More Evidence Against The Making of an Atheist

At Tom Rees' blog, Epiphenom, he has written a very good blog post summing up more examples of the research I cited in my review of The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief, by James Spiegel, which show that theists, rather than atheists, believe for emotional reasons. Very interesting!


That's a question that cropped up recently on the Non-religious and Secular Research Network discussion forum. After I finished composing my response, I thought to myself "That's a ready-made blog post!". So here, with a few additions and added explanations, it is...

The first place to look is studies in the laboratory that try to subliminally increase the subject's anxiety and insecurity, and then ask them about their beliefs.

So, for example, Ara Norenzayan has shown that subtly reminding people of death makes them say they are more religious. That's probably related to something called 'World View Defence' - when you remind people about death, they tend to grab onto their traditional, cultural values. Similarly, Iranian students who are made to feel more anxious are more likely to support suicide bombers.

The effect can be quite specific. Aaron Kay has shown that making people feel like they are not in control strengthens their belief in a controlling god - in other words, they compensate for lack of control in their own lives by believing in a god that has it all in hand. What's more, Kurt Gray has shown that people invoke god as a moral agent to explain negative (but acausal) events.

Our thoughts about the world are subject to all kinds of unconscious biases, and it's widely believed that these contribute to religious beliefs. And some of these biases are strengthened when people are made to feel anxious. For example, Nicholas Epley has shown that making people feel lonely increases their belief in the supernatural - and also makes them more likely to think that household gadgets have personalities!

In another study,Jennifer Whitson and Adam Galinsky have shown that manipulating people so that they feel out of control makes them more inclined to see patterns that aren't really there. This is a key part of superstition - once you start to believe that a rain dance actually does make rain, it's a short step to invoking a deity to explain the link.

Delving deeper into the brain, it gets a bit more complicated. On the one hand, Michael Inzlicht has found that religious people have lower 'error response negativity'. This is the spike in activity in a part of the middle brain that occurs when you make a mistake - it's the brain warning system. People who have a lower ERN are less anxious about mistakes (anti-anxiety drugs also lower the ERN).

On the other hand, another study has shown that something called the 'Behavioural Inhibition System' - a deep seated biological response that's linked to anxiety - is increased in religious people. This suggests that religious people may be inherently more anxious.

In the real world

All the studies so far have been looking at psychological response. But what about in the real world? Are religious people anxious, or are they less anxious?

Well, Janie Wilson has shown that encouraging people to pray was effective in reducing anxiety. However, this was no more effective than getting them to read a self-help text.

Back in the 1930s, a pioneering anthropologist named Malinowski learned that those Trobriand islanders, located in the Pacifc Ocean, who fished in deeper waters (and so were more exposed to storms) had more elaborate pre-fishing rituals. This is supersition, rather than religion, but it goes to show how the need to establish order and fend off uncertainty drives irrational behaviour.

Kevin Flannelly has shown that different beliefs in the afterlife can be linked to either an decrease or an increase in psychosis, depending on the nature of the belief. Of course, working out cause and effect is problematic here, but he interprets this as evidence of what he calls an "Evolutionary Threat Avoidance System" - an alert system which is damped down by the appropriate religious beliefs.

And religion - or at least service attendance - seems to be associated with lower anxiety in the 'real world'. Chris Lewis has shown that people in Northern Ireland who go to church more often are less anxious (regardless of sex or sect). Terence Hill has shown that, in the USA, prayer and belief in the afterlife is associated with less anxiety. There are, however, quite a few wrinkles in this simple interpretation, and whatever else it's clear that the effect is pretty small.

One thing that's often forgotten is that religion means different things to different people. Dan McAdams has found that, while liberals see a life without religion as barren and colourless, conservatives see it as chaotic and out of control.

Religion also affects how people approach financial worries. Andrew Clark found that European Protestants and Catholics are less fearful of unemploymentthan the non religious. Kenneth Scheve and David Stasavage have shown that religious people are less in favour of government welfare, perhaps because it acts as a psychological buffer. [...]

More Evidence Against The Making of an Atheist

William Lane Craig's Arguments for God Refuted

Considered one of the most famous and respected Christian apologists, William Lane Craig is often in atheists' cross-hairs and his arguments are often scrutinized both on the internet and in popular books, two examples being The Secular Web and Victor J. Stenger's 2008 book titled God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

Even though these arguments have been refuted by many others, and by those who have much more knowledge than I, I am always up for a challenge and so will do my best to show the illogical and unscientific nature of Craig's arguments. The source for the set of arguments I will tackle can be found in an article by Craig titled Five Arguments for God, currently hosted at The Gospel Coalition.

I've covered several of these arguments in the past but I'd like to take this opportunity to tackle these same arguments from such a respected philosopher as Craig, though for anyone who is familiar with my views, I do not think philosophy is the best method of getting at the truth.

With that, let's begin.

Craig begins his discussion by saying, "[L]et’s get clear what makes for a 'good' argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence."

And this is precisely part of Craig's problem. As I argued in my post Against the Gods, just because an argument is valid philosophically, and follows from it's premises, does not make it true. As even Craig says, the premise must have some solid evidence for it, and it naturally follows that if it doesn't, it should be discarded. Even Craig himself says,

But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true.

These are the very means by which I will demolish William Lane Craig's arguments.

1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

Craig begins this argument by saying:

The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Now this is a logically airtight argument. That is to say, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is unavoidable. It doesn’t matter if we don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if we have other objections to God’s existence. So long as we grant the three premises, we have to accept the conclusion. So the question is this: Which is more plausible—that those premises are true or that they are false?

He then attempts to justify the first premise, which is where things fall apart for Craig:

Consider first premise 1. According to premise 1, there are two kinds of things: things which exist necessarily and things which are produced by some external cause. Let me explain.

Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It’s impossible for them not to exist. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist necessarily.

By contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don’t exist necessarily. They exist contingently. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.

So premise 1 asserts that everything that exists can be explained in one of these two ways. This claim, when you reflect on it, seems very plausibly true. Imagine that you’re hiking through the woods and come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You’d naturally wonder how it came to be there. If one of your hiking partners said to you, “Don’t worry about it! There isn’t any explanation of its existence!”, you’d either think he was crazy or figure that he just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the suggestion that the ball existed there with literally no explanation.

According to modern physics, however things can seemingly happen without cause. There are several things we observe that appear to have no cause. For example, "[w]hen an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus." [1]

Craig goes on to discuss his other premises, but given the fact that either they require no comment or they hinge upon the first premise, I don't think I need to go through the others. I've taken the very legs of this argument out from under Craig.

I will, however, point out something he said in his conclusion:

From these three premises it follows that God exists. Now if God exists, the explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of his own nature, since, as even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to have a cause. So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This is truly astonishing! [emphasis mine]

Note the part of the quote I placed in italics. Craig, I feel, erects a strawman by arguing that atheists recognize "it’s impossible for God to have a cause." When have any atheists ever said such a thing? I certainly don't think this. And further more, I feel this statement about god not needing a cause is hypocritical because, as I noted in Against the Gods: "[Theologians] contradict themselves and claim their god is infinite and has always existed, though they can never articulate 'where' their god was or 'what' he was doing the eternity before he just happened to create this universe." How can their god not need a cause, but the universe must?!

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe

Craig presents this argument as follows:

Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Once we reach the conclusion that the universe has a cause, we can then analyze what properties such a cause must have and assess its theological significance.

Now again the argument is logically ironclad. So the only question is whether the two premises are more plausibly true than their denials.

As I will prove below, his premises are not true. I also must point out how slyly he sets up the argument. After he argues for his conclusion (that the universe has a cause) he wants to convince the reader that the cause must have the attributes of his christian god. How convenient. As I'll show later, even if the universe did have a cause there are plausible naturalistic scenarios that explain how it may have happened.

Craig attempts to justify his first premise:

Premise 1 seems obviously true—at the least, more so than its negation. First, it’s rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic. Second, if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it’s inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Third, premise 1 is constantly confirmed in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes.

Craig argued, "Third, premise 1 is constantly confirmed in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes."

As I noted in Craig's first argument, despite what we think happens is not always accurate. As I said, ideas must be tested, and things can seem to happen without cause.

Craig next explains his second premise:

Premise 2 can be supported both by philosophical argument and by scientific evidence. The philosophical arguments aim to show that there cannot have been an infinite regress of past events. In other words, the series of past events must be finite and have had a beginning. Some of these arguments try to show that it is impossible for an actually infinite number of things to exist; therefore, an infinite number of past events cannot exist. Others try to show that an actually infinite series of past events could never elapse; since the series of past events has obviously elapsed, the number of past events must be finite.

The scientific evidence for premise 2 is based on the expansion of the universe and the thermodynamic properties of the universe. According to the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe, physical space and time, along with all the matter and energy in the universe, came into being at a point in the past about 13.7 billion years ago (Fig. 1).


Figure 1: Geometrical Representation of Standard Model Space-Time. Space and time begin at the initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists.


What makes the Big Bang so amazing is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, “the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Of course, cosmologists have proposed alternative theories over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Their proof holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe, which still eludes scientists, and applies even to any wider multiverse of which our universe might be thought to be a part. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Moreover, in addition to the evidence based on the expansion of the universe, we have thermodynamic evidence for the beginning of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that in a finite amount of time, the universe will grind down to a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state. But if it has already existed for infinite time, the universe should now be in such a desolate condition. Scientists have therefore concluded that the universe must have begun to exist a finite time ago and is now in the process of winding down.

Again, as I've said already, just because Craig can't imagine an infinite universe doesn't mean it's impossible. Simply arguing that it's impossible without any proof is no argument. Second, Craig quotes Alexander Vilenkin from his 2006 book Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes and argues that because the universe cannot allegedly be past-eternal it implies a god, however, Vilenkin himself denies this interpretation just a few paragraphs after the statement quoted by Craig:

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God […] So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena’s remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of Creation. [2]

Furthermore, via email I contacted Victor Stenger and asked him about the quote. He then contacted Alexander Vilenkin and others about this claim by Craig. I feel very privileged to have had a very small part in the correspondence with these scientists. During the discussions Mr. Vilenkin explains how, yes, the theorem does prove that the universe had a beginning, however, this conclusion is not written in stone. Given various "subtleties" the theorem could be negated.

Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question,

Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?

Vilenkin replied,

No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.

Vilenkin added,

This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase. That is why Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen had to assume that the arrow of time changes at t = 0. This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe. [3]

In a follow up email to me Mr. Vilenkin made his position clearer,

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but..." So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

I further learned that the cyclic model of the universe (that I often propose by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, authors of Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang), according to Vilenkin, "cannot be a complete description of the universe" because "[i]n the model of Steinhardt and Turok, there are some particles whose histories can be extended to the infinite past. Such particles go through an infinite succession of expansion and contraction cycles. But, as our theorem requires, histories of most particles cannot be so extended and should reach the boundary beyond which the cyclic picture no longer applies." [3]

Despite this flaw in the theory I've often proposed, there are other scientists who posit that an eternal universe is possible, such as Anthony Aguirre whose theories seem compatible with Vilenkin's theorem. [4]

There are even perfectly natural scenarios for the creation of the universe. One such hypothesis is by Victor Stenger who proposes our universe came about by a process called quantum tunneling, which also takes into account an eternal past and future. [5]

After this failed attempt at disproving a possible eternal universe, Craig proposes that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents an eternal universe. He says,

Moreover, in addition to the evidence based on the expansion of the universe, we have thermodynamic evidence for the beginning of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that in a finite amount of time, the universe will grind down to a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state. But if it has already existed for infinite time, the universe should now be in such a desolate condition.

It's odd that Craig would cite the second law of thermodynamics to prove his point, but at the same time ignore the first law, which states that "energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed." [6] Given the first law, it would appear to demolish Craig's entire Kalam argument about the universe needing a "cause." Not that the above arguments I've presented thus far haven't done this already.

I asked Mr. Vilenkin about the second law of thermodynamics and whether or not it would prevent an eternal universe, and the short answer is no but here was his full answer to me:

It follows from the second law that the total entropy (which is the total amount of disorder) in the universe grows with time. This seems to imply that ordered systems, like living organisms, should gradually get extinct. However, the theory of inflation, which is now the leading cosmological paradigm, offers a way out of this conclusion.

This theory suggests that much of the universe is filled with peculiar high-energy stuff called "false vacuum", which causes the universe to expand at an extremely fast rate. Here and there, "normal" regions like ours are formed, where the false vacuum decays and its energy goes to produce a hot expanding fireball of matter and radiation. This explosive end of inflation is what we call the big bang. In this scenario, inflation is eternal, and big bangs will forever continue creating "pocket universes" like ours.

Now, how does this help with the second law argument? The amount of disorder in each pocket universe grows, and in any given region the stars die and all life forms get extinct, but new pocket universes are constantly being formed. So, at any time there are some new pocket universes which still have relatively low entropy. Their existence does not contradict the second law, since the number of high-entropy pockets grows with time. [7]

In his conclusion Craig states the following:

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that’s to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. (By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning.) By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

As I've shown, his god is clearly not the only way out of this "dilemma." Even the scientist and science he cites disagree with him about this. Instead of the solution having to be his god, as I noted above, even if created there are natural scenarios that are plausible and due to the lack of evidence for the supernatural, the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely. [8]

3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties

Craig sums up this argument thusly:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

As I've argued elsewhere, I do not see much of an objective morality in our world, but mostly a relative one. Relative to one's socialization, culture, time in which we live, etc. At one time, it was moral to own slaves; even christians justified it by citing the fall of man. Thomas Aquinas accepted slavery because we live in a fallen world, and because of this we must accept this injustice. [9]

This is a perfect example of my claim in my paper Against the Gods that just because all of your premises are true, it doesn't mean your conclusion is true, ie. god exists. This moral argument does nothing to prove god because there clearly is not any objective moral standard that we can call upon. I agree that most believe in doing the right thing and this is nearly universal, but this hardly points to a god. The argument fails because there has yet to be any evidence of a god, therefore, we can conclude that it was nature, ie. evolution and natural selection, that crafted our innate moral capacities in order to better survive in the world and in our formed communities.

Craig tackles the well-known Euthyphro Dilemma, but his argument is very weak; in my view completely unconvincing. In my opinion, Plato demolished the moral argument for god thousands of years ago and judging by one of the most skilled christian apologist's weak response to it, it seems that the Euthyphro Dilemma has yet to be solved.

Craig simply says,

The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God. [emphasis in original]

Craig continues,

So moral values are not independent of God because God’s own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard determining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect in turn his moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. The morally good/bad is determined by God’s nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by his will. God wills something because he is good, and something is right because God wills it.

God is simply "good" by nature, and therefore he wouldn't command anything immoral? Right. Is that why many people have claimed to hear god speak to them, and they then commit horrible atrocities? One example is Dena Schlosser, who chopped her baby's arms off because god supposedly told her to. [10]

Other than peoples' supposed experiences with god (which can said to be either good or bad, depending on who you ask. According to one person, god told them to help the poor, with another, god told someone to kill another, or chop their baby's arms off), where can we attempt to determine god's nature? Well, nature itself, and as even Darwin saw, was oftentimes cruel with animals killing other animals for food. Even though Darwin never actually used this phrase, nature truly is "red in tooth and claw."

Another source is the bible. Unfortunately, this source doesn't seem to help Craig either because throughout the bible god is reported to have ordered the killing of multitudes of people. Examples include Leviticus 10:1-3; Numbers 31: 1-35, where god orders the murder of thousands of Midianites; 1 Samuel 6:19, the murder of seventy people simply for looking at a chest (the Ark of the Lord); Deuteronomy13: 5, among other verses, speak of killing those who do not believe or try to turn others away from god. There are many other examples besides these in the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament, while god greatly mellows out during this time period, his earthly incarnation in Jesus (if you believe in the Trinity as Craig does) does not always put forth some moral or righteous teachings. For example, Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 14:26, and Luke 12:51-53 all speak of dividing family and friends and how "a man will find his enemies under his own roof." . In Matthew 10:24-25 and Luke 12:47 Jesus apparently has no problem with slavery, and in these two passages, Jesus not only thinks that slaves are never above their master, but in a parable Jesus recommended that a slave be "flogged severely" if they don't follow their master's wishes. So much for family values and equality!

So far we've looked at all the sources we can find in order to determine god's true nature, and in both cases - in nature and the bible - we've seen that god is not always good, and sometimes commands people to do things that are clearly immoral, such as murder. Furthermore, Craig simply states that god is good without any proof whatsoever. He simply proclaims this as a fact, but this obviously isn't a fact. Therefore, it is wholly illogical to offer the argument that god's nature is good against the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Even though morality is relative, it does not mean we can do whatever we wish. We still have a responsibility to our friends and family and there are various secular moral systems that have been developed throughout history that can guide us through this morally relative world.

After all, even religion's morality is relative. It's dependent upon god's commands (there's the Euthyphro Dilemma again), and even differing and the same religions (through it's various sects) are conflicted and disagree when it comes to moral choices, so it's obvious that religion does not solve the problem of morality or prove god exists since god has yet to be proven, and there are much more plausible naturalistic reasons for our relativistic morality: evolution. There is a growing body of research that points in this direction. [11]

However, some argue that this is proof of a moral sense installed by god, but again, where is the proof? There is proof that evolution and natural selection has acted upon species and there is evidence of a moral sense. There is no evidence of a god, therefore, I'd go with the explanation that has evidence for it every time.

Furthermore, ala Craig's supposed rebuttal to the Euthyphro Dilemma, if god's nature is all good, then why does our moral sense contain both compassionate and selfish behavior? If god is all good, then that stands to reason that god wouldn't have placed a selfish morality inside his creations; only one of total compassion for everyone and everything. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that natural selection crafted our innate moral sense and empathy, which isn't perfect and is combined with our less desirable traits.

In conclusion, judging by the evidence at hand, and logic, the moral argument for god does not stand up.

4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning

Craig begins his discussion of the "fine-tuning" of the universe with the following:

We now come to the teleological argument, or the argument for design. Although advocates of the so-called Intelligent Design movement have continued the tradition of focusing on examples of design in biological systems, the cutting edge of the contemporary discussion concerns the remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life.

Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist.23

For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123).”24 And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.

Craig is obviously talking about intelligent design here, but in the last paragraph quoted he seems to me to be trying to distance the intelligent design argument from its religious connotations by saying that fine-tuning doesn't mean "designed," even though that's exactly what he's doing.

He further said in the beginning of his discussion:

Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular).

So what is Craig trying to do here? Even in his "proof" below he argues that this "fine-tuning" is the result of "design" so is Craig contradicting himself? It seems that way to me.

If Craig is trying to distance this obviously religiously motivated argument (intelligent design) from religion it is futile since even one of the famed advocates of intelligent design, William Dembski, has stated the following making the intelligent design movement's true motives clear:

Where is the work on design heading? [...] [S]pecified complexity is starting to have an effect on the special sciences. [...]

[D]espite it's [...]implications for science, I regard the ultimate significance of this work to lie in metaphysics. [...]

The primary challenge, once the broader implications [...] for science have been worked out, is [...] to develop a relational ontology in which the problem of being resolves thus: to be is to be in communion, and to be in communion is to transmit and receive information. Such an ontology will [...] safeguard science and leave adequate breathing space for design, but [...] also make sense of the world as sacrament.

The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design [...] readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. (emphasis added) [12]

Craig lays out his argument:

Here, then, is a simple formulation of a teleological argument based on fine-tuning:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

As Craig has said many times now, in order for an argument to be valid, it's premises must all be shown to be true and the second premise has not been proven. How does Craig know it cannot be due to chance? Has he cited any evidence to that effect? Of course not.

The fact is, if one varies many of these numbers a universe still is possible:

"Physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which 'stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise.' Physicist Craig Hogan has done another independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions. And, theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in Japan have shown that heavy elements needed for life will be present in even the earliest stars independent of what the exact parameters for star formation may have been." [13]

According to Gordon L. Kane, and associates, "In string theories all of the parameters of the theory - in particular all quark and lepton masses, and all coupling strength - are calculable, so there are parameters left to allow anthropic arguments" [...] [14]

Even Stephen Hawking's more recent studies seem to cast doubt upon the fine-tuning argument. "He proposed that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the Anthropic Principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98 percent chance that a universe of a type as our own will come from the Big Bang. Further, using the basic wave function of the universe as a basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing." [emphasis in original] [15]

Let's look at one of the examples of "design" that Craig cites:

The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120.

However, according to Victor J. Stenger, it seems that the cosmological constant isn't "fine-tuned" at all:

For most of the twentieth century it was assumed that the cosmological constant was identically zero, although no known laws of physics specified this. At least no astronomical observations indicated otherwise. Then, in 1998, two independent groups studying supernovas in distant galaxies discovered, to their great surprise since they were looking for the opposite, that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. This result was soon confirmed by other observations, including those made with the Hubble Space Telescope.

The component of the universe responsible for the acceleration was dubbed dark energy. It constitutes 73 percent of the total mass of the universe. The natural assumption is to attribute the acceleration to the cosmological constant, and the data, so far, seem to support that interpretation.

Theorists had earlier attempted to calculate the cosmological constant from basic quantum physics. The result they obtained was 120 orders of magnitude larger than the maximum value obtained from astronomical observations.

Now this is indeed a problem. But it certainly does not imply that the cosmological constant has been fine-tuned by 120 orders of magnitude. What it implies is that physicists have made a stupid, dumb-ass, wrong calculation that has to be the worst calculation in physics history.

Clearly the cosmological constant is small, possibly even zero. This can happen any number of ways. If the early universe possessed, as many propose, a property called supersymmetry, then the cosmological constant would have been exactly zero at that time. It can be shown that if negative energy states, already present in the calculation for the cosmological constant, are not simply ignored but counted in the energy balance, then the cosmological constant will also be identically zero.

Other sources of cosmic acceleration have been proposed, such as a field of neutral material particles pervading the universe that has been dubbed quintessence. This field would have to have a negative pressure, but if it is sufficiently negative it will be gravitationally repulsive. [16]

Judging from this evidence, many parameters can be varied and a universe is still possible. Even if some of these universes did not result in our form of life, it is possible that another forms of intelligent life could flourish. After all, if the parameters were not as they were we wouldn't be here to discuss them anyhow! This hardly implies any sort of design.

Regardless, Craig attempts to back up his premises:

Premise 1 simply lists the three possibilities for explaining the presence of this amazing fine-tuning of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first alternative holds that there’s some unknown Theory of Everything (TOE) that would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe’s not being life-permitting. By contrast, the second alternative states that the fine-tuning is due entirely to chance. It’s just an accident that the universe is life-permitting, and we’re the lucky beneficiaries. The third alternative rejects both of these accounts in favor of an intelligent Mind behind the cosmos, who designed the universe to permit life. The question is this: Which of these alternatives is the best explanation?

Craig continues:

Premise 2 of the argument addresses that question. Consider the three alternatives. The first alternative, physical necessity, is extraordinarily implausible because, as we’ve seen, the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. So, for example, the most promising candidate for a TOE to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, fails to predict uniquely our universe. String theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different possible universes governed by the present laws of nature, so it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary. With respect to this first alternative, Dawkins notes that Sir Martin Rees rejects this explanation, and Dawkins says, “I think I agree.”

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they can’t be reasonably faced. Even though there will be a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Students or laymen who blithely assert, “It could have happened by chance!” simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives—for example, in order to explain how there came to be overnight a car in their driveway.

Again, just because something seems improbable doesn't make it so. After all, Craig is simply postulating an entity (god) that has no evidence going for it. Most of the "fine-tuning" has been shown to be false, or are misunderstandings. Due to my lack of knowledge of physics I will point the reader to other sources of information about more of these arguments. [17]

It seems that, according to the work by Victor Stenger, most of the fine-tuning is not that 'precise', unlike what Craig asserts.

After all, as Mr. Stenger noted in God: The Failed Hypothesis:

The anthropic argument for the existence of God can be turned on its head to provide an argument against the existence of God. If God created a universe with at least one major purpose being the development of human life, then it is reasonable to expect that the universe should be congenial to human life. Now, you might say that God may have had other purposes besides humanity. [...] [A]pologists can always invent a god for whom humanity is not very high on the agenda and who put us off in a minuscule, obscure corner of the universe. However, this is not the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, who places great value on the human being and supposedly created us in his image. Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?

If the universe were congenial to human life, then you would expect it to be easy for humanlife life to develop and survive throughout the universe. [18]

The rest of this section critiques arguments by Richard Dawkins (this article was originally a critique of some of Richard Dawkins' arguments in his 2006 book The God Delusion) and various other theories of the universe, such as the oscillating model of the universe and Lee Smolin’s evolutionary cosmology.

Again, due to my lack of in-depth knowledge of these theories I won't attempt to address Craig's claims, however, he does make an obvious mistake when critiquing the oscillating model of the universe.

Craig says,

Dawkins is apparently unaware of the many difficulties of oscillatory models of the universe that have made contemporary cosmologists skeptical of them. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, some theorists proposed oscillating models of the universe in an attempt to avert the initial singularity predicted by the Standard Model. The prospects of such models were severely dimmed in 1970, however, by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking’s formulation of the singularity theorems that bear their names. The theorems disclosed that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable. Since it’s impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems implied the absolute beginning of the universe. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems “led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.”

As Victor Stenger has pointed out more than once, this is a classic mistake that has been made by Craig for quite some time. Hawking and Penrose's theory did not prove that there was a beginning or singularity when quantum mechanics is taken into account:

Hawking has repudiated his own earlier proof. In his best seller A Brief History of Time, he avers, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." This revised conclusion, concurred by Penrose, follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity. Quantum mechanics, which also is now confirmed to great precision, tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, must break down at times less than the Planck time and at distances smaller than the Planck length [...] It follows that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time and that Craig's use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid. [19]

In his book The New Atheism Victor Stenger says:

Although the [argument from intelligent design by way of the biological sciences] has received greater public attention, more science-savvy theologians agree with most scientists that intelligent design, at least as it has been formulated so far, is a failure. Theologians are far more impressed by the fine-tuning argument [...] [20]

I firmly believe that as time goes on, just as with the science of evolution, these fine-tuning arguments will be seen as just as absurd as most claims of biological design are now as we gain more and more knowledge about our universe.

5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality

As I noted in my paper Against the Gods, I feel that the Ontological arguments do absolutely nothing to prove god, or even show through some form of logic that god exists but I will do my best to show that this argument, too, is illogical.

Craig makes use of Alvin Plantinga's version of the Ontological argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Later on Craig argues,

The concept of a married bachelor is not a strictly self-contradictory concept (as is the concept of a married unmarried man), and yet it is obvious, once one understands the meaning of the words “married” and “bachelor,” that nothing corresponding to that concept can exist. By contrast, the concept of a maximally great being doesn’t seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima facie warrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.

I agree that the argument itself is sound if you accept that a great being exists, however, is the conclusion true? Is the premise even true? I'd say the premise, that it's possible that a maximally great being exists, could be true however what evidence is there for one? Plantinga seems to be begging the question here because he uses the term "possible" in his premise, but then assumes god's reality as a fact in his conclusion! Also, doesn't a premise have to be shown to be true before the conclusion can be shown to be true?!

Even earlier Craig himself stated,

But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one.

There are also more in depth rebuttals to this argument, such as one by Darrin at Debunking Christianity [21]

So far, Craig's other arguments have been found to be flawed so what are the chances that this form of mental gymnastics is even remotely true, and describes the real world? Slim to none.

In Craig's conclusion he says,

We’ve examined five traditional arguments for the existence of God in light of modern philosophy, science, and mathematics:

1. the cosmological argument from contingency
2. the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
3. the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
4. the teleological argument from fine-tuning
5. the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality

These are, I believe, good arguments for God’s existence. That is to say, they are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations. Therefore, insofar as we are rational people, we should embrace their conclusions. Much more remains to be said and has been said. I refer you to the works cited in the footnotes and bibliography, should you wish to explore further. But I trust that enough has been said here to show that the traditional theistic arguments remain unscathed by the objections raised by the likes of New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins.

I agree that Richard Dawkins did not do the best when critiquing all of the arguments for god, however, I don't think he did as bad as Craig asserts. After all, as I've shown, Craig himself made many logical and factual errors and since "we are rational people" then it follows that Craig's arguments for god are wrong and we should embrace the conclusion that these arguments do nothing to prove god exists.

Conclusion

I fully believe that I've (for the most part) thoroughly refuted William Lane Craig's arguments for god. The only set of arguments I feel I did not do the best on were the Teleological and Ontological arguments, which I admit are a bit out of my range of expertise, though I referred the reader to other, more reliable, sources on the problems with these particular arguments.

As I said at the end of the last section, due to Craig's many factual and logical errors it is incumbent upon any rational person to embrace the conclusion that if these arguments are seen to be faulty then it stands to reason that there is no evidence of god's existence. Given this fact, it shouldn't take much for a rational individual to further conclude that god is most likely non-existent.

Note: A christian who is obviously a fanboy of Craig’s seems to have taken offense at the fact that I demolished his idol’s arguments and tried his hand at refuting my counter-arguments. Though, as I show here and here, his attempts failed miserably, and he ended up putting his foot in his mouth several times, and completely misread and ignored much of what I had said throughout our discussions. This shows me that instead of wishing to deal with many of my arguments outright his true motive was to defend his idol William Lane Craig at all costs. Even if it means ignoring facts and arguments and completely misrepresenting what someone says.

Footnotes

1. God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2007; 124

2. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, by Alexander Vilenkin, Hill & Wang, 2006; 176-177

3. These email exchanges (at least the ones I was privy to) took place between 5-20-10 and 5-24-10 and are used with permission.

4. Two papers by Aguire that present his theories are:

Eternal Inflation, past and future, by Anthony Aguirre

Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal, by Anthony Aguirre - A huge thanks goes to Victor Stenger for emailing these two papers to me.

5. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Book, 2009; 171

6. First law of thermodynamics - accessed 5-23-10

7. Personal communication via email with Mr. Vilenkin, dated 5-23-10

8. Please read my two posts, Evidence Against the Supernatural, Parts One and Two

9. Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World, by David Brion Davis, Oxford University Press, 2006; 55

10. Dena Schlosser on Wikipedia.org - accessed 5-24-10

11. Babies Provide More Evidence of Humans' Innate Morality

12. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, by Barbara Forrest & Paul A. Gross, Oxford University Press, 2004; 260-261

The following post also exposes the dishonesty and religious motivations of those who advocate intelligent design: Creationism's Trojan Horse with Barbara Forrest

Here is another good post: NCSE Video Exposes Intelligent Design

13. God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger. Prometheus Books, 2007; 148-149

14. Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?, by David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 2008; 272

15. Ibid.; 272

16. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2009; 95-96

17. Two books by Victor J. Stenger that address several of the fine-tuning arguments are : The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason and God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. I should note, too, that currently Mr. Stenger is working on a book as of this writing solely addressing the fine-tuning arguments. Keep an eye out for it.

18. God: The Failed Hypothesis; 154

19. Ibid.; 122

20. The New Atheism; 88

21. On Plantinga's Ontological Argument - accessed 5-25-10

William Lane Craig's Arguments for God Refuted

My Blog Post is Featured in the 142ed Carnival of the Godless

My post exposing the historical inaccuracies of apologists who argue that atheism played a role in the Communist atrocities has been accepted into this week's Carnival.

Go check it out, and all the other excellent posts!

My Blog Post is Featured in the 142ed Carnival of the Godless

The Power of Science, Part 8

From singularityhub.com I found a fascinating article about the growing of organs in the lab. Another case of science helping man immensely, while religions' unanswered prayers do nothing.

Growing Organs in the Lab
June 8th, 2009 by Drew Halley

This research isn’t something that might happen in the distant future. It’s being used today to grow fresh organs, open up new ways to study disease and the immune system, and reduce the need for organ transplants. Organ-farming laboratories are popping up across the planet, and showing impressive results. Here we look at the state of the union of a rapidly advancing field called tissue engineering: what’s been accomplished so far, and what’s right around the corner.

Patients who undergo organ transplants require loads of toxic drugs to suppress their immune systems; otherwise their body might reject the organ. But tissue engineering could make organ transplants a thing of the past. By using a patient’s cells to grow new types of tissue in the lab, researchers are finding new ways to custom-engineer you new body parts by using your own cells.

At the cutting edge of organ engineering is Tengion, a clinical-stage biotech company based outside of Philadelphia. Their most successful research to date led to the creation of the Neo-Bladder. Tengion takes some of your cells and grows them in culture for five to seven weeks around a biodegradable scaffold. When the organ is ready, it can be transplanted without the need to suppress the patient’s immune system (because the organ was grown from the patient’s own cells, it carries no risk of rejection). Once the organ is in, the scaffold degrades and the bladder adapts to its new (old) home.

The Tengion Neo-Bladder is in Phase II testing, meaning that they have already implanted the organ into individuals and studied how the body adapts to it. After 5 years, the company was able to show that the homegrown organs are safe and effective, capable of treating the bladder effects of spina bifida (a neural tube defect that effects bladder function, among other things). After another round of Phase II trials, Tengion will move on to Phase III testing; after that, the Neo-Bladder should be approved and be made commercially available.

Tengion’s Neo-bladder is nearing the completion of its clinical trials, but they weren’t the first to grow one. If anyone on Earth deserves the job title “Organ Farmer,” it’s Dr. Anthony Atala. He and his research team at Wake Forest University Medical Center pioneered the world’s first lab-grown bladder, and they remain at the forefront of the organ-growing field (Atala is also the chairman of Tengion’s scientific advisory board). Wake Forest is the world’s largest regenerative medicine research center, and their current research is growing 22 different types of tissue: heart valves, muscle cells, arteries, and even fingers.

So how many different types of human organs have been grown and transplanted? The lab-grown bladders are among the only transplants of an entire organ, but a wide variety of partial organ transplants have taken place. Skin cells are regularly grown in culture and grafted onto patients’ bodies. A graft was grown from a patient’s trachea cells and transplanted to replace part of her airway that had degraded due to disease. Cartilage has been grown and transplanted into a patient’s knee.

A number of technologies are under development but have yet to be transplanted into human bodies. Recently, Dr. Nicholas Kotov and his lab at the University of Michigan have engineered artificial bone marrow, a task that was previously doomed to failure. Kotov and his colleagues realized that in the body, stem cell differentiation relies on chemical signals in three dimensions (whereas in a petri dish, it takes place in two dimensions). This insight led to a new methodology that more closely replicated the natural environment of stem cell differentiation in bone marrow tissue. The resultant homegrown marrow grew and divided normally, even releasing antibodies in fight off an introduced influenza strain. It can be used to study the role of bone marrow in fighting disease within the body, as well as creating a “bioreactor”: harnessing the artificial marrow within a device to grow cells and tissues.

Tengion is pretty busy these days as well. Their new website lists a variety of new applications on the horizon, including a Neo-Kidney augment, artery replacements (including in the heart), and variations on their bladder technique to replace cancerous organs. Their company pipeline gives a general idea of the relative stages of each project.

A number of initiatives are under way to create an artificial pancreas, which would revolutionize the way we treat diabetes. By providing diabetics with a healthy pancreas, doctors could restore their natural control of blood glucose by giving them an endogenous source of insulin. Anyone with experience of diabetes knows the difficulty of manually monitoring and controlling your sugar levels, not to mention regularly injecting insulin. A lab-grown pancreas replacement would be an incredible benefit to the 23.6 million individuals in America alone who suffer from diabetes.

As we previously reported, researchers at the University of Minnesota grew an entire rat heart in a laboratory last year. Their next goal is to grow a pig heart, a significant milestone towards growing a human heart due to their similar structure. Researchers hope to combine the scaffold of a pig heart with human cardiac tissue to grow a hybrid heart suitable for transplant.

Another exciting frontier is the field of printable tissue and organs, which is just what it sounds like. Inkjet cartidges are cleaned out and loaded with a mixture of live human cells and “smart gel.” Then, layer by layer, the cells are printed atop one another until a 3D organ is constructed. Just as a normal printer can deposit different colored ink, organ printing allows scientists to specify where to place different cell types. Organ printing has already created beating cardiac cells, and could soon produce organs that are viable for transplant. But unlike other 3D printers, I wouldn’t want this one in my living room.

The hottest areas in tissue growth are the types hardest to make: nerve, liver, kidney, heart and pancreas cells. But these are precisely where Alata and Tengion are heading, pushing the industry into fresh territory. Coupled with new regenerative treatments like Cook biotech’s foams and stem-cell organ patching, tissue engineering will be keeping our organs young and healthy in the years to come.

Merely a decade ago, tissue engineering was still a new field that struggled to find funding and support. Today, thousands of scientists worldwide are coordinating efforts to reach new breakthroughs, and the demonstrated potential of these methods has helped bring in investors. That should keep the organ growing field moving forward in the future months and years, and we’ll be covering new advances as they emerge.

Check out this Wired Science video that tours around Atala’s lab:



See also, The Power of Science, Part 7

The Power of Science, Part 8

PRIME REVISITED (Science Lends a Helping Hand), by Bob Clapp

Bob's concept of Prime has been one of the most misunderstood concepts. It even took me a few months to "get it" and that was after long discussions during my weight training sessions. But one day it just hit me and I think I have a full understanding now, which I've tried to explain before, but I guess some people just don't get it. I even tried to be as clear as possible and people accuse me of thinking that all people aren't connected and should simply live isolated. Where in the hell have I ever said that?! My guess is that some people have just looked at the title of Bob's book, Every Man and Woman an Island and concluded that we must all live out our lives separately. My entire point is explaining how people should live given this view of the world; this first principle.

Since he is the one who developed this idea to begin with I've decided to post his explanation of Prime from his most recent blog post.

Finally, I apologize for the formatting. I copied the post from a PDF document and I tried to clean up the HTML but it wasn't helping much. It's still a good read nonetheless.



My book, EVERY MAN AND WOMAN AN ISLAND, The Individual Human Being As Prime In The Universe, published 2004 is an all-embracing philosophy of human existence. It is complete, and I do not intend to rewrite or revise it in any fundamental way. However, any philosophy worth a dime has a first principle upon which all the rest is founded, and I have one: PRIME (In the book is also referred to as “Womb To Tomb”). It is Chapter Two in the book. Though it requires no changes, the past five years of “feedback” have demonstrated a need for additional “clarity.”

Reader response has proven that of all the subjects covered in the book, it remains confusing to (not me or those who do get it) far too many readers. If the under pinning of the book is wobbly, the entire book is at “risk.” Consequently, I’m
mandated to write a review of PRIME. Extra attention is especially given to new views of science.

Due to shared philosophic positions with PRIME renewed mention is given to Cartesian views, Solipsism, as well as the recent development of BIOCENTRISM. This is not to critique the differences among them, but to illustrate their similarities. Fundamentally I find them eerily alike with differences not much more than mincing words.

Even more striking, all of them stand true when subjected to the same infallible proof used to give truth to PRIME. Cartesianism and Solipsism are historically old. PRIME and BIOCENTRISM are relatively new. Biocentrism is not only new, but is uniquely supported by much of mainstream science and logic. (For example, Quantum Physics and the work of Robert Lanza and Bob Berman; Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner.)

While I have several disagreements with the writer-novelist Ayn Rand, the quote below is not one of them. With it I couldn’t agree more,

If life can have a ‘theme song’—and I believe every worthwhile one
has--mine is—an obsession or a mania—expressed in one word:
Individualism.

In fact my philosophy PRIME agrees more with that quote than does her philosophy
OBJECTIVISM. So here is my “dictionary” definition of PRIME that I accept as a
denotative definition—a great place to begin,

PRIME; First in time. First in existence. First in quality. First in rank, degree, influence, importance, and value. The basis of reality. The beginning of anything.

Borrowing from scripture, “There shall be no gods before me.”

Metaphysics is defined in the original Greek as “that which comes after physics.” Today it is used for almost anything someone thinks he/she knows or believes about the universe. It is such a mess today that “metaphysically” knowing something includes politics, education, business, the common cold, ad nauseum. Of course most of it is nonsense. Factually metaphysics is “existence” and “consciousness of mortality.” Theories founded on the world of “matter” fail to explain anything about “life”, and even less about “consciousness”, even the best of physicists are impotent. At best they can only explain the science of Einstein and Newton. Only the biological sciences continue to add to human knowledge about life and consciousness, with the possible exception of Quantum Physics.

I believe that PRIME offers the best explanation (provable) of consciousness. This
includes the fact that individual human beings are each of them is a one of a kind event— that includes life and consciousness in finality. In any meaningful way Metaphysics is no more than the fact of self-awareness and time for A individual human being.

Such lunacy as “God Made It” is the madness that even science uses, too often, when it can’t, at the time “explain” something. The failure spews from the fact that modern science fails when it attempts to explain how consciousness “came” from matter! Time, Matter, and Mortality are extant only in relation to A individual human being, or as Ayn Rand once remarked, “When I die the world will simply cease to exist.”

I have an argument to make, and it’s a new one. I shall explore this argument and a few others similar to mine. But, I want one perspective made very clear: From PRIME’S
position, a true metaphysics must subsume science, the scientific method, and formal
logic. It must make an observation about events and phenomena about the known world. It must formulate a statement about those events. It must form a proof about the empirical facts of cause and effect. It must form a hypothesis and then validate it against both experiment and formal logic. If such examination supports the statement, one can then conclude a theory, perhaps a law, from such verification.

At present there are four philosophies, metaphysics if you will, that hold life and consciousness as foundational to that philosophy,

1. PRIME (Me)
2. SOLIPSISM (Anyone)
3. CARTESIANISM (Many others in this camp)
4. BIOCENTRISM (Robert Lanza, Bruce Rosenblum, and I’m sure many others beyond my ken)

The following is a very brief explanation or definition of each of them to the best of my intellectual ability,

1. PRIME: already defined with more irrefutable, immutable, and infallible truth to come.

2. SOLIPSISM: The claim that ALL is one; there is a universal consciousness. Claims that only my mind exists. Anything else about life and matter comes
solely from my mental state. Alludes to the argument by analogy to explain
The idea of “others”.

3. CARTESIANISM: There is no proof to any link between mind and body. The only certainty is what I know in my own mind. In his words “I think, therefore I am.” His greatest error, like so many during his time was the final belief of a
god. Virtually none of these guys were avowed atheists!

4. BIOCENTRISM: Here I must be careful; when it comes to science these guys have no peers. So throughout the remainder of this paper, I shall primarily use quoted material—allowing their words to speak for them. Here’s a beginning quote called First Principle:

“What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.”

May I say that, so far, PRIME could never agree more except for two crucial changes---Replace the plural pronouns we and our with the singular pronouns I and my. Now, I’m fully aware of the massive intelligence of these guys, but with all the respect I can muster, they still cannot infallibly prove more than A individual human being. It’s the Achilles Heel of ALL the scientists and philosophers whoever graced the universe with their wisdom. They know it too, and that’s why they expend so much effort “bad mouthing” Solipsism that also knows the truth of one.

Before going even one word further, I must brutally and briefly “kill” god, or as Richard Dawkins put it “Go just one god further.” I’ve included an extensive essay on Theism in my blog. I’ve dealt with it in portions of my book. I’ve read the fantastic books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others. All of them brilliant, all of them too long. Such a malicious and malignant paradigm deserves a speedy death. So, here’s my lickety-split homicide.

ALL theists are linguistic thieves. They have no language other than words stolen from Hominid evolution. It belongs to earthbound human beings from prehistoric
hieroglyphics to Webster’s great books. By all counts they should remain mute. Their
greatest semanticide is the bastardization of the words: omniscient, omnipotent, and
omnipresent—that their god is ALL GOOD, ALL PRESENT, and ALL POWERFUL. As language thieves they must live by human beings’ definitions.

So, I drop the linguistic guillotine: Anything that is ALL GOOD AND ALL
POWERFUL would never, could never, practice infanticide, genocide, torture, or any act of evil by definition! That ends the discussion. Anyone who believes otherwise is a thief, a liar, a coward, and a murderer by word or deed! All that is bound between covers belongs to humanity, not divinity.

Now for some history of metaphysics. (I believe the concept to be virtually synonymous with philosophy.) This history includes Plato’s belief about “permanent ideas and forms” that exist in a physical world but are illusory along with the ideas of Aristotle who rejected such dualism in favor of an objective, material word. It can be comprehended and given identify through, reason, but where “mind” doesn’t necessarily exist.

Between these two disparate positions are a host of philosophers: Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Bacon, Locke, etc. who wrote tomes of hairsplitting orthodoxies and wordmincing ideologies. When push comes to shove and I must pick a definition of metaphysics and philosophy, I refer the reader to the definition in Webster’s Universal Unabridged Dictionary,

The branch of philosophy that deals with first principles to explain the nature of being, reality [and I add consciousness]

In my case that’s PRIME, yet to be fully developed. In the case of BIOCENTRISM in its words,

…no independent universe outside of biological existence…But the truth
is we are absolutely necessary for the rainbows existence. When nobody’s
there, there is simply no rainbow.

Again I submit that BIOCENTRISM, SOLIPSISM, and PRIME are by almost any
rationalization “peas in a pod.” In the quote above all I need to make it a synonym for PRIME is to replace the plural pronoun “we” with the singular pronoun I and the verb “are” with am.

Witness the Second Principle of BIOCENTRISM,

Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be separated.

Again PRIME is in 99% agreement. Soon to be understood that the 1% difference is the
need for an infallible proof. Hint: Such a proof CANNOT be crafted in the
plural only in the singular. This problem remains endemic throughout BIOCENTRISM.

To settle another problem for my book, “epistemology” must be subsumed equally with
metaphysics. That is the “how I know” about a first principle is integrated equally with the “what I know.” Both of them, along with science, are as intertwined as the double helix of each individual’s DNA.

BIOCENTRISM explains it this way,

This is the underlying problem: We have ignored a critical component of the cosmos, shunted it out of the way because we didn’t know what to do with it.
This component is consciousness.

Surely, its “what” was known “screwed up” the “how” they dealt with it. PRIME takes
that leap—The component is not simply consciousness; it’s the consciousness of the
INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING. I have called it the Law of Singular Existence; hence
PRIME. BIOCENTRISM clearly alludes to this conclusion,

…most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one
crucial factor: We are creating them.

Wow! Just how close can it get and still miss the bull’s eye? Replace the word “we” with I and the verb “are” with am –Wella! “I am creating them.” Now one can infallibly prove the only thing infallibly true the existence of A individual human being: Everything is here while I am here, and everything is gone when I am not here; hence WOMB TO TOMB; hence PRIME.

Please believe me when I say that I stand in awe of such scientists as Robert Lanza. So it is with much nervousness that I write, what prevents them from accepting my first principle: The Individual Human Being as PRIME In The Universe? Surely the proof is unerring.

BIOCENTRISM’S Fifth Principle admits to my PRIME in its last word.

…the universe is fine tuned, for life, which makes perfect sense as life
creates the universe, not the other way around. The universe is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of SELF. (Emphasis mine.)

To remain logically consistent, as far as I can see “self” is a form-fitting synonym for
PRIME.
The Individual Human Being in a unique way: To be infallibly true by just being and
infallibly impossible to be proven false again by just being. Especially true against
Wittgenstein’s “Argument From Analogy—linguistically proves ‘other’ minds.” I ask,
“How do those words identify others before coming from an individual tongue is surely a tongue twister to me!” Using BIOCENTRISM’S words, with precision expose such
dualistic nonsense,

Constructing a credible alternative is to question the standard view if it Were empty of life…this is one of the central themes of BIOCENTRISM: That the animal observer creates reality and not the other way round.

and surely this is true for the supposed words that, by black magic, come before
A Individual.

To make PRIME intelligible and unmistakably clear requires a summary of two
diametrically opposed paradigms of ontology that subsume all other divergent versions of one side or the other of those ontologies. Such examples bring memory of the great debates between Plato and Aristotle; Locke and Hume; Kant and Rand; and in their way between science and religion. Those two unique ontologies are OBJECTIVE AND
SUBJECTIVE. The objective view, albeit Aristotle, Locke, Rand, etc. saw existence as
that which is outside the mind and outside the need for a viewer or consciousness. The subjective view albeit Plato, Berkeley, Hume, etc. requires a viewer and consciousness.

If the reader wonders where BIOCENTRISM fits, consider the following quote,

And if any of this seems too preposterous, just consider the alternative,
which is what contemporary science asks us to believe: that the entire universe, exquisitely tailored for our existence, popped into existence out of absolute nothingness. Who in their right mind would accept such a thing?

Except for a pronoun or two it sure sounds like an immutable defense for PRIME. To me, these obscure differences among these lesser ontologies integrated within those larger two—subjective and objective—are dialectical debate at best and polemical rhetoric at worst. Let me happily say that after all my years of wrestling with this stuff, it sure was an intellectual pleasure to have stumbled on to BIOCENTRISM, which I greedily accept as scientific support when presenting and clarifying PRIME.

Excluding the infallible nature of PRIME, the best of subjective and objective arguments are valid or invalid due to how a proponent or opponent frames the logic. Take the example of inductive reasoning: all that need be presented is just one negative instance and the argument is nullified, whether there be tens of thousands of positive examples. The absolute inability of there every being a negative instance against PRIME is one of the most powerful proofs of its truth. Another is the absolute inability of positive instance that could replace PRIME. More proof of these insertions will soon follow.

To make the nature of the subject we a little less murky, logic’s quagmire is anything but clear. If that cognitive itch you wish to scratch is best relieved by “I think therefore I am” then always scratch with a subjective brush. However, if your itch is best relieved by “I am therefore I think” then your brush should be objective. Feel free to indulge any of the “lesser” ontologies that fit under either objective or subjective.

This obvious mish-mash is more than facetious metaphor; it’s fact. Throughout history it appears in many mercurial archetypes: Consciousness vs. Existence; Naturalism vs. Idealism; Materialism vs. Immaterialism; Metaphysics vs. Quantum Physics, etc. Those scholars dubbed “giants” of Western Civilization champion one or another of them. In condensed form these so-called “truths” of these so-called “giants” read as follows,

1. The world is without matter. The universe is nothing but the sequence of thoughts that come to me.

2. The nature of the universe is dependent on matter. Matter is the only existent.

3. The most important facts of reality are understood by mind, soul and spirit.

4. Reality is only what the sciences can understand with no supernatural forces at work.

5. Trees fall and make noise.

6. Trees fall and make no noise without ears to hear.

All available integers and words in the world could not be exhausted when trying to
enumerate and elucidate these polar opposites. With today’s movies like the Matrix, people are entertained by the surreal possibilities for “creating” reality to their personal liking. It’s hardly new; it goes back to 1641 and Descartes’ Meditation. It’s a dualism; a debate over whether the “mind” is distinctly separate from the “brain.” This is another fascinating way to contrast existence with consciousness, matter with spirit. Today the popularity of this argument is among the broader, non-academic public. It has greatly diminished among scientific scholars—a good thing. It’s just a little less crap stunting Homo sapiens’ evolution. Modern science (particularly molecular biology and microcosmic computer technology has accepted, but not conclusively proven, that mind and brain are the same thing and made of matter. Science hypothesizes that only material “stuff” exists—the stuff of most physics and chemistry. In other words, all phenomena that humans call consciousness are simply yet unexplained physical effects of the brain’s activity. Personally, I do accept such a contention for the world of matter, but not that it’s first. The answer to “First” is only understood through PRIME and, with modification, BIOCENTRISM.

The diminishing yet still persuasive cognition of subjective empiricism is the residual nonsense of philosophers like Berkeley and Hume. It’s the nonsense that the senses gather stimuli from the world, then somehow arbitrarily shunt it to the mind and manipulate it in ad lib fashion to create an inner world of imagined objects about the external world. Hume found the notion of “physical matter” as fundamental elements of the universe ridiculous and unintelligible. He states, “The idea of a substance must be derived from an impression that devolved into our emotions.” None of which can possibly represent matter. He further believed that when we look at what is called matter, it is self-evidently wrong to claim that it’s something that can exist apart from the perception of the viewer. Berkeley was even more dogmatic. He believed that there is no such entity as a physical world, or matter that is in the sense of an independent existent. He held that what we call physical objects are actually formations of the mind. In other words, a “table” is simply a set of perceptions that we have if we touch, look, or smell, etc. All that we can know about objects is solely the perceptions (ideas) that we make of such concretes.

Now to two more of these modern intellectual giants who keep this battle going. Both
believe that a universe of matter (physical existents) is, not withstanding a viewer. The most recent one is Daniel C. Dennett author of Consciousness Explained. He uses Darwinian evolution and molecular biology to build an edifice for materialism so strong; you are virtually forced into agreement. He states:

The design of our conscious minds is the result of three successive evolutionary processes, piled on top of each other, each are vastly swifter and more powerful than its predecessor—In the beginning were no reasons; there were only causes. Nothing had purpose—there was no teleology in the world—But after millennia there
happened to emerge simple replicators—to replicate, they avoid the bad things—that is to say it creates a point of view—The first problem faced was to learn how to recognize and act on reasons that their very existence brought into view. (Emphasis mine)

Combining the grand design of Darwin with the pinpoint science of Richard Dawkins, he
throws Plato, Berkeley, Hume, Descartes, et al. out of philosophy and science and onto the historical trash heap of fiction.

Yet, just as it seems time to concede reality to genes and memes, Berkeley, Hume and
recently BIOCENTRISM bring us back to us.

It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that horses,
mountains, mules, and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding.

They conclude that such objectivity involves an obvious contradiction,

For, what are the fore mentioned objects, but things we perceive by sense? And what do we perceive besides our own ideas and sensations? And is it not plainly repugnant that anyone of these, or any combination of them should exist unperceived?

Hence, how can a giant redwood exist and yet be unperceived, they question, when the
very tree I am describing is my perception of that tree? In unavoidable conclusions,
therefore, it is not possible for my perception of the tree to be unperceived by me. With, what appears to be impeccable logic and irresistible skepticism, they bring the temple of omnipotent matter down,

For how can it be known that the things which one perceived are conformable to those which are not perceived, or exist without mind?

Well, there is just as impeccable and irresistible logic for the other side. (The perceptive reader is surely ahead of me and realizes this is the ultimate tit-for-tat riddle, with no solution possible.) However, I must go over it so when I present my infallible position, which doesn’t solve it, but does give a true first position, this “chicken and egg” nonsense is then behind us. Mr. Dennett is the penultimate mix of scientist-philosopher or philosopher-scientist. A scholar with strong philosophical beliefs who is also at home among test tubes, microscopes, and advanced computer technology. On the other hand his right hand woman in this conundrum, teaches like Socrates—with an attitude! For Ayn Rand no slide rules, genes, or memes are required. For her an electrifying cerebracortex is all it takes to make the case for existence first, or to destroy other vaporous consciousness arguments. She’s all about “smash mouth” cognition! This attitude resounds in her lines,

Man’s life, as required by nature, is not the life of a mindless brute,
of a looting thug, or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—rational being—there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: Reason.

She uses logic and reasoning as if they were bloodletting weapons. Bluntly she
commands,

Existence exists! If nothing exists there can be no consciousness—a
consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness—existence is an irreducible primary.

As will soon be clear, unlike all the others in this debate-war, she almost anticipates my position on PRIMACY, when she states, “The first and primary axiomatic concept is existence, identity—There is nothing antecedent to it,” and “an axiom [PRIME to me] is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.” Yet, she still missed it. As I will show, she needed to reduce one more step for that irreducible first position of undefined identity. I will present a proof for PRIMACY that is absolute in conclusion and for which no negative instance can ever be given.

In the book’s last chapter, a case will be made that would render all philosophic debate about “consciousness and existence” silly. It’s not that one side will be victorious. It’s because Homo sapiens will become immortal with no more need to ask such egghead questions. It will be a victory for PRIME, as philosophy is wedded to modern computer technology and nanotechnology. While I understand his reasoning, I strongly disagree with Stephen Hawking when he writes, “The people whose business it is to ask the question why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories.” His mistake is to only refer to conventional philosophy—long dead guys like Aristotle or Kant as such “thinkers,” or a few contemporary ones like Wittgenstein. I feel presumptuous doing so, but I suggest Mr. Hawking refer to that “new” breed of philosopher like Daniel C. Dennett, Ray Kurzweil, Richard Dawkins, Hans Morvec, etc. They represent the new philosophy from that nexus mentioned above between carbon cognition and the silicon world. Yet, while that time is coming (actually quite close), when Homo sapiens finally cast god and state into the pit of historical blunders; it is not inevitable. Statists, theists and Luddites are maniacal foes; they would prefer a cataclysmic suicide of our species to any change to their mystical dogmas. There will be a brutal war to keep all paradigms of reality rooted and reducible to PRIME. All such existents, entities and resulting actions that conceptualize such paradigms of reality and root to PRIME will receive fanatical and violent resistance.

To fairly and honestly set the stage for formal presentation of my ontology—PRIME, it
needs to be crystal clear what it is not! It is not a twisted rehash of Cartesian metaphysics; not another mind-body fantasy; not a fanciful idealism-materialism. It is not Bishop Berkeley revisited where some cerebral vapors rearrange the furniture. And, may I never have to say it again, usually to a philosophy major that has burned too much midnight oil for some multiple choice test, it is not “Solipsism!” This subjective idealism, which teaches that all existence is nothing but the viewer and his or her observations; is a universe that eliminates everything but my ideas. While my metaphysics embraces much of this view, it uniquely differs in two infinitely important ways. First, my PRIME only admits absolutism to A individual human being, not just any number of individuals or their “ideas.” Second, and of infinite importance, Solipsism never built paradigmatic concretes (Ethics, Justice, Economics, etc.) that were axiomatic birthrights subsumed by a first principle. My PRIME meets that mandate.

Therefore, in summation there are historically only two central metaphysical archetypes that integrate all variations of them, including Solipsism, Materialism and Idealism. All equally since defined as Objectivism and Subjectivism. Materialism and Objectivism fundamentally teach that existence and consciousness can only be explained and understood in terms of matter that exists outside of human consciousness. Idealism and Subjectivism teach that the world of matter either can’t be directly known or only exists by the “creations” of the human mind. The most significant concept to grasp is that neither one of these historical viewpoints can be proved or disproved with finality. Both are dependent upon the well-chosen logic of its semantical constructs. So it eternally appears that anyone asking “why?” or “how?” about the cosmos, etc. must choose the materials world—object—or the inside world of consciousness—subject.

Two final comments before formally presenting PRIME as infallible fact with no
possibility of disproof or proof to the contrary. It will synthesize existence and
consciousness and end their ageless debate. But first that final comment: How to deal
with God, religion, theism, mysticism, church, faith, divinity, creationism, creeds, canon, dogma, commandments, theology, ad nauseum-infinitum without wasting time and space. Though I cover them elsewhere in the book to present their historical origins—Hominid fears that captured them when that evolving cerebral cortex allowed them to see what no other life form ever sees—their own existence and their own mortality. To save that valuable time and space I present the following anecdote,

In the development of homes and buildings throughout the Western World, lightening storms were one of natures “attacks” against man’s survival. Theists of all malignant stripes called them acts of God. One agnostic man did not accept such an explanation. Instead he offered a reason and invented the lightening rod. When he tried to market it for profit, he was condemned for the lack of faith and greed for attempting to profit from human tragedy. This killed his entrepreneurialism when
trying to market them to those who just hoped God would miss. However, he found no such problem in selling them to a town’s brothel, where the devil’s work was done, not God’s. No faith or hope required--just nature’s drives and money. Very soon as the “faithful” began to notice that churches were being hit while brothels were not, lightening rods began to appear everywhere. This pragmatic change of heart and
rapid appearance of lightening rods on town homes and churches stands as irrefutable evidence of the triumph of reason and science over religion and faith.

So, hate me or not, I make the following space-time saving statement on the subject: God is dead! And, any acceptance of reality based on faith is the utter negation of Homo sapiens’ brain. It is the cowardly surrender of reason to prehistoric tribalism and its contemporary witch doctors—theists of all religions.

A second comment has to do with acknowledging the fact that there are minds far more innately intelligent than mine. These minds are genetically gifted with cognition that can “see” and “go” far deeper into certain subjects under discussion than mine. I’ve read and continue to read all of them. They present erudite tomes covering volumes, on these subjects of consciousness, existence, freewill, ethics, etc; I consider all of them invaluable to my education.

One such person is Daniel C. Dennett, a brilliant man who I read insatiably, just finished his Freedom Evolves. Others are Richard Dawkins, Ray Kurzweil, Daniel Wegner, Dirk Pereboom, Tom Wolfe, Robert Wright, and so many others. Nevertheless, while they may be seeing the truth with the clarity of a god, I hold PRIME as still the only absolute truth. Therefore, to enter this quagmire of freewill vs. determination debate still remains two roads to nowhere—different paths same chicken and egg scenery. To repeat myself—neither an absolutely deterministic world, nor an absolutely freewill world, nor any worlds with a “sort of both, “ mean a damn thing. Fixed futures mysterious-open futures none of it can ever replace PRIME. PRIME remains PRIME so if you prefer your future “fixed” or “opened”—maybe a “little” of both—please yourself, PRIME still rules.

To continue, then, whether one picks determinism or volition (as most thinkers seem to believe) again has nothing to do with why an individual has a system of ethics—morals. Since PRIME qua PRIME is the only provable reality, PRIME logically constructs such a protective set of “do’s and don’ts.” Additionally, though not absolutely provable, PRIME assumes other PRIMES and subsumes them under the same codes of ethics and morality. To demand that PRIME side with freewill or determinism to set such codes is a fatal flaw in logic.

Again here’s that dictionary definition that I accept as a beginning.

PRIME First in time. First in existence. First in quality, First in
rank, degree, influence, importance or value. The basis of reality.
The beginning of anything.

This position of PRIME is held singularly by A individual human being. The rest of truth and reality that axiomatically and scientifically form an infinite thread of evolution, to intellectually or physically secure a paradigm of existence, only finds genesis in PRIME. As with Descartes, “If I attempt to conceive of my not existing, the very ‘act’ of trying proves my existence.” But, unlike Descartes, it only proves my existence, not the existence of any other person, place, or thing. Only I am PRIME. As will be proved, by knowing this ONE and only ONE infallible fact, “groups” of ONES can then seek existing facts of the universe subsumed within PRIME. Still it must be forever remembered that while “groups” of PRIMES can appear to exist, cooperate, intermingle, etc. only PRIME can be absolutely proven to exist and have consciousness. The
consciousness and existence of other PRIMES by A particular PRIME can only be assumed or hypothesized. From another perspective when two or more individual human beings consensually build paradigms of existence, all percepts, concepts, and laws of those paradigms must subsume each and every individual human being as A PRIME. Unlike the subjectivist philosophies, PRIME does not dismiss the material as in the mind. In fact, A PRIME can reject it as Dr. Johnson wrote, “I refute it thus!” then cried out as he kicked a large stone. Likewise though, PRIME does not accept the objectivist philosophies, which maintain the stone ‘exists” with A individual human being, since only PRIME can be proven to exist.

Returning to the proof of PRIME as defined above: no counter examples (as Bacon would require) can ever be produced. Simple enough—for any individual to produce an existence of anything before his/her birth or after his/her death is absurd. It assumes an impossible paradox—it demands A consciousness when A consciousness is not yet there or is extinguished. It requires A senses when there are no A senses available. What other primacy can A demonstrate when A sleeps? When under anesthesia? And, the coup de grace, when A has not been born or has died? It is only the gall of theistic charlatans who propose such nonsense. Be honest; the truth is inescapable, there is absolutely no way for me or any other individual human being to know of existence until he/she is born, and there is absolutely no way for he/she to present A existence after death. Therefore, all paradigms of existence, constructed to function while conscious, are absolutely dependent solely on the consciousness of A individual human being to conceive of and to perceive those constructs. Therefore, because of the infallible demand for A individual human consciousness, no existence is provable outside that A consciousness. There is no possibility of a contradiction, nor could there ever be one. Therefore, no possibility exists that could prove some-THING as PRIME prior to or after A individual human being. PRIME, as proven, is the genesis of all that follows. This proof is what I entitle as The Law of Singular Existence. Very compactly and simply put, WHEN I’M HERE EVERYTHING IS HERE, WHEN I’M GONE EVERYTHING IS GONE. It cannot BE disproved or BE proven otherwise.

As modern math and science enter this debate, some of their discoveries appear to lend more support to Hume, Berkeley, Descartes and cohorts than to the pure materialists. On the other hand, when one enters the microscopic world of quantum physics and molecular biology, their theories seem to support that TO BE the universe required a viewer. Perhaps a quote from Ray Kurzweil a scientist of genius and author of The Age of Intellectual Machines and The Age of Spiritual Machines will lend validity, if not proof, to my PRIME,

Our story beings perhaps 15 billion years ago. No conscious life existed to appreciate the birth of our universe—in retrospect—one perspective of quantum mechanics—we could say that any life which fails to evolve conscious life to apprehend its existence never existed in the first place. (Emphasis mine) [Or] life never would have evolved—thus we could conclude that the universe would never have existed in the first place.

Pretty heady stuff! Mr. Kurzweil’s statement clearly places the need for consciousness before the universe is “there,” but it’s a sort of “collective” consciousness. On the other hand, my PRIME mandates, and proves, that any knowledge of existence is only possible through the consciousness of A individual human being. Without asking Mr. Kurzweil, I can’t know for sure, but I think he would agree. His statement has consciousness “starting” at the formation of life at the submicroscopic level while PRIME’S consciousness is only possible at the macrocosmic level of A individual human being. While a “form” of consciousness, I guess, “begins” among molecular life, I’ve not conversed with any. Still Kurzweil, Dawkins,and other scientific futurists seem mostly interested in the life and consciousness of individual human beings. In fact, if they are correct (and I believe they are) their work is what will eventually lead to the immortality
of not just “some” conscious life, but to the life and consciousness of A individual human being. For Kurzweil, and I agree, it will be the intelligence and consciousness of A individual human being, not a species consciousness, that will become immortal as the carbon world interfaces with the silicon world.

However, until then, reality remains possible only after A individual human being is there to perceive and acknowledge it. Consequently, that millennium old debate of existence versus consciousness is no more than didactic exercise. Have it any way that floats your boat, it still demands A individual human being this side of the womb and this side of the tomb! Furthermore, anything that is then “made” an axiom of reality-theory, postulate, or law—must be deduced from and subsumed by PRIME for any paradigmatic construct suitable for the survival of A individual human being. It is the historical fact that paradigms arising from that stupid, old debate between consciousness and existence have been literally constructed on paradigms of the non-existent concept of a collective like existent and consciousness. This false existent, through the use of brute force, usurps the position of PRIME andsacrifices the individual human being to its survival. The collective non-existents of state and church murder and plunder millions of individual human beings to preserve these evolutionary failures of prehistoric tribalism. PRIME is manically cannibalized by statism’s and theism’s icons: Popes and presidents; gods and judges; senators and priests; flags and bibles; constitutions and commandments; prison and sin. This evil list is endless and historically still afloat in the blood of individual human beings, the only provable existent of reality.

I frequently remark that PRIME should be understood in kindergarten. I still believe this, but painful experience has taught me that statism, collectivism, theism, altruism, tribalism have so effectively brainwashed and indoctrinated the individual human child, over millenniums, that a massive visceral shunt prevents such cognition by the cerebral cortex. Thus the rational mind can’t even ask the question, let alone establish a language founded on PRIME. A potential mind of reason cannot logically and rationally form concepts founded by PRIME; that same mind can’t even receive or recognize perceptual and sensory data about PRIME. Surely, any reader who is still with me can grasp that the windmill I indefatigably tilt at is that massive shunt. I’ve done all I can to make PRIME understandable among the few where the shunt doesn’t exist, and for the very few where the shunt finally splintered.

Well, what have I established? Maybe! First and foremost, an epistemology of PRIME
and its infallible position of womb to tomb. Second, that any percepts and concepts used to construct archetypes of or about material existence and matter-structured reality absolutely has to be rooted to or deduced from PRIME. There is no end to western civilization thinkers who give us tome after tome supporting consciousness—first subjectivism: Plato’s universal forms, Descartes’ brain in a vat, Kant-Hume-Fichtes’ immaterialism, and assorted transcendentalist. However, except for scientists, history only offers two worthy minds for existence-first objectivism: Aristotle and Ayn Rand. Aristotle defined existence and wrote its laws. Rand gave it an epistemology and ethics. Aristotle wrote its first law, the law of identity

…these truths hold good for everything that is—because they are true of being qua being—a principle which everyone must have who understands anything that is –such a principle is the most certain of all. It is that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.

Rand concurs as follows,

Existence exists—to exist is to be something as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence. A is A. A thing is itself [if] you never grasped the meaning of this statement; I am here to complete it: Existence is identity. Existence is self-sufficient primary. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—existence is irrefutable.

If the reader has truly understood the ontology PRIME, he/she will recognize that
Aristotle’s and Rand’s laws of identity and existence could, in fact, would include my PRIME. But that is exactly the problem because A PRIME is all that their laws could ever include! Yes, I know how arrogant it is of me (been told often enough) to dare to criticize such giants. Let alone claim as I do that they are both dead wrong. However, unless they can get me on their cell phone, Aristotle’s “either/or” can only include him between birth and death, and Rand’s “self-sufficient primary” is only irrefutable when limited to her womb to tomb existence. For both of them nothing now exists, and for me nothing existed before I was born. If their “laws” had been limited to each of them, they would have conceptualized PRIME, the only metaphysics possible for understanding the universe and for building paradigms about that universe. It is nothing more than a contradiction to try, as they both do, to extend PRIME as a plural and then try and integrate it to include all existents as somehow primary. It is further, a contradiction to then extend those laws of existence and identity to include those existents even after all individual human beings are dead.

When this absurd assumption of theirs is really understood, it is essentially no different from the Alice in Wonderland nonsense of theists, mystics, super-naturalists, and a few contemporary secularists within the scientific community. It’s still that pathetic on your knees pleading for some 1-800 number to some all good, all powerful guy to rescue you from the end of your primacy! As will be understood in this book’s last chapter, there is such a reality coming, but it’s coming through A PRIMES’ scientific cognition: The life expectancy of A individual human being will no longer be a viable expression in relation
to intelligent beings. Eventually the great debate over existence versus consciousness, including my PRIME, will be dead, and the individual human being will be immortal. To that day, I simply tip my hat and cheer, “Here! Here! Let the journey to forever begin.”

In its pure form, science does not in the context of a broad philosophy, nor am I qualified to write about it as a scholarly discipline. Therefore, I limit its “place” in helping me to explain my philosophy, especially as it supports my first principle PRIME, and my view of language, ethics, justice, economics, etc. To lay claim to a first principle of infallibility PRIME must subsume all the knowledge known today about life and the universe. The literal force of the previous statement forces me to again review some of what I’ve previously covered.

Traditional science tells us there is a physical universe which exists without and apart from Homo sapiens consciousness. That the world of matter is indifferent to our
thoughts, our observations, our desires, etc. Philosophically this is also the view of all metaphysics integrated within objectivity. This material philosophy and science, with their rejection of consciousness, is the long held, and pragmatically proven Newtonian Physics. It simply works! Yet his laws that have given Homo sapiens the means to change the physical world, support nothing about how Homo sapiens’ consciousness might also be creating and changing the material universe. Hence PRIME finds little support.

However, thanks to a phenomenon that defies “common” and physical sense, PRIME
does find significant scientific support. Since traditional physics cannot explain the behavior of light as a particle, a wave or “both”—and can’t find a way to measure
position and momentum, it’s left to Quantum Physics to explain. Its primary explanation appears to be that an “observer” has to choose! I “choose” to believe that the observer is PRIME, the Individual Human Being as I proved several pages back. Hooray! Recently a science has come to my aid—BIOCENTRISM and its brilliant and
super accredited scientist, Robert Lanza and others. Below are two more of its
PRINCIPLES,

THIRD PRINCIPLE: The behavior of sub atomic particles—
indeed all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the
presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious
observer, they at best exists in an undetermined state of
probability waves.

FOURTH PRINCIPLE: Without consciousness, “matter”
dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any
universe that could have preceded consciousness only
existed in a probability state.

Here is a quote from BIOCENTRISM that, I’m convinced “dittos” PRIME,

It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge or lack of it is the only thing that determines how these bits of light or matter behave.

While the brilliant minds of BIOCENTRISM, might reject PRIME, but their use of
“consciousness” and “our” is nothing more than MY consciousness and MY mind. And
while they may prefer that their PRINCICPLES fit multiple minds, I have infallibly
proven that it can only be A mind.

This conundrum and many other commonsense contradictions within quantum physics,
not only supports PRIME qua PRIME, but also proves that PRIME influences and even
creates reality! PRIME must choose; therefore, the freewill of the individual human
being. Physicist John Wheeler opines that the universe in some unique way is “brought
into existence” by the participation of individual human beings who do participate. Ray Kurzweil offers the following explanation for this conundrum of quantum phenomena. I believe it also accounts for my Law of PRIME—the ultimate chooser. If not, then neither the Newtonian nor the quantum universe exists.

Beginning physics students learn that if light strikes a mirror at an angle, it will bounce off the mirror in the opposite direction and at the same angle to the surface. But according to quantum theory, that is not what is happening. Each photon actually bounces off every possible point on the mirror, essentially trying every possible path. The vast majority of these paths cancel each other out, leaving only the path that classical physics predicts.

To me that “prediction” is not just the choice of quantum physics and BIOCENTRISM
but also the choice of PRIME! The contradictions of traditional physics, by quantum mechanics, opens to question the idea that objectivity can even exist. First, it’s impossible to eliminate Homo sapiens’ consciousness from the concept of an objective reality. Second, Homo sapiens’ consciousness is the only thing observing, studying, and reporting on the so-called objective universe. Third, and the most compelling fact—there is simply no way around the truth that when the individual human being looks at or reports on the universe, he/she is looking at the reporting on his/her existence. If my philosophy of PRIME and quantum physics is correct, then all paradigms that study or define reality are the studies and definitions of A PRIME’S consciousness.

A few final words as to why it’s wise, during one’s lifetime of singular existence, to embrace Newton’s laws. If I attempt to push my book across a table to you, friction will stop it unless I keep pushing. Newton’s first law: Every object stays at rest, or moves steadily until outside forces act on it. This represents his concept of inertia—“..by which every body, as much as in it lies, continues in its present state, whether it be of rest, or moving uniformly forwards in a straight line.” This is always true “unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.” Notwithstanding free will, PRIME best never resist such facts flowing from this law despite its deterministic implications. Just try to “run” a car without his law, or substitute some “quantum choice” to get that car to do your bidding!

Newton’s second law shows us how to figure out how much effect an outside force has
on an object. So, back to your car: The forces on your car change its velocity
(acceleration). That’s why statists invented speeding tickets. Quantum mechanics
wouldn’t be sure that your car was even moving. Newton’s third law is usually thought of as the most important, “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” So, while you are forcing (driving ) your car, it’s forcing you. You do something to it; it does something to you. In fact all cars must obey the third law to move forward. You can’t afford to “peek” into a box to decide if the car is moving or not. As the poet said, with Newton, all was light for Homo sapiens. The three laws and the law of gravity conveniently run our cars, planes, and the universe. But remember, such determinism is just that—convenient but not true. We must look to light, Schrodinger’s cat and BIOCENTRISM for why the choices of PRIME and the Law of Singular Existence give us immutable truth.

PRIME REVISITED (Science Lends a Helping Hand), by Bob Clapp