Book Review: Mr g by Alan Lightman

I should say first off that I’m a big fan of Alan Lightman. I read his clever little book, Einstein’s Dreams, years ago when I was teaching physics at Maine East High. I used to buy a copy for each of my AP seniors as a graduation present. That said I recently saw Mr g sitting on the featured table at the neighborhood bookstore (Borders is gone but the mom and pop shops live on!) and just bought it without another thought.

As you may have already guessed, Mr g is a all seeing, all knowing, immortal, omnipotent being that lives in the ‘void’. He is accompanied there by his aunt and uncle - a literary or philosophical gizmo that has escaped me so far. Mr. g, after waking up from a nap decides to create a universe. He goes through may prototypes experimenting with what the initial conditions need to be to have it not blow up in 2 seconds and so forth. With zillions of his prototypes zinging around the void he settles on a favorite and gives it a name that involves the 10,000th prime number.

Lightman being an MIT physicist and professor of humanities gently works in good physics about time, the big bang, and evolution. Mr g is tempted to cause the creation of sentient beings and is surprised to find that with matter, energy and his initial boundary conditions it happens spontaneously all over the billions of galaxies in his favorite universe.

By Mr. g’s inherent ‘goodness’ the creation of a universe caused to be created his opposite - Baalial. He goes by various names but he is the cynic to Mr. g’s optimism. They have many interesting discussions about goodness, free will and more.

A thought provoking book, a quick read, and Mr. g never reveals himself to the sentient beings of the universe he created. . . .or does he?

Link to the book below. . . I notice that the reader reviews on Amazon are all over the place. I'd be interested to know what my fellow atheists think of the book.

Mr g by Alan Lightman

Joe Pa

Just read an obit of Joe Pa - the Penn State football coach. Nice guy, too bad the way it ended. But to the point of this blog here's a quote from the piece I read by Jack McCallum at SI.

But when the end came, it came with such breathtaking suddenness that even non-believers must pause for moment to wonder if it wasn't part of some cosmic script.

I guess this is just a writer trying to make a deadline or trying to a little more than a sports guy but what kind of a sentence is that? I'm a non-believer and I don't see any cosmic script here. Things happened as reported and all explainable by the vagaries of human behavior.

It's this kind of 'cosmic glasses' that a huge number of people enjoy looking through to help support their world view. This is not evil. This is just what people do. When there is a particularly beautiful sunrise some tend to think that some super being made is special just for them. Perhaps some cannot separate beauty from that beauty being connected to someone or some super-being creating it.

To me the oceans, the sky, a sailboat, a summer day . . . all of that is particularly beautiful. My thinking stops there and I just enjoy it as is.

Why I Care

Uh oh. . .here comes a presidential election year. I'm of two minds. Part of me wants to chuck the TV out the window (nice splash from the 12th floor!), disconnect from the internet, go for runs and walks until November. I can't stand all the stupid sound bites, the back biting, non-answers to simple questions, the posturing, and so forth.

But then there's this Mitt guy and I think of Martin Luther King: "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it". So let's see what fight do I want to fight. . .

As a scientist, I want to focus my attention on the candidates and their stand on science and rationalism. Mitt seems to be a guy who will say ANYTHING while understanding NOTHING in a run at the white house. Sadly this is probably a good strategy in the under-educated America in which we live.

So, what do I care what the president thinks? Well, I do because of his influence at the bully pulpit. I would like a leader who lets the conclusions of numerous experiments direct policy. That's not how it works however. What dictates policy is what can generate votes and sadly, stupid people's votes count just the same as intelligent people's.

For example, the Creationists want schools to teach the 'controversy' between evolution and creationism. . .BUT THEY CREATED THE PRETEND CONTROVERSY! There is NO controversy in the scientific community.

So then that's a conspiracy, right?

Sigh. . .

CRASH!

(That was the TV hitting the sidewalk.)

Sorry about the dog.

Seriously, I want a president who says something to the effect of, "Let the scientists teach science based on our current knowledge and their training as scientists and let the preacher teach his moral lessons." Nobody attending any university is being taught creationism. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

Let's teach what we KNOW and preach what we BELIEVE.

No candidate is going to say that, right? Not Obama either who is pretty religious.

But, I taught at a catholic school (by the way the pope acknowledged evolution as the way the world works back in 1950) and I'm sure there was no up-ightness about what was being taught in the biology classroom. Why? Because they got their shot in the religion classroom! So, if you're uptight about evolution just take your kid to church (some protestant one I would think) and let them teach your kid too. Then, let the kid THINK for him or her self.

Scary?

HOLY CRAP! What if they pick 'wrong'.

I don't think Mitt has any clue about any real science. Real science says evolution is real and proveable and has for about a hundred years but he won't be able to cop to that. Hundreds of separate experiments and investigations show that the earth is warming up and that is our doing but he won't be able to cop to that either.

In this day and age it takes a big government to do big, important science for the sake of society as a whole. The days of a single scientist working late at night in his lab and inventing the light bulb are long past. Fundamental research requires huge labs and huge budgets. A guy who clearly doesn't understand it or chooses to ignore simple facts is a danger to society. Mitt is not the guy we need in the white house but I suspect 'the guy' doesn't exist and if he did he wouldn't be electable.

Guns make us safe

Think of the things you cannot advertise on TV.

cigarettes (they kill people)
people actually drinking liquor or beer
outright prostitution (political speeches get an exemption).
heroine (etc)
baby seal clubbing
kitten torture
selling babies

I would even imagine a hefty dose of outrage if one even showed a kid riding a tiny 2 wheeler with training wheels WITHOUT a helmet (on the child not the wheels). We’re nothing if not extremely safety conscious in this country. Oh yeah. I bought a pair of binoculars recently (true story!) and one of the items on the 2 page SAFTEY information sheet was to not swing them around by the strap. See? We’re extra safe in this country.

But it turns out you can and we do advertise guns on TV. Not up north here so much but in places like Indianapolis (hillbilly capital), Kentucky, etc. they definitely do.























And while it’s true enough that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, I’m puzzled by, on one hand our crazy, over-zealous safety consciousness played against our affection for about the most dangerous item around, the hand gun.

I’ve never bought a hand gun so maybe they come with a super duper safety sheet:

1. Do not aim at your head
2. Do not aim at your brother’s head
3. Etc.
4. Only shoot some bitch ho who dissed you.
5. Try to use that as a defense.
6. Do not look down the barrel to see if it is clean.
7. Do not look down the barrel for a laugh in a bar.
8. 9. Do not put gun near fundamental particle detectors as the steel will alter the magnetic field
9. Do NOT run out of bullets.
10. Do not swing around by the holster.

Whoops! Atheist blog. . . uh, YEAH, there's no God.

Cheers

the Sabbath

From a silly CNN article about 'faith-based predictions for 2012'.

Sabbath becomes trendy! Fourth Commandment makes a comeback! Sabbath named Time’s person of the year! A new movement sweeps the country. They call themselves 24/6. Worn out by being tethered to the grid 24/7, sick of being accessible all hours of the day, inundated by updates, upgrades, and breaking news, Americans finally rebel, demanding, “We need a day off.” People all over the country go offline for 24 hours every week. The simple break from the frenetic pace results in lowered cholesterol rates, fewer speeding tickets, and a reduction in marital strife. Peace, tranquility and contentment spread like wildfire.
–Jamie Korngold, rabbi and author of "The God Upgrade"

I gotta tell you, I'm FOR this. When we lived in the Caribbean just about everything is CLOSED on Sunday. Sure sometimes when you need a part or are out of rum this can be annoying but it does force you to take a day off. The towns are quiet. Fewer cars about and it makes for a nice break. I don't think there is any way to go back to a time when most businesses were closed on Sunday (or any day really) but it would make for a nice break.

Michelle Bachman is a Bad Person

First in an ongoing, occasional series on the 2012 presidential election.

Michelle Bachman - My first foray into research on her just tells me she is truly a bad person. I usually think people are mostly good but deluded or good but under educated. Like that. This person, though, might truly be evil. Let's start with global warming. This from Wikipedia:

Bachmann has charged that global warming is a hoax[82] and has been a vocal skeptic of global warming.[83] She has asserted that since carbon dioxide is "a natural byproduct of nature", it is a beneficial gas required by plant life. She stated that because life requires carbon dioxide and it is part of the planet's life cycle, it cannot be harmful. In a statement she made on the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Bachmann stated she was against the cap and trade climate legislation, stating: "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful.... We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth.

Wow. This is just gross ignorance or gross pandering to an ignorant segment of society, i.e. Republicans. Maybe Ms. Bachmann would like to breath a big bag of carbon dioxide for severall minutes? Of course Cabon Dioxide is needed for life but how much? UV light is necessary for some chemical reactions but how much? Plus, to say that global warming is a hoax would imply that someone has something to gain by promoting such a hoax. Who? The entire scientific community is in on some grand practical joke? (See a very nice, concise article on reasons to conclude that global warming is real from NASA.) A hoax from NASA? What do they have to gain by claiming that the earth is warming up? I think Bachman just says the word 'hoax' to gain attention and votes from the idiotic conspiracy crowd that have infected the Republican party.

I find several examples of Bachman being a champion of the new political methodology of 'my way or nothing'. Here's an example.

On August 31, 2009, Bachmann spoke at an event in Colorado, saying of Democratic health care overhaul proposals that: This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass.

Not much room for debate there is there?

Similarly -

Bachmann has characterized the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "ObamaCare", and has continually called for its repeal.

No honest debate. No entering of actual bills. Just calling for a repeal.

Now how about evolution. From the Huffington Post:

Not only is Bachmann a fan of creationism and its anti-intellectual offshoot, intelligent design, she's made some outlandish claims about the pseudoscientific subject. For example, she's asserted, "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."

OK, there is no controversy among scientists. There is a "controversy" only because there is a large group of evangelicals who can't accept a simple scientific fact because it might mean that we are no more special than aardvarks. The best news about her claim is how it was shot down by a high school student, Zack Kopplin:

Zack has now challenged Bachmann on her claims. Using a poker analogy and the huge number of scientists who have endorsed evolution, in general, and his repeal effort, in particular, Zack has written, "Congresswoman Bachmann, I see your 'hundreds' of scientists, and raise you millions of scientists."

Given the strength of the hand he has, he doesn't stop there.

For the next hand, I raise you 43 Nobel Laureate scientists. That's right: 43 Nobel Laureate scientists have endorsed our effort to repeal Louisiana's creationism law. ... Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If you want to be taken seriously by voters while you run for President, back up your claims with facts. Can you match 43 Nobel Laureates, or do you fold?

No response ever from Bachman. But, this is her method. She makes outrageous claims with no supporting evidence, gets her name in the paper and her face on TV. . . and moves on.

How about gay and lesbians?

gay and lesbian people “live a very sad life” that is “part of Satan” with “sexual dysfunction and sexual identity disorders.”

"We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It's not funny, it's sad. Any of you who have members of your family that are in the lifestyle-we have a member of our family that is. This is not funny. It's a very sad life. It's part of Satan, I think, to say this is gay. It's anything but gay."

Bachman's husband is some sort of counselor and runs a business where you can pray the gay away and get 'cured' of that particular affliction. Here's her response to a hidden camera foray into his counseling business:

HOST: What is your opinion on reparative therapy and is it something that’s conducted in that center?

BACHMANN: Well, I’m running for the Presidency of the United States and I’m here to talk about job creation and that we do have a business that deals with job creation. I’m very proud of the business that we created and I’m here today in Indianola, Iowa….

HOST: But of course the issue today is about this reparative therapy and about what this hidden camera caught and their opinions are going to be aired on tonight’s news. And you don’t want to comment on that and give your side?

BACHMANN: Well, I’m here to talk about the Presidency of the United States. As I said again, we’re very proud of our business and we’re proud of all job creators in the United States. That’s what people really care about.

OK I think we've seen enough. She's a bad person. I think she's so bad that she has no chance. No one can make this many undefendable, crazy statements and survive the scrutiny of a run for the presidency. That would be like if George Bush could get elected! Wait. . .

We need to keep her feet to the fire. When she claims things we HAVE to ask for the evidence. Show your cards. Don't let her just spout off and then get back on the plane to the next sound bite option. I hope she does many more interviews because anybody who has read anything can take her apart easily.

2012 Presidential Race

Here we go again!

I’m disgusted with the current state of our government. It is a do nothing, CYA, pit of hollering at each other. It is impossible for anyone to simply have a good idea. If a Republican has an idea it is BAD as reported by the Democrats and visa-verse. By definition! No one can break ranks without being ostracized by his or her own party. There is no real debate and no real consideration of what is best for the country as a whole. All proposals are looked at ONLY in the light of ‘what does this do for me and my party’. The hell with ‘the people’.

In that light I’m tempted to just ignore the whole thing. The process upsets me. The bickering is annoying and really the whole thing just becomes depressingly boring. Tempted.

But here comes a new year ending in said election. So, I need to buck up, do a little reading and try to sort out what the candidates really say (should they actually say something) from all the hollering and posturing. I think I’ll start by just reading up on one candidate at a time and writing about them.

I’ll try to keep and open and reasonable mind as I read and write but from the outset I’m going to be leery of anyone who thinks he has an upper hand just because he is more pious than another. I don’t expect America to elect an atheist anytime soon but I’d at least like to find a candidate who, 1. Understands the essence of the separation of church and state and, 2. one who is not anti-science nor anti intellectual. I know that by saying those two things I’ll not find a candidate at all but I’d like to keep banging the drum for reason and for keeping myths out of government.

Now. . .who shall I start with. . .

Jesus Toast!

Tired of waiting for the savior of mankind to appear on your morning toast? Who isn't. Well wait no more!

Jesus Toaster

Just goes to show you - you can sell some people anything! (I kind of want one though)

JESUS CRUST!

Anthropic Principle

One time a theist friend challenged my atheism by asking me, “How do you explain goodness”? A flippant answer would be, “How do you explain badness”? but I think there’s a better answer.

Think of proto-humans. Short, slow, no claws or fangs. We had sizable brains but not early on. About the only remaining way for the humanoid branch to continue to grow was for packs of us to stick together. Evolution would select cooperation over eating our young or our neighbor’s young for example. This is not unlike the anthropic principle in cosmology. The physical constants and age of the universe are apparently just right for consciousness because we’re here to observe them. Because we’re here at all ‘proves’ that what we now call ‘goodness’ must have evolved naturally - was naturally selected. I put proves in quotes because I haven’t proven anything in a truly slam dunk logical way. On the other hand, which scenario seems more reasonable? That a magical entity whose existence cannot be demonstrated imbued humans with ‘goodness’ and that’s why we’re good and don’t kill each other, or drop bombs on each other, or lie to each other, or steal from each other OR that overall we are more good than bad (regardless of the evening news) because evolution would pick that otherwise I wouldn’t be here to make this clever argument!

What's Next?

I'm reading an article on CNN about the controversy on what to call a 'Chirstmas tree'. It was a holiday tree in Wisconsin's capital and now it's a Christmas tree again. In Rhode Island it's no longer a Christmas tree but is now a holiday tree. Lots of loud talking from theists and atheists alike on what's proper.

This past year has seemed especially busy in the formation of free thinking student alliances on campuses around the country and by the multitude of atheist billboards going up. Of course each of these is accompanied by the usual loud talking and fist shaking by both sides.

And I tire of it.

I started this blog about 6 years ago. I've been reading other atheist blogs, I've read Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens. I read Friendly Atheist every day. Now, I can't help but wonder what is next? The writing, the arguments, the billboards all seem the same, same, same.

And I tire of the rhetoric.

I'm all for and excited about the modern atheist movement but it seems stuck in 'billboard' mode. While I think it's important for the message to continue to go out I yearn for something more. What would that be?

The only thing I can think of that would really stir the pot is if atheist numbers and organization could get to the point to support and promote a truly free thinking, free speaking, atheist political candidate at the senate or governor level. I think we're years away from that but I'd like to think that it is going to happen sometime.

How great would it be for a reporter to ask the candidate about his religious affiliation and have him look straight into the camera and say, 'Atheist'. Follow this by asking the reporter in what way belief, faith, adherence to myths, etc is connected to governing?

In the meantime I guess we just keep banging the drum and speaking our minds. Freely and reasonably.

Magic Sweatshirt

I’ve been running better lately. A little farther. Maybe faster and just generally feeling better while running. Yesterday I had my first bad run in a while. Only went a quarter mile and turned around and came walking/jogging back.

But I had my longest run in a long, long time today (4 miles!) and felt pretty darn good too. What the hell happened yesterday? Hmmm….

I know! Of all those recent runs it was the only one where I didn’t wear my old Maine East High School sweatshirt. So what have we learned children?

THE SWEATSHIRT IS MAGIC.

The same logic works for prayer. When you pray for someone or something and it ‘works’ we’re happy to celebrate the magic while ignoring the millions of other explanations for the outcome. Our prayers were ‘answered’. One reinforcement of a magical hypothesis tends to make many of us ignore other possibilities and conclude that the hypothesis has been proven to be true. This is especially true if you WANT the hypothesis to be true because you’ve already made a philosophical and monetary commitment to magical happenings and their trappings.

So, besides lacking my magical sweatshirt what else could have been different about yesterday’s run? What did I eat the night before? How much sleep? What time of day did I run? Temperature for the run? Wind? There are hundreds of variables and thousands of combinations of those variables that work for or against us runners. We sort out some as we learn about our own running bodies. I cannot run before 7. I can’t and there is not enough magic in any shirt to change that. I can’t run 2 days in a row (very often). My body needs an easy day between runs. Things like that.

When someone is prayed for AND they recover from an illness some think they’re prayers have been answered. Well, they were ‘hoping’ for such and outcome (I can’t find a real difference between hoping and praying) and they got it. It certainly is tempting to conclude that one caused the other but there’s no logical reason to do that and a million other factors to consider. The drugs worked. The doctors diagnosis was correct. The body heals itself sometimes and so on.

Does praying for someone make the one doing the praying feel better? I think it does. I think it makes them feel like they're doing something in a time of maybe feeling helpless. That's fine and I'd never interfere. But ease up on schools and government involvment with church and prayer ok? And don't get on your high moral horse with me if you're praying for someone and I'm just hoping.

Well tomorrow is an off day for running but I'll be back on it come Saturday. I better remember to get that sweat shirt in the wash!

Virgin Mary's Belt

I read a number of atheist blogs daily which can be uplifting. Some good news here and there with billboards and what not. And then, something like this comes along and I'm reminded of how screwed we are because of our unthinking adherence to magical thinking.

From the NY Times:

MOSCOW — From morning all through the night, tens of thousands of Russians have been lining up since Saturday in the cold with just one aim: to kiss a glass-covered reliquary that they believe holds the Virgin Mary’s belt.

(by the way, in a video on CNN I don't see anyone cleaning the plastic (you can't actually kiss the belt itself) between kisses. Just imagine. . .

All in all about a half million people stood in line in sub zero temperatures for over 26 hours to get a turn at kissing the belt. Why? Because it's supposed to cure of some minor ills but more importantly its supposed to increase fertility. Russia's population is declining so this might be a way to make more people. And of course it is just really, really extra 'holy'.

Where to start?

1. How the fuck could anyone prove that this is the belt of the virgin Mary when you can't even prove that the virgin Mary herself ever existed?

2. How would it work? Oh wait, I know. . . if we could explain it it wouldn't be a miracle and that would suck all the magic out of it. Plus, if you're actually kissing plexiglass several centimeters above the belt how does THAT work. What if you kiss air a foot above that? What if you just blow it a kiss. Tongue? What if I make a kissing sound here in Chicago but aim my kiss toward Moscow?

3. Maybe Russia's population is declining because IT IS A SHITTY PLACE TO LIVE WITH A SHITTY CORRUPT GOVERNMEMT! Maybe do some work on that side of the ledger instead of kissing a fucking belt and you might actually effect some change!

4. They had belts then?

5. Now virgin Mary's garter belt might be a different story!

6. Why do I even try. . .

Oh and that creepy priest with the beard and the hood. . . . can kiss my ass for promoting this kind of drivel.

Candidates and Christ

Reading at CNN today about Cain's 'spiritual' path to presidential candidate. Shockingly, he felt that God was telling him to run. Of course there's also the usual bible belt, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, God helps those that help themselves philosophy. Cain is a minor big shot in his church and so forth. But here's the thing. . .

When someone says God told him to kill the neighbor they are quickly put in jail and given treatment. When someone says God told them to run for president (or invade Iraq) they are considered glowing examples of 'spiritual' goodness. How do you know that God the prankster did in fact deliver both messages? You can't know this. You can't know whether God is really speaking to someone or whether they are just having that thought that God is speaking to them.

And, why do we still put belief in un-proveable conjectures as a yardstick for goodness? Americans will put a guy's 'spiritualism' way ahead of his ideas, his track record, his writing. If he looks good in a conservative suit and can proselytize he's got a shot. Especially in Iowa!

John Kennedy was a war hero, a writer, a thinker of big ideas, and a Catholic. He would be un-electable today. Why? He never made religion or 'spirituality' a premise or connected it with governing.

Here's Kennedy's famous speech where he does confront his Catholocism and makes some other dynamic points. It's worth a read. It's really worth a read. Parts in bold are my emphasis.

December 5, 2007

On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following is a transcript of Kennedy's speech:

Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

Transcript courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

See what I mean? Completely un-electable!

A Child's Brain

In my on-going research on science for young children I ran into this:

Children are naturally equipped to learn through observation and investigations. Every experience, every word, every toy deeply impacts her understanding of her world and the connections she makes. Every time a child learns something new, the brain rewires itself based on the child’s understanding. Every time the child repeats a task or a skill that particular neural pathway is reinforced and strengthened. “Learning changes the brain because it can rewire itself with each new stimulation, experience, and behavior” (Jensen, p. 13). (From Early Childhood News)

If you let a child continue to explore the natural world and help them along the way they would NEVER 'discover' god. There is no set of observations that would naturally lead one to conclude, "God did it". The only reason anyone has a belief in any god is because when they were very young a grown-up that they trusted told them about God. At a young age they are not equipped to challenge and moreover are wired to trust the adults.

God is only part of our cultural landscape because we keep re-telling the same old stories. God is NOT part of our natural discoverable world.

Pray for . . .

In the wake of the Penn State disaster one cannot but help but read about how we should pray for the victims, pray for JoePa, pray for Penn state, so and so is 'in our prayers. It goes on and on.

Here's what I think about all that: It's self-serving.

It is soooooo easy to say, "I'll pray for you". It makes you sound (to some) like a 'good' person. But in FACT there is not one shred of evidence that doing so does anything for the person being prayed for. Fifteen seconds reflection/research should convince even the devout of this FACT. So, to say that you are praying for someone or that you are promoting others to join you in praying for someone is just your own ego trying to launch your own self into the 'good person' club. Please. . . get over yourself. A billion Chinese people could give a rat's ass if you pray or not.

Listen, here's the best way to be in the 'good person' club. Get off your ass and DO something. Help somebody. Volunteer. Show up. Give money. You can pray all you want. That's fine. But let's back it up with something real, OK?

Tebow Changes his Name to Kneel

Ok, it's only football but the whole Tebow fiasco in Denver might just be a microcosm of what's wrong with religion. Maybe not wrong but better might be un-workable. So, the faithful, and by the faithful I mean white people in Denver, DEMANDED that the home team play Tebow. Why? Clearly and from every indication it was NOT because of his prowess as a NFL quarterback. Every scout and analyst agreed that he wasn't there yet and probably wasn't going to get there. He had the numbers to prove it!

In true 'screw the facts I believe what I believe' fashion fans actually bought billboards to the tune of thousands of dollars demanding that the Broncos start Tebow. They want him to start because they like him. They like him because he is a man of faith (he believes in invisible people). Somehow they are twisted enough to think that his faith would somehow make up for his lack of skill as a NFL quarter back.

It doesn't work that way.

Belief in invisible, pretend things will always run smack up against reality and lose every time.

Sorry Kneel!

FBI investigating Amish beard-cutting attacks

By Chris Welch, CNN

Bergholz, Ohio (CNN) - Members of the Amish community in eastern Ohio are the subject of a federal investigation following a wave of Amish-on-Amish incidents, FBI spokeswoman Vicki Anderson confirmed to CNN Wednesday.

I don't know. . .I just thought I'd never read a sentence with 'Amish-on-Amish incidents'.

That's all!

Gotta love Iran!

From CNN: I've excerpted the important parts of this news story. . .

Nadarkhani, the leader of a network of house churches in Iran, was first convicted of apostasy in November 2010, a charge he subsequently appealed all the way to the Iranian Supreme Court. In an appeals trial last month at a lower court in Gilan province, Nadarkhani refused to recant his beliefs.

After the trial, however, reports by the semi-official Fars News Agency on September 30 indicated that the charges against Nadarkhani have since changed and the pastor is now charged with rape and extortion. "This issue has nothing to do with his abandoning his religion," reported Fars.

"He is a Zionist and has committed security-related crimes," Gholomali Rezvanii said in the Fars News report. Renvanii is the deputy governor of Gilan province, where Nadarkhani was tried and convicted.

In a 2010 Iranian Supreme Court brief obtained by CNN, the charge of apostasy is the only charge listed.

Ok, I had to look up 'apostasy' but it seems this guy in Iran was basically convicted of being a Christian. I write about this to just show how ridiculous ALL religion is. It can even get THIS crazy in the 21st century. Iranian rulers don't even get that they will be exactly proving the point of this very ridiculousness if they actually hang this guy. I'm totally FOR freedom of religion and with that the total separation of church and state. That works for EVERYBODY.

I hope that world opinion comes to this guy's help. Not because he's a christian but because he's a human and should be allowed to believe what ever crazy shit he wants to believe.

And, by the way, does this whole story have an "Inquisition" feel to it? RECANT!

Cults?

Interesting to note that the Republicans (that would be the religious, evangelical, right) are busy arguing about whether or not Mormonism is a cult or not.

Two points. . .

My take on this is that ALL religions are cults. A group of people drawn to a bizarre idea involving invisible people living in the sky. That's a cult. Just because your membership is huge and you play golf doesn't mean you are NOT in a cult.

Secondly, its good to know that all of America's problems have been solved so we can waste time and ink on assholes arguing about Mormonism. Let's drop all this ridiculous rhetoric and get back to the real business of America: How many angels really CAN dance on the head of a pin?

We're doomed.

Nobel Prize

On Monday, the Nobel Prize for Medicine was give to Ralph Steinman, Bruce Beutler and Jules Hoffmann for their work increasing understanding of the immune system, which could lead to curing cancer and other diseases

Oh. . .once again no one in "Creation Science" won. Better luck next year!