THE BLACKENING OF AMERICA…AND THEN SOME

This is not about race; it’s about oil and lessons not learned, warnings not heeded, opportunities lost and a future that is black. Have you noticed that the news is filled with accusations, promises of investigations, commissions being formed, warnings of prosecutions and basic finger pointing? What is the subject of all of this attention? Obviously, it is the Deepwater Horizon on-going disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

There should be no need to recount the events or to even bring you up-to-date on the planet’s worst environmental disaster since the Biblical flood. Just turn on the news and get all of the latest. My concern is not the loss of entire ecosystems, how many millions of gallons of crude are destroying the entire way of life of the Gulf, how the spill will get to the East Coast and perhaps Europe, the senseless loss of wildlife along with their homes, habitats and breeding grounds, or the economic destruction of the Gulf. Rather, my concern is whether or not the finger is pointing in the right direction.

It is certainly easy to point toward BP. And, there is no question that at some point, they will pay the piper. There are also those who made faulty equipment and who failed to ensure that all such equipment would work at such depths. Of course, we do not want to forget those who issued permits when all facts were not known and compliances not guaranteed. Without doubt, heads will roll, jobs will be lost, and fines paid. One must remember, however, that those with financial power, at least historically, never really lose power of money.

America, and most of the world, is at the crossroad of a major crisis. But is the crisis oil spills or something more fundamental? Here is the crux of the matter; we have developed a universal culture of blaming others for our woes. As a result, we have a companion mindset that says problems like oil spills, climate change, refugees, peace, pollution and other pressing world problems cannot be solved by the common person because it is beyond the scope of their ability and power to do so. As long as we point the finger at another, we think we are free from guilt and not responsible for the solution of problems. But let’s be clear, our insatiable appetite for oil, power, and throwaway consumer goods has allowed the rampart rape and pillage of the very home on which we live. As long as our cars run, the lights come on, the food is on the shelves and we can get the latest disposable gadget, the purveyors of black gold can do as they will. Certainly someone is watching them and, if a problem occurs, ‘someone’ will deal with it.

Critics of such concepts as the Law of Attraction like to point to such disasters as genocide, disease, oil spills, rape, and a wide range of other seemingly disasters and argue that “certainly people do not attract these things to themselvesthey are much too horrible.” Ah, the pointing figure syndrome strikes again. Clearly, people do not let dictators rise to power. Clearly, we do not let nations commit genocide. Clearly, we do not so over consume so there is food for all. Clearly, we do not consume the majority of the world’s energy resources. Clearly, we treat all with respect and dignity and help all in need so there is no need for crime. Clearly, oil companies are greedy and they get away with all sorts of machinations, but that’s not our problem. Clearly, someone else is always responsible for the troubles in the world and there is nothing we can do about it.

In way, all of the above are what are called “memes.” If you haven’t done so, I highly recommend reading “The Virus of the Mind, by Richard Brodie. A ‘meme’ is a unit of information in a mind that influences events such that more copies of itself get created in other minds. A virus of the mind is something that infects people with memes which, in turn, influence the infected people’s behavior in such a way that the virus spreads. Dictators are experts in the use of memes to alter public behavior, as are corporate advertisers. After all, look at all of the new diseases that exist and look at all of the stupid things people buy because they are convinced they must have those things. This is how those who ‘know’ use the Law of Attraction to get rich. This all brings us back to the oil spill in the Gulf. The reason that the oil rig is there in the first place is because we have been convinced we must have oil; that we must get it at all costs so the Arabs can’t control us or turn off their supplies, and that even if there is a disaster, it happens and there is nothing you can do about it because you really need the oil.

When we point the finger, we must discover that we are pointing in a mirror. We let ourselves be controlled and manipulated by the masters of memes. We bring into our lives that which someone else says we must have. As a result, the Law of Attraction is fulfilled and we attract what we deserve, what we think, what we fear. There is a growing sense of futility, an emerging blackness in the American psyche. It is a mind virus that is spreading everywhere. Biologists tell us that one of the leading causes of evolution is environmental stress. There are those who also say that humanity is on the verge of a spontaneous evolution. While change does not require negative stress, it does seem that humanity only rises to the occasion when we are faced with disaster. Such disasters are now happening in the environment, the economy, in religion, education, politics, and in nearly every aspect of human life. Many forces are flowing together in what appears to be an interesting 2012 scenario. Perhaps we will wake and discover that we do not have to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” Perhaps we will discover that if we can create such gross injustices to ourselves and the place that we live, then we also have the ability and the power to create a world that makes sense.

The following is a list of major oil spills and disasters. Perhaps if we recall that the Gulf is not the only place that we have allowed such destruction, we will wake up and end the madness.

Oil Spills and Disasters

The following list includes major oil spills since 1967. The circumstances surrounding the spill, amount of oil spilled, and the attendant environmental damage is also given.

1967-March 18, Cornwall, Eng.: Torrey Canyon ran aground, spilling 38 million gallons of crude oil off the Scilly Islands.
1976-Dec. 15, Buzzards Bay, Mass.: Argo Merchant ran aground and broke apart southeast of Nantucket Island, spilling its entire cargo of 7.7 million gallons of fuel oil.

1977-April, North Sea: blowout of well in Ekofisk oil field leaked 81 million gallons.

1978-March 16, off Portsall, France: wrecked supertanker Amoco Cadiz spilled 68 million gallons, causing widespread environmental damage over 100 mi of Brittany coast.

1979-June 3, Gulf of Mexico: exploratory oil well Ixtoc 1 blew out, spilling an estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the open sea. Although it is one of the largest known oil spills, it had a low environmental impact.
July 19, Tobago: the Atlantic Empress and the Aegean Captain collided, spilling 46 million gallons of crude. While being towed, the Atlantic Empress spilled an additional 41 million gallons off Barbados on Aug. 2.

1980-March 30, Stavanger, Norway: floating hotel in North Sea collapsed, killing 123 oil workers.

1983-Feb. 4, Persian Gulf, Iran: Nowruz Field platform spilled 80 million gallons of oil.
Aug. 6, Cape Town, South Africa: the Spanish tanker Castillo de Bellver caught fire, spilling 78 million gallons of oil off the coast.



1988-July 6, North Sea off Scotland: 166 workers killed in explosion and fire on Occidental Petroleum's Piper Alpha rig in North Sea; 64 survivors. It is the world's worst offshore oil disaster.
Nov. 10, Saint John's, Newfoundland: Odyssey spilled 43 million gallons of oil.

1989-March 24, Prince William Sound, Alaska: tanker Exxon Valdez hit an undersea reef and spilled 10 million–plus gallons of oil into the water, causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
Dec. 19, off Las Palmas, the Canary Islands: explosion in Iranian supertanker, the Kharg-5, caused 19 million gallons of crude oil to spill into Atlantic Ocean about 400 mi north of Las Palmas, forming a 100-square-mile oil slick.

1990-June 8, off Galveston, Tex.: Mega Borg released 5.1 million gallons of oil some 60 nautical miles south-southeast of Galveston as a result of an explosion and subsequent fire in the pump room.

1991-Jan. 23–27, southern Kuwait: during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq deliberately released 240–460 million gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf from tankers 10 mi off Kuwait. Spill had little military significance. On Jan. 27, U.S. warplanes bombed pipe systems to stop the flow of oil.
April 11, Genoa, Italy: Haven spilled 42 million gallons of oil in Genoa port.
May 28, Angola: ABT Summer exploded and leaked 15–78 million gallons of oil off the coast of Angola. It's not clear how much sank or burned.

1992-March 2, Fergana Valley, Uzbekistan: 88 million gallons of oil spilled from an oil well.

1993-Aug. 10, Tampa Bay, Fla.: three ships collided, the barge Bouchard B155, the freighter Balsa 37, and the barge Ocean 255. The Bouchard spilled an estimated 336,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil into Tampa Bay.

1994-Sept. 8, Russia: dam built to contain oil burst and spilled oil into Kolva River tributary. U.S. Energy Department estimated spill at 2 million barrels. Russian state-owned oil company claimed spill was only 102,000 barrels.

1996-Feb. 15, off Welsh coast: supertanker Sea Empress ran aground at port of Milford Haven, Wales, spewed out 70,000 tons of crude oil, and created a 25-mile slick.

1999-Dec. 12, French Atlantic coast: Maltese-registered tanker Erika broke apart and sank off Britanny, spilling 3 million gallons of heavy oil into the sea.

2000-Jan. 18, off Rio de Janeiro: ruptured pipeline owned by government oil company, Petrobras, spewed 343,200 gallons of heavy oil into Guanabara Bay.
Nov. 28, Mississippi River south of New Orleans: oil tanker Westchester lost power and ran aground near Port Sulphur, La., dumping 567,000 gallons of crude oil into lower Mississippi. Spill was largest in U.S. waters since Exxon Valdez disaster in March 1989.

2002-Nov. 13, Spain: Prestige suffered a damaged hull and was towed to sea and sank. Much of the 20 million gallons of oil remains underwater.

2003-July 28, Pakistan: The Tasman Spirit, a tanker, ran aground near the Karachi port, and eventually cracked into two pieces. One of its four oil tanks burst open, leaking 28,000 tons of crude oil into the sea.

2004-Dec. 7, Unalaska, Aleutian Islands, Alaska: A major storm pushed the M/V Selendang Ayu up onto a rocky shore, breaking it in two. 337,000 gallons of oil were released, most of which was driven onto the shoreline of Makushin and Skan Bays.

2005-Aug.-Sept., New Orleans, Louisiana: The Coast Guard estimated that more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled during Hurricane Katrina from various sources, including pipelines, storage tanks and industrial plants.

2006-June 19, Calcasieu River, Louisiana: An estimated 71,000 barrels of waste oil were released from a tank at the CITGO Refinery on the Calcasieu River during a violent rain storm.
July 15, Beirut, Lebanon: The Israeli navy bombs the Jieh coast power station, and between three million and ten million gallons of oil leaks into the sea, affecting nearly 100 miles of coastline. A coastal blockade, a result of the war, greatly hampers outside clean-up efforts.
August 11th, Guimaras island, The Philippines: A tanker carrying 530,000 gallons of oil sinks off the coast of the Philippines, putting the country's fishing and tourism industries at great risk. The ship sinks in deep water, making it virtually unrecoverable, and it continues to emit oil into the ocean as other nations are called in to assist in the massive clean-up effort.

2007-December 7, South Korea: Oil spill causes environmental disaster, destroying beaches, coating birds and oysters with oil, and driving away tourists with its stench. The Hebei Spirit collides with a steel wire connecting a tug boat and barge five miles off South Korea's west coast, spilling 2.8 million gallons of crude oil. Seven thousand people are trying to clean up 12 miles of oil-coated coast.




2008-July 25, New Orleans, Louisiana: A 61-foot barge, carrying 419,000 gallons of heavy fuel, collides with a 600-foot tanker ship in the Mississippi River near New Orleans. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel leak from the barge, causing a halt to all river traffic while cleanup efforts commence to limit the environmental fallout on local wildlife.

2009-March 11, Queensland, Australia: During Cyclone Hamish, unsecured cargo aboard the container ship MV Pacific Adventurer came loose on deck and caused the release of 52,000 gallons of heavy fuel and 620 tons of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer, into the Coral Sea. About 60 km of the Sunshine Coast was covered in oil, prompting the closure of half the area's beaches.

2010-Jan. 23, Port Arthur, Texas: The oil tanker Eagle Otome and a barge collide in the Sabine-Neches Waterway, causing the release of about 462,000 gallons of crude oil. Environmental damage was minimal as about 46,000 gallons were recovered and 175,000 gallons were dispersed or evaporated, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.
April 24, Gulf of Mexico: The Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible drilling rig, sank on April 22, after an April 20th explosion on the vessel. Eleven people died in the blast. When the rig sank, the riser—the 5,000-foot-long pipe that connects the wellhead to the rig—became detached and began leaking oil. In addition, U.S. Coast Guard investigators discovered a leak in the wellhead itself. As much as 25,000 barrels (1,050,000 gallons) of oil per day were leaking into the water, threatening wildlife along the Louisiana Coast. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared it a "spill of national significance." As many as 1,000 people and dozens of ships and aircraft were enlisted to help in the cleanup. BP (British Petroleum), which leased the Deepwater Horizon, is responsible for the cleanup, but the U.S. Navy supplied the company with resources to help contain the slick. Oil reached the Louisiana shore on April 30, and there was widespread consensus that the spill would dwarf the Exxon Valdez in terms of environmental damage.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html

SAM HARRIS-YOU'RE WRONG!

There is no such thing as objective science. If physics has taught us anything, it is that the observer and the observed are one. The idea that science can find an objective morality is, by its very nature, an oxymoron. Science is based upon "knowledge,knowledge requires a learner and a learner cannot be objective. Sam Harris would like us to believe that science can lead us to the promise land of well-being. That, while religion and all of its worn out dogma has failed to do so, a new religion of science will show us how to create a land of milk and honey. While I agree with his assessment of religion, his solution is just as inappropriate. In a response to his critics, Sam Harris tried to clarify his position. What follows are parts of his response as posted on his site and my comments are in bold.

Last month, I had the privilege of speaking at the 2010 TED conference for exactly 18 minutes. I was not suggesting that science can give us an evolutionary or neurobiological account of what people do in the name of “morality.” Nor was I merely saying that science can help us get what we want out of life. Both of these would have been quite banal claims to make (unless one happens to doubt the truth of evolution or the mind’s dependency on the brain). Rather I was suggesting that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, perforce, what other people should do and want in order to live the best lives possible. There is an obvious bias in the preceding statements. The notion that science can tell people what they ‘should’ do or should not do indicates simply another form of dogma that has been found not to work by religions. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind. As the response to my TED talk indicates, it is taboo for a scientist to think such things, much less say them public. While there is no doubt that it is appropriate for scientists to discuss such issues, the notion that there are right and wrong answers is a matter of judgment and subjective bias. What is the difference between science telling people what is wrong and the Church, any church, telling people what is right or wrong? Actually, the notion that there is right or wrong, good and evil, flies in the face of science. There are certainly positive and negative forces. But calling hot right and cold wrong is ludicrous. Despite the influence of religion on the issue, calling murder wrong is a moral judgment.


Some of my critics got off the train before it even left the station, by defining “science” in exceedingly narrow terms. Many think that science is synonymous with mathematical modeling, or with immediate access to experimental data. However, this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn. There are many tools one must get in hand to think scientifically—ideas about cause and effect, respect for evidence and logical coherence, a dash of curiosity and intellectual honesty, the inclination to make falsifiable predictions, etc.—and many come long before one starts worrying about mathematical models or specific data. Clearly, from the above definition, i.e. “our best effort to understand,” is not objective. History is replete with our misunderstanding of science and the fire pits are filled with the charred memories of those who defied our ‘best efforts.”

There is also much confusion about what it means to speak with scientific “objectivity.” As the philosopher John Searle once pointed out, there are two very different senses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.” The first relates to how we know (i.e. epistemology), the second to what there is to know (i.e. ontology). When we say that we are reasoning or speaking “objectively,” we mean that we are free of obvious bias, open to counter-arguments, cognizant of the relevant facts, etc. There is no impediment to our doing this with regard to subjective (i.e. third-person) facts. It is, for instance, true to say that I am experiencing tinnitus (ringing in my ears) at this moment. This is a subjective fact about me. I am not lying about it. I have been to an otologist and had the associated hearing loss in the upper frequencies in my right ear confirmed. There is simply no question that I can speak about my tinnitus in the spirit of scientific objectivity. And, no doubt, this experience must have some objective (third-person) correlates, like damage to my cochlea. Many people seem to think that because moral facts relate entirely to our experience (and are, therefore, ontologically “subjective”), all talk of morality must be “subjective” in the epistemological sense (i.e. biased, merely personal, etc.). This is simply untrue. Sorry, Sam, but it is true. While on its face, it is easy to understand why one would claim that five birds just flew by; it is raining; I just stubbed my toe, etc. Reality is only our perceptions. And, I suppose you can also say that quantum physics is also all wrong, too, but that just makes you as dogmatic as those you criticize.

Many of my critics also fail to distinguish between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle to certain questions about the nature of reality. Only the latter questions are “unscientific,” and there are countless facts to be known in principle that we will never know in practice. Exactly how many birds are in flight over the surface of the earth at this instant? What is their combined weight in grams? We cannot possibly answer such questions, but they have simple, numerical answers. Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? For instance, how seriously should we take the claim that there are exactly 23,000 birds in flight at this moment, and, as they are all hummingbirds weighing exactly 2 grams, their total weight is 46,000 grams? It should be obvious that this is a ridiculous assertion. We can, therefore, decisively reject answers to questions that we cannot possibly answer in practice. This is a perfectly reasonable, scientific, and often necessary thing to do. And yet, many scientists will say that moral truths do not exist, simply because certain facts about human experience cannot be readily known, or may never be known. As I hope to show, this blind spot has created tremendous confusion about the relationship between human knowledge and human values. Is it really possible for what science says is a finite mind to know and understand the infinite? Or, is it possible that we see the mind as finite because we define ourselves by it. Since it weighs x grams there is no way it can carry the infinite knowledge of the universe. Or, is it possible that we are not at limited by the size of our brain and that there is transcendent knowledge that we can know?


When I speak of there being right and wrong answers to questions of morality, I am saying that there are facts about human and animal wellbeing that we can, in principle, know—simply because wellbeing (and states of consciousness altogether) must lawfully relate to states of the brain and to states of the world. Facts are merely our ‘best understanding’ at any given moment. Many facts of the past were clearly not. Is it the states of the brain that laws relate to or something bigger? Are there even really any laws. Can we test a law an infinite number of times to see if it ever deviates? Has not quantum mechanics shown that what we have held as physical laws are not true at the sub-atomic level? And have not recent experiments shown, as mystics have known all along, that such deviations to laws can now be demonstrated at the physically observable level?

And here is where the real controversy begins: for many people strongly objected to my claim that values (and hence morality) relate to facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. My critics seem to think that consciousness and its states hold no special place where values are concerned, or that any state of consciousness stands the same chance of being valued as any other. While maximizing the wellbeing of conscious creatures may be what I value, other people are perfectly free to define their values differently, and there will be no rational or scientific basis to argue with them. This is perhaps the one place where Sam Harris is correct, i.e., what we value does relate to well being of consciousness. However, we should not assume a value on levels of consciousness.

Carroll appears to be confused about the foundations of human knowledge. For instance, he clearly misunderstands the relationship between scientific truth and scientific consensus. He imagines that scientific consensus signifies the existence of scientific truth (while scientific controversy just means that there is more work to be done). And yet, he takes moral controversy to mean that there is no such thing as moral truth (while moral consensus just means that people are deeply conditioned for certain preferences). This is a double standard that I pointed out in my talk, and it clearly rigs the game against moral truth. The deeper issue, however, is that truth has nothing, in principle, to do with consensus: It is, after all, quite possible for everyone to be wrong, or for one lone person to be right. Consensus is surely a guide to discovering what is going on in the world, but that is all that it is. Its presence or absence in no way constrains what may or may not be true. There seems to be confusion all around since there really is no current scientific truth.



There are many things wrong with this approach. The deepest problem is that it strikes me as patently mistaken about the nature of reality and about what we can reasonably mean by words like “good,” “bad,” “right,” and “wrong.” In fact, I believe that we can know, through reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. What’s the alternative? Imagine some genius comes forward and says, “I have found a source of value/morality that has absolutely nothing to do with the (actual or potential) experience of conscious beings.” Take a moment to think about what this claim actually means. Here’s the problem: whatever this person has found cannot, by definition, be of interest to anyone (in this life or in any other). Put this thing in a box, and what you have in that box is—again, by definition—the least interesting thing in the universe. Therefore, in order to place a moral value against killing, all must kill-otherwise; the value of not killing has nothing to do with actual/potential experience. Does the value precede the experience or vice versa?

So how much time should we spend worrying about such a transcendent source of value? I think the time I will spend typing this sentence is already far too much. All other notions of value will bear some relationship to the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. So my claim that consciousness is the basis of values does not appear to me to be an arbitrary starting point.

Now that we have consciousness on the table, my further claim is that wellbeing is what we can intelligibly value—and “morality” (whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be) really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the wellbeing of conscious creatures. And, as I pointed out at TED, all the people who claim to have alternative sources of morality (like the Word of God) are, in every case that I am aware of, only concerned about wellbeing anyway: They just happen to believe that the universe functions in such a way as to place the really important changes in conscious experience after death (i.e. in heaven or hell). And those philosophical efforts that seek to put morality in terms of duty, fairness, justice, or some other principle that is not explicitly tied to the wellbeing of conscious creatures—are, nevertheless, parasitic on some notion of wellbeing in the end (I argue this point at greater length in my book. And yes, I’ve read Rawls, Nozick, and Parfit). The doubts that immediately erupt on this point seem to invariably depend on extremely unimaginative ideas about what the term “wellbeing” could mean, altogether, or on mistaken beliefs about what science is.

Those who assumed that any emphasis on human “wellbeing” would lead us to enslave half of humanity, or harvest the organs of the bottom ten percent, or nuke the developing world, or nurture our children a continuous drip of heroin are, it seems to me, not really thinking about these issues seriously. It seems rather obvious that fairness, justice, compassion, and a general awareness of terrestrial reality have rather a lot to do with our creating a thriving global civilization (Creating a thriving global community is not desired by all and not really a value, a goal perhaps, but not a value)—and, therefore, with the greater wellbeing of humanity. And, as I emphasized in my talk, there may be many different ways for individuals and communities to thrive—many peaks on the moral landscape—so if there is real diversity in how people can be deeply fulfilled in life, this diversity can be accounted for and honored in the context of science. As I said in my talk, the concept of “wellbeing,” like the concept of “health,” is truly open for revision and discovery. Just how happy is it possible for us to be, personally and collectively? What are the conditions—ranging from changes in the genome to changes in economic systems—that will produce such happiness? We simply do not know.

But the deeper objection raised by scientists like Carroll is that the link I have drawn between values and wellbeing seems arbitrary, or otherwise in need of justification. What if certain people insist that their “values” or “morality” have nothing to do with wellbeing? What if a man like Jefferey Dahmer says, “The only peaks on the moral landscape that interest me are ones where I get to murder young men and have sex with their corpses.” This possibility—the prospect of radically different moral preferences—seems to be at the heart of many people’s concerns. In response to one of his readers, Carroll writes:

[W]e have to distinguish between choosing a goal and choosing the best way to get there. But when we do science we all basically agree on what the goals are — we want to find a concise, powerful explanation of the empirical facts we observe. This is not true. The idyllic notion here is that all scientists are purists who only seek to discover how the universe works. It assumes no hidden or subjective agenda. While it is fine to argue that a person on a spiritual quest for meaning and truth is really just seeking new dogma to impose on humanity, this cannot be true for the scientist. Clearly, the use of science to further specific political, social, economic or religious goals can be demonstrated throughout history. Again, is there really empirical fact? Sure, someone can choose to disagree with those goals — but then they’re not doing science, they’re doing philosophy of science. Which is interesting in its own right, but not the same thing.

When it comes to morality, there is nowhere near the unanimity of goals that there is in science. That’s not a minor quibble, that’s the crucial difference! If we all agreed on the goals, we would indeed expend our intellectual effort on the well-grounded program of figuring out how best to achieve those goals. That would be great, but it’s not the world in which we live.

Again, we encounter this confusion about the significance of consensus. But we should also remember that there are trained “scientists” who are Biblical Creationists, and their scientific thinking is purposed not toward a dispassionate study of the universe, but toward interpreting the data of science to fit the Biblical account of creation. Such people claim to be doing “science,” of course—but real scientists are free, and indeed obligated, to point out that they are misusing the term. A real scientist? Does that exist? How can you base a system on an imaginary ‘real scientist’? Certainly, a person with a religious agenda cannot conduct this so called pure science. But neither can the mythical real scientist, who, unless they grew up with no human interaction, be free of any bias. Similarly, there are people who claim to be highly concerned about “morality” and “human values,” but when we see that they are more concerned about condom use than they are about child rape (e.g. the Catholic Church), we should feel free to say that they are misusing the term “morality,” or that their values are distorted. As I asked at TED, how have we convinced ourselves that on the subject of morality, all views must count equally? It is clear that Harris cannot make his arguments without reverting to moral judgment.


The very idea that a morality exists has not come from science. To say that women should not be degraded, people should not be enslaved, that there should be no war, did not stem from some scientific observation. To even say that there should be an objective morality is, of itself, a subjective moral judgment. What might nature tell us about morality. Survival of the fittest? No room for the weak? Only cooperate if your own well-being is enhanced? In nature, there are animals that herd together for mutual protection. There are also lone hunters, hives, colonies, predator and prey. Would not objective science say that it makes no sense for the genetically weak or defective to survive? In nature, the weak and deformed are left behind. Why would science make an argument for weakening the gene pool and promote the perpetuation of the "defective?" It is not science that has said that the likes of Steven Hawking should survive. Make no mistake, religion has not provided the answer, but within religion has been pearls of wisdom that form the fundamentals of a working morality. I will continue with Sam's talk on TED in Part II.

Let me leave you with some quotes from a real scientist, Albert Einstein:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

END PART I

PROMISES KEPT

WE ALL ARE SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS AND WE ALL HOPE THAT THE POWER OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT WILL LEAD US TO THOSE ANSWERS. This book is about a search that seeks the answers to questions that have plagued many in recent years!


About Promises Kept

Promises Kept is Faith’s story, an unforgettable young woman whose life’s journey has been filled with uncertainty, of searching for people and answers that others take for granted. Compassionate and courageous, she never gives up, showing strength and character beyond her years. It is also the story about the power of the human spirit, of family, friends and love.
After finding the father she never knew until adulthood, and graduating law school, Faith is focused on bringing down the priest who abused her father as a child. She wants the cunning, deceitful cleric put behind bars long enough that no other young boy will ever have to fear his touch. She takes on a veteran, highly experienced and shrewd Boston lawyer. He underestimates her passion for justice, her fight for right against a wrong.
The story transforms from the legal battle on behalf of her father into a beautiful love story as she falls madly in love with her colleague, Tyler England. Soon, her fighting instincts are called on like never before. Only this time her intelligence, perseverance and resolve may not be enough.

About Cindy Bradford

Cindy Bradford is the author of Keeping Faith and Promises Kept, recently released on Amazon. She lives at South Padre Island, Texas, where she loves the peacefulness of the Gulf of Mexico. She tries to spend several months a year at her condo in Ruidoso, New Mexico, since she has a view of the Sierra Blanca Mountains, and therefore, the best of both worlds. A native Texan, Cindy spent her childhood in East Texas before living in central, northern, and now the southernmost part of the state.
Cindy has a B.A. in English and journalism from Baylor University and a master’s degree and a Ph.D. from the University of North Texas. As a college student, she worked at a city newspaper and wrote for the university newspaper. She was also editor of the Baylor literary magazine, for which she won a university graphic arts award.
She started her career in education as a high school teacher and quickly became director of communications, a position that allowed her to use her writing skills and creative talents. Within months of being hired for that position, she was named Rookie of the Year by the Texas School Public Relations Association. She held several other administrative positions before becoming a superintendent of schools in the Dallas area. Following a lengthy career in public education, she served seven years as a tenured associate professor for the University of Texas system. Prior to writing fiction, she wrote numerous professional articles that were published in various journals and educational periodicals. She also enjoys writing poetry when time permits.
Dr. Bradford is an avid traveler and has visited more than 40 countries, plus numerous states and islands in the last ten years. Her other hobbies include gardening, cooking, and reading. Tasting, drinking, collecting, and reading about different wines and the countries that produce them is a passion of the author. She often incorporates her knowledge of wine into her writings and shares the many beautiful places she has visited, known for outstanding wines, with her readers. She is currently working on two more novels.

For more details -www.KeepingFaithTheNovel.com and www.DocCBradford.com/my-books

THE POWER OF YOUR CHILD'S IMAGINATION

About The Power of Your Child’s Imagination: How to Transform Stress and Anxiety into Joy and Success BY Charlotte Reznick, PhD

The Power of Your Child’s Imagination will show you how to empower your child with easy, effective, and creative skills for surviving—and thriving—in a stressful world. This indispensable guide provides nine simple tools to help children cope with stress and anxiety by tapping into their imagination to access their own natural strength and confidence.

In this book you will discover how to help a child:

* Love, accept, and appreciate himself
* Reduce pain and heal other physical ailments
* Overcome fears, such as fear of the unknown, abandonment, doctors, disasters, and dying
* Deal with bedtime issues such as insomnia and bedwetting
* Cope with death, divorce, and other losses
* Handle anger, hurt, and frustration
* Achieve success at school and in sports
* Live peacefully with siblings and parents


About Charlotte Reznick, PhD

Dr. Charlotte Reznick has dedicated her life to helping children, adolescents, parents, and professionals. She is a nationally recognized child and educational Psychologist and Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology at UCLA. Upon earning her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Southern California, she was honored with “Dissertation of the Year” for her work on the effects of parental divorce on adolescents.

For over 20 years, Dr. Reznick has pioneered therapeutic interventions with a wide spectrum of children. Responding with unerring intuition to children’s diverse needs, Dr. Reznick is best known for creating Imagery For Kids: Breakthrough for Learning, Creativity, and Empowerment. This highly insightful program of guided and interactive imagery – enhanced by music, relaxation techniques, drawing, and journal writing – can help all children achieve their highest learning potential, develop self-esteem, heal internal conflicts, and reduce overall stress.

To download a free e-book with more information on The Power of Your Child's Imagination: How to Transform Stress and Anxiety into Joy and Success and Dr Reznick , visit http://bookpromotionservices.com/reznick/. For a limited time Dr Reznick is offering a very special gift to each person who purchases a copy of her book, including over 80 free gifts, please visit http://www.imageryforkids.com/book/ for all details.

QUANTUM PHYSICS AND ANCIENT WISDOM

Is science beginning to verify ancient mystical truths? Here are two events as reported in Scientific American that, to me, show that continued discoveries in quantum physics leave little doubt as to the answer.
“PORTLAND, Ore. — Researchers have demonstrated a device that can pick up single quanta of mechanical vibration similar to those that shake molecules during chemical reactions, and have shown that the device itself, which is the width of a hair, acts as if it exists in two places at once—a "quantum weirdness" feat that so far had only been observed at the scale of molecules.

"This is a milestone," says Wojciech Zurek, a theorist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. "It confirms what many of us believe, but some continue to resist—that our universe is 'quantum to the core'."

Physicists have long known that, following the laws of quantum mechanics, objects at the scale of atoms or smaller can exist in multiple simultaneous states. For example, a single electron can move along multiple different paths or an atom can be placed in two different places, simultaneously. This so-called superposition of states should in principle apply to larger objects, as well… As to how the day-to-day reality of objects that we observe, such as furniture and fruit, emerges from such a different and exotic quantum world, that remains a mystery.”

In another story written by Geoff Brumfiel we see that, “A team of scientists has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving.

Andrew Cleland at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his team cooled a tiny metal paddle until it reached its quantum mechanical "ground state"-- the lowest-energy state permitted by quantum mechanics. They then used the weird rules of quantum mechanics to simultaneously set the paddle moving while leaving it standing still. The experiment shows that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as as atomic-scale particles.
The work is simultaneously being published online today in Nature and presented today at the American Physical Society's meeting in Portland, Oregon.
According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences: it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously. Through a phenomenon known as "superposition" a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time--at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions.

But although the rules of quantum mechanics seem to apply at small scales, nobody has seen evidence of them on a large scale, where outside influences can more easily destroy fragile quantum states. "No one has shown to date that if you take a big object, with trillions of atoms in it, that quantum mechanics applies to its motion," Cleland says.”

There is no obvious reason why the rules of quantum mechanics shouldn't apply to large objects. Erwin Schrödinger, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, was so disturbed by the possibility of quantum weirdness on the large scale…
"It's wonderful," says Hailin Wang, a physicist at the University of Oregon in Eugene who has been working on a rival technique for putting an oscillator into the ground state. The work shows that the laws of quantum mechanics hold up as expected on a large scale. "It's good for physics for sure," Wang says.
So if trillions of atoms can be put into a quantum state, why don't we see double-decker buses simultaneously stopping and going? Cleland says he believes size does matter: the larger an object, the easier it is for outside forces to disrupt its quantum state.

So what’s the big deal? Mystics have long held to several fundamental maxims. The macrocosm, large, and the microcosm, infinitely small, are one: what applies to one, applies to the other. Mystics have said that we create our own reality; form follows thought; what we seek is what we find; like attracts like; our focus is our reality; reality is merely our thoughts made manifest and we can alter that reality with thought; and we are all one.

Until now, many scientists simply shunned much of what was happening on the quantum scale and felt that it just did not matter with regard to the larger world in which we live. The mentioned experiments would seem to point in the direction that they are wrong. What we hold as laws of the physical world are not immutable and only reflect our current state of awareness. Almost every day, some basic scientific law is found to be false. We have seen that if we seek to measure electrons as particles, we get particles. But, if we seek to measure electrons as waves, we get waves. Science is finding that things can be in different places at the same time and can be opposite and alike at the same time. They are have shown that what is done to one atom can affect an atom at an infinite distance at the same time. Words like quantum entanglement and superposition may not be just unusual phenomena at the sub-atomic level but can be observed at the larger scale. What may be happening is that as human awareness expands, granted at the moment through the use of new equipment, we are beginning to observe a closer version of reality–one that can change with a thought. When we are only aware of things at the gross level, then we only perceive what appears to be true at that level. But when we look closer at the detail, a whole new world and sets of laws emerge. These are the same laws that mystics intuited in ancient days when they were not under the mental restrictions of scientific, religious, political or even social dogma.

This is why I cannot accept some of the basic premises of author Sam Harris. While I applaud his fight against religious dogma, he is actually creating a new dogma based upon science and reason. But as we see, science and reason are also suspect as they are ever changing and never creating a true picture of the inner workings of the universe. They find what they seek. But if your search is based upon preconceived notions and false science, you have merely done what all movements do; collapse under their own biased philosophy. They create laws where there are none.
Many seers and prophets tell of two possible futures for humanity: one in which dogma leads to destruction and one where spiritual enlightenment leads to a world of balance and harmony. Nostradamus, the Mayans, the Hopi, biblical seers, Newton, DaVinci and others tried to tell us that we cannot rely upon our physical senses, science or religion to guide our thoughts and actions. They tell us that there is something deeper, something spiritual, that we must remember if we are to control the future of our evolution. Those working on the quantum physics scale are beginning to ‘get it.’ Given enough time, if there is enough time, they will lead us full circle back to ancient truths that were discovered without the microscope or the Bible. If there is to be a “Great Awakening” by 2012, it will be necessary to shed all of the old ways of thinking and embrace a new reality that we consciously create and founded on the ancient universal principles that include: what we due to the least of our brethren, including all species, we do to us and, what we do to others, we do to ourselves.

The articles references can be found at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supersize-quantum-mechanics&sc=physics_20100319
And
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone&sc=DD_20100319

SECOND SIGHT

Second Sight by Judith Orloff, MD (2nd Edition)

THIS IS A TIME WHEN WE COULD ALL STAND FOR SOME HEALING. LET JUDITH ORLOFF HELP YOU!

In this moving personal story Dr. Orloff recounts her "journey to become whole" by first accepting and then embracing her intuitive abilities. She tells of her childhood fear of her intuition, of her physician-parents' efforts to ignore and even deny them, and of her slow awakening to the understanding that her intuition is truly a gift. She tells of her struggle to incorporate her abilities into her practice and of the many successes she's experienced with patients ever since. Second Sight is a soulful and friendly bestseller.

Text from the back cover

As a child, her vivid dreams and intuitions were whispered about behind closed doors. As a medical student, she denied the "shameful secret" by immersing herself in the absolutes of science. Then as a psychiatrist, Dr. Judith Orloff recieved proof of the value of her gift when an intuition foretold a patient's suicide attempt. In this remarkable self-portrait, she takes you on the journey of a lifetime, one that brought her from ignorance to understanding, from loneliness to peace, from despair to hope...

NOW SHE TEACHES YOU HOW TO UNCOVER YOUR INTUITIVE GIFTS

“There is no elite to which the gift belongs--the seeds have been planted in all of us....each one of us is multifaceted, radiant, teeming with possibilities.”
As she tells you her own story, Dr. Judith Orloff will teach you how to recognize intuitive experiences in everyday life, awaken your own intuition with special mind-empowering exercises, and use meditation, prayer, and dream interpretation to broaden your possibilities. And like Dr. Orloff you'll soon be on a quest to reexamine your life, your beliefs, your future...and your own wonderous potential.
GET your copy of Second Sight ON MARCH 1st and receive 80+ GIfts from amazing teachers such as Dr. Joan Borysenko, Rev. Michael Beckwith, and Deepak Chopra, and Shirley MacLaine at http://www.drjudithorloff.com/second-sight-promotion/

Judith Orloff MD is author of the new book SECOND SIGHT: AN INTUITIVE PSYCHIATRIST TELLS HER STORY AND SHOWS YOU HOW TO TAP YOUR OWN INNER WISDOM (Three Rivers Press, 2010 updated edition). Her other bestsellers are Emotional Freedom, Positive Energy, Intuitive Healing. Dr. Orloff synthesizes the pearls of traditional medicine with cutting edge knowledge of intuition, energy, and spirituality. She passionately believes that the future of medicine involves integrating all this wisdom to achieve emotional freedom and total wellness. For more inspiration and free articles visit www.drjudithorloff.com

SPECIAL INTERESTS AND THE "STATE OF CONFUSION"

Perhaps the best way to defeat an opponent or to throw them off track is to create a state of confusion. It is a tactic that has been used since the beginning of civilization by religious leaders, political tyrants, politicians, corporations, political parties and just about any organized group seeking to further its own ends. In the time of Jesus, religious orthodoxy confused the people and the Romans by claiming that Jesus said that he was God. In World War I the Germans thought to confuse the allies by attacking France via Belgium. In World War II great efforts were made to convince the Nazis that the invasion would not occur at Normandy. Today, it is clear that corporations and special interests seek to confuse the public on a host of issues that they simply do not want to be addresses.

What is the best way to derail health care reform? Easy, claim that the proponents of such reform will take away benefits from the burgeoning ranks of senior citizens. Add to that a pinch of government death committees, claims of higher costs and lack of choice and the average person will shy back from any meaningful reform. Of course, such claims do not have to be true; they just need to make the headlines which are more than ready to accommodate sensationalists’ claims.

How about global warming and climate change? It is clear that special interests, the oil industry in particular, do not want to change their business and profit as usual method of operation. With ever mounting evidence that the planet is facing some kind of major change, the best strategy is to confuse the public, and even politicians, by condemning the data. Find one flaw, like the Himalayan glacial rate of melt, and then argue that all of the climate change data is wrong and suspect. Throw in a southern snow storm and one can easily argue, “See, the planet is getting cooler, not warmer.” It is like poor Johnny who gets one answer wrong on his test so the teacher assumes that all of the answers must be suspect also. Despite clear and irrefutable data and on–the-ground observations, corporations have managed to create an air of skepticism around any climate change or warning trend. They have managed to throw into the background any headline about all of the glaciers that are rapidly melting, loss of major water supplies, severity of storms and droughts, rising sea temperatures (December was the highest sea temperature on record), ocean acidification, crop failures, rising sea levels (even in Rhode Island and Florida), and growing climate chaos. By pointing to a couple of years of cool weather, they have managed to take any attention away from a temperature line that is still going up and up. Oh, did I mention the Northwest Passage and ice free arctic waters?

What about the economy? Moneyed interests have managed to steal billions of dollars from the public, make record high profits, pay ludicrous bonuses, foreclose on millions of homes, increase profits by not re-hiring and then getting away with putting holds on regulatory reform or any legislation that is geared to protecting the consumer. How do they manage this? Simply put, by confusing the issues. They claim that Obama is not creating jobs (How many people can he hire at the White House anyway?), his policies are anti-business and job growth (Of course they have no problem taking the billions for their own purposes), regulation would destroy the free market (What free market?), and that if you want the best, you’ve got to pay. Of course, it is the “best and the brightest” that created the economic mess in the first place.

The best part of “confusion” as a strategy is that what you say does not have to be true. You do not need supporting facts and figures. You do not have to justify your claims to the public or the politicians. You do not even really have to lie. All that is required is that you create skepticism and uncertainty. These conditions grind the decision making process to a halt. Few politicians will support a worthy and valid cause if, by some chance, they may be blamed if the cause becomes faulty. If you can create the question, “What if you are wrong,” then you have succeeded in toppling or paralyzing your opponent. It is easy to convince others to “take it slow,” and to be cautious, particularly if votes are involved.

The “State of Confusion” is a wonderful place for special interests. By raising the specter of possible error, such interests can achieve their goals and spend very little doing so. They can fund a study, put a scientist on the payroll, give a grant to a medical institution, or bankroll an economist to create doubt and inaction. One would think that with all of the information that is available, people could see through the smokescreen. Although, special interests can even flood the internet with confusing information. Perhaps if time was of no concern, this would not be as big an issue. But time lost means jobs lost, lives lost and a climate that might have a hard time supporting human habitation. Tick, tock. So how confused are you?