The Universe is in Us

I simply can't get enough of this video. It's been a couple weeks since this video has been posted and is almost up to 2 million views! Of course whenever a video like this gets posted and shared there are some which bring up religion into the conversation. And that's okay, it's very human of us to see, reflect, and respond through our own specific personal view. That's the reason why I shared this video on my Facebook page and here as well. It echoes what is important to me.


 (Via Unreasonable Faith)

This video is not commenting on religion, God, or faith but the reflection of one astrophysicist, one fellow human being on our relationship to each other and the universe. Whether you believe in evolution or intelligent design is not important, what is astounding is the FACT that we are connected to each other. This astounding fact of our interconnection is what has guided me as a human being, a father, a husband, and neighbor more so than any other belief system. Of course the background music makes the video that much more beautiful.

My spirituality is not based on any religious background but on the sheer experience of being. I don't follow a creation myth nor do I have an infallible book with an infallible god to back up my spirituality. But as a very fallible human being with very fallible human thoughts I seek only to eat, drink and be merry. I travel through this life to love, be loved, and not prevent love for anyone else. Videos like these remind me that even if you and I don't share the same beliefs or views we share the same origin at the atomic level. Some theist would say that we are built with a drive to seek God, I would say that we have an inner drive to seek each other, to seek connectedness. You can see that by simply following the trend of people switching to smartphones to stay connected with the world (and yes I work for one of those smartphone companies). How can we ignore our global interconnectedness to neighbors suffering halfway around the world, or even down the street, when we have the world pouring into our living rooms through our TVs and phones? We can't ignore it. Those who want the good ole' days when gays, Muslims, and Atheists were out of sight out of mind will never reach their goal. The space between ourselves and our neighbors is evaporating and unless you're willing to live in a community out in the country secluded from the wilds of an increasingly interconnected world then have at it, the world is not going to go back to a time with less diversity and interconnectedness. But we can have so much more, we can be so much more, by accepting the fact that we are connected to and need each other.

Now that I finish this post I remember I posted a similar video (with the same exact title) back in September 2010 here. It was exciting then and now.

Beauty

Enjoy! The video says it much better than I ever could.



(via Unreasonable Faith)

Science Saved My Soul

Unreasonable Faith, how I love thee.

They recently shared this 15 minute gem entitled Science Saved My Soul. A must see video on the grandeur and overwhelming beauty of the universe. It makes you feel microscopic until you realize your relationship to it All. Absolutely breathtaking.



My favorite line:

Stars have died, so that I could live. I stepped out of a supernova. And so did you.

This video is in the same vein as the Atheist Spirituality videos I stumbled upon last Spring. I use the term spirituality in a non-supernatural sense to describe the awe of and connectedness to the universe.

Happy Powers of 10 Day! 10/10/10

Today is a day to sit back and increase our perspective of the world around us. Powers of 10 day is inspired by the 1968 film by Charles and Ray Eames, The Powers of Ten, a magnitude roller-coaster which takes us from the edge of the universe to the guts of a proton by factors of 10. Please excuse the lack of 21st century special effects.


Here's a similar, more modern clip from the Imax film Cosmic Voyage.



Still feel like we're the center of the universe? It would seem like an awful waste of creative energy if the cosmos was created merely for our enjoyment or to show off the glory and power of a monotheistic god. The universe just is, and we are a part of it just as much as it is a part of us.

The Universe Is In Us

I can't think of anyone else who gets me ecstatic about the cosmos as much as astrophysicists, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Every time he's on the Daily Show or on a History Channel documentary he lights up whenever he talks about the majesty and grandeur of the universe.



This clip is taken from a final "sermon" on cosmic perspective he closed with at the Beyond Belief conference in 2006. There is another interesting related video which also uses this clip to help explain what Atheists may celebrate. Darwin's birthday perhaps?

Creation

I recently got the chance to see the 2009 biographical drama, Creation, based on the life of Charles Darwin surrounding the death of his eldest daughter, Annie, and his struggle to write On the Origin of Species. Although it is a partly fictionalized account of Darwin's life it humanizes Darwin who is often demonized by Creationist for his elevation of scientific inquiry over the belief of God's Providence over all of creation. I admit I know very little of Charles Darwin as his books are on the bottom of my booklist (not for any particular reason though). I thoroughly enjoyed the interplay and inquisitiveness of Charles Darwin with his daughter but I connected the most with his struggle to balance his beliefs and scientific research with his love for his family and neighbors who felt threatened by his life's work.

All of nature is a battlefield...

Played by Paul Bettany, Charles Darwin is a man drawn to the beauty of nature. As he traverses gently through the woods with his children, he presents to them the struggle for life which is constantly happening all around them. And like nature, there is a struggle within all of us: a struggle in knowing our own mortality, a struggle to love and be loved, and a struggle to discover meaning within nature's battlefield. This is not a film toting the superiority of science over faith, but one man's struggle for balance between a search for truth unwrapped by the senses and truth felt by the heart. Is this an accurate historical portrayal of Charles Darwin? I'm not sure (it is a film), but I do know it is a human portrayal of a man who suffered from the death of his children, impacted most of all by the death of his eldest daughter, Annie. Is it wrong to question the Will of God when that same God takes your children from you? Is it wrong to to question the church's view on the nature and origin of man when our senses give us contradictory data? In the film, Darwin doesn't fear the questions but the implications which may come from people losing faith in God, the Constant behind the chaos. At the time, the world relied on the belief that everything moved within the power and guidance of God. Darwin who witnessed the balance of life and death in the natural world could not balance the savagery of the cosmos with a compassionate God.



Tell me a story about everything...

Darwin sought not to destroy God, as his friend Thomas Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley) would have liked (or as he's portrayed in the film), but to tell the story of everything: our origin, our evolution through history, and what the future may hold for us. He wanted to tell of the beauty and wonders of nature not bring society to its knees. Telling this story nearly killed him since he knew what it would mean for the ones he loved. Coming out to the world with the truth studied by our senses would crush truth accepted by the heart. To Darwin, there is no compassion in the universe which does not come from an outside source, it is all survival. This sense of accepting reality for what it is and the sense of despair which may come accompany it is summed up in his question, "Suppose everyone stopped believing that God had any sort of plan for us?" What then? Who or what do we turn to for strength, where do we go when the chaos presses in from all sides?

You have finally made an accomplice of me...

There is no dramatic twist at the end, Darwin finishes his book which has reshaped how we view the world. It may seem that the core of the film is about religion vs. science but that's too clichéd for my taste. The film is about our story, the human story, and all of its complexities and intricacy that comes with being human. We each have a story that we cling too, but cling too tightly and we ignore the big picture, the human story. As a species aware of its own mortality we fear the unknown, and as we stare into the unknown we struggle with what it all may mean. Life itself may not have any inherent meaning except that which we give it. This line of thinking is too chaotic for some and understandably they may turn to religion for strength as did Emma Darwin, played by Jennifer Connelly, after the death of their eldest daughter. Charles Darwin was not afraid to pull back the curtain of the unknown as he sought to learn the story of everything, yet he feared what may happen if he finished his book. The story may frighten us but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue telling it because we have each other to turn to, to lean on. Embracing our shared fear should inspire us to boldly continue because life continues. Life was here before us and will remain after us evolving into all manners of new life.

I must say that although many people, especially here in the States, may find it uncomfortable watching a movie about Darwin (a biographical drama based on his life) I highly recommend watching it.

How Good Do We Have to Be? Part 1- A Story of Emergence

I've recently dusted off and began reading Harold Kushner's enlightening book, How Good do We Have to Be?, and so far I'm enthralled by it. In this book Rabbi Kushner addresses the issues of guilt and forgiveness before a compassionate, and understanding God.
Everyone knows the story: Adam and Eve, the parents of mankind, made one fatal mistake and we continue to pay the price for it. The story is often interpreted as detailing the origin of our Fall from Paradise and ever since then the divine has been harder and harder to reach. As you read along through the Old Testament, God distances himself further and further away from mankind as we struggle to hold onto that relationship. The writers of the New Testament wrote their books of the One who bridged God and man together again both by his actions and his being, Jesus Christ. As the followers of The Way began to flourish the early Christian community looked back into the scriptures for prophecies of Jesus and introduced a new creative spirituality to the world, Christianity. These are the lens in which the concept of Original Sin and the nature of Man are understood within mainstream Christianity. Kushner introduces the reader to questions which puts our previous interpretation of the Eden story under a microscope, not to tear it apart but because the old interpretation leads to too much guilt and an unreasonable quest for perfection.

"Isn't this a harsh punishment for one small mistake-- pain and death, banishment from Paradise, for breaking one rule? Is God really that strict?...And perhaps the most troubling of all, if the forbidden tree was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, does that imply that Adam and his mate had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate it? If so, how could they have been expected to know that it was wrong to disobey God? And why were they punished if they had no sense of good and evil before they ate it?" -How Good do We Have to Be, Chapter 2.

You may interpret and read the story as a historical retelling of literal events but I believe the questions should still be asked regardless of our beliefs. Atheist point to this story as an example that the God of the Bible is a petty, strict, and all around unloving God who does not deserve worship. Christians point to this story as proof that the gulf between Man and God is our fault and we deserve death for our sinfulness, for making that one fatal mistake. So how do we interpret this in the 21st century without falling into the trap of eisegesis? What does a 21st century listener get from these old tales? Rabbi Kushner reinterprets the Genesis story of not one of guilt, sin, and punishment but a tale describing our journey of evolution out of our animal life,

"It is the story of the first human being graduating, evolving from the relatively uncomplicated world of animal life to the immensely complicated world of being human and knowing that there is more to life than eating and mating, that there are such things as Good and Evil. They enter a world where they will inevitably make many mistakes, not because they are weak or bad but because the choices they confront will be such difficult ones...The story of the Garden of Eden is not a story of the Fall of Man, but of the Emergence of Humankind." [Ch. 2]

I doubt that the writers of Genesis knew about evolution (the sun did revolve around the Earth back then) but were at least aware of our differences between human and animal existence. Our lives are much more complex than theirs with the flexibility to commit acts of Good and Evil. The God of Vengeance no longer speaks to us in the 21st century not because we have outgrown the divine but because the vengeance, which took the form of natural disasters and illness no longer spooks mankind. We have studied the mechanics of the universe, the divine vengeance portrayed in the Bible is no more than mankind's limited understanding of nature in an age when everything was attributed to the gods. The curtain has been pulled back, and the Wizard has been revealed. Mankind understands now that things just happen, and God may not have the power to stop it. But as Rabbi Kushner expresses in his incredible book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, God may not have the power to stop it but he will sit with you through the darkest of storms.

God's decree of work, parenthood, and our sense of morality is exactly what separates us from the animals, what makes us human. Kushner points out that God gave mankind a cautionary warning about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, as if saying "it will hurt to know Evil, but what joy it is to know Good." Is Rabbi Kushner's creative interpretation worth retelling? Does it speak to you, and if so what is it saying? How would history have turned out if we began with an interpretation of emergence instead of an interpretation of guilt, or was this interpretation only possible with the emergence of the enlightenment and our knowledge of the cosmos?

The second chapter ends with a beautiful retelling of Genesis as to how the story might have ended if Adam and Eve chose to remain in Paradise (i.e. living an animal life).

HOW THE STORY MIGHT HAVE ENDED

So the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and a delight to the eye, and the serpent said to her, “Eat of it, for when you eat of it, you will be as wise as God.” But the woman said, “No, God has commanded us not to eat of it, and I will not disobey God.”
And God called to the man and the woman and said to them, “Because you have hearkened to My word and not disobeyed My command, I shall reward you greatly.” To the man, He said, “You will never have to work again. Spend all your days in idle contentment, with food growing all around you.” To the woman, He said, “You will bear children without pain and you will raise them without pain. They will need nothing from you. Children will not cry when their parents die, and parents will not cry when their children die.” To both of them he said, “For the rest of your lives, you will have full bellies and contented smiles. You will never cry and you will never laugh. You will never long for something you don’t have, and you will never receive something you always wanted.” And the man and the woman grew old together in the garden, eating daily from the Tree of Life and having many children. And the grass grew high around the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil until it disappeared from view, for there was no one to tend it.

---

Part 1: A Story of Emergence
Part 2: Guilt and Shame
Part 3: The Cycle of Guilt
Part 4: The Wholeness We Seek
Part 5: Is There Enough Love for Everyone
Part 6: Final Thoughts

Toddler Morality: Bred in the Bone

Science is at it again trying to prove something many of us already know: we are born with an inherent sense of morality. Of course this doesn't jive with many people who believe we are evil from birth (Gen 8:21) but the article on baby morality I came across (via good ole' RNS) is still quite intriguing (albeit a bit dated). Evidence is now showing that we are born with a rudimentary sense of right and wrong although Paul Bloom, one of the researchers of the study, states that socialization is still important because "the sense of right and wrong that they naturally possess diverges in important ways from what we adults would want it to be." The difficulty of researching the morality of babies is due to their inability to communicate clearly and their limited behavior. Researchers have found that if they were to measure their 'looking time', how long they stare at an object of interest, they can discover a window into the mind of a baby. I found it mind blowing that infants have a naïve understanding of physics, mathematics, and even psychology. So what about a naïve understanding of morality?

"Scientists know that certain compassionate feelings and impulses emerge early and apparently universally in human development. These are not moral concepts, exactly, but they seem closely related. One example is feeling pain at the pain of others."

Many parents may have noticed babies crying at the sound of other babies crying or attempt to comfort the distressed baby by gently touching or handing over a toy. As a referee for my own two rascals I admit I might have, as well as most other parents, taken credit in the past for teaching my kids how to "play nice" with other toddlers but now that I think about it they have displayed moral actions, regarding social interactions, which seemed almost instinctual. But morality is more complex than a basic form of compassion.

"Babies and toddlers might not know or exhibit any of these moral subtleties. Their sympathetic reactions and motivations — including their desire to alleviate the pain of others — may not be much different in kind from purely nonmoral reactions and motivations like growing hungry or wanting to void a full bladder. Even if that is true, though, it is hard to conceive of a moral system that didn’t have, as a starting point, these empathetic capacities. As David Hume argued, mere rationality can’t be the foundation of morality, since our most basic desires are neither rational nor irrational."

Take a look at some of the experiments (using puppets!) which led to Bloom's findings.



Do infants come into the world with an innate sense of right and wrong, and if they do what is the Source? Is it just a product of biological evolution and if so how does that affect how we identify ourselves within a religious context? A baby's morality is primitive but it is the foundation in which we build our society, our culture. We just have to ask ourselves if we're helping or hindering the morality bred into all of us. Is it too far fetched to imagine that our neighbor whom we share the same bones, the same breath, the same dust is not also attempting to instill a refined sense of morality into their children based on their culture? Do we not share the same goals, the same hopes, and the same aspirations for the next generation?

The article concludes with the arguments as to whether this simple morality was designed by God or just a product of evolution. Regardless where we might stand on the issue the evidence still states that babies don't begin life as amoral creatures. Is it not going against nature, or God for the believers, to teach or children to be unjust to our neighbors? Is it not "unnatural" for us to teach our children tribal loyalty and divisive views which creates out-groups and inequality? Have we forgotten our origin, our simple notions of right and wrong or are we just ignoring them?

Empathy is the Invisible Hand

Tim King over at Post Christian has recently shared an incredible video on mimetic theory, empathy, and the evolution o our internal wiring on how we interact and identify with our fellow man.



Click on over to Tim's site for his response, but I have to say that I am also wild about this stuff. This video brings up all sorts of intriguing question my favorite by far is "why stop here?" in relation to how we identify ourselves and the "alien" other. If history shows us that our ties have been growing to include people we've identified as The Other in the past, why do we feel the need to stop? Do we need The Other to self-identity? Is there any danger in embracing our human neighbors in whom we share our genetic material? And if we choose to embrace more global ties do we necessarily have to lose and/or reshape our prior identity (cultural, religious, etc.)?

The Spirituality of an Atheist- Part 2

"I don't believe in anything outside the natural world." ~Cristina Rad

Cristina is one of the more rational, engaging, and approachable Youtube Atheist I've come across. In this video Cristina talks about her thoughts on Spirituality as an Atheist. Both Cristina and A. Hughman, another Youtube Atheist, both agree and explain in recent videos that the spirit and spirituality may have more to do with Man's unique characteristics and experiences of imagination, consciousness, and beauty than anything supernatural. Yet they both leave room for wonder, awe, and mystery. Just because we understand the mechanics of a rainbow doesn't make it in any less beautiful or keeps us from, as Cristina puts it, "admiring it like a fool."



I like to call these moments of awe, love, and beauty we experience, God. I don't worship or pray to it, but wish to simply breathe it in and experience, simply BE. I believe it is when we try to capture this experience and, as A. Hughman puts it, "prostitute the awe" do we fail to grasp the sheer joy and excitement of simply living.

Richard Alpert on LSD

As we move on from Alan Watts to Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) in my American Spirituality class, I've enjoyed perusing Youtube videos on his speeches so that I may gain a deeper understanding on this contemporary spiritual teacher. Here is a clip of Richard Alpert (after his Harvard days I'm assuming) on the value of LSD and its benefits to humanity.

Literal Interpretation of the Flood

Genesis 6:17-22 (ESV)

¹⁷ For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. ¹⁸But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. ¹⁹And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. ²⁰Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. ²¹Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them." ²²Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

My little girl loves her new Ark she got for Christmas even though she doesn't have two of every kind of animal. Do you know how hard it is to find an Aye-aye 3 days before Christmas?

The Clock and it's Maker

I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one? (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)

---

Atheist would argue there is no clockmaker and if there were one he's a pretty shoddy one. There is no point in acknowledging a clockmaker that would intentionally let people suffer. The clock is all there is and ever will be, let's leave it at that.

Believers would argue that there is indeed a clockmaker who made the clock, and all of its complex mechanisms. To not acknowledge the maker is an ungrateful act for the life He has given us. There is more than just the clock, and both are intertwined with each other.

The question is can WE as humans break the Spiritual down into the Physical? The spiritual realm, if one even exists, can not be measured, weighed, or even calculated yet billions of people believe in it. They have trouble describing it because it can't be perceived by the human mind, yet they say it is something you experience. You can not rationalize, measure, or even calculate God, nor does merely believing in Him justify his existence. Atheists can not wrap their minds around believing in something they can not measure anymore than believers can wrap their heads around not believing. Both camps have ways of convincing the other (and I've read a lot of them) but they are both missing the point. They are looking at the Clock/Clockmaker relationship from two different views attempting to answer the same question of purpose. Those who see just the clock say that we should start building a paradise here instead of searching for the paradise in the hereafter. Religion and its bloodthirsty God has caused too much strife, conflict, and death and we should remove the shackles of religion so that we may make progress. Those who see a Maker behind the clock say that acknowledging the Maker is a part of paradise either in this life or the next. Religion is an important part of the Human experience and can not be carved out to be thrown away. We need God as much as we need to breathe.

I, on the other hand, take a middle of the road approach. I can not say there is a Maker behind the clock, but I believe there is one. This belief does not blind me from accepting scientific theories and explanations on the creation, evolution, and current state of the universe. In this sense I could be considered an agnostic. Science is man's tool to measuring, weighing, and analyzing the universe. Unless we discover better methods for examining the universe I can't disagree with scientists as long as their results haven't been tampered to meet certain political agendas. It just wouldn't be called pure science any more.

It is because of the profound beauty and intricate complexity of the inner mechanics of the clock that draws me to belief in a Creator God (which can very likely be the universe itself as an eternal creative energy source). Is there a Maker behind the Clock? If it can be discovered through science then I'm sure it will. Does there need to be a Maker behind the clock for the universe to have meaning? No, it doesn't. We, carriers of the Human Spirit, give this universe meaning. Individually, we define who we are, where we're going, and what we do with our lives. I'd rather spend my life in awe of my existence than bicker and peck over the source of all life. Whether or not God exists or even if he can or cannot hear my prayers I give thanks for the opportunity to exist and I pray I may guide myself in a manner worthy of the life I've been given.

Religion in 20XX: Part 1- The Evolving Universe

Within the last month I've become intrigued by the vast amount of sci-fi books that mention religion. Outside of the Dune series I had no idea that sci-fi writers would even acknowledge religion let alone interweave them into the plot. Sci-fi, as a genre, has enormous potential and room to grow. It can take us to worlds we can only dream of and envision possible futures for humanity here on Earth. We must always keep in mind that even though the future is not set in stone we must learn to guide our race towards peace so that we can live to see it unfold.

---

My first Robert Sawyer book was his 1999 novel, Flashforward, where the consciousness of every single person on the planet jumped 23 years into the future and had a brief glimpse of their own future. It's a thought provoking book that has introduced me to new theories and ideas on Free Will, the nature of the universe, and human identity. I recently read Calculating God and although it reads more like a debate between an Atheist and a Theist than a novel, I was still intrigued by introduction of various new ideas which I'll spend my free time pondering. Calculating God follows Tom Jericho, a Canadian paleontologist, as he works alongside the first alien visitors who claims that God has been actively involved in the evolutionary process by causing five simultaneous cataclysms on three different planets.

I had asked in a previous post if we made contact with aliens what, if any, religious beliefs would they hold? One of the novel's major themes deal with the evolution of sentient life on each of the planets. Two alien species from two different planets come to visit Earth in search for evidence of a Creator, the Forhilnors and the Wreeds. During our simultaneous evolution both Forhilnors and Humans evolved with the ability to count and master mathematics. The Wreeds, on the other hand, struggle with mathematics because their bodies evolved differently and never had any need for math. The Wreeds have a single black 360 degree strip at the top of their torso which acts as their eye that allows them to have a panoramic view; basically, they can see in all directions at the same time. They are physiologically unable to concentrate on any one object but "they can predict without explaining-their logic is intuitive, not deductive". Although lacking mathematical skills their intuition allows them to "know" how to build and plan beautifully structured cities on their home world. This intuition also allows them to determine and solve moral and ethical problems that we struggle with in the 21st century. Take the moral issue of abortion for example. The Wreeds would say that if a race has methods of contraception then abortion should not be an issue, if one does not desire to have a baby the logical solution would be to use contraception. In case of incest or rape the Wreeds would consider these as exceptional cases occurrences and "general principals should not be based on exceptional cases."

The Forhilnor's know, not believe, there is a Designer that designed the parameters, properties, and laws that govern the universe. They came to this conclusion by studying the universe itself. They believe in a First Cause God that created the universe (or at least this universe) and they are searching for proof that God had been meddling with the evolutionary process.

The Wreeds, because of their intuitive minds, seem to be more mystic than scientists. They intuitively know that there is a God and they spend a good portion of their time trying to communicate (not pray) with God through a method of meditation. They believe there is nothing more important than a lifelong pursuit to communicate with God.

The three species, although differently intelligent, have evolved to become the sentient species on their respective planets, and even though they disagree on certain matters of genetics, origins of life, and God they understand that each of them think differently because of their environment and origin. What does this tell us about those who think and believe differently than ourselves? Would you strive to understand them or just brush them off as ignorant, backward, or even lost? This is where the critical moment of inter-faith dialogue comes into the forefront. To share your belief, your piece of a God-Sized puzzle, with others is a beautiful process, connecting with your fellow man, binding ourselves to one another as we journey through our short existence in this reality. But, looking down on others while holding beliefs of religious superiority ("Your beliefs are backward and ignorant, mine are better.") taints the hopeful spirit of your message and drains the validity of your words. It is better to understand your brother's belief in the context of their environment and origin than to humility them into accepting your beliefs by considering them inferior. This is true of ANY AND EVERY message be it from an Atheist, Sikh, Christian, or Pagan. If they see a glimmer of truth in your message it is up to them whether they consider it to be truth regardless if you do.

If man is to progress, to adapt, to evolve in the 21st century then we must overcome our tribal nature. This doesn't mean that we must discard our differences, but strive to remove the violence, anger, mistrust, and misconceptions that can arise because of our differences. We must learn to live within our smaller tribes while always remembering that we are part of a larger universal tribe.

The Fallibility of Mortality

These are MY words that begin and end at the brain, be it yours or mine. They start off as an electrical impulse in the brain that travels down towards my finger tips. My fingertips strike the keys and the information on the screen is then received by my eyes, travels down the optic nerves, and makes its way back to the brain. If the information on the screen is incorrect my brain begins the process of correcting it. This all takes place in fractions of a second but the choices all take place within the Human Mind.

[Note: I usually give credit for any pictures I use but I can't seem to find the artist for this one.]

The Human Mind is an intricate and complex organ and we are millenniums, maybe even centuries, from completely unlocking its full potential. Until then we are susceptible to errors and mistakes because of our fallible Mind. We may have a vast amount of information in making decisions but without COMPLETE and UNIVERSAL knowledge one can never make an error free decision. There is always a slight possibility of error with any decision made by the Human Mind including decisions of the heart. We may not be able to choose the correct belief concerning the Divine by using reason and logic because even decisions of the heart are susceptible to errors chosen by fallible Man.

So how can the Immortal hold the Mortal responsible for choosing the belief system? It is impossible! Some say that when you make the right choice you can feel it in Mind, Body, and Spirit. But if this were true why are practitioners of competing religious traditions stating that they feel there view is correct? The emotional "life changing" test can not be the ultimate way of testing our competing views. A snowboarder can have their life changed by snowboarding as much as a Christian or a Buddhist can have their lives changed by their religious and philosophical traditions. Some would argue that this is not the case, that only a spiritual transformation can truly change and guide ones life. Yet even the spiritual transformation is processed and experienced by the Human Mind. A personal experience is no less significant than any other experienced in a religious or secular context. When we say "The Spirit is truly felt here, not there" this is a perception that is projected by the Human Mind.

Our best attempt will always fall short of the expectations laid out in the perpetual revelations streamed down by the Divine. I do not think (again, this is fallible I thinking) that God expects us to pick the right set of beliefs, it is impossible! There are hundreds and thousands of belief systems and religious doctrines, and to choose the right combination is Humanly impossible. Even the scriptures that codify the original revelations are riddled with Human error. This does not mean that God's Word (God's revelation and interaction with Humanity) is erroneous but that Man's involvement and interpretation is fallible. As soon as we understand our own fallibility we can begin relying on that which is Infinite, even if we can't define It.

It's in your Genes

Could your DNA determine whether or not you believe in God? Does that erase any notion of Free Will? "I can't help it that I believe in God, it's in my genes!" Or would it support the idea that sometime during Man's evolution we created God? When Dr Dean Hamer, director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, discovered the God Gene a few years ago he proposed

produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mystic experiences, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind.

Dr. Hamer has also written a book back in 2004 entitled The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes about his search leading him to VMAT2, the gene that turns up in self-transcendent people. Although Dr. Hamer and his colleagues have yet to publish their results in a scientific journal and have taken some heat from both the religious and scientific communities it is still a very intriguing find. It's still being debated if this gene contributes to a person's spirituality but the importance that this may help explain why we are "spiritual" adds to our understanding of humanity's essence.

What then if this gene does contribute to (or define the level of) our spirituality? Does that prove that God exists or is it just a result of evolution? Dr. Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, therefore healthier, improving their chances of having more babies. If spirituality (including religion) is just another stepping stone in Evolutions river then what's next? Can we as a species learn to let go of our ancient myths or is this proof that God exists and this is just another sign of his intelligent design?

Muslims have an interesting term describing the human spiritual drive. Fitra, meaning 'innate human nature' in Arabic, describes that we are born with this knowledge of the divine which acts like a compass that drives us to seek God. Of course this word is also used to describe the pure state of a person before they are brought up by parents with a faith other than Islam. Muslims prefer to refer to those embracing Islam as reverts rather than converts because they believe they are returning to that pure state.

Buddhists also have an intriguing view on gene-based spirituality. Robert Thurman, professor of Buddhist studies at Columbia University, says

Buddhists have long entertained the idea that we inherit a spirituality gene from the person we were in a previous life. Smaller than an ordinary gene, it combines with two larger physical genes we inherit from our parents, and together they shape our physical and spiritual profile. The spiritual gene helps establish a general trust in the universe, a sense of openness and generosity.

This gene might also be used to scientifically explain what prophets experience when they commune with the divine.

"Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene. This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic make-up. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation - it's like intelligence."

When I read this my very next thought jumped to Eli Stone, the now canceled ABC series about a lawyer/modern-day prophet who receives divinely inspired visions of the future due to an inoperable brain aneurysm. His father also had the same brain aneurysm and in the current second (and regrettably final) season his brother also had it for one episode. It's not that God couldn't communicate with Eli without the brain aneurysm but that's just what God used to send his messages.

Is a God Gene really needed to have faith in the Divine? While it is interesting I don't think that it is. That's why it's called Faith, either you have it or you don't. I believe because I can't imagine a complex Universe like ours without one. That doesn't mean I'm correct in fact I don't wish to be correct. My goal is to learn, live, and love as much as I can passing my spirit (and genes) to my children and theirs so that we all might enrich humanity and keep our species alive.

The Omega Point

I just finished reading Robert Sawyer's Sci-fi novel Flashforward. In the novel scientists at CERN are performing a run using the Large Hadron Collider to search for the Higgs boson. During the experience the entire human race loses consciousness for 2 minutes and experiences visions of events 21 years into the future. Humanity awakens to find that their visions of the future came with a terrible price: planes crashed in take off/landing, the freeways became graveyards, and thousands more were either injured or killed by devices needing human control. It presents themes of free will vs. predestination and has introduced me into new ideas about our universe.

One concept that I found particularly intriguing quoted in the book is the Omega Point. The Omega Point, coined by Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, is used to describe "the maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which the universe appears to be evolving." In other words the universe is developing and being drawn towards a supreme point of complexity and consciousness, an "all knowing" computer intelligence. In Flashforward the author quoted Frank Tipler's use of the Omega Point, a mechanism for the ultimate fate of the universe where

computer-based life will eventually supplant biological life, and that information-processing capabilities will continue to expand year after year, until at some point, in the far future, no conceivable computing problem will be impossible. There will be nothing that the future machine life won't have the power or resources to calculate."[Flashforward, Ch. 16]

With essentially infinite processing capabilities the Omega Point will be able to replicate every person and every possible memory state throughout time. There may be "oodles" of possible humans and memories throughout time but it is a finite number. Therefore the Omega Point, which Frank Tipler associates with God, will be able to "resurrect" every single person in a virtual reality emulation. He argues that this is possible because

as the universe comes to an end in a specific kind of Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe will be accelerating exponentially faster than time runs out. In principle, a simulation run on this universal computer can thus continue forever in its own terms, even though the universal computer is embedded in a universe that will last only a finite time.

So why would an omniscience, omnipotent computer bring us back to life? Tipler says (quoting from Flashforward) that the Omega Point loves us. Now I have yet to read any of Tipler's books but I find this all very intriguing and I have to say sounds similar to the Matrix although we don't become batteries. Physics is way beyond my understanding but in Tipler's 2007 The Physics of Christianity he states that the Omega point is triune in its structure:

the Final Singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the All-Presents Singularity (which Tipler states exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the Initial Singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang), which Tipler identifies with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, respectively (successively, the First, Second and Third Persons of the Trinity).

So could God be this singularity/computer intelligence that watches over us as described in our religious texts? I don't know but this is a highly interesting theory. Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man states that the Omega Point unites Creation by drawing the Universe towards itself. This sounds similar to the concept of the soul's journey after death. The body is just a shell and the soul is immutable and indestructible which can then take on a new life through reincarnation until it achieves Moksha (in some Eastern Religions) or after Judgment the soul will then reap what it sowed by entering into Heaven or Hell (Western Religions). Does this Omega Point then choose which "souls" (or mathematical calculations) it will resurrect in the virtual reality emulation based on the person's beliefs or actions through life or will it resurrect everyone? This also bears some similarity to the conclusion of the Matrix Revolutions [Spoiler Warning!] when Neo allows his coding (his soul) to be reinserted into the Matrix. In Matrix Reloaded he was given the same choice to return his coding and then choose 16 females and 7 males to rebuild Zion so that the simulation can start all over again. The Omega Point which began as the source of creation draws all life to itself at the end of time.

Should Tipler then start a church of his own? Well I hope we don't have another sci-fi writer/prophet but it might be a movement that might outlast the other religions by interweaving faith and science and if it did gain momentum just think about the impact. How long would it take to be recognized as a legitimate faith? Would it be on the same level as the other religions or would they all consider it a cult? This is all based on a physics theory so don't take me too seriously I'm just thinking aloud. I'm not saying the world religions of today are outdated but any movement that does not adapt to its present environment will eventually become stagnant. And even then Humanity might outgrow faith altogether as some (if not all) atheist are proposing. We do have December 21st 2012 to keep us busy until then only time will tell.

Evilution

Right now I'm in the middle of watching the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed hosted by Ben Stein that came out earlier this year. I've watched the first hour and my impression so far is that it seems a bit one sided. Until they mentioned Hitler.

My first reaction was, "Are you serious?"

First I have to mention that I am not a film critic and I know as much about science as the average 24 year old college student.

Mitochondria: The power house of the cell.

Anyways, the first half of the film talks about how Intelligent Design is pretty much laughed at by real scientist and if, as a scientist or teacher, you mention Intelligent Design not only could you lose your career but you could also be blacklisted. Harsh. So then the film continues as to how real scientists that promote evolution go on the attack on Intelligent Design because they have some ulterior motive to sneak God back into schools.

"Okay, that's kind of pushing it but moving on..."

And then out of the blue David Berlinski, a leading critic of evolution within the intelligent design movement, raises the claim that Darwinism influenced the Nazis.

And that's when I had to stop watching (i'll finish it in a moment) and start blogging. At first the film sounded a bit one-sided, then it moved to a hint of propaganda, and then it took a swan dive into a festering pool of conspiracy theories.

---

My personal views on Intelligent Design? I see no reason why Intelligent Design can't at least be given a chapter alongside all the other scientific theories in a high school science book. I see nothing devious by just mentioning that some people believe that a Designer out there may have had a hand in designing this incredibly complex Universe we call home. I also believe that if there is a significant amount of evidence that supports a certain theory then I see no reason why that theory can't be taught. I believe evolution can work hand in hand with a First Cause God. So yes I have no problem with Evolution. Evolution DOES NOT lead to the Holocaust. Here's an example as to what the film is implying.

---

Darwin-->Theory of Evolution--->God does not exist-->Religions are fairy tales with moral teachings--->No need to be moral--> Heil Hitler!

Talk about a serious case of Six degrees of Adolf Hitler.

---

Now, Ben Stein does say that Darwinism does not equate with Nazism. But he then goes on to say "If Darwinism could inspire such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalize similar initiatives today?"

Darwin--> Theory of Evolution--->God does not exist-->Religions are fairy tales with moral teachings--->No need for moral--> Heil Hitler!-->Abortion, euthanasia, etc.

There's a whole list of controversies you can read up on about this film, but there was one particular highlight that I did enjoy. They showed a short clip from this 3d animation made for Harvard's Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology.

The Inner Life of the Cell