sleep. I attributed that to sleep apnea. It’s strange that the experience is pleasurable and peaceful. I guess nature compensates in the end for living.
I also have had two recent experiences of general anesthesia. I think it's like dying except you wake up. One second I was talking to the Dr. The next thing I knew I was awake in the recovery room. There was nothing in between. It's not like sleeping where I usually have an idea how long I was asleep. I remember when we had to put my dog to sleep. The vet said he would give her an anesthetic but more than for an operation so she wouldn't wake up.
So, where does that leave us? There is no life after death. This is it. We are a phenomenon of nature. We will have to accept that and make the best of our situation, or chose to continue the delusion. The problem with continuing the delusion is that it leads to choices that mitigate against the survival of the human race.
Sometimes I like to muse about other types of life after death based on hypothesized parallel worlds of quantum mechanics and thinking about consciousness and what it is that makes me me. It seems possible that there is life after death, kind of like reincarnation, but that I would not remember the previous life, so it would not be me. If there really were parallel worlds, some of them would differ so slightly from this world, that I could expect to exist there. So, where are they? If I have no memory from one world to another, I would be like just another person with no continuity from world to world.
Similiarly in thinking about what makes me me and you you, I have speculated that perhaps we are all really the same “person”. But, my awareness is localized in my brain and yours in you., a product of a specific time and place. At death, all consciousness and memory ceases, but since we are all the same “person” I would live again as another person with no memory of my previous life.
Granted, I am getting a bit far out, but it’s fun to speculate. It might be helpful to the human race to realize that we may be all the same person.

My Catholic School Education

2005-07-14T17:58:00.000-07:00

My Catholic School Education
I went to Catholic school in first grade, fifth through high school and college. I found it a terrible experience and am always amazed at how many people still go way out of their way to send their kids to these schools. I believe I was unfairly terrorized and exploited. I don’t think my experiences were unique, but maybe I was more sensitive or have a better memory.
Today, I am told, the schools are different. They are mostly taught by lay teachers since there are fewer nuns, brothers and priests. There is less emphasis on Catholic dogma and more on getting into the best colleges. Many of the Catholics I know today would be dismayed if their child became a nun, a brother or a priest. Here in Wilmington, the Catholic schools made a comeback when the courts forced integration through city - suburban bussing. My kids went through the public bussing and did well, but many people I know sent their kids to the Catholic schools. I know someone who teaches Catholic school in Queens, NY. Half the students are Asian and not Catholic. I conclude they are just trying to get away from Blacks.
I was born in Brooklyn to very religious Irish Catholic parents. My dad was very smart and ambitious. He skipped several grades in grammar school , and worked his way through NYU to obtain accounting and CPA degrees. He joined the Navy in WWII, and was so smart, they sent him to Babson college to learn how to keep the books. We had a picture of him in uniform, next to a stack of the Navy’s books nearly up to the ceiling. My mom never went past eighth grade, but was a great reader with wide interests.
We moved from Brooklyn to Wilmington when I was three. I was a happy unsupervised kid. I remember always playing outside with the other kids, roaming the neighborhood from about age three till first grade; kind of like in the Our Gang Comedies. Imagine the difference today. Parents would never let their kids roam freely at that age. Those were more innocent times, although world WWII was raging. By contrast, my sisters couldn’t go anywhere without an escort.
I didn’t go to kindergarten. There was none close by. I liked to play at home with tinker toys, erector sets and draw pictures when I wasn’t outside. My worst punishment was to be kept inside and see the other kids playing outside.
First grade was a big shock to my freedom. I remember my first day. The nun said we would draw soldiers. I felt thrilled since it was during the war and I loved to draw soldiers. I was disappointed when she drew 1s on the black board. My schooling went down hill from there. I do remember learning to read in one day when it was explained to me that letters had sounds.
The nun was very strict and would often get boys who were seen running home up at the front of the room and whack their bare calves with a ruler. Fortunately I never got called up, but it was scary when the list was read because I would run when I thought I was out of sight. I was kind of a happy careless kid, often in trouble. Once I had to sit in the corner for drawing the number eight backwards.
The main emphasis for first grade was receiving first communion which we were taught was truly Jesus in spirit and flesh under the appearance of bread. First we all had to learn to go to confession because one cannot receive communion if in a state of sin. To go to confession, you had to enter a dark booth and kneel down facing a priest who is sitting in the next booth. You tell him your sins through a window screen and he has the power from God to forgive. We learned about sin and how to examine our conscience to identify which sins we were guilty of. Most sins were about touching ourselves in certain parts. I had no problem with it at that time. My family was very religious. It’s strange, but even as a child, I always felt a little embarrasses to believe that bread was turned onto God.
We moved to Long Island after first grade and since there were no close by Catholic schools, I went to public school till half way through fifth grade. I loved public school. There was no homework, and plenty of emphasis on crafts and art. I love trips to the American Museum of Natural History and learning about how big the sun and stars were. In class we learned how the earth formed and about cave men. I remember my dad concerned about some of it.
I often wonder how I would have turned out if I had stayed in public school. Would I have developed the discipline to work hard that I got later in Catholic school? Or, would a love of learning inspire more self motivation? In my first report card in fifth grade, which I still have, the teacher criticized me for not working up to my potential. In the second report, I had improved greatly. So perhaps I was making the transition to more disciplined work. I have often thought that one of the purposes of school is to teach you to do things you don’t want to do. It’s great training for the corporate world. Catholic schools are great at instilling discipline, hard work and loyalty to authority with very little emphasis on independent thought. Half way through fifth grade, we moved to Buffalo and I returned to Catholic school . I hated the rest of my education.
Buffalo in 1949 was very Catholic, and the school I went to was even more so. It was small with only about 12 in a class, all taught by nuns. There was plenty of time for the nuns to tell stories, mainly about the Devil, Hell, Communists, appearances of the Blessed Virgin, the dire predictions from Our Lady of Fatima and padre Pio. I was told, the Hudson river would flow red with the blood of martyrs after the communists took over. I was very afraid of becoming possessed with the Devil which could happen to anyone, no matter how holy. We had many stories of how horrible it was in Hell. I was terrified of going to Hell. Hell was described as being stuffed into a red hot pipe for all eternity. Or as some saints had seen it, black souls being tossed about in a sea of flames. I remember being told that souls go to Hell at the same rate as the leaves fall in Autumn. I still can’t look at the falling leaves without being reminded of that.
I was told that Jews were getting their reward now which was why they were rich. They were all going to Hell. Protestants could go to Heaven if they never committed a mortal sin, but, since they could not get forgiveness because they didn’t have the sacrament of Penance (confession) , it was very unlikely that any would go their whole life without a mortal sin. We were told to be careful not to lead a Protestant into sin because we could cause them to go to Hell. I remember learning that while Protestant churches had communion, none had the Real Presence of Jesus since their ministers were not properly ordained.
We were encouraged to go to mass and communion everyday to stay in God’s good graces and avoid going to Hell. Mortal sin was the worst thing one could do and unless confessed, the penalty was Hell. Before going to confession, we had to examine our conscience to identify the sins we needed to confess. We had a book which listed the commandments and under each one was all the ways to violate them. In bold capital letters were the mortal sins. Of course, missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin which is why the churches are full on Sunday, but no one ever did that. Under the sex related sixth and ninth commandments, everything was capitalized. That included even impure thoughts. Since the only other mortal sins we could commit were murder or bank robbery, sins were all about sex. Strangely enough though, there was no mention of masturbation; probably too heinous. Or they feared that if they mentioned it, kids might try it.
I found out about it by accident. I remember I was in seventh grade and I was laying on the floor reading a map when I had an emission. I didn’t know what it was, but looked and saw white fluid. Later I tried it on purpose and was amazed by the pleasure. I was scared because I was t sure it was wrong but since I could do it without touching myself which I knew was wrong, I had a legalistic excuse. I didn’t confess it since I didn’t know how. But I really knew it was a mortal sin. From seventh grade till about 10th I lived in a hell of guilt. Later when I finally got up nerve to confess it, I made the mistake of going to the pastor. The pastor was typical, a severe Irish authoritarian type. He told me that what I did was so bad that he could not forgive me and sent me to one of the younger priests. I went, and finally felt relief from the guilt. Going to confession was always a humiliating experience. I often wondered how girls felt about telling the priest about sexual sins. I suspected they didn’t tell.
Once they have a child convinced of the horror of Hell and the inevitability of sin and that only they can relieve the guilt through the sacraments, then they have them hooked for life. That is the purpose of Catholic education.
In Buffalo, we all went to mass on Sunday and sat as a group. Anyone who failed to go to communion was called out in class on Monday and asked to explain why. It was very embarrassing, since the only reasons for not going were that you had committed a mortal sin and failed to go to confession or that you had forgot and eaten something. In those days, breaking the fast was an easy excuse. Today the fast is no longer required, and everyone seems to go to communion. Sexual morality is not as important today. In those days guys would joke about girls who failed to go to communion, especially if they were out with a friend the night before. But, it wasn’t all that serious, necking and petting could be a mortal sin.
In those days, only about half the congregation would go to communion randomly. Today everyone goes row by row, so it’s easy to see who doesn’t go. During recent marriages and funerals, my wife and I have to sit there while everyone gets around us and it’s quite evident that I don’t go. My wife was never Catholic and not expected to go. I find it a little embarrassing since I guess I care that I don’t always have to have my non believer flag in view; especially like at my mother’s funeral.
I became an alter boy, but never saw anything out of line from any priest. They were always actually a little distant as we met before for mass in the sacristy. It’s easy to understand how a boy could be traumatized for life if a priest molested them. They would be torn between the extreme sexual morality and the extreme reference for priests. I was taught that priests represented Christ on Earth.
The hardest part about being an alter boy was learning the Latin responses to the priest which I memorized but had no idea what I was saying. I was the mainstay of the alter boys in eighth grade.
In school, the homework was piled on. Mainly meaningless writing of sentences many times. The nuns were very strict. We had to use dipping pen and ink. Ball point pens which were new at the time were considered almost immoral. Pencils were always bad .
The most damaging thing to my education was the emphasis on prayer to pass exams. During exam week, almost all the students attended mass praying that they would get good grades. Instead of being self reliant by thinking and understanding we were taught to pray. I approached exams this way all through college and didn’t get over it till in graduate school when I had to. I remember in eighth grade, we were all praying to do well on the scholarship exam to attend the local Catholic high schools. A few days before the exam, the nun got a copy of last years exam and we went over it. I remember I wasn’t paying much attention, but apparently one of the worst students in the class was. We had the same test the next day at the high school and he won first prize.
Talk about mixed messages; I remember my dad ridiculing me for praying to pass exams.
My dad was fairly strict, but it was easy to keep my distance. He was often away on business and being one of five children gave me a lot of freedom. I used to hitch hike all over the Buffalo area. I went several times with a friend to his grandmother’s farm and several times to Canada to buy fireworks. I was a fireworks nut and wonder sometimes that it’s a miracle I have all my fingers. I made my own fireworks.
Once at boy scout camp I put firecrackers on lighted cigarettes all over the camp. When they started going off, the scout master searched me, but luckily didn’t look in my back pocket.
My first year in high school I went to an all boys Christian Brothers school. Brothers are like male nuns and take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Unlike priests, they cant’ say mass or perform most of the sacraments. Almost all my classes were taught by brothers. I was in the class for the top quartile, but found it fairly difficult, mainly because I hated Latin. The brothers were ok, but had mean streaks. Unruly students were disciplined at the front of the class by slapping around and humiliated for physical defects such as being fat or acne. It never happened to me, but almost. Before class started, I shot a paper wad with a rubber band. The brother came in and found it. He insisted that the person who shot it confess. He made the class sit quietly till the person confessed. I kept quiet and no one squealed, probably because no one saw me do it. After about half an hour, he gave up, but not before severely berating the person who was keeping quiet.
The summer after my freshmen year, we moved back to Long Island. I often wonder what would have happened if I had stayed in Buffalo. The brothers were actively recruiting and I had joined a school group interested in joining. My sister who was two years ahead of me went back to Buffalo to become a nun. She left the convent and even the Church eighteen years later. Fortunately for me, the next school I attended , although Catholic, was far less religious. Thinking of my three sisters, the one who I would say is most religious today is the one who never went to Catholic school except for college.
My uncle was a priest in an order that ran a high school and college in Brooklyn. So, I was able to attend for free. I had to take the L.I. Railroad and subway , a trip that took over an hour. I remember I was always a little sick. I didn’t want to go to the school. The public high school at home down the street was a good suburban school. The Brooklyn school was more elite, requiring an entrance exam. I didn’t like the school and to my father’s dismay, nearly flunked out in my first semester, having flunked Latin and French. My father was very mad and I had to start working hard. Up to that time, I was a great model builder with many planes, boats and cars. After that, I never built another. As an adult, I visited a friend who was so proud to show me his son’s room, filled with models. It reminded me of my room as a kid. My father never took notice of any models I built.
The school in Brooklyn was certainly Catholic with prayers and religious instruction, but , there were very few priest teachers and no recruiting pressure to become priests. The school was all boys and they were much tougher than in Buffalo. Many smoked and drank beer when available and bragged about sexual activities. In Buffalo, I never heard the F word. In Brooklyn I heard it all the time. I soon fell in line to fit in since I had no friends. I started drinking beer at age seventeen and loved it . I found that it relieved my stuttering. I had a very embarrassing tendency to stutter when talking to authority figures including my father. I never stuttered when talking to my mother. I didn’t get over the stuttering till in my mid twenties when I gave up religion.
Back then the drinking age in New York was eighteen so it was not hard to get beer. I was often drinking in bars. My father never knew. He was very ill, having contracted Leukemia. He had it for five years before dying when I was Nineteen. He was never happy with my academic performance, but I was glad he saw me through my first year of college with a fairly good record.
I attended St. John’s University, a day hop college run by the same priests that ran my high school. There was definitely pressure to channel the students from the high school to the college. I really couldn’t afford a more expensive school since my dad was dying and I had four other siblings who would want to go to college. I took the SATs, (totally cold) although St. John’s didn’t require them. I hoped that maybe my mediocre record could be salvaged by a good showing and maybe I could go to a better school. In those days, the scores went to the guidance councilor and he would not tell me what I got. He said “ You could get into a lot of schools, but where do you want to go? Columbia?” To this day, I never found out my scores. So, I lived at home and worked part time and in summers to pay tuition and expenses.
I loved going to St. John’s University. I loved having classes only two or three times a week. I went to many dances, joined a fraternity and dated many girls. Long Island was a great place to grow up in the fifties. My dad was gone, my mother didn’t care how late I stayed out. I had a car, money from part time jobs and had many friends; mainly beer drinking buddies who although mostly gone, I love to this day. I always had a girl I liked, one serious. My college had groups that sponsored dances many at the best hotels in New York. I went to many , but I especially remember going to the Junior Prom at some hotel in New York, then to Greenwich Village for coffee, then on the Staten Island Ferry and then to breakfast at some diner, and getting a girl friend home by six AM. We drank a lot and necked a lot, but never had sex, that was a no no. One girl I went with off and on, went into the convent. She told me she wanted to become a nun because she was terrified of going to Hell. I heard that she came out years later and never married.
The classes were a mixed bag of a different story. I started out in pre med, but when my father died, I switched to chemistry since I knew I would never have the money for med school. In those days, people would never think to borrow money like they do today. The science, math and English courses were good and I did fairly well in most of them. The religion, philosophy and history courses were not very good. I don’t really remember how many courses I took, it seemed I had religion and philosophy every semester.
The philosophy courses were all Scholastic Philosophy based on Thomas Aquinas. They were taught as fact with no discussion of other thinking. I never read a text, just took notes and parroted them back on the tests. The philosophy courses were: Logic, Ethics, Epistemology, Theodicy, Theology, Metaphysics and Cosmology. The Cosmology contained none of the modern thinking of Einstein or modern theories. The Logic was just syllogisms, not the useful symbolic logic that may lead to computers.
The philosophy was taught to be believed as the true last word on all subjects and had lasting effect on many. I remember later as a chemistry graduate student arguing with a friend from a Catholic college who believed that the description of matter as composed of prime matter and substantial form was a better description than modern chemistry. I think the main objective to all the philosophy was to prove the existence of God, the soul and justify transubstantiation.
I don’t remember much about the religion courses except that they were taught at a low level. I never read a book. In one course, I had to memorize paragraphs and be prepared to recite them if called upon in class. Another course, was taught by a lovable priest famous as a Chaplin in WWII. Everyone got As and it was the only course I took with so many basketball players.
The Ethics course was more religion than philosophy. One of the main points was the evil of artificial birth control and how it violated Natural Law. Another interesting lesson was the principle of double effect where it’s morally ok to do a bad thing to achieve a good end if the bad effect is not directly intended. The classic example was the woman with a life threatening tubular pregnancy. It’s ok to take out the tube, but not the embryo directly. This thinking is still influential today such as in end of life situations.
The major effect, from my perspective; many of my class mates who married right after graduating had large families.
I took one History course that wasn’t very good either. It was European History about the Middle Ages and very much a white wash of the Church’s involvement in the many wars. My son had a similar course in public High School which was far more rigorous and revealing.
I remember I did study when I could but it was hard while working part time and commuting from home. I also continued to pray to pass exams. I wasn’t the only one who got that message. The chapel was standing room only for daily mass during exam week. Not so at other times.
When it came time to graduate with a B.S. in chemistry, I didn’t know what I wanted to do. I took one job interview as a salesman which was a disaster. Most salesmen don’t stutter. I applied to one graduate school, U. of Connecticut. I got accepted but didn’t think I could afford to attend. When they came through with an assistantship, I accepted immediately. I had to teach labs about 12 hours a week and earned enough to pay all expenses.
It was my first time living away from home and I loved it. I was able to really concentrate on studies. To qualify for the PhD, I had to pass four 3 hr exams in four days in each of the branches of chemistry. On my first try in January, I failed all but one. If you passed three they counted otherwise all had to be taken over. After that I worked very hard, read all the under grad texts used at UConn and passed on the third try. My main problem was that I didn’t really internalize being a chemist, so after each course in undergrad, I would forget what I had learned. When I studied for the exams at UConn, I integrated all the knowledge in my ego that accepted that now I would be a chemist.
In my first two years at UConn, I was still very religious, often attending daily mass in the chapel near my dorm. One afternoon, I had a strange experience. I went to attend a forty hours adoration where the communion host is displayed in a gold monstrance (holder) and I suddenly realized that I didn’t really believe that bread was God and I didn’t think God would want me to. After that my faith all fell apart. I soon found many other reasons not to believe, based on Biblical Criticism, incompatibility with Evolution and the Church’s bad role in History. Although it was a terrible and guilt ridden experience, I had the belief that I had to do what I thought was right. I felt a great burden lifted from my life. All my associates were not going to Hell, life was worth living and my opinions were important. I kept my loss of faith a secret for several years, but eventually had to come out of the closet. When we had our first child, we decided we could not raise him in a religion we thought was not true and not good. I didn’t want to burden my children’s minds with all the nonsense and guilt that I had to deal with. I had to tell my mother. It was the worst experience of my life.
I recently read an editorial by a priest in a Catholic news paper bemoaning the fact that a recent survey revealed that 60% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. To me it’s hard to see how they can be Catholic. I guess it was all a big joke and I didn‘t get it. I can only figure that they didn’t have the good Catholic education that I had.
About five years ago my old mother visited and I had to take her to church. The priest’s sermon was on the Real Presence. With all that I knew, I was still surprised when he said, “ And for anyone here who doesn’t believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and win, there is the door.” I was tempted to make a dramatic exit, but couldn’t hurt my mom any more.
After I gave up religion, I was much more self confident, I stopped stuttering, my work improved and I ended up getting the PhD and doing a thesis which I can still look at and think that at one time in my life I was truly excellent. I got a good job in a major chemical company and am now retired after 35 years. Although I never made the big discovery, I did develop about 20 products, enough to make a positive contribution , and ended up with 24 patents and about forty publications. One lasting problem, which I attribute to my Catholic education was the inability to effectively deal with supervisors. I feel that my career would have run smoother if I had better relations with management.
On the personal side, I am still in love with and married to the girl I met after I started working , have two great sons, both doctors and now four grand children. I guess I derive my contentment from a faith in life and a faith that we all have to follow our vision to do what we see as right.

Why This Blog

2005-06-30T04:48:00.000-07:00

Why This Blog
I am writing this Blog for several reasons:
1- I want to weaken the power of religion in America because it is dominated by very conservative people. The religious right has taken over the Republican administration and I fear moving our nation and the world in a self destructive direction. They have a Biblical agenda which emphasizes the afterlife and hopes for Armageddon. They do not value the long range survival of humanity. They do not value conservation, population control or world peace.
2-The human race is entering an era where survival issues will become prominent. Population is projected to increase to about nine billion and level off in 50 years. A population of nine billion is unsustainable. Resources such as oil and fresh water are starting to run out. There will be great difficulties with these transitions. Without realistic approaches to solve these problems, human civilization may fall into destructive chaos. We need realistic solutions based on science and human values. We do not need religions preventing population control or Biblical hopes for Armageddon.
3- On a personal level, I want to justify my transition from a devout Catholic to a non religious humanist.
I believe that Catholic indoctrination was in injustice to me and has done great harm to many.

Who Wrote the Bible

2005-06-12T09:02:00.000-07:00

At the Academy of LifeLong Learning my most interesting course was “Who Wrote the Bible” given by a minister who describes himself as a liberal Evangelical. His treatment of the subject was very learned and fair. It reinforced my earlier judgment that very little in the Bible is well documented and reliably true. Moses didn’t write the book of Moses, and the four gospels were not written by the stated authors.
To me, a most revealing study was the comparison of the confession of Peter in Matthew (chapter 16, v. 13-20) and Mark ( Chapter 8, v. 27-30). It was important to me because as a Catholic school student, I had to memorize the version in Matthew because it established the authority of the Church and Infallibility of the Pope. I can still remember it: verse 18: “And I say to thee thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The quote is extremely important since it shows Jesus’ intent to establish a church and gives the Catholic church authority through the pope, Peter, to judge and forgive or condemn all things on earth.
The problem with the comparison is that the quote appears in Matthew, but not in Mark. But, in both, the introductory sentence appears: Mark: ‘And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answered and saith unto him, thou art the Christ.’ Matthew: ‘He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ Then there are two paragraphs inserted. One is that quoted above. Then, both Matthew and Mark end with a sentence to tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
So, it is obvious that the extra paragraph was inserted into Matthew’s gospel to give the church authority. It must have been inserted later, because the gospel of Mark is known to have been written earlier than the gospel of Matthew. And, Mark has by tradition been identified as a companion of Peter. So, why wouldn’t Mark have known about such an important saying of Jesus? The saying is false and added by someone intent on giving the church power.

The Myth of Spirituality

2005-05-31T05:11:00.000-07:00

The Myth of Spirituality

Spirituality is very popular in our culture today and probably the reason religion persists in spite of counter arguments based on Astronomy, Evolution and Biblical Studies that cast doubts on the veracity and origin of writings deemed to be divinely inspired. Spirituality could be described is the feeling most people have that some unseen person is watching out for them and that they can communicate with beings in the unseen realm. It’s the “Imaginary Friend” way of life. For the Christian the friend is often Jesus. They believe they have a personal relationship with Jesus and constantly talk to him. Or the friend may be a saint. Catholics especially talk to and pray to the Blessed Mother. Moslems believe they are talking to Allah and for others more ill defined spirits rule their lives.
Spirituality is universal to humans and can become a dominating habitual way of thinking. But, can it be based on anything true? There are several reasons to think it’s a myth. Since for different religions the imaginary friends are different, they can’t be communicating with the same persons. For example Moslems and Christians talk to different spirits using different formula. The effect of this communication would be more believable if there were more evidence for the efficacy of prayer. Some studies purport beneficial effects of prayer, but are always based on weak statistical evidence and debunked when further studied. Evidence that prayer does no good can be seen by considering the death rate over the ages. The death rate was especially high through out the Age of Faith and world population barely grew for hundreds of years. All the prayers offered to cure the sick did no good. The death rate only fell to the present level as a result of the advances in knowledge. So, it’s all an illusion and a myth to think that one is communicating with spirits who are helping them.
There is no evidence for any spiritual realm indicated by paranormal events. The work of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) has debunked all claims of proof of the paranormal. If we could influence events by our minds, by prayer or in a paranormal way, then scientific research would be impossible and casino gambling would not be the successful industry it is today.
We may have feelings of a spiritual realm since our consciousness seems to transcend the material and we can contemplate abstract ideas. But, there is no evidence that our mental states can exist independent of our brains. Studies of stroke victims show that consciousness is fragmented and fragile. No one has ever proven to see a ghost. If consciousness could exist independent of the brain then general anesthetic would not put us out completely with the complete absence of time. A computer that’s turned on comes on because all the circuitry is intact. If the computer were smashed, it would not come on. There is good evidence to think the near death experience, often written about, is due to lack of oxygen. The brain revives consciousness if the damage is not too great.
Spirituality is probably due to a feeling that someone is watching out for us from memories of our infancy when our mothers were constantly watching and caring for us. It’s comforting to create an imaginary friend who is all-powerful and watching out for our welfare. It probably helps us feel better, but does it do any harm? It certainly did harm to those who died prematurely due to reliance on prayer and suppression of Science and Medicine. What happens when people in power think they are making good decisions based on feelings derived from spirituality. How about 9/11? The terrorists were motivated by spiritual promises of paradise. The future of the World is threatened by spiritual thinking.
Is there anything that can be done? Understanding that Spirituality is the problem, and keep up the pressure by deriding the “Imaginary Friend” might make progress

Earth's Nuclear war

2005-05-26T04:55:00.000-07:00

Earth’s Nuclear Future

Look around and weep. All that you see is in terrible danger. All the people you have ever known, your family, institutions, towns, cities; all are going to be blown away. It may happen in the next minute, hour, day or year. But it will happen unless we demand our leaders do something soon. We thought when the cold war ended we were safe from the nightmare of nuclear war. We were wrong. Nothing has changed. Both the U.S. and Russia still have nuclear arsenals still on a hair trigger alert. The signal to attack will come electronically and the president will 30 seconds to decide to unleash thousands of bombs. Other countries also have many bombs and who knows about terrorists.
The signal to unleash the arsenals could be real or a mistake. The mistake could be Russia’s or ours. It could be due to computer hacking by terrorists or maybe initiated by a terrorist bomb.
Check out the Center for Defense web site at www.cdi.org and let your leaders know the urgency.

Is Christianity True and Good?

2005-05-25T17:49:00.000-07:00