Quadrennial Milestone and Beyond....

It has now been a day over four years since I initially started this blog. I never had a cohesive strategy as to what direction the articles would flow, or the topics that would be covered. Along the way, just as is the case with any writer, I've been influenced and inspired by vastly different sources. Whether there were books I was reading, movies I was watching, conversations with people both supportive and detractive, or even moments that came out of sheer boredom, there have been countless extrinsic influences that have helped shaped these posts. Some, naturally, are a bit polemic and combative in tone (in the case with religion, spirituality, antiscience, etc.), others are more introspective, while the rest run the gamut from philosophical perspective to scientific understanding, and even the realm of language and grammar. Generally though, the common thread among these blogs is the importance of evidence, critical thinking, testing, reasoning, and ultimately using the scientific method towards achieving a cohesive picture of our place in the universe. Generally, it is possible to develop a comprehensive and fulfilling philosophy that is grounded in reality, and not within some imaginary realm.

From the general tone and direction of the last few months, it has become obvious to regular readers that there's more anger, frustration, fire, and some even call arrogance towards obtuse beliefs and ideas. It must be understood that coercing and indoctrinating an individual who remains ignorant of critical thinking is not difficult, but those who have developed the knowledge and understanding that only empirical processes can reveal are well suited towards navigating these complex lives we lead full of misleading and conflicting information. These topics are not meant to proselitize or convince others of their mistaken notions overnight. First, it is more of a personal catharsis towards developing a wholesome and realistic perspective in life. However, as is often the case when I debate my views, I'm labeled as a fundamentalist, no different then religious zealots out to convince others of their superiority. In fact, there's a law that relates to this illogic called "Blake's Law". It states that the longer a conversation between a believer and atheist lasts, it's almost 100% certain that the believer will call the atheist a fundamentalist. Fortunately, a response to this logical fallacy has already been alluded to by P.Z. Myers (an evolutionary/developmental biologist with one of the most popular science blogs online). His response is:

"The "new atheism" (I don't like that phrase, either) is about taking a core set of principles that have proven themselves powerful and useful in the scientific world — you've probably noticed that many of these uppity atheists are coming out of a scientific background — and insisting that they also apply to everything else people do. These principles are a reliance on natural causes and demanding explanations in terms of the real world, with a documentary chain of evidence, that anyone can examine. The virtues are critical thinking, flexibility, openness, verification, and evidence. The sins are dogma, faith, tradition, revelation, superstition, and the supernatural. There is no holy writ, and a central idea is that everything must be open to rational, evidence-based criticism — it's the opposite of fundamentalism."

Some people are happy living a fantasy and lying to themselves about the nature of the world, but others are curious creatures, investigative in nature, and generally enthused about the universe, reserving imagery and fantasy to realms that are fun in small doses or for amusement, but in normal daily practice, are useless. Every infant is an explorer, intrigued about the surroundings, and investigative in their nature. Once we reach a critical age, perhaps through our educational system, or rigid religious dogma, most of us lose our sense of wonder and fulfillment. We stop asking questions, and settle with substandard answers because we fear the truth.

However, atheists as a whole, although sharing the common bond of living in reality and functioning with a great deal of skepticism when faced with non-testable predictions, are often divided among many other topics. The philosophical views for example among atheists are ubiquitous, with some agnostic about the proper philosophy, while others seek to find philosophical satisfaction from obscure sources. One major disagreement I have with some atheists is the fact that they feel the word "atheist" carries too much negative connotative baggage, and therefor must be discarded for something more pleasant and friendly to the ear. The eminent biologist Richard Dawkins, among a few intellectuals have been pushing for the "brights movement". In this case, they want to relabel atheists as brights, and in doing so, hope that more come to embrace it. In my opinion, this relabeling seems too patronizing and condescending towards those who are ready to release their dogmatic faith-based beliefs. Another disagreement is on how to introduce these concepts to children. Their natural curiosity and imagination should not be limited, but at the same time, they must understand at an early age to be skeptical of certain beliefs may try to reinforce. In this instance, I believe raising children to embrace agnosticism is far more beneficial. A time may come when their perspective develops to the point where they choose to become atheist, but until that moment, they must be able to process the universe skeptically, but less rigidly. Christmas presents, and Easter egg scavager hunts should not be denied to children (after all, childhood has to remain fun and exciting), but they should be told that no matter how convincingly an adult tells them they know the truth, they must always maintain some skepticism. If a child asks if God is real, then a good response from this open perspective would be "to some people, they think God is real, while others, they aren't so sure, but nobody really knows the absolute truth. Anything you believe is equal to anyone else, but remember that the best way to investigate the world around you is through science." Ask any atheist, and their reply to children regarding this God question will be different. Here again, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean we're all in agreement about everything. Unlike rigid political parties, we're happy to debate our differences, and perspective within a framework of reason, critical thinking, and the exchange of different opinions grounded within reality.

Ultimately, the future direction of this blog is up to the whims of reason, critical thinking, and the countless sources of information that help us maintain a grounded world view. True inspiration does not come from imaginary beings that mean something to someone and remain completely unknown to others, but to our inherent inquisitive human nature. It is our physical and cultural evolution that leads us to reach for goals and objectives far beyond our limited scope. It's the embrace of these ideals that will define our future.

Popularity Contrasts

Upon browsing through the Yahoo Top News Stories section, I happened to notice five very interesting articles under the Most Popular heading.

1) Pilots run out of fuel, pray, land near Jesus sign
2) Lost parrot tells veterinarian his address
3) Daughter of Christian music star killed by car
4) Federal court rules against military gays policy
5) Scientists discover "frogamander" fossil

As one glances through these topics, it's hard not to notice the vastly different stories that these articles contain. The first one involves light aircraft pilots who made an emergency landing and upon preying to God, happened to crash land safely next to a sign praising Jesus. Now it's understandable that during the stress of the event, and the likelihood that their perceived survival was slim, such a coincidence would seem like proof positive that the heavens somehow intervened to save these pilots. One question however is why do so many people praying for similar things end up dead, while these two survived? Some may say that perhaps they had a mission in life that wasn't accomplished, or that God operates mysteriously. Well, as is obvious from previous posts, that's a load of nonsense and justifiably used to convince oneself of their indoctrinated beliefs. The survival of these two pilots was a lucky accident, and they should feel like they won a royal flush in poker, but to assume that God made that possible is laughable at best.

The second story relates to a lost African Grey parrot in Japan that happened to know its own name and address, to the minute detail of the apartment number. What amazes me about the story is the temperment of the parrot. Initially, as it was brought in to a police station, it was silent, but after a few days of reduced stress, and a nurturing environment that had comforts such as food and water, the parrot was able to feel comfortable enough to speak. The fact that they display such differing characteristics and temperments between each other highlights their intelligence. One question that often comes up is the evolutionary advantage of such great mimicry. Why are African Grey parrots so much better at mimicking various sounds, as opposed to other parrots? What is special in their environment that allows the such an evolutionary adaptation? Finally, do their thought processes and vocal mimicries result from their gregarious social nature or sexual selection adaptability?

The third article is unfortunately the most tragic of all. Apparently the 5 year old daughter of a Christian music star was killed when she was accidentally run over by a car driven by her teenage brother. Naturally, the death, and subsequent trauma that this poor child must carry will be a burden upon this unfortunate family. Yet, where was their God to save the poor girl? Was he silent? Was he blind? I don't mean to lessen the tragedy or severity of this event, but was this girl's life any less sacred then the lives of the light aircraft pilots?

The fourth story represents a fragment of the constant battle that minority groups have fought throughout our history. As culture and society progress, groups that were previously mistreated have slowly become accepted and eventually ingrained in society. At one point in time, Native Americans, African-Americans, non land-owners, women, and recently homosexuals have been given negligible, if perhaps limited freedoms in American society. The story mimics the constant battles that each of these groups has had to face for acceptance. At the moment, non-believers such as atheists, agnostics, and others who have replaced irrational faith with evidence based reasoning have become targets for discrimination. Ultimately, as has always been the case, progress will prevail, and after a long drawn out battle of acceptance, groups that are discriminated will eventually become absorbed into the complex social fabric that will become the future. Yet, we are constantly reminded of liberty, equality, and justice for all, while those concepts are applied to a limited number of individuals and seem to always come with a limiting caveat.

Finally, on a more scientific-related article, recent fossil evidence has emerged that links the amphibian family lines of frogs and salamanders together. Evolutionary Biologists have long known that there was a common ancestor, or transitional species that at one point branched to form the respective amphibian families. The evidence is indicated through comparative anatomy, molecular clocks, and other such independent evidence. Finding the missing fossil that links the frog and salamander family together is vitally important in understanding how fossils evolve over time, and more specifically, how the amphibian family branched. It is amazing and literally ground-breaking discoveries like this that leads to our expanded knowledge and understanding of the world around us. No religion, no matter how well intentioned can ever answer questions as properly and beautifully as the scientific method can. The fact that a 290 million year old creature happened to die in favorable circumstances for fossilization, and that nearly a third of a billion years later, a creature with immense reasoning abilities managed to uncover it and trace its origins and subsequent species diversity is humbling and absolutely incredible. Here we are, as a highly intelligent and adaptable primate uncovering fossils of animals that highlights the origins and immense diversity of life on this little blue globe, placing more importance and emphasis to imaginary entities, instead of the awe inspiring physical world around us.

What links these five stories together, besides their popularity is that they involve our deepest seats of emotion. As one story attempts to solidify our faith, another highlights the tragedy of life, a third uncovers the battle for cultural awareness and progress , and finally two that highlight the wonderment of nature (fossils that unravel so many mysteries and animals that mimic our valuable traits). From highs to lows, from understanding to ignorance, these are the contrasting variables that describe our complex human behavior.

Perceived Arrogance

A common criticism often directed at my posts involves my supposed arrogance in elevating science and the scientific method above that of religion and spirituality. Many find it offensive for me to disrespect the personal and deeply held beliefs that they cherish so greatly. They feel that by choosing evidence, in contrast to personal belief, to formulate a philosophical perspective, I am limiting the possibilities around us. Apparently, just because there is no conclusive evidence to support various supernatural phenomenon, the fact that a distant possibility exists for their belief, I should choose to keep an open mind and accept any illogical and unsubstantiated view only because it happens to be unproven. This kind of limited thought is specifically the reason why I address these issues so often, and frequently fight with vigor for the allowance of reason and empirical evidence to dominate our thinking. It is possible for one to develop a well-rounded philosophy without having to divest their reasoning abilities into topics that have no factual basis in our world. Furthermore, as morality and ethics are not constrained and bound by religion, we should all have the freedom to recognize the importance that these beneficial human traits have outside of the dogmatic religious beliefs that have been indoctrinated into our minds. Once we recognize the importance of evidence, empirical thinking, and a strong foundation of data, we can be extremely successful in matters that are critical to our specie's and planet's survival. The future of our world is not connected in any way to the religious or spiritual beliefs of various people, but to the tireless work that we're willing to do improving both the environment and living conditions on this only planet that we've ever called home. No religion, no matter how tolerant, or coercive, has ever been able to usher in an age of progress and wisdom. In fact, progress was done in spite of the archaic and conservative notions that many religions display. As science has expanded our knowledge of the universe, the physical reality that religion allowed humanity to accept has become irrelevant. We now understand many of the mechanisms that are inherent in the processes that govern the laws of the universe, and subsequently our origins and behavior. We don't need religion anymore to give us physical models of the universe. Furthermore, as was mentioned before, we don't need religion to lead moral and ethical lives. The moral current that has evolved through our culture has done so, in spite of religion. We can pick and choose certain passages from various religious texts that appear relevant to the moral behavior of each generation, but cannot take the whole religious text as a moral code. In the Old Testament Bible for example, adultery was punishable by stoning the adulterer to death, and further, slavery, especially the indenture servitude of one's daughters was openly allowed and practiced. Few in this day and age would be willing to maintain many of the practices that were written and glorified in archaic times. So if morality, and physical descriptions are completely unnecessary products of religion in modern times, what other aspects might it provide humans? Well, as was covered in previous posts, comfort and ignorance may allow some people to maintain a rigid mentality when trying to break free of their indoctrinated bonds. Yet, should we be willing to maintain that some people need comfort and ignorance to survive properly in the world? Perhaps a select group of people really do need to lie to themselves, and allow themselves to be fooled into imaginary ideas involving voyeuristic beings claiming to be benevolent when in fact, their jealousy, guarded behavior, and limited rules of engagement constantly indicate their absurd nature.

As is typical, people will look at the harsh tone I have set towards religious views and maintain that I am still foolish and arrogant. They'll claim that not all religions are "bad" and that they do have their uses. Some apologists who are not religious themselves will further insist that these religious beliefs (or even the spiritual nonsense dominating the scene these days in the form of new-age ideas) are important for maintaining cultural continuity and a sense of self worth. Obviously, there may be some importance towards religious belief, but with the knowledge that we have accumulated in the last few centuries, few can deny the power of science over those religious myths.

As far as arrogance goes, I suppose that this stigma will remain with these posts as long as the tone remains as such. Yet, it's important to realize that every progressive thought is often met with arrogance when the masses have yet to embrace concepts that will eventually become widespread. There was a time in our not too distant past when many people believed slavery to be morally justifiable. A few however, dared to maintain that perhaps these African descendants were human beings after all. They did happen to bleed the same color, and although their external and cultural differences were obvious, they also laughed, cried, fought, worked, played and even died like any other human being. The brave individuals that first came forward to maintain this injustice were often harassed, attacked, and even killed for their beliefs. They were often looked upon as arrogant people of "enlightenment" who had read too many books and did not function in the "real world". Even closer to our current time, women were barred from voting because it was felt that they could not make a logical decision (often justified through Biblical passages -- the morality of their time). They viewed women as nothing more then child bearing and rearing cheap labor. It took generations of people, and countless individuals willing to stand up to their beliefs that women's votes also counted, before suffrage was declared universal. Looking at society now, many archaic beliefs will one day seem just as strange and unbelievable. Some of us, through determination, and perhaps a small masochistic streak, maintain our views in the face of so much opposition because we know them to be morally and ethically true. To summarize these views (which some deep ultra liberal, but will one day become the norm -- just as the most conservative view today is absolutely liberal and leftist compared to those 100 years ago), one must understand that there was no special creation involved in our evolution and present appearance on this planet. We ARE a cosmic accident, and although many have a difficult time accepting that, as religion's flame fades away, more and more minds will begin to understand the implications. If we are truly descended from Apes, and share a common biological bond with all the creatures of the Earth (as well as chemical and physical bond with the rest of the universe), then that means no human being is biologically more important than another. In essence, all human beings are an accident of the universe, and an accident of an evolutionary process that blindly moves in any arbitrary direction dictated by the selective pressures in the environment. No wonder this idea is so revolutionary and unsettling to many people. Their special status is suddenly questioned, and we become no different than any other entity in existence. Thinking along these lines often results in the mistaken impression that these views are extremist and no different than the fundamentalism of certain religions sects. However, these views are based on evidence, and if perpetuating the notion that evidence trumps everything else in explaining and understanding our universe, then perhaps an evidence extremist is not such a bad notion. Eventually, the tide will turn, and most people will come to realize the implications of our accidental nature. True arrogance results in our belief that we are superior to other entities such as ethnic groups, and even biological creatures. Our reasoning abilities however do give us a unique perspective on this planet. We have it within us to change this world, either for the better, or for the worse. Either we use our reasoning abilities to answer the mysteries of our universe, or we waste it on imaginary and supernatural phenomenon that exist only in the inventive minds of fearful, credulous individuals.

Einstein's Religion?

There's been a great deal of recent debate and controversy regarding Albert Einstein's views on religion and his personal beliefs on the subject. As a complex human being garnering such a great deal of interest from both academics and lay people alike, Einstein's beliefs are subject to wide speculation and an intrinsic need among many to fully understand his personal views. When one thinks of the quintessential scientist, their mental picture is often that of Einstein, his pipe, absent eyes, puffy white hair, and wrinkly forehead crinkled deep in thought. Therefore, those who support religion and spirituality often look at anything Einstein may have said that might tolerate their views, while others, opposing any form of religion and spirituality often look for evidence that Einstein was an atheist. Both camps feel that any shred of evidence that Einstein may have written, said, or somehow implied defending either view is valuable and groundbreaking. Lately, a lot of Einstein memorabilia has appeared on the market, and people's interest in him has never wavered. Of late, a letter was found in which Einstein fully dismisses religion as childish, and in particular, refers to the religion of his upbringing (Judaism) as nothing out of the ordinary when compared to other such childish religions. This naturally gives fuel and fodder to the atheist supporters of Einstein, and credibility to their arguments that he often invoked God as a metaphor, not an absolute.

Having described this phenomenon of treating Einstein as a valuable resource towards confirmation or denial of various claims, we must try to keep some perspective on these notions. Einstein was neither omnipotent, nor central towards universal insight. He was a human being gifted with abilities in physics, mathematics, simplification of complex laws, and of course, approachability. As all humans however, he was flawed in many ways; distant from his family, unfaithful to his wife, stubborn in his later years towards quantum theory, etc. What all this adds up to is that people deify him and subsequently project their beliefs on to him. Since they respect his position and achievements, they feel that his views are vastly superior to that of scientists in today's world. However, it must be understood that Einstein was neither a philosopher, or had the theoretical knowledge and wealth of the last 60 years to draw upon. His notions, though far advanced for his time, are now expanded upon and further understood. What was once his theories of general and special relativity have become well understood by many physicists, and they have further labored (just as Einstein did in his last 30 years) towards unifying these concepts of gravity with the other three fundamental forces (known as a Grand Unification Theory, or GUT). Although we're no closer at approaching unification, we have a much better understanding of relativity and yet, must realize that Einstein doesn't speak for all scientists or philosophies. People cannot use his views on religion as a justification for belief or disbelief. He was an important human being, but is now dead and gone. His beliefs, though important and relevant to him have been long buried along with his body. It doesn't matter what his religious views were, just as it shouldn't make a difference as to what Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and others believed. We should form our opinions based on this mountain of scientific evidence collected through the centuries regardless of the personal beliefs of those involved. Their scientific achievements are a totally different and far more important matter, but whether they believed that shooting ducks in a barrel filled with tomato sauce or running puppies over while riding intoxicated on morphine on a unicycle, was a fun method to pass the time, shouldn't matter.

Fear of Knowledge and "Elitism"

As long as human beings have been around, and probably even earlier (among hominids like Neanderthals and perhaps even Homo Erectus), it is well known that individuals possessing a great deal of knowledge are very important for the preservation and continuation of society. These individuals, which we now call experts have spent their lives studying phenomenon that has lead to novel methods of illumination and revelation. As human society has expanded, so has the role and importance of experts. During the initial stages of human civilization, certain individuals we now call Shaman, or witchdoctors were trusted to possess knowledge that was seen as critical towards the survival of a tribe or even society. They were often entrusted to have knowledge of the natural phenomenon that occurred around their limited world-view. They were often found working with the beliefs that made logical intuitive sense. Their understanding of botany, atmospheric phenomenon, and geological changes was extremely imaginative and elementary compared to what we now know, but in their time and place, they had the wisdom and know-how that individuals trusted for their survival. Perhaps their understanding was limited compared to our own, but they far exceeded their peers, and thus, were often consulted as "experts". As humans settled and civilization matured, new niches were created within society for new kinds of experts. Suddenly, there were priests, astrologers, blacksmiths, geographers, agronomists, animal husbandry practitioners, etc. These individuals occupied important positions in society and thus, were frequently consulted for advice and even philosophical insight. With the advent of science and the scientific method, there are countless niches that are being filled with individuals possessing specific knowledge. Even in the recent past, such as during the Enlightenment, many retained generalized knowledge across vastly different disciplines, but as our base of understanding expands, newer and more specific frontiers are discovered and subsequently occupied by very wise and learned individuals. As an analogy, one can think of an elephant and octopus. An elephant has a single trunk it uses in various different ways, whereas an octopus has 8 arms, with each able to undertake a specific task. Modern day society is very much like an hyper-octopus, with millions of arms each obtaining some specific insight and adding to a thorough understanding.

The recent progress that science and technology have provided to society cannot be underestimated. Through the countless work of millions of driven and wise individuals, a large base of knowledge has been established that continues to grow and add through refinements in the scientific method and developments based on that principle. Concurrently, as fields of expertise have expanded, certain other roles are slowly becoming relegated to the past. Blacksmiths, whose role cannot ever be understated in past society have largely disappeared, with only a few individuals practicing it for the sake of art or very specific niches. Similarly, one would expect the role of religious experts to disappear. As science expands and contradicts the mythical and imaginative stories that many religions are based on, the individuals practicing this nonsense should theoretically be relegated to the role of mythologists. Yet, we see a growing sense of dread for billions of people in the possible loss of these "experts". I have already tackled the reasons many are unable to uncoil this reality numbing python wrapped around their minds in previous posts, but it must be restated that through ignorance, need for comfort, seeking of authority, group thinking, and indoctrination the sense of wonder and reality about the universe is snuffed away. These people grasp at any possible link that although false, may give them a sense of ignorant and blissful inner peace. They purposely close their minds or of those who are willing to tread the fence, stop just before fully crossing into reality and rationalism by purporting to feel empty without their indoctrinated belief system. Ultimately, this fear of the unknown is reinforced and continuously indoctrinated throughout the believers' lives. The fear of having only one chance in life, only one shot on this planet as a biological organism, fragile, and readily influenced through any whim of the cosmos stops many in their tracts, and in fact, results in their hatred towards those who are unwilling to stop at an artificial line.

The ignorant individuals who have developed a sense of fear and mistrust of knowledge eventually deem those who possess those specific traits as a danger to society and view their behavior negatively. The label "elitist" is tossed around these days, by congressmen, media pundits, and even a would-be presidential candidate. The proverbial camelid back breaking straw was when Hillary Clinton referred to Barack Obama's higher education and impassioned, educated speeches as elitist. Suddenly, half the country decided that elitists were evil, snobbish, and didn't care about the working class. Yet, when one really looks at politicians, most of them are traditionally elitist. They have power, money, influence, and most important, view themselves as privileged when compared to the rest of Americans. These people in such lofty positions are all elitist. The scientists, educators, inventors, researchers, and the like are modern day experts, not the elite. These are people who are working hard to further society, and help humanity, while politicians bicker and cause hatred and division among the populace to further their own egotistical agendas. They set the stage for their children to continue in their footsteps, as in the case of the Bush family. These are the elite that the populace should fear, not the learned, and educated individuals. Knowledge is nothing to fear when taken ethically and responsibly but unfortunately, few will ever come to understand this concept. Society will continue to treat children who possess the drive and will to learn as nerds, geeks, dorks, bookworms, etc. It's no surprise that the average American would rather have a President in office that they could share a drink with, play monopoly with, shoot deer, treat them like children, and continually police and suppress their free thought with the public's blind acceptance and enthusiasm. It should further be understood that not all individuals are born with the personality traits conductive towards acquiring all forms of knowledge, but most every individual has certain latent talents and behavioral characteristics that can allow them to occupy certain important niches in society. The shame of having so many people turn their back against knowledge is that many of them can be instrumental in embracing the future, but because of ignorance, politics, and intimidation or fear, they will take the easy road and become resistant towards personal growth and development. When they do seem to embrace personal growth, it's often directed towards useless endeavors like religion or spirituality. It's no secret that religion's greatest fear is knowledge, thus the story of the forbidden fruit and clichés like "ignorance is bliss". Yet, the knowledge is there to be ascertained and the possibilities are both gratifying and infinite. If stating these facts make me seem elitist, then be it so, but there's nothing negative about it.

Armenian Genocide Victims?

As April 24th approaches each and every year, Armenians all over the world commemorate the single greatest tragedy that ever befell the Armenian people in collective memory. In brief, the Ottoman Turkish Empire that had rules large regions of West Asia and the Balkans had dissolved to a point where chaos ruled, and a scapegoat was needed to divert from inherent problems present due to dysfunctional governing, and poor economic policy. Armenians, having been inhabitants of the region for thousands of years, predating the Turks by at least 2,000 years, were singled out and labeled as traitors to the Turkish cause, and were massacred by well over a million individuals. Nearly all the survivors were subsequently displaced, and fled to establish the global Armenian Diaspora that remains to this day. Similarly, the Greek and Assyrian inhabitants of the region (also predating the Turks by thousands of years), where also summarily massacred and displaced. As these populations were considered disloyal, due to their Christian backgrounds, and ethnic independence, they were wiped off the modern face of what's now Turkey. From the late 19th Century, to the peak during World War I, and the subsequent years that lasted well into World War II, millions of individuals were killed, with their history and their ties to the region severed. The thousands of years of architecture, books, language, music, and other such unique aspects to culture were lost forever. It is therefore of no surprise that Armenians identify themselves as victims, and to this very day, believe that the world owes them an apology. Through the eyes of such enlightened entities as Western Europe, the United States, and Russia, the Genocide perpetrated against the Armenians lasted for well over 20 years. Feeling as though this inaction was a crime in itself, Armenians have been pushing for at least half a century to have the world recognize the Armenian Genocide as they recognize the Nazi Holocaust. They associate themselves with other victims, such as the Jews of Europe, and blame many cultural problems on this collective trauma. The fact is that although it is the moral duty of any rational and enlightened country to recognize a Genocide, Armenians are owed nothing. We must realize that our cultural intensity should be directed at greater problems than the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The true victims of the Genocide are no longer among us, but the survivors are not just victims, but individuals with the power of an entire culture to draw from. As hard as the Genocide was on the Armenian psyche, our culture rebounded from these atrocities with a greater drive and intensity. We were no longer inhabitants of a backward quasi-imperialistic entity, but inhabitants that have spread our culture across the world.

As Armenians around the world debate within the legislative branches of their governments for Genocide Recognition, their resources could be better aimed at actually assisting an entity that has managed to emerge from the ashes of such trauma. The Republic of Armenia, as small as it is in area, landlocked and surrounded with barren terrain, is still a soil that is sovereign and independent. After nearly three thousand years of constant battles, an internationally recognized constitutional state has emerged. The obstacles have been numerous, and every advance seems to highlight areas that seem to have recessed or stagnated. Recently, Armenia has been through the most divisive issue that has surfaced in this infant Republic. As the Presidential Elections of 2008 approached, the opposition, lead by the formerly disgraced President of Armenia (Levon Ter Petrossian), staged a massive and violent protest, aimed at the apparently corrupt rule of the outgoing President Robert Kocharian. This protest released a lot of resentment building up within Armenia, regarding those that aim for Western influence, and others who are reliant on Russian influence. As has been the case in Armenian history, the region has become a volatile place of world powers, aiming to deftly, as well as overtly, influence Armenia's future. Armenia has once again become a buffer state, that can be manipulated and manhandled. As the international Armenian community uses their well intentioned influences towards Genocide Recognition, Armenia teeters on the brink of chaos. The possibility of losing the sovereign nation that has spent well over 700 years to regain sovereignty seems to bypass the minds of many Genocide Activists. If Armenians cannot unite and organize to save the Republic, then what good is Genocide Recognition? As the world watches, Armenians are killing each other over foreign influence of the region while a great opportunity for advancement and modernization passes by as quietly as the wing flaps of an owl.

Having just highlighted the problems that have come from tunnel vision focusing squarely on Genocide Recognition, the possibilities of reinventing ourselves is infinite. Armenians need look no further then modern states to see how a small nation, with seemingly few resources can become a major player and partner to the modern global economy. As an example, Singapore, even in the 1950's, was largely an agricultural and rural country. Yet, within a few decades, it had become powerful enough to lead the world in certain industrial and financial sectors. As of late, many biotechnology companies have moved there to embrace the growing sector that's become the focal point of asian economics and future development. Switzerland is another example of what a country, in this case, one with many different linguistic and ethnic groups, can accomplish if they unite for a common purpose. Armenians, having a shared culture, need not have the ethnic concerns that governed Switzerland, yet, as far as banking and finance are concerned, no other country in the world can compete with Switzerland. Although banking has become a global business, and very difficult to establish as an entity similar to Switzerland, information technology, biotechnology, and modern research and development can be key in Armenia's future. If Armenia can establish a transit hub for technology linking Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, the possibilities are endless. Although there are many drawbacks towards being landlocked in a contentious area of the world, one of the benefits is that it becomes a transit point for economics. Even as far back as the Silk Road, Armenia had been the midpoint of trade between China and Europe. This kind of hub mentality could definitely translate to the modern global economy. As Armenians around the world reinvent themselves, and shake off the victim label that they so proudly wear, much more can be accomplish. We can help to steer Armenia into having the internal strength and equality to many powers of the region, and for once, control our own destiny as a people. No more shall we be prey towards the tide of political influence, begging for scraps at the table, when we could proudly become equal trade partners to many areas of the world. The Armenian Diaspora, along with the Republic of Armenia can finally focus on something beyond Genocide Recognition and declaring to the world that Armenia was the first to declare Christianity as a State Religion. These days, who really cares about either of those two things besides Armenians? What matters most is where we will be as a people, and a culture a century from now. Will we remain pawns in the global game of power and influence, or will we finally break free of these bonds and declare ourselves active participants of the Modern world economy? This is the question that every Armenian, both foreign and domestic, must ask themselves.

Futile Attempts for a Purpose in Life

It is often the case that as people try to find purpose in life, they often redefine the universe to suit their feelings. Often, they feel they know the truth, and that by just closing their eyes, and touching the spirit of the universe, the truth is revealed to them. These people are not necessarily religious, not in the organized sense. In fact, many moderate religious people believe that there is some truth in all religions, and often attempt to explain that they all lead to a similar path of supposed enlightenment. It's as though all the roads lead to a place that they seek, and from which some type of esoteric truth can be discerned. The actual truth is that human curiosity can lead to numerous imaginary, but false roads, when in fact, a decent rudimentary knowledge of science can actually illuminate the processes that govern our universe. Outside of any solipsism, where one believes that their own mind is the only reality that exists, and all others are subject to one's unique thought processes, the physical properties of our universe are there to be uncovered and understood through the empirical and rigorous process of the scientific method. Besides a world-view entrenched in solipsism, we can make a few general assumptions governing properties of our universe that we can use to explain the emerging physics, chemistry, and biology found within. Of primary importance is to realize that there are certain physical laws common throughout the length and breath of the universe, and that these laws have resulted in complex interactions that have lead from random fluctuations in quantum physics, to arrangements of atoms into chemical structures. Furthermore, we know that in at least one closed environment (the Earth), the natural laws were favorable for chemical reactions that lead to complex information carrying molecules which subsequently arranged themselves into biological structures, eventually leading to the human species. With mountains of data in various different scientific disciplines, there is very little contrary evidence to this. Naturally, gaps in the processes that lead to life on earth do exist, but as we progress, both technically and scientifically, we come to understand a great deal more. As old questions are answered, countless new ones are generated, and the accumulative power of the scientific method is strengthened. Furthermore, with the discovery of extra-terrestrial life, using comparative methods, we may indeed get nearer to understand how life got a foothold, and perhaps to define life itself. Still, even with all of this scientific progress, there are spiritual types who believe that we are all bound by some undefined energies link us all together in some kind of soul or spirit (depending on who is asked, some believe that every living being has a soul, others that every object within the universe, and still others that only sentient, self-aware life). These people are just hoping for something, out of fear, comfort, and ignorance. They are far from stupid people, in fact, many are very intelligent. Yet, they compartmentalize their minds and due to a highly active emotional response, keep areas of their brain from letting go of constructed garbage, and in doing so, accepting credulous nonsense. These days, the credulous things have evolved towards new-aged religions. It's an offshoot of principles from their indoctrinated traditional religious views, mixed and melded with tolerant principles of other religions. They have drifted from defining a sense of God in a personified form, into defining it as the "binding spirit" of the universe. In essence then, defining God as the prime mover, or the prime observer, or the binding energy of everything, for some just living things, while for others, all that is matter and energy combined. It all sounds wonderfully poetic and meaningful, but ultimately childish. It's hard to break this attachment to a higher authority, and realize that we're on our own as human beings. All we have for comfort and support are other human beings. This understanding will not destroy civilization but save it from religious hysteria, illogic, and inherent hypocrisy. Progress is possible, even with the interjection of spirituality in daily life, but ultimately, the process is slowed by archaic notions and traditionalists who attempt to define reality by altering the governing processes of the universe.

Republicans are the Borg

While observing the Republican party's PR machine, it's striking that they have developed a system by which they assimilate thoughts and ideas, forming them into a collective, and disseminating their treacherous message to any victim that may fall prey to their arguments. The issues that Republicans stand for may appear morally just on the surface (at least to those with weak minds), but their archaic and aged rhetoric is a result of inherent fears. They fear change that may suddenly take the reasoning abilities of average people to higher levels of cultural and moral development. Without the constraints of religion, the moral and ethical guidelines that we, modern human beings should follow, would come from our biological, evolutionary adapted past. We evolved certain moral sensibilities to function within a small social network. We are no longer small tight-knit clans aiming to expand our territory and adapting the environment to suit our personal needs. We have evolved culturally to a point where millions of people inhabit the same amount of land that perhaps a few clans 10,000 years ago were living. With these added social pressures, constraints, and stresses, we have come to realize that our ethical codes must adapt towards humanism, protection of civil liberties, and the inherent freedom that every single human being should be born with. It's unfortunate that so many people are born into poverty, disease, warfare, and other such malicious environments. These disadvantages may be overcome in isolated instances, but for the most part, many are trapped within their socio-economic bubbles. Of tantamount importance, in order to break free of these chains, is the concept of a thorough early education, and the method of learning involving critical thinking and rationality. The lack of these two factors is a major contributing force towards polarization and the unrestrained tyrannical control of a population. The Republican party's platforms include social restraints, religions indoctrination, polarized populations, and domination through fear, intimidation, and sheer lust for power. The Democratic party certainly has their own demons to fear, but their weakened will, and tolerant behavior towards tyranny is by far the most shameful and disgusting characteristic. It reminds me of Patrick Stewards famous line in Star Trek "First Contact" when speaking of the Borg threat "We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" The parallels between this particular fictional narrative and reality are not that different. We progressives (not singling democrats but all liberal thinkers) are constantly standing down when faced with the Republican rhetoric. They intimidate the populace through fear, and draw anyone who stand in their way as cowards and unpatriotic drolls. They assimilate entire worlds of ideas, and reformulate them to fit within the unsound bounds of their ideologies. The line truly must be drawn within this generation, and we should no longer have to play by their rules. Every time they attack our progressive ideas, we retreat into behavioral modes of niceness. We assume that only through our understanding, patience, and kindess, will their ideas falter. The truth is that we cannot remain in the defensive. We must attack these stupid ideas head-on, without flinching or feelings of remorse. We must take back our sovereignty by abiding to the constitutional framework that changed not only America but the world. We must use our Diplomatic skills cunningly, engage the scientific curiosity of the population, and constantly fight to highlight the benefits of a progressive, rational and reasonable world. The countless issues involving the environment, medicine, disease prevention, poverty, international debt, resource exploitation, political interference through saber rattling and clandestine games, must be brought to the forefront and placed on the collective palate of the American people. We should re-establish a Democracy of the people, not of the powerful lobbyists and corporations. The future of the United States and the World depends on this generation taking a stand against this Borg-like entity of conservatives that manipulate the system to attain new levels of power and influence.

Listen here all you politicians, you lying, cheating, war-mongering, theocratic, tyrannical bastards of all walks of life (yes, this includes you Democrats as well), the time for compromises is at an end. Your time as leaders is going to be over real soon, and you will find a generation of non-compliant Americans fighting your every move. The Borg Menace must be, and will be stopped. You cannot restrain progress, no matter how you try. Your resistance will be futile.


A Similar Article: Fighting Words: How to Humiliate -- and Convert -- a Right-Winger

Lessons on the 5th year of the Iraq War

It has now been 5 years to the day that the Bush regime allowed the travesty that has been the Iraq War to commence. They had thousands of advisers, and whether they really believed them, or decided to manipulate the American people even though silently knowing that the current situation was inevitable, doesn't change the fact that we are now entrenched in a quagmire like Vietnam, with no end in sight. Should American troops withdraw today, then Iraq will probably revert to a long period of drawn-out extensive internal conflicts, a deepening of the civil war currently raging, and drawing neighboring countries into the ensuing pit of despair. Should the troops remain, then they would be stretched too thin, and our standing in the world will continue to freefall. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions, but clearly, one of them has to be to reduce our presence in Iraq, regardless of the ramifications. We cannot continue on a path towards idiocy when all efforts have proved futile. At the moment, some optimists and delusional individuals assume that the reduction in recent violence will continue unabated. The truth is that both Shi'a and Sunni are arming themselves for a long drawn out bitter conflict over the ruins of what will be Iraq. This short-sighted, treacherous administration has allowed, through perjury, rampant idiocy, and stupid ideological beliefs, a conflict that will only escalate for the coming decades. When people look upon this generation, they will wonder how so many followed in such silent and obedient steps behind the stupidest and most ill-conceived international policies. We handed the world a hate card for being American, and allowed ourselves to enter a period of dwindling resources, severe recession, and heavy pessimism. Digging out of this hole is a task that may take decades to accomplish, and even then, our standing in the world will never be what it once was.

A lesson to be learned from this tragedy, beyond all the obvious ones such as checking facts, relying on proper information, upholding constitutional standards, and abiding by a moral code that puts human beings ahead of economic agendas, is that even individuals with powers that far exceed our own can often be wrong. They are no better at judging our future then the educated person with a rational and open mind. We provide so much faith in our so called leaders, to guide us, drive our agendas, and hope that through it all, our desires can be accomplished, and we will all be better off in the end. The truth of the matter is that these individuals are selfish and greedy human beings, who look out for their own skin and their own bank accounts. They are above the law in so many ways, that it's unbelievable that they have the freedoms they do. They wantonly commit perjury, desecration of our civil liberties, and constant hypocritical modes of behavior that would shame even the most extremist terrorists. Their constant control of the masses, over polarizing issues like abortion, gun control, sexual orientation, religious values only blind the population from seeing the lying pathetic pigs that they are. There is no aura or mysticism associated with these bastards who hold high elected offices. Who cares about their degrees in politics, law, economics, etc, when they act selfishly? We are so quick to criticize Communist or Fascist dictators, when our elected officials don't exactly behave differently. Our democracy is a facade hidden under greedy corporate capitalists. This doesn't mean one must advocate communism or socialism, but our mode of capitalism only helps the elite, and encumbers the masses. We are far from a truly egalitarian society, and although there are many complex reasons for the divisions, greed and power are never far from the equation.

Ultimately then, just as blind faith in religion, a higher power, or some supernatural entity is wrong, similarly, blind faith in elected officials, ideology and nationalism are also wrong. There are various levels of faith, but as long as one suspends their skepticism and their rational mind, and allows some idea that has no basis outside of the human mind to exist, then we're all slaves to a system. It does help to have some level of background education, but many are capable of breaking the chains of mental manipulation when taught to think skeptically and rationally. Basing facts on empirical evidence, and observation, is but one change that must be sought. Increasing an interest in the real world, outside of human ideology is another aspect that must be strengthened. For all of our ills, and problems, ultimately, they are meaningless to the cosmos. Does the universe really care if one decides abortion is moral? Some may say yes, but those individuals are allowing their faith in an imaginary entity to dictate what moral and humanitarian beliefs should be upheld. Our morality is based on our evolutionary past, and we should strive to approach an egalitarian society, where disparity between people is more equalized. Not to argue for complete equality, because as individuals, every human being is different, but as more people begin to think critically, and question ideology, much can be accomplished in the world.

Although the Iraq war, among many other facts active in the American experience, has set us decades back from rigorous democracy and global diplomacy, all is not lost. As long as a segment of the populations operates skeptically, and with an open and rational mind, then there is hope for the future. The divisive issues of the time are just props used by the elite to control the general populace into herd behavior. We, the people, are cattle, to be driven across the landscape, milked of everything we have, devoid of freedom and the open air, constantly providing resources to those few we ourselves select. It's unimaginable that an enlightened human being can provide someone else with so much power. These idiots speak of freedom, liberty, and democracy; they talk highly of being moral, law abiding, religious individuals, when they are often, worse then the general populace. Their supposed religious values are a farce. They claim that they abide by a higher power, and those who are not religious are egotistical, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly abiding by a higher, moral power is stunning. They are just using these religious values to control the populace, pretending to be interested in what some idiot preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, monk, guru, or sociopath has to say. The only true democratic development would be to rip the power away from the hands of these tyrannical bastards and back to the properly educated people. The way to do that would be to reorganize the electorate, allow more then 2 parties to dominate the political landscape, have a truly independent, open and honest media, and allow for greater accountability for elected officials. Reorganize the corporate democracy we have now wouldn't be such a bad idea either, and last of all, no campaigning years before an election. Campaigns should be as short as possible, with 10 debates, with questions that are asked by randomly selected individuals. No prepared statements or speeches, but a true test of the capability of these candidates. Finally, and most importantly, spend as much money as possible on a centralized educational system where every student across the country between kindergarten and high school has the same curriculum. A little freedom should be allowed by the high school level. All the trillions that are projected to be spent in Iraq could better have been spent on education, science, research and development, social services, etc. The greatest tragedy of all is that people are willing to be lied towards entering a costly and unending war out of fear, but spending the same amount of money on infrastructure and the advancement of society is frowned upon and argued endlessly.

On the Celebration of Darwin's Birthday

This year marks the 199th birthday of Charles Darwin, and the 149th since his seminal paper "On the Origin of Species" was published. Every year, on the anniversary of his birth, those of us who revel in the wonder that is science, especially in biology and evolutionary theory, celebrate this amazing man's birth. It must be understood that we're not deifying him, or placing him on some unreachable platform. We realize that he was a human being, just like every human being, with faults, and fears. His thoughts, of course, are archaic to us now, because even the most progressive individual of Darwin's time is considered racist in our current society. We can't fault a man for being wrong in certain ethical and moral ramifications when the social currents of his time were quite different then our own. Yet, he furthered our understanding of how nature created the vast diversity in species that we see in our world. Before Darwin, it was simple for many people to assume that species were created by a creator in their final form, yet, with Darwin's help, we now know that we don't have to inject a creator into explaining species diversity and forms. In fact, there is no such thing as a final form, or a static species, since we're constantly evolving anyway.

Not only was Darwin's discovery brilliant, but was further solidified with the isolation of the molecule in charge of genetic inheritance -- DNA. With DNA, we now had the proverbial smoking gun that allowed for random mutations and genetic changes within or genetic code. We could now follow and track the changes in the genes that resulted in such species diversity. By using molecular clocks, small fragments of certain genetic information that mutate at a known rate, we could date the approximate times that species diverged from each other. Coupled with the amazing new fossil discovery, an increase in understanding comparative anatomy, geological breakthroughs, radio-chemical tools, and other such data, we can correlate these scientific principles into a cohesive whole. Out of all this evidence, Darwin's idea has become irrefutable. When we say that Evolution is a theory, it must be understood that in science, a theory is a postulate that is backed up by evidence. In the case of Evolution through natural selection, we have a mountain of evidence to support it. Further, understanding evolution and natural selection has allowed us to probe deeper into unrelated fields like artificial intelligence and economic cycles. We now have a better understanding of a diversity of subjects because we can grasp the principles of natural selection.

In essence then, we can't fault a man for being far from perfect, because like all of us, Darwin had behaviors, characteristics, and personality traits that were less than ideal. However, we are not judging Darwin on his moral or ethical behavior, but on his scientific theory. He deserves the highly praised merit he constantly receives because his enlightening theory allowed the true study of biology to flourish. Before understanding such a deep and far reaching natural process, biologists were relegated to categorizing organisms based on appearance, whether anatomical or behavioral. As we slowly begin to fill the gaps in our understading of certain evolutionary traits, transitional fossils, and anatomical developments, we inch closer and closer to fully realizing our origins and place in the grand scheme of life on Earth. All does not begin and end with evolution however, because there are countless areas in the sciences that need to be further realized. For one, evolution does not explain how life started in the first place. There are many good theories, but no discrete evidence just yet. These, and other such unknowns are why science will always strive to fill gaps in our knowledge. We are a curious species, and the more of the natural world that we can uncover, the greater not only our understanding, but our ability to treat and cure the ills of society. These scientific principles are not just a selfish attempt at attaining knowledge but also a tool towards furthering out understanding and treatments of diseases, even helping to establish a more balanced environment such as reduction carbon emissions through modifying bacteria to fixate carbon and methane at a faster rate into harmless byproducts (perhaps even carbon containing waste that can be used to burn cleaner fuels).

Presidential Elections = Childish Game

As you may have all heard, there are Presidential elections coming up in November, and the field of candidates is continuously narrowing. We now have a clear front runner and probable Republican nominee in McCain, and as for the Democratic Race, it's a tight one between Obama and Clinton. What an interesting and politically charted development, but unfortunately, it's all a strategic game of bullshit. Thanks to Bush's idiotic presidency, we are now headed into a dark chapter of American history, and the next President will be unable to do anything to prevent it.

Looking at the current field of presidential candidates, a few things have become clear. The future is based not on who is the next President, but who will be held blame for the impending chaos. With Mitt Romney having dropped out of the race for the Republican Presidential Nominee, the lead is clearly and decisively in John McCain's hands. The reality is that he's just fodder tossed by Republicans because they're as certain they'll lose the presidency as the Democrats are on winning it. With 8 years of complete incompetence by Bush, the US is now a pariah in the world, and hemorrhaging money to wars that were completely mishandled, and in fact, should not even have been implemented. There's a looming recession in the horizon, and the housing bubble has finally started to collapse. What all this means is that regardless of who wins the elections as President, the country is going to be in terrible shape. All the blow-back from the Bush presidency does not stop with a new President in office. It will take years, if not decades, to undo what's been done by this current regime. The Republicans know that whoever is elected, whether it be Obama or Clinton, have little chance for surviving 8 years. Their presidency is doomed from the start because of the impending recession. Further, should the blow-back from Bush result in another terror event, we've already shown that most Americans are going to cower under the threat of terrorism and will need some kind of authoritarian figure "a protector to watch over us", while further stripping us of our inherent freedoms and rights. Clearly, this is when Romney will come in like a cowboy, just as Reagan did after Carter, and seem like the savior of the world.

So what have we learned from all this? That the next President, most likely Obama or Clinton will be "Cartered" out of office. What this means is that just as Carter was blamed for the Oil and Hostage crises in the late 70's that set the stage for Ronald Reagan to come in and save us from mismanagement, the next President (whether it's Clinton or Obama) will be blamed for Bush's misdeeds (just as Carter was blamed for Nixon's, Ford's, and even LBJ's transgressions), and Romney will come in and act as the savior. He has four more years to continue to vote as conservatively as possibly to convince the right wing that he's truly a hard core republican. That's also four more years to find a way to pander and whore his way to the Evangelical movement.

As far as my bias goes, I'm not affiliated with either party because they both pander to the special interests and there is no way that they'll tax the rich. Ultimately, the only true way to generate more income is start pouring more money into research and development (For future technologies and sciences), and tax the rich to generate revenue to pull us out of this Iraq deficit. Even the Democrats, considering that they're the lesser of the two evils will not be willing to do what needs to be done to further our future as a nation. They've all failed us badly, and perhaps, my brother's support for Ron Paul's correct, we should just shoot the system in the face, let anarchy reign and decide on how we should proceed. Either that or actually hold the government accountable for their promises, and keep them on a very tight leash. It's your call America, what do you want to do? Let rich assholes convince you through fear and cowardice that we need a fatherly figure in office to protect us against some unknown enemy while stripping us of our inherent right to freedom, or to actually educate ourselves, and vote out every lying idiot who places their own self interest ahead of the country.

Following the Herd off a Bridge

Having previously discussed religion as a product of both the human need for comfort, and our ignorance regarding the natural world, one additional religious catalyst must be mentioned. This catalyst can be considered a direct result of our social structure and behavior. Before attempting to understand and explain our behavior, it's important to step back from our own human perspective, and try to view our species as an investigative biologist from another planet.

"By looking at the comparative fossil history that lead to the eventual emergence of the homo sapiens species, one can note certain defining species' traits. They are foremost, a social creature, and as such, have a complex social hierarchy, with some individuals in superior positions, and most at various expanding levels of reductive social influence. As part of their social evolution, they have evolved the useful trait of language to communicate and increase group cohesion. In addition, their reasoning abilities, and tool usage allows them to greatly effect and directly influence the environment around them. As their culture has evolved, they have progressed towards greater senses of group identification. Initially, they were nomadic, traveling in small packs (clans), but as their social organization and cultural evolution progressed, they developed a greater sense of pack identity, and eventually, very large groups of this species retained a shared cultural belief. The great extent of this belief was related to the awe and reverie of the supernatural. Out of these longings for something that would provide them comfort and an understanding of the world they lived in, many grasped at illogical beliefs and traditions. As a social animal, their instincts to identify a person of authority and grant them permission to impact their lives became greatly important for self-identity and comfort. It appealed to their social instincts, and provided them with security in a world and a universe that they saw and felt to be cold, apathetic, and lonely. A few individuals, through countless generations, developed the necessary tools to properly investigate the world around them. Eventually, the tools known as science, and the scientific method ripened in this species to a point where it was accessible to a vast majority of the population. Yet, many greatly resisted this expanded understanding, and reverted to a very limited world-view. They allowed irrational beliefs, instinct, and their own fears to guide their lives. The large majority however, quietly resisted, allowing the tools of science to infiltrate their lives, but continuing their unreasonable beliefs against a mountain of data and evidence in the contrary."

As can be discerned from the last paragraph, this is an hypothetical observation that extra-terrestrial life forms may provide to their own exobiologists. None of what was said is untrue; just the perspective, or point of view is different. However, looking from the outside in, to the human species, one can't see our biological story much different. There is of course, much more descriptive detail than explained, and a paragraph can't do our species justice, but it's just a cursory summary so that our social nature can truly be discerned.

We truly are prone to social hierarchies, and we do provide a great deal of authority to people who we view as vitally important towards preserving our social structure. It's as though we're providing our resources to those individuals we deem as protectors against a hostile planet. Unfortunately, most of these so called authoritative protectors are mostly useless. Why, for example, do we provide so much authority to diluted, uneducated, irrational, and wasteful individuals such as the Pope, priests, ministers, mullahs, rabis, imams, gurus, monks, nuns, spiritual healers, and other such wasteful members of society? These individuals have dedicated their lives towards the study of empty, outdated, and useless processes of the imagination. We can laugh at individuals who devote their whole lives towards reading and studying about wood nymphs and their influential behaviors. We don't give them authority towards influencing anyone however, because group consensus tells us that those individuals are in the extreme minority and few believe that specific garbage. The one or two billion individuals who believe in some other irrational beliefs shouldn't however, expect to be treated any differently.

One must understand that although consensus is an important part of the scientific process, it does not necessarily translate to other areas of human reason. Just because consensus tells nearly three billion people in the world that there is a single entity in the universe called god (of course, the actual mechanism differs among almost every single individual), doesn't necessarily make it reality. Consensus does not equal reality, but is vitally important towards our social nature in allowing group identity and cohesion. It is within our instincts to allow certain individuals to lead us, and consensus results when many individuals agree upon the method of authority. Some individuals in a position of Authority actually deserve the respect and admiration. University professors, outside of theology and useless garbage like that, deserve the authority and consensus bestowed upon them. They have spent their lives devoted to a process that can help explain our world, whether it's language, mathematics, physics, chemistry, philosophy, economics, etc. Even culturally important studies like art, music, and yes, the study (but not the practice), of religion are all important in furthering our understanding of our world, ourselves, and our capacity towards growth and the future. One can argue that even subjects like poetry, that although don't specifically confer a selective advantage to cultures, are important because they help define cultural traits, and subtle nuances of our language. Not only that, but poetry allows for self reflection in a sense and understanding of the world that doesn't require one to reject the physical nature of everything around us. There are many such similar abstract studies that although seem useless, are vastly important to our understanding of our nature and culture. Religion is useful in that capacity as well, but it should be handled as poetry. People who disagree with each other on irrational grounds shouldn't be waging wars. It's as though those who find Haikus aesthetically pleasing war with those who find Shakespearian sonnets revolting. The reason no war occurs between the two is that perhaps some can find both revolting, or both pleasing, and even should there be a division of the two, no authority is given to someone who can wage war on behalf of a sonnet or haiku. Few have heard of the "poet wars", because none have resulted from such abstract notions.

It must then be understood that Faith that is popular means nothing other than enough people have been influenced to believe the same irrational thing through indoctrination, credulity, force, or other such means. Religion itself is shaped along the way to comform to the largest masses that can possibly be influenced without fully diluting some supposed sacred message or path. Why are we so willing to give credit to those who head these brain influencing and rewiring belief systems? As already explained, due partly to our sense of culture, and our social nature (with our need for authority and consensus fulfilled equally).

Unlike religion, consensus in the field of science is very important because one discovery often builds on another. All new scientific discoveries happen because there's a large foundation of data behind it. Without evidence, and gathered data, scientific discoveries would be useless. It is our observation of the universe, the experimentations to verify the theories based on the observation, and the gathering of data that helps to build positive consensus. The question then is how do we know the difference between positive consensus, and the negative kind that allows us to fall of the proverbial bridge? To avoid negative pitfalls, we must first be aware of our social nature. As a social animal, it is ultimately fear that guides us and forces us into a group environment. Once we identify our instincts, we can control them in a positive way by releasing these carnal fears. Comfort and security are both very valuable things in a society, but deciding to provide authority and cultural cohesion to the religious and misguided is completely incorrect. We should strive to analyze the world with the best possible tools that we have (science), and look at human society, our actions, and our instincts objectively. For those that fear science, there are many other fields that one can encounter rather then wasting time believing in what's likely to be wrong. One can look to the fields of philosophy if they wish to muse on metaphysics and possibilities. They can broaden their horizons in ethics, and the arts, psychology, even journalism. Those that fight for religion tooth and nail are doomed to live a life of ignorance. Our goals as a society should be to further our cultural progress and whatever disagreements we should have should focus on ethics and morality (both already explained in previous posts as outside the realm of religion). When we use religion as a crutch, and an explanation for our ethical and moral behavior, we are severely shortchanging our potential for progress. To avoid the chasm beneath the bridge then, one must educate themselves into appropriate forms of consensus and to seek comfort in the company of rational thoughts and actions. Our future as a human species depends on our understanding of the world, and how to modify it with the least amount of impact. These principles cannot be found in any religion or belief system, but with the tools that countless generations have tirelessly spent to develop and modify for our understanding and usage. We must not turn our back on progress just because it may disagree with the infantile belief system of the majority.

God's days are numbered with Emergence

As science helps further our understanding of the universe, the large areas of knowledge that were once unattainable are now becoming greatly understood and expanded. There was a time when people were certain that although they knew the Earth was the center of the universe, and the sky was fixated as layers of shells (crystalline spheres), there would be no way to reach those points of light in the heavens. We now realize that Earth is not the center of the universe, that those points of light are suns similar to ours, and that it is possible to reach them. Just because we now know and understand the cosmos better then we did before does not mean that we're able to reach those stars yet. We now realize just how far they are from Earth, with the closest over 4 light-years away from us. That would mean that if we were traveling at the fantastic speed of 1/4 the speed of light, it would take us 12 years to reach the nearest star. We are a few hundred years away from reaching those capabilities at least, but we can imagine them nonetheless. Even with our expanded knowledge, we're still physically as far away as the nearest star as we always were. What changed in those span of centuries is our potential towards reaching those goals, and intermediate steps, such as landing on the moon (which also at one point was thought impossible by humans) definitely help us along the way.

There is no question that with all the knowledge we have attained, the gaps that exist are continually narrowing. Although we may never understand everything we attempt to, our base of knowledge is growing exponentially, and we're covering areas of physics, biology, and chemistry unknown even 50 years prior. A great deal of the current gaps relate to the concept of Emergence, or the phenomena of an Emergent property. Emergence is the phenomenon that relates to how complex systems arise from simple interactions. For example, how do termite colonies develop from the interaction between termites, their genetic programming, and the environment? These Emergent systems are very difficult to understand because there are so many variables involved, and understanding one system, does not make it that much easier to understand others. Emergence exists through all interactions of the universe but differs by mechanism in each system. Although the concept is similar, the technical details and the mechanism for complexity depends on many factors. To understand this aspect of Emergence, one can think of money. In general, the concept of money around the world relates to a certain nation, group of people, economic bloc, etc... agreeing to a common currency, and using this currency as a standard for trade. The currency can greatly vary, being a mix of paper and metal in some places, plastic in others, giant rocks, shellfish, animal teeth, beads, straw bricks, etc... Similarly, Emergence is like the general property we call money, but the actual mechanism and working detail vary, just as currency does for the monetary concept.

To better illustrate Emergence and how it can lessen the impact and reach that religion uses to wedge itself into reason, some examples must be shown to illustrate this phenomenon. The first relates to the concept of the human mind, or what we call consciousness. A good question to ask is how do the interactions between the neurons in our brain relate to the emergent property of the "mind". We know that we need our brains to process the world and communicate with it. Much like a computer, we input data from outside, process it, and output it in various ways. How does such complexity develop from these neural interactions? With the growth of the computer industry, we are slowly and steadily gaining ground in understanding this concept of the mind. One thing we do know is the network within our brains is vastly more complex and flexible then the static network in computers. We are just beginning to realize how complex a single neuron can be, the types of information it can send, and how billions of them can allow for the emergence of consciousness. We do know that other animals, like chimps, dolphins, and even in some experiments, birds (like parrots) have a limited sense of self and consciousness. Since our closest animal relatives are chimps, we must find those changes in our DNA and subsequently our brains that lead us to have a greater sense of self-awareness. Because of this gap in fully comprehending consciousness however, people are able to fill it with non-empirical concepts like the soul, or a universal consciousness, etc... Once we're able to explain how the mind develops from neural connections, we'll be able to completely discard supernatural notions like the soul.

Another example of Emergent behavior is global economics, or to simplify, national economics. How does the interaction between two people, one who has something, and one who needs it, lead to the complex web of economics as we know it today? There are many ways to observe these trends and attempt to understand the emergent properties involved. One is called the "top-down" approach. In this, one must first look at global economics as a single entity. Try to understand how nations deal with each other, and in doing so, perhaps this will lead to a theory which can trickle down towards lower levels. Another approach is called "bottom-up" where simple interaction between two people at the lowest levels can lead to a greater understanding of more complex interactions. Emergent properties seem to develop from looking at things from the bottom-up, while at the same time, noting the point where certain levels of organized, self-perpetuation complexity arise. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches are needed to understand emergent properties, and with economics, one must not only understand how simple supply and demand functions between two people, but how this relates to a whole community, a city, a state, the country, and eventually the world. At some point, economics appears to be an organized, self-perpetuation organism, and that is another example of emergence.

Once one thinks about it, the universe, at every level is in a constant flux of developing emergence. One way to categorize emergence (can't be by mechanism since there are so many individuals variables) is through a hierarchic system ranging from the smallest most miniscule levels to the largest ones imaginable. In this, the lowest levels involve the subatomic/quantum universe. Our whole universe and world, everything that we know and will ever know starts at the quantum level. The first and most pertinent question to ask is how do space and time emerge from the mess that is the quantum universe? That is, the universe at the smallest possible levels and energies (smaller then a subatomic particle). Imagine inventing the most powerful microscope possible, and looking at space. At this level, space has a completely different property then at our relatively large levels. Space in the quantum universe is a foamy mess, with particles popping in and out of existence (called virtual particles), interactions between particles so exotic that it's hard to grasp. A particle can co-exist in two places at once, called entanglement, and without knowing the mass and direction of a particle, it remains a probability, instead of a specific object (called the wave function). This means that light for example can either be a wave, or a particle, but without measuring it, it remains in two possible states at the same time. Only by doing an experiment and measuring it, do we "collapse the quantum wave function" and turn it into a particle. How then does this wild and chaotic quantum world emerge into a more or less predictable universe? By this, I mean how is it that we can't pop in and out of existence, or find ourselves entangled with our twins across the universe, or even remain a wave function until observed, and then collapse into a physical entity? This is one large mystery, with so much complexity that although we're nearing towards a greater understanding, its still a large mountain to ascend. As the physical world at our levels emerges from the quantum world, we also note that chemistry emerges from physics, and subsequently, biology from chemistry. So the lowest level of the Emergence Hierarchy would be the quantum (which would still involve everything in the universe, since the accumulation of quantum processes eventually leads to the birth of stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, superclusters of galaxies, and eventually the whole universe.)

As we scale higher levels of Emergence, we reach a point where we find ourselves in the familiar world we live in. Looking at the familiar, emergence can be found in everything. Beginning with life all together, how did certain chemical processes enclose themselves from the external environment and begin the process we call life? Once life started, how did single celled organisms develop the complexity needed to harbor multicellular structures and eventually into the mass of organisms that are required to generate complex life such as trees, mushrooms, birds, dogs, and even human beings? For as long as human beings have been around, god (or gods, ancestors, spirit animals, or any other supernatural entity or entities concerned with our health and welfare) was used as the initiator of this complexity. In fact, not only was god supposed to be the initiator but often the brooding figure that spent every waking moment looking after all, or certain groups of human beings. As our understanding of evolution and the development of complex life has progressed, god has slowly and methodically taken a back seat to natural processes. The emergence of these natural events has become the reason for the flourishing of life. The fight for survival in the form of an evolutionary arms race, where all creatures struggle to balance evolutionary costs and benefits, is but one example.

One way to look at life is like a sidebar in the hiearchy of emergence where we occupy levels in which we can create artificial intelligence that may itself soon self-perpetuate and therefore, even discover its own intelligence. As universal scale gets larger from our planetary point of view, soon, emergence can be found in the gravitational interaction which presents itself as solar systems, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, super-clusters of galactic clusters, and eventually into the overall physical existence of the universe. There are a lot of gaps in de-mystifying the emergent properties responsible for such large and complex structures, but with each mounting source of evidence, insight, and reason, we can slowly grow to understand the whole vastness of the universe without having to impose our silly and imaginary notions of god, superstition, and the "supernatural".

As an example, figure 1 here shows the nature of an Emergent hierarchy from the Human perspective. As can be seen, it takes many levels of emergence for consciousness to emerge, then language, and afterwords, economics, culture, and eventually, artificial Intelligence, which is another level of Emergence yet to be reached.



Figure 2 here demonstrates an Emergence Hierarchy from the Universal Perspective. The Human Hierarchy is just an offshoot at about the star level.

Almost any object can have a similar Emergence Hierarchy, whilst as mentioned before, the mechanism for emergence can vary. As for the large towering termite mounds, their emergent hierarchy's will mimic ours until the level of Biological, and from then, it would branch into perhaps insectoid, then social cooperation, and eventually a termite mound emerges. With the mechanisms present here, we have a decent understanding of how termite brains are programmed to create such structures. Of course, there are gaps, but these gaps are slowly being filled by science.

As can be seen from these Hierarchies, the need to invoke a divine presence is completely useless in explaining the phenomenon of emergence. It is easy to claim that a god(s) intervened in this emergence, but that would not help us explain our observations. We know that there are many forms of emergence which we can explain, so our goal is to find a scientific and empirically based explanation for those which we have yet to fully explain.

The Burden of Proof

One of the prime irritating factors of debating my atheism with others is that it often appears that the burden of proof falls upon me to explain how the supernatural is not possible. What's accepted in our society is that those who adhere by some religious or spiritual doctrine have an elevated status as far as raising doubt about the non-existence of their deeply held belief system. What confounds the thinking is that those who find solace in their version of religion or spirituality feel as though we atheists must through logic and the scientific method completely disprove every tenet of their belief structure through the tools of science. Upon such achievement, it is only then that grounds for debate are established, and we apparently are on equal footing. It must be understood however, that the scientific method was not developed solely to refute the illogical beliefs of others, but to inquire and understand the universe that we live in. It has long been established that reason, with just religion and spirituality as tools alone could not help us understand the inner workings of our physical world. It is only through the accumulation of evidence and empirical thinking along the scientific method that we have begun to understand how the sun provides heat, gravity allows us to remain bound to the Earth, evolution through natural selection provides the variety of life, and even which areas of the brain activate to allow for lively philosophical debate. None of these answers can ever be attained by deeply studying some ancient texts that are deemed holy, or praying endlessly for weeks to understand the cause of an underlying disease. Perhaps religion's role is to sharpen our mental acuity for philosophical debate with others who hold on to an illogical and ill conceived faith-based view of the world?

With the burden of proof shifting to those who hold onto arcane notions of religion or spirituality, the task is completely up to them to explain their logic and endearing faith to such tenuous notions. It is only when one is able to step away from their indoctrinated belief structure for even a few moments that the illogic of their faith can be revealed. It is ultimately those who have the most enduring faith that see other's illogical belief as ridiculous, while justifying their system through jarring logical gaps. For these reasons alone, I shall try to briefly highlight the ridiculous notions of the major worldly religious and hope that even those who rigorously grasp at their faith can at least find the absurdity of some of these notions.

Christianity -- circa 2000 years ago in some backwater region of a backwater village in a backwater area of the Middle East, an omnipotent being sent himself through some dichotomous duplication even via his own offspring to cleanse humanity of their sins by dying. He was born through a virgin, convinced of his own superiority, managed to thoroughly convince some disciples and then eventually, nailed to a cross because he was inciting the revolutionary idea that he was the savior of humanity.

Islam -- A man, whom we must never depict from threat of death, reared in another backwater area, of a backwater region, of a backwater..... in the Middle East had the truth revealed to him while on a mountain by a supremely powerful deity who's greatest wish was adoration and unceasing, zealous, enthusiastic worship. He then married a woman much older then himself and sent about spreading this message through threats of violence, loosely woven metaphors, and strict adherence to fasting rituals and complete submission to the same deity of the previous faith.

Hinduism -- A pantheistic belief, originating in an extremely rural region of India, that incorporates the essence of animals as true gods, worships them in a variety of ways, depending on the regional difference, and through ceaseless rituals, countless gurus, and the doctrine that one's essence will be reanimated into another creatures upon their deaths attempts to achieve an enlightened state that can never be totally fulfilled.

Buddhism -- A malleable and ethereal essence that pervades the universe and continually transmits a notion of tranquility, requiring countless meditative trances and chants, while constantly adapting to regional differences and yet, will still always remain unattainable because perfection can never be achieved and can never be known (originating in another extremely rural region of India).

Judaism -- An all knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent entity, who was vengeful, genocidal, jealous, treacherous, and out right malevolent decided to choose a group of people and continuously test them through pain and suffering to gauge their loyalty and faith. These people then felt the need to quell any dissent from others of the same group who questioned such a hateful deity through mass slaughter, genocide, and of course the natural wrath of their deity. Plagiarized much of these ridiculous notions from neighboring regions and then attempted to pass them off as original (and although claimed to originate in a certain backwater region of the middle east, actually originated and spread through another backwater region of the middle east --is there a trend here?).

Scientology -- A group of space aliens from tens of millions of years ago from the planet Xenu escaped to Earth and were trapped, killed, and then their spirits were imprisoned before binding to certain human beings and then reanimated.

Quadrapteradragonism -- A four winged dragon that lives in an unseen parallel dimension ultimately chooses only the morally just people who have sacrificed their spare time to praying for rain on the 5th full moon of the year, fasting during the summer solstice for 3 days and then retreating to mass orgy on the nearest shoreline (whether sea or lake) after the 1st blue moon of the leap year. These people then control the direction that their offspring will take from the as yet unseen parallel dimension.

Well, obviously, having made up the last one, one can see how ridiculous these notions of religion can get. Yet, one can't easily leave those portending to adhere to some "spirituality" off the hook easily either. The thoughts and reasoning of these people tend to run in even greater notions of absurdity, and ultimately, one can truly be lost in this jumble of religions/spiritual insanity. The most reasonable mode of escape is to conclude that although any of these notions are possible, their likelihoods are so infinitesimally small that the burden of proof falls least upon the "de facto" atheist (a term coined by Richard Dawkins). This ultimately then is the starting point of logic, and it is up to the extraordinary beliefs to support their claims (as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"). In other words, the burden of proof lies not with the atheist, but with the religious and spiritual.

As a final note, much of this, and previous posts may come off sounding arrogant. That cannot be helped when one clears the garbage and attempts to inquire about the universe; ultimately leading to our understanding of our own place within it. These arguments only seem arrogant because there is a lot of working science behind them. To fully understand this position, one must embrace the scientific method, and learn to shy away from scientific ignorance. Before deciding that evolution through natural selection doesn't make much sense, try to understand the theory first. Before determining that there is no possible way the Earth can be 4.6 billion years old, try to educate yourself in introductory geology. The same however, cannot be said of religious or spiritual views. As much as one attempts to educate themselves with these notions, they are still ultimately an imaginary creation of the mind. It's like trying to obtain a degree of theology in quadrapteradragonism. Even though that may sound funny, this is exactly how other religions should be viewed. The only difference being that tradition has allowed the existing "official" religions to survive through virulent and self-perpetuating memes (another term coined by Richard Dawkins which represents tiny informational packets for the mind, much like genes are for the body). Much has been made of the fact that science explains the hows and religion explains the whys, but this is a very unreasonable estimation. Science can explain the whys about as well as religion, while also adhering to the working knowledge of the universe. As a final meme for thought, it must be remembered that, just because one seeks to find an answer doesn't mean there's an answer to be sought.