"Tut, tut, child!" said the Duchess. "Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it."
I was raised in a Christian household; Sundays, and a lot of Wednesday evenings, were spent at the church. As a kid, I was a fervent believer; I knew I was saved and going to heaven. Hallelujah!
As I grew up, I questioned, and ultimately became disillusioned with, the idea of church and religion. The more I learned of history, the more I saw religion as a divisive force on humanity. Many of history’s atrocities were, and still are, committed in the name of religion. The more I learned of science, the more I saw religion as superstition. It simply doesn’t stand up to scientific method and reason. The more I learned of psychology, the more I saw religion as an ego defense mechanism. It’s used to help people deal with circumstances beyond their control.
I’ve heard the argument put forth, perhaps most eruditely by C.S. Lewis, that mankind’s age-old and constant search for religion is, in itself, proof of a higher being. How can man suffer from this persistent and common delusion, unless there is indeed something to it? I call this the "where there’s smoke there’s fire" argument, and I just don’t buy it.
First, just because a meme is ancient and persistent doesn’t mean it’s correct. People have believed in magic since the dawn of time. Racial stereotypes still tragically persist. The common cold is not caused by a person becoming chilled. Habitual knuckle cracking does not cause arthritis, nor does masturbation cause blindness, cats don’t steal air from baby’s mouths, and you can’t see the stars during the daytime from the bottom of a deep shaft.
Secondly, if the existence of a persistent religious meme is proof of a God, then why are there so many very diverse religions? Many religions have multiple deities. Some religions practice ancestor worship (even the Catholic church to some extent). Many religions have practiced blood sacrifice, both animal and human. Some religions worship nature and animal spirits. How can the smoke/fire argument be used to prove a single God when, in fact, for most of history, the majority of mankind has practiced forms of religion that are not mono-theistic?
So, I am now, at best, extremely agnostic; one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. I cannot find any proof that God exists, but, of course, there isn’t any proof that God doesn’t exist either. French mathematician, and philosopher Blaise Pascal, pondered this paradox and developed an argument for the belief in God based on probability and decision theory; his argument has come to be known as Pascal’s Wager. Pascal postulates that it is better to believe in God because the expected reward is greater than the expected reward of not believing. If you believe and God exists, then you gain infinite reward; if he does not exist, you lose virtually nothing by comparison. If you don’t believe and God exists, you get infinite punishment; if he does not exist, you gain virtually nothing by comparison. Of course, Pascal assumes that we have an eternal afterlife and that our life on Earth is negligible by comparison.
A counter-argument to Pascal’s Wager exists called the Atheist’s Wager. Wikipedia sums it up nicely as:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
I’ve always had issues with the Christian philosophy that salvation comes through faith and never through works. By that measure, the most vile torturer of the Inquisition is listening to harp music while strolling streets of gold, and Gandhi is screaming his agony as his flesh boils off his bones. Is the man that taught the world the power of peaceful protest roasting in a Christian hell? I know Christianity is about forgiveness — being absolved of guilt because of your faith. I view that as similar to inherited wealth. If you had to follow someone’s advice for the attainment of wealth, would you choose someone who inherited their wealth or someone who earned their wealth? Paris Hilton or Warren Buffett?
Interestingly, a good friend recently told me of the Apostle Paul’s struggles with problems such as ‘the Gandhi question’. Compare the Atheist’s Wager to what the Apostle Paul said in a letter to the Romans.
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. –Romans 9:14-16
It dovetails nicely with the Atheist’s Wager, doesn’t it? Of course, I would wager that the Atheist’s Wager was developed with knowledge of that particular scripture.
So, in the end, the whole question is a conundrum with no proof in either direction, but I lean heavily towards my logical side that does not believe — nay, scoffs — at the idea of an omnipotent being. Nevertheless, there’s the small part that says, "What if?"
"There is no use trying," said Alice, "one can’t believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven’t had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union exploded their first atomic bomb. Needless to say, this created quite a stir in the U.S. which launched a massive bomb building campaign to counter the Soviet threat. American policymakers strategically decided the develop native sources of uranium ore (aka U308) so as not to be dependent on foreign sources. The newly created Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was designated as the only legal buyer of the ore. For several years, the AEC had already been paying top dollar for the ore, touting it as the energy source of the future. AEC chairman, David Lilienthal, crossed the country telling audiences that a uranium pellet the size of a peanut contained the energy of a ton of coal; holding up a lump of coal, he would tell his audience the equivalent size rock of uranium would heat a large city for an entire winter. With the combination of a successful Soviet atomic bomb test, the Korean War, and the beginnings of the domino theory of the fight against communism, the pressure was on the AEC to develop enough weapons-grade uranium to reduce the USSR to pea-gravel several times over.
In March 1951, the AEC doubled the price it was paying for uranium ore and offered a $10,000 bonus to anyone who developed a productive new mine. The AEC also provided guidebooks and geology reports, built supply roads, and constructed ore processing mills — all in support of uranium miners. A uranium rush occurred in Utah. Moab, Utah went from 500 to 5,000 people virtually overnight. There were stories of prospectors renting planes and throwing out claim stakes in an massive mineral rights grab. Not coincidentally, Moab was the first place in Utah to allow alcohol.
Into this rush came Charlie Steen, an unemployed geologist from Texas, hitchhiking into Utah in 1952. Until this time, most uranium was either found on the surface or in excavated mines. Steen believed the ore could be found using drilling derricks to bore vertically to the ore. Legend has it that, in July 1952, he was down to his last dollar, wearing boots so worn his toes stuck out through holes, when his drill bit broke off in his bore hole. In disgust, he collected his samples from that day and drove home. On the way, he stopped at a service station where a friend had a Geiger counter. Apparently, everyone in Moab had a Geiger counter in those days. When he put the counter on his samples, the needle pegged all the way over. Steen had found a huge vein of uranium ore. His mine eventually produced over $100 million of ore. Steen had his worn-out boots bronzed.
The AEC continued its favorable pricing policies until 1966. By the early 70’s the price of uranium ore had bottomed out. Then came the oil embargo of the 70’s, and ore prices again skyrocketed as America was again electrified about nuclear power as the solution to America’s energy needs. The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island — less than 2 weeks after the opening of the movie The China Syndrome — violently swung the public opinion pendulum against nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) halted the construction of any new nuclear power plants. In 1986, the Chernobyl reactor explosion occurred, releasing 400 times the radiation as the Hiroshima bomb, further contaminating the reputation of nuclear power.
In the late 80’s the fall of the Soviet Union, was another shock to the price of uranium ore. Ironically, much of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal was recycled into fuel for nuclear power plants in the U.S. In fact, 20,000 Russian warheads have been dismantled and recycled into fully half of the uranium used for power generation in U.S. reactors. By the year 2000, uranium ore was selling for roughly the same price as it was 50 years before. In summer 2000, Invention and Technology magazine published an article detailing the history of uranium mining and its demise, saying that "uranium mining will not be a profitable venture any time soon." The market was dead and its prospects for a recovery were very dim indeed.
Now, however, the U.S. government is on the verge of granting permits for the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years. The soaring price of petroleum in recent years has again highlighted the folly of U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources. Growing concerns over global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are fueling the demand for forms of energy other than coal and oil. Even hard-core anti-nukes are warming to the idea of nuclear power; Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, said in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, that nuclear energy is "the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce greenhouse emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power."
And the U.S. isn’t the only country with a re-energized nuclear power industry; Russia has unveiled plans to build 24 new nuclear reactors, and China has scheduled building more than 30 reactors (two 1,000-megawatt plants every year for the next 20 years). India is also going nuclear at a rapid pace. Worldwide, there are 160 power plants proposed or currently under construction.
Today, demand for uranium is outstripping the supply and the price for uranium ore has not just risen, it has absolutely skyrocketed. There’s an ore rush occurring in Moab, Utah again — almost 60 years after the first rush. And recently, a landowner in Virginia is trying to mine the largest deposit of uranium in the U.S.. A supply that is worth an estimated $10 billion and is the estimated energy equivalent of 7.4 billion barrels of oil. In the 80’s, Virginia banned uranium mining but, of course, uranium ore wasn’t extremely lucrative then — and money talks.
Personally, I favor nuclear power despite its dangers and by-products; both of which I believe are far less than all other ready-for-primetime energy sources. But as a history addict, I find it interesting to compare the previous uranium rushes to the current one. The first rush in the 50’s was fueled by fears of national security from a military perspective. The second rush of the 70’s was generated by national security concerns over the U.S. over-reliance on foreign oil. Today’s rush is plugged into America’s growing concerns over rising petroleum prices, our voracious appetite for energy, our continued over-reliance on energy imports, and recognition of the need for clean yet economical energy sources — in other words, economic national security tempered with a bit of environmentalism.
The landscape is surreal. The landforms in the background shrouded by a slight mist that diffuses the sun into a gentle backlight. The edge of the cast net somewhat echoes the sinuous waves of the hillocks.
The skill of the fisherman. If you’ve ever thrown a cast net, then you know the level of skill required to open a large net like this….especially when standing on a narrow, tipsy platform.
The sheer exotic nature of the setting.
The skill of the photographer in capturing the scene.
The last three books are remainders from my original list of a month ago. In the cases of Conceptual Blockbusting and Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, these books are instructional texts and have regular exercises to perform.
Captivating, on the other hand, has concepts and thought patterns so foreign to me that it is requiring a great deal of pondering to digest; I always knew women were wired differently, but geez…
Like a lot of people, I tend to partition my life into segments. There’s the work segment, the personal family segment, the martial art segment, etc. Of course, a segment can be composed of subsegments; for instance, friends can be categorized as my wife’s friends, my personal friends, or friends of both my wife and myself (usually other couples).
For the most part, the segments don’t bleed into each other very much; in a sense, I lead multiple lives. My family and personal friends rarely cross into my professional life and my professional friendships rarely bleed over into my personal life. There are exceptions; my business partner is also a close personal friend of mine –but not of my wife. Not that my wife dislikes my partner; it’s just that they rarely have cause to interact.
And, yes, I know there are those of you out there who are eager to demonstrate your wit over that last statement, but please, just save it.
If you think about it, it’s amazing how strongly we compartmentalize our lives. We see the clerk at the convenience store almost every morning, but fail to recognize him when we meet him out of the context of the store. This situation can lead to some uncomfortable "Where do I know him from?" moments. I’m especially prone to this predicament because not only do I compartmentalize my life, but I also have a strong memory for faces but not for names; I am forever recognizing faces but not able to associate a name or context.
For myself, I find the blurring of compartments somewhat disconcerting. I find there is something uncomfortable about mixing associates and friends from different contexts. For this reason, I rarely go out after work with business associates or even attend company parties. Even if I go to lunch regularly with a coworker, I rarely associate with them outside of business. By the same token, I rarely lunch with my wife even though she and I are often available to lunch together. The idea of hosting an event for business associates at my house horrifies me with its absolute wrongness.
In computer science, we have an event called a segmentation fault that occurs when a software program attempts to use memory it is not allowed to access. At the risk of oversimplification (or overexplanation), when a program runs, a chunk (compartment, if you will) of memory is assigned to the process by the operating system. If the program/process attempts to access memory outside of that assigned compartment — such as memory belonging to another process — the operating system detects the unauthorized access and generates a segmentation fault, thereby shutting down the offending process and protecting other running processes.
I heard this joke many years ago, but last week I was reminded of it and told it to someone. Lo and behold, today I log onto my Google home page and was presented with the joke of the day.
How many racists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
I give this guy a 10 for originality. I’m glad he’s not just using the cash to pay a ransom, but is instead wisely choosing to learn a life skill. Teach a man to fish versus giving a man a fish.
Of course, the flip side of the sign probably says he needs the money for gas so that he can take his kid to the doctor.
Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow ripening fruit.~Aristotle
Over the last couple of weeks, I have spent a few days with my lifelong best friend. First, he came to visit me and we spent a couple of days engaging in the manly pursuit of big game hunting (deer). Then, over the holidays, my family and I visited Eric and his wife, Barbara, at their home for a day, where we engaged in the manly pursuit (even though Barbara knows more about college football than most men) of watching college football.
It takes a long time to grow an old friend. ~John Leonard
Eric and I grew up into manhood together. We became good friends just out of high school and were best, hang-out-every-day friends for the next 10 years. Since then, we have lived in different states for the last 15 years, trying to visit each other a couple of times a year. Despite the geographical and chronological distances in our friendship, I know that with a single phone call and no questions, Eric would be at my doorstep to lend a helping hand. And he knows the same of me.
Friends are relatives you make for yourself. ~Eustache Deschamps
I suspect that at first we liked each other because of shared common interests or possibly shared traits that we like in ourselves. But, I wonder if friendships deepen when people begin to see traits in the other person that they wish they had themselves. In Eric’s case, I’ve always admired his spontaneity and adaptability to change. Since I’ve known him, Eric has had multiple careers including machinist, sailor, high school teacher, salesman, real estate investor, hair stylist, camp counselor, and a few others I can’t recall offhand.
Friendship… is not something you learn in school. But if you haven’t learned the meaning of friendship, you really haven’t learned anything.~Muhammad Ali
In the long run though, I think true friendships are created when a casual friendship accrues a critical mass of shared experiences. Put another way, the shared experiences reinforce the friendship until they become a buttress making the friendship truly strong. To carry that analogy further, not only do the shared experiences buttress the friendship, but the friendship buttresses us against the stresses of life. Which leads me to one last friendship quote for a regular reader — and you know who you are…
A good friend is cheaper than therapy. ~Author Unknown
I’ve heard the argument put forth, perhaps most eruditely by C.S. Lewis, that mankind’s age-old and constant search for religion is, in itself, proof of a higher being. How can man suffer from this persistent and common delusion, unless there is indeed something to it? I call this the "where there’s smoke there’s fire" argument, and I just don’t buy it.
French mathematician, and philosopher Blaise Pascal, pondered this paradox and developed an argument for the belief in God based on probability and decision theory; his argument has come to be known as Pascal’s Wager. Pascal postulates that it is better to believe in God because the expected reward is greater than the expected reward of not believing. If you believe and God exists, then you gain infinite reward; if he does not exist, you lose virtually nothing by comparison. If you don’t believe and God exists, you get infinite punishment; if he does not exist, you gain virtually nothing by comparison. Of course, Pascal assumes that we have an eternal afterlife and that our life on Earth is negligible by comparison.
On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union exploded their first atomic bomb. Needless to say, this created quite a stir in the U.S. which launched a massive bomb building campaign to counter the Soviet threat. American policymakers strategically decided the develop native sources of uranium ore (aka U308) so as not to be dependent on foreign sources. The newly created Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was designated as the only legal buyer of the ore. For several years, the AEC had already been paying top dollar for the ore, touting it as the energy source of the future. AEC chairman, 
Into this rush came Charlie Steen, an unemployed geologist from Texas, hitchhiking into Utah in 1952. Until this time, most uranium was either found on the surface or in excavated mines. Steen believed the ore could be found using drilling derricks to bore vertically to the ore. Legend has it that, in July 1952, he was down to his last dollar, wearing boots so worn his toes stuck out through holes, when his drill bit broke off in his bore hole. In disgust, he collected his samples from that day and drove home. On the way, he stopped at a service station where a friend had a Geiger counter. Apparently, everyone in Moab had a Geiger counter in those days. When he put the counter on his samples, the needle pegged all the way over. Steen had found a huge vein of uranium ore. His mine eventually produced over $100 million of ore. Steen had his worn-out boots bronzed.
In the late 80’s the fall of the Soviet Union, was another shock to the price of uranium ore. Ironically, much of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal was recycled into fuel for nuclear power plants in the U.S. In fact, 20,000 Russian warheads have been dismantled and recycled into fully half of the uranium used for power generation in U.S. reactors. By the year 2000, uranium ore was selling for roughly the same price as it was 50 years before. In summer 2000, Invention and Technology magazine published an 
The second rush of the 70’s was generated by national security concerns over the U.S. over-reliance on foreign oil. Today’s rush is plugged into America’s growing concerns over rising petroleum prices, our voracious appetite for energy, our continued over-reliance on energy imports, and recognition of the need for clean yet economical energy sources — in other words, economic national security tempered with a bit of environmentalism.
About a month ago, I posted my 
If you think about it, it’s amazing how strongly we compartmentalize our lives. We see the clerk at the convenience store almost every morning, but fail to recognize him when we meet him out of the context of the store. This situation can lead to some uncomfortable "Where do I know him from?" moments. I’m especially prone to this predicament because not only do I compartmentalize my life, but I also have a strong memory for faces but not for names; I am forever recognizing faces but not able to associate a name or context.
