Max on Life.

Max On Life is a pretty good book. It deals with major problems in our world and lays them our in a reasonable way. I didn't think much of Max Lucado before I read this but I think he is pretty cool now. All around good book.

The Evolution of Religion

What makes a certain belief a religion? Is it the organized belief in the supernatural, or is it simply the organized gatherings of a group of people all sharing the same belief? Richard Dawkins would say that it is the organized belief in the supernatural. However, I think that the term religion is relativistic: it changes according to the cultures interpretation of it at any given time. The term religion is relativistic because religion is relativistic: it changes over time and is not absolute. 

Dawkins would agree. He sees religion as simply the organized belief in the supernatural, and he is authorized to ascribe such meanings to the term. Since he can ascribe the meaning of the term, I, too, will ascribe a meaning. Religion, as I see it, is not simply the organized belief in the supernatural because the supernatural is too broad. It describes all of the forces that are beyond what we know as the laws of nature (which are simply observations of the universe that have not changed, however many times we observe them, but could change). This term, supernatural, could include all the obscure things that organized religions would not see as a religious: psychics, magicians (not the entertainment kind), witches. I see religion as the humanly practice of appeasing a god, gods, or God by doing rituals and deeds on Earth. Religion, in that sense, changes over time because each culture has different ways of thinking about their god or God. 

For instance, originally Buddhism had one form, which included the 4 nobles truths: all life is suffering, all suffering is caused by desire, desire can only be overcome by nirvana, and the eight-fold path leads to nirvana. Dawkins would agree that Buddhism is a religion. But as Buddhism became more popular, and as it reached farther east from India, Buddhism changed significantly. In Thailand, Shri Lanka, and Myanmar Buddhism remained in its original form, called Theravada Buddhism, or "the way of the elders." In this form, the Buddha has one function: he is a model and a teacher. The Buddha has no supernatural power and cannot help you at all. All that is left is the teachings of the Buddha. But as it stretched farther east (China, Tibet, Vietnam, Japan) the religion changed from the original Indian Theravada Buddhism to something called Mahayana Buddhism. In this form, the Buddha evolved from simply a great teacher to a a great savior. The Buddha, after dying, did not leave earth because of his compassion and decided to stay and give grace to those who struggle. 

Why did it change? Because the way China thought about the supernatural was different from the way India thought about the supernatural. Of course it was going to change. All religions change over time. 

However, under these understandings of religion (doing in order to be saved from suffering [hell, earth]; seriously evolving over time) should Christianity be considered a religion? Dawkins would say yes. I say no because it does not fit into the mold shaped by all other world religions. It is not focused on doing in order to receive God's forgiveness, or doing in order to evade life's struggles and the evade the torments of the afterlife. Christianity is not focused on doing; rather, it is focussed on receiving. That underlying concept automatically removes it from the other world religions: Buddhism is focussed on doing something in order to gain something (the noble truths, which you have to follow in order to gain  nirvana); Islam is focused on the requirements one must follow in order to gain eternal life, namely daily prayer, giving alms to the poor, abstinence from the fleshly desires during the month of Ramadan and the journey to Mecca, and even the Shi'ite and Sunni concept of Jihad (equivalent to the english word crusade). Christianity is distinct because Christians understand that idea of reaching up to God, hoping that He grabs our hand to save us, is a religious concept. The Christian concept is God reaching down to us and saving us because we cannot look beyond ourselves without any outside help. It is as if humans are continually looking at the ground, fixed on the things of the earth, and God lifts our head to fix our gaze on him. No other organized group that worships a supernatural being says that we do not save ourselves by the things we do, but are saved by the things God Himself did for us. 

This is why Dawkins, Christopher Hitches, and other commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. They are drawing a conclusion about a group of people based on a sampling that not nearly large enough. How often do we hear about Christian Jihads against different Christian denominations, which is essentially how Jihad started in the seventh century. (It was basically a war over who should be considered the proper successor of Muhammad. The Sunni said it should be whoever was best equipped for the position; the Shia said it should be the descendent of Muhammad. Ever since, there has been a holy war between the two.) Hitchens and Dawkins wrongly include Christianity into their concept of religion; a religion is not merely the organized belief in the supernatural, if one takes a closer look. Also, unlike other world religions, which, as we have seen with Buddhism, significantly change over time, Christianity, at its core, has changed very little over 2,000 years. Granted, the denominations today are in the hundreds. However, Christians agree that there is no need to wage a holy war against other denominations because the differences are merely secondary (for the most part). Christianity has changed and does change in different cultures that practice it, but it is not absolutely relativistic. Culture cannot ultimately change the doctrine influencing Christianity because so many understand and trust the inherency of the Bible as the Word of God. But culture has changed the doctrine of Buddhism. So I do think that religion is relativistic in nature, but Christianity is not for some of the reasons above. 

The government lies, as expected...

Thomas Nelson publishing company has provided me with a copy of "Lies the Government Told You," by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, and in return I write a detailed review of the book.

Napolitano goes through 17 lies that the government knowingly tells or has told over the course of its development.

Lie #1: "All Men Are Created Equal"

Lie #2: "All Men . . . Are Endowed byTheir Creator with Certain Inalienable Rights"

Lie #3: "Judges Are Like Umpires"

Lie #4: "Every Vote Counts"

Lie #5: "Congress Shall Make No Law . . . Abridging the Freedom of Speech"

Lie #6: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

Lie #7: "Your Body Is Your Temple"

Lie #8: "The Federal Reserve Shall Be Controlled by Congress"

Lie #9: "It's Only a Temporary Government Program"

Lie #10: "I'm from the Government, and I'm Here to Help"

Lie #11: "We Are Winning the War on Drugs"

Lie #12: "Everyone Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty"

Lie #13: "The Constitution Applies in Good Times and in Bad Times"

Lie #14: "Your Boys Are Not Going to Be Sent into Any Foreign Wars"

Lie #15: "We Don't Torture"

Lie #16: "The Right of the People to Be Secure in Their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects, Shall Not Be Violated"

Lie #17: "America Has a Free Market"

Napolitano is a strong supporter of the constitution and it is seen in this book. And being one who loves the constitution, I actually enjoyed the topics discussed in this book. Judging by the title of this book, I was a little discouraged at first because I thought it would be a book that just spends a lot of pages on just bashing certain individuals in the government, or a certain party, etc. But the critique of the government is actually well balanced and well presented. He brings up topics that are actually really interesting (Lie #4, Lie #11, Lie #12,  Lie #15), however it remains simply that: interesting. The fact is (as Napolitano says himself) our votes don't count as much as politicians say they do. They count, sure. But only at the State level, when the change needs to come with a greater width. While the topics are interesting, the ideas remain grounded because our government is the way it is now because the constitution was created to sustain an evolving government. Napolitano says that the founding fathers would not be able to recognize the government they intended to create if they saw it now, but they created a constitution that allows that to happen. Because his ideas in this book are nothing new, it not that significant of a book. However, if one is interested in understanding more about the inconsistencies with the government, this is good place to start. 

The Cosmic Anthropic Principle: Can People have Permission to Believe In God?

Is there any reason why people could believe in God? Is there evidence that one could give to support the claim if so? 

Science has advanced significantly since the time of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and even Einstein, to name a few. But with the monumental findings of these astronomers, mathematicians, and physicists eventually come more findings, which leads to a greater understanding of the universe and more staggering theories to help explain how the universe functions. In 1986, John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler published a book called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which dealt in full with the precise constants, elements, and parameters in the universe that allow humans to live on earth (Barrow 4,5). For example, the speed of light, the rate of expansion after the Big Bang, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear force, the asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the universe, are all just a few of the evident coincidences and specific laws found in the natural world (Collins 71-74). These examples illustrate a theory known as the Cosmic Anthropic Principle. However, the question must be asked, why are our universe’s constants so precise and “fine-tuned” for life on Earth?

            

Francis Collins, one of the world’s leading scientists and head of the Human Genome Project, gives us three possible options for explaining the Cosmic Anthropic Principle: first, as proclaimed by the so-called New Atheists, there are an essentially infinite number of universes, and our universe just happened to be one of the universes that was able to produce life; second, this is the only universe and the Big Bang simply created the specific characteristics needed for life due to random chance; third, this is the only universe and the precise tuning of the universe was specifically designed for life to exist, which suggests a creator and a designer (Collins 75).  Collins reveals that, based on probability, the second option cannot be taken seriously because the probability of generating a livable universe simply by chance is “vanishingly small” (76). As options, we are left with option one and three. The first option is based on the idea that completely different physical laws, constants, and parameters govern each of the multiple universes. Not every one of those universes would be able to produce life; our universe just happened to be one of the stable universes that allowed life to emerge over time. Contrary to the first option, the third option suggests that our universe was specifically planned and intentionally built for us by something outside of space and time. With this option, only one universe is necessary for life to emerge if it was prearranged for life to thrive in it. But both options cannot be true. Either the universe we live in coincidentally created stable and suitable living environments for human life to emerge because of infinite other universes out there, or there was simply an intentional plan behind our universe’s formation and our existence.

            

What many of the New-Atheists suggest is that no reasonable, thinking person should really consider that our universe was created specifically for us because all the evidence directs us past those “faith-based” conclusions. They say that, based on reason and the evidence, there is no rationale for believing in a creator. In an open dialogue session between Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, these New-Atheists conclude that the fine-tuning of the universe, with all of its precise physical laws, is not good enough evidence to suggest a creator because the fine-tuning can be explained naturally by suggesting the multiverse hypothesis (“The Four Horsemen”). Here, they explain, is where any conception of God is no longer necessary for this world. As these New-Atheists understand, “no scientific observation can reach the level of absolute proof of the existence of God” (Collins 78). But they conclude that the multiverse hypothesis is the best hypothesis for explaining the fine-tuning.

            

When investigating further, the question must be asked: is the multiverse hypothesis honestly the best hypothesis out there, or is it merely a cumbersome postulation? Where is the evidence? None seems to emerge, and will never emerge unless we find the lip of our universe, which is nearly impossible. So is belief in a creator illogical or is belief in the multiverse hypothesis illogical? I believe that the latter is true.

The first option to explain the fine-tuning of our universe, or the multiverse hypothesis, is merely speculative, with no evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis (Rees 150). The hypothesis not only has no valid evidence, but it violates Occam’s razor, or the principle that “when there are a variety of possible explanations, go with the one that requires fewest assumptions” (D’Souza 135). For the multiverse hypothesis to function properly as a possible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, there needs to be an infinite amount of other universes (Rees 150). But this further weakens the hypothesis because of the infinite amount of universes needed to create life in this universe violates a common law of nature; namely, that no such number truly exists in nature. Once we view the universe as it really is, with all of the constants and parameters holding our universe together, and with the fallacious multiverse hypothesis seen as illogical, we can then see that the Cosmic Anthropic Principle gives each person adequate permission to believe in a creator. I contend that a person does not need to have faith-based reasons to believe something supernatural, contrary to the New-Atheistic perspective. Rather, a reasonable, thinking person can indeed hold to a creation hypothesis based on reason and evidences that impartially suggest such a hypothesis.  

Each hypothesis, if taken seriously in science, requires evidence for it to be supported, and if no evidence emerges, the hypothesis cannot be taken seriously anymore. If one continues to believe in the hypothesis when there is little evidence, it can then easily evolve into a belief system. For the New-Atheists, and many other scientists, astronomers, and physicists, the multiverse hypothesis is precisely that: a belief system based on trust, with no truly compelling evidence. Martin Rees, one of the world’s leading astronomers, says that “if one doesn’t accept the ‘providence’ argument, there is still another perspective [multiverse hypothesis], which – though still conjectural – I find compellingly attractive.” He later goes on to confess, “This may not be an ‘economical’ hypothesis – indeed, nothing might seem more extravagant than invoking multiple universes – but it is a natural deduction from some (albeit speculative) theories, and opens up a new vision of our universe as just one ‘atom’ selected from an infinite multiverse” (Rees 150). As we can see, the New-Atheists cannot accept the idea that the universe is, as it were, “providential,” that is, made for us. But how far are they willing to go to reject the creation hypothesis?

It seems as if the multiverse hypothesis, as Rees explains, is very cumbersome scientifically. In fact, it violates many commonly held scientific virtues. For instance, “Kepler states that the square of the time of a planet’s revolution is proportional to the cube of its mean distance from the sun.” Kepler was “convinced that there had to be a beautiful mathematical relationship there hidden and waiting for him” (D’Souza 98). This shows that the universe can be explained mathematically, and that the foundations of the universe are not cumbersome postulations. Scientists, in looking for new patterns in nature, often ask “whether a relationship is ‘simple’ or whether it is ‘beautiful’” (D’Souza 99). Dinesh D’Souza states that “Patterns that are overly cumbersome or ‘ugly’ are often rejected on those grounds alone” (D’Souza 99). The multiverse hypothesis buckles under the weight of these scientific virtues.

Occam’s razor is a principle in logic, which basically asserts that in explaining something that can accept a wide variety of explanations, the best explanation is the one that makes as few assumptions as necessary. The multiverse hypothesis, which makes infinite assumptions, seriously violates Occam’s razor because those who support the theory “invent a fantastically complicated set of circumstances to explain a single case when there is a much simpler, more obvious explanation right at hand” (D’Souza 135). As the astronomer Robert Jastrow says, the observed fine-tuning of the universe, or the Cosmic Anthropic Principle, “is the most theistic result ever to come out of science” (qtd. in D’Souza 131). The multiverse hypothesis is making the most cumbersome, unconventional assumption. But, as Collins notes, in attempting to respond to the Anthropic Principle, there is simply no other option left for those who cannot accept the “providential” findings.

Another reason the multiverse hypothesis is illogical is due to the number of universes needed to make the hypothesis, in theory, make sense. Infinity, as a number, not as a concept of time, is merely a figment of our imagination. It exists in the world, but only in our minds. For example, “ we are each made up of between 10²⁸ and 10²⁹ atoms” (Rees 6). If we imagine the number of atoms there are in every human on earth, and, say, there are 6.8 billion people on earth, the number of atoms in every person would be 6.8³⁸. This incredibly massive number is extremely hard, if not impossible, to comprehend. However, it exists in our minds and on earth. Infinity is not the same as the number 6.8³⁸. Nowhere in nature can we find infinity of anything. Though the number of atoms in every human on earth is extremely huge, it is still observable and calculable in the natural universe. Infinity is not a real number found in nature, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously when dealing with nature and reality. The metaphysical multiverse hypothesis is simply that: beyond the realm of physics. Since it is beyond the realm of physics, and since science is evidence driven, the multiverse theory is no longer applicable as a valid hypothesis for explaining the Anthropic Principle because it is not only lacking in evidence, but it is also a metaphysical belief that should be on the same level as a religious belief.

Now that we have noticed that the multiverse hypothesis, or the first option for explaining the Cosmic Anthropic Principle, violates Occam’s razor, and makes scientific claims that are beyond the realm of science, why should the creation hypothesis, or the third option for explaining the fine-tuning of the universe, be considered a reasonable position? The New-Atheists, including many others, believe that the creation hypothesis offers a weak argument because the universe is flawed and not the best for life on earth. Avital Pilpel says that “if an omnipotent, perfect being created only one universe whose purpose is life, then the universe’s design must be the best possible one for life” (18). He goes on to explain that since the fine-tuning of the universe “is not as fine tuned as it could be,” and therefore is faulty and imperfect, it follows that our existence is merely coincidental and not as special as some “creationists” make it out to be. Pilpel calls this the argument from imperfection. However, does this argument from imperfection really “undermine the fine-tuning argument” (Pilpel 18)? Or is he merely ignoring the specific precision found in the universe and focusing on the secondary inconsistencies of the universe?

We can obviously see there are negative things about the universe and the earth; in about five or six billion years the Andromeda galaxy will crash into the Milky way galaxy; the earth is too hot or cold in some areas; the earth is infested with parasites (Rees 71; “The Four Horsemen”). These imperfections that are working against life on earth seem as if they debunk the fine-tuning argument, but what is necessary to remember is that life emerged on this planet, and because of that we are now able to see and understand that there are imperfections in the universe. Anyone can easily “debunk” the fine-tuning argument by focusing on the negative aspects of the universe alone. What Pilpel affirms is often called “Copernican modesty,” after “Copernicus’s revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa” (Rees 9). Pilpel rejects “anthropocentrism,” or the notion that humankind is the central and most important element of all existence, because of the imperfections found in the universe. However, an astronomer like Rees understands that our place in this universe is extremely rare. He says, “We shouldn’t take Copernican modesty (sometimes called the ‘principle of mediocrity’) too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved . . .” (Rees 9). If one is still compelled to believe that the life on this planet is not of any special relevance to our place in the universe, one must simply take a closer look at the evidence that suggests otherwise.

Rees explains, “Mathematical laws underpin the fabric of our universe – not just atoms, but galaxies, stars, and people” (Rees 1). One number, N, is equal to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. “This number measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between then” (Rees 2). Every substance found in the universe, even light itself, is influenced by gravity. Gravity is certainly present at an atomic level, but with more mass in an object the greater the gravitational force. The force of gravity may increase, but N will never increase or decrease with a change in an object’s mass. In real life, electric forces are the strong forces at work at the atomic level. However, if the strength of the electric forces that hold atoms together was weaker, and if gravity had been stronger at the atomic level, the universe would be extremely different. In other words, if N had six fewer zeroes, “gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves” (Rees 30). In a universe where the gravitational force was 0.000001 times stronger, “nothing as complex as humankind could have emerged” (Rees 30, 31).  Another number, Q, determines the texture and structure of the universe. Rees says that “the fact that this number is only 1/100,000 is really the most remarkable feature of our universe” (108). He says that astronomers and physicists do not understand why Q is precisely 10^-5 (Rees 115). Nevertheless, if Q was less than or greater than 10^-5, the universe would be “inert and structureless,” or “it would be a violent place, in which no stars or solar systems could survive, dominated by vast black holes” (Rees 3). These are only two specific numbers that shape the universe, but even two numbers can reveal that the “imperfections” of the universe, as Pilpel calls them, do not at all weaken the impact these numbers have on our place in the universe. The specific numbers, parameters, and constants impact our lives more than we even know. It would be naïve to say that our position on Earth has no relevance in the universe.

The Cosmic Anthropic Principle continues to mystify many scientists, physicists, and others. Why is the universe so fine-tuned for life? The New-Atheists assume that our position on Earth gives us no reason to assume a creator of the universe because it can simply be explained by invoking that there are infinite universes, or the multiverse hypothesis. But the multiverse hypothesis advocates have been unable to produce any compelling evidence for their position. The hypothesis also violates Occam’s razor and, because of the number infinity, is illogical and unnatural. As seen by Martin Rees’ calculations, the New-Atheistic assumption that belief in a creator requires faith is simply unwarranted. The New-Atheists and others continue to place great faith in the multiverse hypothesis even though it causes all who trust it to commit intellectual and scientific regression. The fine-tuning of the universe gives a reasonable, thinking person more than enough evidence and reason to believe in a creator. The decision is not faith driven, as the New-Atheists would suspect. Rather, the permission one receives from reviewing the Cosmic Anthropic Principle to believe in a creator is reason driven.

Sources

Barrow, John D., Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2009. Print.

Collins, Francis. The Language of God. New York: Free Press, 2006. Print.

D’Souza, Dinesh. What’s So Great About Christianity? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007. Print.

“The Four Horsemen—Transcript.” Richarddawkinsfoundation.org. The Richard Dawkins Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2010.

Pilpel, Avatil.  “Cosmos and Coincidence: Intelligence Design Theory Fails to Account for Suboptimal Design.”  Skeptic (Altadena, Calif.) 13.3 (2007): 18-19. Wilson OmniFile: Full Text Mega Edition. Web. 16 Oct. 2010.

Rees, Martin. Just Six Numbers. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Print.

The Bell of Atri and the Virtue of Obligation

I do not intend for anyone to read this blog, so the things discussed are merely, and selfishly, for me. However, if one or two wondering eyes just so happen to read this, I hope the things discussed are interesting for you.

What is the Bell of Atri?

It is an old story that takes place in the little Italian city of Atri and the bell placed in the middle of the market place. The bell was only to be rung in the case of a "wronging," or in todays language, a robbing, mugging, or any other illicit action. Once the bell was rung, many judges would meet at the bell and decide the case; whether or not the person was actually wronged and whether or not the perpetrator should be punished.

Over several years, the rope tied to the bell wore out, and eventually became too short in length. The rope was too short for little ones to reach. What would happened if they were wronged? The judges decided that they needed a new rope, but to get a brand new rope would take days and they could not afford the time. One man nearby ran to his garden and fetched a grapevine and tied it to the shortened bell rope. The judges accepted this new rope, and so everyone was safe once again.

Meanwhile, an old retired knight of the city of Atri pondered over the temporal things of life (i.e. riches). He became a miser: stingy, greedy, and obsessed with  gold. His old horse was neglected and became very thin and weak because his knight did not want to take care of him because it would cost too much. The horse would search for hours just to find a bit of grass. He was dying of starvation.

One day, he walked into the middle of the marketplace and saw the luscious grapevine hanging on the rope attached to the bell. All the people of the marketplace had been inside because of the extreme heat that day, which gave the horse even more reason to approach the vine. The horse, nearing death because of the unjustified neglect from his knight, took the vine in his mouth and began to chew. The vine, still fresh because it had not been tied to the rope for very long, was rather hard to chew, but the horse pull and yanked until he could taste its juices.

Suddenly, as the horse was yanking the vine, the bell rang. Everyone in the town thought, "Someone is being wronged! Someone is being wronged!" The whole town came out to see what was happening, and they all paused as they saw who was being wronged. "Ha!" cried one, "it is the knight's steed. He is coming to call for justice!" As everyone knew, the old miser had treated his horse wrongfully. The judges called for the knight and judged the case. They concluded that the knight had no reason to treat his steed wrongfully because his horse saved him from many dangers, helped him gain his wealth, and been with him for years and years. So they told him that half of all of his gold should be spent on giving the horse food, shelter, and nice, warm place to sleep. The miser hung his head, and grieved that he had to use his gold on the horse. But the people shouted with joy and the horse was led away to his new stall and a dinner such as he had not had in a very long time.


This virtue illustrates something very important. We, as humans, all have obligations toward one thing or another; be that other humans, relationships, duties, jobs, studies, or anything else. To live up to those obligations, we must sacrifice time, energy, money, and emotion. Unlike the old knight, the miser that was obsessed with temporal riches, we must understand the obligations that are most important to us. The knight did not understand it at the time, but his horse had been such valuable obligation. Because he did not understand the value of such a friend (or obligation), it cost him half of his riches.

This important virtue is almost entirely absent in the United States. Think of concepts like "one night stands," or sayings like "I don't need this from you, or, I don't want you anymore." Both are impurely selfish. The first is betraying all virtues that have to do with obligation to a man or women as a partner. The second is simply egocentric, with no concern for things outside of the self.

This egocentrism is wrong. Why? Lets go back to the virtue behind the Bell of Atri. How should we feel if the knight was let free because he was a knight (the world) with no obligations, and the horse was beaten for eating of the vine. It would be unfair. But why should a husband who leaves his wife because he doesn't feel in love anymore. If we compare this husband to the knight, we can see that the instances are similar.

The knight threw the horse out because the horse cost too much, and he felt that without his horse he could have more freedom to do the things he wanted with his gold (feeling). The husband left his wife because he didn't love her anymore, and felt that by leaving his wife he could have more freedom to do the things he wanted with his love (feeling). Both are selfish feelings and emotions. Why does one seem more unjust than the other, though? Relativism may have something to say about that. Relativism, however, should be considered as a topic for future writings.