Why?

"[O]ne would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally."ⁱ

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”ⁱⁱ

Both of the views cited, and many like them, form the common wisdom by which we all live. The idea is intuitive, and we all accept it. Even assuming the death penalty is not an issue, we are repelled by the idea that an innocent person might be incarcerated for murder or any other crime.ⁱⁱⁱ

But why is that the case?

Surely no one would want to be punished for something he hasn't done, and we are a society of individuals with rights. We would not want to trample on the rights of any of our citizens. But we are a society, and however important the individual may be, our first concern must be for the good of all. The greatest good for the greatest number. So said Jeremy Bentham, and such was the view of Utilitarianism. It's a philosophy that places the good of the many over that of the one.

With that idea in mind, therefore, it might be advisable to rethink our approach to the penal code and its enforcement. Although we may feel that the prison system will rehabilitate those who pass through it, statistics suggest otherwise. A report published by the United States Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,^iv cites a study demonstrating a 67.5% recidivism rate for criminals released in 1994.^v The study compared that rate to a prior determination, in 1983, and noted a 5% increase in that time. The definition of “recidivism” used was rearrest^vi within 3 years, so the reconviction rate was lower – 46.9% in 1994 and 46.8% in 1983. But we learn from this that nearly half of those released from prison were reconvicted within 3 years.

There are no separate figures for murder, however (“only”) 41.9% of “violent offenders” who had been released in 1994 were reconvicted.^vii It is likely that there were relatively few murderers in that group, which would make it difficult to get an accurate statistic specific to that crime, but it is also likely that some of the murderers who were released killed again. Chances are that they, like so many of the other members of the “violent offenders” group, renewed their previous behavior.

And that makes it important to make an important determination: do more deaths occur at the hands of the State (rightly or wrongly), or of convicted murderers? If the latter predominates, our handwringing over mistaken convictions must be rethought. Saving a murderer from punishment when his case is “tainted” may be viewed as a victory by some, but not by the family of one killed by him after he is released. And not by his victim either.

This is not to suggest that prosecutorial misconduct should not be pursued vigorously^viii or that we should not review possible miscarriages using the latest technological means available. Nor do I suggest that we not give consideration to outlawing the death penalty, but our national guilt complex may be unwarranted. Limiting the number of cases that are dropped or bargained down, and those overturned because of “technicalities,”^ix may prove to be beneficial to “the greater number.” The conviction of any innocent is a stain on society – and mechanisms should be put in place to bring them to a minimum or, if possible, eliminate them entirely – but the victimization of an innocent citizen is also a stain – especially if caused by a system more intent on protecting the rights of the accused than the rest of its members.

The justice system is not perfect. But it's better and more honest than the majority of those who suffer at its hands. However cruel it may seem when we discover that someone was wrongly imprisoned, it is heartening to know that fewer crimes – and that includes murder – occurred because that system prevented them. Those who did not suffer for that reason, and, therefore, aren't aware that they have been spared the trauma or death that might have been their fate, should keep that possibility in mind when they protest what they see as an unjust system.

Protecting the rights of the innocent on the street may not be more important than securing those of the one who is arrested, but ignoring them calls into question the justification of society itself.

Next episode:  “Social Socialism” – Equality above all.

I         De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470), Sir John Fortescue

ii           Sir William Blackstone (1765)

iii       While the first refers quite specifically to capital crimes and punishment, the second seems to include all offences and their penalties.

iv        See http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

v         Some had served out their sentences and some were paroled.

vi        Which is, of course, not proof of guilt.

vii       It had been 39.9% in 1983.

viii     Perhaps a parallel panel should review all cases of murder that resulted in a conviction. Perhaps such a procedure should not be limited to instances of murder.

ix       The distinction between a constitutional protection and a technicality should be reconsidered, and greater reliance placed on judges and juries to decide when evidence is pertinent, irrespective of the manner in which it was obtained, and those who use improper means to obtain evidence (torture, for example) should be punished for their deeds. If that is done publicly and with severe enough penalties, the goals of the Constitution can be achieved without releasing dangerous prisoners and placing citizens at risk.

The Trouble With Ernie

Have you ever read a document created by someone using speech recognition software? Some of it is hilarious. Words that sound like the ones said may be found, and they may make a sentence bizarre. Indeed, words that sand like the ones sad may be fond, and they May make a sentence bazaar. But electronic technology is improving daily and the annoyances that bother us now will soon give way to real problems.

I recently wrote a blog entitled “Kindle^® 'im Danno.” I didn't write “Candle 'im Danno,” though I realize I was dealing with a bad egg. And when I wrote “Throw the Nook^® at him” I wasn't asking Danno to pelt him with a microwave oven.

But our new generation of electronic devices is getting out of hand.ⁱ

The trouble with these new devices is best exemplified by my new Know-It-All^© Pocket-Partner^©ii – the 6g model – which knows all there is to know about me and doesn't hesitate to tell me so. The voice doing all the talking is male, and he's known as iErnie.ⁱⁱⁱ As you might guess from his name, his forte is a wisecrack remark pointing out whatever seems contrary to the expected. He also tells lame jokes and promulgates wisdom about other things, and there's no stopping him.

Let me give you some examples. When I told him I hated physics when I was in college, and anatomy when I was in medical school, He chided me on becoming a radiologist since its backbone was physics and anatomy. He loudly proclaimed, to me, and to all the world that was listening, how dumb I was. I knew that already, and didn't need for him to announce it. But he does that over and over again. Worse, he has transmitted that appraisal to all the other similar devices owned by radiologists, people in my neighborhood, and those with whom I may have communicated at some time. And I can't turn off this “feature.” Everyone knows how dumb I am by now, and they're probably as annoyed by him as I am.

Ernie has other important observations which are similarly like de Beers diamonds.^iv How many times can I tolerate “Necessity may be the mother of invention but Gene Hackman wasn't the father of computer fraud.” Or the valuable information that “iatromathematics” is the simultaneous practice of medicine and astrology, and that the term is archaic. Especially the part about it being archaic, since I use iatromathematics all the time.

All of these bits of knowledge seem to have taken on a life of their own. Including all of the information I've entered, or Ernie has gleaned about me from elsewhere on the web, whether verified or not. He passes it along freely, and he also tells me more than I want to know about friends, acquaintances, and strangers. I tried stopping him by smashing the device with a nuke (this time I mean it)^v but the information all seems to be in a cloud somewhere and it is immortal. It will live long after me. Of course that means I don't have to enter it again if^vi I get a new device, but it's no longer my decision. I was foolish to tell Ernie so much.

Unfortunately we're all doing it all the time. Even without a 6g. It's only a matter of time before Ernie or Sari or whoever else^vii lives within that little device you carry around all the time. Its transmitter will always be on sending all sorts of information to some electronic data base. Like the information collected by the NSA it will only be used appropriately and in the interests of national security. Unless it's not. iErnie is there to help. And if he doesn't help you there will be someone else who can benefit from the information. Even the hackers have to make a living.

For the present it is possible to get along without such a partner, but that time will pass. Both the government and private industry will make it difficult to do anything without the proper apps. And society and our culture will do the rest.

It won't be long before the data base will reach out and touch all of us. You'll never be alone again. When you're not on the telephone there will be Ernie, who will amuse you or insult you – at the same time as he's collecting data about you. You may think the sky is clear, but there are large clouds on the horizon. And weather or not you want to bee, your up their bearing your sole.^viii

Next episode: “Why?” – What's clear isn't always.

I        Figuratively, at least. Literally it's quite the opposite.

ii       There's also a beautiful bejeweled Pocketbook-Partner^© for those who would prefer that.

iii      HAL retired a while ago.

iv       They're “forever.” I can't get rid of them.

v        Boy they're heavy.

vi       When.

vii      Or whatever you've named the voice on your GPS. The one who knows where you are even if you don't.

viii     You'd better get used to the idea that this is all real. It's not a fish story.

There, I Said It Again

I said it before and I said it again. Or at least that was the report I got back.ⁱ My wife read some of my old blogsⁱⁱ and informed me that I was repeating myself. And she was right.

If at all possible, as a rule, you'd be better off not doing so. “Don't repeat yourself. It's not only repetitive, it's redundant, and people have heard it before.”ⁱⁱⁱ Yes, that's what I said: “Don't repeat yourself. It's not only repetitive, it's redundant, and people have heard it before.”ⁱⁱⁱ

But I'll say it again anyway. It's all I can offer to answer the questions, “Why do I write a blog?” and “Why do they seem repetitious?”

The answer to the first question is difficult,^iv but the answer to the second question is easy: “Because they are.”

A little flip, perhaps, but let me explain. I write about the things that interest me, and they don't cease to interest me just because I've written about them. They don't magically disappear as issues, but there may be new facts or situations that bear on them and I may have new ideas about them, whether or not, as new information emerges.

But that's only part of the story. Another important aspect of the repetition is that I don't look back on what I've written before. I make notes and gather information on the subject, formulating an essay based on that material, but usually not including all of it. And I don't always erase the material I've used. I simply transfer it to an ever-enlarging file of ideas that may be usable in the future. So when the future comes I look for whatever I have on the subject and, regrettably, some of it has already been used. I don't remember what I included before, and I don't recall the name of the previous piece in which it appeared. Since I'm too lazy to read through all the old blogs, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. And, since I have doubts about how many people, if any, actually read what I write, I don't worry much about it.

Another reason why I'm prone to draw a blank when it comes to old works, is that they're really future works. I write these long in advance – this one, for example, will go on line in about a month. And that makes it even more difficult to remember when and where the ideas previously appeared. By the time they actually appear it's longer since the previous discussion of the subject than it might seem. But anyone trying to read through them in an expeditious manner may read several months worth in a single sitting^v so that material I pondered over a long period gets microscoped back into what is viewed as a single piece, and thoughts that may have been developed long before get merged and compared as if they were part of the same essay. That's the bad news. The good news, however, is that someone actually looked at them.

The real question, though, is why I do it in the first place, and that's a little harder to explain. I know that I mentioned in the past that I use this activity as a method for clarifying my thoughts to myself.^vi It's often the case that I'm uncertain about the answer to a particular and question – not a fact question but one more subjective – and I use the computer keypad to outline the considerations on all sides. I don't always wind up with the revealed truth, but when I'm done I usually have a better understanding of the question. I've had the opportunity to question and poke holes in my own arguments without revealing their weaknesses to others. (I'm my own Devil's Advocate.^vii)

It's the others, by the way, who often raise the issues that trouble me. I recognize quickly that either they're wrong or I am, or maybe we both are (you're wrong too). Working through the intricacies, however, is a slow process for me. I wouldn't be very good in a debate. I'm slow in responding in speech, and debates are, too often, focused on winning, not clarifying an issue.^viii So I do better at writing than speaking. Writing provides me with the opportunity to consider my words carefully and be sure that the response, or the statement, is exactly what I want to say. I may need second or subsequent drafts to get things exactly the way I want them, because I find it better to choose and refine my words carefully^ix to say precisely what I want to say.

And I want to say things. Even if no one reads them.^x After all, I know everything. I may have to spend time working it out, but the result is true. I know everything (I said that, didn't I?).

Speaking of working things out, however, brings me back to the initial issue: repetition. I've been too defensive. Everyone repeats himself: politicians, clergymen, mothers,^xi newspaper editors^xii and columnists,^xiii musicians,^xiv and everyone else. Especially educators. Repetition is one of the best tools they have for getting people to remember the lesson you're teaching.^xv

Finally let me repeat what it says in Ecclesiastes: “There's nothing new under the sun.” There are only a limited number of topics worth discussing, and it's likely that previously discussed material will be reevaluated. So even if my views have to be iterated,^xvi they merit your acceptance. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times …

Next episode: “The Trouble With Ernie” – And you thought no one was listening.

I         For that matter, I'm not sure I'm not repeating a previous blog. I'd have to read through all those published already and I don't have the patience for that. If you find this repetitious, skip it. If you know of an earlier blog in which I used this material, please let me know.

ii         She's one of the few people who's ever read them.

iii        Lemony Snicket

iv       I have some ideas which I'll get into below, but I'm not a psychiatrist.

v        That's what my wife did.

vi        I wrote that somewhere.

vii       Some consider me the Devil incarnate, but I'm not.

viii     Debates (and arguments) too often lead to “gotchas” rather than more meaningful responses.

ix       Although some oppose it, I favor use of a thesaurus. I'm not proud.

x         Although I'd prefer it if they do.

xi        How many times do I have to tell you the same thing?

xii       Frequently their subject involves the heinous position of the party that opposes the one they favor. The issue is less important than the message that their opponents are evil. And they repeat that same message day after day.

xiii     For the most part their message reflects the editor's view. That's why they were hired and have kept their jobs. As with the editors, the denigration of their targets is more important than the substance of the putative subject of the piece. Actually, it is the subject.

xiv      People like Mozart, Haydn, and Bach (and those are only examples of a much larger group) recycled (repeated) some of their own musical themes, and many have not hesitated to write variations on the works of others, or music based on songs or other sounds that they heard elsewhere. But I won't explore the question of plagiarism any further.

xv       As Goebbels said (in German), “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Of course teachers tell the truth, but its repetition also is important for putting it on the “hard drives” of their students.

xvi   Look it up. It probably doesn't mean what you think. Try http://www.thefreedictionary.com/iterated.

Can Cantor

Brilliant!

I don't know how else to describe the defeat of Eric Cantor engineered by the Elders of Zion.

Cantor, the most visible Jew in Congress, had served his purpose there, and now, by temporarily removing him from his position of influence, the tribe intends to show the world that their conspiracy does not exist. It's a tactical retreat with incalculable benefits for their efforts to control the American government. It was crafted even better than the staged nomination and defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman who ran for Vice-President in 2000, taking the nation's attention away from the Y2K plot which they used to sell useless computer software and other tools. An Al Gore victory that year was not what the Elders were looking for after the bad publicity they had gotten from President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, a Jew. So pairing Lieberman with another southerner, and then working for the defeat of both, made perfect sense by demonstrating the “weakness” of the lobby, and their inability to get one of their coreligionists elected. It would certainly convince the American People that no attention need be paid to the group that was secretly running their country.

The emergence and the publicity associated with the Christian Right, and its pro-Israel stance, were also becoming a threat. Too much attention was being paid to the wrong Jewish concerns, and not enough to those that really mattered. But the wily semites knew how to deal with concerns of this kind. So they devised a plan that would address several of their problems simultaneously. And that plan centered on the defeat of Representative Cantor.

As a service to the public, I choose to expose the plot now and to show what its was intended to achieve.

First, of course, it was necessary for the conspirators to “prove” that there is no plot – that they themselves don't exist. While this is clearly false, they deny it regularly in order to maintain its secrecy and to keep the people they control from being suspicious. To demonstrate that they don't exist it is sometimes necessary to choose a sacrificial lamb and to use him to prove that there is no powerful Jewish lobby, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. In this case the lamb was Eric Cantor. He had already shown fellow congressmen (and women) that a Jew can be trusted in a position of power and had convinced many of them to mistrust Israel's enemies. So his presence was no longer needed. He had done his job. There would be plenty of time to rehabilitate him and return him to power, but even if that could not be accomplished he had made an important, if unwitting, contribution to the success of the Protocols.

A second goal of the plot was to lessen the chances of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. Representative Cantor was too willing to work with the Democrats to make him a useful tool to accomplish the cabal's wishes. Disharmony is important – no, vital – to the achievement of the lobby's goals. The easiest government to control is one that cannot control itself, so it is critical to discourage any cooperation between the parties. An additional threat is the easy control of one of the houses of Congress by one of them. The closer the numbers the better, because that is more likely to lead to argumentation and stalemate. Standoffs and logjams make the exercise of influence easier. Since a victory by the Tea Party candidate is unlikely, and a Democrat will probably be elected, the one-sided Republican majority in the House of Representatives will be lessened. Even if the Tea Party candidate should win, the chances that he'd work with either of the major parties is low. Score one for the Elders.

In the absence of a functional Congress, more and more of the day-to-day actions of the government will be handled by Civil Servants who are, by and large, appointees of the present administration, or are progressives appointed in the past. And Congressional inaction will also encourage an ultra-liberal President to make unilateral edicts that favor liberal causes. As everyone knows, the Jews favor liberal causes so this, too, works in favor of the conspiracy. The American People may not be well served by the workings of an entrenched bureaucracy, but the needs of those people are not the primary concern of the conspirators.

One of the most important methods for discovering the cause of an unexpected development, like Representative Cantor's defeat, is to determine who will gain from it. In most cases the greatest gain accrues to those who benefit from instability – whether in America or elsewhere – and can use it for their own purposes. It's the Elders of Zion who, throughout history, have sown the seeds of discord in order to improve their own lot and to make the remainder of humanity suffer.

This revelation may seem extreme, and you may doubt it, but that is because you have been brainwashed. What else can you expect from those who caused the black plague, who have killed the innocent through the ages (including their moves to cause the Holocaust and to destroy the Twin Towers), who toppled governments by their control of the news media, who hold the world's economic power, and who have almost achieved their goal of ruling the earth. And don't be surprised if they make pacts with Aliens from other planets in order to complete that plan.

The second-ranking House Republican will be a useful sacrifice in this devious plot.

And I have a bridge to sell you.

Kindle® 'im Danno

“No, don't set him on fire. Throw the Nook^® at him!”

It just doesn't sound right. And that's for good reason. It's a corruption of all we've ever learned.

But maybe what we learned needs to be changed. Not corrupted, changed. All things change, and language is one of them. It will take a lot of doing, but in this case the process has to begin. It's clear that the electronics industry has made great inroads into the fields of book publishing and distribution. So I'll have to accommodate. There's no going back. I don't yet take my iPad^® to bedⁱ but that will change. You can't stop progress, and you can't start regress – much as you might want to.

I understand. But I don't understand. The generation of people who panic at the idea that electric wires may be on a pole a block away, causing irreparable damage to them and their children by its radiation, doesn't hesitate to put electronic devices next to its members' eyes, ears, and even genitalsⁱⁱ as they all go in search of radiation in the form of the nearest “hot spot.”ⁱⁱⁱ Unless, of course, they're carrying one with them in the form of a transmitter of some sort in their “smart phone” or some other device, like a GPS.

Like all things, however, that fear seems to have changed. Not really changed. It's just been forgotten in the glow^iv of the new technology. The reality is that it's better to accept the benefits of the radiation (especially since there's no evidence that it is harmful) than to try to avoid it, which is impossible anyway.

But the recalcitrant remain among us. And I among them. I'm not Bluetooth^® enabled. It's not that I'm overly concerned about radiation. I'm not. More to the point, though, I do believe that the technology has the potential (if it's not a reality already) for keeping a watch on us, closer than what I'm comfortable with. (It's science fiction now, but soon enough they^v are going to be implanting chips in us at birth, eliminating privacy entirely. They'll rationalize it as being for our protection, but concern for us will not be the motive.)

Not that electronics is all bad. I have a computer at home,^vi one that receives the internet, one that I take with me on an occasional trip – but I don't keep any such device with me at all times. I can live without the telephone and the internet when I'm on the subway or walking along or driving. In fact I like a little peace and quiet most of the time – a period when I'm alone and able to think, not merely react to some pocket device. Greta Garbo was right.

More to the point though, I love books. I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't gamble.^vii I don't kanoodle.^viii But I buy books, and I even read some of them. It's my one addiction. I have thousands of them. I love the look and feel of a book, not a touch screen. I love to turn the pages of an octavo rather than scroll down.^ix

And there's nothing like visiting a library.^x The older and the bigger the better. To see old, carved wood shelves filled with uncountable volumes is entrancing and illuminating. “Truth is beauty.”^xi I recoil at the knowledge that libraries will be viewed with nostalgia in the not-too-distant future. I may be an old conservative who wants to return to the past, but this “advance” is going too far.

And, sadly, the “progress” in the direction of eliminating books will result in the impoverishment of our language.

Who, in the future, will know the origin of terms like “bookworm” or “bookish?” Who will know what it really means when you “book” a flight, or an act, or a criminal? Will people understand when asked if they keep two sets of books or if they “make” book? And there are numerous other expressions and idioms that will all too soon become incomprehensible.^xii Indeed, who will be able to make sense of “Facebook?”

We may be moving forward, and that may be a good thing,^xiii but parts of the past are worth keeping. Like books. I know I do.

Next episode: “There, I Said It Again” – At the risk of repeating myself ...

 

 

I        Actually, I don't even have one. I live in the past.

ii       The cellular telephone in your pocket.

iii      There's also plenty of radiation at home, including your wi-fi and portable telephone.

iv      Radiation. That glows.

v        Whoever “they” are.

vi      And I certainly wouldn't minimize the value of search engines, among many other tools.

vii      Not even the lottery.

viii    Merriam-Webster spells it with a “c” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canoodle) but I prefer the “k.”

ix       Though I do admit that the scroll preceded the codex.

x        From the Latin liber, book. Interestingly, it also means “freedom.” To me a pocket electronic device is more akin to “submissiveness,” “obedience,” “restriction,” or “captivity.”

xi       John Keats wrote poetry, but that, too, is “beauty.” As is fiction. There is beauty in the written word and in the works that contain them – especially if you can hold that work (and not a screen image of it) in your hands.

xii     Do children today who have only seen digital clocks really understand the concepts of clockwise and counter-clockwise?

xiii     Especially since it's inevitable.

The Great Debate

Chess has the reputation for being one of the most intellectual of all games. Its champions are geniuses. And the world champion in 1905 was Emanuel Lasker, a German mathematician. Indeed, that year he published a paperⁱ regarding Noetherian rings and primary ideals, which are mathematical concepts. It was only one of many mathematical papers he authored.

In the same year, 1905, Albert Einstein, a patent examiner in Bern, published four papers which discussed the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy. The year became known as his “annus mirabilis,” his year of miracles, and it changed the world's notions of time and space. He was one of the greatest theoretical physicists who ever lived – perhaps the greatest.

And he played chess. Fairly well, but certainly not in championship circles. He was not in Lasker's league. Later in his life he got to know Lasker and lost many a game to him. According to “Syrtis” on the chess.com web site, “Einstein had this to say about chess 'Chess grips its exponent, shackling the mind and brain so that the inner freedom and independence of even the strongest character cannot remain unaffected.' It seems he thought you could be a serious chess player or something else, but not both. There is probably a great deal of truth in this.”

They were two great minds. One could defeat the other in chess, while the results were reversed when it came to theoretical physics. But the preeminence of each in his own field did not in any way detract from the other.

The current world champion in chess is Magnus Carlsen, while NBC Sports lists Anthony Davis first in its top ten “one and done” ratings for college basketball. You'd be a fool to bet on Davis if the two of them were playing chess, or Carlsen if basketball.

And that's the point. Context counts. You can't judge one individual – or idea – using criteria devised for another. It's a mistake that's commonly made. And when trying to evaluate a particular idea it's important to remember that the proper standards for understanding it may be different from the ones being used. It makes no sense to evaluate a thesis, and find it wanting, using criteria which don't apply to it – however powerful that idea may be in its own realm.

Additionally, the proofs and evidence offered may not even be believed by the individual presenting them. In a formal debate, the winner is the one who makes the most convincing arguments irrespective of the side of the argument to which he's assigned, and whether he believes them or not. Debating is an “art” perfected by the Sophists, the ancient Greek philosophers after whom sophistry is named.ⁱⁱ

So the trick is to convince the listener. Politicians do it all the time. One of their most important techniques is that of framing the debate – making sure that whatever the issues ought to be, they, and not their opponents, have defined both them and the context in which they are to be discussed. Misdirection. It's better to have the voter consider irrelevant ideas that will improve your image than any truths that might weaken it. Politicians tell the voter what they think he wants to hear, whether or not they believe it themselves.

And much of any other discussion in our society also falls victim to the misdirection associated with a framing of the debate. It is most striking in the media, which seem to have no concept of religion or, if they do, no tolerance for the possibility that it may contain some truth. Science is the context by which everything must be judged. For an acceptable answer to any question there must be a scientifically verifiable explanation. If one cannot be produced, whatever explanation is given qualifies as voodoo mythology. Such is the impression you'll get from the press.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That's the way the King James Bible describes Creation.

Stephen Hawking's view is different. “The universe can create itself out of nothing, and God is no longer necessary [as an explanation].”ⁱⁱⁱ Religion should be discarded in favor of scientific proof. After all, “man is the measure of all things.”^iv In a description of his book, Hawking maintains that “ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature.”

But aren't the two – science and religion – speaking different languages? Don't they make different assumptions and shouldn't they be judged by different criteria? How can either justifiably claim the other to be untrue?

Science demands proof before any assertion is accepted as fact while religion uses belief as its coin. Although the evidence for Hawking's premise is mathematical, and through such means he deduced that “God is no longer necessary,” his calculations are adequate “proof” for the scientific community. I don't have sufficient knowledge of either physics or mathematics to understand the origin of the original particle which, following the “Big Bang,” expanded to form our universe, nor the laws of physics that either preceded it or followed it (if they did not arise concurrent with it) but I'm willing to chalk that up to my ignorance.

It's hard, however, to see how the idea that there can be the spontaneous formation of the particle and the laws of physics, since I have always been taught that you can't get something from nothing. Not even a single minute particle. And unless you accept the idea that some Being created them, you have to “believe” that the laws of physics legislated themselves. Perhaps before time existed – although I don't know what that means either.

Unless, of course, you accept the idea of extra-rational causes. Unless you believe. And if that's the case, science and religion are speaking the same language, using the same criteria.

Or, perhaps, they are using different criteria completely unrelated to those of their adversary.^v Perhaps the best explanation is one that comes from science. Schrödinger's cat, the one in the closed box, was both alive and dead. Simultaneously. Both were true and they did not contradict each other. Schrödinger meant it as a proof that some aspects of quantum theory didn't make sense. It was a kind of joke.

But maybe we should give it some credence when we speak of science and religion.

Next episode: “Kindle 'im Danno” – There. I said it and I'm glad.

I        “Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale,” Math. Ann. 60 (1): 19–116

ii       “The Sophists held no values other than winning and succeeding. They were not true believers. They were secular atheists, relativists and cynical about religious beliefs and all traditions. They believed and taught that 'might makes right'. They were pragmatists trusting in whatever works to bring about the desired end at whatever the cost. They made a business of education and profited from it.” – So says “An Introduction to Philosophy” by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino  

(on-line http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/CONTENTS.htm)

iii       “The Grand Design,” Hawking and Mlodinow.

iv       So said Protagoras, the man who, according to Wikipedia, “Plato credits ... with having invented the role of the professional sophist.”

v        “Adversary” is a bad word. The two sides should view different views with respect and interest and not consider them as attacks on their own positions.