OPINION & EVIDENCE: The ATHEIST DILEMMA (2)

Fig. 1: Schrodinger's cat in an insulated box with inlet pipe for cyanide gas IF a radioactive isotope triggers release of a cyanide pellet in a separate tank (not shown). According to quantm mechanics the cat can only be described as "50% live, 50% dead" until one actually observes inside the box.

Let's consider two hypotheses, and their relative merit: the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were wiped out (along with 75% of other species) 65 million years ago by the impact of a comet or asteroid, and the hypothesis of "cold fusion" (that nuclear fusion can occur in a test tube at room temperature).

In the case of the first hypothesis, one begins by noting that at the layer in question (of the fossil finds) one detects abnormally high readings of Iridium - consistent with extra-terrestrial objects (asteroids, meteoroids, comets) but not terrestrial. Indeed, it is impossible to put forth a natural, prosaic hypotheses (Earth-centered) to explain the high levels of Iridium detected at those layers. These facts, along with others (topography of the Gulf of Mexico as an impact crater, computer models showing effects of nuclear-winter type effects of vast dust blanket in atmosphere) lead to a very high degree of quality assurance for the hypothesis - say 8.5 out of a possible 10.

By contrast to the case of confirmed Iridium findings by different groups, the original cold fusion claims of Pons et al, suffered from being non-reproducible. In addition, results very similar to theirs were found - if the content of helium in the atmosphere was not taken into account in the error treatment. When it was, the heat quantity evolved from the "reaction" became significantly less than the heat energy (enthalpy) of the solution. Taken in concert, these indicate a much lower degree of "QA" and hence reliability than the dinosaur-comet hypothesis, say 1.2 out of 10.

3. What's an Atheist To Do?

So, what exactly can the scientifically literate Atheist do, beseiged as s/he is by a tidal wave of scientific ignorance in the larger society? The first and most obvious thing is to use education as much as possible - both to raise the level of scientific literacy of fellow atheists, and to raise that of people in the larger society. This means, of course, that one must first be prepared to read widely and discriminately. In as much as a great deal of debate focusses on the issue of origins, a good starting point is Evolution and Cosmology. (If I may, I can also heartily recommend my book: The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism, which delves into the full spectrum of scientific concepts and issues - from stellar evolution and cosmology to natural selection, radio-isotope dating and chaos (non-linear dynamics))

Sources of information can be found easily: for example, on this blog - with its dozens of resident files - many of which include references in the above areas for further reading. Also, one can access vast sources of current information through the InterNet, specifically its newsgroups (sci.phys. research, astronomy).

My personal preferences are for the many video courses now available from MIT, Yale University and the University of California- Berkeley.

For MIT video courses:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/av/index.htm

And Biology and Physics are the two most rewarding courses here, in terms of the present context for discussion.

For Yale:

http://oyc.yale.edu/

(Note: courses in The Old and New Testament also available here, as well as Physics, Biology)

For UC Berkeley:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses.php

Again, the focus is on astronomy and biology.


The process of bringing educational resources to others is beneficial to all atheists, as well as lay people. That's one major reason why this blog contains not only a lot of articles on physics (especially areas not generally taught at universities at the undergrad levels) but also blogs to do with dialectic or argumentative encounters. (Including with religionists like my brother!)

Beyond the world of cyberspace, the active atheist should not ignore accessing the mainstream press whenever possible. Often, provided arguments are coherent and rationally framed, one's letter can be published in entirety. This was often the case when I lived in the Baltimore-DC area. Now, it is more convenient to write articles as part of the Freethinkers columns in the local Indy paper (though these are always limited to 550 words). But they serve as a useful means to whet an intellectual curiosity, then to learn more.

What about the twin specters of cultural prejudice and emotional reaction(to atheist articles - as ni Edwin Chong's reply to my FT piece)? Unfortunately, it's often not possible to predict the venue wherein these will manifest. My own attitude has been to accept cultural prejudice as a "given", the price of being an atheist in a god-obsessed society. There is little probability this will change until more atheist memes (informational counterparts of genes) take hold in a hostile culture. Or, until the educational system changes enough to value critical thinking (now viewed as a subversive activity) over rote memorization.

Emotional reactions are another matter. My policy, and that of many atheists I know, is simply to "pull the plug" on any debate in which the (religious) opponent becomes hysterical or over-emotional. This is usually revealed when there is resort to ad hominem attacks - as in name calling, or invoking the old "hellfire" and "damnation" routine. Whenever these surface, the atheist can be reasonably certain his (religious) opponent is bereft of solid arguments and there is no point to continuing the discourse. Why waste energy on expending intellectual resources on one who cannot appreciate them? (Though - in the case of blogs - a small advantage does accrue in terms of revealing arguments to other atheists, or imparting information in the course of arguments.)

It would also seem to be counterproductive to continue a discussion when one's opponent is much less informed, say about Evolution, the Big Bang, or whatever. In this case, sound rational argument is opposing the irrational (or pure subjective opinions without basis) and the rational will always appear to "lose", since as one wit (I believe Isaac Asimov) once pointed out.."there are invariably more irrational statements that can plausibly be made, than rational ones to countermand them - since rational statements are delimited by specific evidence available and laws of logic". In other words, when one is at liberty to say whatever he wishes - without constraint or cross checks - he will appeal to the broad masses who "think" (similarly) without constraint - or information! (Often, and perversely, if he can add humor he will reinforce his irrational case! - the "Limbaugh Effect")

What about the limiting effect of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem(s), which have been alluded to in a number of previous blogs? Godel's Theorem, as it is called, can be crudely paraphrased by stating that all formal, logical systems - consisting of a set of axioms or propositions, will inevitably possess one or more statements (axioms, propositions) which contradict others within the same system. The presence of contradictory statements or axioms indicates that the system is "incomplete", i.e. does not embody all the axioms needed to logically describe the system.

A simple example will suffice. Let x,y and z all be integers belonging to a set S. None of these members can be equal to the other. The system of "axioms" for their algebra is given as:

1) x + y + z = 1

2) y - z = 0

3) x + y = 1


On inspection it is seen that all of the system axioms cannot be correct. Given the conditions, at least two of them are contradictory. For example, to satisfy (2): y = 1, and z = 1. To satisfy (3):x = 0, y = 1, and there is contradiction since z = y = 1 (which also yields 2 for statement (1), instead of 1.) To satisfy (1): x = 2, y = -1, z = 0, which also satisfies (3), but not (2). In fact, no set of non-equal integers will satisfy (1) - (3) simultaneously. Hence, the system of axioms is incomplete.

More elaborate systems can include logical propositions, say in Boolean form. Scientific disciplines are subject to Godel's theorem - to the extent they represent systems of axioms. Fortunately, however, there is no science that rests exclusively on logical propositions or axioms - since ultimately ALL must be subject to experimental test, else they are jettisoned. This is a key point of which all atheist debaters should be aware, and one which scientific detractors often overlook - focused as they are on science's logical arguments. Indeed, at least one group of important experimental results - to do with electron diffraction - violates the cherished either/or code of classical logic. While classical logic dictates that one electron must pass through either slit A OR slit B, the actual experiment can show that a given electron will pass through BOTH slits simultaneously!


The example of the "Schrodinger Cat", in regard to the Principle of Superposition of States, is even more dramatic. In the experimental setup - first envisioned by Erwin Schrodinger in a thought experiment --a cat is placed in a box with a contraption from which a cyanide capsule is released when a certain isotope decays (the latter is governed by probabilistic laws). The simple setup is depicted in Fig. 1, with the cyanide capsule release tube leading into an airtight compartment. At the instant of correct isotope decay, the compartment opens and the capsule jettisoned to kill the cat. (This is not being "nice" to animals, but don't blame me - blame Schrodinger!)

Classical logic demands that that the cat in the enclosed box is either A) alive, or B) dead, at any given time. However, a multitude of quantum mechanical results disclose the cat will always be in a superposition of states (50% dead, 50% alive) until it is actually observed! This violates common sense, and logic, but not quantum mechanics - which is the most comprehensive and accurately validated physical theory ever formulated.(For an excellent, readable presentation see: Consciousness and the Cat in The Quantum Self, by Danah Zohar, Wm. Morrow & Co. New York, 1990, p. 38).


The point of all this, to atheists, is not to allow oneself to be swayed by religious skeptics' reasoning that science is also forever circumscribed by Godel's theorem. One must always factor in the crucial element of empirical test, as the quantum mechanical examples demonstrate. In the end, distasteful as it may seem - classical logic, "common sense" and even Godel's theorem must defer to the measured experimental results! What will "displace" these results, to refine the theory - or to upend it altogether? The answer is better experimental results - e.g. to a much higher precision, preferably coupled with more extensive confirmations. This is what one means by saying that science advances by "successive approximations". This is a totally alien concept to the absolutist who simply can't grasp not arriving at total, final and absolute truth all at once!

Finally, what is the scientifically literate atheist to do when confronted by a religionist who employs the "equalization" gambit? That is, equating science to a "belief system" in the same category as any religion? I have found the best strategy is to assemble a set of ready-made examples which resoundingly refute this absurd proposition. That is, provide concrete examples of scientific validation which shows convincingly that no "belief" is involved. Among my favorites:

a) Using the equations of celestial mechanics I can tell a religionist exactly where in the sky he will find Jupiter, or Saturn, or Mars or Venus in 6 months, a year or two years. (Same principle that was used to predict the recent impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter). The repeated fulfillment of the predictions shows clearly it is not a matter of "belief".

b) Set up an LC, or LCR tuning circuit, using an inductor or particular value L (henries or micro-henries), a capacitor C (farads, micro-farads) and resistor R(ohms). The frequency can be computed from the these, e.g. for an LC tuning circuit:

f = 1/ 2p(LC)^1/2

Then, use it to tune in a radio station at the same exact frequency already calculated. This can be done a number of times with a number of different (L,C, R) combinations - showing that the station tuned in is not a matter of "belief" - but sound application of electronic principles to arrive at a prediction.

c) Point out the nature of quantum "tunneling" and how it arises from the quantum theory; in this case a low energy particle is able to "tunnel" through a thickness (x/X) of a high potential energy (V) "barrier" with a finite probability: P.

This "tunnelling" is the basis of the tunnel diode, used in solid state electronics. Remind the religionist that each time s/he turns on VCR or TV or compact disc player they are unequivocally validating the tunnelling effect, and showing at the same time it is not a matter of belief.

d) Ask the religionist if he seriously thinks it is "belief" which gets the Space Shuttle into a particular orbit, for a given mission - say to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, or retrieve a Canadian satellite, in a totally different orbit. Odds are your believer will be tightlipped because s/he hasn't clue one as to how it comes about!

There are many other examples, of course, but these are among the most effective that I've found. Maybe the interested (and ambitious!) reader can compile a set of his or her own.

4. CONCLUSION


The trends of the past quarter century would appear to indicate that we can expect a further retreat from numeracy as well as literacy in the U.S., continued falling SAT scores, lower science enrollments, further proliferation of magical thinking and increased difficulty in distinguishing opinion from evidence. Cumulatively, this does not bode well for the atheist - who relies on science and rationaltiy to justify his position to others. Not to put too fine a point on it - it seems clear that an enhanced inclination toward cultural and political conservatism - combined with the above - will conspire to make life increasingly difficult for atheists in the U.S. (at least those bold enough to declare or reveal themselves).

While there appears little that atheists can do (other than move to another country) to combat the growing cultural imperialism and prejudice toward unbelievers, there is much that can be done in their own locations, and in cyberspace. The thrust in these areas is, clearly, to promote as rational and scientifically literate a formulation (and justification) of atheism, as is within the capabilities of the particular atheist. It is hoped that the suggestions given herein will assist in that objective.

To that end, I hope this two-part blog has made a further contribution in that direction!

OPINION & EVIDENCE: THE ATHEIST DILEMMA: (1)

Increasing numbers of undergraduate college students are unable to distinguish evidence from opinion (Science, Vol. 266, p. 846) Since this is likely to hold to an even greater degree in the general population - by virtue of having far less exposure to science, at a lower level - one may rightly question how the atheist - who relies extensively on scientific information and evidence, can cope. How, indeed, can the atheist successfully present his position, if his most important ally - scientific evidence - cannot be distinguished from subjective opinion by the rank and file of his countrymen? This is the atheist dilemma which I examine in this article.

1. Opinion and Evidence:

Ask anyone who has ever engaged in debate, and they will quickly point to three crucial conditions that must be fulfilled in order to be perceived as "winning" the debate: 1- Access to an extensive base of information or evidence that is readily recalled; 2- Ability to know which precise subset of information to deploy to attack or rebut the opponent; and 3- a knowledgeable audience that can appreciate the evidence - as evidence, marshalled in support of a position or argument.

The third is often forgotten, but is certainly as critical to success as the others. Indeed, one can be the most knowledgeable person on the face of the planet - with an uncanny ability to deploy information exactly when needed - but fail because his (or her) audience does not recognize the evidence or information for what it is, but rather misinterprets it as "opinion". With such misinterpretation comes the homogenizing effect which treats all arguments as exactly equal, and "relative". Everything thereby becomes reduced to "point of view" and whatever information or evidence that was summoned, evaporates as a puff of smoke - making no impact at all.

Enter now the atheist, with an arsenal of scientific evidence to support his positions on evolution, the physical origin of the cosmos, as well as deficiencies in human brain architecture (including the fact that the temporal lobes are complicit in religious "visions"). Where does he stand in a culture in which belief consistently prevails over rational argument and evidence? The sad truth is that he is in much the same position as the debater who possesses awesome information, but has an audience largely comprised of the ill-informed, semi-educated, semi-literate.

FACT: Average SAT scores have dropped nearly 75 points since 1960 (even factoring in corrections for the new format used since the mid-90s).

FACT: The average American now reads fewer than two books a year. (Non-fiction)

FACT: The average IQ (Intelligence Quotient) for Americans has dropped an average of 10 points over the past twenty-five years.

FACT: Since 1960, high school elective science courses (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) have diminished as non-academic courses (e.g. "Speech", "Drama") have proliferated.

FACT: In recent science competency tests - among 15 nations, the U.S. placed lower than 12th, behind nations such as Thailand and Singapore.

FACT: Increasing numbers of college science undergraduates cannot distinguish evidence from opinion. In survey, nearly one third don't recognize the Sun as a star.

FACT: Nearly 1 out of 3 Americans is now classified as functionally illiterate.

The cumulative impact of the above, is a nation growing more ignorant and less intelligent by the year. A nation - indeed a culture, growing perilously more gullible as it becomes less able to distinguish myth from reality; scientific fact from subjective opinion., belief from reasoning. Although the USA has always been suspicious of the intellectual - ridiculing "eggheads" and their ilk, this mistrust has now become downright malignant with widespread denigration of those who dare to show any intellectual ability above the "average". Anti-intellectual epithets such as "nerd", "dork" and "geek" continue to be used with increasing frequency - especially in high schools, as the pop culture intensifies its war against the mind and the rationality it should stand for. Genuine critical thought has become a subversive activity. At the same time, credibility is heaped upon any idea so long as someone mouths it - irrespective of the weight of evidence.

To fix perspectives, on a typical talk or interview program one is likely to find a holocaust detractor mixing it up with one who has LIVED through a Nazi concentration camp and seen the first hand the horrors at Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Auschwitz. Or, an evolutionary biologist who has studied the genetic and fossil evidence for decades paired opposite a creationist, relying only on a mistranslated, text-mutilated bible written by pre-scientific agrarian nomads. In each case, both sides are given equal prominence, equal air time - and equal deference by the interviewer, thereby obscuring the substantial disparity of evidence and legitimacy that exists between them. Indeed, the points of specious view upheld by holocaust detractor and creationist should never even be dignified by having them appear at the same time with the one possessing facts, or historical records. It is an outrage to truth and to intellectual honesty and integrity.

At this point, of course, the soft-minded and soft-hearted objector will protest that "free speech" would be violated if the above position were encouraged. This is arrant claptrap and rubbish. "Free speech" that artificially awards gravitas- by placing both on an equal footing, or that promotes the fantasy over reality - by placing them on an equal scale - is no "free speech" at all, but a misbegotten counterfeit that is incapable of recognizing neither truth nor lies. It is not surprising that in such an atmosphere of mutated "objectivity" - eroded to the point that "noise" overwhelms signal, all manner of aberrant and unfounded belief can flourish.

2. The Predicament of the Atheist in a Scientifically Illiterate Society

I now consider the formidable predicament of the atheist who finds him/herself in a scientifically illiterate society - one in which the majority of inhabitants are incapable of distinguishing evidence from opinion, or beliefs from empirical principles or laws The atheist himself is assumed not to have arrived at atheism through unthinking belief but rather through a process of critical thinking skills and moreover - to have at least a foundation of scientific literacy (i.e. possess a basic familiarity with the principles of evolution, including mutation and natural selection - as well as basic genetics, and a basic understanding of the cosmic scene: stellar evolution and Big Bang - including the red shift of galaxies, 2.7 K background radiation and other evidence for). This literacy need not have been achieved through any formal education, but rather through a wide and critical reading of relevant material. Or by taking online video courses, such as MIT's, or packaged courses (e.g. in Climate Science) as offered by The Teaching Company.

There are three main difficulties that the scientifically literate atheist faces: 1- cultural prejudice, 2 -emotional reaction, and 3- misunderstanding based on scientific ignorance. In each case, the primary effect is to marginalize the atheist and render him an "outsider" or "deviant" - someone apart from the "mainstream" and the alleged "normality" that it represents. The secondary effect is to somehow dilute or denigrate the scientific foundation upon which atheism rests (more specifically the materialist emphasis of empirical/theoretical science).

By cultural prejudice, I mean a pervasive atmosphere of hostility that is taken as "natural" in a country regarded as "under God", or some facsimile thereof. Atheism is looked upon as a major defect of some sort, not too far removed from having Leprosy and AIDS together, but in a social context. The mainstream media often play into this narrow mindset by either misrepresenting the atheist position - if they give it any attention at all - or casting it as an extremist, irrational position, occupying the left end of a "belief spectrum" to the fundamentalist's right. (See, e.g. the issue of U.S. News & World Report (December, 1991).

This cultural prejudice is further reinforced by the mistaken notion (and illogic) that because an atheist disbelieves in a deity, s/he cannot have any ethics and will therefore subscribe to the "anything goes" school or morality. This, despite the fact that there are numerous texts and articles in circulation disclosing that atheism is predicated upon a pragmatic, materialist ethic, based upon enlightened self-interest rather than superstition. (See, e.g. Ethics Without God, by Kaj Neilsson, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1991).

Finally, cultural prejudice is exacerbated by many atheists' natural reluctance to state their positions - whether in personal interactions (with co-workers or family members), or in the press. These atheists, recognizing the inevitable stigma of non-belief in a god-obsessed nation, prefer to keep their atheism to themselves rather than expose themselves to possible attack in a society that places a premium upon belief ("faith") over reason. Unfortunately, this silence has the negative effect of sustaining the mainstream's perceptions that atheism is a fringe position. The latest Pew religious research surveys show, however, that up to 10% of the U.S. population may be atheists, or 30 million. However, most use deflector euphemistic equivalents like "freethinker", "Bright", "eupraxopher", or "naturalist". (The last two are due to Paul Kurtz).

Emotional reaction is defined as an unthinking reflex action, in response to an atheist's arguments or position. The immediate effect is usually an ad hominem attack upon the person, with no consideration whatever of the substance of his or her arguments. Most of these ad hominems undercut the atheist's morality (assuming that the atheist is lacking) but some are especially vicious and invoke "Satan" in way or another. Of course, these are the equivalents of "drive-bys" and have no intellectual merit at all - being used mostly by the bottom rung of uneducated fundies.

The purpose, in effect, is to quash all arguments - since the attacker is well aware that s/he lacks the basis in either logic or information to counter them. Hence, screaming or epithets or some other emotional or hysterical threat ("You'll be damned to hell", "You're a pawn of Satan!") will be substituted for discourse in order to short circuit meaningful exchange.

Perhaps the most intractable and maddening of all the predicaments faced by atheists is that which arises from a misunderstanding based on fundamental ignorance of modern science. To the informed and scientifically literate atheist, his predicament often resembles trying to "shovel water uphill" - except the "water" is now a tide of ignorance. This ignorance embraces a number of facets: inability to distinguish evidence from opinion, inability to extrapolate from data to predictions, inability to distinguish suspect data (in experiments) from scientifically accepted data, inability to take into account differences in the degree of empirical validity for different scientific disciplines, inability to distinguish the normal QA (quality assurance) criteria of scientific hypotheses and models (as well as evidence) from issues of "proof" or "disproof" and inability to discriminate the term "theory" from speculation.

Thus do the entrenched ignorant put down Evolution as "just a theory" - when in fact a theory is the highest scientific formulation possible- for which confirmed predictions have actually been made.

Let's consider specific examples of each of these in turn. In the case of Evolution, for example, the religious believer is often under the illusion that it is only "a theory" and hasn't been "proven". He is generally totally unaware of the amassed genetic evidence - in terms of transpositions of amino acids in complex molecules, or specific proteins in haemoglobin, nor is he even remotely aware than an entire fossil record has been assembled for the marine organism foraminifera. He's also likely blissfully unaware of one the most powerful demonstrations of the validity of human evolution: Yunis and Prakash paper disclosing the chromosomal connections of humans to chimps( Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy') Yunis and Prakash showed that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans.

Worse, the ID-er or creationist misinterprets specific disagreements over a particular aspect of evolution (by evolutionary biologists) for a fundamental deficiency that s/he believe nullifies the whole. Further, s/he does not comprehend that it is not a simple question of "proof" or "disproof" (since very few sceintfic laws are even regarded as "proven" in an absolute sense for all time) but rather the quality of the evidence itself. In the case of Evolution, the quality of the evidence is extremely high - particularly in its genetic aspect. Thus, with high probability - say 99.5%, one can rightly regard Evolution as close to "fact" as one can reasonably get.

Similar ignorance emerges when creationists attempt to critique the Big Bang theory. They''re unaware that it's possible to employ the laws of thermodynamics to go "backwards" in time (in a kind of reverse film loop) to obtain the properties of the very early universe! One finds on doing this that the physical characteristics (density, temperature, etc.) are fully consistent with a fireball of immense temperature - what we call the "Big Bang". In other words, the present (2.7 K) signature radiation can be extrapolated backward in time to arrive at the Big Bang! (For those interested in the details of this, please see The First Three Minutes, by Stephen Weinberg, Basic Books, New York, 1977. Though somewhat dated, it still represents the most understandable presentation of how physics can be used to obtain the Big Bang, starting from the Penzias & Wilson data).

The data are scientifically acceptable (high degree of quality, reliability) precisely because a significant number of succeeding, independent measurements have disclosed the blackbody nature of the radiation, legitimizing its use for the extrapolation techniques just described. Further, the results are fully consistent with other independent data and measurements such as the neutron/proton ratios in relation to temperatures.(See, e.g. Introduction to Cosmology, J.V. Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, p. 147, 1993).

Once again, the scientifically illiterate err grievously in their penchant to "throw the baby out with the bath water". The Big Bang, therefore, is not merely "theory" or "opinion" but confirmed fact, to as high a percentage of probability as Evolution, if not more. What disagreements and problems there are - in terms of early inflation, or specific values of neutron/proton ratios at the early stages, are minor details which - in fact - have been resolved through the use of sophisticated refinements to the basic theory .

The inability to distinguish degrees of empirical validity among the various scientific disciplines is also a major failing of the scientifically illiterate. For example, among those with even a basic acquaintance of science, it is a "given" that one cannot demand the same degree of empirical accountability and predictive accuracy for celestial mechanics (e.g. the prediction of the planet Jupiter's position in two hundred years) as for climatology. In short, it is just -plain wrongheaded to hold the climatologist to the same exacting standards as the celestial mechanist - since climatology and meteorology are subject to many large scale stochastic processes. Thus forecast variability, including more errors in computer modeling, are to be expected. But one must not use such inevitable errors or predictive shortfalls to attempt to write off, say, global warming as a "hoax".

Lastly, we come to the issue of "proof" and "disproof", wherein one sees the spectacle of vast multitudes of laymen laboring under an outdated misconception. In point of fact, there are relatively few things which can be "proven" in science - for all times and conditions. This is because scientific models are based on a limited set of laws, each of which has a particular domain of applicability. Hence, Newton's laws of gravitation work fine in the environs of earth but fail when we look at the whole galaxy. Coulomb's law (of electro-statics) works fine within a particular scale of charge separation but fails beyond this, since the electrostatic force falls off as the inverse square of the distance. Thus, at very large distances it is negligible.

Rather than the naive concepts of "proof" and "disproof" it makes more sense to apply quality assurance (QA) criteria to the evidence available for particular hypotheses. Thus, it is more practical to consider criteria of adequacy, and whether data meet these criteria. In this way, the relative merit of a scientific finding can be adduced based on standards similar to those employed in industrial quality control. If certain minimal criteria or standards are not met, then the finding is regarded with skepticism or rejected outright.

(To be continued)

Has the Universe a purpose?

From earliest times both philosophers and theologians have debated the question of whether the universe has a purpose.

Those who saw some divine purpose invariably believed the cosmos had to have been “created”. Most of these creationists appealed to a subjectively perceived evidence of “design” in the universe as an argument for the existence of a special divine creator. William Paley (1743- 1805), for example, drew attention to the complexity of structures occurring in both astronomy and biology, arguing that they could not possibly be a product of blind chance.

In this respect, he may be said to be the father of intelligent design (ID) – now making the rounds as the latest manifestation of the belief that some kind of “irreducible complexity” is embedded in physical- biological reality that dictates one must invoke an external, “intelligent designer”.

The viewpoint of Science in general, and modern physics in particular, is totally opposed to this. This opposition has arisen not merely from logical arguments, but from experiments and observations in quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and cosmology. In the light of these advances, Paley’s (not to mention ID’s) deficiencies are now evident.

Both physicists and biologists, for example, now recognize many systems in which order and complex activity can emerge spontaneously. In this article, I show how such recognition leads the dispassionate observer to dispense with any notion of cosmic purpose that transcends mere existence in its own right.

A biological example, based on in-vitro experimental studies of cancer tumors, is the individual tumor cell.[1] The cell appears as a fluctuation, able to develop by replication. A cosmological example is the instantaneous formation of the universe by a possible quantum fluctuation[2] that arises when one treats the conformal part of space-time as a quantum variable.

A more prosaic example is the aurora, such as the author observed near Chena Hot Springs, Alaska in March of 2005. This particular aurora displayed two perfectly symmetrical parallel green “tubes”, arcing from north to south horizon. Did an intelligent designer craft two natural fluorescent tubes in the sky? Not at all. The inimitable procession to order (observed over two hours) was dictated by the (pre-existing) presence of the auroral oval around the pole and the polar electro-jet, after impinging electrons from the solar wind began to decelerate into the oval and form currents in sheets. These were then shaped by the ambient magnetic field of Earth into the two parallel tubes visible near Chena.


What do the above examples disclose? Basically, that William Paley’s famously naïve argument: “A watch must always have a Watchmaker, so also the universe must have a Maker or Creator.” is flawed and outdated.

The analogy is flawed, first, because the universe is not a mechanical contrivance like a watch. Apart from the fact that – for the most part (certain limited domains in celestial mechanics excepted) the ‘clockwork universe’ was dispelled when quantum theory emerged. Unfortunately, while the practicing physicist has long since had to adopt an indeterminate, non-mechanistic world view (e.g. guided by the experimental results from quantum physics), the same cannot be said for non-physicists, including theologians, philosophers and multitudes of laypersons.

These groups continue to labor under erroneous assumptions of causality and “order” generated almost exclusively by an ignorance of modern physics. For example, an ignorance of the fact that simultaneous measurements at the atomic level are fundamentally indeterminate. Technically, for one of the most common forms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, this may be expressed (in terms of position x, the Planck constant h and momentum p = mv):

[x, p] = -i h/ 2 pi

In term's of Bohr's (Complementarity) Principle, the variables x (position) and p(momentum) are regarded as "mutually interfering observables". This is why only one can be obtained to precision, while you lose the other. In another sense, one can think of approaching a particle in such way (or with such apparatus) that it suddenly gets 'wavy'. At a particular stage of resolution, as the late David Bohm noted, the particle aspect vanishes and you apprehend a wave. But during some interim threshold one can regard it as a wavicle. Of course, if Heisenberg's principle didn't apply - meaning we could know both the position and momentum to the same degree of accuracy, then: [x, p] = 0 such that x*p – p*x = 0 spells out non-interference.

In cosmological terms, the whole concept of “order” has been relegated to a minor and tiny niche of the extant cosmos. For example, the recent balloon-borne Boomerang and MAXIMA UV measurements to do with Type I a supernovae, have disclosed a cosmic content:[3]

7% - ordinary visible matter
93% - dark component, of which:

- 70% is DARK (vacuum) energy and

- 23% is dark matter

In effect, 93% of the universe can’t even be assessed for “order” since it can’t be seen. In the case of dark matter, one can only discern its presence indirectly by the visible effects on neighboring matter. In the case of dark energy, the underlying physical basis isn’t even known – though we know the result is an increase in the acceleration of the universe (arising from a cosmic repulsion attributed to dark energy).

This is all critical, since in the past apologists of teleologism (the belief that purpose and design are part of nature) have cited a perceived “orderliness” as a revelation for the “handiwork” of an intelligent Mind, or Creator. Alas, this falls through the cracks if most of the universe is disorderly, or dark-energy-matter. Indeed, by current assessment – and discounting plasma abundance, one may reckon that even rudimentary order is evident in barely 0.00001% of the cosmos. And this can all be explained or accounted for by appeal to scientific reasoning or hypotheses. For example, the nebular hypothesis, whereby the original solar nebula progressively collapsed under the force of gravitational attraction, can account for the formation of the solar system.

Another point missed by these apologists is that there has always been a profound confusion between the principles of sufficient reason and causation. According to the former: “Nothing happens without a sufficient reason”. As Mario Bunge has observed[1]:

“Giving reasons is no longer regarded as assigning causes. In Science, it means to combine particular propositions about facts with hypotheses, laws, axioms and definitions. In general, there is no correspondence between sufficient reason and causation.”

As an example, let's say I fire electrons from a special "electron gun" at a screen bearing two holes some distance away. At first glance, one might reasonably conclude that the electron motion is singular and follows one unique path. That is, that each fired electron traverses a single, predictable path, following stages 1, 2, 3 and so on, toward the screen. This is a reasonable, common-sense sort of expectation but alas, all wrong! The problem is that common sense is useless in the domain of quantum mechanics.

According to the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum theory[1] , the instant the electron leaves the "gun" it takes a large number of differing paths to reach the screen. Each path differs only in phase, and has the same amplitude as each of its counterparts, so there is no preference. How does the electron differ from the apple? It takes all paths to the screen, the apple takes only one (at a time) to the wall. And the electron exhibits phases (as a wave) while the apple doesn't. The electron's wave function can be expressed:

U = U (1) + U (2) + U(3) + . . . . . . U (N)

Here the total wave function for the electron is on the left hand side of the equation, while its resolved wave amplitude states (superposition of states) is on the right-hand side. If they are energy states, they would correspond to all possible electron energies from the lowest (1) to the highest or Nth state (N). There is absolutely no way of knowing which single state the electron has until it reaches the screen and an observation is made, say with one or other special detector (D). This is illustrated in Fig. 1, with each number denoting a given electron state and path.

Prior to reaching the screen the electron exists in a superposition of states or "wave packets". Is this description statistical, or individual? This depends. The wave function has a clear statistical meaning when applied to a vast number of electrons. But it can also describe a single electron as well.[1] In the example just cited, all the energy states refer to the same electron. However, if all electrons are identical, the statistical and individual descriptions coincide.

Germane to the point made earlier, i.e. that there is no correspondence between sufficient reason and causation, one finds that in a large number of cases, the approaching electron goes through both holes in the screen – not just one. This is totally counterintuitive to one steeped in the traditions of Newtonian or classical mechanics. For example, if a baseball were hurled at a wall with two six inch diameter apertures near to each other – it would go through one or the other – but not both! Of course, the electron deviates from such classical behavior precisely because of its wave nature – as demonstrated in the famous Davisson-Germer experiment that verified that particles exhibit wave properties.

The point emphasized here is that this deviation means that in specific spheres (mainly in science, specifically in modern physics) conventional logic and thinking are of little or no use. A number of researchers, authors, for example Hilary Putnam, have argued that the distributive law of classical logic is not universally valid[6] Much of his reasoning (which is beyond the scope of this article) has to do with the peculiar nature of Hilbert spaces that are part and parcel of the underpinning of quantum mechanics.

Interestingly, it is this very indeterminacy that also resides at the core of many quantum bootstrap models, allowing for the spontaneous inception of the cosmos. People have serious problems with such models and ways of thinking because: a) they fail to appreciate the lack of correspondence between sufficient reason and causation, and b) they fail to understand that causality predicated on classical logic is no longer applicable to many areas of modern physics.

While further conceptual/conceptual development remains (the work of science is never final) it is clear that any postulated purpose in the cosmos can already be regarded as a redundant anachronism. If the cosmos can “bootstrap” itself into existence via quantum fluctuation, and acquire “order” (even in highly limited domains) via the implicit laws of statistical and thermal-quantum physics – then it has no need of a “creator” (or “designer”) and no purpose other than to exist. No extraneous being is necessary to ensure its continued stability or existence. More bluntly, the addition of such a being doesn’t advance the quality of our research, or improve our predictions by the most remote decimal place. Hence, to all accounts such a being (or purpose) is totally superfluous.

Thus do humans, as generic offshoots of the cosmos, have any purpose other than to be. If they seek an additional purpose, they must craft and forge this subjectively of their own accord – rather than looking for it on high.

Does this imply that the concept of “God” is outright useless, null and void? Not at all. It merely requires that we re-think the concept so that it is consistent with the absence of higher or extraneous purpose. As Bernard d’Espagnat notes [7]:

“The archaic notion that is conveyed by the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Almighty’ will presumably never recover its full efficiency for lulling the ontological qualms of mankind. For a religious mind, turning towards being should therefore become a subtler endeavor than the mere acceptance of the heavenly will stated in the Bible, formulated by the priests, and exhibited by miracles.”

Finally, the abolition of extraneous higher purpose should not incur any psychic loss for humanity. As Marilyn French has aptly observed:

“It is a loss of dignity to define humanity as a race defined to please a higher Being, rather than as a race whose only end is to please itself. The ‘gift’ of purpose to the human race is thus very expensive: one can fulfill one’s God-given purpose only by sacrificing felicity while one is alive.”

[1] Garay, R.P. and Levefer, R.: 1978, Theoretical Biology, 417, p. 73.

[2] Padmanabhan, T. 1983, ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756..

[3] See: Physics Today, July, 2000, page 17.

[4] Bunge, Mario: 1979, Causality and Modern Science, Dover Publications, p. 231.

[5] Due to Richard Feynman. See, Herbert, N.: (1985), Quantum Reality - Beyond the New Physics, Doubleday, New York, pp. 115-117.

[6] Putnam, H., ‘Is Logic Empirical?’ in R. Cohen and M. P. Wartofski (eds.), Boston Studies in The Philosophy of Science 5 (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1968). Reprinted as ‘The Logic of Quantum Mechanics’ in H. Putnam, Mathematics, Matter and Method, Cambridge University Press (1976).

[7] d’Espagnat, B. 1983, In Search of Reality, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 158.

Edwin K.P. Chong's Delusions (II)

Original article as it appeared in the newspaper - as a Freethought Advertisement. (Note header: 'This montly article is underwritten by the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs 'etc.)

Chong’s attempted debunking article next tries to take me to task for the use of the term “infectious”

He blabs:

“Again, we see the introduction of a derogative word, 'infectious'.

However, this professed academic (in a Mathematics Dept. no less) seems oblivious to the most remote clues for sourcing and citations! Had he the least bit of awareness on these matters, he’d have quickly ascertained that NONE of the claimed memetic (mind virus) attributes he assigns:

1) Performance value
2) Propagation Value
3) Infectious vale

Originated with me. They were ascribed and defined by biochemist Jacque Monod (referenced in the original paragraph of my piece) in his book, ‘Chance and Necessity’ (Chapter Nine: The Kingdom and the Darkness). I will give Chong a break on this since the direct citation in the original article was omitted by the newspaper's editors and not reinstated by the Freethinkers. (Though he ought to have at least consulted the index of Monod's monograph, given I referred to it, to ensure the attributes given were genuinely mine)

Chong goes on:

“Looking down the list of attributes to be used to assess the 'infectious power' of the faith meme, we see the next fallacy, notably in item 2. Notice his examples for the 'means employed' in the spreading of faith: 'beheading' and 'burning'. This is a clear case of propaganda by associating faith groups with offensive acts.”

Again, given a 550 word limit, those examples – while admittedly extreme – were most efficient in underscoring the point given limited space. However, as Scott Bidstrup references, a much vaster and more ubiquitous mechanism is FEAR.

Bidstrup again:

“Yes, good old fashioned "hell-fire and damnation." Of course it has its greatest effect on the ignorant and superstitious, but it can be an effective motivator even among the learned when it synergizes well with other mind games, such as the burning of bridges and the induction of dissociation.

It would appear that this conflicts directly with the sweet, likable persona of the first mind game. It actually doesn't; they work well together as a carrot and stick. Even a casual reading of the New Testament will uncover plenty of examples of this mind game. Damnation, judgment, punishment for sin, blasphemy, etc., all are based on the fear mind game, and are so commonly employed by evangelicals they've become a stereotype.”

Thus, while “offensive acts” may not be 100% apropos, offensive manipulation of thought via fear, certainly qualifies as mental terror. And again, we see this used again and again by the likes of Pastor Mike.

Chong continues:

“Several fallacies are involved here. First, this is an ad hominem attack on people of faith. Second, this argument involves hasty generalization; burning of heretics by Christians is surely an exception to the means of 'propagating' Christianity. Third, this accusation involves an appeal to fear (argumentum ad baculum). Fourth, the attack commits the fallacy of guilt by association.”

Now, let’s dispel each. First there is no "ad hominem attack on people of faith”- only an association of meme -mind virus attribute (by way of example) to those who actually practice the atrocities. In any case, the prof misuses ad hominem here, since it is taken to mean (in logical circles) an attack on a PERSON- specific! Thus, if I said that: “Pastor Mike is a tyrant and bully who would beat up anyone who disagrees with him” – THAT is an ad hominem. Or, if I wrote that: “Edwin Chong is a weenie sycophant of the Christian Right” – THAT would be an ad hominem. But not strictly in the generic reference I made – which again, was a limited example never intended to be all-inclusive.

Thus, “hasty generalization” also falls by the wayside since examples mean narrow illustrations from a subset of actions associated with the category. No one in their right mind takes an example as a generalization for the WHOLE category. If I say that split personality is one example of psychosis, I am surely not saying that ALL psychoses are manifested by split personality!

The “appeal to fear” claim is also bogus, since there is NO appeal. A putative example (especially given in the context of limited space –but for which high impact impressions may be desired) cannot be rightly called an appeal to fear. If I am writing about the dangers of psychosis and cite split personality – possibly resulting from childhood sexual abuse, that is not an “appeal to fear”. It is a specific example of how a particular manifestation of psychosis (split personality) may arise.

The fourth critique also fails in similar vein, since there is no “guilt by association”. Indeed, NO Christian with a grain of sense asserts or even accepts that “beheading” was ever a part of Christian behavior (Burning was, as for heretics during the Inquisition). However, it remains part of the Islamic “solution” for infidels (e.g. atheists, or other non-Muslim religious believers) as Howard Bloom points out in his book The Lucifer Principle.

Thus, Chong is guilty of overt Christian chauvinism in projecting said example solely onto Christians, when – in fact- it was a generic RELIGIOUS example applicable to Islam in particular (but to Christianity during the Inquisition in burning heretics – though I hasten to add here that the Inquisition STILL exists in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

Chong then bloviates:

“Specifically, (he) constructs a 'straw man', a supposed proponent of faith who rejects all rational scrutiny, resorting instead to characterizing rational scrutiny as 'emanating from Satan'. This is clearly a false characterization of faith-based traditions as a whole”

Actually, all Chong would need to do to ascertain I’ve constructed no “straw man” is to check out my brother’s blog (“Pastor Mike’s Blog") and see how he consistently paints all rational arguments – given to defend everything from abortion to non-absolutist ethics - as “Satanic” in origin. Or painting those who use such arguments as “brothers of Satan” or “coming from Satan”. Indeed, more than once he’s painted me as “an agent of Satan”.

Only one exception disproves the rule, maestro, and throws your strawmen onto the logical bonfire it deserves.

We also know that rather than being “false characterizations” of faith based traditions, they are fully implicit in them. As Professor of Philosophy Daniel Dennett observes (p. 349, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea):

“The meme for faith discourages the exercise of the sort of critical judgment that might decide the idea of faith was – all things considered- a dangerous idea”

As we know, critical judgment is part and parcel of what a rational mind is able to do. Going back now to one of the mechanisms to sow insidious memes, Scott Bidstrup invoked verbicide (Part I) or the deliberate distortion or destruction of the meaning of words so that they have a different meaning to the believer than the non-believer.

I also used examples of how good ol’ Pastor Mikey invokes this tactic all the time. I believe he changes the meaning of defined words so often now that he doesn’t even realize when it happens! So when he writes that “atheism is a religion” he really believes it is, destroying all concepts of the meaning of religion in the process.

The point is that any group that distorts verbal meanings (and thereby thought) has to be anti-rational and hence (since most faith based religions do this)it can’t be a false characterization.

Indifferent to how supercilious his whole critique is by now- Chong cites my sentence:

“Having debated Christian ministers (in Barbados) I can attest to encounters with the faith meme."

Then blathers:

“Here, an appeal is made to his alleged authority on the subject. He also provides personal testimonial support. These are common propagandist interjections.”


And this is total nonsense. First, no “authority” is being appealed to, I’ve merely cited my own experience in which I engaged “assorted Xtian ministers” in debate. This is to establish the parameters of my EXPERIENCE, not authority – since any half -aware person would discern I never mentioned Islamic clerics, Rabbis, or Buddhist monks. Thus, to claim an “authority” to pinpoint all religious memes, I’d have to have claimed exposure to the whole gamut of religions via representatives in debates. Which I didn’t – it was only a limited subset – but sufficient to reference the extent of my experience.

Thus, the only interjection here is one of Christian chauvinism in Chong’s own mind. As for propaganda, he clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the term, or if he does – isn’t attentive in his use of it.

Chong then whines:

“Here again we see multiple cases of fallacious and propagandist devices. He continues to construct his straw man, uses ad hominem attacks, and poisons the well by calling his opponent’s views 'delusions'”

after I recalled a Minister's question directed at me in one debate – in which he asked if I was “possessed by Lucifer

Again, total gibberish. "Straw man" - not, since the incident did occur and moreover can be seen in almost any reference Pastor Mike makes to atheists, or to me on his pathetic blog(which sometimes reads more like a Beavis and Butthead cartoon strip). Again, having referred to me as an agent or ally of “Satan” numerous times. This is therefore not “poisoning the well”.

However, if Chong really suspects that my then debate opponent – who asked if I was “possessed” – isn’t under any delusion, then HE (Chong) surely is! Big time!

Chong then pulls up another of my remarks:

“In each instance, of course, what we behold is the operation of a mind virus that has efficiently parasitized a brain.”

And squawks:

“This claim is made without support whatsoever.”

Actually it fully was. The support was in reference to this segment of my piece noting:

-one opponent who actually asked the audience: ‘How can we be certain that he isn’t possessed by Lucifer and doing Lucifer’s bidding? I am supposed to be here to debate a human lecturer – but of course I can have no chance against an agent of Satan.’

- Another warned the audience that he could not 'be responsible for their immortal souls’ if they listened to me.

Of course, though anecdotal this does qualify as support. It is Chong’s choice not to accept it- and it certainly does qualify as a mind virus parasitizing the respective brains, as illustrated by Dennett (ibid.,), Bloom (The Lucifer Principle :'One Man’s God is Another Man’s Devil', p. 73), and Scott Bidstrup’s The Mind Virus, highlighting malevolent meme mechanisms such as verbicide and fear(Part I). Thus Chong’s assertion that my illustrations even suggest the ignoratio elenchi fallacy is pure balderdash. This prof would do better to explore his own brain workings, and ascertain that his own temporal lobes haven’t been compromised – before he next delves into the logical fallacies lexicon to pick and choose what confections he will use to attack Materialists, realists and others who have a broad (as opposed to parochial) appreciation of memetics.

Chong ends his miasma of misinformation, misinterpretation and misconstrued fallacies with the following:

“(His) article began with what appeared to be a goal to describe memes and their relation to faith. But, in the end, what have we learned from the article about memetic models of faith and its spreading? Not much, I’m afraid. It is evident that Stahl’s article is not meant to be expository at all – it is propagandist in nature, employing a myriad of tactics in achieving a specific agenda of public persuasion. I should stress that I take issue not with the idea of a meme per se, but with Stahl’s use of the idea as a pseudo-technical prop to support an anti-faith program.”


And by this time one wonders what this prof is using for insight, brains or acumen. Again, the expository nature of the piece would have been clear- even given its abbreviated form (550 words) to anyone who’s read Dennett’s books, or Dawkins, or Monod’s or Bloom’s repudiation of “ravenous religious memes” in The Lucifer Principle. However, since this prof – like Pastor Mike – has probably only scoured the bible, it isn’t surprising his intellectual purview for the meme is so limited, and so pathetic. It’s not in his interest to expand it further, so he excludes other aspects. He's the embodiment of Dennett's victim of the faith meme who eschews internal inquiry since "the meme discourages the exercise of the sort of critical judgment that might show faith is a dangerous idea".

“Pseudo-technical prop to support an anti-faith program”? Hardly – not if one reads Howard Bloom’s account of how Islamic fundamentalism is festering and spreading its tentacles worldwide – with aspirations to dominate the whole planet!

What will be interesting in the future, in terms of the religious mind virus denialists like Chong and Pastor Mike, is to see how the final battle of faiths plays out between their pet mind virus imbued in a militant, conquering fundie Christianity and the “ravenous memes of Islam”. If we’re lucky, maybe both will get rid of each other and we’ll have two less to worry about.

Edwin K.P. Chong's Delusions (I)

Edwin K.P. Chong, indirectly recruited by my “pastor’ bro (who fancies Chong delivered an atheist “spanking” to me) has delusions that he exposed a past internet article of mine as rife with logical violations, and other defects. What I propose to show here is how amiss the good professor is, and how every point I originally made in the piece (‘Memes and Mind Viruses’) stands - especially given the fact the column was not published as a treatise, or full essay. (See, e.g. comments in Part II and attached image)

First, let’s be clear Chong uses 1,926 words to try to assail my original article which was strictly confined to a pre-set 550 –word limit (since all Freethinker articles are first published in a local newspaper as Freethought ads, which set a 550-word limit). Anyone see anything amiss here? For one thing, a 550-word limit means no extended "support" arguments can be given, nor any validations, expatiations or elaborations. Thus, while such articles are partly expository they can't possibly be completely so - it isn't feasible. So they are more balanced between partial exposition and op-ed, probably heavier on the last.

Thus, Chong’s verbal takedown with over three times as many words as the original, amounts to a Kung fu master attacking a man with both arms tied behind his back. Not quite fair. I'd be vastly more impressed by Chong's logical acumen if he did a takedown of my piece in no more than 600 words. But he didn't, likely because he couldn't. He needed all those extra "supporting arguments" to make his case that my 550-limit deprived me of ab initio.

But this sort of thing doesn’t seem to matter to religious extremists and their ilk – like my brother- who believe that they and they alone are the ones to parse reality, and they make their own rules to suit.

But let’s now take Chong’s piece apart, though I will focus on his primary complaints and often use one set of (similar) criticisms to put other in their place.

1) Chong begins with an attack on my statement:

“Amongst the most powerful and insidious memes are those dedicated to the spread of religious beliefs or faith”

claiming my comment constitutes “propagandist tactics”, and “planting negative thoughts by using the derogative word 'insidious' before any supporting arguments are advanced”

Now, as I already stated above, I was limited to 550 words, hence there was no latitude for any “supporting arguments” – since the piece (for a newspaper) was intended as more an op-ed for Freethinkers than an ironclad academic tract or peer-reviewed paper.

But let me refer Chong to the Essential Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words and the definition of “insidious”:

“Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way but with harmful effects”

Let me now validate the use of the term by reference to Scott Bidtrup’s recent analysis (in his book The Mind Virus) of how Christian scriptures, e.g. in the New Testament, sow pathological mind viruses. As Bidstrup observes:

“While the authors of the New Testament were somewhat prescient in their understanding of the problems of human nature, their prescription was not intended to become a didactically correct model of how human behavior should be ordered. Rather, as can be seen, their prescriptions have, over the centuries, become to be designed with careful specificity to control the behavior and thinking of their believers, with no concern as to the effect on the believer.

These prescriptions became the basis of Christian doctrine. They form a framework around which the rest of the meme complex is built. In our virus analogy, these interpretations on the insights described above are analogous to the DNA, the genes, that prescribe how the doctrines are to be controlled, so as to become and remain maximally virulent. “

The mechanics of the infectious delivery of the doctrines – as Bidstrup notes- are embedded in certain “mind games” played by their practitioners, of which I here cite two:

1- Spontaneous generated fantasies that accompany indoctrination.

He notes:

“These fantasies are the result of presenting a bright, attractive persona of the Bible and of the experience of Christianity and the experience of conversion to it. This is absolutely crucial to recruitment, but by itself it is shallow and meaningless. Similar to the hallucinations of dreaming”

This tactic is actually similar to the strategies for indoctrination used by Rev. Jim Jones in Guyana. Though in Jones’ case the mechanism used was more defensive – to protect his coterie of believers against the threat of the ‘government taking over”. Thus, he offered “Jonestown” as a safe refuge wherein a more complete conversion to Christianity would be possible without the possible interference of outside forces. Interestingly, in the book about Jonestown, The Suicide Cult, many members (before they left or escaped) reported being in a “dream state”. Part of the technique for implanting this state was constant repetition of selected sayings or verses.

Bidstrup goes on to point out:

“The reality of the experience, is, however, a purely physical phenomenon that is the result of stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain, which can be duplicated at will in the laboratory”

Indeed, as I have already noted, Michael Persinger actually performed such experiments and showed how religious manifestations could be confected in the temporal lobes via electric stimulation. In the same way, the physical phenomenon behind indoctrination incorporates temporal lobe cooperation –whether done via a Fundy bible puncher, or by a Rev. Jim Jones in a secluded enclave in Guyana.

2- Verbicide

Bidstrup again:

“This is, quite literally, distorting, even destroying the meaning of words so that they have a different meaning to the believer than the non-believer. By giving the believer an understanding of the meaning of words that the authors intend, rather than the generally understood meanings, the general impression of a religious experience (the first mind game) is reinforced”

And we know fundies like Pastor Mike (who invokes Chong) does this all the time, as when he deliberately calls fetuses “children”, and abortion, “infanticide”. Thus are words deformed, followed by believers’ thoughts, since thoughts are fashioned from words,. Destroy the word and render their meanings anything you want, and you destroy the minds of those you’re seeking to affect. (Or infect)

Now, to show this mind virus dynamic isn’t peculiar to Christianity let’s now look at Islam, and specifically using Howard Bloom’s insight in his The Lucifer Principle, on how memes operate within religious edifices and constructs. As he points out (p. 228):

“Today’s Islam is the perfect example of a meme grown rapacious”

And he follows this comment with a number of examples, from the former Pakistani Gen. Zia – marking out territory to be Muslim-dominated in a wall map, to quoting an Islamic cleric in Lebanon who emphasizes:

“Don’t believe that we want an Islamic Republic in Lebanon, we want the whole WORLD to be an Islamic Republic!”

To quoting an academic (Dr. Abd El Sabor Shahin) in Cairo who proclaims that Western civilization makes a big mistake when it:

“thinks it will endlessly remain dominant”

Bloom goes on to cite even secularist Islamic academics in the U.S. (p. 229) who aver the expansionist zeal of Islam to be an “unstoppable force” and that the Qu’uran is merely cited in those parts that allay western fears. In other words, the message (mind virus) is hidden or concealed until the prospective believer is a captive, then it’s too late to abandon the demands of the meme.

One could go on and on citing numerous other religious domains that implant memes insidiously, but I believe the point has been made.

Next: Chong’s delusion that “infectious” is a “derogatory word”

There’s NO place for Ghoulish Financial Speculation

It's bad enough that another immense and unstable asset bubble is building – thanks to inordinately cheap money (owing to the Federal Reserve’s near 0% interest rates) and stimulus money which continues to artificially jack up stocks as new credit defaults appear which bet against various nations’ bond worthiness. Many have warned the next burst bubble’s havoc may be difficult to contain, given the Fed has little room to maneuver and the bond -betting CDS (credit defaul swaps) are spreading.

Now, to add to that toxic speculative brew we see another even more sordid instrument emerging, called “life settlements”. These consist of buyers (“investors”) who purchase “bets” on life insurance policies. As a buyer, one claims the life insurance benefits when the original owner-seller of the policy dies. In this way, these instruments are reincarnations of an earlier form – viaticals – that appeared in the late 1990s.

The dynamic is described in the article ‘Grim Rewards for Reaping Death’s Benefits’ in The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 6-7, page B-10)

“Say you purchase a $1 million policy held by an 82-year old woman. Actuarial tables say she has five years to live. If you do the deal via Life Partners’ Holdings, Inc. – a major life-settlements firm, you must pony up $540,000. The woman gets $200,000 of that, the remainder goes toward future premiums and transactions fees.”

The article goes on to note that if the subject “dies on time” the investor earns a 13% annual return. But if she lives for another ten years the same investor will end up shelling out much more in premiums and the return sinks to 3%.

As the article puts it:

“Every year she soldiers on, your take shrinks”

Is it just me, or is there anyone else who sees something inherently wrong with this – including the potential for unintended consequences, say, like an unscrupulous investor “speeding up the game” a bit to maximize her or his returns?

Are these investors inhuman ghouls? Actually not. What they are is died in the wool capitalists in a run amuck market, looking for a buck any way they can make it! The capitalist-market system itself, not “Satan” or “Hell”, spawned these- folks – like it's spawned a whole constellation of consumption manifestations now blamed with wearing or tearing our civilization down: from rape- emulation video games, to Barbi dolls, to new war toys and weapons.

In the end it's the capitalist's true god- the free market- which is responsible for lowered standards across the board and increasingly less mental and physical health in the country. This market, fully amoral - is capable of tolerating 25 million malnourished kids who go to bed hungry each night, as well as 46 million people with no health insurance. Its only incentive is profit, making money. No religious or other moral standard applies.

As author Charles Reich poignantly notes in his book, Opposing the System, Crown Books, 1995, p. 22:

"A free market produces results that favor the health of society as a whole, because an essential balance is maintained. But in a coercive market, the balance is destroyed, the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, and society as a whole is devastated while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's economic wealth."

This is exactly what we're experiencing now: a perversion in which the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines. This subversion of labor by capital is magnified in the speculative financial markets- which have now usurped the true wealth and production power of the country....a sign that it's an empire in decline - much like the earlier Dutch and British Empires - which surrendered making things to financial speculation. (For more on this, see the first chapter of Arrogant Capital, by Kevin Phillips).


What this shows is that while many self-proclaimed religious folks blame atheists and nonbelief for much of what is wrong with society, they’d do better to closely examine the capitalist-market economic system that underpins it. This system is both amoral (note – I didn’t say ‘immoral”!) and dominant. The reason is that any profit earned is blind to uses and intents, and it will just as effectively use the available processes and resources to produce a new form of raunchy X-box game as a new vaccine.

Similarly, in the circle of investments, it can give rise to such devices as viaticals and life settlements. Fortunately government has provided some controls to slow their growth and ensure they aren’t used indiscriminately. For example, longer assigned life expectancies – thanks to underwriters and their actuarial tables, means more risk in purchasing one of these things. That explains why the business volume has remained relatively low, compared to other securities – including credit default swaps.

In addition, the IRS has helped by ruling that death benefits received by investors be treated as ordinary income rather than merely as lower cost.capital gains. This means a wealthy person who puchases a life settlement will soon be shelling out 39.6% of his takings (once the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011) as opposed to 15% or 20%.

At least the government, then, is exerting some indirect control on these amoral entities.

Concepts of Order & Disorder III: Spontaneous Order

Figure 1(below): A large sunspot group shows spontaneous organization from a background of chaotic plasma.



We left off in the 2nd instalment of this series looking at the basis for how a separatrix - analogous to an equilibrium position or barrier between the two contrasting magnetic fields- can spontaneously form on the Sun if conditions are right. At the position where the competing fields are precisely neutralized lies the ‘neutral point’.[1] The actual matching sunspot region might appear as in Figure 1.

In fact, I took the above photograph using a Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope on Nov. 4, 1980. What it clearly shows is that self-organized and magnetically complex plasma systems can arise out of a background of chaos. Plasma itself is chaotic with ions, currents interacting in many random variations. But magnetic fields can order these.

An example closer to Earth is the aurora, such as I observed near Chena Hot Springs, Alaska in March of 2005. This particular aurora displayed two perfectly symmetrical parallel green “tubes”, arcing from north to south horizon. Did an "intelligent designer" craft two natural fluorescent tubes in the sky? Not at all. The inimitable procession to order (observed over two hours) was dictated by the (pre-existing) presence of the auroral oval around the pole and the polar electro-jet, after impinging electrons from the solar wind began to decelerate into the oval and form currents in sheets. These were then shaped by the ambient magnetic field of Earth into the two parallel tubes visible near Chena. Order out of chaos!

A much more elaborate bifurcation diagram is shown in Fig. 2 . One might correctly refer to it as depicting multiple bifurcations but each characterized by different periods. Thus, the sort of doubling in the first (left) portion of the diagram is similar to that shown in Fig. 2 of Part II. Beyond that, however, we now see at least two more additional doublings of stable solutions – each displaying bifurcation from the one preceding it. Beyond the obvious bifurcations lies a chaotic region, mostly grey. However, a few successive bands of ‘order’ emerge within it against the chaotic background bifurcation, associated with many complex physical processes, from polymer growth and collapse, to origin of solar flare conditions in solar coronal loops-arches. In Figure 2, the diagram is plotted with control parameter lambda along the horizontal axis, and some state variable zeta along the vertical.

More intriguing, if one magnifies portions of this chaotic domain, small regions displaying self-similarity appear. For example, exhibiting the sort of periodic splitting visible in the larger map. One may rightly conjecture that whatever systems reside within these bands, say persistent solar flare regions[2], or a replicating proto-cell, it emerged from chaos to exhibit self-organization.

Many other examples abound: a normally functioning cell suddenly becomes malignant; the molecules/particles of a liquid, initially with random arrangements, suddenly assume an orderly, lattice-type of structure when the liquid freezes (e.g. when water turns to ice); elementary atomic ‘magnets’ originally distributed randomly, suddenly oriented in the same basic direction - creating magnetism in a ferrous material. In each instance, the system has undergone a transition from a more disordered state, to a more ordered one. Bifurcation has occurred, setting the evolution of the system on a fundamentally different path from what it was earlier.

In the evolutionary sphere, specific combinations of amino acids probably contributed to system state change leading to a pre-biotic cell or protenoid.[3] One could view the transition from non-reproductive- non-growth to replicating-growing states as a ‘symmetry breaking’ in the organic molecules that yield a very primitive living cell.[4] Once formed, the cell possesses all the attributes of life including reproduction. At this stage, replication and further evolution can occur. In one particular simulation, using macromolecules with specified monomers of a given initial size, I obtained the results as shown in Fig. 3.

The tendency observed was for smaller length units to evolve to greater length polymers, as if the longer length had been preordained by selection. In the (Juliabrot fractal) model I used, entropy was expressed as a function of length and some partition function z. Longer lengths prevailed because the difference in free energy was heavily weighted in that direction with entropy taken into account.

Aside: In the model depicted in Fig. 3, an iterative mapping was set up with z’ (new value) = z^2 + k, where z = x + iy, and k = a +bi, with i= sqrt(-1). A conformal mapping was then performed where w = f(x + iy). The entropy S/k = l ln (zeta),for smaller lengths l << k. Also for S/k = (L+ l) ln (zeta) for larger.

The point is that this order emerges entirely within a fabric of random processes that are embedded within the physical laws of the cosmos. Supernatural and externally postulated agents are rendered totally redundant. We no longer require them in terms of necessary or sufficient explanations of anything, including the origin of the universe. We can leave them behind much as we've left behind the use of wasps to sting disease "humours" out of existence, having now replaced those wasps with vaccines.




[1] In actual sunspot regions one is much more likely to trace the path of the ‘neutral line’, obtained from solar magnetograms.

[2] Indeed, one of the best examples is the dynamic spectrum of a large solar flare in which differing radiofrequency bursts- called Type I, II, III, IV appear. Amidst the background of the spectrum, the burst regions define what can be regarded as domains of ‘order’.

[3] Protein-like polymers formed spontaneously by heating dry mixtures of amino acids at temperatures over 150° C. The products, also called thermal proteins, range in molecular weight from 4,000 to 10,000 daltons.

[4] This is considered in terms of using what are called spin glass models. See e.g. Bar-Yam, Yaneer: 1997, Dynamics of Complex Systems, Addison-Wesley, pp. 466-68. The point is, a critical polymerization threshold is crossed to weight the outcome in terms of more self organized systems. Hence, there is a definite bias underlying the way amino acids polymerize to form peptides and protenoids. The emergence of this bias is what I mean by ‘symmetry breaking’, i.e. displaced from the background of an equalized distribution or diffusion of products with wide ranging heterogeneity.