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.

Political Change Does Not Affect the Underlying Scientific Incompetence

The election of Donald Trump should herald the dismemberment of the political alarmism over so-called global warming, but it does not begin to address the underlying problem, of gross incompetence in science today. As I have tried to inform everyone, there is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists -- and the incompetence in climate science is just the tip of the iceberg in science today, across the board. I originally wrote the following comment for a Jo Nova post in October 2011 (this was before I began saving links, so I can't put one here). My comment was specifically in response to a statement that it is so hard to get people to listen to "climate skeptics", and critically question the alarmists, because "The key is that so many benefit from the status-quo...":

That explanation is far downstream from the real cause: Dogma in science--the dogma that the fundamental theories of today are established facts. Even climate consensus skeptics don't realize it is just as bad throughout the earth and life sciences. The problem is that you can't correct climate science without first showing where it fails; there are too many bringing forth alternative theories, when everyone first needs to agree on the obvious errors in consensus theory (in climate, that means the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the radiation transfer theory that has thoughtlessly defined a stable climate system as just the opposite, one balanced on a knife edge, that can be overwhelmed by 0.04% of a gas necessary for all the life on Earth). The earth and life sciences are riddled with fundamental errors, precisely due to the dogmatic, rather than evidential, nature of their underpinning assumptions. It is all speculation piled upon unsupported assumptions, in the very foundations where they remain unquestioned, and an essentially religious belief (i.e., a hotly defensive, emotionally biased belief, inculcated from youth in every school) is the life's blood that sustains the illusion throughout society, and at the highest levels of authority and responsibility. I see people criticising the climate consensus on the basis of the Milankovitch theory, not realizing the latter is just as wrong-headed as the former. I see skeptics calling critics of evolution theory names, and dismissing them, without realizing that they are acting just like the defenders of "runaway climate". The problem is incompetence in all of science today, due precisely to unquestioned belief in ideas that, fundamentally, are just as wrong-headed as those which Aristotle used to hold up the development of science for 2,000 years (and Darwin's idea--basically just against design in the natural world--has set science on a dead end street for the last 150 years). The climate science mess is just the latest, harshest eruption of the consequences of unquestioned and unsupported dogma in the foundations of modern science. Don't try to judge, from a position of ignorance. Be humble, and self-disciplined, and learn. That is the lesson for our time (or, more likely now, the lesson OF our time, for those who come after).

What Do They Mean By "Climate"?

A few days ago (actually, on November 13th, so not just a few days ago) I wrote the following comment on the American Thinker site, to an article about "Trump and Hillary on Climate". (Mine was a scientific comment, the site and the article are political. I don't argue politics here, I am a scientist who tries to inform, even in the current general insanity.) I would not be bringing this up here, except that yesterday I visited the Climate Etc. site of Dr. Judith Curry, and read a comment there that led me to ask the question in the title of this post. The comment stated--with utter assurance, of course--that the global mean surface temperature (and "global warming" too, if my memory serves) has nothing to do with climate. Since I have been trying for a long time to inform everyone, in my own posts and in comments elsewhere, that there is a difference between what they appear to mean by "climate" and what I take to be the "global climate"--just that which is in fact claimed by the alarmists to change with "global warming"--here is my American Thinker comment (it would be a minor miracle if any of the regular members of Dr. Curry's ongoing "sociology of climate" therapy sessions--the Climate Etc. site, I mean--were to read this and take it to heart; the insanity is too entrenched in them). My comment began by responding to another comment that the climate alarmism was a "scam".:

On the political side, it was a scam, and even more, a criminal conspiracy, as is evident from the Democratic Party Platform specifically calling for suppression of "climate skeptics", taking away their very right to free speech in the public discourse.

On the science side, it should be emphasized that the incompetence of the scientists and the rise of false theories initiated and still maintain the political alarmism. Nothing illustrates this more forcefully than the line in the above article that climate is "the weather conditions prevailing in an area", while as Kwan's comment illustrates, people are induced to believe in "global warming", which is not "in an area" but a global average. Climate as "the weather...prevailing in an area" varies hugely over the Earth, from tropical heat to polar cold, and from desert dryness to rainforest wetness; but the global "climate", as defined by the global mean surface temperature, it turns out is quite stable--varying by no more than one-half to one degree centigrade, over any time scale--and its precise value is due only to our distance from the Sun and the thickness of our atmosphere. Even the difference in temperature between night and day, and the difference in the seasons, does not affect the global average temperature, because night and day are not global but hemispheric, and the same for the seasons (which are reversed between the north and south hemispheres).

The political alarmists, from Obama on down, changed the talking point from "global warming" to "climate change" when it became widely known that there has been an extended "global warming pause" in which the global mean surface temperature has clearly not been increasing, even according to the climate scientists' fraudulently "adjusted" temperature data. Even their calling it a "pause" in global warming, rather than the disproof of the global warming theory that it is, showed their fraudulent, unscientific bias and their willingness to lie to the public to control any public debate. This lie is on a par with the Benghazi lie, that the attack was a reaction to an anti-Muslim video.

The climate in an area can change, but the global "climate" is precisely fixed, utterly stable (as my own 2010 article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" makes clear, to any competent scientist and hopefully to any lay reader, who I wrote it for).