11 deaths a day. From a mere statistic it has become a mantra of the reproductive health (RH) movement. No matter how often it is repeated, 11 deaths a day still moves many to action and some to tears.

Yet the anti-RH — led by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and anti-choice Catholic organizations — doesn’t seem to care about 11 deaths a day. Some, such as Senator Sotto and his supporters, have more disparaging reactions, ranging from mere denial to outright ridicule.

Invariably, the anti-RH believe they are never responsible for 11 deaths a day. Yet even if they eventually realize that their anti-contraceptive position is indirectly responsible for thousands of maternal deaths — and even more due to AIDS and hunger, casualties that can also be minimized by effective contraception and sexual education — the realization wouldn’t make much of a difference.

Because for these anti-RH conservative Catholics, protecting human lives is not as important as respecting God. The act of disrespecting God — and the Church that claims to represent him — is called blasphemy:

Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name… The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things.
– Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Gravity of Blasphemy

St. Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings also form the basis for opposing the RH bill, taught that blasphemy is a mortal sin punishable by death. For Aquinas, there’s no contradiction in killing someone for blasphemy, because he believed that blasphemy was even worse than murder:

If we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one’s neighbor, than blasphemy does to God. Since, however, the gravity of a sin depends on the intention of the evil will, rather than on the effect of the deed, as was shown above, it follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to God’s honor, absolutely speaking, he sins more grievously that the murderer.

– St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

If blasphemy is worse than murder itself, it is surely worse than merely letting mortals die. So it doesn’t matter if maternal deaths — or deaths due to poverty and AIDS — do infinitely more damage to people and the families they leave behind; no damage can be dealt to an immortal deity. What matters to Aquinas is the intention, not the effect; the gravity of the sin, not its actual consequences. Blasphemy must be avoided at all costs — even if the cost is suffering and death.

The Speckled Monster in Montreal

In 1885, one of the most horrible examples of avoiding blasphemy at the cost of human lives happened during the smallpox epidemic in Montreal, Canada. Smallpox was also called the “red death” and the “speckled monster” because of how it stained and ultimately killed its victims:

No pestilence had ever been so fatal, or so hideous. Blood was its Avatar and its seal –the redness and the horror of blood. There were sharp pains, and sudden dizziness, and then profuse bleeding at the pores, with dissolution. The scarlet stains upon the body and especially upon the face of the victim, were the pest ban which shut him out from the aid and from the sympathy of his fellow-men. And the whole seizure, progress and termination of the disease, were the incidents of half an hour.

– Edgar Allan Poe, The Masque of the Red Death

Although he wrote one of the most poetic descriptions of the disease, Poe was wrong about one thing: It was not fear of their appearance that kept the diseased from the aid and sympathy of their neighbors. It was dogma — the fear of blasphemy.

If the Catholic Church hadn’t used dogma to meddle with the government trying to contain the disease, many lives would have been saved. As James H. Marsh, editor in chief of The Canadian Encyclopedia, wrote, this is the real tragedy:

Smallpox is one of the most contagious and loathsome diseases ever to menace humanity. But the real tragedy of the smallpox epidemic in Montreal was that it was preventable. The practice of vaccination, developed by Edward Jenner in England in 1796, was so widespread and so successful that it was widely believed that the disease had been eradicated.

Deaths that can be prevented. By a scientific solution. That has already become so widespread and successful. Sound familiar?

Red Death and Reproductive Health

When it comes to the Catholic Church, history often repeats itself. Contraception is not the first scientific solution to a serious problem that bishops have blocked because they considered it blasphemous. Many examples of this meddling are recorded in Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. The book chronicles how the Church prevented progress in several sciences — geography, astronomy, geology, archeology, anthropology, biology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, medicine, and many others.

In each instance, the story would be the same:

1. Someone proposes a theory that is contrary to Church teaching — dogma, doctrine, or tradition.
2. The Church does everything in its power — blackmail, torture, murder — to oppose inquiry into and development of the theory.
3. Accepting or even considering the theory becomes difficult — especially when reputations and lives are at stake.
4. After unnecessary delay, the scientific community — and then society in general — accepts the theory and develops it further.
5. After even more delay, from years to centuries, the Church finally accepts the theory.

This pattern is especially pernicious when the Church hinders progress in Medicine. When it comes to medical progress, delay is measured not only in time wasted but in lives lost. The smallpox epidemic in Montreal struck me especially because it’s so similar to our RH experience. Below is White’s account interspersed with my comments, comparing Montreal’s experience with ours:

In that year [1885] the smallpox broke out with great virulence in Montreal. The Protestant population escaped almost entirely by vaccination; but multitudes of their Catholic fellow-citizens, under some vague survival of the old orthodox ideas [1 paste below the early protestant theological basis of the old orthodox ideas], refused vaccination; and suffered fearfully.

Many who have escaped Catholic brainwashing already use contraception effectively. More than their conservative counterparts, contraception users are capable of reaching their desired family size, avoiding HIV and AIDS, avoiding induced abortions, and preventing infant and maternal deaths.

When at last the plague became so serious that travel and trade fell off greatly and quarantine began to be established in neighboring cities, an effort was made to enforce compulsory vaccination. The result was, that large numbers of the Catholic working population resisted and even threatened bloodshed.

11 maternal deaths a day, 500,000 induced abortions a year, and 7 new HIV cases a day should be enough to convince us: the RH bill is badly needed. And unlike vaccination, contraception will not even be compulsory. Yet the resistance was just as intense: from misinformation and fear mongering to threats of revolution and civil disobedience.

The clergy at first tolerated and even encouraged this conduct [threatening bloodshed]: the Abbe Filiatrault, priest of St. James’s Church, declared in a sermon that, “if we are afflicted with smallpox, it is because we had a carnival last winter, feasting the flesh, which has offended the Lord; … it is to punish our pride that God has sent us smallpox.”

This is no different from religious leaders saying that HIV and AIDS are god’s punishment for promiscuity, homosexuality, and even contraception. This also reminds me of an anti-RH lecture, wherein the lecturer said that the disaster in Japan was sent by God to punish them for having population control.

The clerical press went further: the _Etendard_ exhorted the faithful to take up arms rather than submit to vaccination, and at least one of the secular papers was forced to pander to the same sentiment.

Rather than cooperate, the anti-RH threatened to react with revolution, civil disobedience, or by not paying taxes. And instead of just one secular paper pandering to the anti-RH, I’ve read several columnists and cartoonists whose opinion seems to be based on nothing but Catholic bias.

The Board of Health struggled against this superstition, and addressed a circular to the Catholic clergy, imploring them to recommend vaccination; but, though two or three complied with this request, the great majority were either silent or openly hostile.

Instead of helping the DOH educate those at risk, the CBCP and anti-choice organizations instead give out misinformation about contraceptives: they don’t work, they all cause cancer, they are abortifacients. They even said the RH Bill is worse than corruption.

The Oblate Fathers, whose church was situated in the very heart of the infected district, continued to denounce vaccination; the faithful were exhorted to rely on devotional exercises of various sorts; under the sanction of the hierarchy a great procession was ordered with a solemn appeal to the Virgin [2], and the use of the rosary was carefully specified.

By the time rosary was recommended, prayer had already been shown to be ineffective in other parts of the world. Inoculation and vaccination, on the other hand, had already saved countless lives. [3]

Maternal deaths, abortions, HIV, poverty — what does the Church recommend to solve today’s problems? Prayer. Faith, abstinence, natural family planning — we’ve tried these solutions and they’ve been shown to be inadequate at best, and outright failures at worst. And instead of just praying for solutions, the Catholic Church is even asking its flock to pray against the RH Bill, the most valid solution in sight.

Meantime, the disease, which had nearly died out among the Protestants, raged with ever-increasing virulence among the Catholics; and, the truth becoming more and more clear, even to the most devout, proper measures were at last enforced and the plague was stayed, though not until there had been a fearful waste of life among these simple-hearted believers, and germs of skepticism planted in the hearts of their children which will bear fruit for generations to come.

Like the other stories in White’s book, there was a happy ending for Montreal. But not before they paid the price. Smallpox is considered by many to be the most devastating disease known to man, killing more people than all other infectious diseases combined. The Catholic Church may not have known the extent of the devastation and the effects of their dogmatism then. But history and hindsight are now on their side.

True Blasphemy

They have a chance to learn from the smallpox tragedy for which they were indirectly responsible. But it seems they are content to continue committing the same mistakes. How much suffering and death must humanity pay before the Catholic Church finally learns that protecting human lives is more important than respecting an immortal God? And if there were a God, and if that God were good, I’m sure she’d agree.

If there were a good God, she’d take more offense at the Catholic Church’s hypocrisy: claiming to have the Truth while they continue to lie about contraception; claiming to be against corruption while they’re in cahoots with corrupt officials; claiming to be against poverty while they have billions they choose not to use for the poor; claiming to be experts on morality while they cover up and coddle clerical child abusers.

These hypocrites are the earthly representation of divine truth and righteousness? Now that’s blasphemy.
______________

[1] Theological Opposition to Inoculation and Vaccination

Below are excerpts from History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom showing how dogma made it difficult to accept inoculation and vaccination:

Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and published a sermon entitled _The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation_. In this he declared that Job’s distemper was probably confluent smallpox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil; that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is “a diabolical operation.”

Not less vigorous was the sermon of the Rev. Mr. Delafaye, entitled _Inoculation an Indefensible Practice_.

A large body of ministers joined in denouncing the new practice as “flying in the face of Providence,” and “endeavouring to baffle a Divine judgment.”
Having thus settled his case for this world, they proceeded to settle it for the next, insisting that “for a man to infect a family in the morning with smallpox and to pray to God in the evening against the disease is blasphemy”; that the smallpox is “a judgment of God on the sins of the people,” and that “to avert it is but to provoke him more”; that inoculation is “an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite.”

Among the mass of scriptural texts most remote from any possible bearing on the subject one was employed which was equally cogent against any use of healing means in any disease–the words of Hosea: “He hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.”

So bitter was this opposition that Dr. Boylston’s life was in danger; it was considered unsafe for him to be out of his house in the evening; a lighted grenade was even thrown into the house of Cotton Mather, who had favoured the new practice, and had sheltered another clergyman who had submitted himself to it.

“It was good that Satan should be dispossessed of his habitation which he had taken up in men in our Lord’s day, but it was not lawful that the children of the Pharisees should cast him out by the help of Beelzebub. We must always have an eye to the matter of what we do as well as the result, if we intend to keep a good conscience toward God.” But the facts were too strong; the new practice made its way in the New World as in the Old, though bitter opposition continued, and in no small degree on vague scriptural grounds, for more than twenty years longer.

The steady evolution of scientific medicine brings us next to Jenner’s discovery of vaccination. Here, too, sundry vague survivals of theological ideas caused many of the clergy to side with retrograde physicians. Perhaps the most virulent of Jenner’s enemies was one of his professional brethren, Dr. Moseley, who placed on the title-page of his book, _Lues Bovilla_, the motto, referring to Jenner and his followers, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”: this book of Dr. Moseley was especially indorsed by the Bishop of Dromore. In 1798 an Anti-vaccination Society was formed by physicians and clergymen, who called on the people of Boston to suppress vaccination, as “bidding defiance to Heaven itself, even to the will of God,” and declared that “the law of God prohibits the practice.” As late as 1803 the Rev. Dr. Ramsden thundered against vaccination in a sermon before the University of Cambridge, mingling texts of Scripture with calumnies against Jenner;

[2] The Church’s Failed Smallpox Solution: Devotion to Mother Mary

At high mass, yesterday, in the Roman Catholic Cathedral, the Rev. Father Emard read the Papal decree, which is considered as applying to the smallpox epidemic in Montreal, and which was issued by his Holiness Pope Leo XIII… The decree alludes to the ravages of epidemic and plagues among the faithful throughout the world last year, and impresses upon Roman Catholics the efficiency of prayer in crushing these regrettable calamities.

– New York Times Archives

To Mary, therefore, we must fly – to her whom rightly and justly the Church entitles the dispenser of saving, aiding, and protecting gifts – that she, graciously hearkening to our prayers, may grant us the help they besought, and drive far from us the unclean plague.

– Leo XIII

[3] The Effectiveness of Vaccination

In Berlin, during the eight years following 1783, over four thousand children died of the smallpox; while during the eight years following 1814, after vaccination had been largely adopted, out of a larger number of deaths there were but five hundred and thirty-five from this disease. In Wurtemberg, during the twenty-four years following 1772, one in thirteen of all the children died of smallpox, while during the eleven years after 1822 there died of it only one in sixteen hundred. In Copenhagen, during twelve years before the introduction of vaccination, fifty-five hundred persons died of smallpox, and during the sixteen years after its introduction only one hundred and fifty-eight persons died of it throughout all Denmark. In Vienna, where the average yearly mortality from this disease had been over eight hundred, it was steadily and rapidly reduced, until in 1803 it had fallen to less than thirty; and in London, formerly so afflicted by this scourge, out of all her inhabitants there died of it in 1890 but one. As to the world at large, the result is summed up by one of the most honoured English physicians of our time, in the declaration that “Jenner has saved, is now saving, and will continue to save in all coming ages, more lives in one generation than were destroyed in all the wars of Napoleon.”

– Andrew Dickson White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

Carl Sagan once had to argue for the inclusion of visible light cameras on the Voyager spacecraft. It was deemed by NASA as wasteful since they’d only be able to record that narrow band of light visible to humans. But Sagan insisted on it. He knew that the images it would take would inspire a new generation of scientists to make even greater discoveries.

The endeavor of popularizing science is definitely a daunting one. Our culture has made science look cold and unromantic. Even science undergrads regularly call out any application of scientific reasoning to everyday events as nosebleed-inducing.

It is this sad culture of anti-intellectualism that projects like the Mind Museum aim to correct.

Finishing construction at Bonifacio Global City early next year, the Mind Museum will have 250 exhibits and five galleries, each specializing in a field of science—from the origins of the universe to the technology of one of its inhabitants.

We at Filipino Freethinkers support the vision of the Mind Museum to promote science among the general public. Because of this, we have sponsored an element on their Periodic Table Exhibit—element 87, Francium.  Like a freethinker in a Catholic country, Francium is one of the rarest naturally-occurring elements and, like the Filipino Freethinkers, has virtually no commercial application. Plus, we [Fr]eethinkers liked having [Fr] to ourselves, Breaking Bad style.

Help build The Mind Museum and sponsor some of the exhibits. Apart from the Periodic Table Exhibit, donors can also sponsor stars and even galaxies. Help inspire the next generation of scientists and freethinkers.

(Images from Mind Museum and Wikipedia)

Did the Pope’s 2010 statement about condom use in exceptional cases show that he’s changed his mind about them? Is the CBCP defying the Vatican by denouncing the Reproductive Health Bill in spite of the Pope’s pronouncement? Between the CBCP and the Vatican, which old boys club is more bigoted? These questions are answered once and for all by the Vatican’s recent efforts at the 2011 High Level Meeting on AIDS.

But first, some background.

In June 1981, the AIDS epidemic was formally recognized in the US. Since then, medical professionals from all over the world have failed in their search for a cure. Prevention, they discovered, is our best bet.

And out of all prevention technologies invented so far, none have proven more effective than the condom. Medical authorities, including the UNAIDS, UNFPA, and WHO, agree: “the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”

But to the Pope, effectiveness alone is not enough. To him, contraception is always evil and should always be banned — even if it saves lives. And of the innumerable lives lost to AIDS, most have been those of Africans. Though they’re only 14.7% of the world’s population, Africa is inhabited by more than 88% of people living with HIV. In 2007, Africa had 92% of all AIDS deaths.

Which makes the Pope’s statements in a 2009 visit to Africa all the more disgusting. He said that “HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.”

To the Pope’s credit, he’s only being consistent. From the start, the Vatican has been lobbying to ban reproductive health programs all over the world, with no sign that they’ll ever change their position.

Then in late 2010, Pope Benedict XVI gave an interview to a German journalist for a book, Light of the World, an appropriate title because it gave a glimmer of hope. Catholics all over the world celebrated the Pope’s statements. “Finally!” they thought, “the Pope has changed his mind about contraception!” UNAIDS even made a press statement welcoming the Pope’s support for HIV prevention.

But most hopes were dashed when the Vatican clarified the Pope’s views, stating that his views on contraception have not shifted. I say “most” because many Catholics still cling to the possibility that the Pope’s statements mean more than they do, that there’s still a chance for change. Even now, some pro-RH Catholics argue that the CBCP is defying the Pope when it continues to denounce contraception. It’s happened more than once that I had to point someone toward the Vatican’s clarification.

If the Vatican’s words aren’t enough proof, their recent actions should be. Yesterday, 30 years into the AIDS epidemic, the 2011 High Level Meeting on AIDS started, serving as another opportunity for the world to “come together to review progress and chart the future course of the global AIDS response.” For the Vatican, it’s another opportunity to take a stand against reproductive health, medical progress, and women’s rights.

When it comes to choosing solutions, the standard for most members is effectiveness in the real world; for the Vatican, it’s adherence to instructions from Heaven. Here are just some of the suggestions made by the Pope’s “all-male team”:

• stripping all references to sexual and reproductive health and rights from the meeting’s declaration
• gutting all mentions of education and prevention other than marriage and fidelity
• insisting that “families” be replaced with “the family”, as though that monolith even exists or that it provides some kind of magic shield against HIV
• deleting all mention of “female-controlled prevention methods
• deleting the following sentence: “… by ensuring that women and girls can exercise their right to have control over, and decide freely and responsibly on, matters related to their sexuality in order to increase their ability to protect themselves from HIV infection, including their sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.”

We’ll find out in a few days whether these suggestions are integrated into the meeting’s declaration. But I believe it’s not too early to come to the following conclusion:

The Pope, with his bigoted bishops representing the Vatican, are an enemy of progress, not only in dealing with HIV and AIDS, but in promoting reproductive health, informed choice, and women’s rights.

I hope the Vatican’s actions help Filipino Catholics realize that the CBCP is not alone in their bigotry. The CBCP has no mind (of its own). All of their statements and actions are dictated by the Vatican. “You will know them by their fruit.”

And I hope the UN ignores the Vatican’s representatives and realizes that inviting them is ultimately counterproductive. On second thought, maybe the Vatican’s objections can serve as useful indications: If the Pope protests, you’re probably onto something good.

(Reposted with permission from here.)

I read in one of my books some time ago about the existence of infrasound; unfortunately, I don’t remember what book that is. Luckily, an article appeared in Cracked.com detailing the same phenomenon, so that means I have something to write about tonight.

I’ll cut to the chase: infrasound consists of a bass sound that is so low as to be nearly imperceptible to the human ear. When detected, infrasound causes affected humans to experience a wide range of effects, including anxiety, extreme sorrow, and chills. (Associated Press 2005)

CAUSES?!

Yes, I know I just used one of the scariest of all words when it comes to scientific research – “causes.” How dare I, you must be thinking – how dare I.

Unfortunately, I have the research to back it up. International Coolperson of Science Vic Tandy wrote two studies about the phenomenon. So what? Dear reader, the man did what no wuss could manage – actually feel and see a ghost, then go about discovering what made it possible.

It had nothing to do with Whoopi.

That’s just one guy, you might say. Never mind that he went to visit reputedly haunted sites with the goal of discovering whether or not the same infrasound frequencies which produced his experience were present; that he did find them matters not to me, for I believe in sample sizes and dependent variables!

PUT YOUR LAB COATS ON!

Fine, I can dig that. You know who else can? Two Richards – one called Wiseman, another Lord. Despite the rather unfortunate-sounding names, these two Richards are real scientists; the Wiseman is a psychologist from the University of Hertfordshire, while the Lord is an acoustic physicist from the National Physical Laboratory in England.

Hallelujah!

The two English Richards constructed a seven-meter long infrasonic cannon and set it up in the Purcell Room, a concert hall in South London. They then invited 750 people to report their feelings after listening to pieces of contemporary music intermittently laced sound from the cannon, played a 17 Hz at levels of 6-8 decibels. The respondents indicated a 22% increase in unusual sensations, including those listed previously, whenever the infrasound was playing. The fun part? The same infrasound is suspected to be present in church organ music. Those cavernous, echoing halls and that massive contraption of steel pipe and hardwood? Infrasound.

Considering the suspected link between religious experience and conditions affecting the temporal lobe – an area of the brain with an important role in regulating hearing – I would like to be so bold as to suggest that maybe finding out the truths about our universe has more to do with listening than it does with looking.

The helmet comes with earmuffs.

It all started when a newspaper in Minnesota published an article informing the public that they had to say hello to their new personalities.

It had, for some reason, gone viral. If you’ve been a good citizen of the internet lately, news of grand zodiacal realignment may have already reached your screen. Not only is there a shifting of the dates of the astrological signs, but a dark horse sign comes along. Just what is going on here?

The Earth undergoes several quasi-periodic movements, including rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. Of the many planetary motions*, axial precession is largely to blame for the change in zodiac signs.

Axial precession is the cyclical change in the orientation of a planet’s rotational axis. The rotational axis would more or less trace a small circle at the end of a cycle. Notice that the entire rotational axis of the earth would trace out a cone. If you happen to have a top right now, go ahead and spin it. Precession is the wobbling motion that becomes very obvious once the top is about to fall.

For the earth, precession is an extremely slow process, and the time it would take for its rotational axis to completely trace a circle would be about 25,772 years. Thus, the position of the stars that we see at night relative to where we see the sun in the sky changes gradually.

When Western astrology was first introduced by the Babylonians, the signs were based on which constellation the sun crossed when it rose**. Over the course of three thousand years, axial precession has caused the background stars to shift, leaving us with shifted zodiac dates as well. Perhaps Bill Nye can explain it better:

If this is the case, why then did the astrological system last as long as it did? Did astrology suddenly decide to drop its central dogma?

Astrology, like many other belief systems, branched out into different systems over time. Although we now have a multitude of ways one can interpret one’s birthday, we can group most of these astrological systems into either tropical or sidereal.

The tropical system is the most common twelve sign system with fixed dates for the signs. This is because it is based on the location of the equinoxes and solstices in the calendar. Though precession changes the dates of the equinoxes and solstices (which are dependent on the orientation of the earth’s rotational axis) slightly, it is corrected for during leap years***, and so the dates more or less remain constant.

The sidereal system uses the original system, and determines the zodiac sign based on what constellation the sun crosses upon rising. What the astrologer was mentioning on news were the mechanics of the sidereal system, which was being practiced by some astrologers all along.

Well that explains the shift in the dates, but what of Ophiuchus?

The sun had always been crossing Ophiuchus, even during the time when astrology was first written down. The sun would intersect with Scorpio and Ophiuchus for about eight days each, before to moving on to Sagittarius. Having thirteen signs was rather lopsided and awkward, and was difficult to properly match with other archetypes such as elements. So the Babylonians decided to eschew Ophiuchus and keep Scorpio, probably because Scorpio look more “aligned” with the other signs.

Several western astrological systems do use Ophiuchus though, further splitting the Sidereal system into either one that incorporates Ophiuchus or one that ignores it.

This recent zodiac sign crisis was no doubt a result of sensationalized media and distortion of information augmented by the force of the internet. Perhaps we should learn a bit more before taking the media’s word, or before heeding random predictions about behavior based on arbitrary shapes from a changing mural of stars.

*Other planetary motions related to precession that could influence the ecliptic** include nutation and polar wander. Nutation is a repeated “nodding” of the earth, and causes the rotational axis to trace a circle with “frills” instead of a smooth circle.

Polar wander is when the geographic north pole, and therefore the south pole, slightly changes its position. Both these motions are very small and slow, and only make noticeable changes over a long time. There are many more quasi-periodic movements that the earth undergoes, and collectively these are known as the Milankovitch cycles.

**The apparent path the sun takes across the sky as we see it from here on earth over the course of one revolution is called the ecliptic. In other words, the constellation that the ecliptic intersects with on that date is that day’s appointed zodiac sign. The ecliptic lies in the ecliptic plane. In the image to the right, The large red circle is the ecliptic.

The ecliptic gets its name from the fact that when the moon intersects with the ecliptic, an eclipse would occur. (if the moon gets in front of the sun’s path in the sky)

***Our leap days are there to correct how long it takes for the earth to revolve one period around the sun, which is approximately 365.25 days. This is known as a sidereal year. Due to planetary motions such as axial precession and nutation, we would notice that the dates and positions of the equinoxes and solstices would change, and therefore we would slowly see the seasons come earlier and earlier in the year. This would be rather disorienting for humankind, when snow starts falling in Japan in June. The effects of precession and nutation are corrected for, however. This explains the existence of an additional rule in determining leap years, where all years that are multiples of 100 are not leap years, unless they are multiples of 400. On average, the time it takes to get from one summer solstice to the next is about 365.242 days, slightly shorter than the sidereal year. This is known as a tropical year.

While it has been stunningly predictive and useful, quantum mechanics, because of its inherent peculiarity, has been a gold mine for new age hucksters such as Deepak Chopra. Albert Einstein himself couldn’t accept the theory which allowed for particles to take all possible paths from point A to point B and for cats to be both dead and alive at the same time. His aversion to this theory was immortalized in the quote, “God doesn’t play dice,” alluding to the strange universe ruled by random events that quantum mechanics was describing. To quote the physicist Richard Feynman, who made great strides in the field of quantum mechanics, “If you think you understand quantum theory, then you don’t understand quantum theory.”

Feynman’s fellow Nobel laureate, Luc Montagnier, who won the prize for establishing that AIDS was caused by HIV, recently published a paper, entitled “DNA waves and water,” which claims that through the use of electromagnetic fields, DNA molecules, the stuff of life, can “teleport” from one test tube to another. The mechanism this takes is, according to the paper, within the “framework of quantum field theory.”

Montagnier’s experimental setup included two test tubes, one containing pure water, and the other containing a highly diluted sample of a fragment of DNA from the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). After applying a 7 Hz electromagnetic field for 18 hours to both the tube that contained pure water, and the other tube that contained DNA, the tubes were then subjected to a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This procedure takes DNA molecules present in a sample and copies them continuously, based on a particular defined DNA sequence. Their results showed that the pure water miraculously produced DNA, when there should have been none.

Here the two tubes (with DNA on the left, pure water on the right) are shown being exposed to a 7 Hz electromagnetic field inside a µmetal cylinder.

This is a stunning result—so stunning that it seems rather dubious. The claim posited here is that dilute quantities of DNA can somehow emit “DNA waves” via its natural electromagnetic field and that this signal mimics the exact DNA sequence of the source in water. This signal can supposedly imprint itself into water. Such an outlandish declaration just cannot avoid comparisons to homeopathy. The paper’s conclusion also favors a rather convoluted solution (DNA waves) over a much more simple explanation: contamination. The retention of an electromagnetic field in the absence of the signal source is, however, entirely possible within quantum mechanics, though only in the order of picoseconds (one trillionth of a second)—certainly not enough time for a PCR reaction to take place (which usually takes about an hour).

The nature of PCR is that it is so effective at making copies of DNA that even just one molecule of DNA can be amplified. Imagine thousands of photocopiers that randomly take any page in their vicinity and copy them. Even if you just had one page to be copied, such a sheet containing the letter “X”, you could create millions of copies of this letter in no time since the copies of that page will be used by the other photocopiers to make even more copies—a chain reaction. Now, let’s say that just one stray sheet with the letter “Y” accidentally flew into the copier room. By the end of your copying, you’d have yourself billions of sheets with either “X” or “Y”. That’s how even one tiny splatter of contaminating DNA (from instruments used or even one’s own hands) can ruin an experiment.

Messing up a PCR experiment is so easy that Montagnier’s observation has to be reproduced by other scientists before it can even be taken seriously. The only reason it seems to be grabbing headlines is that Montagnier is a Nobel laureate. But, Nobel laureates are vulnerable to the dreaded “Nobel disease,” when noted scientists who have won the prize later support pseudoscientific ideas.

The originator of PCR, Kary Mullis, also won the Nobel prize, only to go on to deny the link between HIV and AIDS. Another laureate, Linus Pauling, who won two Nobel prizes, promoted the quackery that vitamin C treated cancers and prevented colds, late in his career.

However, regardless of accusations of Nobel disease, Montagnier’s ideas shouldn’t be dismissed offhand. If his observations can be consistently replicated by other researchers (and contamination is ruled out), then a revolution will occur in biology and all of science. It’s a prospect one can’t help but be excited about, but wonder should always be coupled with skepticism.

Remember that issue about the banana as an atheist nightmare. Ray Comfort from “Way of the Master” uses a banana to prove that God exists which turns out to be a big joke.

It just proved that Mr.Comfort just don’t have the idea what a wild banana looks like. It’s interesting that Ray Comfort claimed that the modern banana was created by God. The banana was domesticated thousands of years ago, and the modern banana was created by humans via selective breeding and cultivation. The bright yellow bananas that we know today were discovered as a mutation from the plantain banana by a Jamaican, Jean Francois Poujot, in the year 1836. He found this hybrid mutation growing in his banana tree plantation with a sweet flavor and a yellow color—instead of green or red, and not requiring cooking like the plantain banana.

Now let us talk about the hermit crab (Elassochirus gilli). Hermit crabs (both marine and terrestrial) are members of the Phylum Arthropoda, Subpylum Crustacea, Order Decapoda. Unlike their crab cousins, these hermits have soft abdominal exoskeletons. Now here’s the problem.

Christian/Creationist like Mr. Ray Comfort argues that life came from a “Great Designer” – someone who can design Mr. Comfort’s banana.

And who is this banana designer? Why…it’s Mr. Ray Comfort’s God of course – the God that you can read in the pages of the Christian Bible.

Now according to the Genesis account, this God created all living creatures (Gen. 1:24) and this God is…ehem…perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4), making all his creations perfect. In fact, God pronounced it “very good”.

Let us go back to the hermit crabs situation. Since hermit crabs have soft bellies, they will not survive without having something hard to cover their bodies. That’s why they need empty univalve mollusks shells in order to live.

I have some hermit crabs for pet (both marine and terrestrial) and believe me, without a shell to cover their asses; hermit crabs would die in less than an hour. Some hermit crabs will even kill snails just to get hold of that precious shell.

So what happened?

It seems this “perfect god” forgot to give the poor ol’ hermit crab a shell.

If Christian/Creationist like Ray Comfort and ex-child star Kirk Cameron are right about their God creating every creature living in this planet, then looking at a hermit crab only confirms the notion that this Bible-based god is a dimwit.

What is the purpose of these shells-less creature if having no shell will endanger its survival? Where’s the perfect design on that?

Maybe Mr. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron can provide us the answer using the power of the Holy Spirit…or…we can accept the fact that this Christian creation story is just a myth. There are no hermit crabs in the Judean desert and the writers of the Genesis myth are ignorant of the existence of such beautiful crustaceans.

Pinoy Atheist

I’ve been posting on several discussion forums for a couple of years now, some of them have to do with atheism and non-belief, some are just regular hobby related forums (basketball, PC gaming, etc.). Every once in a while some believer will come barging in to the threads and start preaching their religion. As many of you would already know, any mention of atheism leads believers to talk about the Theory of Evolution.

One of my pet peeves is how Creationists claim that Evolution is not scientific; that it is somehow “evil” and that it goes against Christian teachings. In fact, they go about spreading lies and misinformation about it to such a degree that most people don’t understand what evolution really is anymore. It’s a sad fact that  less than half of Americans accept the fact of Evolution. Interestingly, according to this survey, a little over 60% of Pinoys accept evolution as fact. Perhaps it’s because Catholicism does not deny it. However, this may change soon as many American missionaries are more aggressively bringing their Fundamentalist brand of Christianity to our shores.

Here are some of the most common misconceptions being spread about Evolution:

Myth #1: Evolution teaches us that our ancestors were chimps! If you believe in Evolution, you believe your great great grandparents were chimps!

Answer: Wrong. We evolved from the same distant ancestor as chimps, not chimps directly. And in the broadest sense, we are related to chimps (We share more than 95% of our DNA with them). Monkeys are “cousins” of the Human species. But does that mean that WE are chimps ourselves? Of course not. We are human, our parents and grandparents are human, and so on and so forth for thousands of years back.

Myth #2: Evolution is EVIL-ution! Evolution preaches “survival of the fittest”, therefore it’s every man for himself!

Answer: Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory. It explains how living things adapt to their environment. It does not make claims about morality, nor does it tell us what we should do with our lives. It explains how things are, not what it should be. Claiming that Evolution is wrong because it “teaches us to kill or be killed” is akin to saying that Gravity is wrong because it causes people to get hurt or killed from falling.

Myth #3: Evolution is “just a theory”.

Answer: In scientific terms, a “Theory” is not the same as the layman’s meaning of theory. What this myth is trying to say is that Evolution is just a” Hypothesis”. A Hypothesis is akin to an educated guess. For a Hypothesis to be promoted to a Scientific Theory, it must pass stringent scientific scrutiny, and must be well supported by evidence. Evolution has a mountainload of evidence supporting it, from across several scientific fields (Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Paleontology, etc). All it takes to destroy the Theory of Evolution is one single solid piece of evidence that goes against it. In the more than 150 years since Charles Darwin first published his book “Origin of Species”, none have come up.

Myth #4: Students are entitled to learn Creation as an alternative theory to Evolution. We must teach the controversy!

Answer: The first thing we must address here is that there is NO controversy (at least in the scientific world). Some scientists may disagree on some details, but there is no denying that Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. 99.9% of scientists accept it as fact. Besides, if that is the stance they want to take, then we should teach other creation myths from other religions too. I’m willing to bet these Christian Fundamentalists will NOT allow that.

Secondly, Creation does NOT belong in the Science Class, simply because it is NOT science. Creationists are free to teach Creation in Religion Class where it belongs. It is an oft repeated lie that prayer is banned in public schools in the U.S. Students can pray all they want. What’s not allowed is school-sponsored prayer.

Myth #5: Evolution cannot explain how life began, therefore God must have done it!

Answer: Firstly, Evolution does not deal with how life began. That’s like blaming the washing machine for not keeping the lawn trimmed. Secondly, scientists already have a rough idea of how Abiogenesis occurred (nothing final and concrete, admittedly). Thirdly, just because we don’t know yet, doesn’t mean we will never know. And lastly, just because we don’t know how, doesn’t mean God did it. It only means we don’t know yet.

Myth #6: You cannot prove to me that God did not create us. Show me the proof!

Answer: It is almost impossible to prove a negative. As an exercise, please prove to me that fairies/Santa Claus/invisible magic dragons do not exist. You can’t, can you? Also, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Creationists are the ones making the extraordinary claim, therefore, they must be the ones to provide solid proof. So far they have shown ZERO evidence.

And finally,

Myth #7: Evolution is the Atheist’s Religion!

Firstly, atheists HAVE NO RELIGION, that’s why we’re called atheists.

Secondly, just because you accept the fact of evolution doesn’t mean you’re an atheist. Plenty of believers have no trouble reconciling their beliefs with the fact of Evolution. Take Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins as examples of devoutly religious people who accept evolution. Evolution does NOT invalidate belief in a god in general. It only refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis in the Bible (or of any creation story of any religion).

According to Christians…the Bible is advance…advance in what????

Let’s look at their claims:

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in…” (Isaiah 40:22)

And again…

(Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)

Now is the Earth a dome?

In Isaiah 40:22 for example, the word “circle” doesn’t mean a spherical Earth. The word “chug” refers to a circle…a flat circle. Notice the word “tent” or “dome” in those verses. As specified in Amos 9:6, this vaulted dome or “raki’a” (See: Genesis 1:6-8) is what the ancient Hebrew believe to cover the entire world. It is said that this solid vault or dome held the Sun, the moon and the stars (Gen.1:14-19; Psalms 19:4, 6) and it also provided the boundaries to the divine (Job 22:14 and Proverbs 8:27)

It also separated the water “above” from the water “below”. In fact according to these ancient Hebrews the blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters above the dome. This solid dome has windows and trap doors in which it release the rain and snow when opened (Gen. 7:11, Isa. 24: 18 and Mal. 3:10)

According to rabbinic traditions, in Nachmanides Commentary on Torah (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman 1194-1270) “Let the expanses become fixed; for although the heavens were created on the first day, they were still in fluid form, and they become solidified only on the second day when the Divine said “Yehee Raqiyaa.” (Also see: Nachmanides (Raban), Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, pp. 33, 36.)

This is clearly not scientific foreknowledge.

Now here’s something real funny.

According from a certain site owned by a certain Eliseo Soriano…the Bible have the forknowledge regarding the use of crying. Now can that only be found in the pages of the Bible? My papaya naman! It is ancient folk wisdom that crying is good for our health. It isn’t new. Practitioner’s of folk wisdom have routinely encouraged people to allow themselves to cry comforting the suffering soul that ‘ a good cry will help you feel better’.

For example:
The ancient Hawaiians assert there are two chemical reactions within the human body that can accomplish Reconnection with Source Oneness. The first is the “sacred tear” beneath our sadness and hopelessness. Beneath that tear lies the second chemical reaction, said to be more powerful than all the healing agents known to humankind. It comes “out of the blue” with the power of a jackhammer, shattering the seriousness of the entire human estate. A power instantly freeing and balancing to all the body’s chemistry. This is the power of laughter. When it comes in this manner, it comes through the “na’au” (gut level) and will pierce the hopelessness of any situation or attitude. It is not a power to be taken lightly, for the ancient Hawaiians say it holds the chemistry of immortality and will instantly heal any terminal disease. It’s said to be the “laughter of God” which shatters the ridiculousness of hopelessness.

Let’s talk about history:

One of the best weapons used by Christians to confirm the Bible story is Hezekiah’s Tunnel. According to them the discovery of the tunnel built by King Hezekiah authenticates the passages written in the book of Kings. 2 Kings 20:20 states that Hezekiah, “Made the Pool and the conduit and brought water into the city” and in 2 Chronicles 32:30 that he closed the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon and directed them down to the West side of the City of David. This refers to the tunnel which connects the ‘Spring of Gihon’, through the rock to the reservoir called the Pool of Siloam.

“And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” 2 Kings 20:20

“And when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come, and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem, He took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city: and they did help him. So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?” 2 Chronicles 32:2-4

“This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.” 2 Chronicles 32:30

It was discovered in 1838 when it was explored by the American traveller, Edward Robinson, and his missionary friend Eli Smith.

Let me get this straight, just because something was discovered by archeologists means the whole Bible is literally true. Let me share to you this quote:

In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we’re learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible.

Christians are well delighted when archeological proof confirms parts of their beliefs. However, since parts of the Bible are historically true still does not make that the rest of the Bible is true as well. The Bible is still not an accurate history book. It tells about some stories about people and events that might happen in the past and were confirmed by archeologists, but still, the fact of the matter, the Bible should not be in use as historical actuality and that the stories in the Bible are NOT metaphors from which facts can be dig out by the reader.

So let us talk about the tunnel, According to Bible scholars, the book of Kings and Chronicles was written possibly between 450 and 435 BCE. There are even some suggestions that these books were written hundred of years after the events took place (See: I Chronicles 9:1-3). The said tunnel was already been constructed before 701 BCE during the reign of Hezekiah. That means the tunnel already existed when both books were being wrote. Obviously the story was already known by the writers and they just incorporated it on their narratives.

I can think of a lot of historical facts that were incorporated in fiction. For example Cold Mountain by Fraszier is historically accurate as to the civil war events but the tale is fiction. There are others like Les Miserables, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Noli Me Tagere and Floeante and Laura. The settings are true facts but don’t tell me that Crisostomo Ibarra and Maria Clara are real persons.

Pinoy Atheist

Robert Sapolsky, renowned neurobiologist, explains how we are not as unique in the animal kingdom as we like to think.

Begin at the 4:50 mark; it’s a long intro, but a very enlightening lecture.

Come on guys, let’s show our love for science and poetry. Let’s keep the creative juices flowing. Here’s my start on this mess. I’m sure you can think of other creative limericks, whether they be about science, math, or anything under the freethinking sun, no?

There was a guy named Schroedinger

who was quite an exceptional thinker

He posited that

there’d either be a dead or live cat

Even before you laid down a finger

And I don’t want to leave another favorite subject of mine (among others) without its own limerick.

Newton discovered calculus

So did Leibniz, plus its use

There was some dispute

on who’d bring the discoverer’s loot

But Isaac won over a ruse.

Warning: For those who haven’t seen this episode yet, spoiler alert!

This is the first, and hopefully won’t be the last, of a series of short reviews I’ll try doing each week for ‘The Big Bang Theory’.

This week The Big Bang Theory (TBBT) episode ‘The Einstein Approximation’ came out,  and is the 14th episode of the show’s 3rd season.
Let me just start this quick and short review of the episode by further stating what the guys there and I have in common, apart from the quite obvious facts that we’re all geeks/nerds by heart.
Even before TBBT, I’ve admired and idolized Einstein myself, because of his great mental feats (which were of course, backed up by other physical theories and experiments at his time). Great because by just the power of his mind Einstein was able to revolutionize our lives and the 20th century, paving ways for faster transportation, not to mention telecommunication and computing, which drove and is still driving the information revolution today. And of course, so much more benefits which we more or less take for granted in our daily lives. In fact, Einstein is oftentimes synonymous with the word ‘genius’.
Einstein was also very much interested in philosophy and politics, not just physics. He’s written several books, articles, letters to people outside the scientific community. He also has a quirky sense of humor, as seen from this  picture of him. At first I thought this photo of Einstein was edited. But as it turns out it was really him, tongue hanging out and all.  It was at the time he was making fun of people taking pictures of him. Great stuff.

Of course Einstein is not without criticisms. Great and accomplished a scientist he maybe, history tells us he left much to be desired when it came to being a father or a husband.

Now, back to the episode review of TBBT. At this point I shall establish a partially objective, partially subjective point system of each episode relative to the earlier 2 seasons (which I have watched at least 2 times…) and a number of judging criteria.

This episode is a classic Sheldon episode, which is great in itself. Again we expected lots of ‘weird’ humor: Sheldon’s ability to complicate relatively simple things, as well as him belittling his friends, most noticeably Penny. Hilarious stuff once again. Bravo to TBBT production team.
Not a lot of scifi or comic book references were made though. But lines such as:

Howard: How long has he been stuck? (referring to Sheldon)
Leonard: Umm…intellectually about 30 hours, emotionally about 29 years.

And

Howard: Have you tried rebooting him? (referring to Sheldon)
Leonard: No I think it’s a firmware problem.

Are classics. 

The part where Leonard and Sheldon were arguing inside the ‘ball play room’, with Sheldon going ‘bazinga’ everytime, was also hilarious.

Sheldon, and of course the rest of ‘the guys’ are fans of Einstein no doubt. Sheldon of course thinks he’s at the same level with Einstein so he tries to do what Einstein did in order to come at the epiphany that is the special theory of relativity: to work for a menial job so he can occupy his basal ganglia with a routine task so he can apparently free his pre-frontal cortex to solve his physics problem.

Another classic moment in this episode is the guest starring of Yeardley Smith, the not so well known voice actor behind the famous cartoon character Lisa Simpson (yes, of ‘The Simpsons’ fame). Absolutely entertaining piece of the episode.

Another classic dialog is again with Sheldon and Penny:

Penny: What are you doing here?
Sheldon: A reasonable question. I asked myself, what is the most mind-numbing, pedestrian job conceivable? And 3 answers came to mind: toll booth attendant, an Apple Store “Genius”, and “What Penny does”. Now, since I don’t like touching other people’s coins, and I refuse to contribute to the devaluation of the word “genius”, here I am (meaning at the cheesecake factory).

Lines like these make me think of the real meaning and application of LOL. 

I suppose myself and those guys, as well as the show’s production team, can’t help cracking jokes at Apple. 

Overall I’d give this episode the following scores:

* reference to sci-fi, comic books, and other geek/nerd pop culture: 6/10

* reference to physics and other fields of science: 9/10

* dialog humor factor: 9/10

* techie/technology factor: 8/10

which gives an overall score of: 8/10

Article originally published here.

Do you notice that religion has two different positions when it comes to science? Some religions seem to incorporate science while some are too aggravated with science.

ISKCON and their guru, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Gosh! Another of those tongue twisting swami names) seem to be too irritated with science and everyone incorporated to it. According to him (it is written on his pamphlet, Life Comes From Life), “I am not a Ph.D., yet I can challenge scientists. Why? Because I know Krsna, the Absolute Truth” (p.20).

Also, this self-promoting guru said, “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick out Darwin’s philosophy. The more we kick out Darwin’s philosophy, the more we advance in spiritual consciousness” (p 48).

Real science is in the Bhagavad-gita, where Krsna says, “This means that whatever one worships in this life will determine the type of body he gets in his next life” (p. 50). (Gosh you call that “science” Mr. Swami?)

For Srila Prabhupada, real scientific research should aim at stopping death. That is real science, and that is Krsna Consciousness…Now may I ask, if Srila Prabhupada is a master guru of Krsna Consciousness, did all his so-called “Krsna science” stop him from dying in 1977?

Let’s see… Srila Prabhupada is adamant that the Vedic literature is the source of all absolute truth, and everything written in the Bhagavad-gita has authority. Really? Absolute truth? Authority to what? A literature that segregates society into caste, which places certain people as the lowest part of the social order for no apparent reason. A manuscript that promotes sexism. A “holy” book that says, “It is the highest duty of a woman to immolate herself after her husband’s death.” This is what you call “absolute truth”? Let me stress this, religious truths can never be absolute. But I know one absolute truth and it’s not even a religious claim. It’s the multiplication table.

In the issue of morality, how can I trust the Bhagavad Gita? Addressing Arjuna’s qualms about killing his relatives arrayed on the enemy side, Krishna advises him to disregard traditional values and act without worrying about the results of his action.

Krishna says:
The wise men who reach true knowledge see with equal vision a Brahmin (a member of the highest caste), a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (Bhagavad Gita 5:18).

Those who think that they can kill or those that think they can be killed are confused in the manifestations of ignorance. The infinite, immortal soul can neither kill nor be killed. (Bhagavad Gita 2:19)

Then that means the act of killing is really not an immoral act as Arjuna is free to kill his relatives, considering them only temporary abiding forms for the eternal self, mere mortal frames.

So we can kill a person because the soul can’t be killed…you are only killing its physical form. Wow! With this kind of a mentality, we can now safely say that homicide is not against the law. Is this the same excuse used in the murder of James Immel (Jayatritha)?

Lord Krishna says that he saves those who worship him (12:6-7) and punishes those who are envious and mischievous (16:19).

This is certainly a contradiction of the law of Karma. Karma is an impersonal, natural law that operates in accordance with our actions. It is a law in itself and does not have any law-giver. Karma operates in its own field without the intervention of an external, independent, ruling agent.

Now this is a little bit strange since Srila Prabhupada believes in Karma. He said that people think they completely control their destinies, but they are always under nature’s law of karma yet he believes that everything is working under someone’s direction. Talk about a walking contradiction!

Speaking of karma, in Hinduism the so-called law of karma merely serves the purpose of decriminalizing the foul doctrine of varna-vyavastha by making the Shudras and the “untouchables” meekly accept their degrading position as a “result of their own deeds” in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them “better” birth in “next life” if they faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their present lives. In this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past and future lives.

It is said that Krishna is impartial to all life forms. He says about himself: “I see all creatures equally disposed and I am not partial to anyone” (Bhagavad Gita 9:29).

Yet Krishna is in fact partial to Arjuna in the battlefield, by serving as his charioteer and military advisor! If God is impartial to all, and if He is absolutely unperturbed, why should He favor the man who clings to Him, and why, for his sake, overrule the world-order of events and in his favor suspend the law of Karma?

There is another inconsistency regarding the character of Krishna. In the Gita, Krishna is called the Supreme Lord of the Universe (5:29), eternal (4:6) and the source of all existence:
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from me (Bhagavad Gita 10:8).

And again:
At the end of an era (kalpa) all creatures disintegrate into my nature and at the beginning of another era I manifest them again. Such it is my nature (prakriti) to follow again and again the pattern of the Infinite manifestations and disintegrations (Bhagavad Gita 9:7-8).

That is to say, Krishna has to follow the pattern of the Infinite manifestations and disintegrations automatically, under the obligation of prakriti”. Yet Krishna is eternal and the source of all existence?
Let see another of Srila Prabhupada sally. According to him, “Krsna’s creation is good; God is good. What you think is bad is good for God. Therefore, we cannot understand Krsna. He is doing something that in our consideration must be bad, but for Him there is no such thing as good or bad. For example, Krsna married sixteen thousand wives. Some people may criticize, “Ah, he is so mad after women.” But they do not see the whole picture. Krsna’s power is so great that He expanded Himself into sixteen thousand different husbands.”

There goes ethics…right down the drain. What you think is bad is good for God….hmmmm. That doesn’t make any sense! If this guru or his followers will say that it doesn’t seem to make sense because I am blind or deaf on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings then so be it! I won’t align myself to this kind of mentality! Just look at that statement: What you think is bad is good for God. If God destroyed innocent infants does that make God feel good? If God killed helpless old folks does that make God good? Gosh! It seems Srila Prabhupada is promoting a monstrous tyrant, not a god!

And what’s this about Krishna marrying sixteen thousand women? What’s so great about that? That only proves Krishna has an insatiable desire for female flesh. And what supreme powers does this Krishna have? Srila Prabhupada proves Khrisna’s greatness and power by saying, He (Krishna) is served by hundreds and thousands of laksmis, or goddesses of fortune. (Brahma-samhita 5:29) That horny ****! And what kind of an explanation is that?

In Mahabharata Krishna adopts and advocates adoption of unfair means like lying and deception for achieving one’s ends. Obviously, he did not believe in the doctrine of purity of ends and means.

Buddha is better compared to Krishna when the former insisted that in the eyes of the law all persons ought to be treated as equal, irrespective of the caste or varna in which he or she is born.

The idea written in the Bhagavad Gita is so topsy-turvy, it’s too far to become a science.

Boy this swami is a real knock-out. But I wonder, if this swami is so dim-witted, then what makes its followers? I guess Einstein was right about the infinity of human stupidity.

Srila Hansadutta Swami’s challenge.

I don’t know if this swami is still alive or dead…but for the sake of entertainment, let us be amused on this so-called challenge that he and some badly informed cult fanatics say that defeated a so-called Sri-Lankan rationalist named Dr. Abraham Kovoor.

The challenge was this: Let him inject the appropriate chemicals into a dead body to bring it back to life. Or let him inject the appropriate chemicals into his body to check his own death and restore his old and worn-out body to its youthful luster and beauty.

If he finds this task too difficult, perhaps he could just produce a simple form of life, such us a mosquito or a bedbug. Better still, let him recombine the chemicals of a praying mantis he decapitated (as described in his article) and bring it back to life. Or is the science of Dr. Kovoor only a one-way road to the destruction of life?

The only thing that Srila Hansadutta Swami proved here is his ignorance to science, especially biology and bio-chemistry. He even called it “word-jugglery” and sure enough only imbeciles will accept his childish explanations.

According to him, “If life is generated by chance biological combinations as some scientists claim, can the scientist Kovoor, given the proper chemicals, make the chemicals come to life?” We must note that Srila Hansadutta’s guru Srila Prabhupada believes that consciousness is the source of life.

So you see what’s the problem here? It’s the definition of the word “life”. What is life anyway, and is consciousness really an attribute to determine life as what these cults believe? First let us define both terms: Life means the organic phenomenon that distinguishes living organisms from nonliving ones while consciousness means an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation.

So far so good…

Now based on both definitions can we conclude that consciousness is one of the attributes that distinguish living organisms from non-living organisms? Simple elementary biology stresses that what distinguishes living things from non-living things are these 4 attributes:
1. reproduction
2. movement
3. growth
4. metabolism

These 4 attributes are the best standard we can use. Now that doesn’t include consciousness, right? Why not?

That’s because not all living things in this planet have consciousness. Hey you can be unconscious yet you’re still alive right? But seriously, trees are living organisms, right? Yet they don’t run for cover when the lumberjack enters the forest.

Now here’s what Srila Hansadutta Swami or should I say Hans Kary claims: He believes that the spirit/soul is the reason why a living organism becomes “alive”. In his letter to Dr. Kovoor in September 6, 1977 he said, “The fact is that the soul is there, but in order to understand its existence we have to accept knowledge from the right person – Sri Krsna or his representative in disiplic succession, the spiritual master.”
That’s not science. Science is not about reliance to authority. Hans Kary’s statement is a religious belief, not scientific.

It’s not only science that doesn’t believe in these “silly souls”. Take a look at Buddhism for example. According to Buddhist teachings the soul is merely a conventional term that does not refer to any real, independent entity. The soul is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces: matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakkhandha) and consciousness (viññanakkhandha). These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of the psycho-physical life.

These chemicals don’t have a soul…and neither do we. Yet the combination of all the actions of these chemicals contributes to form this attribute we identify as life.

In a biological stand, what is life anyway? We are all chemical stuff…and life is nothing but a complex chemical reaction from organic molecules. DNA is molecules, so is the mitochondria. Metabolism is chemical actions. All living things in this planet share the same chemical composition. The same chemical found in my body can also be found in a coconut tree. That really is not a very bad idea, DNA, amino acids and RNA are chemical compounds.

Kary’s challenge stressed that in order to prove this, a scientist must mix the chemicals and produce life. But why would Kary challenge the scientists? It’s not the scientists’ fault…it’s Nature, and Nature has a four-billion-year head start.

You don’t need a scientist to do that. Even an ordinary person can do that. Just have sex with a woman and see what you can create. Every sperm and egg cell in the human body is made up of chemical elements. Tell me what material here in this planet that is not made up of elements and compound? Ether? Gosh even your precious ether is made up of chemical elements. So now you know how chemicals create life. Here’s the fact: mind, consciousness, memory, and life cannot outlast the destruction of brain and body. This is the harsh truth, whether you like it or not.

Now why not let’s make the challenge more exciting…Let see if Krishna can create a simple egg. Can he? As you said in your challenge chickens are producing life, now can Krishna produce anything other than empty chants?

Here’s another one of Kary’s misconceptions: Does life emerge by chance?
Just like other ignorant cult-followers Kary doesn’t know that natural selection is not a game of chance.

Be careful with self-proclaimed gurus.

Now is a guru like Srila Prabhupada really scientific?

Let’s see:
• According to Srila Prabhupada, you must approach a person who is learned. You must find such a person, a guru and surrender to him. Then question him, and whatever answers you get from him you must accept. That is the process of understanding God. You must first find the guru; then you must satisfy him by serving and by surrendering unto him. (Life Comes From Life p.102)

• Becoming a member involves choosing a guru and becoming a disciple to him. This guru is so critical that it is said, “without [the Guru] the cultivation of Krishna consciousness is impossible. From the devotee’s side, initiation means that he accepts the guru as his spiritual master and agrees to worship him as God. (Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions 2001, pg. 176)

• In his April 1967 New York lectures Srila Prabhupada remarked, “Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders, and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion.” ISKCON, he believed, was the only true exponent of the Vedic faith today.

• “If an authority not only expects to be obeyed without
question, but either punishes or refuses to deal with those who
do not, that authority is authoritarian.” ( The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power p.15)

• “Gurus undercut reason as a path to understanding. When
they do allow discursive inquiry, they often place the highest
value on paradox. Paradox easily lends itself to mental manipulation.
No matter what position you take, you are always shown to be missing
the point; the point being that the guru knows something you do
not.” (The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power p.74)

Now does the “guru” lead a person towards more independent thinking, or does he make you completely dependent on him? Does a guru allow you to think or explore? Does this guru claim to be the “true initiate of the Masters” to whom revelations are given?

Real science doesn’t seek disciples and followers. It doesn’t claim absolutes. Science is about developing one-self and to understand the real world. It’s not about blind obedience. It is open to new ideas and it doesn’t judge what is right or what is wrong. It’s not about not eating food, nor shaving one’s head. Science is about discovery. As Carl Sagan has said, “Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fits the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything—new ideas and established wisdom.” (The Demon Haunted World)

Doug Kreuger has expanded the well-known Christian legend of the atheist philosophy professor who is unable to prove that he has a brain. (Special thanks to Steven Carr for this post.)

“LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Ahh! THE BIBLE!” He considers for a moment.

“Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could…in fact most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.”

No answer.

“He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

No answer.

The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”

“Er… Yes.”

“Is Satan good?”

“No.”

“Where does Satan come from?”

The student falters. “From…God…”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. “I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian. “Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”

“Yes.”

“Who created evil?”

No answer.

“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things – do they exist in this world?”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“Who created them?”

No answer.

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian’s face.

In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?” No answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?” The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. “All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn’t it, young man?”

No answer.

“Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?” Pause. “Don’t you?” The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

No answer.

“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”

The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?”

“No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir. I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus… In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

No answer.

“Answer me, please.”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”

“No, sir.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“…yes…”

“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

The student doesn’t answer.

“Sit down, please.”

The Christian sits…Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”
The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”
The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”
‘Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“Is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No, sir, there isn’t.”

The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 – You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

“Silence.
A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. “Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”

“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you getting at…?”

“So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes…”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?”

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.
This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error….”

The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”

“Sir, may I explain what I mean?” The class is all ears.

“Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That for example there is life and then here’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it.” The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”

“Of course there is, now look…”

“Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”

The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.”

The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.”

“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies. “Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. “Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?”

“I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.

“So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”
“I believe in what is – that’s science!”

“Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face spits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed…”

“SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?” the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?”

The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?”

The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain?”

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain.”

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits… Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student’s antics, asks the student whether he’s ever read anything about science.

“No,” says the student. “I only know what I’ve heard in church.”

“That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man,” says the professor. “Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist.”

“Oh,” said the Christian.

“No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it.”

“Oh, I see. That makes sense,” said the Christian student.

“Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn’t be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?” said the professor.

“I guess not.”

“In fact, if I had no brain I couldn’t do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!”

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.
“Evolution is known to be true because of evidence,” continued the professor. “It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley’s “Firing Line” show. Did you see it?”

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, “My mom won’t let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith.”

The professor shook his head sadly. “Knowledge does have a way of doing that,” he said. “But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed.”

The Christian student sputters, “You–you mean we HAVE seen it?”
“Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?”

“Uh, no.”

“Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London’s underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn’t have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?”

“Well…”

“What does it have to do with our issue?” asked the professor.

“Well, if you don’t believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes.”

The professor laughed. “Evolutionists don’t believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor.”

“Wow!” said the Christian. “That’s not what they told me at church.”
“I’m sure. They can’t refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don’t you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?”

“I didn’t know that.”

“In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line,’ which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact.”

“Really?”

“Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution.

Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?”

“I guess not.”

“Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant.”

“I see that now,” said the Christian. “I don’t even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence.”

“Well,” said the professor. “As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones.”

“I’m guess learning already,” said the student, looking at the floor.
“But back to the problem of evil,” said the professor. “You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?”
The student said lifelessly: “If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil.” It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. “Okay, let’s suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?”
“There is the absence of good,” said the student.

“But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it.”

The student looked confused. “But why should he prevent it? It’s not his fault.”

“If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, ‘It’s not my fault,’ we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil.”

The Christian student thought for a moment. “I guess I’d have to agree.”

“So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil,” said the professor. “At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it.”
The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. “But that’s according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can’t judge him by our standards.”

The professor laughed. “Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed.”

“I don’t understand,” said the student, wrinkling his brow.

“If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?” “Of course it is,” said the Christian student. “That’s what a car is.”

“But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it’s not a car?”

“No,” said the student. “It still fits the definition of a car. That’s what we mean by saying that it’s a car. It doesn’t fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn’t call it that.”

“Exactly,” said the professor. “If it fits the definition, then that’s what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be ‘good’ in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good.”

“I don’t believe it!” said the Christian student. “A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn’t fit the definition of good, so he’s not good.”
“There you go,” said the professor.

“But wait a minute,” said the student. “God could still be good in some other definition even if we don’t call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he’s good. Even if we couldn’t call him good, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway.”

“Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition,” said the professor.

“Why not?” “Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition.”

“That’s right!” said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. “If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that’s his definition of eternity!”

“Now you’re thinking!” said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. “This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students.”

The Christian student continued. “God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that’s his definition of keeping a promise!”

“Yes, yes,” said the professor.

“I can’t believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It’s so indefensible,” said the student, shaking his head. “Just a few moment’s thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse.”

“So it would seem,” said the professor.

“I’m going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn’t tell me the truth about evolution!”

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain–because that’s what it’s for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person’s life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.