Richard Dawkins Gets Canceled

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and a self-proclaimed “militant atheist”, asked a question on Twitter for purely academical purposes (paraphrased): if a man can identify as a woman and a woman can identify as a man, can a white person identify as a black? Good question, eh? I can’t locate that tweet on Twitter anymore, but screenshots exist. Internet never forgets. Guess what happens? He gets canceled as a racist transphobe. American Humanist Society revokes an award given to him in 1996. I’m trying to wrap my head around this story.

How Could the Benevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient God NOT Create Evil?

Just came back from the church. Pastor Randy continued his series on “spiritual forces”. Today he was talking about angels. Quite a weird topic. Most of what people say about this is made up. I admit that there can be “spiritual experiences” when people see those angels. But one can talk about it in terms of individual experiences and not as of objective reality.  I disagree with a view presenting the world as a fight between “good” and “evil”.  First of all, these categories do not exist beyond human society which is limited to our tiny planet and not even the whole planet.  The vast universe is completely oblivious to such things.  So, thinking that the whole purpose of creating the universe is to set up this fight of “good” against “evil” is strange because this fight goes on, primarily, in people’s heads.

I was listening to Allan Watts speeches in the car recently. I completely agree with his views on religion and philosophy of relationship between the individual and the “universe”. Watts says that the individual and the environment are one and the same. One cannot exist without the other and one creates the other. So, it’s incorrect to think of them as separate entities.  In the same way, “good” and “evil” are two sides of the same coin. Good cannot exist without evil just like mountains cannot exist without valleys. If you create mountains, you create valleys as well. There is no way around.

Now, theologians say that Satan is one of the angels created by God who rebelled against God and became evil. It sounds like we have to blame Satan for the disobedience and the existence of evil. But let’s think about it. God can’t say what’s good without also saying what’s not good. One can’t define “good” without defining “evil”.  Meaning is exclusion.  If God sets a law that he wants his creatures to obey, that very act presumes that disobedience is possible. Would disobedience to God’s law be impossible, there would be no law.  So, the existence of the law presumes disobedience.  That’s the way things are.

For me, this answers The Problem of Evil or “how the benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God could create evil”. As I think of it, how could he not? The paradox exists only if we separate one from the other. But it’s impossible to separate good from evil, just as it’s impossible to separate mountains from the valleys. So, we must think of them as we think of two sides of the same wheel. One side goes up, the other side goes down.

Dialogues with Atheists I

One of my old dialogues with an atheist on an atheist forum. I was asked what I actually believe, which was unusual. I shared some thoughts I find worth repeating here.


I appreciate your interest. I’ve seen a lot of condemnation and criticism in atheist forums, I have not seen much interest to understand.

I believe, there is a force that “makes things happen” – in the physical world, but, most importantly, in our minds. There is “something” that drives us towards a better life – justice, love, etc. I think, it’s a simple human belief, and many atheists may believe the same thing. For me, it is hard to imagine the possibility of any social progress without such belief. I believe that we should seek to understand this force and submit to it. Christians may call it “the Holy Spirit”, atheists may say, it’s “genetic code”, but those are just words, placeholders for the concept. We are talking about the same thing, whether we want it or not.

We only understand what we can visualize. Some people visualize God as an old man with a beard in the sky. Some visualize the Holy Spirit as a dove, light, or water. I don’t think, any of those are correct visualizations. I may agree that “God” of the OT who writes with a finger on stone tablets and walls and speaks from a cloud or Jesus of the NT are fictional characters – attempts to visualize the concepts. You know wisdom when you see it. It may come from Tom Sawyer, Daffy Duck, Winnie the Pooh, Cat in the Hat, or Jesus. God is wisdom, not Daffy Duck. As for Jesus, even Christians believe, he was a man. If I think of Jesus in a sense that I described, it does not matter to me if he is fictional. I view the virgin birth and physical resurrection as symbols. The Bible is full of such symbols and metaphors. Such views do not contradict the idea that Jesus can save us (where “Jesus” is a visualization of the “force” driving us towards good).

You said,

“I see the Pope and many other religious leaders as scriptwriters and ventriloquists who push people around by saying “You had better obey because it is the word of God.”

I agree. I do not like this tone either. In a church where I go, there were several sermons on this very issue with the main thought “do not put your own words in God’s mouth, put God’s words into your mouth”. In NT, this was frequently an issue between Jesus and the Pharisees. They were trying to push their agenda on him using the letter of the law. So, your attitude is not “anti-Christian”. In fact, I find it Christian. We don’t need a performance of a ventriloquist. Frequently, it’s enough to step into a church to see such performance.

“Do you believe in a self-conscious God?”

I don’t think, I can make a coherent speech on this subject. Just to show the nonsense of this question, I will try. He is supposed to be conscious of everything. That includes himself, doesn’t it? Also, without self-consciousness, how can one feel compassion? Or how can one feel compassion without the ability to be hurt or harmed or feel pain? On the other hand, I’m not sure if being conscious of everything is different than being conscious of nothing. Both concepts are nonsense. It only makes sense to be conscious of something in particular. Once we say “I’m conscious of X”, we must be conscious of our consciousness. Being conscious of my consciousness makes as much sense as knowledge of knowledge, beliefs about beliefs, and reasoning about the reason. This does not make much sense, does it? As I said above, such questions are only useful to show the limits of our reasoning abilities. They simply short-circuit our logic machine. We have to step outside this logic machine to comprehend the issue.

“Does God have thoughts and desires? Is he a jealous and angry God?”

Can a force have thoughts and desires or be jealous and angry or be conscious of itself? We give these attributes to the forces with our metaphoric language (furious storm, calm weather). And we have to understand these forces to survive.

“Does he create things and destroy things?”

You can say, “things appear and disappear”, or “being created and destroyed”. It’s linguistics which reflects how we think about things. These two phrases say the same thing.

“Am I risking one of God’s lightning bolts by typing these insolent questions?”

We all are risking to die the next minute. We’d better do something good while we can.

Homosexuality is Unnatural

“Homosexuality is unnatural” is the first line of defense of gay marriage opponents.  I used to think so too, just because I’m straight. But what does “unnatural” mean?  “Unnatural” is the opposite of “natural”.  Depending on the context, “natural” can mean a number of things.

“Natural” can refer to something occurring in nature, without human participation.  “Unnatural” in this context means something man-made, something that can be seen only when humans are involved, something that would never develop without human participation.  If homosexuality is unnatural in this context, one would not observe it in wild animals.  A simple search on Wikipedia on “homosexual behavior in animals” reveals this.  Oh, My God!  Just a short list of “homosexual offenders” in the animal world:

Not the bed bugs! I was particularly impressed by the documented case of homosexual necrophilia in mallards.  Here is the link to the original paper PDF.  The author, Kees Moeliker, also made a TED talk about this interesting case with a few additional details, such as an example of a frog engaging in an oral sex with a live goldfish.  This paper and this video come to my mind each time someone uses the word “unnatural”.

Bed bugs, dragonflies, and lizards having homosexual affairs also destroy the myth that homosexual behavior is a choice unless we want to claim that dragonflies have consciousness and can choose what they do.  If God created dragonflies, he must have created homosexuality too.  Can dragonflies sin?

This video in Russian called “Homo sapiens – homosexuality in humans and animals” (you can turn on English subtitles) mentions that homosexual behavior is observed in over 1500 species!  It also shows many interesting examples of the contexts and reasons of it showing that the function of sex is not only reproduction, even in the animal world.

So, it’s not just a “fluke” of nature.  A random event with a negligible probability of observing.  Homosexuality in nature is very common. So, one cannot use “not observed in nature” definition to claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

But there are other meanings of “natural” and “unnatural”.  For example, people may say that “it is natural for the sun to rise in the morning and set in the evening”.  This simply means something commonly observed.   It’s a synonym of “normal”.  So, something not commonly observed or regularly done is identified as “unnatural” or “abnormal”.  “It is unnatural for me to wake up at 3 am” simply means that I normally do not do it. Perhaps, this is what most straight people mean when they say that homosexuality is unnatural.  First of all, other people can regularly do things that I would never do and it would be natural for them.  What is commonly observed in one area or culture can be very uncommon in another.  Even the sun does not rise and set every day in summer or in winter in areas close to the poles.  “Water boils at 100C” is only true at the sea level and on Earth.  On Mars, water does not normally boil at all.  It’s too cold.  This means, we only call homosexuality “unnatural” or “abnormal” because we don’t observe it too often.  But is it a good reason to oppose homosexual marriages?  We don’t see redheads too often as well.  Shall we call red hair a “genetic abnormality” and ban them from marriage also?  Claiming that homosexuality is “abnormal”, that it’s a “genetic deviation”, a “disease” of some sort, seems bogus.  When “unnatural” is used in the sense of an uncommon behavior, opposition to gay marriage is based in mere tradition.  “It has always been this way” (followed by the quotes from Genesis).

Sometimes, “unnatural” means “immoral”.  E.g. “It is unnatural to steal and kill.”  But declaring homosexuality unnatural because it is immoral and immoral because it is unnatural does not make a lot of sense.  One of the two has to be defined using different terms to avoid circular reasoning.

Sometimes, “unnatural” means “disgusting” or “repulsive”.  In this sense, “unnatural” means something a person would not normally do (see notes about “normal” – “abnormal” above).

Bottom line.  Some definitions of “unnatural” do not hold water with respect to homosexuality.  Others lead to circular reasoning.  Those that cannot be refuted, are reduced to 1) physical disgust or 2) tradition, often based in religion.

What other meanings of “natural” and “unnatural” have you seen?  My advice: avoid using words “natural” and “unnatural” in any debates.  In my experience, the most common source of misunderstanding in discussions comes from using different, unclear, or too broad contexts for common words.  Some people claim all we see around us is nature, therefore everything is natural.  Some people believe in supernatural.  If the supernatural is not natural, i.e. unnatural, then God is unnatural too.  “Careful the things you say, children will listen.

Two Main Arguments against Gay Marriage

The recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage caused fierce discussion all over the world.  Some celebrate it as an advance of human rights, others condemn it as an assault on morality and traditional family values.  I never hated homosexuals, but 10 years ago I would oppose the idea of gay marriage. Over the time, I changed my views.  Today I think any seemingly rational argument against gay marriage can be ultimately reduced to the two core arguments:

  1. Physical disgust towards homosexuality
  2. Religion (God says so) declaring homosexuality immoral with no explanation whatsoever

In my experience, these are the only two unrefutable arguments against same-sex marriage.  They are unrefutable because they are irrational. I challenge you to find a rational argument that don’t have one of these two at the root.  I’ll deal with the most common “rational” arguments later, but first, a few words about these two.

Disgust is a natural reaction allowing us to avoid dangers such as disease or parasites.  It’s similar to fear — a completely irrational subconscious emotion.  People can be disgusted by anything.  For instance, people can be disgusted by mice, cute little creatures.  Nevertheless, mice can transmit disease, so disgust towards mice is understandable.  Just today I have read in an anti-gay comment that “a picture of two men kissing is disgusting, but a picture of a man and a woman kissing is natural and beautiful”.  What?  Sticking my tongue into another person’s mouth full of germs and tasting her saliva and whatever remains from her breakfast on her teeth?  Eew!

I was in the first grade when I saw a pornographic heterosexual picture brought to school by one of my classmates for the first time in my life.  I was shocked!  “Why in the world,” I thought, “would a man ever put his peepee inside her… hey! what hole is that, by the way?  Isn’t that where the poop comes out?  No?  Whatever!  Still close.  Eew!  That’s gross!  How would it cross anyone’s mind to do that?!”  Apparently, my attitude towards the orifices of the opposite sex has changed over time.  You may be surprised, but now I find them enjoyable.  I can totally understand that two men or two women can please each other physically and, perhaps, even better than the opposite sex simply because a same-sex partner’s body is more familiar.  It’s not my cup of tea, but nobody makes me drink it.  So, why would I force anyone to do what I enjoy?

Getting familiar with the source of disgust or fear is the way to overcome them both. People often fear or stay away from the unknown just to be on the safe side. These unjustified fears follow people like ghosts and are passed from generation to generation until nobody remembers how they started.  With this in mind, getting into the face of the anti-gay folks with pride parades makes sense.  It’s painful and unpleasant for the people undergoing this therapy, but there seems no other way to overcome those phobias.  One can’t argue against disgust with reason.  Sometimes, humans can overcome their instincts with intellect.  But, as Eeyore said, “We can’t all, and some of us don’t. That’s all there is to it.”

Mark 11:14

Religion.    People quote many passages in the Bible to argue against homosexuality.  In Genesis 1, God created a man and a woman to enjoy each other.  But Genesis 1 contains no prohibition of homosexuality.  Show me one if I missed it.  Apparently, it was not needed back then because it was hard to find a same-sex partner.

It is very common to hear that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality.  The word sodomy originated from this passage.  But let’s read the story in Genesis 19 carefully.  What we see there is, actually, an attempt to gang-rape Lot’s two male guests by a mob of male citizens.  This is a case of blatant sexual violence having nothing to do with consensual sex between two adult same-sex individuals.  Ezekiel 16:49 confirms that the sin of Sodom was not sodomy (thanks, archaeopteryx1, for pointing this out).

The next prohibition is in Leviticus 18:22:

 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Good old disgust, no other reasons are given.  The long list of sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18, however, seems to be aimed at maximizing fertility, avoiding incest and family feud over sexual partners.  Many of them make sense in this context.  Perhaps, increasing the population was a priority in the biblical time, but today overpopulation seems to be a bigger concern. Not a word about lesbians in Leviticus, by the way.

Leviticus 20:13 suggests to put homosexuals to death along with other categories of citizens.  Do civilized people follow those to the letter?  When was the last time even the Orthodox Jews stoned a sabbath breaker?  And hasn’t Jesus override “eye for an eye” with “love your neighbor“?  Stoning your neighbor for a same-sex relationship “so that he doesn’t burn in hell forever” — how’s that for love is patient, love is kind“?

Speaking of Jesus.  What does the Gospel say about homosexuality?  Here is a quote:

Nothing.  Show me a single direct quote of Jesus’s own words on homosexuality.  Jesus quotes Genesis 1 in Mark 10:6-9  on joining the man and the woman to become “one flesh” but where does this passage prohibit homosexuality?  The context of Mark 10:6-9 is divorce — a totally different topic.  It’s a stretch to apply this quote to homosexual marriage.

Most of the “anti-gay” quotes in the NT are found in the Epistles.  In 1 Corinthians 6:9-13 Paul says that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God along with idolaters, adulterers, fornicators, and other folks.  Why?  Just because.  There is no logic.  It’s by definition.  I can understand why idolatry is bad.  I can understand how adultery hurts feelings.  I can understand why random sexual contacts can be harmful.  I don’t understand why a woman loving another woman is a sinner and a worse person than a woman loving a man.  Shall I blindly follow everything the Bible prescribes?  I’m afraid, I will be  walking down the street with a machine gun every Saturday killing people who bent down to tie their shoes or doing anything remotely resembling work.  By the way, is stoning sabbath breakers considered work?  Well, perhaps I will have to wait until Monday to do that.  Bummer…

So, if I use logic to follow the Bible, I will violate many Biblical commands and miss out on the Kingdom of God.  But If I don’t think and just blindly do what the Bible says, I will end up in an ER with my hands chopped off and my eyes plucked or worse.  I’m screwed either way.  Tough choice.

To sum up, from my experience, all “rational” arguments against same-sex marriage are based on two irrational ones: 1) physical disgust with homosexuality and 2) religion simply declaring homosexuality immoral with no other reason than, again, physical disgust or a mere definition. If you have an argument that does not stem from these two, I’d be very interested to hear.  Feel free to leave a comment.

Freedom of Silence

Today, the front pages of the newspapers are covered with the news about the yesterday’s terrorist attack in Paris.  Two thugs associating themselves with Islam have entered the office of a French satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo and killed 11 people in the building.  Apparently, this was an act of “revenge” for a series of “blasphemous” cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad and Islamic leaders.  The attackers later killed a policeman a few blocks away who wasn’t even confronting them, stole a car, and robbed a gas station.  I’m not sure how those acts are upholding the values of Islam.

Response in society worldwide was immediate.  This act is considered to be an attack on the freedom of speech — the “holy cow” of democratic society.  In western democracies, one can criticize anything, except the freedom of speech itself.  I do believe that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a civilized society and needs to be protected as a basic human right.  People cannot be killed for expressing their opinions and beliefs.  But does it mean that we are free to say anything?

Rights come with responsibilities.  They are two ends of the same stick — you cannot have one without the other.  Words are powerful.  They can cause emotional reactions in other people and cause them to act.  The effect of public words is multiplied million times.  I think, in this age of Internet, freedom of speech is the right that is abused in the most irresponsible way.

After 19 years of marriage, I have learned that people may react to my words in most irrational ways.  However irrational, these reactions are often very predictable.  Certain words and certain images trigger very predictable responses.  Advertisers use this predictability.  Mass media and propaganda use this predictability.  Religions not only use this power, but also teach others, willing to learn, how to use it.

The book of James, my favorite book of the New Testament, says in chapter 3:

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

This is a mere statement of the power of the word.  This implies that the words, like any other power — weapons or fire — must be used with great care and responsibility.  Otherwise, they may cause great evil.  The passage also points out how difficult it is to “tame one’s tongue”.

Christianity was liberal by the 1st century standards.  In 1 Corinthians 10, Apostle Paul reflects on the liberties that Christians can take:

23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial.“I have the right to do anything”— but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

This is the case with all “freedoms”.  “Freedom” to do anything is not freedom from consequences of our actions.  When someone mocks Prophet Mohammad in a cartoon or a video, it causes an outrage in some part of the world.  This reaction is so very predictable.  If you step on a viper, it is very likely to bite you.  If you disturb a bear with a cub, it is very likely to attack you.  So, why step on a viper or disturb a bear?  When a viper bites me, it’s silly to scream “I have the right to step wherever I want!”  And, speaking of consequences.  How does mocking of Islam free the world from Islamic terrorism? How is it even supposed to free the world from Islamic terrorism?

On the same note, how is a terrorist attack supposed to protect Islam?  Isn’t it, again, predictable that immediate reaction in society will be an outcry and, likely, violence against Islam?  Somebody has bombed a mosque in Paris already and there has been a surge of those cartoons on the Internet.  Why do people do something that is guaranteed to produce results exactly opposite to intentions?  Well, that’s a silly question.  Why do people ask silly questions? I don’t know, but they predictably do.

Later in the same chapter, Paul continues:

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

“Do not cause anyone to stumble.”  Do not drink wine in the presence of an alcoholic.  Do not show drugs to a drug addict.  Do not give a gun to a maniac in depression.  Do not publish cartoons mocking Islam.  Is it, really, such a great limitation of freedom?  Should we have censorship and legislation limiting such acts?  Definitely, not!  Who will judge what’s offensive to whom?

Merry Christmas! Again?

You may think that Christmas season is finished.  Not so fast.  January 7 is the Christmas day by the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar, so this is the high time for Christmas celebrations in Eastern Europe — Russia and Ukraine, in particular.  Ever wondered why?  Read on.

The story begins with the Solar System.  Most people know that Earth year is approximately 365 days.  By the age of 4 or 8 years, most people learn that the year is approximately 1/4 day longer than 365 years.  The accrued extra day is added as Februrary 29th every 4 years.  The “long” year is called leap year. Almost every year that can be divided by 4 is a leap year. The calendar accounting for the extra day every 4 years was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC and is, therefore, called Julian.

By the age of 100 or 200, most people learn that the year is approximately 0.008 days shorter than 365 and 1/4.  The accrued missing day is taken away by skipping 3 leap years every 400 years.  Each year that can be divided by 100 is not a leap year unless it can also be divided by 400.  Years 1900 and1800 are not leap years. Year 2000 is a leap year. Of course, most people do not live to the age of 100 or 200 and never learn that most centennial years are not leap.  The calendar accounting for the missing leap years was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 and is, therefore, called Gregorian.  They do have to know a thing or two about science, those Popes.

The “approximately” does not end there.  Of course, there are more decimal places in the length of the year calling for more adjustments, but most of the people do not live long enough to notice.

By 1582, the 0.008 days every year have accrued 11 days.  Gregorian calendar corrected Julian calendar by skipping 11 days in October 1582:

Calendar for October 1582 (Spain)

Atheists are not the only people who think that Pope is no authority to them.  Protestants and Americans have not adopted Gregorian calendar until September 1752.  By the time they decided to switch, they had to skip 12 days:

Calendar for September 1752 (United States)

(as if there were United States in 1752).  When I learned UNIX commands in college, I was surprised to find out that UNIX “cal 1752” command produces this:

Screenshot from 2015-01-06 13:34:10
Output of “cal 1752” Linux shell command.

You may be surprised to learn that Eastern Orthodox Church is still using Julian calendar for its holidays!  Now, the difference is 13 days!  So, Orthodox Christmas is on December 25, except that December 25 “old style” falls on January 7 “new style”.  For the same reason, the anniversary of The Great October Socialist Revolutiona major holiday in the Soviet Union, was celebrated on November 7.  When the revolution happened, it was October 25th, but when the Soviet Union converted to Gregorian calendar in 1929, the date moved to November 7th. Julian calendar was still in use until 1930 in the Soviet Union.  In year 2100, another leap year will be skipped adding to the schism separating Eastern Orthodox Christians from the rest of the world.  Starting from year 2101, Orthodox Christmas will move forward another day — to January 8th.  I wonder, how well this change will be received.

In case you wonder, yes, they celebrate the New Year “old style” on January 14 in Eastern Europe.  It’s called “the old new year“.

Created or Evolved?

Yet another post on the jaded topic of creation vs. evolution.  This time, however, I will not question whether humans evolved.  I’d like to consider what we mean when we say that things such as TV sets, computers, cars, pencils, and anything else created by humans have a creator.  And I would like to defend the following thesis:

Technogy does not have a creator. Technology evolved.

This thought occured to me when I watched the Matt Ridley’s TED talk “When Ideas Have Sex” where he draws an analogy between evolution of living beings and evolution of ideas.   What do we mean when we say that a TV set was “created”?  Perhaps, it was built by workers in a Chinese factory.  Have the workers created the TV set?  Perhaps, they have no idea how and why it works.  The workers, definitely, do not understand analog or digital signal processing, video codecs, or physics of radio transmission.  But people who understand those things, have no understanding of PCB assembly or plastics manufacturing.  Neither workers nor the TV designers understand the semiconductor device physics or the chemistry  involved in semiconductor processing.  So, who can be called a creator of a TV? Or, more specifically, a creator of your particular TV set?

This can be said not only about high technologies, but about anything “created” by human beings.  Matt Ridley uses a low-tech pencil as an example:

I am of course quoting from a famous essay by Leonard Read, the economist in the 1950s, called “I, Pencil” in which he wrote about how a pencil came to be made, and how nobody knows even how to make a pencil, because the people who assemble it don’t know how to mine graphite, and they don’t know how to fell trees and that kind of thing. And what we’ve done in human society, through exchange and specialization, is we’ve created the ability to do things that we don’t even understand. It’s not the same with language. With language we have to transfer ideas that we understand with each other. But with technology, we can actually do things that are beyond our capabilities.

This thought occured to me at work.  My task was to test reliability of a new integrated circuit designed by the company I work for.  I myself have a very vague understanding of how these tests are done.  We hire a subcontractor company to run these reliability tests.  But I need to tell the subcontractor how to turn on the chip.  I came to the designer for instructions.  The designer explained to me, which capacitors need to be attached to the device under test.  He also said that to turn on the analog portion of the chip, I need to send a command to the on-chip processor.  What command?  How to send it?  He had no idea.  He used a computer program to do that, and the program was written by software engineers.  What I carried out from this experience is that there is not a single person in the company who can tell me how the product works.  The chip does not have a creator.  But it does work!

It appears to me that when people talk about evolution and creation, they talk about the same damn thing, from a little different perspectives.

Any thoughts?

P.S.  Another thought occured to me.  In creation vs. evolution debates, evolutionists frequently say that evolution is supported by paleontology which proves that organisms historically appeared in a certain order.  They say that if creationism were true, we could, potentially, find fossils of dinosaurs predating any known fossils of mollusks.  But isn’t the same true of technology which is, undoubtedly, considered a human creation?  Technological advances happen in certain order.  E.g. a car cannot be invented before people discover a combustion engine, learn technology to process metals, obtain gasoline from oil, build roads, etc.

Moreover, when conditions are ripe for a certain technology to emerge, similar discoveries are often independently made by several people, often in different parts of the world.  This means that if one scientist does not make the discovery, another will.  And this seems inevitable.  So, the will or the talent of individual scientists are irrelevant.  Which also seem to support the idea that technological progress evolves independently from human will.

Those Who Have Identifiers, Let Them Identify



I picked up my son from his school today.  He is a third-grader in a charter public school renting a part of a building that belongs to a church. We went to a bathroom which I visited, perhaps, a hundred times before. But today I noticed something that I have never seen before on a bathroom sign.  And I mean any bathroom sign, not just a bathroom sign in a church. I decided to take pictures of those signs and post them here. Perhaps, those pictures may help to break the stereotype that people who go to church are “closed-minded”.

Human Construct

The Human Construct

I have been told many times by atheists that “God is a human construct”.  Most recently, here:

GOD is just a myth, like every OTHER construct of man.

Well, not all “constructs of man” are myths.  Men (and women, to be politically correct) come up with many ideas, not just myths.  And I readily agree that God is one of such ideas.

People do not believe in things.  People believe in ideas.  And yes, ideas are immaterial, cannot be touched, seen, smelled, felt in any way.  Well, people can read an idea, but what they see are signs or images.  When people say they heard an idea, they actually heard sounds.  They could be words, music, or white noise.

So, it does not bother me at all that “God is a human construct”.  So is everything else for which we can find a word.