Hergest Ridge

That’s it, I’ve done it! I’ve taken my car four times around the globe. Yes, I rounded some numbers (earth’s circumference: meridional = 40,008 km, equatorial = 40,075 km), deal with it.

I’m the first owner of the Tercel I currently drive, and today it turned 160,000+ clicks. I only wish that the distance I put on it had been completed on trips as exciting as the one around the earth promises to be. Sure, oceans might be a bit of an issue, but if you’re thinking about those, you’re missing my point.

In case you’re still pondering the earth circumference thing, the earth is not round but a geoid. As the earth rotates at a high velocity it creates an equatorial bulge, increasing the earth’s equatorial circumference by roughly 67 km. Want to know something else? Despite the fact that Mt. Everest is credited as being the tallest mountain on earth, the peek of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador takes the cake for being farthest away from the earth’s centre.

To my friends and family whom are not on the path of atheism.

I’ve chosen this pathway a long time ago and have not wavered. Over the years my choice has been steadily reinforced, but the only major shift that took place recently is my new found need to openly talk about my position on the issue.

For the time being, I can’t keep quiet. In having done so thus far, I felt like I’ve found a way to escape my own psychological prison, but have spent the days staying in it so no one finds out that I broke free. You see, I didn’t want to alert anyone of my escape and have the authorities after me. So, I stayed in my cell long after I dug a tunnel out of it. That’s no way to live… I think you’ll agree.

I will not assault you with my ideas. My wish is to voice my opinions, and do so for the benefit of those interested in listening to the scientific message. Most days, I’ll welcome debates and discussion in any form.

Do not insult my intelligence by trying to convert me. Lay out the arguments for your beliefs as they apply to you and your perception of reality, not how you think they should apply to me.

Understand that my stance is based on a life time of gathering evidence.

If tomorrow we both see what can only be describe as an angel, I still won’t be a God fearing Christian. Seeing an angel would ultimately be one piece of potential evidence that angels exist, and while angels are commonly associated with God, that link is strictly mythical. By ultimately proving that angels exist, we may have a piece of evidence that God exists - if we can scientifically link the dependent association of angels with God.

This is what it boils down to: The theory I will subscribe to will be the one with hardest evidence. At this point, there is exactly zero scientific evidence for God, and a lot of evidence for theories which exclude Him. The amount of proof required to sway me on the God issue will be tremendous, and likely cannot be collected over centuries, yet in my life time alone.

Sure, there are many things that science cannot yet explain, but to credit God as the answer to these mysteries is to build a God of gaps. Convictions based on faith alone are irresponsible, and in many cases dangerous. They provide fertile ground for the spread of human rights violations, oppression, disease, and mass irrational behaviour.

I’ll still attend church for select cultural and social reasons. In doing so, I’ll be expressing personal and emotional support for those I care about most. To confuse such occasions with a search for a personal God would be a mistake.

Should we find ourselves together at mealtime, I’ll hold my peace through any prayer you may wish to voice - be it at your, or my table. Each of us has many places where our opinions are sought with interest, and I need not resort to imposing mine where such is not the case. As long we both can agree on this much, we’ll get along just fine.

After a four day break, I’m back at jogging. Did an extended run today, without getting too tired. Now that’s what I call positive reinforcement!

Watch the following entry in video format! (But do read the second last paragraph, for it’s not in the vid.)

I’ve been feeling a bit burned out lately, and it all has to do with religion. Well, for me the lack of religion, but I’ll explain in just a jiffy. I’ll start with the end result, and will move on to the cause.

Yesterday I emailed my networking group to inform them that I won’t be there this - now past - Wednesday morning. To underline the significance of the decision, strict attendance records are kept, and this is my first absence since I joined the group in November.

Did I miss the meeting because I’m sick? No. Did I miss it because I had to fetch the Queen of England from the airport? No. Did I miss it because I was feeding starving children in Africa? In short, no.

I missed it because I knew there was no way I could have been an asset to the group today. My attitude would have sucked, or, I’d have dropped to the floor unconscious, having used up the last ounce of my extrovert energy.

Yes, I’m an introvert, and I’ve put myself on the line for the “Rational Response” crew, and the good of the world as a whole. You see, a while back the Rational Response crew posted a challenge and I decided to take part in it. “The Blasphemy Challenge” is a relatively simple task. It consists of the denying the Holy Spirit publicly, through a YouTube video.

I pulled out my digital camera, set it to film mode, created, and posted the damning video. Then, I watched hundreds of other people do the same, and ultimately, hundreds of Christian videos informing us that we can still be forgiven and that their prayers are with us. I guess they all decided to ignore Mark 3:29 “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven”. Another part of the bible conveniently ignored.

I’d really like to see the bible after it has been edited to remove the verses that we need not bother with. The end result should help the Christian churches gain new followers. The ‘new bible’ could be read in a couple of days, and the believers would save themselves from defending - to give an example - the verses where the old man got stoned to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath. But, I digress.

Taking a journey through the many videos from both sides of the issue has given me a broader view of humanity, but at the same time it has stolen a piece of me. As Woody Allen once said, there are some people out there that “are a true credit to [our] race”, but they are few and far between. Maybe that’s the only way things can be. After all, everything is relative.

Yes, I’m burned out, and do plan to take a detour for the sake of recovery. There still are many things I want to say, or as the case may be, repeat what others have said so well. From now on, I’ll do it in a more focused and thought out method, because doing it with as much emotion as I have done so far, well, it’s just not working out that well for me.

To those in my life and closest to me personally, I feel the need to explain a few things, and that’s the goal for my upcoming entry, “… a short interlude.”

If you got this far, congratulations. This is where you get your gear - or exit strategy - for the journey I’m about to embark on. I hope you’ll join me, but entirely understand and respect if you choose not to.

I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views. - Dr. Francis Collins

Dr. Collins is director of the Human Genome Project. In case that doesn’t mean anything to you, lets just say that we’re not talking about some fringe, back water mad scientist. He is well respected, and known around the globe. His credentials are long, and that’s what makes his statement such a travesty.

The quote comes from a CNN special. You can read it in full, or simply stay with me while I debunk some of his ‘logic’ right here. No science knowledge is required for either piece, just a bit of history for mine.

First, I’d like to address one of the stats Dr. Collins throws our way, that of “40% of scientists being believers”. While Dr. Collins deals with the sciences of life, there are many scientists in areas unrelated to that of human existence. These are scientists that work on developing biodegradable plastics, GM crops, and renewable energy. The qualifications of those scientists in the “origins of life” area are at par with those of a dentist, or chiropractor. The statistic is based on those kind of scientists. As such, it lends no scientific credo to the existence of any Gods.

One of Dr. Collins’ own convictions that God really exists is due to the fact that science cannot answer questions like “What is the meaning of life?” or “Why do humans have a moral sense?”.

By that logic - assuming that answers to those questions exist - at one point feelings like love would be considered proof of God’s existence. We now know that the enhanced secretion of the chemical b-Phenylethylamine (b-PEA) is responsible for falling in love, and we also have a good idea about what triggers the process. What once may have appeared to be the invisible hand of God and his angel the Cupid turns out to be a matter of science and more specifically chemistry.

Personally, I do not believe that anything or anyone can ever give us the answer to the meaning of life question because there is no universal answer.

Why, for so many, does the existence of the human species rest on the delusion that such an answer exists? Try to imagine a world without such an answer, and you will find that our world is exactly like that you’re imagining.

Life cannot be summed up in a sentence that we can print on a plaque, refrigerator magnet, or bumper sticker. That is the beauty of it. As Ludwig Mies van der Rohe once said and Einstein later reiterated, “God is in the details”. I don’t know a great deal of history on Rohe, but do know that Einstein wasn’t talking about a personal God. Theists like to put Einstein into their court by taking his quote out of context. All Einstein was saying is that if you want to find God, look not up, but around you. This is as real as he gets. The details are god.

While God fills a void in the lives of many people, that does not constitute proof of his existence. We’ve all heard the classic “I was a lost soul on the way to disaster until God entered my life”. This again is not proof of God, but the “after this, therefore because of it” fallacy.

If we ignore all the evidence, and for a second assume that the God theory works, we are pitted against Occam’s razor: “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.” [When multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation.] (Source) To refute or minimise the impact of Occam’s razor is to ignore the 700 years of trial during which the principle has been put to the test.

God cannot be found in science for one simple reason: scientifically, God is the biggest question of them all. Science cannot verify his existence, past, present or eternal, and as such he cannot be the answer to any query posed by science. If you are looking for God, do not conduct your search in a lab, but in the unfounded faith that the church offers; for God will never leave its walls, will never step into the real world.

The earth and this life are the ultimate gift. Cherish it, live it well, and look around you instead of up.

Russell’s declaration, in his 1925 essay ‘What I Believe’

I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man’s place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanising myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.

Yesterday, I’ve had a few people question and confuse my identity. It was kinda hilarious, but I suppose I’ll let you be the judge of that.

My first encounter of identity crisis came about at the store checkout counter, when I handed over my credit card to pay for some delicious eggs, chocolate cereal, and a Moothie (yummy). After observing the credit card practises of the vendor, I signed for my purchase as Simon B.

For anyone that doesn’t know me, my name is not Simon. I was handed back the CC as soon as it was swiped, and the clerk did not make the slightest attempt to look at the signature on it before handing it back to me. Never mind a side by side comparison. The sad reality is that very few vendors make the slightest effort to verify sigies.

If you are going to sign with a faux name, make sure you practice writing it at home first. It’s amazing how ‘automated’ the whole process is. Even though I knew I would be signing ‘Simon B.’, it was hard to fight the instinct I’ve developed over the years. Despite the three full stops - to think about the next letter - in the short sig, the clerk did nothing and I walked out of the store with the groceries.

Second identity crisis was thrust upon me at my front door. A knock came just as I was about to leave, and upon opening the door I was faced with two elections representatives responsible for putting together an eligible voter list. The very friendly lady introduced herself and her colleague whom stood a short way down the hallway. She then said something to the extent of “I don’t mean to be insulting, but are you old enough to vote?”

“Yes” - I replied.
“You sure?”
“I’ve been old enough to vote for the last 10 years. I can show you my drivers license if you wish.”
“No, no, that will not be necessary. You can just put your name on the list, and that’s all I’ll need.”

While I wrote my name on the list, along with the couple other mandatory details, we chatted about age, looking young, and such. I said I try to take it easy in life, which I attribute to looking younger than I am. Through direct experience, I also know that when you dye your hair - dark, dark auburn, again, Friday night -, people start thinking you’re a few years younger.

When I was done filling in the form, the silent colleague down the hallway asked his partner whom I was handing the form back to “Is he old enough?” I guess he didn’t hear our initial conversation. They both were super nice, and I didn’t feel insulted in the slightest. I did however find the episode very amusing.