My Problem with Organized Religion (I Should Have Started With This).

After a few weeks posting on this blog, I realize I’ve made a big mistake: I forgot to explain my motivation to write about God(s) and Religion(s). I did say I think these issues are irrationally overprotected, but then failed to specify why I think arguing against both concepts is worth my while. I skipped a very important step and went straight towards the protecting walls, frantically kicking and shouting at the guards. The corollary is that I may come across as an angry and ranting heretic, thus jeopardizing my chances of actually being heard. Allow me to present my apologies and let me try to right the wrong. Here’s the long explanation:


Pecking Order.

If I could choose the audience of this blog, the following would be, in order of preference, my favorite readers:

1. Hardcore religious fundamentalists: People who take scripture literally, including Noah’s Ark, the Virgin Birth, the Creation of the Universe in 6 days, etc.

2. Old-school religious believers: They study scripture, believe most of it, but have to compromise in order to function in the real world, i.e. accept Evolution.

3. Plain-vanilla believers: If pressed, most of them don’t even know what it is they’re supposed to believe in.

4. Middle-of-the-roaders: There are three types: the first one is torn with guilt, the second one has never thought too much about the matter and the third one doesn’t care. They are typically known as “Agnostics”.

5. Closet non-believers: They accept a high degree of agnosticism but only to themselves. They are (understandably) afraid of public discrimination.

6. Regular non-believers: Will freely admit to a high degree of agnosticism.

7. Active non-believers: Same as 6 but feel the urge to speak out. (I belong here if you were wondering).

Disclaimer: You will notice I only talk about degrees of belief and degrees of agnosticism. I did this to avoid the very annoying semantic debate between the use of the terms agnosticism and atheism (Yes, I know the difference between the two… but that is another topic).

One of the goals of this blog, besides keeping my mind running during week-ends and breaks, is to make every reader jump down at least one notch on the above list i.e. from 1 to 2 or from 3 to 6.

Would you agree to say we were all born natural 6’s? You didn’t come up with the idea of God by yourself, someone told you about him! Most of us were, at some point, indoctrinated to become ones, twos or threes. For us, the indoctrinated folk, number 4 is a very important stepping stone; it is the point where we start to doubt what has been force-fed into our brains since the day we were born (think baptism).

If you were raised a 4 or have gotten there by your own means, I’m hoping to present enough facts and evidence to help you make the leap to 5 or 6. If you are a 5, I would encourage you to come out of the closet; life is always easier when you have nothing to hide! And in the spirit of full-disclosure, I’ll say I don’t have an agenda to turn sixes into sevens.

 

A Secular Preacher?

From the above, you may be tempted to blame me for doing what I vehemently criticize in others: preaching.

Well… Yes and No. Yes because I’m trying to change something in you, but No because it’s your approach I’m trying to change, not the end result (what you actually think or believe). There is a world of difference between the former and the latter.

Unlike religious preachers, I promise not to use cheap tricks like fear or guilt to make you  read this blog or to believe in it (“sin” is the accepted religious synonym for that). I’ll never threaten you if you don’t agree with me (excommunication, stoning, whipping and even the death penalty are methods of enforcement still in use by certain religious organizations). I’ll be damned if I ever ask you for money in return of my thoughts. I don’t care what you eat and when you eat it, who you have sex with and in which position. Those things are none of my business and what do they have to do with anything, anyway?

You’ll get nothing of the sort from me. I’m simply asserting that Truth, whatever that may be, is the right thing to pursue. No placebo is half as good as a bit of the real deal.

For sure, sometimes I’ll use a little irony, a little sarcasm or a bit of humor here and there, but never anything too serious to frighten anybody. I’ll veer away from duress and will always stick to facts and simple logic. I love facts, and logic, and sarcasm, and irony, and humor, and beauty, and elegance. And if any of those things happen to feel like a threat to you or to your belief system, I’m truly sorry, I didn’t mean them to. If so, I’d suggest you rethink your beliefs to determine why such inoffensive things sound so harsh to you.

It is my earnest conviction that once unchained from the fear of indoctrination, anyone willing to have an honest look at the Universe will find it very hard to take answers from Faith. If anything, I’m just saying you should give freethinking a try; questioning everything you have ever been told, without guilt, without remorse. I secretly hope you’ll use me as your lab rat: If I don’t get struck by lightning or burn by spontaneous combustion for all this heresy, you’ll probably feel pretty safe to do a little second guessing of your own.

The Reason I Care.
 

Let me go back to the original point as I’m digressing again. Everything I’ve said so far explains what it is I am trying to achieve and how I will do it, but it doesn’t explain why I want to do it. So finally, here’s my claim:

The single most important change we can make as a species, in order to help us move forward, is to have every one of us thinking by ourselves. History has proven, time and again, that indulging in the alternative can be extremely dangerous. Belief of any sort builds solidly upon Faith. By the own admission of those who profess it, Faith is the antonym of Reason. You cannot rationalize Faith.

Bad things happen when people give up on the difficult process of freethinking only to rush for the ready-to-use beliefs of others. The most common and widespread source of belief is organized religion. Organized religion is, quite literally, the largest ticking bomb I can think of. If we could only accept a Universe without God(s), organized religion would become redundant and irrelevant. Away with the threats of mass delusion, welcome to a better world for all.

“Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace.”

Maybe he was a dreamer, and maybe I am too, but Mr. Lennon knew what he was talking about…

With that said, I would like to make it very clear that I don’t have a problem with God. I really don’t, how could I? I don’t even believe in God! I’m guessing you don’t have visceral feelings towards dragons or unicorns… It’s exactly the same here. My true enemy is organized religion. I cannot stand the way they use honest belief to satisfy their greed for power and relevance. I fear the lengths they will go (and have gone) to maintain their senseless rule, showing absolutely no remorse for the consequences of their selfishness.

The impasse arises -unlike many “new age” believers and deists think- from God and religion being deeply and indissolubly intertwined. Religion told us about God and not the other way around. The concept of God is collateral damage in this war against religion. If you are trying to discredit the practices of a psychedelic guru, you won’t hesitate to sacrifice unicorns and dragons if it helps in the process.


Route of Administration.

I do not think that everything about religion is evil or that every believer is wicked. There are great things done every day through religious organizations and there is a majority of believers who happen to be fabulous people. The catch is that good deeds are done through religious organizations by human beings, who are, regardless of their religion, inherently good. In the same line of thought, I’m sure these fabulous believers would continue to be charming people even if they stopped believing tomorrow. The following is my favorite quote from the great Christopher Hitchens: “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

I don’t believe in God, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know the feelings that religious people experience to be quite real. I have myself experienced “supernatural elation” in the past. I was a believer, remember? It so happens that those feelings are very much like the ones I experience while discovering the Cosmos, or while having a good time with my wife and friends. Many people have “religious experiences” while practicing their favorite sport or activity, which is known as “being in the zone”. These feelings are, if you think about it, very similar to being high on mind-altering drugs (anything from alcohol to heroin). There is nothing wrong with experiencing these wonderful “highs”; it’s the route of administration that is questionable.


“So Why Don’t You Just Leave Us Alone?”

This has been a recurrent question… Short answer: you may be part of the problem.

I could argue based on the simple axiom that there are no religions without believers, but that would be way too simplistic. Digging a little deeper, the problem emanates from the chameleonic link between God and religion; sometimes ridiculously evident and sometimes almost invisible. That link is a big problem because it takes God hostage and turns him into a protecting shield for the dark side of religious organizations: “If you mess with religion, you are messing with God”. The widespread overprotection of religious freedom becomes the perfect cloak for religious libertinage.

Best case scenario: out of unjustified and exacerbated “respect”, some believers will turn a blind eye to the shady deeds of religious organizations.

Worst case scenario: otherwise good people will follow religious doctrine by the book (where do you think the saying comes from?) with disastrous consequences.

As long as we continue to give religion a moral free-ride (either by passive or active reinforcement) its dark side will thrive unchallenged and unchallengeable.


The Danger Within.

I’m also aware that, more often than not, my view may come across as a bit over the top, as overly aggressive, overly exaggerated. I think I have an explanation for that: We are so accustomed at linking religious belief and virtue, that it is very hard for us to see and recognize the danger within. It takes a while to wash that out of the system. At times, even I will cringe at my own words. Indoctrination does that to you.

The following are a few examples, dating from no more than 75-years ago, that have either changed the course of recent history, have deeply affected the life of individuals or both. Religion and dogma are at the core of each and one of them:

·         Northern Ireland and “The Troubles”: A country with two groups of people killing and discriminating each other for decades. Ethnically indistinguishable, the northern Irish all eat the same food, drink the same beer and fancy the same sports. The dividing line is religious. They both belong to two of the closest subsets of Christianity -Catholicism and Protestantism- and that simple fact has been enough for hatred to flourish. 

·         9/11: The terrorist attacks on the WTC do have an important political component, but the political conflict between East and West has firm roots in religious differences. Only religion and the false promises it offers can push somebody to kill thousands of people for being “infidels”. In the case of Islam, the heavenly reward for “martyrs” is 72 virgins waiting for them in Jannah (paradise). I’m sure you can also appreciate the misogynistic touch in the matter. I’m tempted to include the recent Boston attacks along this example but it’s still too soon. Let’s wait and see what transpires to prove me right or wrong…

·         2007 failed terrorist attack on the UK:  A group of people planned an attack with car bombs in London on June 29^th, 2007. When their mechanisms failed, they attempted to raise terror at Glasgow’s airport a day later. Luckily they failed again. This particular example is not the most spectacular but it is very enlightening: The leaders of the terrorist group were Muslim doctors, one of them a neurosurgeon. It is hard to believe their motivation came from economic hardship or a lack o education. How more educated can a neurosurgeon be? It takes religion for good people to do evil things.

·         Herbert and Catherine Schaible: Believers of “Faith healing”, the Schaibles systematically refuse their children access to medicine. A few years ago, their first son died from bacterial pneumonia. Earlier this year, their 8-month old baby died from diarrhea. The Schaibles, who now may face criminal prosecution, are not alone in their delusion: more than 300 children have died for the same reason in the past 25-years in the US alone. I’m sure these people, ignorant and deluded as they may be, are probably decent loving parents. I’m sure they believed they were doing the righteous thing by not taking their suffering children to a doctor. How great the anguish and fear from indoctrination must be, in order to let your children die from perfectly curable causes? It’s inconceivable… Only religion can do that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html

·         Pam Stenzel on Abstinence: “If you take birth control, your mother probably hates you”. That is the kind of sex-ed provided by this Christian cuckoo with thousands of followers.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/04/22/pam-stenzel-if-you-take-birth-control-your-mother-probably-hates-you.htm

·         Fundamentalist Education: In the ACE program, one the the many fundamentalist schools in the UK, education is solely based on scriptures. Please read the link below, I couldn’t believe my eyes…To distance themselves from fundamentalists, certain believers will often argue that fundies are misinterpreting scripture. I’m sorry to say they are not. Fundamentalists are simply taking what they believe to be the word of God at face value. And to be honest, it does make sense; if it is the word of God, why shouldn't it be taken literally? The only interpreters of scripture are non-fundamentalists; and they have to bend over backwards in order to force a fit between their sacred texts, the real world, and basic intelligence. My question to them is: Where exactly do you draw the line between what’s to be taken literally and what is not?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/27/fundamentalist-schools-accelerated-christian-education

·         The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: It is very hard to summarize such a complex and painful conflict in a nutshell. If nevertheless I were to try, and if I was pressed to find a single factor that prevents a peaceful solution from coming to fruition, I’d have to say it is religion. A big part of this conflict lies in the control of the City of Jerusalem. The three Abrahamic Religions - Christianity, Islam and Judaism - (in alphabetical order), claim the City as an important piece of real estate, both for religious and historical reasons. Well of course they do! All three religions are nothing but the same old myth, twisted in different directions with a few distinguishing features. And what's the best solution their leaders find to this predicament? Killing each other, naturally! If you think about it, there is a logical path to violence when each group honestly believes they are the Chosen one. If you honestly believe to be defending a holy cause, killing the infidel next door seems like the natural thing to do. Religious belief is such a powerful but irrational force that unwarranted violence is bound to happen.

·         Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI defense of pedophiles: The evidence is uncontestable: two consecutive Popes of the Catholic Church tried as hard as they could to conceal the truth; their priests, protected by the taboo of religion, sexually molested thousands of children. When BXVI finally backpedaled, through washed-out excuses and apologies, it was too late. This alone should be enough to enrage every person with the slightest hint of human decency. And somehow, certain believers find it offensive to criticize the Institution! What else, if not total and absolute delusion, can blindfold people to this extreme?

·         The Holocaust: The victims of the gloomiest chapter in recent History were Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Homosexuals. In New Testament terms: heretics, witches, heretics and sodomites. As hard as some people may try to label Hitler as a non-believer,  they are bound to fail. He was a devout Catholic; baptized in April 1889 and confirmed in May 1904. The Catholic Church in Rome celebrated his birthday from 1939 onwards by instruction of Pius XII a.k.a. “Hitler’s Pope”. I’ll let you connect the dots.

This is only a limited selection of examples that illustrate the width and depth of religion’s vices. I’m certain you can effortlessly find thousands more if you are just willing to open your eyes.

Since we are able of doing good things on our own, why do we insist on keeping a 'god-given' moral framework that is so evidently corrupt? For the sake of our kind, we need to grow out of it.

Once the above is taken into consideration, hopefully my ranting, my kicking and my shouting will no longer seem unjustified.

Everything out of Nothing: How Euclidian Geometry, Cosmology and Quantum Physics Are Putting God on the Ropes.

In the early XVII Century, Galileo Galilei was sentenced by the Roman Inquisition to indefinite imprisonment for his support of Copernican astronomy - a heliocentric “Universe” and a spherical Earth - by providing great amounts of evidence supporting those theories. The Catholic Church didn’t appreciate the evidence because it opposed its own beliefs... Business as usual. I personally find it quite ironical that the latest discovery regarding the shape of our Universe may upset them once more. Cosmologists recently discovered that our Universe is flat! In words of Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, it is “Flat, flat, flat…flat as a pancake!” The irony is easy to catch, but how this fact should worry the Church probably isn't immediately clear. I will first attempt to explain how it is we know our Universe has that particular shape, and once I’ve done that, I’ll explore the inherent implications of a flat Universe and how much trouble they can spell for theology.

The Greek mathematician Euclid (300 B.C.) is considered the father of Geometry. He discovered something you may remember from high-school: the sum of all the angles in any given triangle will add up to 180-degrees. What you may not remember, however, is that this theorem only holds true on a flat surface like your desk, which is also known as a Euclidean space (Figure “A”). If you trace a triangle on a concave surface (like a bowl), the resulting shape will be hyperbolic, with the sum of its angles being smaller than 180-degrees (Figure “B”). And finally, if you do the same on the surface of the Earth, running along the equator and through any two meridians, the resulting shape will be a spherical triangle, with a sum of angles larger than 180-degrees (Figure “C”).  

This relatively simple theorem can be used to determine the shape of the Universe; all we need is a very large ruler that can trace triangles at a cosmic scale. If the resulting triangle is spherical, it means the Universe is closed, if it’s hyperbolic, the Universe is open, and if the triangle is Euclidean, it is proof of a flat Universe. In 2001, by analyzing the results from high-altitude balloon experiments, everything indicated within 15% accuracy that the Universe is boringly flat. By using observations from WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), we now know that the Universe is flat with a margin of error of only 0.4%. The specific measuring mechanics are not easy to explain - they involve the afterglow of the Big Bang, the opaque wall created by the high temperatures of the early Universe, our relative distance to that barrier and some basic trigonometry - but the simplicity and elegance of the concept are awe-inspiring. It is not an overstatement to say these observations may very well be the greatest achievement in the history of Cosmology.

So now that we’ve proven that the Universe is flat, let’s dig a little deeper into the implications of this discovery:

A flat Universe may seem aesthetically boring, although mathematically, it is as beautiful as can be. Einstein's general relativity theory indicates that the Universe's curvature is associated with the gravitational energy of the objects it carries during its expansion. But what happens in a flat Universe (i.e. with no curvature) such as ours? The positive energy from massive objects exactly cancels out with their negative gravitational energy. Simply put, it means we live in a Universe with a total net energy equal to… this gives me goose-bumps: Zero! It is hence possible that our whole Universe popped into existence, out of absolutely nothing. How about that?

“But how did it all start?” I can almost hear them shouting. A quantum fluctuation is one of the most educated guesses. Quantum fluctuations are not something made-up to make this story stick together; we can see them happening everywhere in the Universe, even in the middle of vacuum (the most accepted definition of "nothing"). Tiny particle pairs, blinking into existence, out of nowhere, out of nothing… Nothingness is inherently unstable, and it is possible that one of these quantum fluctuations set the open-ended “creation” of positive energy and matter into motion (The Big Bang) -ever expanding, ever accelerating-, while the resulting amount of negative energy in the form of gravity -ever more negative- maintains the equilibrium of zero net energy. In all fairness, I should emphasize that although a theoretical possibility, the assumption of a quantum fluctuation as the original "trigger" still lies in the realm of speculation. With that out of the way, I can say that I much prefer the contemplation of unproven theoretical possibilities rather than the tedious repetition of certified lies.

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) once asked the rhetorical question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” assuming there must be someone responsible for the existence of everything. That same question has been used over and over again, almost as a flagship, by semi-sophisticated apologists asserting the existence of a Creator. Why should we accept the logical fallacy of the Supernatural being at the origin of the Natural World? It just doesn’t follow. Putting God at the beginning of space-time doesn’t answer anything and only complicates things further. Anyone with a pulse should then logically ask: “If a Creator created the Universe, who created this Creator?” This will inevitably lead the asker into an infinite regression that doesn’t help him very much in the quest for truth.

Scientists have now found a possible explanation for the creation of everything, and if proven wrong, they will gladly dismiss the idea ipso facto to continue searching elsewhere. Theists will inevitably make all sorts of apologies in order to maintain the status quo. The diametrical difference between stances clarifies everything, leaving the natural skeptic with a rather easy choice.

The old guys in Rome, Mecca and every other bastion of obscurantism stand on thin and receding ice… Scientific warming will get them sooner rather than later.

Sources:

-Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing.

-NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/

-Special thanks to my childhood friend Dr. Daniel Finkelstein-Shapiro for his time and scientific insights.

Preaching For Reason: The Walls You Will Hit.

A powerful tool

I love having debates and I enjoy witnessing debates. I like the passion, the fire, and the wisdom that emanates from the juxtaposition of ideas. When ideas are confronted, discussed and exposed for what they really are, the sum ends up adding to more than the whole of both parts. I personally admire the values that make a strong debater: rhetoric, poise, finesse, humility, preparation, documentation, assertiveness and above them all, crystal-clear logic. Debate is the basis of Democracy and a beautiful arena for intellectual blossoming. Debating should be celebrated, encouraged and practiced without restraint. Not always in the rigid and strict format you may be thinking of, but also informally, with friends and family, over dinner or drinks. As long as the golden rule of uttermost respect between counterparts is observed, anything goes. But watch out! Respect for the counterpart does not necessarily mean respect for the counterpart’s ideas. In this tiny distinction lies a big confusion.

How does this relate with secular thinking?

As put forward in the header of this blog, some people think that religious belief and the supernatural deserve special respect, perennially protecting them from criticism and broad daylight analysis. We’ve all heard the saying “Never talk about religion and politics” or “Please respect my beliefs”. My instinctive retort to both sayings is “Why the heck not?” and “Why should I”? Everybody has a right to believe whatever nonsense crosses their mind, I’ll give you that much, or adhere to whatever ignorant view they may hold -The Tooth Fairy and Wizardry for instance- but that doesn’t mean we cannot talk about it! In any case, it most certainly does not mean I have to respect it. When the going usually gets tough is when people believe in nonsense like Islamic Jihad, or when the ignorant view they hold is homophobia… or the condoning of genital mutilation of girls and boys, racism, misogyny, genocide, pedophilia, you name it. In these cases, our right to disrespect ideas becomes an obligation to cry foul.

God and religion are, as discussion topics, the ultimate hair raisers. Some people will play the ‘offended’ card, some people will play the ‘angry’ card, but I only care about the ‘fair play’ card. The above has been my conviction ever since I popped out of the Atheist/Agnostic closet, and I don’t plan on shutting up anytime soon. If the going gets tough, the tough must get going…

Rules of Engagement

 I’ve had my fair share of heated discussions and passionate disagreements during the last 3 years, loving most of it, except for the few occasions when things have turned for the worse. I’ve learned to identify what not to do and when to stop debating altogether. The following are tell-tale signs that something, on either side of the motion, has gone irremediably wrong:

 

Argument from authority: ‘Because I say so’ should never be accepted in any form of debate as a valid point. Everything is questionable and everything must be proven. Every time I get into this type of debate I’ll hear something like ‘I feel God in my everyday life, I talk to Him, He talks to me’, ‘Religious practice has made me a better person’ or ‘We all need to believe in something and I need to believe in something, so to me, there must be a God’. Those are truly fabulous things, but they don’t prove anything.

 

Argument ad hominem: If a party attacks the arguer instead of the argument, the matter has become personal and little good will come from that discussion. ‘I find it very sad that you think like that. You are missing on so much! Why are you so stubborn and deny God?’ I get that a lot…

 

Argument ad ignorantiam: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When opposing the notion of a God or the supernatural, it sometimes seems easy to appeal to ignorance. I’ve made that mistake a few times and it is both unfair and logically erroneous. The way to avoid falling into that pit is to understand that the question of supernatural phenomena is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (i.e. you may be pretty sure something isn’t there, but you cannot prove it isn’t there). The Flying Spaghetti Monster “FSM” is an unfalsifiable hypothesis by the way. I would challenge anybody to prove to me that the FSM doesn’t actually exist. If I insist I feel the FSM in all aspects of my life, that sometimes the FSM answers my prayers or that I have seen him fly-by, what kind of proof can you bring to the table to refute His existence? The answer is: none. The right discussion should veer towards analyzing the evidence and facts we do have in order to make up our minds.

 

Non-sequitur: When logic breaks down. This is the capital sin in debates and by far and large the most recurrent one. The classic example in the ‘Is there a God?’ debate is: ‘God exists because the Bible -or any other scripture- says so, and the Bible is the word of God’. Paradoxical thinking is a logical fallacy to be avoided like the plague.

 

 

Argument from adverse consequences: This is also a popular choice. It is a commonplace idea that without religious guidelines or a celestial judge, people would go ballistic from night to day; raping, murdering and doing all sorts of wicked actions as a result of insufficient celestial vigilance. This kind of nonsense comes from the same vein as believing that legalization of drugs would turn us all into junkies. I personally think both statements are as true as a 3-dollar bill, but that is not the question: the problem with arguing on base of adverse consequences is that even if those consequences were true, the heart of the issue remains untouched. Should we all become raging beasts if belief in God were to be abolished, the existence or inexistence of God would remain unaltered by that fact.

Statistical Ignorance: I will borrow Carl Sagan’s definition of three types of statistical ignorance you can expect to come across while discussing the supernatural:

• Observational selection: It means counting the hits and forgetting the misses.  We’ve all heard the stories about people miraculously cured from cancer thanks to faithful prayer. I obviously don’t believe that prayer cures cancer but my problem doesn’t lie there; what about all the believers who do pray and don’t get cured? Who’s counting them?

• Confusion of correlation and causation: Reusing the previous example, let’s assume that patients who pray do have better odds at fighting cancer (i.e. positive correlation). It doesn't mean that praying causes lower rates of death just like it doesn’t mean that death occurs for not praying. It just means that there is a relationship between those two things.
• Statistics of small numbers: Drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes. ‘I bet all my money on red and won, I’m the roulette master!’ As the saying goes: a swallow doesn’t make a summer!

And the mother of them all:

 

Suppressed evidence or half-truths:

Here’s a cheat-sheet. If you find yourself thinking in red, you are probably doing it wrong.

 

 

We Are Star Stuff Contemplating the Stars

This comic strip is an artist’s interpretation of Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s answer to the question “What is The Most Astounding Fact?” On this post you will only find an extract of the strip; I encourage you to look at the whole thing at Zen Pencils. A true gem!

My own commentary follows at the bottom.

 

Dr. DeGrasse Tyson’s beautiful words are not only extremely profound but also a scientific fact. By reading them over and over again, it starts to feel a little bit like praying: “These stars, when unstable in their later years, collapsed and exploded, scattering their enriched guts across the Galaxy. Guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself.”

“Forget Jesus, stars died so that you could be here today!” says astrophysicist Lawrence M. Krauss.

What is noteworthy is that this prayer doesn’t ask anything from anyone and doesn’t offer anything in exchange. In this prayer, there are no human sacrifices, no cannibalism and no fixation with sex or virginity. There are no envies, no obligations, no imaginary friends, no debtors or creditors. Nothing in this prayer hints on human weaknesses or complexes. It is a beautifully articulated representation of the elegant Universe, a poem on immutable reality.

I was deeply moved by these words the first time I heard them and remain in awe, to this day, in face of what they mean. The best part is that I don’t need blind faith to know it is absolutely and unequivocally true. Its truthfulness can be verified before a huge community of scientists from different walks of life, nationalities, races and even creed.

Note that this prayer doesn’t answer a “why?” question but a “how?” question. The Universe doesn’t provide you with answers on “why?” because there is no answer to that question. I think the correct stance for the existentialist is to be humble enough to understand there is no destiny, no purpose; there is only what we make out of what there is. By studying the Universe we have better odds at understanding “how” it is we stand here, than by any other means. That, I believe, is something worth being thankful for. We have to understand that giving our life a meaning is our responsibility and no one else's. We have to stop, once and for all, hiding behind the false comfort of believing that everything has been planned out, that everything will be all right. It might or it might not be all right, deal with it. We get one chance at this beautiful ride that life is, and it's a bad idea to go wasting it around hoping for a better afterlife.

The next time you look-up to gaze at the stars, remember that at their core are the exact same elements that assemble the cornea, the optic nerve and the brain that allow you to see them. They are the exact same elements that make your heart beat, as well as the hearts of 7-billion of your brothers and sisters. For he who understands this, no millenary fairy tale or sacred scripture will ever suffice again.

Here is the original audio from Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's speech. Enjoy!

 

Mis diez mandamientos / My Ten Commandments / Mes dix commandements

 

Tomé ésta idea al leer los “Diez Mandamientos del Ateo” del filósofo contemporáneo Alain de Botton. Él es probablemente el más “religioso” de los no creyentes y propone rescatar ciertos aspectos de la religión organizada para beneficio de la vida secular.

I stole this idea from contemporary philosopher Alain de Botton’s “Ten Commandments for Atheists”. He is probably the most “religious” of unbelievers and he proposes to rescue certain aspects of organized religion for the benefit of secular life.

J’ai emprunté cette idée du philosophe contemporain Alain de Botton et ses “Dix commandements pour Athées”. De Botton est probablement le plus “religieux” entre les sceptiques et il propose d’incorporer certains aspects de la religion organisée à la vie séculaire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/9843244/Alain-de-Bottons-10-Commandments-for-Atheists.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mis 10 mandamientos:

1. Lee, aprende, piensa y luego habla, siempre en ese orden.

2. No confundas supuestos con hechos.

3. La Razón es la virtud suprema, la Fe su enemigo mortal.

4. Todos somos iguales pero es preferible la equidad a la igualdad.

5. Los niños son los custodios de la curiosidad y de la inocencia; cuídalos y aprende de ellos.

6. Empatía, generosidad y memoria selectiva: los atributos de un verdadero Caballero.

7. El dinero es tan solo un medio, nunca un fin en sí mismo.

8. El automovilista es responsable del motociclista y del ciclista. Todos somos responsables del peatón.

9. El Destino es para los débiles; darle sentido a tu vida es tu responsabilidad y la de nadie más.

10. No desesperes persiguiendo la Felicidad que ella solo viene cuando quiere. Atesora sus esporádicas visitas y sigue adelante.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My 10 commandments:

1. Read, learn, think and then speak, always in that order.

2. Do not confuse assumptions with facts.

3. Reason is the ultimate virtue, Faith its mortal enemy.

4. We are all equal but it’s preferable to strive for equity than for equality.

5. Children are the caretakers of curiosity and innocence; take care of them, learn from them.

6. Empathy, generosity, selective memory: the attributes of a true Gentleman.

7. Money is only a mean, never an end.

8. The car driver is responsible for the motorcyclist and the cyclist. We are all responsible for the pedestrian.

9. Destiny is for the weak; giving your life a meaning is your responsibility and no one else’s.

10. Do not wait for Happiness, she only shows-up when she feels like it. Cherish her sporadic visits and soldier on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mes 10 commandements:

1. Lis, apprends et réfléchis avant de parler, toujours dans le même ordre.

2. Un à priori n’est pas un fait.

3. La Raison est la Virtue suprême, la Foi son ennemie mortelle.

4. Nous sommes tous égaux mais mieux vaut l’équité que l’égalité.

5.Les enfants sont les gardiens de la curiosité et l’innocence; prends soin d’eux, apprends d’eux.

6. Empathie, générosité, mémoire sélective: les qualités d’un vrai Homme.

7. L’argent n’est qu’un moyen, jamais une fin en soi-même.

8. L’automobiliste est responsable du motard et du cycliste. Nous sommes tous responsables du piéton.

9. Le Destin est pour les faibles ; donner un sens à ta vie ne correspond qu’à toi.

10. N’impatiente jamais à l’attente du Bonheur, il n’arrive que quand il en a envie. Apprécie ses visites sporadiques et continue sur ton chemin.

Intelligent Design?

Those who deny (or can’t be bothered to understand) the Theory of Evolution, often grab the illusion of design found in nature as an argument in favor of a supernatural creator. The aerodynamic shape of a bird’s wing, the complexity of the human brain, the powerful eye of an eagle or the beauty of an orchid; all these things certainly seem to have been created by Intelligent Design. But as powerful as this illusion may be, it cannot be used as a valid point in arguing for a supreme architect. Why? Because those cherry picked examples don’t stand a chance when opposed to the rest of the Universe. The Universe as a whole will appear, to the unbiased observer, as nothing more than the constant expression of chaos or as the elegant manifestation of happenstance. The following are a few examples of the above:

Planet orbits are unstable, star formation is very inefficient (only 3% of gas clouds turn into stars) and the Milky Way Galaxy is on a head-on collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy. Our solar system is nothing short of an interplanetary shooting gallery, with asteroids and comets randomly zooming around, threatening to pulverize its only inhabited planet. Our friends the dinosaurs are not here to testify how bad it can get, but our Russian brothers got a friendly reminder a few weeks ago. There is an astonishing excess of useless things floating around. Only in the Solar System, there are 7 empty major planets, plus Pluto and friends (empty), plus some randomly planted moons (you guessed it, also empty). Saturn has rings but no Saturnians to appreciate them. Zoom out to the interstellar level and it gets a lot weirder. The Universe is 95% nothingness. I’ll get to the concept of “nothing” in a future post, but for now, think that if you could hold all of the Universe in the palm of your hand, you wouldn’t be able to see anything but a few specs of dust. I do not see much design in all this nothingness.

Now back to Earth. Please consider a sample of the problems we face in the place we call home:

It took about 3.5-billion years of painful evolution to reach multi-cellular life on Earth but, as it turns out, 99% of all life that ever lived is now extinct thanks to disease, plagues, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and lightning strikes… Then, as a species, we are highly vulnerable to things like aggressive childhood leukemia, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, HIV/AIDS and cancer to name a few. Did the ultimate designer mean to undermine his own work, or does he do it just for fun? In order to cope with all these celestially designed hurdles, we are very badly equipped with a narrow view of the electromagnetic spectrum and a limited hearing of the frequency range. Our vision drastically declines with age, our teeth fall out, our lungs are highly inefficient and our warm-blooded system forces us to eat constantly and to spend a whole third of our life in a comatose state (sleeping). It seems like crocodiles may have closed a better deal with the guy upstairs; they can go for days without eating.

 

The shape and placement of the home we were assigned also deserves a little thought: we cannot live on two thirds of Earth’s surface since it’s covered with water, and we will freeze and/or starve to death on fifty percent of the remaining third (Antarctica, Sahara Desert, Mount Everest, Death Valley, etc.). This designer certainly isn’t much of a realtor. If our descendants make it that far into the future, they'll witness in about 5.4 billion years from today, how our Sun will have consumed its hydrogen core and grow to become a red giant. The effect of such a drastic change will inevitably reduce our planet to ashes. Unfortunately for us, there is a little glitch regarding the sustainability of our water heater…

Kindly keep in mind that besides the obvious attempts at humor, nothing of the above is based on speculation or revelation. It’s nothing but hard-core, cold, verifiable science. If you choose to disregard the obvious by believing that someone designed this Universe, you’ll have to admit the design was anything but intelligent. If you insist on believing that it was designed having YOU in mind, by all means, think again!