Science and Secularism
Haiku Quintets and Other Musings
Cover design: Sean Connor
© Dan Dana, 2020
Five Palms Press
Sarasota, Florida
dandana.us/fivepalms
Contents
1. My Journey to Atheism
2. Haiku Explainer
3. Note to Publishers
4. Dedication
5. Secularism Haiku
6. Science Haiku
7. Ode to Scientism
8. Debunking Creationism
9. Quotes by Scientists
10. About Dan
11. Other books by Dan
12. Acknowledgements
My Journey to Atheism
I was born an atheist … and so were you.
Like every other newborn mammal for the past 210 million years, I departed my mother’s womb with no prenatally formed beliefs about the world I was entering.
Like most other newborn members of my 300,000-year-old species, Homo sapiens, I was thrust unprepared, as a blank slate, into a social environment where adults held an understanding of their world, uninformed by science, that represented the shared beliefs of their time and place.
By fortunate happenstance, in my case that social environment was a loving Christian family in the rural Midwest of the United States. The year, as denoted in the Common Era’s method of counting solar circuits, was 1945. Had my birth occurred in 3000 BCE in a place that is now called Egypt, Tibet, Peru, Iraq, Zimbabwe, or Borneo, I would not have become a Christian. Even if I had been born in 1945 in any of those places, I would not have become a Christian. The demographic accidents of my birth determined the religion that I acquired from my family, as did yours.
My mother, as her mother before her, was the pianist of our local Methodist church. My grandfather was the choir leader. As a pliant child, I conformed to my family’s implicit expectations of me. I earned and proudly wore a lapel pin awarded by our church for not missing Sunday services for six consecutive years. I learned our hymns and enjoyed singing them with my congregation of co-parishioners. I became a Christian. Indeed, I had never even met a person who was NOT a Christian.
Then, one fateful Sunday in my mid-teens, I met a boy about my age who was the visiting grandson of a family in our community. He told me, boldly and without shame, that he was not a Christian. Indeed, he did not believe in any religion. He gave me a small paperback book, which remains on my bookshelf today, of excerpts of writings by British mathematician, philosopher, and noted atheist, Bertrand Russell. I hungrily devoured that book, intrigued by the discovery that the beliefs I held might be malleable. The moat surrounding my insulated world had been breached.
An epistemological crisis was thereby launched: How could I be SURE my beliefs, mirroring my community’s Methodist doctrine, were true? A Baptist church was located a few miles away, and I knew several fine, upstanding farmer-neighbors who attended it. The tenets of our respective churches differed only slightly, but I wondered why “we” believed in our teachings while “they” believed in theirs. We both were equally confident that we were correct, but both being true was logically impossible if any of those beliefs were mutually incompatible. Someone was wrong, and didn’t know it. How could I KNOW, for sure, that my beliefs were the correct ones? So, I broadened my identity as a Methodist to the more general category, Protestant.
The logical impossibility of mutually exclusive beliefs both being true soon became even more troubling. My questioning progressed to even greater challenges to the religious beliefs of my family. A Catholic church was located a few miles away in Richmond, the largest town in our rural Missouri county. Although I was dimly aware of the general beliefs of Catholics, I recognized that they were VERY different from those of us Protestants. My epistemological crisis deepened. I began to call myself a Christian, no longer specifically a Protestant.
Somewhere along the way, I learned that Jewish people lived in Kansas City, an hour’s drive away, although I had not yet knowingly met a Jew. Knowing little of Jewish faith, yet recognizing that significant seemingly irreconcilable differences defined the ideological chasm between us Christians and those Jews (most significantly, the identity of Jesus), my crisis darkened further. I reluctantly recognized that I had no way of knowing that we Christians were correct, and those Jews were wrong. It seemed everyone grew up believing what their parents taught them, ignorant of the array of alternative religions, one of which might actually be the correct one. Uncritically absorbing my community’s faith was insufficient for my wondering mind to feel confident in the correctness of my beliefs. Blind faith was not enough.
A pivotal moment occurred in my junior year of high school while on the softball field, where, as a non-athletic boy, I was relegated to deep outfield where I had time to think between infrequent calls to action. That moment is seared in my memory. It was a lightning bolt of panic in which I realized that my growing skepticism was leading inexorably to the forbidden question of whether God exists at all. That was a terrifying doubt, a mortal sin, an inexcusable failure of faith. My eternal afterlife dangled by a thread.
My father, an esteemed man in our community, had died a few years earlier. Although I assumed he had been a Christian, he had not been a regular church attendee, and he never led prayers at mealtimes. I dearly longed for his wise guidance through my existential crisis.
My mother was more devout, although not a scaremongering “hellfire and brimstone” fundamentalist. So, I gathered up my courage and asked her about my growing doubts about the most central element of faith – does God exist? Worried for my soul, she tried her best to explain, but was unable to assure me of an affirmative answer. Fearing for my salvation, she referred me to her brother, who had become a Methodist preacher mid-way through a career of farming. Surely, as a “man of God,” Uncle Bob could help me escape hell and damnation. Although caring and compassionate for his struggling nephew, he could offer nothing more than the palliative instruction to have faith. I felt abandoned in my wavering wasteland of faithlessness.
Soon, upon graduation from high school, I went to college (University of Missouri) where I met Catholics, Jews, fellow skeptics, and even atheists. Campus life was a tantalizing island of freethought in an ocean of dogma. I promptly identified as an agnostic, arriving at the conclusion that the answer to the question of God’s existence is inherently unknowable. My relief was palpable upon concluding that a loving God surely would not condemn me to everlasting hell simply for not believing something that was essentially unknowable. All I needed to do was to be a kind, considerate person, as modeled by my loving family – a religion-free ethic that I later learned to identify as “secular humanism.”
Further, I concluded that the love I experienced in my family had nothing to do with their religious beliefs. From my humanist perch, I could see that their humanitarian values were not motivated by a transactional bargain about reward or punishment to be delivered in their imagined afterlife. Rather, their kindness was a feature of our family’s cultural ethos.
Along my educational path as a mathematics major, I took several courses in science. With each horizon-broadening channel into understanding the natural world, my agnosticism tilted further toward atheism. Belief in “supernatural” entities, such as deities and a spiritual, nonmaterial afterlife, seemed increasingly likely to be human inventions, born of scientific ignorance, designed to satisfy psycho-emotional needs.
My wandering academic path eventually took me to psychology, where I remained through the PhD in 1977. My ensuing career firmly consolidated my science-based worldview, my atheistic theology, and my humanist ethics.
Today, retired and well into my eighth decade of life, I am untroubled by theological doubts. My pleasure-reading largely involves science, especially cosmology and its quantum-scale counterpart, particle physics. Taking mind-trips to the edge of the cosmos and beyond, and into the “spooky” (to quote Einstein) quantum world, is all the inspiration I need to rise above humdrum human-scale existence and be lifted to the secular equivalent of “spirituality.” Regular sunset-moments inspire awe and gratitude for the extreme good fortune of my conscious existence in this vast universe of time and space. Those magic moments suffice as my occasional “sweet hour of prayer.”
This slight e-book is my invitation to visit some touchstones I’ve stumbled upon along my journey. May you find your own way.
Haiku quintet explainer: I strive to pack as much meaning as possible into seventeen syllables in three unrhymed lines of 5-7-5 format, adopting the 17th Century Japanese style. Intentionally ambiguous words and phrases prompt the reader to project personal idiosyncratic significance onto the verse (think Rorschach inkblot). Diverging from tradition, and committing other poetic heresies, I compose a quintet of haiku under a single umbrella idea, which, as an ensemble, comprise a narrative theme. A photo or image illustrates and completes the final product. I dub this novel art form "verbal impressionism by curious wordcraft." Apologies to Basho for my unorthodoxy.
Note to publishers: Publishers of print and digital media may request permission (gratis) to reprint selections from this volume. Source attribution will be appreciated. Email fivepalms@dandana.us
All images are published by permission or source attribution, unless in public domain.
Photos and images that are not attributed were created by the author.
Dedication
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
your words set me free
scales fell from wide teen-age eyes
young life's course re-set
superstitions foiled
country church's hold released
dogma's chains broken
freethought flowed undammed
secular humanism's
sensible worldview
these sixty years hence
pondering the Universe
my life's shaped by yours
your book filled its task
enriched life beyond measure
thank you, Lord Russell
Photo: Original copy of the book that changed my life in 1961
Secularism Haiku Quintets
Haiku01
First God
Sarasota sun
same shone on our ancient ones’
first wondering minds
seven million years
who first pondered mystery?
what is it? who knows?
gives us light, warmth, time
no science, yet, to know facts,
so, we made stuff up
humans need belief
myths fill yawning hungry void
hence, god-of-the-gaps
now, we know stars’ truth
but still worship Father Sun
or some offspring son
Haiku02
Is Atheism a Faith?
is atheism
a belief system like those
we call religions?
if no evidence,
is not believing belief,
or simply reason?
is end of living
your afterlife’s beginning
if nothing happens?
can not lifting weights
be your daily exercise,
or just self-deceit?
I have a hobby: *
not collecting foreign stamps,
hours of pleasure
* Inspired by a joke by comedian Ricky Gervais
Haiku03
My Nigerian Atheist Friend
half a world away
near neighbors in cyberspace
he must hide his truth
wife, friends, family
die-hard zealots of dogma
religionists all
God's set men seek wealth
streets littered with loud churches
monstrous billboards shout
so many pastors
shrilling mindboggling song-sprees
launch zombie-like trance
African dark zone
be careful, my new-found friend
your life is at risk
Most words above are lifted from his emails to me. He's the poet. I am his haiku arranger.
Image is a generic silhouette, not his likeness. He must remain anonymous for his safety.
Image source: netclipart.com
Haiku04
Along for the Ride
I’m a spectator
in world's unfolding drama
one unit of life
I’m not at the wheel
just a wide-eyed passenger
hurtling through spacetime
on Earth’s fragile skin
voyaging the vast unknown
along for the ride
awash in deep awe
of this accidental trip
as long as it lasts
I'll binge on life’s feast
with gratitude for blind luck
'til my final bite
Image: Our home-hatched chick driving an unstrung 1972 Colombian tiple, rather like me
Haiku05
On Dying
as life leaves this eye
what will I say to myself?
will someone hear me?
to Mother Cosmos
returns borrowed molecules
life has been a trip
such dumb luck at birth!
fate smiled so kindly on me
vastly more than most
I'll live 'til I don't
the day unknowable yet,
but I choose to choose
my life, not others’
until its end comes in view
it’s mine to decide
Haiku11
Whence Reality?
how come existence?
the ultimate mystery
yet, we're here to ask
something from nothing?
why not pure unalloyed void?
or blank “empty” space?
if god, then whence god?
tautological nonsense
fake metaphysics
whence mathematics?
numbers without universe
if nothing to count?
no answers quench thirst,
so why ask vexing questions?
just wondering, awed
Haiku12
Math = Nature?
pi, Fibonacci,
Einstein's relativity:
purely abstract math?
can broccoli count?
nature’s patterns plainly seen
chicken-egg puzzle
Neptune spied by math
before earthly telescope
orbit computed
must math fit nature?
vice versa? coincidence?
prescribes or describes?
nature’s core essence
reality’s a hologram?
what’s real, anyway?
Haiku13
Universe
ultra-deep field view
sees ten thousand galaxies
in one-tenth moon's width
Hubble plumbs spacetime
thirteen billion lightyears yon
Big Bang’s further still
probing past’s extremes
genesis of all we know
or something before?
frail words fail this task
cosmic scale eludes vision
unthinkably vast
ours one of many?
an infinite multiverse?
my small mind is blown
Photo: Ultra Deep Field, Hubble Space Telescope, NASA
Image source: spacetelescope.org/images
Haiku14
That’s the Mystery
above sea level
Bronx to DC, space station
circling overhead
weekend jaunt to moon
eight-light-minute sunbeam strikes
photons touch my skin
next-door neighbor nears
Andromeda’s stars join ours
galactic merger
fourteen billion years
Hubble probes spacetime's frontier
scale defies my grasp
mind's eye’s overwhelmed
why am I compelled to try?
that's the mystery!
Inset image: Most distant object ever seen (as of 2020). The light we see today left that galaxy 13.4 billion years ago. Due to continuing expansion of the universe, it is now 32.1 billion light-years from Earth, and may now be a spiral galaxy like our Milky Way. Light travels 186,000 miles per second, i.e., one light-second. Do the math!
Image source: Hubble Space Telescope (spacetelescope.org)
Haiku15
Cosmic Boundaries
after end of time,
before beginning of time,
beyond edge of space
what's on other side?
Big Bang launched this universe
others were before?
nonsense questions, these?
human scale fails to answer
need more dimensions
“empty” space expands
quantum scale’s “spooky action”
math sees more than scopes
reality’s bounds
exceed imagination
science peeks beyond
Photo: An exquisitely tiny portion of the Universe (Hubble Space Telescope)
Image source: NASA (svs.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Haiku16
Edge of the Universe
straight line forever?
or, sphere's unbounded surface
in four dimensions?
Einstein lifted veil
dark matter, dark energy,
spacetime’s curve toward mass
space booms since Big Bang
ever-accelerating
faster than light-speed
"edge" not border wall
nothing visible beyond
edge of time, not space
unlike universe,
this haiku's not infinite
I've reached the edge now
Image: Artist's rendering of the observable universe on logarithmic scale
Image source: futurism.com
Haiku17
Pondering Infinity
“here” lies in-between
multiverse and quantum world
cosmic scale blows minds
“now” spans all being
Big Bang to eternity
time’s unsure end-points
human mind flummoxed
infinity eludes thought
limitless spacetime
my puny brain fails
marveling in wonderment
fleeting glimpses wane
magical thinking
invents SUPERnatural
this is all there is
Haiku18
Gravity Makes Things Round
stars, planets, large moons,
massive objects throughout space:
near-perfect spheres … how?
landslides avalanche
all liquids run downhill
Alps erode in time
neutron star’s surface
"mountains" not one atom high
all protrusions crushed
gravity pulls in
orb's energies push back hard
tectonic plates clash
our preening planet
always smoothing its pimples
galactic Botox
Photo source: earthobservatory.nasa.gov
Haiku19
Cosmic New Year
one solar round trip:
two pi times Earth-Sun distance
back home? … no, Sun moved
Earth’s orbital gait:
thirty thousand miles per hour
speed kills, police warn
Milky Way rotates:
Sun orbits center’s black hole
last year's home moved on
galaxy moves, too
nothing stays where we left it
permanence is myth
enjoy this wild ride
home is today … be. here. now.
New Year’s cheer, Earthlings!
Hubble Space Telescope photo of M81 spiral galaxy, similar to Milky Way
Image source: skynews.ca
Haiku20
Chicxulub Asteroid Impact
bad day for Earth-life
sixty million years ago
extinction event
six-mile-wide space rock
forty thousand miles per hour
Yucatan got thwacked
global firestorms raged
tough birds, wee mammals eked out
evolution worked
big dinos perished
only pre-chickens survived
and our parent shrews
lucky us, or not?
antinatalists dissent
our demise postponed
Image source: earthsky.org (artist’s rendering)
Haiku21
Saturn
sixth orb from our star
icy rings of primal stuff
ancient poets' muse
Cassini's grand tour
whence beauty to human eye?
lush charm on display
spacetime's curve draws in
solar vortex rules its path,
if Einstein was right
rocky core within?
or diamonds beyond measure?
humans’ chemicals
more orbiting globes
our cosmic neighborhood swarms
but, are we alone?
Photo by Cassini spacecraft orbiting Saturn – note the planet’s shadow on its rings, indicating the direction of the sun and nearby Earth.
Image source: solarsystem.nasa.gov
Haiku22
Water
thank you, H20
the molecule that built us
waterworld, our home
this fresh drink I drink
a comet, once upon a time?
squeezed from proto-rock?
Sun's Goldilocks zone
lies between vapor and ice
life's possible range
Sagan's “pale blue dot”
wet droplet floating in space
rare, but not unique
marvelous good luck?
we can think mind-blowing thoughts
but at such dear cost!
Photo of Earth (find the “pale blue dot”) from 3.7 billion miles by Voyager 1 space probe, 1990
Image source: planetary.org
Haiku23
Supermoon
good new day, old friend
Monday morning supermoon
so near, yet so far
since ancients looked up
wondered, what is it? how far?
early wise men stumped
Mother Moon stays moored
Father Sun’s steadfast partner
poets’ crescent muse
mysteries unsolved
millenia’s gnawing awe,
mind’s thirst left unquenched
Moon’s birth pang now known:
wayward planet tore from Earth
still, this poet’s muse
Haiku24
We Are Accidental People
two million years past
our concestor's mom conceived
one stout sperm out-swam
brother-horde’s best one
every human since descends
if other won, who?
what history would?
whole other population,
wars, leaders, prophets
that quirk’s chance result:
who is now would not have been,
strange facts would be true
if alt granddad won
I would not be writing this
nor you reading it
Image: Our grandmother (100,000 generations removed). Fossil reconstruction from likely period of the most recent common ancestor (concestor) of all humans living today.
Image source: Houston Museum of Natural Science (hmns.org)
Haiku25
Poetic Science
colossal questions
species contemplates itself
clumps of brambled thoughts
fathomless cosmos
bone-cave atop our shoulders
how matter made mind
nature's timeless laws
science: tamed metaphysics
grace of random chance
knowing's single stream
from bacteria to Bach
life's crawl from the sea
ephemeral lives
perishable miracle
death cuts time’s arrow
Inspired by phrasings in Maria Popova's review in Brain Drippings of physicist Brian Greene's Until the End of Time
Haiku26
Life
natural process
universe’s chemistry
our Earth’s not unique
since three billion years
evolution continues
we’re not its end-point
Goldilocks zones teem
Drake's equation* calculates
spacetime hosts trillions
Perseverance seeks
ancient life’s eco-death cause
Mars’ skeleton key
prove the obvious:
sentience swarms bio-niches
Reason wins again
* The Drake Equation estimates the number of life-forms in the Milky Way and in trillions of other galaxies in the knowable universe.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Image: Perseverance Rover on Mars (artist’s conception)
Image source: mars.nasa.gov/mars2020
Haiku27
Climate Crisis
what to do, Earth-mates?
sacrifice for those to come?
hoard for selves here now?
postpone certain doom?
New York, Shanghai sink
existential risk
mass migrations swarm
famine, war, disease, typhoons
life-quality fails
can globe decide, act,
meet superordinate need?
history casts doubt
Venus' fate, or Mars'?
antinatalists’ dreamworld:
planet survives us
Photo: Earthrise from Apollo 8 in lunar orbit, 1968
Image source: nasa.gov
Ode to Scientism
Why Me?
I am a multitude of molecules named Dan.
Atoms within my molecules,
Their nuclei fused by stellar violence,
Producing the baryonic matter within my skin.
Quarks within the nuclei,
Strings within the quarks?
Numbering trillions of trillions,
Yet finite.
Why here? Why now? Why me?
My place,
This spot,
On this planet, the Earth,
Orbiting this star, the Sun,
Circling this galaxy, the Milky Way,
In this galactic cluster, the Local Group,
In this filament, unnamed by earthlings,
In this observable universe, the only one?
Or one within a multiverse?
Infinite?
A speck within unfathomable vastness.
Why here? Why now? Why me?
My time,
This moment,
My 76th year, of 14 billion
Since our Big Bang.
An infinite past?
An infinite future?
This is my moment, insignificant to the cosmos.
This is my life, significant to me.
Ponder the irony.
Why here? Why now? Why me?
My mind, just chemistry.
My body, just biology.
My here-and-now, just physics.
My existence, just cosmology.
If knowable, then just by science.
Why here? Why now? Why me?
Mysteries abound:
Whence the Big Bang?
Dark matter?
Cosmic acceleration?
Quantum entanglement?
Abiogenesis?
Consciousness?
Myriad known unknowns,
More unknown unknowns, as yet unimagined.
Why here? Why now? Why me?
A god of the gaps, perhaps?
No Creator.
No First Cause.
No Great Beyond.
No Higher Purpose.
No godly myths reveal the still-undiscovered.
No pious tales hush the wondering mind.
No need.
No why.
Just here. Just now. Just me.
Just is.
Awesome.
Creationism Debunked by Science and Reason
This text was initially prepared under the title "An Atheist Critique of Pandeism,” an invited chapter for Pandeism: An Anthology, (John Hunt Publishing, 2016). The critique applies equally to creationism in general, and is presented here for readers whose interests lie beyond pandeism.
Pandeism posits a creator-deity that became the universe itself upon its creation. As such, it is perhaps the most elemental creationist theology, sidestepping anti-evolution, "intelligent design," and other post-creation arguments favoring religion.
In debunking pandeism by means of recent findings in cosmology and astrophysics, this reader-friendly article for the intellectually curious non-scientist also effectively debunks all forms of theistic creationism.
In doing so, it convincingly exposes the false premise of supernaturalism, regardless of which religion is its partner in delusion.
An Atheist Critique of Pandeism
A complete definition of pandeism may be found elsewhere in this anthology. For the purpose of this critique, I will use this definition from Wikipedia: The belief that a creator deity became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.1
As such, pandeism is a presuppositional theory attempting to explain the beginning of existence, the presupposition being that existence had a beginning at all. Here, “existence” is differentiated from “the universe,” and the Big Bang is differentiated from “the beginning of existence,” as will be discussed below.
My view that pandeism is an erroneous theory rests on three contentions, which I shall elaborate:
1. There is no evidence that a creator deity ever existed.
2. Pandeism is not compatible with science.
3. Pandeism, like ordinary theism, arises in part from the human inability to fathom the dimensions of infinite time and infinite space.
Virtually every human culture in history has invented religions, deities, afterlife myths, and creation myths to explain the mysteries they encountered in their time. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that over the past 60,000 years humans have devised roughly 100,000 religions based on roughly 2,500 gods.2 The great majority of these religions are now extinct, having no contemporary adherents. The religion of the ancient Greeks, which is now taught in educational institutions as “Greek Mythology,” is the extinct religion perhaps best known to our readers.
Pandeism differs from today’s popular religions in that the deity is no longer believed to exist in a conscious or active form. Hence, it is not a personal god with whom the faithful may communicate via prayer and other channels. Pandeism does, however, hold that a conscious deity once existed that imbued the universe with its intelligence and other sentient qualities.
A problem that pandeism shares with other religions is that no empirical evidence has been found by scientific means that any deity has ever existed. The major extant religions rely on purportedly divinely inspired “holy books” as proof of the truth of their beliefs, which is fallacious circular logic. (I recall a cartoon photo of a paper table napkin with the hand-written inscription, “The napkin religion is the one true religion because it says so here on this napkin.”)
A listing of over fifty religions and their sacred texts may be found at the Wikipedia page on religious texts.3 Of course, not all these religions can be true, since many of their doctrines are mutually incompatible – for example, some are monotheistic whereas others are polytheistic. And, not all their holy books could possibly have been divinely created, since different (and often disagreeing) gods are believed to have inspired them. Clearly, at most, only one of these religions can possibly be entirely true. Further, if all but one are not true, as logic dictates, then it is likely that none are true. After all, how confident can a believer be that one’s religion, being one of many thousands, happens to be the one true religion considering the fact that no religion is supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever? Therefore, all but the most fundamentalist believers recognize the fallibility of so-called sacred texts as evidence of the factuality of their beliefs.
Of course, pandeism has no divinely inspired sacred text, and so its adherents’ faith in the creator deity is based on other premises. Their worldview depends on a priori principles of pure (intuitive) reason to derive their belief that a creator deity once existed, and then the deity became the universe itself. The history of philosophy is littered with the carcasses of beliefs derived through pure reason, the most famous of which may be certain elements of Kantianism itself, the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who originated the term “pure reason” in 1781 (six years before “pandeism” would first be mentioned, by one of Kant’s own countrymen). For example, Kant believed in God only to the extent that he reasoned that morality deductively requires belief in God.4 Secular humanists vigorously assert, with overwhelming supporting evidence, that morality and social ethics are untethered to religious belief, and indeed are regularly practiced by nonbelievers; hence, the common humanist refrain “Good without god(s).”
I will leave to other contributors to this anthology the task of elaborating the a priori principles (assumptions) from which belief in pandeism’s creator deity is derived. Those assumptions will be apparent in their arguments for the existence of the deus.
Being familiar with Christian apologetics, I recognize that the language of science is used disingenuously to support the tenets of their faith, as shown in teleological arguments for “Intelligent Design” and other presuppositional attempts to logically prove the factuality of Christian theology. In my view, pandeism falls victim to (or is the result of) similarly flawed logic. I’m sure my co-contributors will fervidly rejoin with opposing views to this assertion.
To better understand pandeism in preparation for this writing, I posed three questions to Knujon Mapson, the editor of this anthology. (In our prepublication correspondence, Mr. Mapson disclaimed being an “official” representative of pandeism, although he is perhaps its most vocal proponent.) Here is my first question and his answer.
DD: Question 1: Who/what created the creator? Or, did the creator not exist in time and space prior to creation?
KM: Answer (his capitalizations are retained): If a Creator is to be posited, it indeed follows that this Creator must either have itself come into existence through some spontaneous process that did not require a Creator, or was itself intentionally created by an Ur-Creator, or simply exists eternally without origin.
Our esteemed editor acknowledges that his answer is speculative, as no evidence is available to support any of the three alternatives he offers. Indeed, no empirical evidence is even conceivable that would assist us in selecting one of the three possibilities he provides. Rather, those alternative solutions are derived from the a priori assumption that the creator deity existed. Further, to my empirically oriented (“show me the evidence”) mind, none of the three alternatives is remotely plausible. Therefore, the question of what preceded the existence of the creator remains unanswered, and is, I believe, unanswerable if a scientifically plausible response is required. That is, the a priori principle of existence of a creator deity is unsupported by evidence or by logic, and is therefore a false assumption.
Some readers may be reminded of an anecdote reported by cosmologist Stephen Hawking in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"5
So, it seems that pandeism shares a common conundrum with theistic religions: Where did God come from? If we are to avoid the tortured circular reasoning of Christian apologists, and if we require at least a modicum of plausibility, given the utter absence of any supporting empirical evidence, it is hard to escape the reasoned conclusion that God (or some other creator deity by any name) does not, and did not ever, exist.
Mr. Mapson buttressed his answer by pointing out that time is nonlinear, and that time may have also begun at the moment of creation of matter. Time is indeed a variable dimension of spacetime affected by gravity, as confirmed by empirical tests of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.6 So, its inconstancy may be (wrongly) considered by proponents of pandeism to be supportive of the notion that the creator deity created itself at the moment of creation of matter and energy. Indeed, matter and energy are interchangeable quantities according to the formula E=mc2 where the speed of light (c) is constant. Cosmologists and particle physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, describe the Big Bang as pure energy, with matter (in the form of subatomic particles) coming into existence within a miniscule fraction of a second thereafter.7 Further, Krauss states that time itself came into existence at that moment as well, insofar as time is a function of motion of particles in the primordial universe.
Scientists who support the notion of a multiverse, such as astrophysicist Coel Hellier, argue that our universe may be only one among many, or more likely an infinite number, separated by hyper-distance, scattered throughout infinite space (see the semantic discussion of space vs. existence below), entirely out of contact with each other. Admittedly, the concept of a multiverse is speculative, and probably can never be confirmed empirically, although Hellier’s philosophical argument is compelling.8 Moreover, the dimensions of infinite time and space are beyond our limited human powers of imagination. It is instructive to note, however, that Krauss, Hawking, Tyson, Weinberg, Greene, Randall, Hellier, and the great majority of other prominent cosmologists are self-identified atheists who do not find it necessary to posit a creator deity to account for the beginning of our universe.9 So, it may be a bit presumptuous of laymen (relative to the fields of cosmology and astrophysics) to insist otherwise. Indeed, a survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences found that 93% are atheist or agnostic.10 How is it that the most accomplished scientists regard the notion of deities to not be useful in their disciplined search for understanding the natural world and its origin?
Here is my second question to Mr. Mapson.
DD: Question 2: By what physical mechanism(s) did the creator manufacture the material universe? Or, did the creator not exist prior to the creation/Big Bang, at which time particle physics as we now know it began to take form?
KM: Answer: We don’t know, but the answer will be discoverable by science. But it does seem something had to exist, or else there'd be no reason for there ever to be a change in the status quo of nothing existing.
As cosmologist Lawrence Kraus discusses in his book A Universe From Nothing, the laws of physics, as they operate in our universe, appeared concurrently with the Big Bang, not before it.11 Those laws are known as the Standard Model, which identifies electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and classification of all known subatomic particles.12 Indeed, in the conjectured multiverse, other universes may contain “matter,” the form and nature of which may be quite different from matter and energy as they appear in our local universe and may operate under different physical processes than those observed in our universe.
Normal (i.e., observable) matter comprises only about 5% of the mass of our universe, the remainder being dark matter and dark energy.13 These “substances” (perhaps not a suitable term, since little is known about their physical properties) interact with gravity, but not with light. That is, dark matter cannot be visually detected with telescopes, but it does produce observable effects on the motion of stars, galaxies, and other massive objects.
It is plausible, albeit highly speculative, that dark matter and dark energy are associated with a separate universe that originated in a separate Big Bang, that is co-located with ours in space, and that is operating under different laws than the Standard Model that describes normal matter and energy.14 Or, if science develops instruments capable of empirically observing dark matter and dark energy, which are invisible to our existing technology, the Standard Model may be revised to include additional particles or forces that would define these phenomena as derived from our Big Bang and therefore a part of our universe.
In any case, dark matter and dark energy do not conform to the current Standard Model. So, speculatively, another Big Bang that created a different universe might operate under different physical laws, which would have come into existence at that universe’s moment of creation. The physical nature of dark matter and dark energy constitutes one of the great mysteries that cosmologists and physicists are currently studying.
So, we see that “existence” may not be limited to our local universe, which did indeed begin with the Big Bang. Other universes quite likely exist, as Hellier argues. Consequently, the beginning of existence, which pandeism attempts to explain by positing a creator deity, is an irrelevant concept if one accepts that time, as well as space, are infinite in dimension and may contain an infinite number of universes.
Perhaps “distance” or some other term would be more suitable than “space” in this context, since, as Krauss argues, space itself was created with the Big Bang and will continue to expand eternally. He explains that, since space, even where devoid of matter and radiation, contains quantum mechanical processes and dark energy – it is not “nothing.” So, the hyper-distant regions between universes are not the same empirically observable “empty space” that exists within our universe.
Envisioning “nothing,” not even so-called empty space, challenges our frail human imagination, as does the infinite dimensions of spacetime. Nevertheless, if the multiverse exists, as is probable, then absolute nothingness between universes probably also exists. To the extent that we are capable of imagining this nothingness, we can imagine that the Big Bang created the matter, energy, time, and space that constitute our universe.
Existence (“all that exists”), then, encompasses all universes plus whatever lies between them, which is not to be confused with “empty space” as it appears within our particular universe. Further, it may not be physically possible for anything, such as light, to penetrate or travel through that inter-universe medium, ensuring that each universe remains isolated from all others. Science allows such speculation, so long as supernaturalism is not introduced. After all, science is the study of nature. Pandeism, a theology that presupposes a nonmaterial supernatural creator deity, is a demonstrably unscientific theory of existence.
A review of various multiverse theories.15 may assist readers in mulling the incomprehensible scale of infinite spacetime and the fathomless nothingness (not even the “something” of empty space) between universes. Note that these are science-based speculations, not theological renderings of the mysteries of existence. Since science does not anticipate ever being capable of direct empirical observation of other universes, multiverse theories will no doubt remain speculations. Future advances in science, however, will surely refine those speculations.
My conclusion, as well as that of all but a very few professional cosmologists.16, is that the conditions present at the moment of the Big Bang – which have existed throughout infinite time and infinite space, possibly containing an infinite number of universes – were quite capable of creating our home universe 13.72 billion years ago without the midwifery of deus.
As mind-stretching as the concept of infinite spacetime may be, it is nevertheless more plausible, and more consistent with known science, than is a creator deity. Gods are best understood as man-made inventions arising from our pre-science ancestors’ attempts over millennia to explain the otherwise inexplicable mysteries of their earth-bound environment. Otherwise, we face the even more daunting task of explaining, without resorting to mysticism, what happened before the beginning of time, and what lies beyond the edge of space. Which of these two universe-views, dear reader, is your conclusion? Empiricism or mysticism? Reason or mythology? I see no third option. I see no hybrid.
Here is my third and final question to Mr. Mapson.
DD: Question 3: Is/was the creator “supernatural”? Or, are/were the principles of particle physics (the natural world) at work within the “entity” of the creator? Or, is/was the creator a non-material being prior to creation of the universe? If the latter, in what sense did the creator “exist” prior to creation?
KM: Answer (capitalizations are his): If it exists, it is bound by some laws – of mathematics and logic, at least – though not necessarily all the laws which govern our Universe. There are aspects of our Universe (the specific speed of light, the ratios of certain particle sizes) which scientists have debated could be different in alternate Universes, so the question really is, what characteristics must persist in any Universe. And there we'll find what governs any Creator.
Physicists and others working in the natural sciences consider anything that exists, whether or not it is yet discovered, to exist in the natural world, which is comprised of physical matter, including subatomic particles so far identified in the Standard Model. That is, nothing exists that has no physical properties. For example, humans do not have a “soul” apart from the biological processes occurring within the physical body. Similarly, “consciousness” is nothing more than the subjective experience of bioelectrical processes within a living brain. When the brain ceases to function, as when the body that houses it dies, consciousness ceases. Consequently, there is no conscious afterlife and no soul that survives physical death. To be sure, the abiogenetic origin of life is a yet-to-be fully understood process, and is a subject of active research, but there is no scientific basis for thinking that life or consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon that functions outside the laws of science.
My third question to Mr. Mapson above asks whether pandeism holds that the creator deity was an entity composed of physical matter. Or, alternatively, do pandeists believe that the creator was supernatural, having no physical properties. If the former, then the deity is part of the natural universe and therefore must be comprised of physical properties consistent with the Standard Model, and so is subject to research by the scientific method. If the latter, we must utterly reject the notion of a supernatural deity, since the evolving Standard Model describes and defines all that is natural.
The supposed creator deity is believed by adherents of pandeism to have possessed consciousness and intelligence. Absent physical properties, such attributes are scientifically impossible.
I shall close this critique with a brief rebuttal of three additional notions advanced by proponents of pandeism to support their creationist worldview.
Fortuities and the fine-tuned universe
Apologists for pandeism, and for creationism more broadly, argue that certain improbable “fortuities” constitute compelling evidence for the existence of a creator deity. Several examples are proferred17 of “fine tuning” of the laws of physics and other cosmological conditions that, if significantly different from their existing values, would render the universe structurally dysfunctional and make carbon-based life impossible. These conditions include the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity and the ratio of dark energy to the density of the universe. Astrophysicist Martin Rees18 cites these and other technical features of the physical structure of the universe as so improbable that a conscious and intentional creator must have designed it to allow life to appear. (Interestingly, professor Rees has more recently stated, “I've got no religious beliefs at all.”19)
Although some scientists, such as Rees, support the fine-tuning hypothesis, most do not, arguing instead that the universe is not fine-tuned to us; rather, we are fine-tuned to the universe. That is, humans, and all other life forms, exist only in the conditions in which it is possible for us to exist. If our universe were fatally unaccommodating to life, then life would not exist here. We happen to reside where life is possible; hence we are here to ask these questions. There is no support for a cosmic mandate that life must exist, in our universe or in others.
Cosmologist Victor J. Stenger, author of The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us,20 explains how the “strong anthropic principle”21 distorts perception by causing human observers to assume the universe exists for the special benefit of humans, when in fact the universe is simply the way it is. We humans happen to be compatible with the miniscule niche of spacetime in which we find ourselves, where we were suited to evolve, to currently exist, to observe ourselves, and to reflect upon our own existence. This is quite a simple notion, actually, once we cease insisting that we are on the cosmic center stage.
Why does the universe exist?
Pandeism attempts to answer this question by positing a conscious creator deity who had a desire or intention to create the universe.
It is human nature to wonder why. “Why did you say that?” “Why did that accident happen to me?” “Why was I born?” But asking “why” is the wrong question in scientific inquiry, except in some social-psychological research. “Why” presupposes an intention, which in turn presupposes a conscious entity that has a purpose for its actions. As Lawrence Krauss explains in A Universe From Nothing, the more useful question is how: “How did the universe come into existence.” “How will it end?”22
Cosmologists have yet to achieve consensus about how the universe will end. A Big Crunch, in which the universe collapses under force of gravity into a singularity (a zero-dimensional point of infinite density), was the leading contending theory until dark energy was discovered in the 1990’s. Dark energy (an apparently repulsive gravitational force) accounts for the increasing rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe.23 Eternal expansion is now considered more likely. Time, as a mathematically measurable dimension, might indeed end if the Big Crunch were to be our universe’s fate, since presumably there would no longer be matter-in-motion, although current physics is inadequate to explain what happens at or near a singularity. But, infinite spacetime would remain, possibly containing other universes, under either outcome.24 Theology in general, and pandeism in particular, contributes nothing to our understanding of this question, nor to its answer.
So, the scientifically appropriate answer to “Why does the universe exist?” is: There is no reason, there is no purpose. No conscious creator deity had an intention that led to creating the universe.
Supernaturalism
Pandeism claims that the creator deity existed prior to creating the physical properties of the material universe, or at least appeared concurrently with it.
Supernaturalism is the mystical belief that entities exist beyond empirically observable reality, outside the laws of nature, specifically the Standard Model of particle physics.
Prior to the advent of modern science, generally ascribed to the work of Galileo in the early 17th century, humans had few observational and analytical tools for determining what is “real.” The ancient Greeks made an attempt at empirical understanding of reality by proposing earth, water, air, and fire as the four elements of the natural world. Microscopes, telescopes, astral spectroscopes, the Large Hadron Collider, and a multitude of other data-gathering tools have since been developed that dramatically increase our ability to “see” nature beyond the human scale.
Two obstacles impede popular acceptance of scientism as the most authoritative approach to acquisition of knowledge:
1. Insufficient science education among the global population,
2. The psychological propensity of humans to invent religions and other forms of mysticism25
I recognize that scientism is controversial, criticized by some as excessive dependence on science and the scientific method.26 To be sure, personally meaningful insights can and do occur through music, art, and other non-scientific endeavors. And the impacts of such endeavors on subjective human experience can be, and are, studied scientifically. But if one’s goal is to understand objective reality, apart from human subjectivity, science represents the only valid approach to achieving it.
Religious believers who regard faith alone, without empirical evidence, as sufficient for belief in their particular creation story, gods, afterlife myth, spirits and other supernatural beings, conveniently ignore many settled scientific facts and, by logical necessity, refute scientism. I have long been baffled that reason and unquestioned faith can co-inhabit an intelligent, educated mind – perhaps an unrecognized sleight-of-mind bridges the dissonance.27 Darrel Ray examines in The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture how mystical beliefs propagate within a host culture and impair rational thought by means that are curiously analogous to viral infection in living organisms.28 As with biological viruses, the “God virus” can infect intelligent, well-educated people as it does those of us who aspire to the 50th percentile, although not as markedly.29
Pandeism, in positing a creator deity, is a form of supernaturalism, notwithstanding pandeists’ belief that the creator became the natural world once the act of creation occurred. It follows that if the now-defunct deity is not describable by the physics that describes the universe we find today, as pandeists appear to acknowledge, the belief is incompatible with science.
My purpose in this article is to encourage science-based critical thinking among adherents of pandeism and of religion in general. I regard science and religion as inherently incompatible because they put forth mutually inconsistent theories of existence. I anticipate that as further scientific discoveries advance our knowledge of the natural world, religion will recede as a harmful presence in human affairs. I readily admit, however, that pandeism is perhaps the least harmful religion yet invented.
Notes:
1 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 3, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism.
2 Edward O. Wilson. On Human Nature: With a new Preface, Revised Edition, 2004.
3 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 3, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text.
4 In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/.
5 A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, 1988.
6 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 13, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity.
7 Lawrence M. Krauss. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, 2012. See also, Keele University (UK) professor Coel Hellier, personal communication, February 9, 2016.
8 Coel Hellier. How many Big Bangs? A philosophical argument for a multiverse: coelsblog, retrieved February 3, 2016, from https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/how-many-big-bangs-a-philosophical-argument-for-a-multiverse/.
9 Sean M. Carroll. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists, retrieved February 7, 2016, from http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/.
10 National Academy of Sciences: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998).
11 See note 7.
12 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 3, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model.
13 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 3, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter.
14 Ohio State University astrophysics professor Paul M. Sutter, personal communication, February 6, 2016.
15 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 10, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse.
16 See note 10.
17 Knujon Mapson. Retrieved February 3, 2016 from http://everything2.com/title/For+atheists%252C+what+is+the+proof+for+pandeism%253F. See also, In Wikipedia, retrieved February 3, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe.
18 Martin Reese in Wikipedia. Retrieved February 3, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees.
19 In The Guardian. Retrieved February 13, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/apr/06/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-interview.
20 Victor J. Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity (Prometheus Books, 2011).
21 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 3, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle.
22 See note 7.
23 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 11, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
24 Ohio State University astrophysics professor Paul M. Sutter, personal communication, February 11, 2016.
25 See note 2.
26 In Wikipedia, retrieved February 3, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
27 Dan Dana. The Reason Revolution: Atheism, Secular Humanism, and the Collapse of Religion (2014), retrieved February 10, 2016 from http://www.dandana.us/atheism/.
28 Darrel W. Ray. The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture. IPC Press, December 2009. ISBN 978-0-9709505-1-2.
29 In Wikipedia, retrieved March31, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence.
Quotes by Scientists
Science, by its myriad disciplines, studies nature. Science seeks to acquire understanding of nature’s intricacies by gathering empirical evidence uncovered by observation and experiment. Reason is then applied to the body of evidence to develop theories that might explain why nature acts the way it is observed to act.
No naturally occurring phenomena lie outside the realm of nature. Therefore, all empirically observable things are subject to scientific inquiry. By definition, then, there is no-thing that is “super”-natural. If a thing is observable, it is studiable by science. If there is evidence of heaven, it is studiable by science. If there is evidence of God, it is studiable by science. So far, despite centuries of fervent effort, no such empirical evidence for either proposition has been observed.
Over the course of the history of science, commonly accepted to have begun with Galileo in the early 17th century CE, the gap between what is empirically observed and what is reasonably understood by science has gradually narrowed. For example, the mysterious motion of planets in the night sky, from the perspective of Earth, was thought by wise men of the day to occur at the direction of God. Galileo, among other early astronomers, solved the puzzle. They discovered that planets’ apparent motion could be explained by placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center of what we now call the solar system. For his discovery of heliocentrism, he was charged by the Pope with the crime of heresy and imprisoned. The church has little tolerance for ideas beyond the precepts defined by pre-science mystics.
Over the ensuing four centuries, the “God of the Gaps,” which has been invoked by religionists to explain “unexplainable” mysteries, has narrowed to a sliver of its former self. Certainly, grand mysteries still abound in science. Indeed, known-unknowns expand as known-knowns are learned through scientific inquiry and discovery, bringing novel questions into view. But scientists recognize that there is no need to call in deities to explain them. Give science time to work.
Although religious scientists are not as rare as hens’ teeth, most researchers in the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy and their sub-specialties) are atheists. Even the most brilliant minds seem unable to reconcile mythology of the supernatural with settled findings of science without engaging in brain-twisting mental or semantic gymnastics. A 1998 study “found that 92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power.” (Google the quoted passage to find the citation.)
The following pages contain selected quotes of several renowned scientists about religion and its associated myths. Myriad more may be found by Googling “atheist scientists” and similar phrases.
A sampling:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
Bertrand Russell, mathematician
I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them.
Galileo Galilei, considered the first modern scientist
Religion is a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find nowhere else but in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion. Religion's eleventh commandment is "Thou shalt not question."
Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
When people try to use religion to address the natural world, science pushes back on it, and religion has to accommodate the results.
Lisa Randall, cosmologist
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein, physicist
When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.
Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist
Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.
Carl Sagan, astronomer
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt. God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.
Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in physics
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.
Stephen Hawking, cosmologist
The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist
Religion is only one of the most prominent forms of irrational magical thinking. Cults based on a charismatic leader also can be political; a recent example is the Trump cult.
Mary Coleman, neuroscientist
There is only one world, the natural world, exhibiting patterns we call the “laws of nature,” and which is discoverable by the methods of science and empirical investigation. There is no separate realm of the supernatural, spiritual, or divine.
Sean M. Carroll, cosmologist
The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.
Sam Harris, neuroscientist
You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution were created ... in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode. So forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.
Lawrence Krauss, cosmologist
[Evolution is] one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science.
Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist
Religious explanations are not worth knowing because they pile equally baffling enigmas on top of the original ones.
Steven Pinker, evolutionary psychologist
Man created God in his image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.
George Weinberg, clinical psychologist
Creationism is not good for kids.
Bill Nye, science educator
About Dan
I am a retired mediator, psychologist, and educator living with wife Susan in Sarasota, Florida. Born in 1945 on a family farm in Missouri, I served, reluctantly, in the U.S. Army in Vietnam (non-combat) and Panama Canal Zone (1966-1968). Holding the PhD in psychology from University of Missouri (1977), I am the author of two books on mediation and one on secular humanism in addition to the current series involving haiku quintets. I am the father of one and grandfather of two. For more, see www.dandana.us
Biodata squeezed into the mold of a haiku quintet:
Midwest born and bred
family farmland culture
cusp of baby boom
farm work not my style
nor army life, I soon found
education called
Mizzou's seeds took root
psychology fit my bill
then, mediation
Hartford professor
my own enterprise beckoned
science-based worldview
soul mate Susan shares
Sarasota tree-nest joy
retired haiku bard
1955 – 1968 – 2003 – 2018
Other books by Dan
View links at www.dandana.us/fivepalms to:
· The Reason Revolution: Atheism, Secular Humanism, and the Collapse of Religion
· Conflict Resolution: Mediation Tools for Everyday Worklife
· Managing Differences: How to Build Better Relationships at Work and Home
· Common Ground: Haiku, Mediation, and Police Reform
· Haiku Quintets
· Resisting Trumpism: Haiku Quintets
Acknowledgements
Deep thanks to my friends and fellow freethinkers in Humanists of Sarasota Bay
(www.husbay.org), including but not limited to: Mary Coleman, Meigs Glidewell,
Jay Gonen, David Helgager, Ernest Kinnie, Jack Stuart, Barry Zack