On Free Expression and Fundies With Attitudes

Wow....seems like my recent blog:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/can-we-puh-leeze-have-break-from-fundie.html

really incited a hostile burp and some semi-outrage (using the word "stupid" at least fifty times on his blog page) after I referenced this fundie clown's pseudo-scientific claptrap and skewered it. Seems that he can't tolerate having his bunkum exposed for what it is and now advises if I don't like what I read I ought to steer clear, writing:

"Hey , 'Mr. Einstein' , I'm not sure which planet you think you're on , but there's something called "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ! " in this country . I mean , if I don't like what I read , or hear on tv or radio - God gave me the free will ( not to mention COMMON SENSE ) , to TURN IT OFF ! ( or is that a foreign concept to you ? ) "


But again, he misses the boat as per his perceptions, which have seldom been the best or most astute. I definitely agree he has "freedom of expression" and certainly wouldn't want to intrude on that one iota. At the same time, I ALSO have free expression - including to criticize HIM. This is when I find any kind of unproven pseudo-scientific twaddle or irrational rubbish being propagated, I take it as my duty to expose and skewer it - if for no other reason than to protect the minds of the younger citizens of our land, whose mental armor may be undeveloped or who may lack the deep scientific knowlege base to see through it.

This obtains when I see vicious psychological toxins like "Hell" peddled as truth, like some kind of toxic drug proffered as cure all. Though, I grant he has his own peculiar (though perverse) doctrines which HE believes, and I grant him a limited right to push them. However, my most serious issues are when he ventures into discourse about scientific topics (Big Bang, spontaneous quantum inception, evolution, ontogenesis, 2nd law of thermodynamics) wherein he really has NO - as in zilch, nada, NEIN - background, has never taken a single course - yet purports to pontificate accurately for his followers. Then, I definitely have to step in and administer "truth serum" in response. So yes, he's entitled to spout his own opinions (even about his Hell conceptions) but he's not entitled to his own scientific facts. (and if he believes all scientific facts are "opinions" he has many further lessons in education to be administered!)

By the way, that free expression, "common sense" and "turn it off " advice cuts BOTH ways, maestro. If you don't want to read how your codswallop is being laid waste, then don't come to this blog looking for reasons to complain on yours! You can "lose" the url and never trouble your brain again, when your misshapen portrayals of science are skewered and slapped down.

He also fulminates:

"Now , in another post , he writes , " they don’t believe in flesh and blood aliens despite three being ten septillion stars in the cosmos." I assume by "they" he means us Christians . In any event , he IS correct there . We ( Christians ) DON'T believe in "flesh and blood aliens" - or ANY type of "aliens" for that matter . So , who is REALLY "embarrassing" themselves ? I mean , if ( God forbid ) , I DID believe in aliens , I sure as heck wouldn't want the entire cyber-world to know it "


Well, let's see now, 'Einstein', given there is at least the probabilistic physical and chemical basis in the cosmos for a planet bearing actual organic entities (we do have at least the example of Earth) - then given there are over ten septillion stars (half like the Sun or close to it) reason and logic suggest there will be more. Yet you have not shown us one "abode" where an actual thriving race of "demons" exists! Not one! Nothing outside your ficitional book of babble - the "bible" - scribbled by dopes as deluded as you are.

I think weighing the two on balance: the probability of an actual advanced organic species from the planet of another star (given over 450 planets discovered so far) see, e.g. vs. the claim of invisible horned demons with pitchforks - there ought to be precious little doubt over which is more insane. I mean, what's next: ghosts, vampires, and werewolves? But perhaps he lacks the sense of irony to see this. In any case, saying the probability of the existence of actual organic-based aliens far surpasses the probability of invisible "demons" is certainly nothing I'd be embarrassed to say. It fits in with the already well circulated position of known rationalists, from Carl Sagan to Isaac Asimov, to Sir Martin Ryle (who's actually warned of the danger of aliens intercepting our radio or other electromagnetic information.) Not to mention Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson who has gone on record warning about an alien "technological cancer" spreading across the galaxy.

But we leave the choicest chestnut for last, since he always knows how to entertain us most at the end:

"Again , as if all THAT weren't enough , this looney doesn't know whether he IS an atheist or not ! Every time he realizes that he's painted himself into a corner with his STUPIDITY , he switches gears and surreptitiously denies his atheism . In this particular blog post he NOW states , "Yet the fundies and their derelict, pygmy -sized brains never cease attempting to impute that "atheists" (actually, quantum cosmologists..." "QUANTUM COSMOLOGISTS" ?

Now, let's try to break this fulsome malarkey down as we have other assorted malarkey issuing from his keyboard: he is claiming I "don't know if I am an atheist or not" (in fact, I've never disputed it) on the basis of making the assertion that it is quantum cosmologists who have advanced the theory of the spontaneous inception of the cosmos, not atheists.

But, since his brain is getting senile - or maybe weaker from overuse - he is unable to see that because an atheist may agree with spontaneous inception - or quantum bootstrapping (as I do) is not the same thing as originating it. I can take credit, as an avowed and unashamed atheist - for taking the theory as valid to account for the origin of the cosmos, but I can't take credit for the theory's own origin!

The point is, when one scribbles something down like:

" Satan must be having with the atheists' brain by planting in it the notion that out of absolute nothingness came a "BANG," and all of a sudden the universe came into existence ."

Then it is obvious he's not rising to the level of discriminating between being the ORIGINATOR of a theory, and just accepting it. Contrary to ME "painting myself into a corner" HE is doing it to himself by his inability to differentiate the originators of scientific theories (cosmic inception) from adherents of godless philosophy. Again, the origination of the concept is not due to "atheists" but to quantum cosmologists, such as T. Padmanabhan - in his paper: ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756.) . This is a simple statement of fact that can be confirmed easily.

Did "Satan" then plant in my brain the notion of conformal space time? Or the brilliant strategy of employing integrals related to the “action” (J) as a function of time, to ascertain the nature of the dark energy bubble? Or conceiving the strategy of fixing the state of the universe to be compatible with a harmonic oscillator of frequency f? (Which we know has solutions in terms of Hermite polynomials H n (q))

No, none of the above! Nor did "Satan" implant in my mind the concept that the conformal factor (alpha, in Padmanabhan's paper) contributes a negative energy density! OR that it's this basis that provides the model for the instantaneous formation of the universe by a possible quantum fluctuation that arises when a particular threshold is crossed near a = 0 (from quantum to classical domains) .

Now, while I'd LOVE to take credit for all the above, and even having written the papers - actually several papers - I can't! I can't do it, not because I'm "denying my atheism" but because it's wrong to claim credit for theories one hasn't really originated! But maybe this fundie is ok with claiming bogus credit for things he didn't do, and maybe that fits his specious morality. Who knows? Nor can I take credit for Alan Guth's brilliant spontaneous quantum bootstrapping and fluctuation theory. I can AGREE with them - agree with those papers - but that doesn't mean I am the AUTHOR or creator of the theory! Hence, it is false to assert nonsense like "Satan" PLANTED it in MY BRAIN (suggestiong ONE atheist's origination- which still isn't the same as an "atheist theory") when in fact it was (going by the fundie's bullshit take) "planted in the brains of quantum cosmologists" like Alan Guth, Padmanabhan et al.

I mean how hard can this be to fathom? Yet, because I simply divorce or detach myself from authorship or being the originator of the theory, he derides me as "not knowing" if I'm an atheist! But he makes similar errors of category all the time, like carelessly linking "evolutionists" to quantum inception of the universe when I've repeatedly corrected him, noting that quantum cosmologists are the responsible party for that theory. Evolutionists have enough to keep their hours filled with examining the basis for the evolution of life on Earth. He has also confused ontogenesists with evolutionists by - again- accusing evolutionists as being the responsible group for a "theory of origin of life" when it is the hypothesis of ontogenesis that is responsible.

But we must be kind to him and exercise a degree of empathy, because when you've never taken a serious science course yourself you're bound to get disciplines, categories and originators mixed up. So, we can let him off the hook mixing up quantum cosmologists with evolutionists for authoring quantum inception theory, and mixing up ontogenesists with evolutionists for the origin of life theories. But confusing an atheist with a quantum cosmologist as actually originating the theory of quantum spontaneous fluctuation is really beyond the pale.

Again, and let me make this simple - especially if he returns against my advice and reads this blog: merely because I ACCEPT or agree with ontogenesis, or evolution, or quantum bootstrapping, doesn't mean I authored any of them. Or that they are innately "atheistic". Indeed, I know many atheists who don't accept ontogenesis but rather panspermia - the notion that life arrived on Earth via primitive cell bearing meteorites. I also know many atheists, maybe even a majority, who won't embrace the spontaneous quantum inception of the universe, preferring to stop just at accepting the Big Bang (since at least we have the 2.7K isotropic microwave background radiation to verify that) as opposed to going to a pre-Big Bang bubble. Many of these atheists, at Freethinker meetings in the past, have conceded they just don't understand the math behind quantum inception so won't "go there". Wise move! Would that the fundies would be as circumspect! They then might scribble far less intemperate rubbish about things they don't understand! (At least one could wish!)

It is important if we have such discussions that we get categories of action or authorship correct, because otherwise confusion reigns. But perhaps this is just what fundies want. If they can confuse their more naive followers and induce them to mix up atheists with actual authors of the scientific theories then they can (for the gullible at least) write off all those whole areas of scientific enterprise as "atheistic" or "Satanic". (Not surprising when one beholds how often they assert "Satan" implanted the concepts - when they were actually either demonstrated empirically - as for evolution with the cytochrome -c protein sequence being the same in humans and chimps, or quantitatively in quantum cosmology - with the basis for the universe originating in a quantum fluctuation in conformal space-time.)

So in the end it may matter little as to correcting this impetuous fundie, he'll probably still fail to see that merely because I disclaim authorship as the originator of quantum cosmic inception, doesn't imply I have rejected my atheism. It merely means I can lay no claim to being an actual quantum cosmologist (though I can follow most of the theories) who originated the theory the cosmos started spontaneously! As a corollary, he'll probably still also fail to see that because modern cosmology - using highly advanced quantum concepts and mathematics - arrives at a theory of cosmic origin that clashes with his bible tales, doesn't mean that it is "atheistic" or "Satan-inspired". Never mind, when one is spreading codswallop it helps to avoid all the difficult or complex pitfalls and stick to undifferentiated simplicity and superficiality. It actually expedites an obscurantists's agenda because then he doesn't have to deal with niggling details.

A pity that his biblically delimited psychological and intellectual universe has confined his mind to such a disturbing degree, that any theory, concept or idea that ventures outside its mythical bounds will automatically be labelled "Satanic". To me, that is the REAL definition of STUPIDITY - because it means all free inquiry (with a view to accessing actual knowledge) is foreclosed forever, sacrificed to a faux substitute.