Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

It’s been quite a while since I last made a contribution to Common Ground.  For those of you who care to know, I have been very busy over the past several months doing research, teaching, and occasionally traveling to certain international locations.  While I’ve already got plans to do more of the same—now that things have finally settled down a bit—I’m now in position to compose some random thoughts on something “useful” to discuss.  With that, I hope to make several new contributions to Common Ground in the near future.

For now, though, I have a much more “tongue-in-cheek” entry to give you, with an important moral at the end.  If nothing else, I hope it at least puts a smile on your face!

I happened to see an old episode of “The Big Bang Theory” on TV some weeks ago that caught my attention in more ways than one.  For those of you who have no idea what this show’s all about, it’s a very funny TV sitcom about two smart and geeky physicists from Caltech named Dr. Leonard Hofstadter and Dr. Sheldon Cooper, along with their equally geeky Caltech friends, an astrophysicist from India named Dr. Raj Koothrappali and his Jewish best friend, an aerospace engineer named Mr. Howard Wolowitz.  I should note that, as the only character among the four without a Ph.D., Howard is the recipient of much comedic torment from the other three geeks, a recurring theme on the show.

You can find out more about the show by going to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory

Leonard and Sheldon live across the hall from Penny, an attractive (that is, a “normal” and decidedly “non-geeky”) waitress, who despite the “cultural differences” between her and Leonard, was at one time his girlfriend.  As the only one of the five main characters without an advanced degree in science or engineering—or a degree in anything, for that matter—Penny is constantly made fun of by the multi-lettered Sheldon for comedic effect, another recurring theme.

All five of the main characters hang out together, and the four geeks within the group revel in praise of stereotypical “geek culture,” with much of the comedy centered around science mishaps, Star Trek and Star Wars, video games and comic books, the lack of social graces (in the case of Sheldon) or the inability to speak to women (in the case of Raj), etc., etc., etc…

To the credit of the show’s creators, they also wrote in a number of highly educated (and equally geeky) women who appear as recurring characters on the show.  (As a side note, since the Baha’i Faith strongly advocates for the equality between women and men, this means that a woman has as much right to be a geek as any man!)  In fact, this blog is mostly about an episode involving one of these characters, a Caltech physicist named Dr. Leslie Winkle. It so happens that Leslie and Sheldon are intellectual rivals who deeply dislike each other for many reasons, but mostly because Leslie is an advocate of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) as the explanation of the subatomic nature of gravity, while Sheldon is an expert on String Theory (ST)—the so-called “theory of everything”. The two passionately dispute the others’ ideas and view each other as completely wrong and stupid for holding onto their particular beliefs.

In this contest, Leslie holds her own, making verbal fun of Sheldon, calling him a “dumbass” and other put-downs, oftentimes besting him in the battle of wits and getting lots of laughs at his expense.

Now that I’ve set the stage, let me briefly explain the episode that got me inspired to write this blog. It goes like this: Sometime after Leonard and Penny break up, Leonard decides to pursue a relationship with Leslie, who is known to cycle through many men and is very streetwise about the dating scene. In fact, when Leonard finally decides to ask her out, she agree,s but immediately sets him straight on what they’ll do or not do, where they’ll go or not go, what the timeline is for how their relationship will evolve over days to months to years from now, etc., etc., etc….

When Sheldon eventually finds out about Leonard’s interest in Leslie, not surprisingly he strongly objects, stating fervently that it will ruin their relationship as roommates if Leonard starts dating his “arch-enemy.” The climax comes when the three of them are together in Leonard and Sheldon’s apartment, with Sheldon and Leslie arguing at full throttle over the merits and weaknesses of ST and LQG, each opining that the other’s theory has “no evidence” to justify it, each criticizing the other theory’s claims about black hole entropy, etc. Poor Leonard is caught in the middle between his roommate and his new girlfriend. Finally, Sheldon and Leslie confront Leonard and force him to choose between the two of them on which theory is right:  ST or LQG.

After squirming for a few seconds, Leonard finally decides to follow his conscience. He gives a completely honest but sheepish answer:  “I guess I’d rather have my theories ‘stringy’ than ‘loopy.’”

Sheldon naturally beams great satisfaction that Leonard chose him over his arch-rival; Leslie, not surprisingly, gets very angry and asks Leonard: “And how are we supposed to raise our children!?” She then storms out in a huff.

Sheldon, while still clearly aglow from his victory over Leslie, nonetheless tries to console Leonard—in his uniquely Sheldon-like way, of course—that he’s made the right choice. Clearly that plan goes nowhere, which ends the episode.

There are a couple of really important points I want to share about “The Big Bang Theory”—and this episode in particular—that really stand out for me.  First, from my standpoint as a board-certified geek, the creators and writers did a really good job of capturing both the technical nuances between ST and LQG and the professional rivalry that exists between the proponents of these two theories, all within one comedic scene. This is a major accomplishment of creative writing and deserves high praise.

The writers cleverly made a second point in showing the rivalry between Sheldon and Leslie. They exaggerated it a bit for effect but, as someone who’s been an eyewitness to really unprofessional conduct from advocates of ST and LQG, I can confirm that this rivalry is definitely grounded in truth. I have seen advocates of these theories openly attack each other at conferences, on blogs, and other public and private media. In the TV re-enactment of one such argument, we see two intelligent and well-educated characters who practice “good science”  zealously and passionately argue their beliefs in physical theories with “no evidence” to back them up—to the point of calling the other “stupid” for being so clearly wrong.

When Leslie asks how children should be raised from within a “mixed marriage” between ST and LQG people, she leads me to raise my own questions to anyone who cares to think about the issue this way:

Zealous and destructive belief in ideas without evidence?  Now where have I heard that before? It’s almost as if they were arguing about   . . .  religion.

I wonder . . . . .

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

Albert Einstein, one of the most influential scientists of all time, is an iconic public figure, whose opinion
was sought after on many topics, including religion.

His General Relativity (GR) theory, which describes gravity as the curvature of space-time due to the 
presence of mass, successfully predicts the existence of black holes, and is the mathematical framework for modern cosmology.

Because of GR’s role in cosmology with metaphysical implications about the fate of the Universe, its statements have far-reaching implications for existing scriptural accounts of creation.

Einstein is famously quoted as saying:

Science without religion is lame.  Religion without science is blind.

It’s ironic, I think, that both religious people and atheists want to claim Einstein as their own.

Atheists, claim him because, first of all, he was a genius and it’s always nice to have a genius on the team. They also point out that Einstein did not believe in a “personal” monotheistic God of the type pictured by Michelangelo, among others, but rather believed in the “God of Spinoza”—a deity that is impersonal and cosmic in origin, that does not “reward or punish,” answer prayers, or possess “consciousness.”

The New Atheist claim

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins states that:

Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own. (p. 13)

In support of his claim that Einstein was really an atheist, Dawkins (p. 15) quotes extensively from the book Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer:

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.  This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.”  This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.  (p. 126)

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.  (p. 121)

Looks pretty solid, so far, but there are problems with all three quotations as used by Dawkins. The first quotation and the highlighted part of the second quotation apparently do not appear in Jammer’s  book.  (Also absent from Jammer’s work is a fourth quotation Dawkins presents in his book that is not listed here.)

Dawkins deliberately neglects to cite the rest of the third quotation—a letter response to Mrs. Beatrice F. in December 1952 asking him point-blank if he is an atheist—which reads as follows:

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.  However, I am also not a “Free-thinker” in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naïve superstition.  My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as “laws of nature.”  It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Free-thinker mentality.  

Sincerely yours, 

Albert Einstein  (pp. 121-122)

Elsewhere, as well, while he does not believe in a “personal” God (by whatever definition of that term he personally applied) Einstein categorically denied ever being an atheist:

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God.  But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.  (p. 97)

I was barked at by numerous dogs [religious fanatics] who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional “opium for the people”—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human morals and human aims.  
(p. 97)

Max Jammer concludes:

In spite of [Einstein’s] denial of a personal God and his rejection of religious customs and rituals, he had a high respect for traditional religion. (p. 149)

This rather echoes the point of view that inhabits the Bahá’í sacred texts. To quote Abdu’l-Bahá:

Between scientists and the followers of religion there has always been controversy and strife for the reason that the latter have proclaimed religion superior in authority to science and considered scientific announcement opposed to the teachings of religion. Bahá’u’lláh declared that religion is in complete harmony with science and reason. If religious belief and doctrine is at variance with reason, it proceeds from the limited mind of man and not from God; therefore, it is unworthy of belief and not deserving of attention; the heart finds no rest in it, and real faith is impossible. How can man believe that which he knows to be opposed to reason? … Reason is the first faculty of man, and the religion of God is in harmony with it. — Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 231 (14 July 1912, New York, NY)

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

In a previous posting I positioned inference, evidence and belief on a scale of certainty about propositions. Today, I’d like to look at the place of inference in scientific inquiry.

From Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (on-line) we get this definition of inference:

infer:      v. to form an opinion or guess that something is true because of the information that you have
—What do you infer from her refusal?
— I inferred from her expression that she wanted to leave.

Here’s Merriam-Webster’s On-Line Dictionary:

infer:  v.
1.     to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises
2.     to guess or surmise
a) to involve as a natural outcome of thought
    b) to point out
to suggest or hint

So, how does inference apply to science and/or religion?

To illustrate what is meant by “inference” in context, consider the following two examples:

1. The discovery of a black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
2. The existence of the human soul, as described in the Bahá’í Writings.

In a particular sense, a black hole and a human soul share the property that they are “invisible” to the human eye, but differ in that a black hole is inherently physical, while the human soul is inherently spiritual (referred to as a “sign of God” in scripture).

Now, while no one has actually seen a black hole, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence to infer that black holes exist in the Universe. For example, by observing the orbit of the surrounding stars around SGR A* over the past 10 years, astronomers were able to infer that:

Black Hole: Artist's Rendering

1. The mass of SGR A* is about 4 million solar masses.
2. Its radius is 1/10th the distance from Sun to Earth (0.1 AU).
3. Its period of rotation on its axis is about 11 minutes!

Now, I should remind the reader that SGR A* doesn’t look like the artist’s rendering of a black hole any more than, say, God looks like the chap on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It’s an artist’s imagined illustration of qualities we believe or theorize a black hole (or God) has.

Question:  Is SGR A* really a black hole, as it shows all the outward signs of being one?

Answer: Yes, provided that the underlying theory of General Relativity for describing black holes remains viable when applied to SGR A*.

This seems to require some form of “belief” or “faith” on the observer’s part to justify this claim that SGR A* is an object known metaphorically as a black hole. No on-site measurement is possible now, nor are we strictly certain of what we’re measuring. And we must have faith that the underlying theory is correct and that it applies to this object.

In addition, I should note that SGR A* is 20,000 light-years away.

So, here’s the question: If we are willing to accept this level of inference, “belief” or “faith” when applied to scientific concepts, are we likewise willing to accept them when applied to religious concepts, such as the existence of the human soul?

Inferring Evidence for the Existence of the Human Soul

Let’s find out. Here’s the proposition: As a black hole cannot be perceived by the material senses except as it is expressed in its effect on the visible bodies around it, spirit cannot be perceived by the material senses, excepting as it is expressed in outward signs and works—the effects of its activity in the visible world. The human body is visible, the soul is invisible. It is the soul, nevertheless, that directs a man’s faculties, that governs his humanity.

The soul has two main faculties, here outlined by Abdu’l-Bahá in one of his Paris talks:

As outer circumstances are communicated to the soul by the eyes, ears, and brain of a man, so does the soul communicate its desires and purposes through the brain to the hands and tongue of the physical body, thereby expressing itself. The spirit in the soul is the very essence of life.

The second faculty of the soul expresses itself in the world of vision, where the soul inhabited by the spirit has its being, and functions without the help of the material bodily senses. (Paris Talks, p. 85)

I should make it clear that the ideas I’ve expressed above are not Bahá’í doctrine. This is my personal response to some of the propositions I’ve heard about the conflict between science and religion based on my personal understandings of the Bahá’í Writings and modern science.

Hopefully, I have demonstrated that the Bahá’í Faith can provide a useful and thoughtful perspective in better understanding the challenges of having both a belief in science and a belief in God simultaneously.

Ultimately, the notion of proving God’s existence is meaningless if human free will truly exists. There will always be debate on the subject, just as there is yet debate about the existence of black holes or the fact that we have put men on the moon. For some, there is never enough evidence.

Next time, I’d like to look at my pen-namesake, Albert Einstein, and his role in the relationship between faith and reason.

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

The question I posed at the end of my last blog was whether any form of material evidence would be sufficient to satisfy the atheists’ need for “proof” of God’s existence.

A related query is whether there is such thing as belief or faith within the scientific model. To answer either question I think we need to start by defining “belief”.

Here’s one from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (on-line):

belief: n.
the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true

From Merriam-Webster’s On-Line Dictionary:

belief: n.
- a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
- something believed; esp. a tenant or body of tenants held by a group
- conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon, especially when based on examination or evidence

These definitions do not suggest to me that science and belief are antithetical. In fact, the scientific process—as a human attempt to understand the known physical Universe—is very much based on faith and belief within the context of reason and evidence. In this context, belief must play a part.

Albert Einstein has said that “The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.”

The practice of the scientific process, by its very nature, implies a fundamental belief in an external comprehensibility—a sense of order—within the Universe that is independent of human observation and does not change with time. When we take a closer look at the type of research that’s taking place, a number of issues arise that affect human perception of objects in the Universe. These include our ability to perceive the existence of objects within the Universe that, when compared to human length scales, are:

• too large:    stars, galaxies, galactic superclusters, Universe
• too small:    cells, viruses, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, strings (?).

For this reason, among others, all scientific theories break down at some level. Let’s take, for example, faith in the use of Darwinian theories of evolution to understand the Universe.

Undeniably, the atheist world-view crucially rests on belief in Darwinian evolutionary processes and their ability to explain everything in nature—such as the structure of living cells and complex molecules like DNA—without any obvious evidence to justify the claim.

This Darwinian principle also motivates the current string theory belief in multiple universes—again, without any obvious evidence to justify the claim. If an honest study of Darwinian evolution showed credible evidence for its breakdown at the macroscopic or microscopic level, then the atheists’ entire world view would be threatened.

Examples of Belief Applied in Science
One outstanding case of how belief impacts science is the discovery of neutrinos. Neutrinos are electrically neutral particles produced in the nuclei of atoms through radioactive decay.  Literally billions of neutrinos from the Sun pass through us every second.

We have no way of perceiving neutrinos through our senses, yet we know they exist.  How?

The concept of the neutrino was Introduced by Wolfgang Pauli in 1929 as a desperate measure to preserve the belief in energy and momentum conservation laws. Conservation laws cannot be proven, only inferred by repeatable observations that when [a collision or a decay reaction occurs involving two or more objects, there is no net gain or energy or momentum. When observations of beta decay (i.e. the spontaneous conversion of a neutron into a proton and electron in the nucleus of atoms) revealed a possible net loss of energy and momentum in the reaction, Pauli chose to resolve this dilemma by postulating the neutrino to account for the missing energy and momentum.  It is very important to note, however, that Pauli's position was not universally accept.  In fact, Niels Bohr, a fellow Nobel laureate who contributed heavily to the development quantum mechanics, hypothesized that perhaps energy and momentum conservation is only true at the macroscopic scale and breaks down when dealing with atoms and subatomic particles.  In other words, Bohr made the counterclaim that neutrinos don't really exist because he was willing to modify his belief in energy and momentum conservation to fit with the existing physical evidence before him. It would take another 30 years following Pauli's proposal before the discovery of neutrinos could be proclaimed by Reines and Cowan in 1956.

Clearly, Pauli’s belief that there were such objects in the universe drove his scientific research to propose their existence.  While it is still extremely difficult to do experiments involving neutrinos, it is remarkable to realize that we can find out specific properties of neutrinos, such as the existence of a neutrino mass, based on a useful combination of theory and experiment, coupled with the implied belief that the universe is, indeed, comprehensible.

Another example of the role belief plays in science is Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (GR) and the existence of black holes. In 1915, Einstein proposed that gravitation is described in terms of the curvature of space-time due to the presence of matter, known as General Relativity (GR). His theory successfully explained the anomalous behavior in Mercury’s orbit around the Sun not accounted for by Newton’s law of gravitation, and correctly predicted the deflection of light by the sun during a solar eclipse.

General Relativity is the theoretical basis for modern cosmology and for predicting the existence of black holes. While there is yet no direct evidence for the existence of black holes, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to infer their existence.

Black Hole: Artist's Rendering

Above is an artist’s description of the warping of space-time due to a solar mass black hole in orbit around a supermassive black hole.  This picture, of course, is not really what a black hole “looks like.” In this picture, known as an embedding diagram, the black holes are represented as circular discs at the bottom of strongly curved spatial surfaces, whose boundaries describe the black holes’ outer surfaces, known as event horizons.  For a distant observer sufficiently far away from the black holes, there is no discernible warping of space-time.

In plain terms: We cannot see black holes, we can only infer their existence.

Now, as a scientist, I may choose to call that a “hypothesis” or a “theory”—and those are both good terms—but in layman’s language, it is still a belief, and to say otherwise would disingenuous of me.

Next time: the role of inference in science.

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

I often hear the comment that religion by nature disallows questions and requires the believer to check his or her brain at the door. My experience with religion has been somewhat different. The Bahá’í Faith is not shy of honest differences of perspective and encourages a healthy dialogue in the search for truth. Here Abdu’l-Bahá is setting out guidelines for consultation during a meeting of a spiritual assembly (the elected guiding body of the Bahá’í community), but the principle of approach applies to any topic of consultation.

The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument.  Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed.  The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. (‘’Abdu’l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of ‘’Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 86)

I suppose it goes without saying that this open and frank exchange requires moderation of speech and respect for human dignity where disagreements occur:

He must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vain-glory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence and refrain from idle talk.  For the tongue is a smoldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison.  Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul.  The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endureth a century.
(Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 264)

Use of Language in the Science and Religion Debate
A key assertion from the atheist “side” of the aisle is that there is “no evidence” to support the existence of God. This is a strong claim that begs answers to the following questions:

1. What is exactly meant by “evidence” to provide a suitably objective definition in both a scientific and religious context?
2. Who gets the right to decide on what even qualifies as “evidence” in favor of or against claims about the existence of God?

The atheists with whom I’ve conversed wish to set the rules and conditions for debate as is suggested by this scale that ranges from: “absolute certainty” to “absolute impossibility”:

“absolute certainty” <<——
——— “fact” ———
—— “evidence” —— “inference” —— “belief” ——
——— “faith” ——— “superstition” ———
(?)
——>> “absolute impossibility”

My question is:  How does one define the relationship between different words on this scale for objectively identifying a phenomenon as it relates to science and/or religion?

A good place to start may be with a definition of “evidence”. From the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (on-line) we get:
evidence: n. one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:
—The police have found no evidence of a terrorist link with the murder.
—Is there any scientific evidence that a person’s character is reflected in   their handwriting?
—There is no scientific evidence to suggest that underwater births are  dangerous.

Merriam-Webster’s On-Line Dictionary offers:

evidence: n.

1. an outward sign
2. something that furnishes proof
3. one who bears witness; esp. one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

The Limitations of Science in Acquiring Knowledge

In the interest of clarity, I’d like to define, also, the scientific method. The scientific method is a systematic and algorithmic means to piece together a worldview (i.e. paradigm) of understanding the nature and structure of the known Universe.An essential part of the scientific method is experimentation under laboratory conditions to test theories. The scientific method is undeniably successful in offering explanations about structures within the known Universe, from subatomic to cosmological length scales. On its own, it provides no insight into the underlying purpose behind our existence, or that of anything else within the known Universe.

Science is a social activity and, as such, is practiced by a wide variety of human beings.  Human beings, of course, are endowed with the ability to perceive “reality” with a sense of self-awareness and the awareness of other people or things. This makes them ideally suited to observing and discovering the nature of the observable and known Universe. However, without proper instrumentation, the capacity to perceive the known Universe with our senses alone is limited by a number of factors, including the length of the human lifespan and the relative vulnerability of the human mind and body.
And then, of course, there’s the fact that observations are subject to any limitations or filtering in the perceptions of the observer. Which means that human observations are subject to human interpretation and capacity for self-deception.

Given that every question about the Universe leads to more uncertainty and further questions, what exactly does it mean to know something as opposed to believing in it?

This question makes me think about a film like “The Matrix” and its concept of “reality” in perceiving our immediate environment. Is it possible to distinguish between the “real” world and the computer-generated world of “The Matrix” solely by using our senses? This, of course, leads to a further question: Would any form of material evidence be sufficient to satisfy the atheists’ need for “proof” of God’s existence?

I’d like to explore that in context with the nature of belief, next time.

Albert E+

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

In this age of modern science, we face the question of whether we need a belief in God for our advancement. In fact, many vocal atheists today—such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, P.Z. Myers, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, etc.—make heavy use of science to justify their denial of the existence of God.

These are highly intelligent and well-educated people whose statements against religion make the claim that a belief in God is both “delusional” and a “dangerous threat” to the survival of humankind, and that it provides “false comfort” in the face of danger and difficulty. They claim religious people necessarily oppose critical thinking and believe in ideas “without evidence”. A number of them have referred to the religious education of children as “child abuse”. These atheists are especially hostile towards scientists who claim evidence for intelligent design in Nature, and/or those who question whether Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection—viewed as an undirected process without a need for God to intervene—can fully explain the diversity of life on Earth. (Or, indeed, explain the beginnings of life on Earth.)

While it is true that a slight majority (60%) of scientists surveyed declared themselves as “atheist” or “agnostic” where it concerns belief in a personal God, many reputable scientists see no conflict between science and religion. Despite this, inflammatory and highly disrespectful language is used in advancing this debate.

An important point to consider in this discussion is that, despite claims to the contrary from atheists, there is a strong faith principle within the scientific discipline that is not well-appreciated by the public and needs to be expounded upon. Current theoretical physics research is undergoing a crisis, where certain physicists—mostly atheists—are  adopting questionable positions about physical reality, while demanding blind acceptance from the public about their beliefs. This is especially prevalent in the areas of string theory and in some very recent origin hypotheses.

On the other side of the equation, some atheists within the scientific community are openly hostile towards colleagues who question the limitations of evolution by undirected natural selection, and those who further suggest evidence for intelligent design  in the Universe. (When I speak here of intelligent design, I do not mean the specifically Christian hypotheses that extends Creationist ideas into the scientific arena, but rather the general concept that there has been some direction in the evolution of life in the universe.)

Human discovery functions best within an atmosphere of open and fearless inquiry, but the new atheists’ indiscriminate hostility and willful ignorance about religion in general (and Islam in particular) impinges on that openness by placing some ideas and dialogue off-limits and by suggesting that there is some knowledge we ought to fear. This, in turn, has the potential to cause harm for religionists who have nothing to do with extremism. I would argue that there exist potential public safety issues if the atheist rhetoric—especially around such issues as the extremist nature of all Islam or the criminality of exposing children to religion—goes unchallenged by reason.

In expounding their views on these subjects, this “new” generation atheist thinkers suggests that there is a type of knowledge that human beings should not give their children—indeed, that religious knowledge should not be considered in making decisions at the individual or collective level. I’d like to speak to that suggestion.

A Bahá’í Perspective on Knowledge and Use of Language

I am a Bahá’í. To counter the new atheist assertion that religion is anti-knowledge, I must observe that the Bahá’í Faith has from its inception valued the pursuit of knowledge and the search for truth, making it a key principle of faith. The Faith encourages its followers to achieve excellence in education with humility and respect for others, and for the service of humankind.

Knowledge is as wings to man’s life, and a ladder for his ascent.  Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the earth, and not those which begin with words and end with words.  Great indeed is the claim of scientists and craftsmen on the peoples of the world. . . . In truth, knowledge is a veritable treasure for man, and a source of glory, of bounty, of joy, of exaltation, of cheer and gladness unto him. (Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 51)

To counter the assertion that religion and science are natural enemies, I must observe that there is a requirement in my faith for a correspondence between science and religion:

Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must correspond.  Religious teaching which is at variance with science and reason is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance, for the antithesis and opposite of knowledge is superstition born of the ignorance of man.  If we say religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test. (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 107)

Indeed, the Bahá’í Faith advances the claim that the pursuit of science requires guidance from religion, with serious consequences if the two do not work hand in hand:

If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition.  Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress.  It is not possible to fly with one wing alone!  Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism. (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 142)

Atheists, meanwhile, take the general viewpoint that only material processes are “real” and anything with a spiritual dimension is “superstition.”

How are we to resolve these apparent differences and find common ground? That’s what I’d like to explore in my next posting.

Albert E+

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

Before continuing with Part 2 of my series on “The New Atheism,” I decided to instead write about my thoughts after watching a recent Anderson Cooper CNN special called “Bullying: No Escape.”

This special was about the alarming prevalence of bullying in high schools, including some high profile suicides in the U.S. that occurred recently, such as the tragic case of Phoebe Prince in Massachusetts.

For those of you who missed the program, it featured a number of high school age children who were bullied mercilessly by their peers. It also featured a group of professionally trained experts who discussed the issue from their own vantage points.  Included in this discussion was a high school student who identified himself as a former bully, who explained the thought processes behind his bullying behavior.

It is important to note that the bullied children interviewed sensed a “lack of empathy” on the part of their peers, and that bystanders (even those who disagreed with the mistreatment of their classmates) were no better than the bullies by their inaction.

Most disturbing about the whole program were the allegations of an apparent lack of regard from school officials (i.e. teachers, principals, school board trustees, etc.) on the severity of the problems faced by students today, especially with the use of Facebook and other social media to exacerbate the problem. It’s all very sad, indeed.

I’m just old enough to be the father of such children and youth, so I’m particularly mindful of how differently they perceive and deal with bullying, peer pressure, and other social challenges in the age of the Internet, social media, and other technological advances that my generation never experienced when I was their age. Indeed, the level of social transformation due to technology between my time in high school and theirs is astounding, with very deep implications for the future. I think this is a key source of the fundamental sense of disconnection from peers and educators experienced by these children.

I contend that the disconnect is a generational one, whereby the older generation’s experience with bullying is—on average—much less severe than the children and youth of today.  Furthermore, as pointed out by one of the professionals invited to speak on bullying, there’s a critical need for schools to instill students of today with a much deeper understanding of the consequences of their actions on others, especially given the sense that people can bully others with impunity using Facebook and other social media.

You may be asking yourself what any of this has to do with the “New Atheism” movement and its future implications.  Well, in fact, I think it has everything to do with it.  Let me explain.

Today, we have people like Richard Dawkins—motivated in large part by his own childhood experiences, as evidenced by statements made in The God Delusion—drawing the disturbing conclusion that teaching religion to children is a form of “child abuse.”  He and other atheists have also made numerous claims suggesting that our sense of public morality is really the byproduct of “naturalistic processes,” and utterly dismiss the role of established world religions through the ages as agents for positive social change.

Apart from holding a very naïve interpretation of existing historical evidence to make this claim, I personally find that Dawkins’ claim of “child abuse” in teaching religion to children is both deeply offensive and potentially very dangerous.  For Bahá’ís like myself ,and other sincerely religious people, it is patently obvious that world religions have played a fundamental role in laying the foundations for what we would call “moral truths,” such as the protection of life, preserving the dignity of others, not stealing from others, etc..

Bahá’ís strongly believe that moral education needs to be a fundamental part of every child’s life experience for the betterment of society for generations into the future.  This is why Bahá’ís are strongly encouraged to have children’s classes—taught throughout the world—to promote moral education from preschool age onwards, such that when they become teenagers it is natural for them to behave honorably and to think of bullying others as intolerable.

What would most likely happen if Dawkins had his way and we did away with all religious education for children?  Would the bullies who would otherwise torment Phoebe Prince suddenly become “more enlightened” and recognize the error of acting this way to another human being? I would expect that most reasonable people, religious or not, would reject this line of thinking.To me, it is impossible to seriously divorce long-standing teachings from recognized world religions from the moral standards that most reasonable people uphold today.

While any form of moral education is welcome, the suggestions made on the CNN special to teach about bullying prevention from a purely secular and materialistic basis—without proper acknowledgement of the spiritual nature of human beings—comes across to me as hollow, empty, and ultimately devoid of any transformative power.

Abdu’l-Bahá—the eldest son of Prophet-Founder Bahá’u’lláh and authorized head of the Baha’i world community during His lifetime—after his Father’s passing, made the following statements regarding children’s moral education:

“As to thy question regarding the education of children:  it behoveth thee to nurture them at the breast of the love of God, and urge them onward to the things of the spirit, that they may turn their faces unto God; that their ways may conform to the rules of good conduct and their character be second to none; that they make their own all the graces and praiseworthy qualities of humankind; acquire a sound knowledge of the various branches of learning, so that from the very beginning of life they may become spiritual beings, dwellers in the Kingdom, enamoured of the sweet breaths of holiness, and may receive an education religious, spiritual, and of the Heavenly Realm. Verily will I call upon God to grant them a happy outcome in this.” — Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, p. 142.

“The instruction of these children is even as the work of a loving gardener who tendeth his young plants in the flowering fields of the All-Glorious. There is no doubt that it will yield the desired results; especially is this true of instruction as to Bahá’í obligations and Bahá’í conduct, for the little children must needs be made aware in their very heart and soul that Bahá’i’ is not just a name but a truth. Every child must be trained in the things of the spirit, so that he may embody all the virtues and become a source of glory to the Cause of God. Otherwise, the mere word ‘Bahá’í’, if it yield no fruit, will come to nothing.  “Strive then to the best of thine ability to let these children know that a Bahá’í is one who embodieth all the perfections, that he must shine out like a lighted taper — not be darkness upon darkness and yet bear the name ‘Bahá’í’.” — Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, p. 143.

The ultimate point I gain from this CNN special on bullying is that this and related problems cannot ever be dealt with effectively in a piecemeal fashion.  Furthermore, it only reinforces the point that progress will only occur once we acknowledge that human beings possess a spiritual nature that needs to be nurtured from early childhood in order for them to regard others with a sense of empathy, compassion, and respect.

Anything less than that will ultimately result in failure.

Albert E+

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

Impact on Contemporary Perceptions of Science and Religion

Hi.  I apologize for the delay in writing this blog entry, but matters have gotten busy for me lately with my research papers to work on, preparation for upcoming conferences and research visits, and other related activities.  Though I may not be able to make contributions on a weekly basis as I would like, I hope that what I do put together over the next few months or so is worth the wait.

Unlike some of the other bloggers, my contributions may not follow some well-defined narrative, but will rather appear in a more “organic” fashion, either in response to statements on the Internet with potential implications for atheism, etc., or due to interesting statements made by fellow contributors to Common Ground.  I also aim for a more conversational writing style to state my honestly held opinions, especially on topics for which I don’t claim any special expertise, such as philosophy or modern language usage.

Whenever I may make comments that intersect these types of disciplines, I will always defer to the expertise of people like Ian Kluge and Maya Bohnhoff for the insights they offer from within their knowledge base. All that stated, I would strive very hard for a simultaneous level of evidence-based scientific precision as required, and make comment on where ambiguities may also occur.

On the topic at hand, let me begin by giving you my overall conclusion concerning whether we can convincingly proclaim the existence of God, in light of opposition from the “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins, et al.  Because the question: “Does God exist?” has been posed by intelligent human beings over the ages—with many thoughtful approaches documented and debated upon ad nauseam—the fact that we still face this question today without an airtight answer leaves me to conclude that it will remain a fundamentally unanswerable question for all time.

In other words, while I’m convinced that God exists, based on my day-to-day life experiences, my affiliation with the  Bahá’í Faith, and my understandings of modern science, there will always be enough ambiguity present to leave us at a perpetual stalemate. Since it’s clear to me that hardline atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and others will always find cause to object to whatever arguments are put forward in support of the existence of God—no matter how cogent they may be—the question speaks much more to the receptivity of the individual to accept the validity of an affirmative answer to this question in the first place.

As a Baha’i, I may claim, for example, that God knows what’s in the hearts (i.e. the inner consciences) of the New Atheists and whether they will ever be receptive to accepting His existence in the course of time.  However, I’m convinced that such a claim about God’s existence—let alone His capacities—can never be “proven” as true, and it’s very easy to see that such people will think that my posing such an idea is “nonsense.”

Now, a literal treatment of the word “non-sense” to mean “not of the senses” suggests to me that a truth claim about God’s existence and innate qualities is forever outside the domain of what can be gained by the “senses.”  Using “non-sense” in that context is, then, merely a statement of the obvious and is not a negation of the truth claim.  Of course, if the New Atheists use the word “nonsense” to describe my position, they really mean it as a synonym for “unreasonable,” “delusional,” “wrong,” or some other pejorative term.

I refer you to Ian Kluge’s very impressive recent blog about ontological naturalism to better appreciate the New Atheists’ level of disdain that someone like myself—a scientist—accepts the claim that God has consciousness, intelligence, personality, and the capacity to know the inner essence of everything and everyone who has ever lived or will live.  If I or someone like John Polkinghorne (a respected mathematical physicist from Cambridge University, who resigned his academic position to become an ordained Anglican priest), make statements about things that can’t be “sensed” physically, does the fact that these concepts can’t be probed by experimental analysis imply that such things necessarily don’t exist?  Of course not!  In point of fact, a comment attributed to Polkinghorne found on his Wikipedia page  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne)  makes the point that “debating with Dawkins is hopeless, because there’s no give and take.  He doesn’t give you an inch.  He just says no when you say yes.”

When dealing with this level of obstinacy, I completely agree with Polkinghorne’s perspective.  For example, can you imagine some time traveller meeting with Isaac Newton and telling him some fanciful story that matter is composed of “atoms” with a nucleus of “protons” and “neutrons”—each of which are composed of “quarks”, all bound together by “gluons” that pop in and out of existence following the laws of “quantum mechanics,” and surrounded by “electrons” that do not have well-defined orbits due to the “Heisenberg uncertainty principle?”

What would be Newton’s reaction to hearing this story from such a time traveller, at a time when the existence of atoms in Nature is considered only at a philosophical level and with “no evidence” whatsoever to justify the time traveller’s claim?  Most people might imagine Newton saying that this person was either on drugs, possessed by demons, or under some mental delusion that should result in his/her hanging. I doubt very much that any of them would think he said:  “Wow!  This time traveller is absolutely right!  Why didn’t I think of that before!?”  It should be obvious that Isaac Newton or his contemporaries would have never come to our modern-day conclusion about matter, even though we have compelling evidence that it makes sense.
So, why believe in God in the face of modern science, if we have no physical way of identifying His existence in the Universe?  People like Dawkins and others claim that there is “no evidence” for God’s existence, but are very quick to discount the personal experiences of people who affirm His presence in their lives and see their lives transformed. They deny the possibility that there may be Holy Scriptures that have been divinely inspired.

To be clear, there are certainly “false religions” out there that result in nothing but misery, abuse, and violations of all forms against the people who follow them, with some charismatic and exploitative person in charge of the operation.  However, does the fact that at least some organized religions are run by abusive people necessarily imply that God doesn’t exist or that religion “poisons everything,” as Hitchens claims in his book, God is Not Great?

This line of argument does not logically follow, but are the New Atheists willing to make emotional or intellectual space for themselves to acknowledge this point?  From what I’ve read in their books or heard from statements posted online, I think the answer is “no”.

I have a good physicist friend who explained in moving detail how he became a Bahá’í while doing his postdoctoral studies, after having declared himself an atheist since early childhood. This person made it clear to me that it was the station of Bahá’u’lláh, Himself, and His impact on the people who were to become His followers, that allowed  him to overcome his atheism and believe in God as a dedicated Bahá’í.  Would the New Atheists be willing to accept this person’s testimonial as “evidence” in favour of God’s existence, or would they instead suggest that he had some latent psychological disorder that manifested itself as a belief in God?

This leads me to my second and final point for this posting as it concerns science and religion: My basic conclusion is that both science and religion are fundamentally interpretive in nature, in that as human beings who study science and/or follow religion or do neither, we are compelled to interpret whatever sensory or thought-driven information we absorb about our environment or our scientific/religious studies.   Otherwise, how is it that two equally well-trained scientists looking at the same data sets for some experiment can come up with completely different conclusions?  This scenario happens all the time!  In the absence of physical evidence, how is it that we can have downright nasty fights akin to a quasi-religious warfare between theoretical physicists who either believe in string theory or reject it?

I’m sure to write more about this in the near future, but though I have no belief in string theory as a viable scientific pursuit, my disbelief is not “proof” that the theory’s claims about the physical Universe are untrue.  Furthermore, despite the growing opposition within the theoretical physics community to string theory, its proponents still continue to believe in it very fervently, especially given that it appears to be “permanently safe” from being tested in a laboratory setting.

Can one then draw an equivalence between “God” and “string theory” as concepts that people believe in without “evidence?”  Depending on how one uses the word “evidence” in describing both topics, it’s hard to say for sure.  So far, however, the analogy makes sense to me.

More to come!

Albert E+

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

Some Ground Rules About My Future Use of These Words

Hi.  While preparing this blog entry on the above topic, I recently became aware of the new book written by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, called The Grand Design.  This book essentially makes the claim that modern theoretical physics can dispel with the necessity of God in describing the creation of the Universe and all objects contained within.

Of course, given my own professional background and research interests, I definitely have a comment or two about their wide-reaching and—in my opinion—highly erroneous claims.  Since I don’t have access to a copy of the book myself, I cannot really make any detailed comments until I’ve had a chance to read it myself.  However, there is at least one comment attributed to Hawking that is worth noting for deep consideration.  This is his claim that: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” (?????)

Without further substantiation from Drs. Hawking and Mlodinow in their book, I’m at a total loss to understand what justifications can be made to link “gravity” (best described to date in terms of Einstein’s theory of general relativity) with some form of spontaneous creation from nothing.  By itself, this statement is logically incoherent in the absence of more commentary to come from this book.  Furthermore, as the formidable Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig quite rightly makes clear in a comment found on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55UgLEKbz2s

The word “nothing” in Dr. Hawking’s above comment needs to be clarified, since a philosopher’s understanding of  “nothing” is literally “non-being.”  It then becomes difficult without further argumentation to explain what it means for “being” to come out of “non-being,” and to do so “spontaneously.”

In fairness, Drs. Hawking and Mlodinow may have some very substantive arguments to better justify this claim, though preliminary reviews and articles indicating their appeal to so-called “M-Theory” in string theory leave me completely unimpressed.  It so happens that I’m very critical of string theory, both on scientific and metaphysical grounds;  to me, any invocation of “string-inspired” ideas is more of a dodge than an explanation of anything.  In fact, I believe it’s no accident that many atheistic scientists are also big supporters of string theory.  This may be a topic for a future blog entry.

Having now finished with this brief diversion, let me go back to my original motivation for this post.  Its purpose is to establish some ground rules for my future usage of the words “belief,” “evidence,” and “faith” in any dialogue about the existence of God, science and religion, and other related topics.

Before expounding on such subtle and controversial topics as the existence of God, it should be obvious why some common understanding of basic vocabulary is absolutely necessary.  When people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and other “New Atheists” make repeated claims that there’s “no evidence” for the existence of God, one should immediately ask them what exactly they mean by “evidence.”  I’m careful about how I try to communicate my ideas to others, and I get very annoyed when otherwise intelligent people like these fail to provide the most basic courtesy of defining their terms of discourse before they proceed to discuss religion using their selective vocabulary.  In my opinion, this is a disappointing and distasteful tactic, and I think they should be called out every time they publicly claim “no evidence” for the existence of God.

To this end, I wish to offer you the range of possible meanings that are casually used for describing concepts like “belief,” “evidence,” and “faith”—three examples from the entire vocabulary used in addressing atheism, science and religion, and the existence of God.  Now instead of creating my own definitions for these words or using potential definitions derived from the Bahá’í Writings—which you can rightly claim to be an improper move—I want to use a reasonable set of standard definitions from acceptable sources. Therefore, I’ve copied not one, but two sets of definitions for “belief,” “evidence,” and “faith” from respectable online dictionaries.  These definitions, and their sources, are as follows:

From the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

belief:  n. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true

- All non-violent religious and political beliefs should be respected equally.- [+ that ] It is my (firm) belief that nuclear weapons are immoral.- His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.- Recent revelations about corruption have shaken many people’s belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) the police.- He called at her house in the belief that (= confident that) she would lend him the money.

evidence:  n.    one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:

- The police have found no evidence of a terrorist link with the murder.- Is there any scientific evidence that a person’s character is reflected in their handwriting?- There is no scientific evidence to suggest that underwater births are dangerous.

faith:  n. great trust or confidence in something or someone

- She has no faith in modern medicine.- You’ll cope – I have great faith in you.- After the trial, his family said they had lost all faith in the judicial system.-  Ministers must start keeping their promises if they want to restore faith in the government.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

belief:  n. 1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing; 2) something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group; 3) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

- There is growing belief that these policies will not succeed.- He gets angry if anyone challenges his religious beliefs.- We challenged his beliefs about religion.

evidence:  n. 1.a) an outward sign: indication   b) something that furnishes proof: testimony: specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter;  2.  one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses acrime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

- There is no evidence that these devices actually work.- He has been unable to find evidence to support his theory.- Investigators could find no evidence linking him to the crime.- The jury had a great deal of evidence to sort through before reachinga verdict.- There is not a scrap of evidence in her favor.- Anything you say may be used as evidence against you.

faith:  n. 1. a) allegiance to duty or a person: loyalty    b) (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions; 2. a) (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in thetraditional doctrines of a religion    b) (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) :complete trust; 3.  : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;especially    : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith> – His supporters have accepted his claims with blind faith.- Our faith in the government has been badly shaken by the recent scandals.- Lending him the money to start his own business was an act of faith.- It requires a giant leap of faith for us to believe that she is telling the truth.- Nothing is more important to her than her faith in God.- She says that her faith has given her the courage to deal with this tragedy.

It should become immediately obvious to you that these definitions allow for considerable overlap of concepts that lack the precision of mathematically motivated definitions.  This is an unfortunate consequence of having to use words instead of mathematical equations to communicate.  My point with this analysis is to illustrate that both atheists and religious people can legitimately use words like “belief,” “evidence,” and “faith” within their own internal vocabularies and oftentimes talk past each other, sometimes not even recognizing points of agreement simply because they have never bothered to define their terms at the beginning!  I think a lot of needless conflict can be avoided by taking this simple measure from the start.

Now, having provided some definitions of these words, what are the ones that I will use?  In fairness to myself, it would be very difficult to arbitrarily use a specific set and stay with it, although I do like the conciseness of the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary definitions.  At the same time, there is a certain richness found in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definitions that provide a greater level of nuance when employed for specific situations.  So my best answer to this question is to refer back periodically to this blog entry to reverse-engineer the type of definition I used within a given context.

There is, however, one definition that I will definitely NEVER use within this list, and that is the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2. b)(1) definition of “faith,” namely: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”

The reason why I will never use this definition is because it automatically denies me the opportunity to talk about “religious faith” without implying a claim in belief without “proof” or“evidence.”  This is a central claim made by atheists like Richard Dawkins et al. that I will always reject without some qualifier.  In other words, I firmly believe in a concept of“faith” in both scientific and religious contexts that doesn’t necessarily imply a lack of “proof,” “evidence,” “reason,” etc. for a given claim.  Therefore, for future consideration, whenever I want to use the word “faith” within the context of “firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” I will always add the qualifier “blind” to clearly make reference to “blind faith.”  Similarly, I may make reference to “faith with reason” or something to that effect, but my use of “faith” by itself will never mean the 2. b) (1) definition given by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

I’ll conclude by admitting what seems like a pedantic approach in explaining the meanings of “belief,” “evidence,” and “faith” to be adopted in future blog entries.  Nevertheless, when understanding the truth-claims found in books like The Grand Design, all concerned will be on better ground knowing what the other person means.

Signed, Albert E+

Continue reading »]]>

Albert E+

Hi.  My name is Albert E+ and I’m a board certified professional geek!

All joking aside, I’m really excited about this opportunity to share my professional and personal thoughts about such vital questions as the existence of God, the relationship between science and religion, the challenges against religion (both reasonable and unreasonable) as posed by the “New Atheism” of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, etc., and many other related topics.  his first entry is simply to introduce myself to you, explain my background a bit, and address the obvious question: why I must express myself from behind the pseudonym “Albert E+”.

I am a professionally trained theoretical physicist with a doctorate from a North American university. I’m currently a senior postdoctoral fellow, looking for a permanent faculty position specializing in Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, theoretical cosmology, searches for quantum gravity and other related studies in theoretical physics. Preprints of my papers—most of them already refereed and published in established print journals such as Physical Review, Physics Letters, Classical and Quantum Gravity, etc.—can be found online by going here: http://arxiv.org/  and typing my real name—should you happen to know it—into the website’s search engine.  I promise, you won’t get anywhere if you type in “Albert E+”!

This preprint archive is a very simple and effective way of identifying who’s a legitimate physicist and who’s not. For example, there’s a very popular individual in the “New Age Movement” who claims to be a respected theoretical physicist. A friend came across him on the Internet and asked my opinion of him. Since I’d never heard his name until then, the first thing I did was to check the arxiv.org search engine for any papers he might have written.  Of course, when I got no hits of any kind on the preprint archive, I then “googled” him, and found that he was a highly intelligent, but untrained amateur.

Getting back to my story, over the past few years I’ve been very fortunate to know and write papers with several leading figures in my areas of interest. They hail from such institutions as Caltech, Stanford, University of California schools, Oxford, Cambridge, University of London and other forces in theoretical physics.  Some of them have written popular books on the subject that you may have read either as part of a class curriculum or just for fun :=). While seeking a permanent faculty job, I’ve had the privilege of traveling the world to present my research at leading conferences in my field, being invited to visit research institutions for collaboration with leading researchers, all the while writing and publishing papers on my findings. In recent years, a number of colleagues have made an effort to contact me, after reading these papers, to express their interest in my research. This sort of collegial support of my research perspectives is much appreciated because it helps me to feel that I’m not a complete idiot for taking some relatively critical positions on “established scientific thought” that I’ve done in my own search for “scientific truth.”

As for the other side of my story—perhaps the “dark side”in the eyes of atheists who may read this —I became a member of the Bahá’í Faith well over ten years ago, while in my senior undergraduate year of university. To this day, I have never encountered any religion, philosophical principle, or statement of claim to reality that so completely speaks to the essence of truth, oneness, unity, kindness, compassion, and the spiritual needs of the modern world than what I have found in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Prophet-Founder of the Bahá’í Faith.  For me, the very idea of living the remainder of my life for even one nanosecond without my personal connection with Bahá’u’lláh or the worldwide Bahá’í community is so unthinkable that, should I ever have to face the brutal choice given to the Bahá’ís in Iran every day—namely to either give up my faith and keep a comfortable life, or be persecuted to the point of torture and death—I’ll freely choose the second option every time.

Now, for those of you who are declared atheists or at the very least hold deep suspicions about the existence of God, such comments from a self-described scientist may seem “fanatical,” “delusional,” or “irrational” in comparison to your own beliefs. Any claims of “balance” or “logical discourse” to come from me might seem totally misplaced. On the face of it—and in the absence of any corroborating evidence to the contrary—that may be a reasonable position to hold. However, it’s my sincere hope that my blog entries will reveal a high degree of reason, fairness, and substantive content to properly emphasize that a strong belief in God—at least from a Bahá’í perspective—is totally compatible with a belief in the modern scientifically motivated vision of the world today.  That is the ultimate goal of my blog postings.

When it comes to particular topics I would like to discuss in this blog, my goals are to operate from a dispassionate, but committed position to state what I honestly think are valid or invalid points made by the “New Atheists” noted above and others of like mind, and also to provide support for what is commonly considered to be a Bahá’í position.  It’s very clear to me that a lot of “trash talk” is thrown about along both sides of the divide between atheists and religiously minded people. Please let me be viewed alongside the other contributors of Common Ground as someone who will not engage in such behavior at any time.

Bahá’ís believe very strongly in respecting the dignity of all people, in spite of having to occasionally deal with indignities thrown at us by certain individuals who vehemently disagree with our beliefs, and quite literally threaten our lives, as in the case of believers in Iran and elsewhere. It’s both possible and necessary to exercise moderation of speech as the only gateway that will enable us to achieve a sense of positivity and mutual respect in this type of discussion.  In fact, for the purpose of any future dialogue, I think we need to be extremely mindful of the following warning given by Bahá’u’lláh to humanity, as stated in The Kitab-i-Iqan (The Book of Certitude):

“For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul.  The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century.” — Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan, page 193.

Whatever you may think of religious people or atheists, my hope is that we can avoid the consequences of what an “excess of speech” can bring.

Obviously, with so many people who see the world unfolding in very difficult times—with both science and religion having already played pivotal roles in recent days—it’s easy for someone like me to simply go through the same talking points as found on YouTube, Facebook, or other private blogs, without much forward progress. I will hopefully take a different approach in terms of discussions concerning science and religion, philosophy, sociology, politics, and other topics as they concern exploring the existence of God.

In particular, my approach to discussions about science and religion, the Bahá’í Faith, and other relevant topics will be very scientifically driven, at times possibly to the point of being off-putting to some who may not have the requisite background to follow everything I write.  For those of you who are familiar with Roger Penrose’s popular books on physics, such as The Road to Reality and The Emperor’s New Mind, you will know exactly what I mean. These are not books for the faint of heart where it concerns science and the general public. Hopefully, I will be able to find a happy medium between maintaining a “scientifically pure” understanding of relevant topics of discussion and your general comprehension of what is written.

Especially when it comes to discussing the various approaches to quantum gravity—where I honestly think even physicists have little insight about what they’re doing even after over seventy years of concerted effort (!), technical points may invariably come up. I’m sorry, but that can’t be helped.  If you get lost in the discussion process, please feel free to ask for clarification, and I will be happy to oblige your needs as best as I can. Whenever it’s convenient for me to do so, I will try to provide some source references for anyone who wishes to do further reading on his/her own.

Finally, I would like to address my reason for writing this blog behind the pseudonym “Albert E+.”  If you think about it a bit, the reason should become obvious. Science, as an entity cannot and does not “do” anything. Scientists—as people who partake in the study of science—do everything that is under the umbrella of what we call “science.” In other words, scientists as human beings are ultimately no better or worse as a collection of people than any other group, be it in the corporate business world or the labor movement, government, the entertainment industry, or so-called “civil society.” In any discussion about the relative merits of science and religion, we should never divorce from our collective thoughts the simple fact that human beings are inexorably involved throughout this whole process.

Sadly, despite the altruistic mythology of the so-called “New Enlightenment” projected by the New Atheists that’s supposed to follow from a purely scientific worldview, I think the realities on the ground are far less than noble. I’ve been an eyewitness to some very unprofessional behavior by senior scientists (both in public and private settings) meant to undermine other scientists’ reputations and careers, simply for taking an honest scientific position that disagrees with the prevailing opinions held by more powerful people. By virtue of a majority atheistic representation in the scientific community, much of this conduct comes from atheists victimizing other atheists, involving subject matter with absolutely no religious content whatsoever. When one adds to this mix any discussion about such topics as “intelligent design” found within Nature, for example, it should be no surprise to anyone that people like me will invariably face increasingly toxic levels of hostility already directed towards people of faith as a generic group.

While it’s likely true that the majority of legitimate scientists are atheists, at least in my branch of theoretical physics there are many very reputable senior and junior scientists who hold a faith perspective. Although I have not yet been explicitly penalized for being a declared follower of Bahá’u’lláh in the company of physicists I know well, I also have to be very circumspect about my level of openness where it concerns expressing a belief in God. Clearly, there are circumstances where expressing a faith perspective within a science-driven context, such as a classroom lecture in a publicly funded university or a purely scientific conference presentation, is completely inappropriate, and I sometimes find myself on exactly the same side as atheist colleagues when such situations do arise.

At the same time, having been an eyewitness to one man’s very public tirade against all things religious at a national physics conference, there is much cause for alarm about the potential for a McCarthy-style witch-hunt within the scientific community targeting anyone who claims to believe in God. To the atheists who might shake their heads in disbelief or claim that I’m simply being paranoid, let me make the following point very clear: my experience with this is factually true and can be corroborated by physical evidence that is publicly available if you know where to look for it.

Having now just given a rather lengthy overview of myself and the motivations behind my contribution to this blog, let me conclude by expressing my support to all the Bahá’ís in Iran and elsewhere who’ve suffered intense persecution for claiming an allegiance to Bahá’u’lláh and the Bahá’í Faith. At the time of this writing, there are seven believers held prisoner in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison for no just reason, except that they are Bahá’ís.  They recently received a prison sentence of twenty years each after being incarcerated for over two years without charge by the Iranian authorities, with their basic rights of due process denied to them.

When we, who are in relatively safe countries and can freely practice our faith (or lack thereof), know about the suffering of people like these seven Bahá’ís, I believe we are obligated to help them in whatever ways we can.  I dedicate all of my blog entries to these seven Bahá’ís in Iran, since I know with total confidence that they are not suffering in prison right now out of love for a God that does not exist. If you wish to know more about their story, please go here:  http://news.bahai.org/

For now, I look forward to writing more in the near future.  Thank you.

Albert E+