The Dark Side of Science And Religion

I have posted the following comment to an American Thinker article on "The Dark Side of Science":

Both science and religion -- as practiced by human beings, who are ignorant of far more than they are knowing -- may be classified as "fake news" (to take advantage of a current idea): Science as practiced is not necessarily good reasoning, and religion as practiced is not necessarily good in spirit (or "spiritual"). Both are, more often than not, not what they are supposed, or meant, to be.

Good reason and spirituality are the objects to be desired; science and religion are at best tools to those ends, and mankind has seen enough value in both to have made them institutions, necessary for civilization -- but also capable of holding mankind back (as religion has repeatedly done throughout history, and science is increasingly doing, for the last century and a half, with the rise, and current general belief, in scientific materialism, most famously represented by Darwinism, or undirected evolution of the world and all of its life).

The key, of course, is learning, and the institutions of both science and religion are -- at least, they are meant to be -- institutions of learning.

We are not here to love one another, for example, because we make ourselves unlovable, in our selfish ignorance; we are here to LEARN to love one another; we can argue over just how great a majority -- if not all -- of us NEVER learn it very well. It helps (immensely) if we are taught the lesson by example from earliest childhood, and consistently until we grow up to reason for ourselves. Religion CAN help provide that, but the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if that weakest link is our parents who teach us, or the morally weak (or even false) religion they practice, we grow up mentally deficient, relative to those of us who were taught better.

There is new knowledge that mankind needs to learn, which would correct fundamental ignorance in both science and religion. The "experts" -- so-called -- in both fields don't want to hear of it (nor do their followers, the unquestioning believers in the consensus, in either field). It will replace the currently ruling paradigms in both science and religion.

Here is a gentle example of what the new knowledge can provide:

advice to a truthseeker

My Venus/Earth Comparison Should Not Even Have Been Needed

I received a comment (from one Chris Carter) yesterday (on this post), agreeing with, and emphasizing, my continual refrain with respect to my November 2010 Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison, that the close (or rather, precise) agreement between the Standard Atmosphere for Earth's atmosphere, and the actual profile of Venus's atmosphere over the same range of tropospheric pressures, cannot legitimately or even competently be laid to "coincidence" (as all of the critics of that comparison essentially do).

I don't want to debate with such critics; I say I am only here to inform, and I only maintain my original analysis is correct, as originally written, and definitive against the consensus "climate science" theories, of radiational forcing of global warming within the atmosphere, due to a "carbon dioxide greenhouse effect". The comparison of Earth and Venus shows there is no such effect in the real atmospheres (and Venus has 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth), and the simple physics of the Standard Atmosphere explains why -- because, for atmospheric pressures above approximately 200 mb (as can be observed in all the planetary atmospheres), the atmosphere overall, and thus globally, obeys the hydrostatic condition, and thus behaves like an unmoving ("static"), incompressible medium (to wit, water, hence the "hydro"). That condition enforces an increasing pressure with depth in the atmosphere, and the ideal gas laws in turn mean the temperature must also increase with depth in the troposphere (which, again, exists above 200 mb in all the planetary atmospheres). This explains the simple vertical temperature "lapse rate" structure, defined in the Standard Atmosphere (and based upon many years of temperature measurements throughout the real atmosphere), of -6.5 degrees Celsius per km of altitude above sea level. (The condition is quantified by simple calorimetry, in the equation mcΔT = -mgΔh, or ΔT/Δh = -g/c, where g is the gravitational acceleration and c is the effective specific heat of the air, determined empirically.)

I am only mentioning this yet again, because the very EXISTENCE of the lapse rate structure -- obviously a global constraint upon the temperature in the atmosphere, as any excess heat will only escape "down" that temperature gradient, without affecting the temperature at any point along the way, to outer space -- should have rung a bell in the minds of competent physicists, that there can be no radiative global-warming "greenhouse effect" in the real atmosphere (despite what radiation transfer theorists and laboratory physicists observe in an enclosed tank in a laboratory, for example).

This in fact is why I did the Venus/Earth comparison in the first place, because the subject of the lapse rate structure was brought up in the internet blogs earlier in 2010 (and not by me), and I quickly understood just how powerful a contradiction of the consensus it was, and I couldn't understand why others, of even the most pronounced "skeptical" positions in the climate science debates, weren't treating it as such. I felt a quick comparison of Venus, with its almost pure carbon dioxide atmosphere, with Earth should reveal, clearly and decisively, the truth of the matter. And of course, I found the utterly precise (!) agreement that I, and I thought any competent physicist should have, expected.

So my Venus/Earth comparison wasn't really even needed. Competent scientists should have agreed that, if in fact the Standard Atmosphere model correctly represented the temperature structure of Earth's troposphere (and of course it was developed, between approximately 1850 and 1920 -- the latter date, when the American Standard Atmosphere was first officially adopted -- to do just that), it should also, and just as accurately, represent Venus's atmosphere over the same range of pressures -- modified only by Venus's closer distance from the Sun.

And it did, and always will, due SOLELY to the fundamental nature of the hydrostatic condition. It should always be remembered that my comparison was between the Standard Atmosphere, known for decades, even a century, with the Venus profile on a much later, and single day, October 5, 1991 -- showing there can not have been any global warming in Earth's atmosphere since the development of the Standard Atmosphere model, a century and more ago. This negates all the research of all the alarmist "climate scientists" of the last two generations and more (since they turned away from the Standard Atmosphere in order to chase a chimera of unstable atmospheric temperatures) -- lifetimes, and generations, of work, wasted by miseducation and incompetent physics (and the resulting degeneration of modern science itself, as the many "skeptics" of the consensus have by now well shown).

So thanks for reminding me to emphasize this critical point once again, Chris.

Venus, Once More: Is Anybody Out There Seeking the Truth?

Just a sentence or two to add to my 2010 Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison.

My Venus/Earth comparison, which strongly and I believe definitively disproves the consensus "global warming greenhouse effect" of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is routinely dismissed, basically on the grounds that its precise agreement, between the unchanging Standard Atmosphere model of Earth's atmosphere and the atmosphere of Venus over the same range of tropospheric pressures as Earth's, is but a "coincidence". This criticism ignores the very great unlikelihood of such a "coincidence", over the full range of tropospheric pressures, and between two such different systems as Earth and Venus (which I have enumerated many times, and won't repeat all of the huge differences again here.)

The last such criticism I received in this line was that the Venus data I used in my comparison, while presented on the internet as representative of Venus's atmosphere, was in fact for latitude 67°N, not a mid-latitude (or putative global mean) 45°N, a full 22 degrees north of mid-latitude, and in fact within the arctic circle, on Earth.

What I waited for others to mention was this: Earth's spin axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees with respect to its orbital axis, which is why it has such a large arctic region (every point above 66.5°N). If Venus were similarly tilted with respect to its orbital axis, criticizing my comparison on this point would be proper. But Venus is NOT so tilted; it is only about 2.7° (usually stated as 177.3°, or "upside down" compared to Earth's spin). So there is no large, not even a substantial, arctic region on Venus at all, that does not receive sunlight for half the (Venus) year. In other words, rather than saying that 67N on Venus is 22° north of 45°, truth-seekers should say 67N is a full 20° south of any supposed arctic region on Venus (which, at 2.7°, would anyway be entirely overwhelmed by the heat surrounding that small area). On Earth, of course, 20° south of the arctic circle is 47°N...mid-latitude. It should be apparent that Venus just has a wider "mid-latitude" range of latitudes than Earth, because it has no arctic region to speak of. And I have yet to see any critic provide detailed temperature vs pressure Venus profile data for a broad range of latitudes on Venus (I have seen temperature vs altitude in the literature, but not versus pressure, for any other latitude than the 67N data I found and used in 2010.)

But there is no sign of real, independent thinking among my critics, most notably among the alarmists and especially among the politicians, who smell money and power in the water, as it were, and don't want it to get away from them. They are basing their new world order upon blatant lies and blatantly incompetent "climate science" -- and in the end, the world will go to ruinous war over this, if they do not cease and desist, any and all "climate policies".

You have all been warned. Stop now.

The Underlying Problem of Our Time (and of All Known History)

I have responded to a comment to an article on the American Thinker site. The comment referred to Nietszche and Hegel, recognized as modern philosophers, and the more ancient Plato, and the following is my response:

Philosophy has not advanced since its "beginnings" in Plato; Aristotle was known in Plato's Academy as a master of Rhetoric (compelling argumentation, or debating points), not Philosophy, and his later fame held back the development of physics (and mathematics) for 2,000 years. Darwin also won the day in his time only on the quantity and determination of his rhetoric, his endless, seemingly plausible debating points, not on his "science".

All of the most famous, or popular, philosophers of recent memory -- or even of the last 2,000 years (and yes, that includes all the religious philosophers, of all of the world's religions) have done little to help mankind know itself.

As I summarizd in my book, "The End of the Mystery":

"Behold the new paradigm: Materialistic reductionism, randomness, and mindless evolution are dead, both as logically prior (“a priori”) assumptions and as historical explanations of our world. As Darwin was wrong in biology, Hegel was wrong in philosophy, and Marx was wrong in economics, politics and sociology**; all of the people, famous or otherwise, who have since been inspired by any of them (even to the point of World War) have been fundamentally misled, and in their turn misleading. “Evolutionary” archaeology and anthropology (which consider that mankind civilized itself, many times and in many places, among different peoples) are wrong.

**Just as Aristotle was wrong in “natural” science, the antecedent to physics, chemistry, etc.. They all believed that the material world is complete in itself, and that various observed divisions of the world are fully explained by their necessary interactions with one another. Thus Darwin set species against species, or species against the environment; Hegel set individuals against the state; and Marx set class against class, or workers against employers. They all overvalued their categories as being the only reality."

But the world, especially all of its academic authorities, a.k.a. "experts", will not abide any talk of that new paradigm. And that is THE underlying problem of this climactic, critical time, with all of its resurgent, divisive dogmas.

The Scientific Paradigm Must Change

The backreaction site of physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has a post asking "Is the Inflationary Universe a Scientific Theory?" (and answering "no", which is notable in this era of scientific dogmatism in favor of the "consensus"). After reading the comments there, the following was my response:

All of this is in vain. JimV's comment above, containing the key word "evolved", applied unquestioningly to the material universe, is what needs light. The "big bang" itself is not a correct scientific theory, and the added hypothesis of "early inflation" merely hides that fact (it is a classic example of piling on more unsupported assumptions to save a bad theory).

Physics has fallen into the same hole as all of the earth and life sciences; that hole is the extended Darwinian paradigm, that everything "evolved" by undirected (not intelligently directed) physical processes alone. It is that underlying paradigm of scientific investigation that is wrong, wrong-headed and incompetent. Believing in that is where all of modern science began going wrong, and stubbornly continues going wrong.

Scientists have increasingly been merely wasting their time, over the last two generations, since the "consensus" was hardened into unquestionable dogma, and everyone has just been digging deeper into the darkness, as it were, of fundamental ignorance and misdirection.

I have proved -- outside of the peer-review system, which is religiously hostile to fundamental correction of the "consensus", and a hopeless mess for anyone like me with such fundamental correction in hand -- that the surface of the Earth, and the entire solar system, was re-formed wholesale (and very recently, only roughly 20,000 to 10,000 years ago), and a coherent design imposed upon it, intended to convey a comprehensive message to mankind on Earth (and that design is in fact the single objective origin of all the "ancient mysteries", and all of mankind's earliest and longest lasting religiously-held beliefs).

Having found and verified that all-encompassing, late re-design of the physical world, it is obvious to me -- as it should and will be, to anyone who follows in my scientific footsteps -- that all of the life on Earth is similarly the work of design (an earlier, and much finer, design); and both that design and the Earth re-design showcase the same underlying mathematics (that of the "golden section" and its essential presence in the processes of growth and reproduction, indicating their design just as it does in the late Earth re-design). Further, it becomes obvious that the very atoms of physical matter must also be the work of (an even earlier, and much finer) design (the periodic table of the elements fairly screams this as the fact, since it shows the clear pattern followed in that design, that produces only these elements, and no continuous progression between them producing an infinity of elements).

My New Knowledge Explains the "Ancient Mysteries" and Overthrows Ignorant Modern Debates

The American Thinker site has a post on "Confusing the Evolution Debate". After reading it and the comments following it, my response:

Everybody has an opinion, and the opinions are, so far, hopelessly divided. I am a hard scientist, who has made the greatest discovery in history, of what I call "the Great Design of the 'gods'". As such, I seek only to inform of the revolutionary new knowledge I have uncovered and brought together to scientifically verify, along every line of study, the reality of that Design; but neither side in the dogmatic debates will abide the introduction of that necessary new knowledge. I have no need of opinion, nor -- more importantly -- no need of the false dogmas on either side of the vain, ongoing intellectual war over Darwinian -- a.k.a., undirected -- evolution. The ancient religious dogmas, still harbored in every religion, originated in the Great Design of the 'gods', especially in the images wrought upon the Earth's surface (mirrored in the constellations invented for the celestial sphere) in that Design. The modern dogma of the extended Darwinian paradigm -- which assumes that not only all the life on Earth, but the Earth itself, "evolved" through undirected (i.e., not directed by intelligence) physical processes alone (like convenient cosmic accidents early in its supposed history, or "plate tectonics" in its later and present phase) -- is wrong, and through my discovery has been superseded. That is the reality mankind must face.

There is no logical need to make the debate one of "God", or even "First Cause", vs. "Chance", but that is what evolutionists have done, because Chance, by itself, fails (has always failed) the theory of evolution at every turn (I myself always point to the deep and wide -- and often, in many individual examples, blatantly indicative of design -- phenomenon of supposed "co-evolution" as the definitive evidence against the theory). Evolutionists could not have gone so long in denial of the obvious designs if they did not have "God" to rail against, thus claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is a religious crank.

Make no mistake: The present debate(s) over "evolution" are obsolete, and religious and scientific dogmatists are both wide of the mark. Science and religion alike need fundamental correction. They leave out what the 'gods" did; what I have proved they did (to any reasonable mind; but not, of course, to those who ridiculously claim -- dogmatically of course, and falsely -- that "science never proves anything").

The Secret Reason for White-Hot Rhetoric Today

The fabiusmaximus site has a post on "The Secret Reason For Hot Political Rhetoric", and the following was my response, which goes to the heart of the problem--not just political--as enlightened by my discovery of the re-formation and design of the Earth's surface by the "gods" of ancient "myth":

There is some truth in laying the problem on "tribalism" (which is a clue that the past is the key to the present), but that is focusing on the symptoms, not the disease. The same criticism applies to your proposition that the Democrats and Republicans are coming together, towards a "unified ruling class", and the citizenry then becoming "apathetic and passive". The question is "Why", in both cases.

The reason for these symptoms, however, is simple: Dogma over reason, leading to a crisis of general incompetence in judgment. The truth is that divisive, false dogmas have been too long nurtured, by the various factions and groups in our societies. This is now a climactic time, when these chickens have come home to roost as it were, and adherence to one's favorite dogma(s) is ascendant over competent reason, on every front, in every confrontation. Thus, emotions rule. As a "hard" scientist--a physicist by education and long experience--I first identified this general incompetence within science itself, after making a revolutionary discovery that falsifies the very paradigm by which science has sought to advance ever since Darwin--that paradigm being undirected evolution of all that science observes in the world. Having made that discovery, I sought to bring it out to the world, only to find the world reacting with determined avoidance behavior, that increased the more I tried, even to the "white-hot" stage you refer to in the political discourse. (No, I'm not saying the white-hot political rhetoric is in reaction to my efforts to be heard; I'm saying it is due to avoidance behavior, primarily on the Left, against anyone trying to bring out the truth in any given situation--the Democrats have been fiercely battling any recognition of the truth throughout the Obama presidency years, for which I have been calling them the Insane Left for most if not all of that time. "White-hot" rhetoric, blatantly false, and perverse (as they have only been painting themselves into a smaller and smaller corner, trying to promulgate and defend what cannot be truthfully defended), is all the Insane Left seems able to call forth now.

But add in the stealth bipartisanship shown by the Republicans, and the resulting disconnect (ever deeper, ever wider) between the two parties and their "constituents"--the people, who don't like what their representatives are doing--and one can see it is not just the Left that is insane today, i.e., determinedly, obsessively avoiding the truth.

The preferred dogmas of that "unified ruling class" are, increasingly, simply not those of the people being misled.

The problem is too-long nurtured false dogmas, some for decades, others for generations, the worst throughout known history. This is a climactic time, and a hard test for all mankind. Because, finally, new knowledge needs to be properly confronted, and accepted by all, and very few are ready to do it.

The True Origin of Inalienable Rights

The American Thinker site has a post which brought up the subject of "inalienable rights of the individual" (but only in terms of "property rights"). This subject comes under the heading of the "philosophy of science", particularly as newly enlightened by my discovery of the Great Design of the "gods". My response, then:

I think it is not about "property" rights, more like "appropriate" rights. There is a widely known old military saying, "Rank has its privileges", which not so many people know has a second part, "because rank has its responsibilities". So the individual has its inalienable rights, because it has its inherent responsibility, to choose its way, literally from one moment to the next, in matters large and small. (Ha-ha...I just chose to refer to the individual as "it", rather than as "he", or even "he/she". You can't get away from choosing what to do next, and you have to live with the consequences of your choosing.)

At the root of all our problems is the fact that we are not physical creatures alone; we are spirits occupying physical bodies (and in a degraded condition, because we do not KNOW, from moment to moment, that we are not just physical bodies, taking up space). We are spirit inhabiting body; and mind, or intelligent reasoning, is the bridge between the two, and our defining essence. Our inalienable human rights come from our essential being as mind, inhabiting and acting through matter, and our personal responsibility to direct that matter, our bodies. A collective or societal government cannot walk for me, or talk for me; I have to do it. I also have to decide whether I want to buy "health insurance" for this body, given my financial situation or any other considerations I may choose.

My rights, and everyone else's, are inalienable, because they are prior to any consideration of our limited physical existence. At bottom, mind is prior to matter, and the unit of mind, the individual, is prior to the state and any power we may collectively grant it. Put another way, intelligence, good reason--and the universal meaningfulness, or coherence, that underlies good reason and is evinced by it (and which we, as benighted children of our spiritual father, call God)--flows fundamentally and unavoidably through me (and you), the "units" of mind, and that makes us individually responsible.

The Bigotry of Radiative Transfer Believers

I received the following comment this morning, submitted to the November 2010 "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post. The commenter was apparently too impatient to notice that comments were closed to that post a long time ago, and readers directed to submit any further comments to the May 2015 "Venus No Greenhouse Effect Comments Overflow" post.

From "Anonymous":

"I suspect you got no response because it's pseudoscience crap.

Try this instead: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf "

This is the work of a bigot, and an immature or easily-unhinged mind; for the Venus/Earth comparison I performed is a presentation of fact, which cannot be equated with pseudoscience. It shows that one can use the Standard Model of the Earth's atmosphere to accurately predict the temperatures in the Venus atmosphere, over the full range of pressures found in the Earth's troposphere.

That is a clear fact, that immediately and clearly indicates that the physics enshrined in the Standard Atmosphere model is the ruling physics for Venus's atmosphere as well. There are two exceedingly good reasons for this: First, Venus's atmosphere differs hugely from Earth's atmosphere, in several ways, that are each presumed by climate scientists to have their own individual effects upon the temperature, but which in reality do not have any effect whatsoever, as only the distance from the Sun is shown to account for the difference in temperature in the two atmospheres, at a given Earth tropospheric pressure.

When an entire set of supposedly potent conditions is shown to have no effect, the overwhelming probability is that none of those conditions has any effect; the alternative is that their various effects cancel one another almost exactly, and that is highly unlikely, increasingly so with the number of conditions considered, and with some supposedly having additive effect (e.g., the "greenhouse effect" of increasing carbon dioxide) while others have a multiplicative effect (e.g., the albedo, or fraction of incident solar radiation reflected rather than absorbed).

The second reason to put one's money on the physics of the Standard Atmosphere is because it is simplicity itself, compared to the "greenhouse effect". I have written about this many times over the last 6 and 1/2 years, and won't do it again for this post.

These two reasons are why, from the day I first performed the Venus/Earth comparison, I have maintained that that comparison definitively separates the competent from the incompetent among scientists studying climate theory. I always will so maintain it.

Now, I see that the anonymous commenter referenced a Physics Today paper, from 2011 apparently. And I happen to remember--without even bothering to use the commenter's link--that the January 2011 issue of Physics Today contains a paper by Raymond Pierrehumbert, steadfastly asserting the radiative "greenhouse" effect to be "unassailable". I have, of course, assailed it many times.

It is therefore obvious, to me (especially in the present intellectual atmosphere, of "true believers" in false dogma doubling down on their longtime attempted suppression of critics), that Mr. Pierrehumbert himself is probably the author of that comment. Or perhaps it is after all only an obsessively loyal follower of his cult (of "atmospheric warming by radiative transfer within it").

You will get nowhere with me, Mr. Pierrehumbert. I consider you a humbug (no, no "Dr." for you), and your radiative theory incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to the warming of the atmosphere.

No Clear Thinking Among "Climate" Scientists

I have submitted the following comment to a post about the "global warming pause" on Dr. Roy Spencer's site (the link may not work, if Dr. Spencer did not allow it to appear):

"...when the next big warm El Nino occurs, the zero trend will end. And that’s exactly what happened, with the 2015-16 El Nino. A trend is very sensitive to what happens at the end of a time series, and a big (natural) warm blip from El Nino is just what the doctor ordered. No more zero trend."

Yet,

"You can’t build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming!"

Dr. Spencer thinks the mere appearance of an El Nino ends the zero trend; but, generally speaking, that would depend upon what the temperature does after the end of the El Nino. If it goes right back to the "zero trend" level, then the zero trend continues; the El Nino is then just a bump in the road, soon enough forgotten. And as others have pointed out, the 2015-16 El Nino did not cause temperature to go higher than the 1998 one did (which is comparing "oranges to oranges", i.e. the maximum temperature at successive El Ninos, not the rise of a given El Nino compared to the trend preceding it, or succeeding it for that matter).

And "you can't build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming" logically implies you can't build a case (for human-caused warming from observation of the "end of the zero trend") by relying on the temporary natural warming due to an El Nino.

So the two quotes of Dr. Spencer's above are at odds with one another. The first should be recognized as generally not true (unless the world does not recover from the El Nino; and though I stopped following the temperature reports, I don't believe the current 0.27 C anomaly reported here is significantly above the "zero trend" level of recent years, as the 0.8+ of the El Nino surely was, but it's obviously now gone).

Just stop saying the zero trend, or "global warming pause", is over.

Who--or What--Is the "Fittest"?

I have submitted the following comment, on the American Thinker site, in answer to another commenter who took me to task for my claim that the idea of "survival of the fittest" is a dead-end, false dogma for mankind:

Every tyrant, so long as he is on top, can claim to be the "fittest". It is also known as "might makes right". Except the tyrant, even if he dies of old age, is NOT the fittest in the hearts and minds of all those he oppresses; and might does NOT make right--I am SURE you know that, though you might be inclined to deny it here.

In the end, who decides who--or what--is the "fittest"? Hitler was sure he knew, and how many people died in World War II because he was wrong (50, 60, 80 million, I don't remember)? America allowed slavery of blacks when it was first founded, because many in positions of influence and power believed THEY knew who was fittest (because they "knew" blacks were not), and that is still biting America where it hurts most.

In science, Darwin and his theory of undirected evolution (the very source of the phrase, and of today's idea, of "survival of the fittest") is taken--by the overwhelming, almost universal consensus--to be one of the fittest of theories; it governs and guides not just the life sciences but all the earth sciences too, as if the Earth just happened to "evolve", from gases and rocks thrown together in space, into the miracle of separate continents, ocean(s), environments and climates, supporting both animal and plant life, and both land and ocean life, in amazing diversity, in something that looks very much like harmony (ohmigod).

But Darwin was wrong, and all of the earth and life sciences that rely upon his theory are wrong, precisely to the extent that they do so rely on it (they are not wrong, precisely to the extent they recognize design, and study to know it, as the natural philosophers, like Leonardo da Vinci, who preceded them did). Science doesn't know this yet, but this scientist does, as no other scientist does, even the "creationists" and the "Intelligent Design" followers. As a hard scientist--a physicist--I have made the greatest discovery in history. I call it "the Great Design of the 'gods' ", and it is pretty much all-encompassing, being a physical design imposed upon the entire surface of the Earth, as well as, in the intellectual sphere. the original motivation for all the "ancient mysteries" you may read about, or see discussed on TV. It is in fact the single, until-now-hidden, source of all of mankind's earliest beliefs, and how they developed throughout succeeding history. So I speak as the discoverer of the next paradigm, that WILL replace the Darwinian paradigm that has ruled since his day.

This Age of Scientific Dogmatism

I have made two comments to an American Thinker article, "The Left's Vicious Intolerance In Science".

I'll just say here that arguing about science is not science. I am a scientist, by the way--in fact, THE scientist, who has made the greatest discovery in history--directly impacting every field of human inquiry--which few in our time, on either the Left or the Right--or the middle, for that matter--have shown themselves willing to respectfully consider. No surprise there, it has been ever thus; ask Galileo (and I sometimes call myself the Galileo of this time). There is so much incompetence, all around, even in this "advanced", "thoroughly modern" age, because we are living in a climactic time, of ascendance of false, divisive dogma over good, honest reason.

Know therefore, that you and all around you are being tested, with the consequences of such long-nurtured dogma, even as new, inevitably liberating knowledge will--in the next few generations if not this one--change what for you have been all-too-comfortable certainties, about what is and is not true science.

and

Scientific consensus notably hardened into dogmatic, religiously-held beliefs in then currently fashionable theories, across many fields, around 1970-1980. It has not been true science since that time, and for many, long before (as far back as Darwin, for the more devout followers of undirected evolution, who have made careers out of refusing to consider all the evidence against it). As a scientist, I never blamed that obscene (to this scientist) hardening of scientific thought on the Left--but they have latched on to the dogmatic certainty, the belief in "the Consensus", in many fields, not just in science (the "civil-rights" movement for Blacks, with its defining of "racism" as White racism, is another outstanding example). And it has made them insane now, under the likes of Obama. They have built their intended legacy on untruths, and the consequences will be devastating.

On "Global Warming: Science or Dogma?"

I have submitted the following comment to an article, "Global Warming: Science or Dogma" on the American Thinker site, in response to other comments there which hew to the dogma that there is a CO2 (carbon dioxide) greenhouse effect in the atmosphere:

Those scientists who think they are experts in talking about CO2 absorption of radiation from the planetary surface are over-educated and mis-educated. The point that any such "experts" need to understand is that such absorption is just one pathway by which heat is transferred from the surface of the planet to outer space. Heat is transferred not just by radiation, but by conduction and convection, and it is a BULK, macroscopic process, not a molecular, much less quantum, process. What governs the global mean surface temperature (and that at any other pressure level in the lower atmosphere, the troposphere) is the weight of the atmosphere above any level, pressing down on that level: Overall, the pressure at any level is due to the weight of the atmosphere above that level; this is called the hydrostatic condition, as it is the same condition in a static column of water. The global mean temperature has nothing at all to do with CO2 or any other constituent of the atmosphere, it is controlled, essentially, solely by the hydrostatic condition, the height (or total mass) of the atmosphere, and the intensity of incident solar radiation. The atmosphere is not even warmed by the heated planetary surface, on the global scale (uneven surface heating only drives the transient WEATHER patterns over the globe, not the global mean temperature) as all of the "experts" have been miseducated to believe, but by direct absorption of incident solar radiation and downward transfer of heat by CONDUCTION (not radiation at all, note), as strictly enforced by the hydrostatic condition (that means it happens very fast, through uncounted molecular collisions), so CO2 absorption of long wavelength radiation from the surface is doubly irrelevant. No "expert", on either side of the climate debate/war, wants to have anything to do with that explanation, it is too alien to the accepted dogma. But the real, true science is simple and easy, not complicated and contrived. This is why I have continually written, "There is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists", ever since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison of November 2010. There is NO global-warming "greenhouse effect".

The Science Is Not Just Not Settled; It Is False

The American Thinker site has an article, "The Science Is Settled, So Shut Up", referring to the climate alarmism on the political Left, and its tyrannous consequences, but also bringing in other political debates over science. My response:

False dogma is generally ascendant over true reason now. That is why we see evolution and sexual orientation aguments intruding into the debate over climate science. And it is not just the Left vs. Right, it is just that the Left has taken the politically correct, consensus position in every confrontation, while the Right is more open to alternative reasonable views. This is actually a disease on the Left, as the consensus ideas, or reigning dogmas, in so many fields today, are wrong, despite the false dogmas having been nurtured for a long time, in science and in wider society. Darwin set science on the wrong path of denying design of the natural world over 150 years ago, and Agassiz contributed with his theories of past ice ages, which led directly to the false "greenhouse effect" in an attempt to explain a false paradigm of "global climate change"; Milankovitch furthered the miseducation of scientists by supposing recurring changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of its spin axis; and the followers of Alfred Wegener overreached, and turned further from the truth, in the 1960s, by "explaining" past continental movements as due to ongoing global "plate tectonics".

Virtually everything scientists so confidently assert as fact in the earth and life sciences today is not only not settled, it is false. There is no undirected, Darwinian evolution; there have been no naturally-occurring ice ages; the Earth's orbit does not change as Milankovitch supposed; the continents were not moved to their present forms and positions by plate tectonics; and there is no valid global climate science being taught.

On the other hand, all religions today are full of myth, not sure knowledge, insofar as they tell stories about the pre-historic past, before events were written down as they happened, according to living witnesses to the events.

So they are no substitute for true science, and that cannot be overemphasized. It is no use trying to go back to ancient religious dogmas to counter the dogmas in modern science.

My research into the so-called "ancient mysteries", undertaken as a modern physicist and to the highest standards of true science, has uncovered the fact--not theory, not ancient religious dogma, not freely-imagined speculation--that a great design WAS imposed upon the Earth, between roughly 20,000 and 10,000 years ago (so modern geology itself is only right about the last 10,000 years or so; it cannot be trusted farther back than that). That design establishes what I wrote above, about the falseness in all the earth and life sciences, due to the false paradigm--the false dogma--they have slavishly followed.

In this, I write as the Copernicus, or Galileo, of this time, informing of a new understanding of the world, its motions in space, and the late origin of its present conditions, only a few tens of thousands, not hundreds of millions, of years ago.

Between the dogmatic scientists and the dogmatic religionists, few want to confront this new knowledge. But all who can see, can see from present debates and wars that such knowledge is very much needed. Without it, everyone is blind, on both sides of every debate about the physical world.

Marching For Dogma

This will be a very short post, as I see no real good in arguing at length with the deeply deluded. This is just a succinct reminder of the truth so many refuse to confront now.

Judith Curry has a post on "What Are Scientists Marching For?". (There is going to be a march on Washington around April 22nd, basically in hysterical protest over the new President and what they so deludedly think he represents, along the lines of "anti-science".) My response:

They will be marching in defense of dogma, that is all--and specifically, false dogma (not science at all). They will also be marching in favor of unabashed tyranny over critics of their dogma (which they believe, religiously but falsely, to be science). This is all about defending what is in fact a general incompetence among today's scientists, the false paradigm that gave rise to that incompetence, and all the false theories--false speculative structures--they have built up in their minds (and in peer-reviewed papers, and books, and countless lectures), based upon that false paradigm.

Actually, I have let myself go on too long here. I meant only to say, "They will be marching in defense of dogma over good, honest reason," and leave it at that. But again, I have to immediately add, "and for the tyranny that is always needed to sustain false dogma."

Now look, I have said it twice. Words all over the place, and to what end? They WILL NOT listen. They have a million, a billion, a trillion times as many words, saying the opposite. How does a generation take stock, and unlearn a century and a half of false dogma and misdirected scientific effort? In the end, they must confront revolutionary new knowledge and a new, truer paradigm--the Great Design of the "gods"--that's how.

Layers of Belief: Political, Religious, and Scientific Dogma

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, to an article on the "causes of scientific decline in American academia". The article imputes the decline to Leftist beliefs and actions.:

Left (versus Right) is just the top, political, layer. Underneath that is the atheist (versus spiritual believer) religious belief system. And under that, at bottom (in the context of science and scientists), is an undirected-evolution (versus deliberate design) paradigm (or fundamental, unquestioned assumption) directing scientific research. The underlying cause of scientific decline is the miseducation of scientists, ever since Darwin, that the world as we now observe it came about through undirected physical processes alone (with, in the case of living things, the addition of an all-powerful but basically undefined "natural selection", to supply the obviously necessary direction displayed by it all; note, in the case of non-living things--the world that sustains life--scientists don't even have a "natural selection" deity to "explain" its amazing construction and harmonious working order, of land and ocean, mountains and valleys, rivers, rock of all kinds and sizes--and thus uses--and above all life-nutrient soil).

At bottom, the problem is a failing scientific paradigm, increasingly unnoticed by scientists--pursuing their unquestioned, uniformitarian evolution paradigm--for the past 130 to 160 years. I call this paradigm--which covers the non-living world, in addition to the living--the extended Darwinian paradigm. I don't even know if I invented the term or not, as I have not seen it used by other scientists for as long as I remember (nor have I gone looking for it); it comes naturally out of recognizing that earth scientists--for example, geologists--assume, just as biologists and other life scientists do, that what they observe is the result of undirected physical processes alone. The same guiding assumption, in both the life and earth sciences--and false.

Other critics of evolution can only approach this tangentially, in the context of creationism or "Intelligent Design" theory. I am the only scientist in the world who can confront it head-on, without theory, with new, revolutionary knowledge, independent of any prior belief system known to modern man, gained through dispassionate research, discovery, and verification, to the highest scientific standards for certainty, along every line of study.

Modern Scientific Ignorance and Dismissal of the Ancient Truth

I have submitted the following response to the climate etc site of Dr. Judith Curry, who carries a post on "the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle". The introduction states, "Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events are the most dramatic and frequent abrupt climate change events in the geological record.":

Impressively detailed speculation, but wrong. The Earth's surface was re-formed, wholesale and late in geological history, to a great design:

"Challenge to Earth Scientists", and

"Challenge to Science II: Focus on Design".

In fact, the entire solar system was re-formed, and reoriented to follow the Earth's new (present) orbit:

"Challenge to Science III: The 'gods', the design, and man".

The continents were deliberately moved, shaped and oriented. Some were moved as late as 10,000 years ago, along paths that are today thought to be spreading ocean ridges. They are instead the sutured scars of past movement of landmasses like Atlantis/Greenland (just one of the most famous ancient mysteries, originating in the design, solved by my research):

"Atlantis At Last", and

"Atlantis Details".

The Earth's--and solar system's--new orbital orientation was effected c. 17,000 years ago (as mentioned in "Challenge to Science III", above link). Plato's "Timaeus" reported that the Egyptians dated the disappearance of Atlantis to 9600 BC, indicating the change to the present distribution of landmasses was performed over several thousand years' time, between roughly 20,000 and 10,000 years ago.

Modern geology (including paleoclimatology, e.g. ice core data) cannot be trusted any farther back in time than the end of that deliberate re-formation, by the 'gods', who were worshipped by ancient man worldwide. That worship directed the religions and religious obsessions of man for thousands of years, as observed in the perennially-popular "ancient mysteries", all of which hark back, in precise detail, to that single source, the deliberate world design.

The Fig. 18 in the above article notes that the periodicity in the DO cycle has less than 1% probability of being due to chance. Compare that to the probability of chance placement of the continents in their current, precisely-set form and distribution, which is on the order of 1 in one million million (1 in 1 trillion). What I have just informed you of is so far beyond the "certainty" of modern scientific speculations, like the article above, that to dismiss it is logically perverse, in the extreme. The great design makes practically all that current earth scientists think they know, immediately irrelevant to the truth, and useless to continue with or build upon. It literally sweeps away, effortlessly, the underlying assumption--no design involved--in both evolution and plate tectonics, the central theories of all the life and earth sciences. They are wrong; everything proceeding on the basis of their truth is wrong.

An Ever-Darker Future Imminent

The Jo Nova site has a post on South Australia's energy infrastructure woes, and the comments put blame on all the usual suspects. The following is my response, as a competent scientist:

Underlying the lazy (still too well fed and entertained), politically polarized public, and their representatives, and the larger tyrannous agenda of the Insane Left, is the fundamental crisis:

A general scientific incompetence–not among the public, but among the “experts” themselves, across all specialties that intersect with the climate or atmosphere, and thus among all those who should have nipped this in the bud–brought about and maintains the insanity surrounding “global warming/climate change/energy infrastructure transformation”.

Back in October 2011, I posted the following comment on Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc” site:

“Judith Curry’s testimony: ‘It is now up to the political process (international, national, and local) to decide how to contend with the climate problem.’

That’s what is wrong with this [Curry's] blog site, in a nutshell.”

In other words, she failed (and continues to fail, despite her stand against the “consensus”) to see how wide and deep is the incompetence in the “climate’ science itself–although all of you here who see the society-wide strict adherence to the alarmist narrative–in all of our most trusted institutions–on a daily basis, and know it is nonsense, know better.

As I have also written for the last 6 years, 1) stop all “climate policies” immediately, and 2) take “climate” science away from the “climate scientists”, indeed, take it away from any scientist who believes any part of it. It is all false; it all has to be redone, from the bottom up (as far back as the Standard Atmosphere, which alone is good science).

On the Consequences of Too-Long Nurtured Dogmas

I submitted the following comment on American Thinker, in response to other comments that were speculating about the "real evil" confronting the American people and the world now (on American Thinker, the common answer is "Democrats and the Left", and they are right, right now--but not necessarily for long):

I am an independent scientist, who has made a uniquely great--literally unprecedented in history--discovery that has allowed me to see the hardening and escalating confrontations of dogmatic thoughts and divisions of this time, the early 21st century, in a larger light than, basically, anyone else. Right now, we are confronted with what I call the Insane Left, but that is not the full extent of what is going on. I don't have all the answers--I know the heart of it, but not the myriad living connections, acting throughout history and even before, involved--but I know, as no one else on Earth does, that it is not limited to any particular group, or even groups, of people. It is not even a single world view, such as "globalist". It goes beyond any "conspiracy theory", beyond "Left" vs. "Right", and beyond any physical nexus. It involves the entire set of divisive dogmas held by mankind on Earth, and too-long nurtured as inviolate--religiously, unquestioningly held by each separate group, that makes of each such group a cult, when taken too far--and as such it is not even "evil", in its essence. It is instead a GENERAL TESTING of mankind. Unquestioned dogmas--and especially the worst of the worst FALSE dogmas--are generally ascendant over good honest reason in the world now, and we are all being shown the insanity of man adhering to dogma rather than to his god-given ability to reason. Such adherence is false at its heart--to the very freedom of man to THINK--no matter how many "honestly" believe a given dogma. For now, it is appropriate to confront the immediate danger of the Insane Left, but we will be faced with the insane radicalization of other dogmas--Islamic terrorism and expansion is another prime example now, just as an insane "climate science" is--as long as we fail to learn the real lesson being taught mankind. Too many have for too long abused their reason and the reason of others, and it is now a worldwide, full-blown epidemic.

--------------------

As a scientist, I would add that what makes nurturing a dogma "too long" is, generally speaking, the uncovering of evidence definitely counter to that dogma. "Climate science" is well past that point, for example.

Positive Morals Versus Coercive Dogma

I submitted the following comment on American Thinker, to a post titled "The Catholic Church You Never Heard Of":

It is necessary to separate the personal morals espoused, from the dogmas insisted upon as being unquestionable, in a religion. This article seeks to defend the moral effect upon history of Catholicism.

But Catholic dogma is advanced here, in the comments, with no supporting evidence other than arguments from authority, such as that "it is widely believed" (that is, that the vast majority of "Catholic" churches, or sects believe); or that (for example) the Inquisition was somehow standard, "accepted" procedure at the time--that it was even "BENIGN", as one commenter here wrote, in capital letters. The innocent victims, such as Giordano Bruno, would beg to differ.

It is really pretty simple, though, if you're ready to lay down your dogma in favor of truly moral precepts, which of course Catholics commenting here show they are not willing to do (just like everyone does, of course, when they spout received dogma): You cannot call it "Christianity" if you worship "The Virgin"--that's ancient goddess worship, if you look far enough back in history, rather than just obsess about early Catholic sources, which operate in their own pagan-denying but pagan-promulgating, pagan-propagating bubble (the Pope is really nothing but a God-King, ruling "by Divine Right", and to be believed as such, "ex cathedra", as one commenter admitted). The dogmas in the Catholic Church--not "The Church", Catholics--are older than Catholicism, and you don't seem to know that, and, considering your apparent devotion to ancient history, are no doubt blocking from your own minds, in defense of your dogma.

All of today's religions still contain dogmas--good and bad, encompassing truth only in metaphorical, "mythical" form, and therefore misleading lies--from the first religion, before the beginning of history. Catholics are not alone in this, and should not be singled out for it. The millennia-long "war" between the Goddess and the patriarchal Gods, and later God, who followed Her in the religious development of Man--a war still alive in the Catholic Virgin worship--goes back to the very beginning of religious belief in pre-history, as it was the storied overturning of the Goddess by the patriarchal "gods" that marked the end of the "golden age", universally remembered in the earliest "myths" worldwide. The Titans overthrown by the "new generation" of Zeus were, before the patriarchal rewrite of ancient history, led by the White Goddess of many names, in many lands around the world: Eurynome, Venus, Cerridwen, Aphrodite, Astarte, Isis, Ereshkigal, Pele, Izanami, Atse Estsan (Navajo), ...virtually every goddess in myth is but another name, or title, in just another story, of the One Goddess.

The ancients worldwide, called pagans by the Catholic Church, LOVED their Goddess, beyond the ability of any new dogma to discard her. That is why the early Church--and it will always be "the early Church", or more correctly the Roman Catholic Church, not "the Church", to any but Catholic cult believers themselves--brought the Virgin into their midst, into the very center in fact (virtually as a goddess, The Goddess, in fact).

Just as the pagan "corn god" or other-named "agricultural" god, was sacrificed each year (like Jesus was said to be) at the winter solstice (that's Christmastime, to modern, still-pagan Christians), only to "rise again" at the time of the spring equinox (just as the Sun-God of old--and later, the son of the Sun-God--did, and Jesus the "Son of God" did, and as the physical Sun itself actually does, every year, in rising above the celestial equator just at that time), so the "fertility goddess" suffered her various mythical travails and lost her virginity(!), and subsequently gave birth (re-birth) to the Son of God (also of many names) each year, only to renew that virginity each spring, in token to all that new life springing forth at that same beginning of spring, and to her "eternal" nature--thus "ever-renewed", in her virginity, herself, and ever-renewing of the life on Earth.

The truth behind all the "sacrifice of the Son of God" stories, long before and up to the time of Jesus of Nazareth, and sacred tales that "He rose again", is that they are all variations on a religious mnemonic for the actual yearly passage of the Sun, as it makes a circuit of the starry sky, or celestial sphere, as seen by earthbound mankind--above the celestial equator for six months, then crossing to below the celestial equator for six months, with the crossing points defined as the vernal, or "spring" equinox (when it rises, or "springs", above the celestial equator), and the autumnal, or "fall", equinox (when it--wait for it--"falls" below the celestial equator).

I am the only scientist in the world who knows, for a fact, WHY the Sun's motion was so religiously enshrined, worldwide, before the very beginning of known human history, before the first human religion was in fact invented. It is the same reason--the same objective, physical origin--for the fact of all the "Creation" myths, including that told in Genesis. Because all of it--all the precise construction and working mechanism of it--was in fact deliberately imposed. It was not "Creation", but a re-formation, and a real 'overturning" of an older world (and solar system) order. But later religions TAUGHT it as "the Creation".

This new knowledge will usher in a new paradigm, in both science and religion. It is a crucial milestone in human knowledge. And only the many divisive dogmas, still going strong today, are blocking its revelation and new intellectual and spiritual honesty. When new truth becomes known, the path forward necessarily becomes "straight and narrow". The way has suddenly become very straight and very narrow, that will not allow mankind's unquestioned dogmas--whether the oldest religious ones, or the newest "scientific" ones--the free rein they have had up to now.

------------------

A few readers here may note I emphasized the historical passage from "gods-driven" ancient religions to later, morals-teaching religion, in the recent post, "Religion, Dogma, and the Ancient 'Gods'".

The Central Mystery of the Earth and Man -- Solved

The tallbloke site has another post on "Advanced Geometry Used By Prehistoric Architects", in the U.S. Southwest in this instance, with the "Pueblo Indians" of c. 1200 AD. Their buildings incorporated equilateral triangles, 45° and other "Pythagorean", or right, triangles, and the "golden rectangle" (whose longer side is 1.618 times as long as the shorter side). The post begins, "Another one to add to the ‘how and why did they do that?’ list of ancient sites. Years of research lie ahead." My response:

I have already done the years of research; I have already found the answer, 20 years ago now.

Equilateral triangles, right triangles (including the 45°), and the "golden rectangle" (this last is the proper clue to consider, to the real mystery) -- These are indeed easy to construct (the golden rectangle can be gotten from the 2:1 rectangle and its diagonal); all that is really required is to have the idea of each one, and an accurate method of construction is almost child's play. I would think the building of well-constructed walls, which has been obvious from the time the Pueblo buildings were first known, is harder. The "hardest" geometrical element would be the right angle, and the idea of constructing the perpendicular bisector of a line solves that (and anyone who chooses even as a child to devote himself to angular constructions could reinvent that wheel for himself, shortly after he realized he could use a cord to mark off distances accurately). Of course, the architects would have to have been more than just primitive hunter-gatherers, at some time prior to the building, and had the leisure time to consider such things; but again, we have known this all along for those people. In other words, they were CIVILIZED, in a thoroughly modern sense, as shown by their knowledge of geometric shapes and their competent building with same.

These were built, they say, c. 1200 AD. Compare that with the much more advanced Greeks and Euclid (who DID have writing), c. 300 BC. And don't say they can't be compared, as all I am saying is that the Greeks of 300 BC were not more innately intelligent than the Pueblo "Indians" of 1200 AD. Indeed, we absolutely know, not only from the written works of various "ancient" peoples, but the creative "myths" of all ancient peoples (with many ideas and precise details in common), that they had minds as good as ours today, when they weren't obsessed with bloody religious dogmas, long inherited.

The only real clue to the greater mystery--why should peoples, worldwide, have thought of these precise shapes at all--is the golden rectangle, which by itself shows that peoples on opposite sides of the world had that same idea, and expressed it. That proves what I said in the last paragraph, that the people of 300 BC can and should be compared with those 1500 years later, as far as their geometrical imaginations went. Why the golden rectangle?

But you have been asking that question, not only about the ancient peoples, but about the solar system, for some time now (and your forebears have done the same, for centuries, as the various CIVILIZATIONS of the past have re-emerged from exploration of the world).

And as I have told you before, the amazing answer is that it goes back to a common inheritance, of a great design at the heart of ancient peoples' imaginations and religious beliefs. And even that idea has been speculated on, long before this.

But no one, before me, has discovered THE great design, which is not speculative at all, but a proven fact (by me and me alone).

The golden ratio is the mark of that great design, which encompasses both the Earth and all the life on it (that ratio is present in the DNA molecule itself), AND the entire solar system.

That great design--I call it "The Great Design of the 'gods' "--is the next scientific paradigm, replacing the "undirected evolution" paradigm so vehemently defended today.

And that is why you also cannot trust today's theories, insofar as they are based on the false assumptions underlying the undirected evolution paradigm. Everything was CONSTRUCTED (even the reproductive machinery of life); it didn't simply "EVOLVE" into what we observe today.

What Every Scientist Needs to Know

I have submitted the following comment to the Not Even Wrong site, to a post on "Fake Physics":

I haven't looked up any of the links above; they are not worth my time, because I know from long experience that the fakers are, just like virtually all scientists today, 1) operating within their own mental straitjacket, i.e., on their own favored beliefs, their own unquestioned dogmas, including about what is and is not "settled" science, and 2) they are trying too hard to answer what is to them the ultimate question--"ultimate" only in the sense that they think they know so much, "almost everything", except their favored theories have hit a wall (long ago, actually...when they were first advanced, in reality) and there's just this "final" answer they want (desperately, but they don't know that) to find--the answer to the question, "but is it real?"

Well, "it" is not real. In a word, they are simply deluded all around, because of those unconfronted, unquestioned dogmas they don't even see, won't even look at when they are pointed out to them. Here's the real problem, though: Most scientists today--you too, who are reading this--are religionists, not scientists, and they don't even know it.

Bottom line: There is a general crisis of incompetence across ALL fields of science today, due to a too-long nurturing of false dogmas in the foundations--like uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution--and new, definitive knowledge needs to be properly confronted and admitted into science to begin to correct ... everything.

Dogma--inherently divisive, false dogma--is ascendant in the world today, in every confrontation, every debate or war, over good (honest and competent) reason.

I don't have all the answers, but I HAVE, as a hard, modern physicist--with the standards of evidence, especially precision, which that description indicates--made what I consider the greatest discovery in hard science in all of history to date, that mandates a new general paradigm about the origin of the world, and mankind's history-long intellectual journey, in search of more knowledge and more peace. If that sounds awkward, even crankish, tough; it merely indicates how central, how all-encompassing, is that discovery.

There is too much anguished pursuing of the whichness of the why, when you all should be open to new, clear and simple knowledge. Scientists have all lost their way, and they are all looking for it under the bright but useless light of current false theories, pursuing questions they only THINK are most important, rather than where they dropped it, deliberately, long ago.

This is off-the-cuff, and should not be taken as designed to be immediately convincing. You are going to have to LOOK and STUDY, competently and seriously, at what I have found, in order to be convinced. Just know that it is essential that you do, if you want to be a competent scientist...because it's the gospel truth, not to be denied forever.

Religion, Dogma, and the Ancient "Gods"

I submitted a comment this morning on the American Thinker site, in response to another comment there which stated that "Communism is a religion." I wanted to distinguish between a "religion" (an institutionalized set of beliefs about God and man's relation to Him/Her--ancient man at one time worshipped the Goddess as the Highest) and "religiously-held ideas" (which includes those that do not purport to come from God, but are held inviolable, unquestionable, by their believers). Because false, divisive (to the point of war) dogmas are showing themselves generally ascendant over honest reason in the world now, I also wanted to inform of one or two points my research and discoveries have led me to uncover about the development of the idea and practice of religion among men--the history of religion--and which I think modern man needs to be aware of, for the sake of truth itself and for a thorough, competent understanding of the all-encompassing "Great Design" I found, which began and, for most of history, directed it all.

We are getting into needing to distinguish between religion and good old-fashioned, unquestioned dogma. The latter is rampant in the world today--many, inherently divisive, dogmas abound--and includes, but is not limited to, the dogmas of the various religions. A religiously-held dogma can be just as bad, but not the same thing, as a religious dogma (which purports to come from God). As someone just pointed out above, Islam is not a MORAL religion in the sense of modern Christianity, and is basically a cult of lies, claiming to rule--by coercion, not reason or faith--over every aspect of human life; as such, it is really a throwback to ancient religions, which WERE immoral, coercive state religions (based upon fear of the "jealous and capricious gods" like Zeus, and maintained by "god-kings", ruling by "divine right"). In contrast, modern religion, as a system teaching positive morals rather than "fear of the Lord", was reborn only in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC, in reaction to the hideous outrages of one ravaging Empire after another, through most of that time. The separation of Church and State in the late-appearing U.S.A. is a huge advance in human civilization, and I believe is in fact the proper basis for "U.S. exceptionalism"; it allows for the very flowering of the "inalienable rights" of man.

Communism is not a religion, it is a religiously-held ideology or philosophy (although the latter word, meaning "love of knowledge", is a ridiculous, pretentious title to give to communism).

-------------

The person who I was responding to responded in turn--and predictably, by insisting upon his dogma, thereby unintentionally underlining my point, that dogma is ascendant over honest reason today.