Fred Champion

Why does the rock weather? No, forget that. How does the rock weather? Same way everything changes, interaction with its surroundings (sun, atmosphere, etc). A thing changes because other things act upon it. Things acting and reacting, not time. I will repeat one more time: show me any evidence of any thing changing without being acted upon by another thing and I will accept that time is the agent of that change. If you can't do that, and you can't, admit that time is imputed from memory of change; recognize that time is an artifact of intelligence and memory.

More people died in WW-II than in all the plagues. Under the law of each nation their part was legal. In India the government took food from local community storehouses to feed allied troops; twenty million (actually I think t was twenty three million) Indians starved to death as a result. Yes, pandemics are terrible; war - legal - is more terrible. The europeans that invaded North America gave blankets to the natives knowing that the blankets had been used by smallpox patients. Not a very nice way to reduce the native population, but legal under the law of the invaders. If even half the number of abortions claimed by opponents are done they kill millions every year. Look at history; there is no shortage of examples of legal deaths.

What religious code? Do you mean the one the woman is not practicing? Difficult to determine what she is not doing since she is not doing it. Please tell us which religious text and the part in it that you refer to. I recall none that allow forced abortions. Both John Cuthber and I would like to know. No pregnancy equals no abortion. Very scientific. Without unwanted conception there would be no reason for abortion. Human nature: men will have sex with anything that will let them. Very scientific. If woman doesn't allow, man must commit crime of rape. Unless and until we evolve to where men get pregnant, women must bear the responsibility for pregnancy. Since you didn't say, I will suppose the house doesn't have to be particularly attractive to you in order for you to get up what it takes to set it on fire. If you're like most men, if a house will open its door you will enter. If a house is willing to have you inside, shame on the house for not protecting itself from your fire starter. I mean really people, let's talk real world. In general: A man doesn't give a rip if a woman gets pregnant because he has sex with her. He sees it as her problem, not his. All the man is after is the sex. He will say and do pretty much anything he has to to get it. No ladies, he doesn't love you and he won't respect you the morning after. Get over it. Men have always seen women as sex objects. Its the old Clint Eastwood movie thing: if you can't eat it, fight it or f__k it then piss on it; if women didn't have a pu__sy there would be a bounty on them, they would just be varmints. Most politically un-correct of course, but true.

Recent news articles reveal that the US government has (is) recorded nearly every electronic communication in the world, and not at just one facility; there are two. We always want a back-up. Every communication that moves via satellite, microwave tower or the internet is captured. You may already know that for years, at least two decades, the US government has purchased all, 100 percent, of the latest supercomputers built. Fifty years ago we could read a newspaper laid out on the ground from an aircraft; today we can read it from a satellite. We can see through brick walls as well as clothing, several meters beneath the ground and deep below the ocean surface. We want to know. We do know. We are watching. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the government is the beast. The black horse seems to be the most misunderstood. Consider a figure wearing a black robe holding a scale. The robe of a supreme court judge and the scales of justice? The law allows more death, in all forms - execution, war, abortion - than anything else.

The thing that "results" in more abortions is more women getting pregnant outside marriage. It should be obvious that these women are not holding to any religious code regarding sex outside marriage. Sorry, but you cannot blame their sexual activity, their resultant pregnancy rate or their abortions on a religion they are not practicing. I absolutely agree that we should educate young people about sex, and relationships as well. Education on relationships might just be more important. If I had my way, we would have bins of condoms and morning after pills free for the taking at the entrance to every business. It would be much better if we could put something in the water to prevent conception and require genetic and mental tests as well as proof of ability to provide for a child before issuing a license for the antidote, but then we would be accused of eugenics. Besides all this, the point of my post was that religious practices, and religion in general, are part of the culture. I expect we cannot say fairly that religion builds culture. Culture must be in place first before a religion can address issues in that culture. Best example I can think of is the prohibition against eating cattle in India. It was made to break the cycles of plenty and famine resulting from eating the cow after a crop failure leading to a smaller planting since there would be no animal to pull the plow the next season. Of course human nature being what it is, we do seem to be prone to taking even the best ideas to extremes. Nicholas, in your efforts, I hope you will investigate how ideas become religions. Men don't get pregnant. We leave the decision to terminate another's life to the individual. And why not, we leave the decision to engage in the activity which created that life to the individual. Am I allowed to suggest that society (you and I) should be more than just offended by a woman deciding to engage in an activity that may burden the rest of us with providing for her and a child? She has that "right"? What about our rights? And let's not bring up the politically un-correct notion that the child has rights.

Each domino in a sequence falls, not because it is "time" for it to fall, but because another domino falls upon it. The conditions for the actions to happen are determined by the physical properties of the dominos, their spacing and the environment. Set up the same dominos the same way on a table top in Chicago, on the ISS and in a tub of water in Paris and the results will not be the same. Why? Not time. Action and reaction. A threshold is reached and exceeded, or not. If it is, we observe change and may impute time. If it is not, we do not observe change and there is nothing to impute as time. Yes, a shadow requires more than a source of light.

I expect you know that adultery in pre "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" times was defined as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. Men and unmarried women would not be charged with adultery. I think it is necessary to understand in that strict patriarchal society the laws on property rights and inheritance were such that bastard children were effectively non-members of the society. A woman pregnant with a bastard child would be shunned or put out and about the best she could do even in another society was to be taken in as a slave. There were no treatments for STDs. By committing adultery a woman proved she could not be trusted by her husband to keep her marriage vows and condemned herself, and her child if one survived, to a life of misery. Was a quick death seen as better than a life of misery? Do we not use a similar argument today to justify abortion? Perhaps if the people of those times had had better medical technology they would have left the stones on the ground. Do I see the killing of millions of unborn children as evidence of improvement over a system that gave married women an immediate reason to be true to their husbands and unmarried women a real reason to avoid sex before marriage? No, I don't think I do. And I don't see a social system that keeps unmarried women and fatherless children in ghettos as government pets with very little hope of a life outside of drugs, gangs, prison and an early death as much improvement either. In another two or three thousand years will we not be seen as "Information Age barbarians"? Nicholas, you are going to have to decide on terms and definitions to get a clear answer. "Unite" is not the same as "reconcile". "Religion" is not the same as "belief in a God". Present the terms and definitions you want others to use and they will use them.

Solid, liquid, gas and plasma. All different, but the same stuff; all occupy space, interact and react to light. So if the "unseen" is, what would it be, something so different that it could not interact with our stuff? If so we should never have even a hint that it is there. No, if the unseen is, then it is some sort of stuff and science will have the job of finding out what sort of stuff. If the unseen is not, then we are left with an irrational machine and the problem is how can it be so.

Well, I think we're finally getting somewhere. You at least seem to recognize the concept of authority. What or who is it that you accept, or believe, as the authority for the truth of the last statement above? I really don't see where we, the human race in general, are much evolved from "Bronze age savages". Our technology is what I will call "better", but our relationships with each other, the other creatures on the planet and the environment don't seem to have changed much. I have to wonder if the smart people of today really are any smarter than the smart people of that time. This thread is (was) not about arguing for or against religion. Nicholas asked about reconciling science and religion. I believe he meant a reconciliation of the two in how he would deal with both in his thinking and his life, not in some way making one fit inside the other or one superior to the other. I see no justification for demanding he give up one and hold to the other. Much better, I think, to encourage him to seek answers from as broad a spectrum of ideas as he can manage. My experience is that the more one questions, the closer one gets to the truth.

I'm not sure I said "a science that studies only the physical is capable of studying consciousness". Perhaps I should have. I do not believe that there is anything "supernatural"; all that is is real, and by real I mean material and physical. I accept that the spark of life, the spirit, the soul, the identity is our consciousness and it has substance, it is material and physical. The material and physical properties and characteristics of the identity are just different from those of what we call normal matter. What we observe with our five senses as consciousness is the identity interacting with the body. I accept that there is only one environment (the Universe) and that it provides a "where" for both normal matter and the substance of the identity. Since the identity interacts with the body, the physics of the identity must be at least partly compatable with the physics of the body. The physics of both (and whatever else is out there) will be the complete physics of the universe. Our current physics would have to be extended in order to investigate the identity and consciousness. Since I accept that everything is natural and physical I see no dichotomy. The physics of the body, normal matter, is deterministic but the physics of the identity must be such that it is not. More than that, the identity must be able to interrupt the deterministic process of the body in order for us to observe what we call free will. I believe the body and identity are both "started" at the moment of conception. We know the body is a mechanical, or deterministic, construct. I might accept that the identity is a similar construct but I cannot envision how substance can achieve non-rationality. A "thinking machine" that would make inappropriate judgements is beyond me. I suppose that until there is a better explanation, I will have to accept that it is possible. I'm sorry this is so not well written. I'm trying.

When Nicholas made his inquiry regarding reconciliation of science with religion, he said religion, not belief in a god. I would like him to say if he actually meant belief in a god instead of religion because they are two different things. A precise defintion of religion includes the idea that belief in a god may be included but is not required. Can we agree that "religion" and "belief in a god" are not the same? Or shall we deny that Buddhism is a religion? I find it very curious that you are "opposed to religion". I have heard it said that 95 percent of the world's population has some sort of religion. Those religions form the basis of a moral compass for those individuals. And as you say, they are pretty much all the same when it comes to everyday living. You imply that you are opposed to people accepting as the basis for their morality anything you don't accept . What happened to the idea of live and let live? Does the religion of the Inuit hurt you? It is not that I think religion "should" be the norm, it is a fact that it is the norm, in one form or another world-wide. When you say " It's all guesses and fabrication and allowing people with poor critical thinking skills to determine the ethics of how you should live your life" I take it that you refer to at least what I'm going to call the major organized religions, and I suspect more specifically Christianity. Am I right? I'm not going to try to push you towards having a religion or any specific religion, it is just that I would not expect your responses from one exposed mainly to another organized religion. I think you do yourself and the rest of the human race a disservice when you paint all religions with the same brush. You ask for precision, yet your brush is quite broad. I did not say religion is "any activity people place a supreme amount of importance on". The activity I included is how we live our lives, not "any activity". I will admit that, if we must rank our activities in terms of importance, the way we live our lives is, to me, at the top. Is there anything you do more important to you than the way you live your life?

I don't place any value at all in numerology. The fact that it is now against the law to buy or sell (packaged goods) without the UPC is striking and that code isn't numerology. I have had the thought that if one did actually see into future events it would be quite difficult to understand just exactly what one was seeing. There must be hundreds of examples of current technology that would have been beyond understanding for anyone 2000 years ago. I wonder that if someone of 2000 years ago "saw" a consumer swipe a credit card he might ignore the card as unimportant and see just the consumer's hand passing over a device, or if he saw a consumer step up to a retina recognition device he might see the proximity of the forehead to the device and not be aware of the true function of the device. With this sort of interpretation an actual "mark" on an individual wouldn't be required to buy and sell, just the number assigned to that individual. I can't remember where I got the idea, but I think there is an interpretation that the mark may not be visible. If this is so, it would add to the idea of an assigned number instead of an actual mark. Anyone in the US knows how difficult life would be today without a valid Social Security number. It's not much of a stretch to envision that 9 digit number expanded to 18.

I'm trying to figure out why some are so opposed to the idea of having a religion, even if that religion is of their own construction. It is as if "religion" is a dirty word. It is as if by saying they have a religion I have accused them of something terrible. Mostly what I see in the responses to my posts seems to be a desire to be firmly on the side of rejecting any belief in God, and especially as presented by Christanity. I expect this is a result of being brought up in a society which is based predominately on what are considered Christian values. I would not expect these responses from, for example, those in a predominately Buddhist society. People are not going to rebel against or reject establishment views unless those views are present. Agendas may have some bearing here, but I'm not interested in determining that. I'm a bit more inclined to believe that perceived political correctness is a factor. I have posted nothing, I hope, which could be construed as encouraging anyone to believe in anything other than that he/she has the authority and responsibility for his/her life. Perhaps even that is too much for some. The idea of authority and responsibility must be, to me, part of the answer to the original question of this thread. Any reconciliation of science and religion must begin with what the individual accepts as authority. To me the ultimate reduction of science is that it is discovery; the ultimate reduction of religion, again to me, is that it is one's philosophy for living. Much may be added to both for various purposes, but I believe these are the base definitions. Reconciliation should proceed from authority to the recognition that both intuition and curiosity are part of our nature and both play a role in both science and religion. Beyond this I think each individual must decide to ask more specific questions. Finally, if "world view" is required as a politically correct substitute for "religion", fine, I acquiesce for the sake of the thread.

Thanks, I was not aware of this. Of course what I posted is a compilation of interpretations. I'm not much on numerology; hocus-pocus to me; expecting something real related to the number. So, now that you've got my curisoty up, what is the significance of 616?

Yes, it was Godel that I couldn't remember. Went through Godel a long time back. Took me more than one time. Difficult but very worthwhile for anyone interested in that sort of thing. Mostly what I remember was the humor I saw in the idea as I posted. The logic is there of course, but it is with me now only as the beauty of a sunset. Remembering a memory is not the same as remembering.

I brought up the pi thing mostly to emphasize that math and geometry are inventions, not discoveries, and attempting a correlation between math and our environment is not going to work. The development of math is prejudiced by our experience of the environment and of course we should expect math to follow the environment to the extent of our observations. Math is not an independent thing and extrapolations of it should not be used as proof of what it came from. Math and geometry are imaginary; the environment is not, at least to me. One can make a good argument against quantization by simply recognizing that observation is limited by the receptor object. Receptors seem to have a threshold for responding to a stimulus. If a receptor doesn't "fire" until a threshold is reached we can't determine that an "analog" event occured; we observe response, not stimulus. Of course the other side of the argument is that stimuli are produced only from responses to other stimuli, and therefore are likely to be, as you say, "ditigal". Those who hold to the current philosophy of science that we can accept as true only what we can observe will feel compelled to accept quantization. I think this may be one of those things that we just can't know. I can accept that one's perception of reality is in his "mind". I hold to the idea that there must be something producing a stimulus before one can respond to it. I see no logic in the idea that I can imagine something totally out of my experience. It seems to me that I must discover what is out of my experience and if I discover it, it was there prior to my experience of it. I accept that reality is universal and one's perception of it is local. I do not accept that "... every human being that ever was has the same a priori intuitions of space and time." Intution of space, yes; recognition of self as separate from not-self. Time, no. The idea of time is learned. If you want to change my mind on time, show me evidence of a phenomenon, action and reaction, stimulus and response which is not already and better explained by physical interactions. It is just not there. Recognition, counting and recording cycles is useful but it does not indicate anything other than physical interactions. You made the point, there is only "now". I accept that. I posit that the "now" is static and only objects change, not the "now". Show me how "now" changes and you will be on your way to demonstrating time.

I read the referenced material. Interesting but it does not dislodge me from my opinion. I will need a more convincing argument. Part of the problem Weyl and others have seems to me to be that they accept time as a phenomenon or some sort of real thing. I don't. I think time is just an artifact of memory. Objects without intellect do not seem to experience anything we could call time. That, by itself, is sufficient to convince me time is not experienced and thus is only a product of intellect. Another problem Weyl and others seem to have is that they accept infinite divisibility. They seem to be into the notions of mathematics as describing something real. Math is an invention of intellect. For example: there is no such thing as a circle in nature and there should not be, except as an approximation, in geometry and physics. Examine the elements of a circular object to high magnification and you will see that the "circle" is actually best represented as a polygon, the line segments connecting the physical elements (atoms, molecules) of the circular object (assumed homogeneous) in order around the "circumference". So then why is so much made of "pi"? This ratio is not a ratio of real things. Better to consider the ratio of the sum of all the line segments of the polygon to their distance from the center. Now if you consider that a real polygon object is constructed such that the distance from the center to each element is a whole number of those elements (necessary if we are to compare distances in common units) you will find that we can construct regular closed polygons only of certain determined radii and number of elements. Not every radius will produce a closed polygon. This is true for any polygon constructed in/on a plane. Why insist on whole units? I expect the quantuum folks can answer better than I can. My answer is that there is no such thing as "half" or any other fraction of any real thing; "half" of an apple is an approximation, and each half is one whole thing. Even with numbers, which are not real things to start with, a fraction of a number does not describe a real thing and is better described as a whole thing which when taken in some multiple will sum to that number. Weyl and others seem to believe we experience in a continuum sort of way, in infinitely small bits. Physics shows us this is not the case. Action and reaction at the smallest scales are not smoothly transitional. We do not observe the firing of brain cells to be a process involving a flow. Electrons jump, they don't climb. The continuum of experience as it is often described doesn't appear to be continuous.

The idea is that a mark or symbol will be required which will identify the individual. In the US, and I believe Europe, it is already law that nothing in a package can be sold unless it carries a UPC or similar mark. This "mark of the beast" is "the mark of a man" meaning a man-made mark or symbol, a pattern not found in nature. And it is the "number of a man" meaning the symbol conveys a number. That number is "666" meaning, when put in the context of the mark as a number, a series of three six-digit numbers. This will be the expanded UPC labeling system. The idea is that all goods sold and all consumers can be tracked. Businesses, producers, shippers and sellers will find great efficiencies in using the information for planning, planting, warehousing and "just in time" inventory control. Governments will want the information to be better able to respond to emergencies. Parents will love being able to find lost or kidnapped children and elders. Law enforcement will enjoy being able to track criminals and recover stolen goods. Financial regulators and institutions will be able to prevent consumers from over spending and from being scammed. We don't have any privacy now that everything is digital, so wouldn't it be better if an implant would replace our dirver's license, credit and debit cards, checkbook and medical info cards? All that and more, everything about us, could be accessed almost instantly from anywhere wi-fi was available. We would become our data in the matrix. Of course every good tool has another use. What powerful central government wouldn't want the power afforded by this system to track and control the population? And if a madman like any of the dozens we've seen in just the last couple of centuries were to get in power?

So, you do not recognize Buddhism as a religion? I expect 500 million people will disagree with you. From Wiki: Buddhism is a nontheistic religion[1][2] that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha, meaning "the awakened one". Also from Wiki, on nontheism: "religion can be defined as a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing". I suggest you investigate the meaning of the terms religion, theism and atheism on a broader perspective than belief/nonbelief/denial in/of Abrahamic religions. From Wiki: Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are the monotheistic faiths of West Asian origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[1] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.[2][3][4] They are one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian religions[5] (Dharmic) and East Asian religions. Of course your personal philosophy is yours and yours alone; so is everyone's. Why else do Jewish-Christian-Islamic teachings say that you have choice? You are the authority, you are responsible; no one else can choose for you, not even God. Grace cannot be forced upon you; it can only be offered. Your statement is proof that you are making that choice. I hope your philosophy does change over time. Probably one of the saddest things that can happen to an individual is that their philosophy will not change as they live. All religions encourage you to "grow your faith", to "seek enlightenment", or something similar and to avoid "hardening the heart". The idea that because you have no written doctrine or dogma you have no religion is a red herring. The fact is that if you were to take the time to develop you thoughts fully, if they aren't already, and write them down then you would have them in text form. So what? What difference would it make to you if your philosophy was published? Would it not still be the same? Would writing it down somehow turn it into dogma that is isn't already? Again from Wiki: Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. You are that authority. I expect no one has much of a clue as to how they or their ideas will change with age. That's not something one can plan. What you are probably doing is working your plan to educate yourself. My experience is that that process never ends. I feel it would be sad if it did. Where in the definition presented by dimreeper is the term "god"? I think I am not the one doing any torturing.

The definition you refer to: A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. I have no problem using that definition, but I have a few questions about its application. How organized must the collection be in order to qualify as a religion? Who determines what must be in the collection? Does knowledge gained from experience count as belief? How broad must participation be in cultural systems to be included? What must be included in one or more world views? Is the relationship of life to an order of existence limited to considerations of human life? Just how ordered must the recognition of existence be? And one last question: what is the minimum number of individuals subscribing to the collection as described in order for you to accept his, her, their collection as a religion? You and the 36 percent you refer to, whoever they are, may take exception as you wish, but you, them and the other 64 percent of people each have a religion and it is, as I have said, your individual philosophy for living. Theism is belief in God, a god or gods. Not all religions include theism. Atheism denys God, a god or gods. Atheism does not deny religion. You, I and everyone else has our own individual religion and we cannot escape it. I suspect that the majority of those who would characterize themselves as practicing one of the major religions which does include theism actually do not truly believe in the existence of that deity in any "real" sense. My experience is that very few are able to present even a feeble apology for their preferred religion. When questioned, most will admit to "trying to live a good life" and beleiving most, but not all, of what their religion includes. In other words, they take what they want from the religion and approach living their life according to their individual customized philosophy. In other, other words they have their own individual religion.

The idea comes from relativity. I may get some argument on the idea that it is, or was, the basis for relativity, but I think it was. If you can't see something moving faster than light, how can you know where it is? If you cannot track its motion, how can you know what path it took? For measuring the speed of any moving object you must maintain contact (by touch, hearing or sight) with the object in order to be sure that what you are measuring is actually that particular object and that it is on the prescribed path. Your experiment will be compromised once you lose contact. If you see a runner at the beginning of a race and again at the end can you know he ran the entire race?

One may be an atheist, but he/she still has a religion. One may deny the existence of deity, but one still lives his life with a philosophy for living. One may reject the idea of God or gods as popularly or traditionally defined or some obscure idea of deity, but one still approaches life with certain precepts. The way one lives his life shows his true religion. Theism may be a part of one's religion, or not, but if it is it is only one part of his religion. I suggest that if you were to take the time to develop as completely as you can your thoughts on how you approach living and write it all down you would find surprisingly few differences between what you accept as a right way of living and what is prescribed by most major religions. The one big difference would likely be what you see as the authority for making the goals and rules you would establish. I expect you would accept that you, and you yourself alone, are that authority. I agree with that idea. It is one of the basic tenets of all the major religions. You have the authority; you are the only authority; only you can make your choices. With authority comes responsibility. The responsibility for the consequences of your choices must be yours and yours alone.

Some on the fringe do count the "begats" and conclude the 6000 year story. Again, this is not mainstream and it is not taken in all religions. Don't know where you got the microbiology part. Evolution doesn't seem to be true, more likely mutation, but not continuous and slow evoultion as it is currently taught; if it were true the fossil record should show it, and it doesn't. I will remind John Cuthber that you do have a religion. It is your philosophy for living, your approach to living. Do you really want to lump your philosophy for living in with all the other religions? I don't think so. ****** One thing I forgot to mention in my rather long post was that people have agendas. For example, socialism is based on the notion that we should overcome our human nature and share; everyone contribute what he can and take what he needs and we all take responsibility for the welfare of each other. It sounds good but, like all utopian ideas, we have seen that commune-ism doesn't work in the real world. Religion, particularly the Jewish, Christian, Islamic ethic, demands personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Personal responsibility and accountability are anathema to socialists. They must drive religion out of society if they are to convince the public that one should not be "blamed" for actions that hurt others. They have to get rid of the idea of punishment and replace it with rehabilitation. Most religions do not accept the idea that "I'm OK, you're OK". I encourage everyone to be aware that some use the discoveries of science, not to promote more science, but as a foil to denegrate religion and promote the socialist agenda. How politically uncorrect am I?

Keep searching for answers. Answers to your questions. Uniting science and religion is not a crazy idea to me. There is a saying: "you only know the songs you hear. Is this not true? You will know only the ideas you explore. Any time you think you have all the answers to, or an absolute understanding of, any question I assure you, you are wrong. There is always more to learn about everything. Our science will only include the discoveries we allow ourselves to seach for. To me the sin people in science commit is closing the mind to new ideas, what religion calls hardening the heart. There are those who think that science somehow disproves religion. It does not. Science is discovery. Science can help us understand what is and how it works but, at least so far, it cannot explain any origin or life. Many people reject the findings of science they see as a contradiction of their religion's dogma and then extrapolate that to see science as an assault on the religion. Their problam is usually a misinterpretation of their religious text. Literal translation of ancient text usually does not convey the intended meaning. Unfortunately many won't accept that ancient texts require intrepretation. You already have a religion. Everyone does. It is your philosophy for living. It may not be well thought out or codified or shared with others but it is there just the same. It is how you approach living. It is common for young people to reject religion when they begin their studies of science. Among the reasons for that are the teachers. Education should not be indoctrination. The laws of the US enforce that idea. What is not taught in school will not be learned in school. Many religious people who would be teachers drop out or do not enter the field because those laws restrict not just what they can say but also how they can say it and may open them up to lawsuits and harassment if they slip up and say something that is not politically correct. One cannot share what one does not have. Don't condem people who try to share religion. Imagine what you would do if you truly believed you had some knowledge that would materially change peoples' live for the better and people were missing out. Wouldn't you feel compelled to share that knowledge? Would you condem someone in science for trying to share what he thought was a wonderful discovery? Many people, and perhaps most young people who study science, come to reject religion because some or many of the beliefs of their religion include things which seem impossible to explain. They have been taught in science that if something cannot be explained by science and does not fit in with what can be explained by science then it is wrong. I was very uncomfortable with religion, to the point of rejecting it, for this reason. At sone time I recognized that of all the fossils discovered each species was always that species; there are no "missing links". If evolution is correct then the vast majority of creatures and the fossils should be some "in between" sort of thing not a distinct species existing over long periods. I say this not to argue against evolution but to say that it seems more likely to me that mutation, not evolution, has been responsible for the variety we see. Once one begins to question science and see that it is not totally believable the result is much like when one begins to question religion and see problems. If what religion tells us about God, heaven and the rest is true, then I conclude it is part of our Universe. The thing to do is figure out just how that environment and what is in it works. If it is true then the science of it must be consistent with the science of what we can see. I search for that.

When you go to the OPERA, take good glasses.