Category Archives: Religion

The Speech at Newtown

President Obama opened his speech at the Interfaith Prayer Vigil after the Newtown tragedy with a quote from 2 Corinthians 4:16 of the New Testament:

“…do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away…inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”

In “Embrace The Infinite”, I include several quotes from the New Testament, but not this particular one. However, it fits the themes of the book very well. I annotate this quote below.

“…do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away…

[and actually physically wasting away, for everything that you see in this world, all that is seen, is transitory and will be gone someday…]

inwardly we are being renewed day by day.

[our spirit is renewed. We are renewed by faith…]

For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

[Eternal, because the unseen is eternal and untouched by physical boundaries. In eternity lies the glory…]

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

[Yes, the physical material world is decaying around us. The unseen, of which patterns are an example, do not occupy time or space but exist outside of them, hence their eternal nature. The unseen is our clue to a world far more glorious and perfect than the material world.]

For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”

By faith shall we live. By faith and prayer shall we find our path to joy. Ask yourself this: what is your legacy from God?


Is Atheism Needed?

The physicist Richard Feynman famously said “we don’t need God.” When one is trying to explain the results of scientific experiments, that is an appropriate perspective.

I would put things another way: “We don’t need Atheism.” Do we really need to assume there is no God? With atheism, we are assuming that we know all there is to know about the creation of the universe and our place in it. Do we?

Why must we “rush to atheism”? What purpose does that serve? I know there will be many who defend atheism based on the lack of evidence for God. In my view, that defense is a profound misunderstanding. Even in science, one starts with a hypothesis, which is an educated guess. Before the hypothesis is verified, there is not sufficient evidence to believe the hypothesis is true. Science itself must venture beyond the known facts to make progress.

The objective of the atheist is to remove God from consideration. Why do that?

The Leap

This post will either change your life, or leave you cold.

The idea is simple: “worship something”. If you believe in God, worship God. If you are an atheist, worship is still possible.

I want to describe two things that appear to be different, but are in fact very similar. So similar in fact that they may be indistinguishable. As a scientist, when I find two things that are nearly indistinguishable, I tend to think of them as nearly the same.

Thing 1: worship God. If you believe in the divine creator, then to worship Him/Her is not an issue. We all understand that. (The “bone of contention” is whether there actually is a divine creator.)

Thing 2: worship a principle or idea. This may seem odd to you. What does it mean to worship an idea? I will only explain it this way: if you have the right attitude, you can do it.

An atheist will mock you if you worship God. “But there is no God”, they say. “You might as well worship the tooth fairy.”

Then tell the atheist you worship the idea of Love. Tell the atheist you worship the idea of a Humanity that is worth sacrificing for. You worship the idea of Human Dignity.

Even our atheist cannot tell you that these ideas do not exist. This atheist can still mock you for doing something so silly as to engage in worship. But now it is no longer a matter of evidence, or facts. It is a matter of attitude.

I conclude with this thought: although worshiping God and worshiping an idea are certainly different things, are they really that different in practice? If your heart is capable of worshiping noble things, does the exact nature of that noble thing really matter?

Whereof Creationism

Here is the content of a recent comment I made to an article about creationism:

An important idea has been lost in this debate: that creationism should not be taught as a science. I would agree that creationism as I understand it is not science. That does not mean creationsim is incorrect. It is overreaching to suggest that the current scientific understanding defines all truth and all possible truth. There may well be truths that science has not yet discovered and that are relevant to our place in the world and the meaning of life. Atheists and others can have an opinion about what defines truth, but they must realize it is just an opinion. Scientific knowledge is provisional. It depends on the evidence at hand. To suggest that science defines “the final word” is to misunderstand what science is. My solution to this problem is: don’t teach creationism as a science. Teach it as a belief system. It is a belief system distinct from science. There is room for belief systems that are not based on current scientific thinking. In fact, such non-scientific belief systems may be essential.
-Anthony Mannucci (

The article is at:

“BERGSTROM: US needs to accept evolution once and for all By Brett Bergstrom”

The Molecular Basis of God

This post delves into the questions of God’s existence, science and faith.

The debate between science and religion often rests on the question of scientific evidence. Those with faith believe in the power of an almighty God affecting our lives. Atheistic scientists question the existence of such a God, in particular citing the lack of scientific evidence to support God’s existence. Is this lack of evidence a concern for those with faith?

Let’s consider for a moment the possibility of scientific evidence of God’s existence. What form would this evidence take? Let’s consider the scientific perspective here.

If God exists, and exerts His Will on the world, then scientifically we must expect that God “moves molecules.” We consist of molecules, and everything that surrounds us as well. With scientific instruments, we can detect these molecular motions. If God is causing molecules to move, then our instruments ought to observe molecular motions that do not obey the prevailing laws of quantum physics. Yet, such observations have never been reported to my knowledge. This lack of scientific evidence does not prove the absence of God, but certainly makes it harder to argue for the actions of God.

Yet, when a person of faith believes that God has acted in this world, he or she is saying precisely that molecules have been moved by God’s will. Yet, I would venture to say that this person of faith is not concerned with this scientific perspective. It is as if the believer is ignoring the molecular basis of the world, a basis that is well established and reaffirmed countless times every day. Our high technology society is completely dependent on the reliable action of Natural Law.

Conversely, if a scientist observes molecules move in such a way that is not consistent with Natural Law, the scientist would not thereby conclude that God has acted. Rather, the scientist will assume that Natural Law as currently understood is incomplete, and must be supplanted by revised Laws. The scientist will then collect additional data to try and discover these revised Laws. We can guess that if the observed inconsistency is caused by the action of a willful God, the scientist will not be successful in discovering a set of revised Laws.

Although science is still evolving and full of discovery, there are many reasons to believe that Natural Law is being left intact and not violated on a regular basis, as God needs to do. However, a religious person believes in God even though Natural Law remains intact. This apparent discrepancy is because the faithful do not consider the molecular basis for God’s actions. Religious belief does not require empirical evidence. The molecular basis for God’s Will is not explained, nor need it be, according to the faithful.

I conclude by suggesting that religious faith is not about the material world, but something else. That may lower its legitimacy in the opinions of many, but if we ignore the molecular basis for God we can leave religious belief intact. If we try to impose the molecular basis of God as a scientist would, we reach a logical contradiction: that the world of molecules is governed by Natural Law and is also not governed by Natural Law. The final question I leave you with is this: is there such a thing as a “non-material world”, where the laws of physics do not apply? How real is such a world? Should we pay any attention to it?

Seeking A Worthy Substitute For Dogma

This post is about using the scientific method to replace religious dogma. Those who disavow dogma have their reasons: blindly embracing religious edicts can lead to human strife and conflict. Unfortunately, things are not so simple.

Replacing religious dogma with knowledge based on the scientific method is an “apples and oranges” replacement. Scientific knowledge does not provide the answers to questions addressed by religion. What of the “dogma” of human dignity and worth, which is at the foundation of many religions? The scientific method provides little guidance here.

Conflicting religious dogmas are definitely a source of strife. Your religion may hand down truths that conflict with my religion. These conflicts cannot be resolved by logical debate, and thus may persist for a very long time.

Yet, eliminating human conflict using the beautiful evidence inherent in science cannot succeed. Attempts to replace dogma are often based on “self-evident” moral codes: it is “obvious” that harming others is bad. Why can’t all moral codes simply be based on the golden rule: treat others as you would yourself? Well, that rule is also dogma, albeit a positive one it seems. It is certainly not derivable based on evidence of a scientific sort. The application of this rule in real life is not always straightforward and unambiguous.

The inability to fully escape dogma is not an invitation to throw reason to the winds, or to embrace irrationality in its ugliest aspects. We simply must have realistic expectations, and work steadfastly for what we believe in.