The Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life recently released the 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. This comprehensive look at the religious affiliation and attitudes of over 35,000 Americans contains several fascinating discoveries. The Summary of Key Findings, broken down into two parts, Religious Affiliation and Religious Beliefs and Practices is an interesting read. Both the full summaries and the entire report are available as PDF downloads from the given link.

As I was reading this it occurred to me that the prominent atheist voices of our day, the irascible Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and their brothers and sisters in arms would find a great deal of troubling data to peruse here. After all, a remarkable 92% of the respondents reported a belief in God, and nearly 83% reported an affiliation with a particular religion, while those identifying themselves as ‘atheist’ were represented by a miniscule 1.6% of respondents. It would appear that Dennett’s attempt to define the intellectual elites as ‘Brights’ is yet to sway the majority of Americans that secular humanism is the genuine path of righteousness.

Reading further reveals more interesting findings, however. ... Read More »

Today’s news roundup contains a link to a recent New York Times article on cosmology, which explores the difficulty those in the field are experiencing in matching observation to theory. The most troubling aspect of the piece is that it may be the astronomers, cosmologists and physicists themselves who are “Dark, Perhaps Forever.”

I touched on my concerns about how the field of cosmology appears to be in the death grip of a particularly rigid paradigm in my TDG blog entry Adventures in Cosmology earlier this year. The Times piece points to the actual gravity of this situation when we learn, on the first page:

This fall, NASA and the Department of Energy plan to invite proposals for a $600 million satellite mission devoted to dark energy.

The article continues to explore the bewilderment experienced by the best and brightest in the field. Then, on the last page we read:

Some astronomers have complained that $600 million is less than half of the $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion the academy committee estimated was necessary to do the job.
“We are placing a large bet,” Dr. Mountain said, “using our credibility as collateral, that we as a community know what we are doing.”

But many stressed that it was going to be a long march with no clear end in sight. Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University told them, “In spite of the fact that you are liable to spend the rest of your lives measuring stuff that won’t tell us what we want to know, you should keep doing it.”

Let’s consider that last quote again: “In spite of the fact that you are liable to spend the rest of your lives measuring stuff that won’t tell us what we want to know, you should keep doing it.”

God forbid that we actually clear our heads and revisit fundamental assumptions.

My previous piece on this topic referenced Michael Disney’s column in the September/October 2007 issue of American Scientist. While the Times piece regularly reminds us that the universe “was born 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang”, as if this was absolute fact, Disney expresses a dollop of healthy skepticism, especially remarkable considering his position as a professor of astronomy:

While it is true that we presently have no alternative to the Big Bang in sight, that is no reason to accept it. Thus it was that witchcraft took hold.

The scientific community rightly screams when creationists suggest that fossilized remains were placed in the earth by God to mislead us into believing that the earth and cosmos predate 4004 BCE. Yet cosmologists are oblivious to their own attempts to ad hoc the Big Bang hypothesis by forcing observations to fit theory. Disney concludes his column with a quote from Daniel Boorstin, when he writes:

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come.

As the Times piece makes clear, acceptance of the current myth could not only waste the formidable intellectual talents of generations of cosmologists, but may also result
in wasting vast sums of money. If we consider that the project mentioned in the Times is just one project of who-knows-how-many over the past 80 years, the total investment to support current mythology is sobering indeed.

Salon Magazine, that is.

I’ve always found Wilber’s Integral Philosophy to be unnecessarily dense, but he does make some interesting observations in his interview with Steve Paulson. Here’s some highlights.

On the nature of God:

“The word "God" is much more misleading than it is accurate. So there's a whole series of terms that are used instead by the esoteric traditions -- super-consciousness, Big Mind, Big Self. This ultimate reality is a direct union that is felt or recognized in a state of enlightenment or liberation.”

On whether neuroscience will solve the consciousness problem:

“I'm saying we'll never understand it. The materialists keep issuing promissory notes. They always promise they're going to do it tomorrow. But interior and exterior arise together. You can't reduce one to the other. They're both real. Deal with it.”

On the New Age “quantum consciousness” worldview suggesting that we create our reality:

“These are good people; I know them. But when they say consciousness can act to create matter, whose consciousness? Yours or mine? They never get to that. It's a very narcissistic view.”

On what he refers to as "Boomeritis Buddhism."

“Anti-intellectualism was rampant, and it continues to be rampant in a lot of meditative and alternative spiritualities. There's a tendency to explain the trans-rational states in terms that are pre-verbal. So instead of a Big Self, you're just experiencing a big ego.”

The entire interview is worthwhile, and his comments about his experience during his recent brush with death are especially fascinating.

David Brook’s New York Times column yesterday may have opened some eyes as well. In a piece speculating on the future of neuroscience, he writes:

“The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going to end up challenging faith in the Bible . . . Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism . . . In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation.”

It’s rare to find ideas like these in mainstream media, especially from a writer maybe best known mostly for conservative political commentary. All in all, it’s a good week for an idealist.

Note: The NYT requires free registration, and I’ve been having trouble with the links at their site for a couple of days. If the above link doesn’t work, you should be able to access Brook’s column “The Neural Buddhists” through the link from his page.

For anyone interested, the new issue of AntiMatters has been released. The site requires free registration, but the only time I hear from them is when they announce a new issue (for those concerned about email spam).

Among the usually strong assortment of articles and book reviews is a fascinating excerpt from Charles Eisenstein's new book The Ascent of Humanity, which as it turns out, is available in it's entirety online at no charge. I've only read the first chapter so far, but Eisenstein makes some powerful points about our current reliance on technology, and how it relates to fundamental ideas we have about who we are.

It has been clear to me for some time that all of the issues we are faced with today can be traced back to our psychology, and more specifically, our near universal misunderstanding of how our belief systems define our sense of self. Eisenstein is pointing to something very important - give it a read!

The mainstream media has apparently reached a consensus regarding tomorrow’s Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary: Clinton will win, and the only question appears to be margin of victory.

Maybe. Buried in the most recent polling data compiled at Real Clear Politics is one anomalous outlier. While the RCP poll average indicates a Clinton margin of 5.9%, the final Pennsylvania numbers from Public Policy Polling (PDF file) has Obama leading by three percentage points. Of all the polls reflected in the RCP average, the PPP poll sample of 2338 registered Democrats is more than double the sample size of the second largest (the Quinnipac poll), and more than three times the sample of the other polls used in the RCP average. The large sample size provides the PPP poll with a margin of error of 2%.

Public Policy Polling’s final polls before the Texas and Ohio primaries were uncannily accurate. They had projected a Clinton margin of 51% - 42% in their final Ohio poll. The 5% undecided broke 60/40 for Clinton in Ohio to provide the official margin of 54% - 44%. Texas was a similar story. PPP had Clinton up 50% - 44%, although in Texas the undecided segment in the final PPP poll moved strongly towards Obama, resulting in the 51% - 47% official tally for Clinton. PPP’s final Keystone State poll shows Obama leading 49% - 46%, with 5% still undecided. If we assume that 60% of these voters move to Clinton, Obama would eke out the slimmest of victories: 51% to 49%.

Adding to the uncertainty of the Pennsylvania primary are the extraordinarily swelled ranks of registered voters. Politico reported today that 217,000 new voters have registered since January, and the vast majority of these have been Democrats. There have also been 178,000 voters who have switched party affiliations, and an astounding 92% of the party jumpers have moved to the Democratic side of the fence. This means that 7% of the now four-million plus registered Democrats in Pennsylvania are new additions, and these are the types of voters who have strongly supported Senator Obama in prior contests. Whether Obama maintains this trend in Pennsylvania may determine not only the outcome of this particular race, but could also provide some insight into how deeply he’s been affected by the Wright controversy, ‘bittergate’, and the controversial debate performance in Philadelphia last week. There is no doubt that Senator Obama has been scuffed up by the increasingly contentious Democratic primary fight. Pennsylvania may very well demonstrate whether those effects reach beyond the punditocracy.

The warring camps are of course spinning like gyroscopes today. Clinton Communications director Howard Wolfson lowered expectations while arguing, “If Sen. Obama can’t win a big swing state with that enormous spending advantage, just what will it take for him to win a large swing state?” Obama himself refused to predict victory, commenting in a Pittsburgh radio interview that, "I’m not predicting a win. I’m predicting it’s going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect."

We’ll all know soon enough. Don’t be surprised though, if the PPP poll presages the end of the Clinton campaign. A narrow Obama victory would almost certainly lead to the suspension of the once-inevitable candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and even a victory may not be enough to keep her afloat. Passing with little notice among the relentless media build-up towards tomorrow’s election, was the announcement that the Clinton campaign began April with 9 million dollars in cash available for the primary cycle, and 10 million dollars in debt. That’s right. Read it again. That’s a million dollar deficit to start the month. In no little contrast, the Obama machine began April with 42 million dollars available to spend in upcoming primaries, and a paltry $650,000 in debt.

Those numbers are not likely to shift towards Clinton’s favor even with a victory in Pennsylvania, and the delegate math is daunting even if she somehow manages a blow-out. Public Policy Polling’s final poll may be an outlier in suggesting an Obama victory, but none of the polls are indicating a Clinton landslide.

Just as the dust began to settle on the Wright controversy, another pastor issue has surfaced for Barack Obama. It appears that Obama has had some associations with Rev. James Meeks, another particularly vocal member of the black clergy, whose focus is homophobia.

So now Barack Obama is not only a closet racist, but a closet homophobe as well? Horrors! As many will claim, the only conclusion to reach is that he’s a demagogue, or is that strong enough? Maybe we all need to recognize that his elegantly nuanced rhetoric calling for change is nothing but a complete scam, carefully designed to usher in a new era, not of hope and positive progress, but of massive divisiveness in which the ravings of the African-American clergy become the law of the land! Though it was Mike Huckabee that called for a revised constitution to better reflect God’s standards, this is Obama’s secret agenda! But rather than a perfectly reasonable interpretation of 'God’s standards' as espoused by Huckabee and the white evangelicals, Obama will finally bring about the absolute destruction of the white oppressors, and get rid of all the gays in the bargain. What other evil lurks within him? Wait! I know!! He’s the Anti-Christ himself!!! That’s it!!!! WE’RE DOOMED!!!!!

Welcome to the Republican fleet of Swiftboats awaiting the electorate this fall. It might even work. Anything to move the focus away from genuine issues.

If nothing else, the exposure of Reverend Wright, and now Meeks, has brought considerable public attention to deep seated issues within the black community. Homophobia and hypermasculinity are just another aspect of the poisonous thinking that has contributed to the awful problems faced by this segment of the population. As noted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, “it probably doesn't help young people in the black community when they're told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them.”

The writer, Ralph Reiland, makes some excellent points in this article, correctly identifying that it is the prevalence of this line of thought that is the ultimate source of the crime, violence and hopelessness that permeates the African-American community. Where I vehemently disagree with him is in his implicit assumption that by associating with such lunacy, Obama is exhibiting complicity. I don’t agree with this argument as it applies to Wright, and I don’t agree with it here either. Was Obama aware of homophobia in black churches? Duh. Salon explored the campaign’s South Carolina tour with anti-gay ‘reformed homosexual’ Donnie McClurkin, which also included the openly gay Rev. Andy Sidden. It was interesting, to say the least.

Note that the backlash at Sidden's inclusion has not come from black church organizations so much as gay groups criticizing Obama for retaining McClurkin. McClurkin, for his part, hasn't even pulled out in response, though Obama has virtually done somersaults to justify McClurkin's inclusion. On Thursday, as the tour began, Obama supporters from the African-American religious community and LGBT campaign leaders collaborated on a letter to the public that attempted to clarify their candidate's decision to keep McClurkin onboard, stating, "We believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together."

Does Omaba need to address these things in depth? Of course. And he will be forced to. The GOP will bring this front and center, and hope like hell it deflects attention from Obama’s main message. Omama’s response to such emotionally volatile issues will determine which direction the independents move, and it is the independents that will determine the outcome of this election.

And what is Obama’s main message, besides “unity and hope”? It is that Washington is nothing but an enclave of special interests, the occupants of both congress and the executive branch forever beholden to special interests; the inhabitants of political office concerned not with the voices of the public, but with the whispers and wealth of the lobbyists.

Maybe the most glaring of all of the candidate’s associations surfaced just this past week, though the public outrage has been relatively quiet to this point. It turns out that Phil Gramm, the general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, led the charge in 1999 to repeal the regulations that have led to the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

Now, some housing experts and economists see Gramm’s thinking in the recent housing proposal from McCain, the Republican Party’s presumed presidential nominee. Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he’d consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration.

It's occurred to me many times that Presidential elections in the US normally involve a mostly clueless electorate choosing between two clueless candidates. Obama addressed the economy in a well received speech at Cooper Union last week. Though I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, it is obvious that he and his advisors have a deep grasp of the source of today’s economic woes. Obama’s speech on race the previous week demonstrated a measured, personal, balanced understanding of that issue as well. What I have read of his foreign policy ideas again strikes me as well thought out. Whatever Obama may be, clueless would be a misnomer.

There is a deep cynicism that many of our citizens feel about our political system, a cynicism that I have shared for too long. This voter, for one, is much more concerned that McCain’s top economic advisory circle includes a classically corrupt career politician advocating ‘more of the same’ while he lines his own pockets, than I am that Obama has associated with members of the black clergy that give voice to stupid and offensive views that are shared by too damn many of the black community as a whole. (If this were not the case, there wouldn’t be an audience for these rants.)

I’m tired of cynicism. Is Obama perfect? No. And there will be plenty of time to explore the imperfections of the three remaining candidates between now and election day. As far as I’m concerned, the Wright/Meeks controversy boils down to castigating Obama for associating with black clergy, which is inescapable for a biracial politician. Would it be better received if his ‘spiritual advisors’ were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Somehow, I think not.

This is all an excellent snapshot of what awaits us in the fall. America’s immediate future will come down to whether the electorate reacts to the collective fears which will be emphasized by the Grand Old Party, or responds to a calm, reasoned call for change from a biracial candidate who is attempting the impossible.

Michael Prescott chimed in on the Jeremiah Wright controversy this weekend, and I decided to cross post my contribution to his thread here as well. This is such a volatile topic, it's an incredible test to discover some sort of genuine reason within ourselves, let alone among the writings and sound bites generated by the hundreds of pundits weighing in all over the world.

I am a white man. The Wright controversy has forced me, along with millions of other Americans, to confront an aspect of the African-American community that most would rather pretend does not exist. Wright's ravings, as incendiary as they are, are sadly representative of a line of thought that runs throughout the black community. Wright speaks to the mentality of the victim, a mentality that persists with a pernicious tenacity throughout this particular segment of society. Though his language may have been unusually strong, the feelings he has given voice to are real and powerful for many African Americans, and they are not going to be wished away.

Like it our not, the treatment of the African American over the history of these United States of America is shameful and atrocious. Beginning with the stain of slavery, continuing with the rise of the KKK, the lynching’s and racial cleansing of communities throughout the south, the Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights horrors and riots of the sixties . . . I think it is impossible for a white man to have a genuine appreciation for how this all is viewed when it is part of your heritage. How would I feel if I knew my great-great grandmother was repeatedly raped by her white slave owner? Or if my family once owned dozens of acres in Forsyth County, Georgia that they were forced to abandon without compensation upon threat of death, property that is today home to wealthy residential neighborhoods? What if I could remember being forced to use separate hotels, or restaurants, or water fountains? What if I had a beloved uncle, or maybe a brother, who had been beaten to death in the chaos of the sixties? What if my children were trapped in schools rife with drugs and violence, if gangs roamed my neighborhoods, or if too, too many of my former schoolmates were either dead or in prison?

Would I be able to look at a white man with benevolence? Would I see my race as victimized by my country? Would I awaken each day with a sense of hope and optimism for my own, or my children’s future? If I’m brutally honest in self assessment, I have to conclude that I would fall short. When I think of the adversity I have faced throughout my life, I can only say that in comparison, I’ve been very fortunate.

This is not to defend Black Theology. The statements of Wright and Cone are correctly identified by many as vile, horrific, racist rhetoric. But I can understand the source. I can see why there is an audience for these diatribes, why there are many blacks in this country that still see themselves as victimized, and face life every day through a lens colored with bitterness, resentment and hopelessness.

Having said all of this, I also must admit that I share the resentments expressed by many whites. I didn’t rape any slaves. I didn’t participate in a lynching. I didn’t drive someone from their home, or own a segregated business, or beat a black man to death while resisting the civil rights movement. I look at the inner cities; the rampant drug use, the crime and violence, the contempt for education and the horrible consequences of the welfare system, where there are now several generations that have known nothing but dependence on the state for their survival, and continue to have children as a means to a steady source of income. And when I hear the black population call for reparation for the injustices of the past, I recoil. I’m in my late forties, with concerns of my own. How will the economy hold up? Will I be able to provide for my retirement? I have no children, but many of my white friends have serious concerns about their kid’s future; about how to pay for education, or what will be the environmental conditions their children will inherit? I see a well qualified friend bypassed for a job through affirmative action, and consider the growing tax bill that seems to only exacerbate the problems with the existing welfare system, and I wonder what the hell is going on. It’s the truth.

These are issues that run deep throughout our society, and Wright’s comments hurtling into the collective consciousness has exposed a deeply troubling aspect of American society to the entire world. These are not concerns that are going to be solved either quickly or easily, and certainly not from the mentality from which they have been created. For the white population, it involves understanding the source of the bitterness in the black community, and advocating a society that honors the dignity and deep humanity of all races, of respecting that we are all humans first, with deeply human problems, and that we all share that in common, before any cultural differences. For the black community, as difficult as it may be, it involves recognizing that the atrocities of the past are past, and that the only reasonable path forward involves accepting individual responsibility for one’s own future, and by extension, that of the African American community as a whole. Progress is likely to be slow and painful, but both races need to emphasize the dignity and rights of the individual, and demand absolute equality for each and every one of us.

The electorate has an important choice facing them this year. There are some that will conclude that Barack Obama’s long association with the theology of his pastor is too disturbing for a Presidential candidate. By doing so, they are effectively choosing to sweep the issue of race back into a dark corner, where it will continue to fester. The resentments will grow on each side, the government will continue to throw money at the problem, and the divisiveness will worsen.

I will be interested to see how this all turns out. Race is an issue that has never in my memory been so visible in a presidential race. And as difficult and uncomfortable as it is, it cannot even be considered among the most pressing of the issues before us. There are major economic issues we are faced with, continuing military debacles on two fronts, a severely damaged international reputation and continuing fears of radical Islamic terrorism. The question for me is not whether Obama’s association with his pastor disqualifies him, but which of the candidates is best equipped to move the country in a positive direction in all areas. Obama’s platform is much too liberal for my tastes, but I also recognize that he may possess the finest intellect of any candidate in my lifetime, and his message of unity and hope is sorely needed in a deeply divided country. I also happen to think he means it. I think he’s real. I also think that he understands that in order to make progress, he will by necessity need to move towards a centrist position upon assuming office, while his campaign itself speaks to remarkable organizational skills. If I have the opportunity to vote for the man, I will.

In the meantime, I will watch with great interest as this all plays out. If nothing else, this election will show the world what is important to the American people, and most critically, who we are choosing to be.

“The discovery caught astronomers by surprise”, begins an article that hit the newswires last summer. The release continues:

The universe has a huge hole in it that dwarfs anything else of its kind . . . The hole is nearly a billion light-years across . . . Astronomers don't know why the hole is there.

"Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size," said researcher Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota.
Rudnick's colleague Liliya R. Williams also had not anticipated this finding.

"What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Williams, also of the University of Minnesota.

The article goes on to explain that the void was discovered by analyses of Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB) observations conducted by the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope. The VLA observation was confirmation of this anomalous ‘cold spot’ first detected by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite. We’re also told that The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.

It turns out observations that ‘catch astronomers by surprise’ are not exactly unique. In fact, an hour or so researching the archives at any astronomy site will lead the researcher to ascertain that many recent discoveries are deeply puzzling to those in the field. Examples from just a brief exercise of this nature include galaxies with arms spinning in opposing directions, a huge portion of our own galaxy rotating the wrong way, the unusual composition of comet dust, bizarre galactic concentrations, well . . . do I really need to go any further to make the point?

As I began to explore these and other astronomy articles, I was regularly reminded that astronomers know that the universe began with a ‘Big Bang’ approximately 14 billion years ago, when all of the matter in the universe was concentrated into an unimaginably small ‘singularity’ which, conveniently for us, exploded. So, at least we’re on the right track, and as our tools improve over time, these unusual discoveries will all be explained to everyone’s satisfaction. After all, the universe is a big place and it’s only to be suspected that we’ll run into occasional issues as we figure it all out, right?

Perhaps. Interestingly enough, not a month after the article above was published, Michael Disney, emeritus professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University in Wales, U.K., published a short column in the Sept/Oct 2007 issue of American Scientist, entitled Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale? A web search for this title did not bring up any immediate reference to it on the mainstream astronomy websites regularly frequented by the general public.

In language appropriate for a layman, which your correspondent admittedly is, Professor Disney explores the history of the Big Bang Theory (BBT). Also as a layman, I can say that I was not just a little intrigued to discover that Big Bang cosmology is not quite as decided as I’d been led to believe. Disney opens by explaining that our current understanding of the universe began with Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. When this was combined with Edwin Hubble’s theory of redshift in the light spectrum of distant objects equating to distance, and the accidental discovery of the aforementioned CMB in 1965, astronomers were provided with a hypothesis that could be tested by subsequent observations. So far, so good. But as Disney explains, we soon came upon certain significant bumps in the road; observations weren’t matching up well with theory. To begin with, and with occasional emphasis added:

Opposite sides of the cosmos look very much the same, even though they had never been sufficiently close to equilibrate—indeed they had never been sufficiently close for any kind of information (which is limited to the speed of light) to travel between them. This difficulty was virtually unadmitted until 1981, when Alan Guth suggested a vague conceptual solution called "inflation": a slow start to expansion, followed by a rapid acceleration . . . If inflation actually happened, sufficient stretching during that period of rapid acceleration would have lowered the local curvature today so that it would look flat to the observer, even if it wasn't so on a much larger scale (just as the Earth looks flat to someone with a limited horizon).

If inflation actually happened? Hmm. Professor Disney continues:

At about this time in Holland, Albert Bosma discovered that spiral galaxies are spinning far too rapidly to be held together by the mutual gravitational tugs of their observable contents. Astronomers concluded that there had to be far more dark than ordinary, visible matter around to keep galaxies (and galaxy clusters) together. Most cosmologists welcomed the possibility of such dark matter, because it might be lumpy enough to get the galaxies formed in the early universe—another serious problem for theorists. The apparent uniformity of the cosmic background radiation had cosmologists struggling to figure out how the present uneven structure of galaxies and clusters evolved out of such a smooth beginning.

They thus posited the existence, of primordial "seeds" of unknown origin, which somehow survived the early, hot era when radiation would tear material things apart. Cosmologists argued that these seeds would grow over time, finally collapsing into the galaxies seen today. A type of dark matter that ignored radiation ("cold dark matter") would be the ideal stuff for such seeds. It could condense into lumps, thereafter dragging the much lesser amounts of ordinary matter in afterwards, matter that would eventually light up as stars. By the 1980s the theoreticians' universe was entirely dominated by such invisible material.

How are we doing with that “observation conforming to theory” thing we mentioned earlier? As Disney elucidates, it does get better, with more emphasis added:

Meanwhile, observations of distant supernovae in the late 1990s told an astonishing, almost shocking, story. The results suggested that the expansion, far from being slowed by gravitation, as was expected, had instead accelerated. Moreover, this acceleration had started only in comparatively recent times (7 billion years ago). The physics responsible for this seeming acceleration is entirely unknown and goes under the deliberately inscrutable name "dark energy," which may or may not have something to do with Einstein's cosmological constant.

Well, okay. These are the best and brightest among us, though. So we’re correct in assuming that the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are correct. The mathematics prove the existence of these things, even though they can’t be directly observed, right?

Professor Disney’s conclusion is interesting:

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.

Ugly bandages? Ouch. I must admit that after stumbling upon Professor Disney’s piece in American Scientist, your intrepid correspondent took it upon himself to assume the role of a skeptic and explore a little further. I discovered numerous tidbits, of which I will share just a few.

First, I learned that the core assumption of redshift corresponding to distance has been seriously questioned by many, and foremost among them is Halton Arp. Arp has spent his entire career cataloging instances of unusual correlations between quasars and galaxies, and has proposed that certain galactic objects may contain intrinsic redshift, which if true, would imply that the entire idea of an expanding universe is flawed. Arp had been a fast track astronomer early in his career, his work even mentioned as potentially problematic to the then developing BBT by Carl Sagan, but his insistence on pursuing this particular line of inquiry led to revocation of his telescope time in the States and banishment to Europe, where he continues his work today.

Next, I discovered that there are some scientists who are intrigued by the overwhelming amounts of free plasma in space. It turns out that plasma, most easily described as a type of gas that has been stripped of an electron, comprises over 99.9% of the known universe. Plasma is unique in that it will carry an electric charge. It’s also everywhere, distributed not only throughout galaxies, but throughout the vast intergalactic expanses as well. The vast clouds of ‘gas’ referenced in many astronomy articles are actually plasma. There are some scientists, mostly electrical engineers or plasma physicists, who think that there are massive electrical charges in space that may explain many anomalous observations, but these potential explanations are apparently dismissed out-of-hand by the institutions and scientists who control the funding for cosmology research. The concept of Plasma Cosmology is clearly derided on Wikipedia, while the related concept of the Electric Universe was successfully tagged for removal by a particularly vigorous Wiki contributor on the grounds it represented pseudoscience. The discussion as to the reasons this decision were made left me feeling a little concerned, given that Disney’s piece had left the clear impression that there were more questions than answers revolving around current theory. But then, I’m a layman, and I’m sure that the decision was made from a position of neutrality and fairness, and wholly in the interest of objective truth.

I then came across another interesting article that was reported with some trepidation by the mainstream. A lone radio astronomer had noticed that clouds of neutral hydrogen gas local to the Milky Way galaxy matched up very closely with the cornerstone CMB of the Big Bang Theory:

Astronomers are abuzz because if Gerrit Verschuur of the University of Memphis is right, one of the most important theories developed in the past 15 years -- one that won a Nobel Prize -- would be toppled. The world’s top astronomical publication, Astrophysical Journal, will publish Verschuur's research December 10 . . . Verschuur's research asserts that the seeds are not located on the edge of the universe at all. Rather, he says, the so-called seeds are very nearby: They're just previously unmapped clouds of "neutral hydrogen" gas located inside the Milky Way. In other words, astronomers who mistook the "seeds" for objects on the edge of the universe are like someone who looks outdoors through a window and mistakes smudges on the glass for clouds in the sky.

The article goes on to quote several astronomers deriding these findings. One who wasn’t so quick to dismiss it was George Smoot, who had been awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on mapping the CMB. Smoot wrote in an email, "One would have to do a very careful (statistical) study to see if this (correlation between hydrogen filaments and cosmic seeds) could happen by simple chance or is truly convincing."

The article concludes that Verschuur’s paper will live or die on statistical analyses, which is likely to take several years, if not forever.

Shortly after discovering this little nugget, further exploration uncovered something interesting about the origins of the Big Bang Theory itself. Hans Alfven, an early advocate of Plasma Cosmology and another Nobel laureate, had once made the following comment about Georges LeMaitre, who had originated what he termed the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' which would eventually become today’s Big Bang Theory:

To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

Well, this raised my eyebrows. I couldn’t help but wonder how many of the astronomers working today realized that the Big Bang had been originated to bring about reconciliation with Christian doctrine. I reflected upon the conclusion of the article reporting Vershcuur’s paper, which stated:

For astronomers, the problem now is to decide who's "seeing" things -- Verschuur? Or themselves?

And then I considered that Professor Disney had wrapped up his piece by saying:

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come.

At this point, your weary explorer of modern cosmology was ready to conclude that we had been spending billions of dollars simply to arrive at wild metaphysical speculations designed to support a seriously flawed hypothesis. I was thrilled to see that the stalwart defenders of the BBT had proposed an explanation for the massive hole in the universe that began this investigation, emphasis added:

IN AUGUST, radio astronomers announced that they had found an enormous hole in the universe. Nearly a billion light years across, the void lies in the constellation Eridanus and has far fewer stars, gas and galaxies than usual. It is bigger than anyone imagined possible and is beyond the present understanding of cosmology. What could cause such a gaping hole? One team of physicists has a breathtaking explanation: "It is the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own," says Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It is a staggering claim. If Mersini-Houghton's team is right, the giant void is the first experimental evidence for another universe. It would also vindicate string theory, our most promising understanding of how the universe works at its most fundamental level. And it would do away with the anthropic arguments that have plagued string theorists in . . .

It’s breathtaking, alright. I felt so much better that I decided there was no reason to pay for the full article. They have not only vindicated the Big Bang Theory, but the equally perplexing string theory as well.

I’m now certain cosmology and physics are in perfectly capable hands. Aren’t you?

Note - 6/9/08 - Updated link to American Scientist article.

In a recent comments thread, I began a discussion about the communication issue facing us humans, and it occurs to me that a big part of the problem is our expectations regarding the capabilities of language itself. It may seem a bit odd, given that the entire purpose of writing is to communicate, that what I want to explore here is how inadequate language ever really is for that purpose.

It depends, of course, on subject matter. If one is writing an operation manual, I suppose language is just fine, though I do recall bewildered, angst-ridden comments from many trying to decipher programming instructions for their VCR. So there are exceptions, but for the most part written language works sufficiently for many mundane purposes. The deeper the subject matter though, the more inadequate language becomes, and the topics I intend to explore as I move forward are definitely towards the deeper end of the spectrum.

So what’s the problem with language?

Let me begin by recalling an incident from a past holiday season. I was with my sister’s extended family, just chatting in the kitchen, when her then three-year old granddaughter came bursting into the room, clutched my leg, peered at me with deeply pleading eyes, and breathlessly exclaimed, “There’s a deer outside!” Four simple words. Yet, her entire affect was filled with a sense of delight and wonder, and it was clear that she was trying to share her emotional experience, which went way beyond the mere observation of a doe in the yard. She wanted others to see the doe for sure, but her real objective was in sharing the excitement and enthusiasm of her experience; it was so much more about what she felt than what she’d seen. And this is where language, especially written language, tends to fall woefully short. Good parents understand this when listening to their kids, responding more often to the feeling behind the words their children have expressed than to the words themselves; most parents don’t assume the role of art critic when their five-year-old reveals his or her most recent finger-painted masterpiece. And all intimate human interactions always go beyond words – how often have the poets reflected on the infinite depth of a lover’s eyes for example, and who hasn’t shared a quiet moment with someone special, when speaking would ruin the experience?

Spoken language has more potential for depth of feeling than the written form. If someone is engaging as a speaker, it implies that they are reaching their audience at a level beyond the intellect. An engaging speaker will move us, inspire us, will awaken powerful feelings. Spoken words have the advantage of tone and inflection, there’s the aspect of physical expression, more tools for the speaker to access as they try to express what they are feeling. The reliance on the carefully written, formulaic speeches practiced by modern politicians is, to my mind, why we are so often left bored or uninspired by their polemic. There is no life left to their words following the pasteurization process deemed necessary by contemporary politics. I think this is a large part of the current enthusiasm about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. He’s willing to speak from his heart on occasion, and it has resonated with many.

Much of the failure of deep communication stems from the fact that most of us aren’t very good listeners in the first place. We’re good at intellectually grasping the ideas the speaker is presenting for sure, and we can generally repeat what someone just said to us, but we’re not so good at feeling what they are trying to say. Most of us multitask while listening, constantly evaluating, considering various responses, evaluating some more, wondering about our next appointment and when the kids will be getting home, developing our own response and generally spending at least as much time paying attention to our own self-chatter as we are to the person who’s talking to us. I suspect we’d all find our relationships more fulfilling if we started listening to each other as if we were all three-year olds, making an effort to hear the excitement about seeing the deer, rather than simply grasping that someone just saw a deer.

The tendency to multitask is even more pronounced as we take in written words. To begin with, the writer cannot use voice inflections, facial expressions or gestures. A good writer will find words and phrasing to help him in his task, but he’s always more limited than the speaker. And the audience has all the time in the world to evaluate and consider alternative ideas that can support other views. Anyone reading this can choose at anytime to do a web search on ‘listening skills’ or ‘retention’ and come back in a month, if at all. I’m not complaining. It’s all part of the process, but I’d like to ask the objective reader to try and notice what they are paying attention to as they read these words. Is your attention fully upon what is written here, or are you paying attention to your own inner commentary as well? Are you aware of your own inner dialogue, whether that dialogue is whispering, “that makes sense”, or barking about the inanity of the subject matter, or something in between? And what about the music in the background, or the wind rattling the window next to you? We’re remarkable at multitasking with our attention.

The reading process is a little different with fiction. A fiction writer is working with the assumption that the reader will suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the story. The reader will let the words flow through their consciousness, immersing themselves in the fictional world for those moments. Getting lost in it is a big part of enjoying a story. The reader still has distractions, but carrying on an internal argument with the writer isn’t usually one of them. Though I’m not intending to write fiction as I proceed with other topics, I would suggest that those who read as if it were fiction, allowing the words to flow without an initial intellectual evaluation will be the ones who get the most from it. (Did someone just say that it’s appallingly arrogant for the writer to assume there could actually be some value in anything he might suggest?)

I don’t want to discourage discourse, which I look forward to and encourage, but I do think it’s important to address this. I like to explore big questions, and I do have some trepidation in utilizing the written word to do so. There are no words that begin to clearly get across the deepest feelings that are part and parcel of the human experience. Words can point the way, but the feeling always lies beyond, in the realm of the deeply personal and experiential. It’s that realm I hope to communicate from, and that realm always, always exists behind, before and beyond the language used to express it.

I’ve been reflecting on the evolution debate lately, and my frustration with the mainstream, either/or bickering carried on between the Neo-Darwinist’s and their Creationist opponents has reared its head again. How it is that people think these questions can be so clearly defined will baffle me forever.

What is Enlightenment dedicated Issue 35 to all things evolutionary, which is available in its entirety at their website. The articles "The Real Evolutionary Debate" and "A Brief History of Evolutionary Spirituality" are very thought provoking, and there’s several other resources that are worth a look. The following excerpt from the latter article regarding Friedrich Schelling’s insights intrigued me, personally:

"Expanding on a century’s worth of evolutionary thinking and the idealist philosophy of J.G. Fichte (who’d been a student of Immanuel Kant), Schelling proposed an alternative to the encroaching materialism so dreaded by his Romantic friends: an evolutionary idealism. As the opposite of materialism, the philosophy of idealism held that consciousness, not matter, was the ultimate basis of reality. And once combined with a scientific understanding of evolution, Schelling realized, idealism would represent a force with which all serious thinkers of the Enlightenment would have to contend.

"Envisioning an epic process of cosmic evolution in which an unmanifest realm of pure consciousness, or absolute spirit, is actively manifesting itself as the world of time and space through a series of increasingly complex and conscious forms — from matter to life, to mind and beyond — Schelling wrote: ... Read More »