Step one

"A Designer Universe?

by Steven Weinberg

Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Austin
Winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics.

I have been asked to comment on whether the universe shows signs of having been designed.¹ I don't see how it's possible to talk about this without having at least some vague idea of what a designer would be like. Any possible universe could be explained as the work of some sort of designer. Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by an idiot.

The question that seems to me to be worth answering, and perhaps not impossible to answer, is whether the universe shows signs of having been designed by a deity more or less like those of traditional monotheistic religions—not necessarily a figure from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but at least some sort of personality, some intelligence, who created the universe and has some special concern with life, in particular with human life. I expect that this is not the idea of a designer held by many here. You may tell me that you are thinking of something much more abstract, some cosmic spirit of order and harmony, as Einstein did. You are certainly free to think that way, but then I don't know why you use words like 'designer' or 'God,' except perhaps as a form of protective coloration.

It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know. The human mind remains extraordinarily difficult to understand, but so is the weather. We can't predict whether it will rain one month from today, but we do know the rules that govern the rain, even though we can't always calculate their consequences. I see nothing about the human mind any more than about the weather that stands out as beyond the hope of understanding as a consequence of impersonal laws acting over billions of years.

There do not seem to be any exceptions to this natural order, any miracles. I have the impression that these days most theologians are embarrassed by talk of miracles, but the great monotheistic faiths are founded on miracle stories—the burning bush, the empty tomb, an angel dictating the Koran to Mohammed—and some of these faiths teach that miracles continue at the present day. The evidence for all these miracles seems to me to be considerably weaker than the evidence for cold fusion, and I don't believe in cold fusion. Above all, today we understand that even human beings are the result of natural selection acting over millions of years of breeding and eating.

I'd guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena. We don't know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life. There is no life force. As Richard Feynman has said, when you look at the universe and understand its laws, 'the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.'

True, when quantum mechanics was new, some physicists thought that it put humans back into the picture, because the principles of quantum mechanics tell us how to calculate the probabilities of various results that might be found by a human observer. But, starting with the work of Hugh Everett forty years ago, the tendency of physicists who think deeply about these things has been to reformulate quantum mechanics in an entirely objective way, with observers treated just like everything else. I don't know if this program has been completely successful yet, but I think it will be.

I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question 'why?' Why this theory, rather than some other theory? For example, why is the world described by quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is the one part of our present physics that is likely to survive intact in any future theory, but there is nothing logically inevitable about quantum mechanics; I can imagine a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics instead. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate.

But religious theories of design have the same problem. Either you mean something definite by a God, a designer, or you don't. If you don't, then what are we talking about? If you do mean something definite by 'God' or 'design,' if for instance you believe in a God who is jealous, or loving, or intelligent, or whimsical, then you still must confront the question 'why?' A religion may assert that the universe is governed by that sort of God, rather than some other sort of God, and it may offer evidence for this belief, but it cannot explain why this should be so.

In this respect, it seems to me that physics is in a better position to give us a partly satisfying explanation of the world than religion can ever be, because although physicists won't be able to explain why the laws of nature are what they are and not something completely different, at least we may be able to explain why they are not slightly different. For instance, no one has been able to think of a logically consistent alternative to quantum mechanics that is only slightly different. Once you start trying to make small changes in quantum mechanics, you get into theories with negative probabilities or other logical absurdities. When you combine quantum mechanics with relativity you increase its logical fragility. You find that unless you arrange the theory in just the right way you get nonsense, like effects preceding causes, or infinite probabilities. Religious theories, on the other hand, seem to be infinitely flexible, with nothing to prevent the invention of deities of any conceivable sort.

Now, it doesn't settle the matter for me to say that we cannot see the hand of a designer in what we know about the fundamental principles of science. It might be that, although these principles do not refer explicitly to life, much less human life, they are nevertheless craftily designed to bring it about.

Some physicists have argued that certain constants of nature have values that seem to have been mysteriously fine-tuned to just the values that allow for the possibility of life, in a way that could only be explained by the intervention of a designer with some special concern for life. I am not impressed with these supposed instances of fine-tuning. For instance, one of the most frequently quoted examples of fine-tuning has to do with a property of the nucleus of the carbon atom. The matter left over from the first few minutes of the universe was almost entirely hydrogen and helium, with virtually none of the heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen that seem to be necessary for life. The heavy elements that we find on earth were built up hundreds of millions of years later in a first generation of stars, and then spewed out into the interstellar gas out of which our solar system eventually formed.

The first step in the sequence of nuclear reactions that created the heavy elements in early stars is usually the formation of a carbon nucleus out of three helium nuclei. There is a negligible chance of producing a carbon nucleus in its normal state (the state of lowest energy) in collisions of three helium nuclei, but it would be possible to produce appreciable amounts of carbon in stars if the carbon nucleus could exist in a radioactive state with an energy roughly 7 million electron volts (MeV) above the energy of the normal state, matching the energy of three helium nuclei, but (for reasons I'll come to presently) not more than 7.7 MeV above the normal state.

This radioactive state of a carbon nucleus could be easily formed in stars from three helium nuclei. After that, there would be no problem in producing ordinary carbon; the carbon nucleus in its radioactive state would spontaneously emit light and turn into carbon in its normal nonradioactive state, the state found on earth. The critical point in producing carbon is the existence of a radioactive state that can be produced in collisions of three helium nuclei.

In fact, the carbon nucleus is known experimentally to have just such a radioactive state, with an energy 7.65 MeV above the normal state. At first sight this may seem like a pretty close call; the energy of this radioactive state of carbon misses being too high to allow the formation of carbon (and hence of us) by only 0.05 MeV, which is less than one percent of 7.65 MeV. It may appear that the constants of nature on which the properties of all nuclei depend have been carefully fine-tuned to make life possible.

Looked at more closely, the fine-tuning of the constants of nature here does not seem so fine. We have to consider the reason why the formation of carbon in stars requires the existence of a radioactive state of carbon with an energy not more than 7.7 MeV above the energy of the normal state. The reason is that the carbon nuclei in this state are actually formed in a two-step process: first, two helium nuclei combine to form the unstable nucleus of a beryllium isotope, beryllium 8, which occasionally, before it falls apart, captures another helium nucleus, forming a carbon nucleus in its radioactive state, which then decays into normal carbon. The total energy of the beryllium 8 nucleus and a helium nucleus at rest is 7.4 MeV above the energy of the normal state of the carbon nucleus; so if the energy of the radioactive state of carbon were more than 7.7 MeV it could only be formed in a collision of a helium nucleus and a beryllium 8 nucleus if the energy of motion of these two nuclei were at least 0.3 MeV—an energy which is extremely unlikely at the temperatures found in stars.

Thus the crucial thing that affects the production of carbon in stars is not the 7.65 MeV energy of the radioactive state of carbon above its normal state, but the 0.25 MeV energy of the radioactive state, an unstable composite of a beryllium 8 nucleus and a helium nucleus, above the energy of those nuclei at rest.² This energy misses being too high for the production of carbon by a fractional amount of 0.05 MeV/0.25 MeV, or 20 percent, which is not such a close call after all.

This conclusion about the lessons to be learned from carbon synthesis is somewhat controversial. In any case, there is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known as the cosmological constant. It could have any value, but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large, and could be positive or negative. If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. If large and negative the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse, leaving no time for the evolution of life. In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles.

It is still too early to tell whether there is some fundamental principle that can explain why the cosmological constant must be this small. But even if there is no such principle, recent developments in cosmology offer the possibility of an explanation of why the measured values of the cosmological constant and other physical constants are favorable for the appearance of intelligent life. According to the 'chaotic inflation' theories of André Linde and others, the expanding cloud of billions of galaxies that we call the big bang may be just one fragment of a much larger universe in which big bangs go off all the time, each one with different values for the fundamental constants.

In any such picture, in which the universe contains many parts with different values for what we call the constants of nature, there would be no difficulty in understanding why these constants take values favorable to intelligent life. There would be a vast number of big bangs in which the constants of nature take values unfavorable for life, and many fewer where life is possible. You don't have to invoke a benevolent designer to explain why we are in one of the parts of the universe where life is possible: in all the other parts of the universe there is no one to raise the question.³ If any theory of this general type turns out to be correct, then to conclude that the constants of nature have been fine-tuned by a benevolent designer would be like saying, 'Isn't it wonderful that God put us here on earth, where there's water and air and the surface gravity and temperature are so comfortable, rather than some horrid place, like Mercury or Pluto?' Where else in the solar system other than on earth could we have evolved?

Reasoning like this is called 'anthropic.' Sometimes it just amounts to an assertion that the laws of nature are what they are so that we can exist, without further explanation. This seems to me to be little more than mystical mumbo jumbo. On the other hand, if there really is a large number of worlds in which some constants take different values, then the anthropic explanation of why in our world they take values favorable for life is just common sense, like explaining why we live on the earth rather than Mercury or Pluto. The actual value of the cosmological constant, recently measured by observations of the motion of distant supernovas, is about what you would expect from this sort of argument: it is just about small enough so that it does not interfere much with the formation of galaxies. But we don't yet know enough about physics to tell whether there are different parts of the universe in which what are usually called the constants of physics really do take different values. This is not a hopeless question; we will be able to answer it when we know more about the quantum theory of gravitation than we do now.

It would be evidence for a benevolent designer if life were better than could be expected on other grounds. To judge this, we should keep in mind that a certain capacity for pleasure would readily have evolved through natural selection, as an incentive to animals who need to eat and breed in order to pass on their genes. It may not be likely that natural selection on any one planet would produce animals who are fortunate enough to have the leisure and the ability to do science and think abstractly, but our sample of what is produced by evolution is very biased, by the fact that it is only in these fortunate cases that there is anyone thinking about cosmic design. Astronomers call this a selection effect.

The universe is very large, and perhaps infinite, so it should be no surprise that, among the enormous number of planets that may support only unintelligent life and the still vaster number that cannot support life at all, there is some tiny fraction on which there are living beings who are capable of thinking about the universe, as we are doing here. A journalist who has been assigned to interview lottery winners may come to feel that some special providence has been at work on their behalf, but he should keep in mind the much larger number of lottery players whom he is not interviewing because they haven't won anything. Thus, to judge whether our lives show evidence for a benevolent designer, we have not only to ask whether life is better than would be expected in any case from what we know about natural selection, but we need also to take into account the bias introduced by the fact that it is we who are thinking about the problem.

This is a question that you all will have to answer for yourselves. Being a physicist is no help with questions like this, so I have to speak from my own experience. My life has been remarkably happy, perhaps in the upper 99.99 percentile of human happiness, but even so, I have seen a mother die painfully of cancer, a father's personality destroyed by Alzheimer's disease, and scores of second and third cousins murdered in the Holocaust. Signs of a benevolent designer are pretty well hidden.

The prevalence of evil and misery has always bothered those who believe in a benevolent and omnipotent God. Sometimes God is excused by pointing to the need for free will. Milton gives God this argument in Paradise Lost:

I formed them free, and free they must remain
Till they enthral themselves: I else must change
Their nature, and revoke the high decree
Unchangeable, eternal, which ordained
Their freedom; they themselves ordained their fall.

It seems a bit unfair to my relatives to be murdered in order to provide an opportunity for free will for Germans, but even putting that aside, how does free will account for cancer? Is it an opportunity of free will for tumors?

I don't need to argue here that the evil in the world proves that the universe is not designed, but only that there are no signs of benevolence that might have shown the hand of a designer. But in fact the perception that God cannot be benevolent is very old. Plays by Aeschylus and Euripides make a quite explicit statement that the gods are selfish and cruel, though they expect better behavior from humans. God in the Old Testament tells us to bash the heads of infidels and demands of us that we be willing to sacrifice our children's lives at His orders, and the God of traditional Christianity and Islam damns us for eternity if we do not worship him in the right manner. Is this a nice way to behave? I know, I know, we are not supposed to judge God according to human standards, but you see the problem here: If we are not yet convinced of His existence, and are looking for signs of His benevolence, then what other standards can we use?

The issues that I have been asked to address here will seem to many to be terribly old-fashioned. The 'argument from design' made by the English theologian William Paley is not on most peoples' minds these days. The prestige of religion seems today to derive from what people take to be its moral influence, rather than from what they may think has been its success in accounting for what we see in nature. Conversely, I have to admit that, although I really don't believe in a cosmic designer, the reason that I am taking the trouble to argue about it is that I think that on balance the moral influence of religion has been awful.

This is much too big a question to be settled here. On one side, I could point out endless examples of the harm done by religious enthusiasm, through a long history of pogroms, crusades, and jihads. In our own century it was a Muslim zealot who killed Sadat, a Jewish zealot who killed Rabin, and a Hindu zealot who killed Gandhi. No one would say that Hitler was a Christian zealot, but it is hard to imagine Nazism taking the form it did without the foundation provided by centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. On the other side, many admirers of religion would set countless examples of the good done by religion. For instance, in his recent book Imagined Worlds, the distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson has emphasized the role of religious belief in the suppression of slavery. I'd like to comment briefly on this point, not to try to prove anything with one example but just to illustrate what I think about the moral influence of religion.

It is certainly true that the campaign against slavery and the slave trade was greatly strengthened by devout Christians, including the Evangelical layman William Wilberforce in England and the Unitarian minister William Ellery Channing in America. But Christianity, like other great world religions, lived comfortably with slavery for many centuries, and slavery was endorsed in the New Testament. So what was different for anti-slavery Christians like Wilberforce and Channing? There had been no discovery of new sacred scriptures, and neither Wilberforce nor Channing claimed to have received any supernatural revelations. Rather, the eighteenth century had seen a widespread increase in rationality and humanitarianism that led others—for instance, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan—also to oppose slavery, on grounds having nothing to do with religion. Lord Mansfield, the author of the decision in Somersett's Case, which ended slavery in England (though not its colonies), was no more than conventionally religious, and his decision did not mention religious arguments. Although Wilberforce was the instigator of the campaign against the slave trade in the 1790s, this movement had essential support from many in Parliament like Fox and Pitt, who were not known for their piety. As far as I can tell, the moral tone of religion benefited more from the spirit of the times than the spirit of the times benefited from religion.

Where religion did make a difference, it was more in support of slavery than in opposition to it. Arguments from scripture were used in Parliament to defend the slave trade. Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

In an e-mail message from the American Association for the Advancement of Science I learned that the aim of this conference is to have a constructive dialogue between science and religion. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment. "

Man... I hate being uncertain. Everyday it seems like I want to be an atheist, but there's something holding me back. I need to do more research. If I ever have a kid, I hope he/she understands how important knowledge is. In the future I'd be scared if I was dumb because I'd be considered expendable. Globalization will be the new natural selection; instead of genetic adoptions it'll be competitive among the living. What do I know? It's probably just a spurious glimpse of the future. Save us socialism!!! Eh. Yea, right.

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
- Thomas Sowell"

Justice

The TV show! It's great, really. I love the actors and plots, Bruckheimer is something else.

In other news, I'm voting tomorrow. Wanna know who? Phil Maymin. He's a strong candidate, if you see him in the debates you would know who actually 'knows their stuff.' I've said it before, Libertarianism is the future. Total freedom, total awesomeness. Well, we can set up our Libertarian society soon. A police state is showing up on my weather forecast; and after the people endow tyrant blood on the tree(I'm guessing that's what might happen, it's almost obligatory) some good things should happen.

I was thinking about something kind of funny, actually, according to Islam and Christianity Jesus should come back and... save the day. In the Qu'ran I know it mentions a period of unprecedented wealth; everyone will be so rich it'll be so hard to find someone poor to give money to. I was thinking, what if Jesus' political party was a Libertarian? haha, that would be great. I don't really want to wait and die to see it happen, I want to live happily and do something important. Even though the world is really crappy today, I think it'll still be a while for that 'prophecy'(if it does happen, you'll never sure, of course) will be fulfilled.

Life is really terrible for some people, I can't even imagine how often they wish for help. Civilization is really sad. If you look at the world today and see the sane people and the kooks, there's still a bunch of bastards in the world. I wish the damned people of China would revolt; because everyone knows how shitty communism really is. The only reason they're still in charge is because of a fearful population and a powerful 'civilian neutralizer force.' The Great Firewall, what a ridiculous tool. China is what the U.S. might be if we keep it up. Fighting for freedom: hapless yet necessary.

I've written a paper on the Constitution for English and I'm currently revising it. Since it's 'hugely ambitious' and sweet it will presently be pasted on the blog, whenever it's complete.

Needless update

I just finished reading Frederic Bastiat's Law. Amazing piece of work; it really is. It's a classical liberal text written some time ago on Liberty, laws, and government. Here's a small excerpt,

"And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most moral, the happiest people? Those people are found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and groups most actively assume their responsibilities; and, consequently, where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements; were mankind nearly follows its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most moral, most peaceful people are those who most nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be sued to northing excpet the administration of universal justice."

The work is a tirade on all forms of socialism and his ideas make perfect sense. I have to thank Phil Maymin for pointing out this work as, "If you're only going to read one work on liberty in your lifetime this should be it." He's right...

Bastiat says this, which I find intriguing, " The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development."

Also,
"It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.

It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.

Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force — which is only the organized combination of the individual forces — may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.

Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice."

Well, go read it. I think I'll study it a little more. This piece is more proof that Libertarianism is the only viable political party for the future.

2+ year anniversary

Wow, I'm glad I still write for this. I hope something good comes out of it. Oh and (happy)srecham bajram.(Eid-al-Fitr) I have to keep improving.

The battle

Battle of the New Atheism: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=rss.index

Interesting. It is. I've been thinking about one reason to in some way prove God's existence, and this may be a bad one, but I'll give it a shot; I don't think anyone else has thought about this. But what about Paranormal phenomena? No, not the ridiculous kinds: Faith healing, levitation, and other non-real things. I'm thinking about like 'ghosts' in haunted places. There are so many things that people have experienced that's kind of weird, but it does happen. There are like haunted hospitals like the one in Fairfield, and other places where crazy ghost hunters go. People who have no relation to these ghosts or anything go on little adventurous journeys and people see things. From anything to a simple 'orb' or weird things like sudden changes of temperature. Well, I told you, it wasn't going to be the best example, but it makes some sense. If we are supposed to die into nothingness like, I suppose, atheists believe there shouldn't be ghosts or anything paranormal like that which science can't explain. If you're dead you disappear, but if ghosts are real(even in tiny orb forms in pictures, or anything small like that) wouldn't it make sense there's a God of some sort? If there was literally 'nothing' after death why are there ghosts? I'm not saying I know, but it's not a terrible argument. Anyway, this new atheism is pretty bold. I was reading one of the comments left by a user saying, "Atheists are no better than theists

It seems to be generally thought that agnosticism lies on the continuum of belief somewhere between the two extremes of atheism and theism. It also seems like atheism gets this hard rebel radical punk-rock image and agnosticism is just its wishy-washy neighbor. This is not the case.

An agnostic knows that he can't prove that god exists, and he ALSO knows that he can't prove that god DOESN'T EXIST. Atheists like to pick at these proofs for the existence of god...they are in the same boat with the theists! Logically they are practically the exact same form, one is just negative and the other is positive: god DOES exist, god DOESN'T exist. There is equally no evidence and proof for the NON-existence of god, and atheists cannot deny that.

It is really strange that so many scientists and philosophers are atheists because they are the ones who are supposed to be so schooled in logic and scientific method, and here's why: an argument against one side is NOT necessarily an argument FOR the other. And this is the illusion that the atheists are running on. This is a fallacy that just seems to make sense. It was once thought that an argument AGAINST the particle theory of light was necessarily an argument FOR the wave theory of light. But it turned out that neither of them were exactly wrong or right. If we could know NECESSARILY that there are only TWO possible choices, then attacking your opponents arguments might support your own. But we can never know anything NECESSARILY, outside logic and math.

That is the illusion that is created in this debate: that there are only two possibilities. It also seems like much atheism is directed particularly at the Christian god. And I suppose it would be safer to say that in that debate, ultimately, either the god of the Christian bible exists or doesn't. But from a wider perspective, who the hell knows what goes on out there beyond this system/galaxy/universe/etc. Ok, and maybe not the Christian god, but how can you say that THERE IS NO higher being/creator/etc.? (And like I said above, this is NOT at the same time an argument FOR a creator.)

After deposing the debate about whether or not one side has the epistemic upper-hand, where does that leave these believers? (I'm now including atheists in this category as well.) It is obvious that it all just comes down to taste, one's personal aesthetic (and an idolization/aggression towards some kind of oedipal projection of a father).

Atheists often say 'we don't need that hypothesis', or the like. Sure, and that is the way science works: god tinkering along the evolutionary way is untestable. But on the other hand, back in the day when scientists were still trying to prove the existence of atoms, a theory about quarks and gluons would've been more than a bit superfluous. Trying to tell Newton about the behavior of space-time would be the same. This brings to mind the often quoted Asimov on the indistinguishability between really advanced technology and magic (and Michael Shermer's adaptation: the indistinguishability between really advanced technology and god).

THEREFORE, atheists can't criticize faith because they have faith too. Atheists have to take a leap, the length of which is exactly the same as the one the theists have to take. So the spectrum becomes: agnostics on one end, and believers (atheists included) on the other.

Finally¦REAL skeptics/scientists/philosophers are AGNOSTIC!"
Good argument, that's basically the way I am, except after understanding a bit of the Qu'ran(yea..) I'm like a muslim slash agnostic for reasons that others have said and reasons I've tried to find for myself. Most of the motivation I have for remaining that way is the "If you believe and there is One you win, if you don't believe and there is One you lose, if there isn't anything it--it won't matter then," quote. I think that's sufficient enough. Night..

School

Man, my mind has been bombarded with a ton of information for the past few months. I'm writing today only because of one class in particular: Philosophy. The class sat in a circle today and a few students, including myself, presented some information from our text on the debate between evolution and creation. It's a great experience to talk about religion and stuff; however, I've been seeing a lot of(for the first time in real life) arguments and negative feelings towards religion. Many students in there believe beyond a reasonable doubt in evolution with a smug expression on their faces. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with arguing endlessly over who's right or wrong. Reluctantly, evolution does make sense and looks good on paper as a theory; however, communism also looks good and made sense, but communism is despised around the world by many. I'm not implying evolutionary theory will just go away, because I don't think it will. In the Qu'ran, as I've mentioned before, includes 'signs' before judgement day relates directly with our world today. Writers get recognition or medals for questioning where God is and how the world can live without Him. Metaphorically, Lois Lane in the recent Superman cinema feature did just that, and won a pulitzer prize(in the movie) for writing, "Why the World doesn't need Superman." Simply replace Superman with God. I'm a little depressed, am I wrong? Wow. I remember when my friend and I were talking about this and his philosophy makes the most sense: I believe in Evolution now because of its strong support through evidence, if it appears that I'm wrong when I die I'll accept it in His presence. That statement is smart because: if you're wrong now you'll know what's right later, but you'll be dead. I suppose if Islam is an inclusive religion you could get away with it. Unless you really hate god or something, I wouldn't know. I think I'll write something later entitled, "Why I believe," or something similar with reasons why I believe. But still, as I think about it now. Both sides have great evidence. For some reason I have this feeling that says I don't want to die. I really don't... I leave a lot of stuff out of these blogs. My mind is my playground. You're just going to have to guess some things.

Noobs

I came back from Plav, started College, finished some homework, had some fun, and I'm happy. Kind of cool, huh. Oh, I also joined Facebook and started a group for Plav and Gusinje. I've never been so surprised, seeing where these people come from. I was motivated to write this blog only for some more stupid religious thought-wars. Someone started a discussion by saying something along the lines of, "There is no God, religion is a form of mind control and slavery, we are all worthless creatures in the universe." When I saw that I thought, "Sweet, this is me four years ago." But I didn't bother to respond because, I guess, Allah leads whom he wills. What inspired me to blog wasn't the emo's post, rather some quote by another member as a sort of quasi rebuttal to atheism that his grandfather told him: "If there is not a God/heaven, then you gain nothing and I lose nothing. But if there is a God/heaven, then I gain everything and you lose everything." Hamza Malick, I guess he can feel important about it lol, basically told me something like that and that's what changed me because I haven't heard any "logic" arguments of that sort, so I thought to myself, "Well, I better do some serious research before I blindly believe in something I'm not even sure about." More than less, I've gotten my understanding of life today, seemingly entirely by luck, it's kind of frightening. But I suppose, instead of calling it luck I was "led," because that's how I feel.
So...onto something else. College is great, basically for two reasons: 1. My parents are only paying like $4,900 for tuition this semester and 2. My teachers are all amazing. The students there are all right, I don't really know them, but perhaps sooner or later I will. English might become my favorite subject this semester because of the relationship I can have with the teacher, like I can talk to her about anything, but I haven't. I want to write well, I used to think Math would be important in my life, but I'm not too fond of it anymore. I believe someone who can write well will have more... options in this world especially with the the force of globalization. I don't want to be an English major, albeit, I would like to write something like, for example, the description of a facebook's group:

"I already made an anti "Carlos" group, yet as I sat down to view whatever Neal Brennan threw together for the new season of Chappelle's show, I was greeted by Carlos's genial face, commanding me to pay attention for some petty and mean spirited reason that Carlos thought would be humorous. How dare he impose himself on any other part of television that is not his terrible show or the awful promoting for it.

Carlos Mencia is a threat worse than any Cable Guy or modern-day Schneider, his vacuous, pretentious, uber-confident, right wing brand of poorly conceived comedy is atrocious and an affront on all endeavors worthwhile and true. Good comedy is an outlet for the truth, an exposition on society and culture. Carlos stomps all over this idea, and replaces it with a brash ignorance, short sightedness, and constant self-promotion in the vein of the most classic of demagogues. Think of Carlos as the Sean Hannity of comedy. Mind of Mencia( such magnificent alliteration!) will be Carlos’s last stop in career advancement. Him and his kind must be stopped, before our culture is ever awash in complete ignorance and prideful mediocrity.

No wonder David Chappelle could not return to Comedy Central, look what his show spawned."

I suppose all I need to really manage is my vocabulary and practice. I would like to write things, however, that isn't necessarily always about hating someone. I'd prefer to write nice things, but also be able to provide arguments with wit and substance.

So, what have I learned? Atheism is on the rise, just he said there would be. Listening to my retarded uncle talk about God is disturbing, he's still like a child. I'm afraid of the future, America is headed, like the Titanic, full speed towards an ice berg. And I think it might simply be inevitable, whether anyone would like to believe it or not. Life "has" to be terrible in the future, and it sure looks like it will. Why? Hey, if those "fables" are true, Judgement Day is coming and it's going to suck.

I miss the simple life of Plav, I should seriously move there. Except, I would have to figure out how to get a ton of money. Stocks are nice, but I would need a K.M.A.(kiss my) account too, in-case something goes wrong.

I think I'm going to some crazy Alex Jones, Immortal Technique, speaking or whatever tomorrow. I want to see Tech, since I missed him last time at Fordham. Hey, I like to think. I've known about their ideas for a while, before it really got popular. I'm kind of glad I introduced my friend to the ideas too and enlightened him, if that's appropriate. He used to be just another republican until I showed him what I had found on the internet. I have to thank whoever that guy was on the TermPro car audio forums for startin the topic on Badnarik because without him I'd still be mindless. The oppurtunity cost would have been too great for me, but I'm glad I made the right choice. This blog is way too long. I love life, Plav, and my "dark secrets." It's just a quote, they're not actually "dark," it's simply an inside joke. Noobs.

Back

I'm back now. Well, I have been for a few days and I'd like to say the trip was awesome. My brother thought it was kind of boring and gay, but that's because he's like a materialist and loves things like his computer and what not. I wish I was still there for some reason. When you're eighteen and you know a good amount about life and what it's like, it's really special seeing your family and trying to comprehend the profoundness of seeing others who should be with us but aren't. Just looking around at the mountains and homes and things was kind of weird because my family has been living in this area for like 500 years which gives us a trenchant pedigree. You have to feel proud about it, you know, it's just unexplainable. I can't wait for next year.


Digressing quote: “What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it”

Leave(ing)

I'll be leaving for Montenegro in like five days. Having fun and all that good stuff. Hopefully I lose some weight and better myself mentally for the future.
While I'm sitting down here at my home feeling a bit lazy I can only begin to imagine what Peter C. must have been doing with America's best. He's a really nice guy even though I only talked to him on a few bus rides and random places like that. I would even go and say that he's my hero. I actually wish sometimes I understood everything I did now and was in West Point with him learning to be tomorrow's leaders. But, everyone wants to be something they're not. It's true and depressing a bit, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I wish I was smarter, well known and well respected. I guess it's still possible, but nothing would motivate me more than the simple force of competition, which I personally love.
Well, if I can't be what I wanted to be hopefully my children can. I've taken Psychology so I know the effects of making a "perfect" child. I want to give my child all the oppurtunities he/she can possibly get. From there, it's their choice. That right there is the road to being known as "the greatest dad."
This sounds nice and all, but I'm probably way too shy and pathetic to get past the first step: getting a girlfriend. I can imagine myself as "that guy" in the movies. But I'm far from it. "That girl" still has me since, "You know, the thing that makes a fantasy great is the possibility that it might come true." I think it might be because of her I've decided there's no such thing as true love. It's all hormonal and primitive. Just look at modern American inner city culture.
Be back soon, I hope. Allah imanet.

de Menezes

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=189326608&p=y893z73y4

Cops in London gun a man down and shoot him, what was it, eleven times? And they get away with it! "Unbelievable," is an understatement. God damnit, fuck these government crooks.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." Refresh we must. But we're most likely too scared and won't. This one world order shit is making too much sense, I'm really hoping there isn't one and everyone was wrong all along. Sigh.

Marriage(the other kind)

We hold these truths to be self–evident,

That all men are created equal,

That they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable Rights,

That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Here's one argument for gay marriage, although I'm not one. It's an unalienable right. Which "right," you ask? If you understand the Bill of Rights and the Ninth Amendment you can say the pursuit of happiness is a right. Banning an action such as gambling, gay marriage, and other kinds of activities some humans enjoy in their "pursuit" of happiness is simply unconstitutional. The document the United States of America uses to define itself from others is the Constitution, not the Bible. Also, honestly, how can two guys you might never see or know affect these people so much? I thought the Bible tried to teach us that we should love people for who they are. Oh well. This post is just a thought.

Time will tell.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

You'll see.

I just remembered that my 'theory' is actually just a hypothesis.
...
I'm graduating...tomorrow. Man... I'm really going to miss it. I've got my plans, my heart, and my books. I just want to be remembered. I guess you'll see how that works out.
Oh, actually, I've been thinking about this for a while too. Since it goes along with 'being remembered.' I feel like I'm 'protected', it's so weird. I've fallen and gotten hurt a few times, but I've never been seriously hurt besides the time I was born, with the broken collar bone. So like, I just have this feeling like I won't die until I do what I'm supposed to.
I'm not going to challenge it though and try my luck, but like I said before, you'll see.

Scary

"Life is understood looking backwards but it must be lived forwards."

I wish there was a way I could just upload my thoughts to some file
on a computer instead of writing everything down.
Wouldn't that be scary?

A theory

Another wild idea. It's a kind of weird theory, but whatever, it's just a theory from some random kid.

"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity in most quantum gravity theories."

The hypothetical graviton is thousands of times smaller than atoms. The definition of sound is vibration. Perhaps the constant beep, silence, is a result of the vibrating gravitons. It's a weird observation, but it does make sense. If it's wrong I won't care, I'm just curious and want to figure out why this occurs since I can't find it on the internet anywhere, yet. Since gravity is everywhere in the universe, I would assume silence would be everywhere as well. Also, I have no idea how I would test this theory, you know? If I was right, the existence of gravitons would be linked to silence and would probably be an important discovery. It sounds cool and all, but too farfetched that I could ever make any contribution to science, in any way. So um, yeah. If I'm right bury me near Sir Isaac Newton when I die, that would be nice.

I've had this idea for a few days now. It's kind of weird and random. One night before I was about to sleep the room was really silent. I say it's weird and random because I was wondering what the actual frequency of silence was, which is why I also said it was random. Furthermore, I wondered, Hmm, I know silence has it's own frequency too because it's like a constant humming that's annoying. But what is the cause of this everlasting "beep?"

Yo, sweet question! I thought silence would somehow be like the scientific definition of a cold object, you know, the absence of heat. I thought silence would actually be... silent, or in other words, the absence of sound. But silence IS a damn sound. Maybe I can make my big break in the science world and figure it out! Then after that I can unify the theories of general relativity and quantum physics and become a science dude. I'll try to satisfy my curiosity. I can't believe I really talk like that..

It's too bad.

I've got lacrosse now, you're gonna have to wait a while for another piece of mine.
We lost to Wilton and Benedict's talk after the game was interesting to say at the least. I love how he tells us not to be ashamed and that we just have to mature and understand that all we have to do is learn to fix the things we messed up and always go back 100%. He also talked about his personal major goal of reaching the age of 100 and how he's got the balls and guts to work for it. I smiled when he said that, 'cause I was like what the hell is he talking about. But that's an awesome goal. I really wish I had an English class with him or did something to learn more about him because, as weird as he is, he's probably got an amazing mind. It's too bad I haven't.
I have to get better so he'll notice me.
I guess I'm out.

Yesterday

A friend posts this website, http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch08.htm , and has the hyperlink text as "the Source of all Ignorance" on his profile. Then I asked what he meant by it, and he goes off on 'idiot christians' and if you're going to argue for creationism don't use the atmosphere as evidence to prove there is a god. I guess he's mentally retarded or something because if he actually read the shit instead of listening to what his pot-smoking, black makeup wearing, cynical, etc. friends tell him. The conclusion, "The arrangement did not come about by chance. Too many factors are involved, and if even one was missing, life could not exist here." makes too much sense it's ridiculous. I will say though both sides of this debate between evolution and creation does 'make sense', however, upon critical examination and thinking creationism makes more sense thus(nerd) making the latter invalid. He's just a product of the enviornment and influences. I used to be like that, and the constant feeling of hopelessness that there is no god is unmatchable. I couldn't even tell you how many times I've considered suicide over ridiculous miniscule things when I was like that.

Here's some random snippit of an article I found on the net about converts to and from atheism.

"William Murray (1946 – )
Growing up as the son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, founder of American Atheists, William Murray was taught very early that God was a myth. His mother went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963 to prevent her then-14-year-old son from having to pray in his Baltimore public school. Her victory removed prayer from all the nation’s public schools.

William Murray went on to become the president of American Atheists, the organization founded by his mother, but he later came to reconsider his atheism. “It was in January ’80 that I became a Christian. I had been disillusioned for many years by the atheist and Marxist background with which I had been raised,” he said in 1995. “It was the result of living 30 years of a lifestyle where nothing mattered, nothing meant anything, except getting what I could.”

Murray now heads the Religious Freedom Coalition, a pressure group “promoting religious freedom and family based legislation” in the United States."

A lifestyle where nothing mattered, nothing meant anything, kind of depressing isn't it? I know as much as people try to attribute religion with morons and killers and whatever else they can find to slander it, atheism is so much worse. I see Thomas Paine has said, "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." but Athiesm works the same way in a sense. It's like terrifying people about how worthless they are and that life is meaningless, so you should go kill yourself. It's like a tool of evil. I know that Christianity is messed up in many ways, but there are good and bads there too. The same thing applies to atheists, there are good ones and bad ones. It's weird. The world is so confused and it's basically impossible to have everyone understand whatever you understand. Like, we can argue all we want whether we're apes or not but none of us will ever know until we die so, in a way, there's no point in arguing about it. But some people will want to "save" their friends or some others will try to make them follow the "smart guys," so we can't not argue about it. Oh well, it seems like it's just a matter of taste and past influence or research. Perhaps someday there will be a sign that will captivate all of us like Jesus' second coming. You know, I wish I could be alive for that but interestingly enough I like where I am now. I foresee a lot more violence in the future and I'd rather not be a part of that shpiel. Life now is great for me, but not for children in Iraq getting shot by M16's because they're all little 'terrorists.' The only thing that will tell us who's right is time. People will argue, but only time will tell so arguing until whatever point 'it' happens is a good time waster. I'll keep my beliefs with me until I die, but if it happens that I'm wrong. So be it, you know? I'd rather be safe than sorry, but I feel like there's no need to believe in evolution because what I feel is so right. So in the end, I already know I'm safe.

Ah here's some other random quote I found and like, "If it were proven that there is no God there would be no religion. ...But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion." Funny.

Too much talk about this subject. I'm off to attend to other things.

Wow there's no way two weeks has gone by. That's... damn dude. All right, well, don't ever get addicted to World of Warcraft. It's actually really fun, all Blizzard games are, but it's like unhealthy fun. However, my Mage is awsome. I'm just randomly posting before school starts again. After a week long break, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. So I'll see ya later.

V-Day

At about this time last year I was probably the happiest guy in the world.
Man, I'm fruity. But... I like it. I'm a damn romantic. The opposite of like 99% of men in the world today. Immortal Technique's song "You never know" is like my life anthem just without the sad ending. I'm gonna go ahead and listen to it for a while. Peace.