Opposite Ends Of The Spectrum

A recent online discussion pointed out a salient point about why I am fond of Buddhists and non-theists , and wary of Christians and other supernatural religionists.

In a discussion about whether or not kids should be indoctrinated about religion -- whether for or against any particular one or religion in general -- there was a split that showed the vastly different worldviews of religionists and non-theists. While non-theists generally believe that children should be allowed to make up their own minds when they are capable of doing so, religionists are quick to want to take advantage of the malleable minds of children. One religionist even posted this quote:

"Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

...As if that is something to be proud of. This person was quite blatantly expressing a pro-brainwashing stance in his religion. This is, though, consistent with the child abuse that is rampant in the Abrahamic religions -- both physical abuse and mental abuse. While we mostly hear about the sexual abuse that these children suffer at the hands of Christians or the beatings --especially of girls -- in Islamic traditions, the mental abuse probably does more long-term damage.

I was encouraged by the general non-theist stance of allowing children the freedom to figure it out for themselves when they are ready and able. That's certainly the camp with which I would want to be associated. This is also consistent with many (probably most) Buddhist sects.

The Order of Interbeing, which I have mentioned here before, has a basic guideline for behavior called The Fourteen Precepts. The third precept reads thus:

Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.

Imagine if all children were given that respect.

So if you happen to be keeping a list of why there's not much likelihood of me adopting any supernatural religion, you can add the fact that I respect -- and care about the well-being of -- children.

Thanksgiving, New Computer, Proverbs, etc.

- I got a new laptop today. My old one has been on the edge for a while, which is why I have been using the Mac (which I initially bought to do audio and video editing) for the last few months. I transferred my old files and should be working off of that computer mostly now. It has Windows 7, which worked pretty well today as we were setting it up.

I have written one published book on each of my last two laptops. I have a project going on now that should be done and off to the publisher this winter, and I hope to get at least one more done within the next two years.

- One of my brothers bought an acoustic guitar and is going to learn to play. I'm going to try to help him along (I already bought him a book, stand, tuner and metronome). I am hoping to get him out to an open mic before too long (notice how vague that time period is).

- In an online discussion about indoctrinating children today, a religionist posted a very telling quote from Proverbs (22:6): "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." The more you look at religious doctrine, the more sickness you find. What this says is "Brainwash children." As if the physical abuse of children by Christians is not bad enough, they actually have mental abuse codified.

- Tip of the day: Going vegetarian just before Thanksgiving, especially in a family with some members who are hostile to the idea, is a tricky thing. But then, doing the right thing often is. :-)

Beyond Hubble.

The orbiting Hubble Space Telescope has given us huge amounts of information on the far reaches of our universe (SEE NOTE). Hundreds of thousands of images not possible from within the confines of earth's atmosphere have been taken in the nearly 20 years since the Hubble left earth and went into orbit. The story of Hubble is a long one, and you should do yourself a favor and visit its web site at: http://hubblesite.org/

But in about five years, a new space telescope will see further out in space (and, hence, further back in time) and add new discoveries to our already massive amounts of data (much of which will not be analyzed for years). From the official James Webb Space Telescope web site (http://webbtelescope.org/webb_telescope/):

The James Webb Space Telescope is NASA's next orbiting observatory and the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A tennis court-sized telescope orbiting far beyond Earth's moon, Webb will detect infrared radiation and be capable of seeing in that wavelength as well as Hubble sees in visible light.

Infrared vision is vital to our understanding of the universe. The furthest objects we can detect are seen in infrared light, cooler objects that would otherwise be invisible emit infrared, and infrared light pierces clouds of dust, allowing us to see into their depths. Webb will unleash a torrent of new discoveries, opening the door to a part of the universe that has just begun to take shape under humanity's observations.

Right now, scientists and engineers are piecing Webb together, creating through cutting-edge technology an innovative observatory that not only withstands intense cold, but uses it to its advantage; an observatory that folds up inside a rocket for launch and unfurls like a butterfly opening its wings upon nearing its orbit.

In 2014, the Webb telescope will launch into space, sailing to the distant, isolated orbit where it will begin its quest. Supernovae and black holes, baby galaxies and planets' potential for supporting life — Webb will help reveal the answers to some of the biggest mysteries of astronomy.

This is a great age of discovery. Hubble narrowed the universe's estimated age from 10-20 billion years to about 13-14 billion years. Webb will narrow that down even more.

Check out those web sites when you get a chance. This is stuff that Newton wouldn't even have dared to dream.

XXX

NOTE: I originally wrote "the universe," but there are some hypotheses out there that indicate ours may be one of many universes, just as our galaxy is one of many galaxies, or as our star is one of many stars, etc.

Perhaps The Best Reason...

There are lots of reasons for living a vegan lifestyle (SEE NOTE 1). Among them:

• Compassion for farm animals. This one is pretty obvious. Farm animals suffer not just because they are killed for food, but because of the horrible conditions in factory farms and the genetic manipulation of these animals to make them more efficient meat producers. "Old McDonald's Farm" is a lie that we hold up to make the torture of farm animals seem less real, or even somehow happy.
  

• Compassion for wild animals. Huge amounts of land are needed to house and grow food for farm animals, decreasing habitat for wild species. Wild species are often hunted near grazing lands because of their prey instincts.
  
  
• Environmentalism. Animal agriculture is inherently inefficient. It requires large amounts of land, water, and energy. It also creates huge amounts of air, water and soil pollution.
  
  
• Labor issues. Factory farming hurts the American worker. Factory farms replace people with automation. Poultry processing is one of the most dangerous jobs in America (without the increase in wage that you might expect to go along with a dangerous job).
  
  
• Human health. The negative effects of a meat-based diet are well known (and, like the benefits of vaccinations, generally denied by extremist nut-jobs).
  
  
• Patriotism. Animal agriculture speeds the use of our natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil, increases our indebtedness to foreigners, increases our taxes, stresses our health care system, and decreases our quality of life.
  

So there are lots of ethical and rational reasons for adopting a vegan lifestyle. But there is an even better one: It pisses off Sarah Palin.

One way of gauging if something is good is to see if it bothers bad people. Veganism meets this criterion. Although you can be damn sure that Sarah Palin will not get a cent of my money (and it pains me to give her any mental- or word-processing time), I heard this week that among the many things she complains about in "her" book (I don't know who actually wrote it) is vegans.

That was good enough for me to desist my consumption of animal products on the spot. When Diane got home from work, I informed her of the matter. I believe she understood.

I was a vegan in my 20s for about five years, so I know I have the strength and discipline to do it (SEE NOTE 2). If I had kept that approach, I would almost certainly not have a stent in my anterior descending coronary artery as I write this.

All I need to do to stay on track when I see a tempting steak or smell bacon cooking is picture Sarah Palin in the Oval Office. If that doesn't scare me straight, nothing will.

XXX

NOTE 1: Veganism is, essentially, a way of living that eschews the use of animal products. It is primarily dietary in nature (no animal flesh, by products, or excretions), but tends to also include the avoidance of purchasing leather garments and such. The impetus tends to be ethical (it reduces the suffering in the world), although veganism for health reasons is fairly common, too. When researching it, one finds that there are many reasons for veganism and extremely few reasons not to do it.

NOTE 2: It can be difficult to live outside the "norm." I lost my way due largely to the hectic life that I adopted over time. Eliminating animal products from your diet is not easy as a blue-collar American with a busy life. That's no excuse for the suffering I have caused, but it is a fact of life.

Another Church Sign

I saw another interesting church sign today. This one said:

JOY IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF DIFFICULTIES BUT THE PRESENCE OF GOD

This immediately prompted some thoughts:

1. This is typical religionist marketing. In essence, it tells the reader that the answer to your problem is not to make any real effort (because that doesn't help); the answer is to buy our product. It's like saying "Clean laundry is not determined by the brightness of the colors or the absence of pathogens, it is determined by whether or not you use Tide." It replaces that which can be measured or proven with that which you must accept as fact without evidence (or even in the face of contradictory evidence). Pretty shifty. Also pretty effective.

2. This is also typical of the brainwashing that religionists must overcome in order to embrace... umm... reality. What this simple sentence on a church sign tells people is that joy is not possible without (insert deity here). This kind of stuff is hammered into their heads from the time they are kids. And it is a message delivered by people who we are told we must respect. This adds the "argument from authority" angle and, although that is a logical fallacy, how many people actually use logic in their daily lives? The emotional part of the brain is much more powerful and easy to access (hence the marketing style). Is it any wonder that religionists are generally -- and I mean this literally -- frightened of free thought and incapable of understanding how people can be happy without imaginary friends?

My version of that sign would be more like "Joy is not the absence of difficulty, but the acceptance of reality."

Call me silly, but I do not see how pulling the blankets over your head makes the monsters go away.

Friendship

I generally abhor the nonsense that gets passed around as chain mail, including the mushy "you are my friend" kind of stuff. Here's one that is more realistic:

1. When you are SAD, I will jump on the person who made you sad, like a spider monkey jacked up on Red Bull.

2. When you are BLUE, I will try to dislodge whatever is stuck in your trachea.

3. When you SMILE, I will know you are plotting something that I must be involved in.

4. When you're SCARED, we will high tail it out of here together (unless you can't keep up).

5. When you are WORRIED, I will tell you 'horrible' stories about how much worse it could be, until you quit whining like a big baby.

6. When you are CONFUSED, I will speak slowly and use little words.

7. When you are SICK, stay the heck away from me, until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have.

8. When you FALL, I will pick you up and dust you off (after I'm done laughing my ass off).

9. This is my OATH, I pledge it to the end. 'Why?' you may ask -- because you are my FRIEND!

***********************

Friendship is like peeing your pants: Everyone can see it, but only YOU can feel the true warmth.

The Miracle at Fort Hood -- Three Perspectives

Yesterday's happenings at Fort Hood, Texas should cause us to examine the roots of such tragedies. I have been pondering the reports (while trying to contain the anger that comes from seeing my Army brethren gunned down from within) and have been exploring them from three primary perspecties: religious, rational, and that of a U.S. Army veteran still dedicated to his nation and to those who share the American military tradition.

The religious perspective is the most positive one. The events at Fort Hood confirm the Word of God and should therefore, deepen the faith of many people and strengthen their belief in God. When I heard of the shooting, I immediately thought of a section of The Holy Quran: Chapter Eight, which deals with The Spoils of War. Let's back up just a bit and look at some of what transpired at Fort Hood:

One man, who was already under investigation by the military, managed to get two handguns into a military building on one of the nation's primary Army posts (SEE NOTE 1). In a thoroughly policed area like that, he then managed to kill 13 people and injure another 30 before being shot four times by police. And he lived. Casualty counts at colleges and high schools by people with multiple semiautomatic rifles and no military police presence don't manage those kinds of numbers. And the shooters generally end up dead. This was an instance of violence that went against statistics. And what is the usual term that the faithful use for instances that stand outside the statistical norms? Yes, a "miracle."

Greater evidence to the miracle theory is given by the words of the shooter (it has been reported that he exclaimed "Allahu Akhbar" at some point during the attack) and the Word of God (which I will quote shortly). There was a clear religious involvement here, which means, if you believe in the supernatural, that the Hand of God was at play.

"Allahu Akhbar" means, essentially, "God is great." Combined with the definition of the word
"Muslim," which translates to "one who submits (to God)," we see our Islamic National Motto, "In God We Trust," in the thick of this violent episode. If we -- and I mean anyone who trusts in God -- actually do trust that God, then we can (and should) go forth bravely and act upon the Word of that God. And we should expect the outcomes of those actions to be in line with the Word of God. Now read Chapter 8, Verse 65 of the Holy Quran along with me:

O Messenger! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

Pretty clear, huh? What is even more miraculous is that God promised a ten-to-one kill ratio here, and this Army Major got thirteen kills. That's pretty close to, but even better than, that promised by God (SEE NOTE 2), and it happened under very challenging circumstances.

And he survived four gun shots! On a military post, you would expect a one-shot kill, not a four-shot wound. Any faithful person has to see that as Divine Intervention.

So I think this episode at Fort Hood is one that religionists can use to support their belief in God, and can use to help sort out which is the One True Religion (in the Quran, God repeatedly refers to Islam as the perfection of religion). There are many more passages that reinforce the above, but I suspect that the point is made and more transcriptions of verse would only add verbosity.

From a rational point of view, I think things are much different. I am certain that rationalists are of the opinion that this is another example of what religion does to people. When people believe strongly (i.e., have faith) in a deity, or collection of stories, or ideology, they are too often driven to extreme deleterious actions. This is often known to rationalists as the "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" problem (it is based on a statement by Voltaire, I believe). And what is more absurd than an invisible magical father figure who encourages violence, hate, and all sorts of nasty things, while still pretending to be loving, merciful, wise, etc.? In the rationalist view, the contradictions and twisted faux-logic of religious scripture inevitably lead to incidents like this in many people who take that stuff as fact. This sort of violence is an unfortunate "I told you so" to a rationalist.

The two perspectives above should show one of the main problems with the power struggle between religionists and rationalists: Horrible events like this reinforce the worldviews of both sides, and that does not bring us closer to solving these issues.

I would like to add a third perspective; that of my own as an eight-year military veteran with a deep love of the Constitution and the nation which it created. Few things are more disgraceful or tragic to my military mind than the idea of a military member purposely killing his own. It is among the most heinous of offenses a member of the military can commit (after the purposeful harming of nonmilitary beings while representing the nation, which brings disgrace to the entire nation and its legacy). I would gladly, and I mean this literally, pull the trigger on this bastard myself. Death with honor and legitimate purpose is something to be welcomed as a member of the military. Death without honor and legitimate purpose is a tragedy (SEE NOTE 3).

The hideous disregard for Constitutional cautions about religion are dragging America down. The fundamentalist/evangelical tainting of American politics and policy has created great problems for us, and will continue to do so (at least we kept Sarah Palin out of D.C.... Phew!). We have a solid foundation for our nation, a document (and colonial history) that should teach us that mixing government and religion hurts both. The more we violate that, the more our society and our government will be degraded. Few things can be more disturbing to a military veteran who stills believes in his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

I feel for the many people whose lives have been destroyed by this tragedy, but I also feel the pain of knowing that it will be a wasted opportunity to, with the intent of finding honest answers, ask questions about what the hell we are doing to our nation.

XXX

NOTE 1: Fort Hood is not much different in military scope and importance, and therefore security and associated policies, from my two stateside posts: Fort Bragg, NC and Fort Campbell, KY. I never would have dreamed, even 25 years ago, that someone could possess a private weapon on post, let alone two, and get away with it.

NOTE 2: Those who carried out the 9/11 attacks far exceeded that ratio, of course. And then there is the obvious divine protection of Osama bin Laden, who has managed to evade the greatest military and technological power the world has ever known for more than eight years. Note, also, the "people without understanding" comment in the passage. You will probably hear words/phrases like "why," "how come," and various other expressions of non-understanding by non-Muslims about this for a long time. This is further confirmation of the Word of God, of course.

NOTE 3: This is why I opposed the occupation of Iraq before it ever happened, and why the death toll there is doubly tragic to me.

Religious Leaders Helping The Global Climate.

WARNING: I intended this to be not much more than a little news tidbit that mocked some silliness, but I got carried away and used some bad words. If that might offend you, please navigate away from this page. Yes, I could have edited them out, but that would have changed the entire flow and feel of the piece, and I am too much of an artist to do that. ;-)

This morning, I heard a report on BBC News about a historic meeting in the UK. Religious leaders from around the world got together to address global climate change. What did they do?

With Christians and Muslims and Jews and others all together to address global climate change, you would expect them to use their particular skills and knowledge to fix the changing climate. What might these special abilities entail? Faith, and the answers it provides, right? Basically, you'd expect them to pray for a fix, then call it a day, right? Nope. They issued a statement. A statement. I am not kidding. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8333250.stm), "[i]n a statement, the religious leaders urged G20 governments to fight for a deal which would quickly end global reliance on fossil fuels." Yup, they basically prayed to government.

In all fairness, that's not all they did: "The leaders promised to raise awareness of climate change in their communities." Nice. They are going to act as ad agencies doing PSA's. Very nice. "They also said they would support international efforts to help the poorest and most vulnerable people cope with climate change, and redouble their efforts to cut emissions from their own institutions." Okay... That's kind of a non-statement, and certainly not something that we need religious leaders for. In fact, if we could get religions to stop sucking up tons of money to self-perpetuate and made that money available to scientific and technological efforts to deal with climate issues, and to science education in all nations, we just might be able to do something to help those people better deal with climate change.

Why did these religious leaders get together in the UK? Perhaps because a British scientist, Lord May, asked them to do so (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/07/global-warming-religion). A scientist asking religious leaders to help with a problem?! Wow, maybe scientists really do turn to gods when the going gets tough, as evangelists try to tell us. What did he want them to do? Pray? Appeal to the Holy Spirit? Collectively say a dozen or so Hail Maries while facing Mecca? According to The Guardian, he said that "[r]eligious leaders should play a frontline role in mobilising people to take action against global warming." Uhhh... What? "May said religion had historically played a major role in policing social behaviour through the notion of a supernatural 'enforcer', a system that could help unify communities to tackle environmental challenges. 'How better it is if the punisher is an all-powerful, all-seeing deity,' he said." Oh, he wants religious leaders to try to intimidate and coerce the multitudes. Now, that makes sense. Use a group's special knowledge to help out. Who coerces better than the clergy? Lord May did not, apparently, mention prayer in his statement (See? You don't need a collection of religious leaders in order to make a statement to the British press).

So there was no mention of prayer anywhere in this? Isn't that the ultimate mega-tool -- the Cosmic Sawzall -- that only the pious can use?

I did eventually find an article that talked about religious leaders assembling to pray for climate change (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0793503820070907). This article DOES address prayer for climate change. But that was over two years ago. Shouldn't we be seeing the changes by now? They were praying to the omniscient, omnipresent, loving all-powerful Wizard of... I mean, God, right? Zip-bang-boom! Done! That's the way that god works. I have read it, repeatedly, in that god's own words. Basically "Fuck with me and ye shall be smited! Kiss my ass and ask for whatever and I will grant thee three wishes." So what the hell did they pray for? "'This prayer is a recognition that we have spoiled the earth and we now need to rectify this by changing our lifestyles,' said Musharraf Hussein, a British Muslim leader. 'We seek the help of our creator to acquire the strength and ability to make the necessary changes.' You idiots! Religious scripture is full of examples of the pious asking for divine help and getting entire armies wiped out for them! Seas parted! Plagues! In the face of global climate problems, you ask for help changing your lifestyles!? If you need lifestyle changes, pray for your god to keep you people from lying, stealing, molesting children, starting wars, spreading hate, oppressing minority groups, and killing people. THOSE are fucking lifestyle changes! THIS is a global climate issue! I hope Mr. Hussein made that statement wearing an orange wig, red nose, and really big yellow shoes with red laces.

You're right: I am not taking these religious leaders and their work seriously. How could I? We hear about the power of faith and prayer, but when the shit is on the line they... ummm... issue a statement through the British media. A copping out of biblical proportions (pun intended). In colloquial terms: An Epic Fail. This is like Obi Wan, at the point where Luke is about to try to blow up the Death Star, instead of saying "Use The Force, Luke," going "Umm... Good luck." Come to think of it, when considering the prospect of religions helping to address global climate issues, that'd be my response, as well.

XXX

PS -- Seriously, if this sort of stuff doesn't persuade you that even the clergy know that prayer is bullshit, you are beyond help.

Evolution In A Can

As I returned to town hall after another day of serving the local citizens, I stopped in the restroom, as I often do, to finish the processing of some of the day's coffee and iced tea. As I closed the door, I saw a can of Lysol on the shelf by the sink. It said, quite proudly and in big letters, "Kills 99.9% of germs." I looked at it and said "What about the last point-one percent?" (SEE NOTE 1)

That got me to thinking about how easy it is to show evolution to people, and why it is important that we understand it. It is this simple:

If we spray that Lysol on a germ population, we knock out 99.9% of them (SEE NOTE 1, if you have not yet done so). That last .1% then has no competition for resources (space, food, etc.) and can reproduce more freely -- all this as a result of a genetic coding that gave it a competitive advantage at this point in spacetime (that genetic coding may or may not have ever had any influence on its reproductive ability before now -- SEE NOTE 2).

With that resistant strain having the chance for wider distribution on that surface, it also gains a better chance of coming into contact with something -- like you -- that might transfer it to another surface where it can establish itself and start the whole process over again.

This is evolution in a nutshell (or on a doorknob, if you will). It is, at its core, a very simple process, and one that is easy to show. Where it gets more complicated is with, of course, more complicated organisms. This is why you don't see major changes in a species from one day to the next. It takes place at the level of DNA -- of the many combinations of just four nucleic acids contained in two polymer strands (I'm trying to keep this simple, so I will stop there). For DNA changes to survive long enough to express themselves at the species level of complex organisms take huge amounts of time.

If evolution is this simple, why don't more people understand it? The answers are manifold and complicated, but I will give you the main ones:

1. Scale. Humans have evolved to deal with things on a medium scale. That is, our senses pick up certain-sized things (including sound and light wavelengths). We cannot see DNA with the naked eye, nor are we alive long enough to easily grasp things that take more than our lifetime (SEE NOTE 3). Evolution involves both the very tiny AND the very large. Double whammy.

2. Education. It is no coincidence that evolution is least understood in populations with lower education levels. It takes a certain level of basic science education to understand evolution, and many other important aspects of the real world (SEE NOTE 4).

3. Fear. Humans are afraid of things we don't understand, of the unknown, and of change (change often means an unknown future, after all). Evolution presents all of these things. It can be hard to understand (mostly, IMO, because of inadequate education and/or scale issues), it involves an element of the unknown (of the past and the future), and it IS change. The real world is a scary place, and evolution brings much of that scariness to the forefront. Some people prefer to pull the blankets up over their heads and hope/pray the monsters will go away. Denial, however, is not a valid strategy for survival.

If you find evolution to be a fuzzy concept (even after my explanation), you should start with Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene. It will help you to understand the process much better, and just may change the way you look at the world... including a can of Lysol in the bathroom at work.

XXX

NOTE 1: The more astute reader may ask what that 99.9% actually means. Is it 99.9% of the number of individual organisms? Or is it 99.9% of the types of organisms? Those are two very different conditions. Checking the Lysol web site (http://www.lysol.com/products/disinfecting-sprays/lds-disinfectant-sprays/) gives us the following relevant information: "LYSOL® Disinfectant Spray is an EPA registered disinfectant that kills more than 99.9% of illness causing bacteria and viruses on environmental surfaces in your home. " It doesn't really answer our question, does it? Either way, we see that it gives a competitive advantage to the more dangerous germs.

NOTE 2: This particular coding may very well have been a random mutation, either old or recent, due to things like exposure to the sun (radiation causes genetic mutations) or just a plain old screw-up in the genetic replication process of the organism. It happens, and this is an important point in understanding the process of evolution -- not every change is a result of selection pressures.

NOTE 3: I view this as a sort of wavelength issue, for illustrative purposes. If one were to plot the average human lifespan and the time it takes for a given species to become another species (something that is a matter of great debate and study), as waves on a graph, the wavelength of evolutionary change would be so much larger than that of a human lifespan (yet tiny compared with a wavelength representing, say, the age of the planet) that it would be extremely rare for them to intersect. Add to this the fact that such changes are extremely hard to detect and you can get an idea of why we don't see speciation in complex organisms. It's largely a matter of basic math.

NOTE 4: Americans are lagging behind in this important area. Our overall substandard science education hurts our nation's ability to cope in the world economy, which hurts our social and political power. American "patriots" should be putting science education at the very top of the priority list if they want to see a strong America with a leadership role on the world stage in the future.

Save Your Soul (If You Can Find It)

I approach the idea of a "soul" like I approach pretty much anything else: Just because lots of people believe in it, doesn't mean I will just join the crowd. For me, the idea of a soul ranks alongside Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the various gods, fairies, demons, and all that supernatural stuff, and somewhere below the idea of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster (SEE NOTE).

At the root of the problem is, as usual, a definition. If you want me to believe in something you are proposing, I need some sort of definition, not a fuzzy and moving target that depends on current trends in public superstition.

What I think most people mean start out meaning is "that which makes each of us individuals." If that is the case, well, I accept individualism. I not only see individualism in humans, it is very easy to see in other animals. As a birdwatcher, I have even seen great differences in personality in little birds in the wild (personality generally expresses as behavior).

Where I think many people make a wrong turn (at Albequerque, according to Bugs Bunny) is when they get to the permanence aspect of it. Your soul has always existed and always will exist, they try to tell me. This is something that I call "wishful thinking;" and not fully-formed thinking, at that. The first problem is that it does not fit the soul-as-individual idea. As individuals, we change throughout our lives. Some of us even experience total changes in who we are, due to disease and/or injury. There are disorders that, to me, seem to completely refute the personality-as-soul idea.

How about multiple personality disorders? Do those people have multiple souls?

What about people that have Capgras disorder? This is a disorder that can result from brain injury or disease in which they believe one or more people around them have been replaced by an impostor (I believe that the spouse is a common target of these delusions). We talk about our souls going to hang out with the souls of the people we love (oddly, no one ever asks how that's going to work out with the innumerable loves and families we have all had in the past and will have in the future. That is going to make for some ugly situations in heaven, or wherever -- Heaven is a silly idea for another time). How does such a thing work out for those who die with Capgras disorder? Do they then remember their loved ones? Or do they still believe their loved ones' souls have been replaced by impostor souls?

When does a soul enter a human form? If it is at conception, then what about cells that later split and become identical twins? Does each twin have half a soul? If so, shouldn't that express itself as some sort of half-soul disorder, like only having half the personality traits of a normal person? What about chimeras -- those cases where multiple fertilized eggs fuse into one human? Do these people have double souls?

If our souls (as personalities) reincarnate (and I have not heard an argument that there is anything preventing them from doing so), then why do children act as blank slates? Shouldn't their souls contain the information from previous existences?

What about people with developmental disabilities? Are some souls mentally retarded? When my sister dies, does her soul magically regain whatever normality it supposedly had prior to this life?

And what about animals other than our species? If we argue that they don't/can't have souls because of their different brain structure, then we end up backing up a paragraph and having to accept that those humans with malformed or damaged brains may be people without souls. If brain structure is not the determining factor, then what is? The particular genetic makeup that makes us Homo sapiens? That begs the question of what all these souls were doing before humans arose. And if DNA is the source or holding area or whatever, we should be able to prove or disprove a soul based on arrangements of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. But since DNA is not permanent, we have a problem there.

Which quickly leads us to the question: How many souls are there? Is it one per human? If so, what is the maximum number of them? Do they get recycled? Or is every example of humanity unique? If so, then there are souls just waiting for more human bodies to become available. The number of humans that will ever exist is finite, so the number of souls must be, as well. What mechanism will make sure we don't make more human babies than there are souls available? Will all humans magically become sterile when the souls run out? Or will there be soulless humans for a bit if we run past our quota?

I could go on and on with unanswered questions about souls and examples of how the concept (at least how it has been explained to me) violates what we know to be reality. More and more, we are seeing that our individualism is a construct of our biological structure and information processing (i.e., our genes and our environment). Far from the myth that "we only use 10% of our brain," we are discovering that every part of our brain is a part of who we are, and that injuries to nearly any part of the brain can have huge effects on us. Our "soul," I currently believe, is a delicate, temporary, and precious thing that requires no hocus-pocus to explain, and deserves to be handled with great care.

As always, I am open to refutations of my observations or interpretations of data or concepts, and welcome any evidence you might have for an immortal soul (SEE NOTES 2 and 3). After all, that would make the uneccessary deaths of so many beings much more bearable (even if it does so at the cheapening of the idea of life).

XXX

NOTE: Although I don't "believe in" cryptozoological beings like Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster, I also don't see anything that prevents them from being a physical possibility. The longer they persist as unfound entities, the less likely they seem to actually exist, but strange creatures are still being found in the wild, especially those that live in the water. Consider how unlikely the Ceolacanth was when it was found in 1938 (Cool web site here: http://www.dinofish.com/). Some cryptozoologicals, like werewolves and vampires, violate basic known rules of biology, so I don't give those much processing time.

NOTE 2: I will anticipate one silly example of support for the idea of a soul before anyone embarrasses themselves by trying to explain it: Near death experiences (NDE's). NDE's (as well as OBEs) have been tested in the lab, and even induced in the lab. They appear to align quite well with what we are learning about the structure and function of the human brain via the rapid data from neuroscience. We are pulling the curtain aside and finding out, more and more, that there is no Wizard of Oz. If we can improve education in the U.S., we'll answer many more of these questions and spooky unknowns faster.

NOTE 3: Some believers in pseudoscience/paranormal/whatever will try to invoke scientific principles. One I like is the "conservation of energy" principle applied in "What happens to our energy when we die? Science says that that energy must continue to exist." Yup. Then your computer or car must have a soul that leaves them every time you shut them down.