mormonsandscience - Religion & Science Blog

President Obama's Evolution on Gay Marriage

Wed, 09 May 2012 15:52:52 -0700

Evolutionists will be happy to know that evolution is happening among humans, especially with regard to gay marriage. President Obama has evolved to the point that he now accepts gay marriage. Was that a macro or microevolutionary change? Hm?

Moving on.

What is wrong with letting gays marry, especially if it has no impact on me and my family? Why should I be concerned about two lesbians getting married in Oregon or California? Actually, I couldn’t care less about what two married lesbians in California are doing. What I am concerned about is the normalization of homosexuality that is sweeping our society.

A wave of “gayness” is sweeping the world, convincing people that an active homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable thing. It is in the schools, on TV, in the movies, and in literature. Homosexual marital relationships are well on their way to being accepted in society. It wasn't this way 20 years ago, but like President Obama, society’s views on normalized sexual relations appear to be evolving. I am not surprised that we have come this far. We know from the teachings of the prophets like the Apostle Paul that the earth will be full of wickedness in the last days. I am surprised, however, that we have come this far so quickly.

If you are wondering what I am talking about, watch this CNN video of two lesbians proposing at an NHL hockey game. I couldn’t care less about the lesbian proposal; what concerns me is the audience’s acceptance of the proposal. I am concerned about how the hockey crowd stood and cheered the couple on. For society to willingly accept and cheer homosexual marriage is mockery before God. The Creator has said that homosexual relationships are wrong, yet everywhere you turn so many people seem to be accepting and encouraging them.

Some people think that gay marriage has no impact on me and my family. They’re wrong. Societal acceptance of gay marriage affects all of us in the same way that widespread acceptance of fornication, adultery, pornography, and drug use affect everyone. Increased acceptance of sin is weakening the moral fabric of society. What is the end result of all this? I think Mosiah (29:26-27) said it best when he wrote:

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land."

The following excerpt from the Proclamation on the Family also gives a hint of the judgments that await nations which callously set aside God’s laws of marriage and procreation.

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. …Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

Healthy Skepticism About Global Warming Science

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:17:43 -0700

For the last few years, scientists and self-declared climate change experts have raised the clarion call, human-based carbon emissions are raising global temperatures! Through all of this I’ve thought, “Well, I am not an earth science expert, so who am I to argue with them?” Perhaps the earth is warming and perhaps manmade carbon emissions have something to do with it. Yet I have never been able to completely set my skepticism aside. Something about global warming driven primarily by human carbon emissions didn’t add up. Recent scientific evidence supports my skepticism. (More on this evidence below.)

My concerns about manmade-driven global warming can be summed up
as follows. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Surely
advocates of manmade global warming will admit that the earth goes through
cycles of warming and cooling. It makes me wonder if they’ve seriously
considered whether the current warming trend is part of that cycle. Also, the
cause of cyclic earth temperatures is likely natural. Compared to today, there
weren’t many manmade emissions 100, 200, and 1000 years ago, and yet the earth warmed and cooled back then. If we accept that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, then what caused the warming trends long ago? Greenhouse methane gases from flatulent cows and donkeys? As someone who grew up on a farm, I know firsthand how much smelly gas cows produce, but I don’t think so.

If global warming, or climate change as they like to call it now, is not driven by manmade emissions, where is the harm in making a little mistake in theorizing that humans are causing temperatures to rise substantially? Is it really a big deal? Scientists make claims all the time that turn out to be false. Perhaps we should cut manmade global warming alarmists some slack and let them continue their work unabated. Well, I would be happy to let them go merrily about their research were it not for one BIG problem. That problem is global warming political activism.

You see, global warming political activism has fueled troubling legislative proposals that seek to saddle energy producing industries with burdensome taxes, the same industries that power your home and electronic devices. Similar legislation has sought to fabricate a false energy economy centered on the buying and selling of carbon credits. And then there are troublesome proposals to regulate CO2, the very thing that you exhale. What will they think of next? Perhaps someone will come up with the idea to prevent climate change by reducing births. D’oh! It looks like someone at the United Nations beat me to this idea. (See last two paragraphs in this UN report.)

Now to that recent research showing that a great deal of global warming is not caused by humans. Hamish Pritchard, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey, recently investigated glacial ice using NASA’s ice-gazing satellite. His research showed that melting glacial ice is not due primarily to rising surface temperatures. Rather, melting ice is caused by rising ocean temperatures. That’s right – warming over more than two-thirds of the earth’s surface is coming from below, not above. Scientists have welcomed Pritchard’s discovery. For example, NASA’s chief scientist Dr. Waleed Abdalati, an expert on glacial ice, said that this study is an important advance in understanding glacial ice melt. And Dr. Dave Collingridge who knows next to nothing about glacial ice melt, said that he hopes that this research will help people realize that our earth is constantly undergoing climate change, and that recent warming trends may be due in large part to natural, not manmade forces.

Sex Ed: Utah Legislature Gets It Wrong

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:57:46 -0700

This week the Utah Senate passed a controversial bill that mandates an abstinence-only sex education curriculum for Utah public schools. The bill passed with little debate. The passage of the bill is deeply troubling for a few reasons. Not only is the bill a bad piece of legislation, it makes me question the overall competency of my legislators.

The language I keep hearing from legislators who support the bill is “Teaching teens about contraception will lead to premarital sex,” and “Sex education should be taught at home, not at school.” Here is what’s wrong with these two viewpoints.

Teaching kids about contraception does not lead to premarital sex; raging hormones and lowered inhibitions lead to premarital sex. Learning about contraception no more leads to sex than learning about illicit drugs leads to drug abuse, or taking a firearms class leads to illegal shootings.

Don’t the legislators know that understanding birth control is an important element in preparing kids for young adulthood and marriage? Married couples should understand birth control options. If the schools do not teach them, then who?! Parents?  Did your parents teach you all about condoms, IUDs, and birth control pills and how and why they work? Did your parents use appropriate hand drawn pictures and diagrams to teach you about birth control? Did your parents give you adequate, up to date statistics on the effectiveness of each method and explain which methods help prevent STDs and which ones do not? Of course not. Most parents are not comfortable with such a task, let alone adequately equipped with materials and understanding to teach the biological intricacies of birth control. The Utah legislature is under the illusion that they are.

Utah legislators also believe that sex education should be taught at home, not at school. Whose position is that?  I don’t remember reading that in the LDS church manual. Oh, I see . . . it is the position of the legislators. What right does the legislature have to tell parents that their kids should only be learning about sex at home? Indeed parents should be talking with their kids about sex, but why can’t the kids learn about sex elsewhere, like at school? Moreover, does the legislature honestly think that parents are able to provide adequate biological instruction on sexual intercourse? Apparently they do.

Parents need to talk with their kids about their views, values, and expectations about sex – this is the moral element. Kids also need to learn the biological elements of sex, which is why school sex education is so important. Proper school sex education provides value-neutral instruction on intercourse, pregnancy, STDs, contraceptives, and abstinence as the best way to prevent pregnancy and disease. If the Utah Legislature gets its way, our kids will get plenty of moral instruction, but very little biological instruction.

Being Judicious With Rational Arguments For The Existence Of God

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:48:19 -0700

The Anthropic Principle (AP) concerns the relationship between the laws of nature and the presence of life. It basically asserts that if the laws of the universe were altered ever so slightly, life would not have come into existence.

Here are some examples.

Example 1.
"If the nuclear force were only a few percents weaker, then a proton could not combine with a neutron to form a deuteron. If this were the case, no deuterons would be formed in the sun and hence no solar fuel would exist. As a result, the sun would not shine (‘burn’), but would merely be a cold ball of inert gas—precluding the possibility of life on earth."

Example 2.
A slightly stronger gravity force would result in “a smaller universe of larger, brighter, shorter-lived stars, that will eventually collapse in on itself again in a Big Crunch. Most, if not all stars would be binary, trinary, or larger systems. Any planets orbiting these stars would have to go very fast to avoid a fiery demise inside their parent stars, and would be slung around wildly by their multiple suns. Any planetary system in this universe would be devoid of a stable, safe harbor for life, and relative stability is a vital prerequisite for the evolution of complex life forms. Life here would probably get to no more than amino acids, much less true life, before one of the planet’s parent stars went nova or the planet was torn apart and swallowed into one of the stars. It would not be a place to develop living creatures as complex as ourselves.”

There are different forms of the anthropic principle. The one form that most scholars agree upon is the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP). This principle claims that conditions in the universe are such that they allow life to exist. If this statement did not impress you it is probably because we already know that the conditions of the universe are such that they allow for life by virtue of the fact that we exist. Thus everyone, including atheists and believers, agrees with the WAP so it can’t really be used effectively to argue for the existence of deity.

Then there is the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). The SAP basically states that because the universe must have certain properties for life to exist, and we exist, the universe was specifically designed or fine-tuned by a supreme being for the purpose of sustaining life. As a latter-day saint, I wholeheartedly accept the SAP premise, but it lacks rigor as an argument for the existence of deity with non-believers.

The problem with arguing that God lives because the universe we live in is fine-tuned for the existence of life is that we actually live in a universe that supports life. The very thing that gives rise to the argument for deity, namely a fine-tuned universe, also weakens the argument. Think of it this way. Imagine 5 universes where nature is fine-tuned to support human life. People in those 5 fine-tuned universes might marvel over the fact that their universes allow life to flourish, and some of them even propose a supreme being as their creator. Now imagine another 5 universes that are not fine-tuned to support life. In those universes no one is around to marvel over why their universes did not allow life to flourish because life cannot exist in them. A fine-tuned universe is all intelligent beings can ever know! So regardless of whether one is an atheist or a believer, there is amazement over the fact that life exists. To leverage this amazement by arguing that “therefore a supreme being must have created the universe,” carries little weight with atheists who are similarly amazed over the existence of our fine-tuned universe.

As a stand-alone rational argument for believing in deity, the weak and strong anthropic principles accomplish very little in the way of converting non-believers to the truth. But when coupled with the influence of the Spirit, anthropic arguments can suddenly make sense and facilitate conversion.

Mathematical Chances of Evolution

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:18:51 -0700

Here's a brief thought.

If Adam and Eve's bodies were created through evolutionary processes, then the chances of their bodies being created in the expressed image of the Creator were very small, sort of like 1 in a million.

But, as the following clip shows us, even with 1 in a million, there's still a chance!

What's up with Atheism and Agnosticism in Science?

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:24:51 -0700

Atheists and agnostics are kind of in the same boat when it comes to the supernatural. Atheists reject a supernatural being while agnostics claim that there is no way of knowing if such a being exists, so they go about their business as if he doesn’t. How many scientists are atheists? How many are agnostic? The answers depend on what area of science we’re talking about. The following data may surprise you.

According to a 2005 Rice University survey by Elaine Howard-Eckland, about 34% of all scientists surveyed said that they are either agnostic or atheist. When the researchers divided the survey responses by area of expertise, namely natural vs. social science, they found that natural scientists are much less likely to believe in God than social scientists.

In a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of biologists declared that they were either atheist or agnostic, much higher than all scientists in general! (SOURCE: Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.) Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey, a whopping 87% of evolutionists deny the existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject the idea of evolution being directed toward an “ultimate purpose!” (SOURCE: Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine, Evolution, Religion and Free Will, American Scientist, vol. 95 (July-August 2007.)

Finally, according to a 2007 national survey of faculty at colleges and universities, more than 60% of all college biologists consider themselves atheists or agnostics. (SOURCE: Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, How Religious are America’s College and University Professors? Feb. 6, 2007.)

Why are people in the biological and natural sciences more likely to be atheists or agnostics? Oh . . . could it have something to do with evolution?

Here is how evolution contributes to atheism and agnosticism.

At a fundamental level, evolution is mechanistic. By mechanistic I mean that evolution makes two ontological assertions about the fundamental nature of the natural world, namely that materialism and efficient causation rule the world. Materialism is the belief that the fundamental nature of the world is physical material. Everything that truly exists is made up of matter. In a manner of speaking, what matters is matter. There is no such thing as the non-physical. Spirits are not real, neither are your thoughts, emotions, and personal sense of identity - these are nothing more than the actions of electrochemical processes in your nervous system. And efficient causation is the belief that events or change result from natural laws acting on physical material. There are no supernatural, spiritual, or cognitive sources of change. Also there is no purpose or agency in events; there are just the unintentional forces of nature which determine how matter is to behave. Mother Nature is like a blind watch maker that creates a beautifully complex world without a purpose or goal in mind.

There are no inherent problems with interpreting natural world events using a mechanistic-laden theory like evolution, as long as people recognize the limitations. Evolution has its faults, but so does practically every other scientific theory. If we restricted science to only perfect theories, there would be no science.

Problems arise when impressionable minds embrace evolution’s mechanistic underpinnings, when they accept mechanism as reflecting the way the world really is, as a sort of ontological reality. When President Ezra Taft Benson said that “Students at universities are sometimes so filled with the doctrines of the world they begin to question the doctrines of the [Lord’s] gospel,” I think that he was partly, if not wholly, referring to evolution’s atheistic allure.

The antidote to evolution’s and any theory’s atheistic allure: Faith in the Lord.

What is the Deal with Deism?

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:02:17 -0700

During the 17 and 18th centuries, Western Europe entered into a period known as the enlightenment. The enlightenment gets its name from the fact that people living during that era believed that they were living in enlightened times compared to previous generations. With regard to science, they were right. They witnessed unprecedented scientific discovery. However, at the same time, the enlightenment was un-enlightening in a spiritual sense. It produced a spiritual malaise in science that continues to this day.

Efforts to minimize the role of deity during the enlightenment were largely spearheaded by French thinkers known as philosophes, such as Diderot (1713-1784), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Montesquieu (1689-1755). These philosophes were writers and publicists who read abstruse scientific treatises and books by theistic scientists like Newton and Galileo, and re-wrote them in the vernacular. In these re-writings the philosophes downplayed the role of deity and eliminated references to a higher power while elevating human reason and scientific experimentation as the great arbiters of truth. As a result, Western European science became prideful of its scientific accomplishments and few scholars were willing to recognize the influence and handiwork of the Almighty.

One can imagine how the theist pioneers of modern science might have felt about the secularization of science. Science historian Brian Silver gives us some idea. Regarding the enlightenment, he wrote, "Newton neither foresaw nor intended any of this. He was not the John the Baptist of [i.e., the one who prepared the way for] the enlightenment, and he would not have been at home with its ideals." I am certain that the same could be said for other theists like Boyle, Descartes, and Galileo.

As the influence of deity was being removed from science, some scholars filled the void by championing a watered down belief system known as deism. Bruce R. McConkie described deism as "the partial acceptance of God, that is, deists profess to believe in him as the Creator of the world . . . but they reject the idea that he rules over or guides men during the interval between the creation and the judgment." In other words, deists believe that the Lord is a disinterested creator whose only involvement with humanity occurred during the creation. They assert that after the creation he left the world to run on its own according to natural laws that he had established. He is like a watchmaker who, after building a watch and setting it to work on its own, has no continual involvement with its function.

Why is deism popular today? The answer is that it allows us to recognize a supreme creator while preserving the notion that natural laws are the only forces at work in the world. Thus we can go on with science and focus on natural law-driven processes without having to consider the possibility of other forces. This fits nicely with our modern understanding of science as being concerned with natural, not supernatural forces. Sounds good, right?

While believing in a creator is better than believing in none at all, there is a downside to deism. Because it rejects divine involvement, deism denies the mission of the Jesus Christ, thus rejecting the Savior’s atonement. Consider also that if, as deists claim, the creator does not reveal himself to his creations, then he is unknowable. The belief that he is unknowable has led to some obscure deistic conceptions about God. For example, according to one deist, the creator is “the ground and source of our sense of wonderment, of power, of powerlessness, of light, of dark, of meaning, and of bafflement. . . . It is the god of mystics of all cultures and creeds. We look out into the sea of mystery and speak his name. His name eludes all creeds and theories of science. He is indeed the ‘dread essence beyond logic.’” I think it would be difficult communing with such a god.

Other deists equate God with nature, a belief known as pantheism. A 17th century scholar who promoted this view was Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza’s phrase “Deus sive Natura,” or “God or Nature”, suggests that the creator is nature, the structure of the cosmic order, operating according to blind universal laws and devoid of divine purpose. “Spinoza’s God . . . [can]not be spoken to, [does] not respond if prayed to, [and is] very much in every particle of the universe.” Similar pantheistic-style beliefs have influenced scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Is it any wonder, then, that deists view the creator as a detached and impersonal entity? Certainly it would be difficult communing with such a god, but then again, why pray when no one is really listening?

Finally, because scientific deists are not big on prayer, they are unlikely to petition the creator for assistance in their endeavors. How many missed opportunities has science encountered? I wonder where science would be today if most scientists humbled themselves in prayer and asked for help? We will never know. Equally important is the issue of ingratitude. The creator is the main benefactor of scientific knowledge and discovery, yet deists who don’t realize this are unlikely to give thanks for breakthroughs. In the true spirit of the enlightenment, they think that science and reason did it all. Joseph F. Smith put it this way:

In all the great modern discoveries in science, in the arts, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of the age, the world says, "We have done it." The individual says, "I have done it," and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now, I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things.

In the next post we will take a look at scientific atheism.

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:00:05 -0700

Well, it is going down just like I said it would. In a previous post I wrote about how the gay activists have an underlying goal in mind when it comes to marriage - that is repealing the federal defense of marriage act (DOMA) signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Click here for the latest efforts by the Democrat-controlled Senate to repeal DOMA.

Why is repealing DOMA a major goal of the gay activists? It's not really about letting gay people marry so that they can enjoy a life of monogamous committment within the bonds of holy matrimony. And it's not really about getting access to insurance and other benefits traditionally reserved for heterosexual spouses. While those two motives do apply in some cases, the real purpose for repealing DOMA is more sinister from a traditional Judaeo-Christian perspective.

The real reason for repealing DOMA is that it is a major barrier to normalizing same-sex relations in America. If DOMA is repealed there will be nothing but a few churches standing in the way of normalizing same-sex relations in America, and even some of the churches are giving in to pressure.

Gay people deserve respect and, in some cases, our sympathies - it is certainly difficult being gay in a largely heterosexual world. But this does not mean that Christians should kowtow to the gay activists' demands. Latter-day Saints have been urged to take a stand for traditional marriage, not because we are anti-gay, as President Hinckley put it, but because we are pro-marriage. Taking a stand will certainly lead to more strife in the future, not because Latter-day Saints are unfairly prejudice or discriminatory, but because we recognize that marriage is a divinely appointed union between a man and woman.

(Gentle reminder: This is not a venue for venting or attacking the doctrines of the LDS faith.)

Spiritual Differences Between Charles and Emma Darwin

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:04:30 -0700

Charles Darwin and his wife Emma were a bit of an odd couple in a spiritual sense. Spiritually speaking, Charles withered like a plant while his wife Emma grew like a tall and vibrant tree. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in their views on suffering.

In 1866 Charles wrote the following about suffering: “It has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount of pain and suffering in this world as the inevitable result of natural sequence of events, i.e., general laws, rather than from the direct intervention of God.” This quote evidences that Darwin fell prey to the atheist trap of thinking that if God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then why is there so much suffering in the world?

Interestingly the correct answer to the question of suffering was right in front of him. His wife Emma held the answer. Here is what she said about suffering: “I find the only relief to my own mind is to take it as from God’s hand, and to try to believe that all suffering and illness is meant to help us to exalt our minds and to look forward with hope to a future state.” She is saying that suffering is a refiner's fire that proves us worthy of exaltation by testing our diligence. How different were their views!

Their spiritual differences were also manifested in their choice of literature. Emma enjoyed reading uplifting Christian writings. Darwin, on the other hand, enjoyed books with agnostic leanings. On one occasion in 1869 while the young American writer Henry James visited their home for lunch, he observed Emma reading Fervent Prayer while Darwin read The Index. The Index was “a newspaper produced by a group of disaffected American Unitarians and philosophical unbelievers” who rejected the “authority of the Bible, Church, or Christ.” Darwin was a regular contributor to the newspaper and shared its humanist doctrines with his family, occasionally becoming “indignant with anyone who doubted their complete accuracy.” Poor Emma.

Darwin's spiritual emptiness was difficult for Emma. Before marrying Charles, Emma spoke openly about her concern with the spiritual void that existed between them. To her disappointment, that spiritual void still existed later on in life. Because of his resolute agnosticism she was unable to share her religious beliefs of faith, hope, and peace with Charles.

Emma remained steadfast in the faith through good and bad times while her husband wavered. She tried to build up her children’s faith while her husband challenged it. Science heaps praise upon Charles. I am heaping praise upon Emma. If the most important work we do is within the walls of our own homes, then she deserves credit for raising her children in righteousness and teaching them to honor and fear God – the most important accomplishment in any era.

On The Problem of Nonbelievers Opening Their Eyes of Understanding

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:03:29 -0700

When I was taking an undergraduate class in neuropsychology I did a research project where I went into the community and collected data from persons with a disability. The purpose of the research was to better understand how disability affects every day conscious experience. I decided to interview blind people about what it is like to dream. The professor approved my project and a short while later I found a couple of willing participants through the national association for the blind.

As I interviewed the blind participants about their dream experiences I came to the realization that I probably should have selected another topic. Why? My interviewees and I could not come to an agreement on what it is like for a blind person to dream. It wasn’t that they didn’t dream; they did dream. It’s just that no matter how hard I tried, I could not capture the essence of their dreams. I could not understand what they were describing because I have never experienced being blind. I have not experienced the world the way they experienced it.

It’s nearly impossible to describe something to someone who has no experience with the sensory modality needed to experience the thing being described. After a pleasant dining experience at a restaurant, I might describe a tasty meal you have never tried as being slightly sweet. Well that is not a problem for you because you’ve tasted sweet before. You can appreciate in some small way what the meal tastes like. But for someone who has never tasted food before, this sort of understanding would be impossible. For a person without taste buds, sweet might as well be nonexistent. In fact, if we all lacked taste buds, there would be no such thing as sweet in this world.

Now most people can taste just fine so we don’t hear denials about sweetness. But what if there was a sensory modality that many people had never experienced? If enough people had no experience with that sensory modality, there might very well be talk about that modality not existing. There is such a modality – spiritual experience.

Have you ever wondered why it is so difficult to convince an atheist that God lives? A believer may go on and on about spiritual experiences that tell him or her that God lives, but if the atheist has never had a spiritual manifestation, has never known what it is like to feel the Spirit, it is nearly impossible for the atheist to know what the believer is describing. In fact, without having had a similar experience, the atheist might deny the reality of the believer’s spiritual experiences. It is not that the atheist is being mean spirited or claiming that the believer is a liar. Rather, the atheist cannot grasp the concept of spiritual experience because he or she has never had one. In a way, to the atheist, such things do not exist.

Of course the first step in overcoming this spiritual ontological void is to basically say, “Gee, there are so many people out there claiming to have had spiritual experiences, they might be real. Perhaps I will humble myself, open my eyes so to speak, and seek out these experiences for myself.” This is exactly what is meant in religious terms as opening one’s eyes. In the scriptures, reference is made to “opening one’s eyes of understanding” that one may see and know. The concept of opening one’s eyes refers to discovering a whole new world of spirituality that one did not know existed by being humble and seeking out the spirit. Without humility and effort the atheist will remain blind to the world of spirituality and it will appear to him or her as though it does not exist.

The scriptures indentify certain persons who are at risk for remaining blind to the Spirit. They are the learned and those who think they are wise. These people are least likely to humble themselves and seek out the Spirit. Isn’t it interesting that among those whose claim to fame is knowing a lot about this or that, many do not know that the spiritual is real? I reality they don’t know as much as they think they know and they are less wise than they think.

Here’s to hoping that they open their eyes of understanding (Dave lifts his water cup into the air and then takes a sip).