Wednesday, December 29, 2010


This is the new cover for WAKING GOD BOOK I; THE JOURNEY BEGINS.
Set for re-release in January 2011, the 3rd Edition will offer glimpses of the mystical places found in the book. The 2nd of Book II: THE SACRED ROTA will follow in February with the new Book III scheduled for march.

The Waking God journey began in 2006 and will continue...well, forever. A spiritual treatise in the guise of a novel, the series deplores the worn out religious dogma of past generations and leads the reader on a path of self discovery and transformation. By exposing the religious 'memes' that have dominated humanity for thousands of years, the reader is prepared to replace the old with the new, making the old obsolete and ineffectual.

Looking at the discoveries in physics, the prophecies of the Mayans, Nostradamus and DaVinci, we see that we are at the convergence of a human transformation. Will it occur, as James Redfield believes, in 2011 or will 2012 be the critical turning point? The only certainty is that events are happening NOW and WAKING GOD-YOU-needs to be prepared!


James believes that the 2012 event is more likely to occur in 2011. As in WAKING, Redfield sees the ongoing and upcoming events as an opportunity for great transformation. Read his Holiday message and see what you think.

All over the world, the year-end holidays signal a final celebration before we enter 2011. And, from all indications, what an amazing year it will be. Regardless of what may be tough economic times, tremendous opportunity and excitement will occur for those of us persuing an "Authentic Spirituality." First, we will see the Mayan Calendar become more understood as predicting, not doomsday, but a new wave of spiritual consciousness for Planet Earth. Why? Because more of us will begin to feel this consciousness in our personal lives, and consequently begin to live it visibly -- a phenomenon I've described as "The Twelfth Insight." Then in early Spring or so (Calleman says March), the greater psychological gifts of this Consciousness will likewise begin to come into mind -- in seven steps.

Whether we call it a wave of Universal Consciousness, or The Twelfth Insight, or just a surge in Authentic Spirituality sweeping every religion in the world, the important point is that, far from being a fad or an abstract idea, this consciousness is something we can experience directly and thus imminently prove to ourselves. Of course, I think it's safe to say that this wave of consciousness will not be imposed on us by divine mandate. We'll still have to intentionally "tune in." But it will be easier to sense than ever before, and we'll be more inspired to dig deeper for its secrets.

Moreover, this lived spirituality will make perfect sense in the real world we find ourselves in -- a world more and more wracked by corruption and inauthenticity, and suffering from what might be described as a runaway, fearful urge to control others for personal gain. The more clearly we see how the old world is behaving, the more those of us (across all religions) who seek a light-filled existence will be united by an abhorance to this state of affairs. And the more we are united, the more we will be genuinely motivated, without condemnation, to move away from this psychologically dark Sodam and Gomora to create a world characterized  by integrity, civility and a deeper spirituality that builds on itself.

The most exciting aspect of this phenomenon is that the reality and worth of this new consciousness can be proven to oneself every step of the way. First comes the reaction to the corruption, and a feeling of Unity with others standing against it. Then comes the realization that corruption and controlling come strictly from a lack of spiritual Connection. Then, as we begin to discover that a deeper Spirituality brings with it the intuition of the better world we want to create, something pops in our minds. We feel enlarged from within, not in Ego, but in Soul. And from there it is all upward. A flood of mysterious coincidences and guiding intuitions just prove the reality of what is happening to us even more, and we realize we're in the perfect place ourselves to do something specific to make things better, modeling this new consciously-guided life for all to see. And finally, in the greatest of insights, we grasp the full truth of the ancient scriptures: Those who are honorable over little...are given more -- more life, more help, more fun, more abundance, and more opportunity. All together, we begin to be the agents as well as the partakers of this final wave of Creation.

How long will it take? Who knows? But it begins in earnest next year.

James Redfield

Saturday, November 6, 2010

The Georgia Guidestones

All that is hidden will be revealed.


The Georga Guidestones are located in Elbert County, Georgia, approximately 90 miles (145 kilometers) east of Atlanta, and 9 miles (15 kilometers) north of the center of Elberton. The monument is situated on a rise a short distance to the east of Georgia Highway 77 (Hartwell Highway), and is visible from that road. Small signs beside the highway indicate the turnoff for the Guidestones, which is identified by a street sign as "Guidestones Rd."

The Georgia Guidestones are a huge granite monument located on a hilltop in Elbert County, Georgia, USA. It is sometimes referred to as the "American Stonehenge," a title that has been applied at times to a number of other structures, including Mystery Hill.

A message comprised of ten guides or commandments is inscribed on the monument in eight modern languages, and a shorter message is inscribed at the top of the structure in four ancient scripts.
The monument is almost twenty feet tall, and made from six granite slabs that weigh more than 100 tons. One slab stands in the center, with four arranged around it.
A capstone lies on top of the five slabs, which are astronomically aligned.
An additional stone tablet, which is set in the ground a short distance to the west of the monument, provides some clarifying notes on the history and purpose of the Guidestones.

The stones are placed so that a slit at eye level in the central upright slab permits an observer to view the eastern horizon and aligns with the position of the rising sun at the Summer and Winter Solstices. Through the center stone, from south to north, a two-inch diameter hole is inclined at an angle of 34 degrees and points to the North celestial pole. A beam of sunlight passing through a hole in the capstone forms a spot of light below. The position of the spot can be used to determine high noon and the day of the year.
The eye-level, oblique hole is drilled from the South to the North side of the center, Gnomen stone, so that the North Star is always visible, symbolizing constancy and orientation with the forces of nature.
A slot is cut in the middle of the Gnomen stone to form a window which aligns with the positions of the rising sun at the Summer and Winter Solstices and at the Equinox, so that the noon sun shines to indicate noon on a curved line.
The cap stone includes a calendar of sorts, where sunlight beams through a 7/8 inch hole at noon, and shines on the South face of the center stone. As the sun makes its travel cycle, the spot beamed through the hole can tell the day of the year at noon each day. Allowances are made because of variations between standard time and sun time to set the beam of sunlight at an equation of time. The site was chosen because it commands a view to the East and to the West and is within the range of the Summer and Winter sunrises and sunsets. The stones are oriented in those directions.
The story behind the guidestones is as mysterious as the monuments themselves. In June 1979 a well dressed, articulate man walked into theoffice of the Elberton Granite Company in Elberton, Georgia and said that he wanted to know the cost of building a large monument to the conservation of humanity. He identified himself as Mr. R. C. Christian and said that he represented a small group of Americans who wished to remain anonymous.

Altough Elberton is considered the granite capital of the United States, the president of the granite company was skeptical of undertaking a project of this magnitude and very skeptical of the stranger in his office. He asked Mr. Christian to speak to the company's banker, Mr. Wyatt Martin, thinking that would be the last he saw of him.

However, Mr. Christian went to the bank and explained to Mr. Martin that although his name was a pseudonym with symbolic meaning, he and the group he represented were very serious about erecting these guidestones for, "the conservation of the world and to herald the coming age of reason. Should there be a holocaust in the civilized world, the group wished the guidestones to be one of the most enduring things to help humanity start anew.

Mr. Martin agreed to handle the funds and after an escrow account was set up, work began on the monument. Skilled workers quarried and cut the blocks, others sandblasted the message in 4" high letters, and still others hauled them to a hillside 7 miles north of Elberton where they were astronomically aligned with the North celestial pole, the noonday sun, and the rising and setting points of the sun and moon on the horizon.
A year after completion of the project the final correspondence arrived in Elberton from R. C. Christian and the group responsible for the guidestones. So far no one knows who this mysterious group is or why they felt compelled to erect the Georgia Guidestones and its message for mankind.

Controversy: A California man named John Conner has called for the Guidestones to be removed from public property saying they are an occult monument. He believes the name "R.C. Christian" is actually a reference to Christian Rosenkreuz, the supposed founder of the Rosicrucians, a secret society dating back to the 15th century.

The Message of the Georgia Guidestones
A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the monument from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. The message in English reads:
  • Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  • Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.
  • Unite humanity with a living new language.
  • Rule passion, faith, tradition, and all things with tempered reason.
  • Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  • Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  • Avoid petty laws and useless officials.Balance personal rights with social duties.
  • Prize truth, beauty, love, seeking harmony with the infinite.
  • Be not a cancer on the earth. Leave room for nature. Leave room for nature.
  • Balance personal rights with social duties
A shorter message appears on the four vertical surfaces of the capstone, again in a different language and script on each face. The explanatory tablet near the Guidestones identifies these languages/scripts as Babylonian Cuneiform (north), Classical Greek (east), Sanskrit (south), and Egyptian Hieroglyphics (west), and provides what is presumably an English translation: "Let these be guidestones to an age of reason."

Explanatory Tablet
A few feet to the west of the monument, an additional granite tablet has been set level with the ground. This tablet identifies the monument and the languages used on it, lists various facts about the size, weight, and astronomical features of the stones, the date it was erected, and the sponsors of the project. It also speaks of a time capsule buried under the tablet, but the positions on the stone reserved for filling in the dates on which the capsule was buried and is to be opened are missing, so it is not clear whether the time capsule was ever put in place.

The tablet is with one edge to each of the cardinal directions, and is inscribed such that the northern edge is the "top" of the inscription.The complete text of the explanatory tablet is detailed below.
The image abive shows the overall layout. The tablet is somewhat inconsistent with respect to punctuation, and also misspells "pseudonym." The original spelling, punctuation and line breaks in the text have been preserved in the transcription that follows.

The text of the tablet is as follows: At the center of each tablet edge is a letter representing the appropriate compass direction (N, S, E, W), contained within a small circle.
At the top center of the tablet is written:

Immediately below this is the outline of a square, inside which is written:
    For those with eyes to see, let this message sink deeply withing your soul. Much is happening. The 'god seed' is nearing birth. More will be explained in WAKING GOD, BOOK III: THE SECOND COMING OF HUMANITY!
    In the bonds of brotherhood,

Sunday, October 24, 2010


WAKING GOD speaks of the 'god seed,' that spark within us that will soon give birth to a newly evolved humanity. It is an awakening that will finally bring together both science and spirituality. The following should help increase your understanding of our these seemingly opposing thoughts are beginning to merge into the 'oneness' that is the actual state of our existence.


Nonduality is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of non-separation and fundamental intrinsic oneness.
For thousand of years, through deep inner inquiry, philosophers and sages have came to the realization that there is only one substance and we are therefore all part of it. This substance can be called Awareness, Consciousness, Spirit, Advaita, Brahman, Tao, Nirvana or even God. It is constant, ever present, unchangeable and is the essence of all existence.
In the last century Western scientists are arriving at the same conclusion: The universe does indeed comprise of a single substance, presumably created during the Big Bang, and all sense of being - consciousness - subsequently arises from it. This realization has ontological implications for humanity: fundamentally we are individual expressions of a single entity, inextricably connected to one another, we are all drops of the same ocean.
Science and Nonduality is a journey, an exploration of the nature of awareness, the essence of life from which all arises and subsides.
Welcome on board!

What is nonduality, anyway?

There are many shades of meaning to the word nonduality. As an introduction, we might say that nonduality is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of non-separation and fundamental oneness.
Our starting point is the statement “we are all one,” and this is meant not in some abstract sense but at the deepest level of existence. Duality, or separation between the observer and the observed, is an illusion that the Eastern mystics have long recognized and Western science has more recently come to understand through quantum mechanics.
Dualities are usually seen in terms of opposites: Mind/Matter, Self/Other, Conscious/Unconscious, Illusion/Reality, Quantum/Classical, Wave/Particle, Spiritual/Material, Beginning/End, Male/Female, Living/Dead and Good/Evil. Nonduality is the understanding that identification with common dualisms avoids recognition of a deeper reality.

So how can we better understand nonduality?

There are two aspects to this question, and at first glance they appear to be mutually exclusive, although they may be considered two representations of a single underlying reality.
The first aspect is our understanding of external reality, and for this we turn to science. The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which means knowledge. The beauty and usefulness of science is that it seeks to measure and describe reality without personal, religious, or cultural bias. For something to be considered scientifically proven, it has to pass exhaustive scrutiny, and even then is always subject to future revision. Inevitably human biases creep in, but the pursuit of science itself is intrinsically an evolving quest for truth. But then quantum mechanics turned much of this lauded objectivity on its head, as the role of the observer became inseparable from the observed quantum effect. It is as if consciousness itself plays a role in creating reality.  Indeed, the two may be the same thing. As quantum pioneer Niels Bohr once put it: “A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself!”
The second aspect is our inner, personal experience of consciousness, our “awareness of awareness.” We have our senses to perceive the world, but “behind” all perception, memory, identification and thought is simply pure awareness itself.  Eastern mystics have described this undifferentiated consciousness for thousands of years as being the ultimate state of bliss, or nirvana. Seekers have attempted to experience it for themselves through countless rituals and practices, although the state itself can be quite simply described. As Indian advaita teacher Nisargadatta Maharaj said: “The trinity: mind, self and spirit, when looked into, becomes unity.”
The central challenge to understanding nonduality may be that it exists beyond language, because once it has been named, by definition -- and paradoxically -- a duality has been created. Even the statement “all things are one” creates a distinction between “one” and “not-one”! Hardly any wonder that nonduality has been misunderstood, particularly in the West.
BEYOND THE “I”… the end of the seeker
Many of us have been “seeking” for most of our adult life. We have gone through many practices, spiritual paths and teachers only to discover that our pain and suffering did not disappear or even diminish.
It seems agreed upon by spiritual masters of all traditions that the main reason for our suffering is the identification with the “I” and the way to dissipate this pain is to merge with what is beyond the “I”, to merge the looker with what is looked at. Science, on the other hand, can help us to understand how we construct and experience the “I”, as well as the states beyond it.

Sunday, October 3, 2010


The following is from a very interesting blog that is worthy of subscription. Can you see the parallel with WAKING GOD? 
Rob Bryanton
More and more people are becoming convinced that we are perched on a precipice, a tipping point, a convergence, an approaching singularity, a break from the old into the new. Back at the start of the year I posted this poll question: "With which prediction do you more agree? 1. 10/10/10 (October 10th 2010) is going to be a very significant date for our planet. Or 2. 10/10/10 will be an unremarkable day."
In March we discussed the results of this poll in an entry called "Will 10-10-10 Be Significant?".

Now, as we're only ten days away from this curious date, I'd like you to think about setting aside a moment at the tenth hour, tenth minute, tenth second, on the tenth day of the tenth month in the tenth year of the century, to contemplate how much has changed, and how different our lives are now from ten years ago. Is your life better or worse now? Regardless of your evaluation, change is a significant part of our lives, more so all the time.

Nova Spivack has been talking lately about "
The Now" becoming an increasingly dense and increasingly narrow focus in our collective experience. I've talked before about Nova's groundbreaking work in the semantic web and providing tools to help us navigate through the potentially overwhelming Stream of information entering our lives. Is the amount of information in the world really doubling at an exponential rate? Read this article featuring Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who says we are currently creating an amount of information every two days that equals the entirety of information created from the dawn of civilization until 2003!

How much longer can we keep up this acceleration? Where is this acceleration taking us? My song "
The End of the World" suggests that people have always been suggesting that something significant is just about to happen, and in my book and this blog I've played with the idea that Everett's Many Worlds allows for the possibility that there are parallel worlds where those people turned out to be right, they're just not the version of the universe we currently happen to find ourselves in.

What do you think?

Do you believe we're approaching a tipping point? As more and more people become connected together like a gigantic "hive mind" of a tightly focused Great Big Now (as Nova Spivack calls it), will we collectively ascend to something greater? I would say that's the hope we all have to share. On 10-10-10, take a moment to think about whether you're helping to move this world to be better or worse than it was before you got here. And enjoy the journey!

Sunday, September 19, 2010

WAKING GOD: Conscious Evolution

WAKING GOD: Conscious Evolution

Conscious Evolution

IS WAKING GOD FICTION OR A NEW REALITY? No matter where you turn, there is mounting evidence that fiction is becoming fact as the 'god seed' within enters a new stage in the birthing process. Read the article below. Take a look at the new findings in quantum physics and ask if this is real or imaginary. It is happening. The shape of it happening and the events of 2012 will be determined by you. Become the WAKING GOD!

Barbara Marx Hubbard

Barbara Marx Hubbard

Posted: August 15, 2010 03:45 PM

We are today living through a crisis that could destroy civilization and our essential life support systems, but we are also living through a deeper phase-change in evolution itself. We are entering the first age of conscious evolution -- the evolution of evolution itself, from unconsciousness to a conscious choice.
This phase-change began noticeably and violently when the United States dropped the first atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. A signal went through the social body that we now have the power to destroy our world -- self-centered consciousness with this degree of power is not viable in the long run.
We are the first species that faces extinction by its own acts and knows it.
This is just the beginning. Through the advent of evolutionary technologies such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, space travel, the quest for zero-point energy devices and more, the human species is gaining powers it had previously attributed only to gods.
But not only can we destroy our own life support system, we can also catch a glimmer of our potential for a radical transformation of an evolutionary order.
When we imagine ourselves going through this crisis, hard as it may be, and project ourselves forward into the more distant future, even a mere 100 years, we see the emergence of a "universal species" capable of co-evolving with nature and co-creating with spirit. We learn to be in alignment with the drive in nature toward complexity and consciousness -- on this Earth, in our solar system, and eventually in the galaxies beyond.
Out of our many emergencies is coming emergence, and out of competition a greater cooperation, as social networking escalates among those who are innovating and transforming. We appear on the threshold of a nonlinear, exponential connectivity that is highly creative.
The integration of science, spirituality, and technology is happening.
One of the great advances of science itself has been the relatively recent discovery of cosmogenesis, the universe story, as Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry call it: the mysterious, indeed awesome awareness that out of No Thing at All has evolved Everything that was, that is, and will be. We are participants in an evolutionary drama, our own birth narrative. We are becoming the universe in person!
The mystery of the process of creation is beyond human understanding, yet we note through science many recurring patterns. We see how nature has evolved crisis after crisis toward higher consciousness, complexity and order for billions of years, often pressed forward by the crises themselves.
Our new scientifically-based evolutionary universe story has given us the insight that nature and we ourselves are evolving. There is a direction in this process toward more complex order, more awareness, and more freedom to destroy or to evolve.
Many of us are working together toward something we have never seen on any scale before -- a sustainable, evolvable, co-creative society in which each person is encouraged to do and be his or her best. A global mind/heart of coherence and love is arising in the midst of fear, competition and chaos.
An evolutionary spirituality is emerging, experienced as the impulse of evolution, the process of creation, the implicate order, a patterning process coming through our own hearts. It is felt as the sacred core of the evolutionary spiral, the evolving godhead arising, or even incarnating within each of us as our own impulse to co-create. It is the "creator-within" expressing itself uniquely through each person as a new form of "social cosmogenesis." The generating power of universal evolution is guiding us toward a more synergistic, cooperative democracy.
Through the natural evolution of complexity and consciousness, driven by mounting advances in communication, connectivity and spiritual practices, millions of us are gaining the experience of being connected with the Field out of which everything is co-arising, internalized as inner guidance, the quiet voice of God.
It is as though we're undergoing the evolution of our species not as extraordinary beings, but as the new norm. Great avatars, saints, and mystics had paved the way. Pioneering souls of the 21st century are exploring how to become creators, co-evolvers, universal humans.
This emerging human has been called by many names. Teilhard de Chardin called it the Ultra Human, or Homo progressivus, in whom the "flame of expectation burns, attracted toward the future as an organism progressing toward the unknown." Sri Aurobindo, the great Indian evolutionary sage, called this the Gnostic Human, the individual in whom the Consciousness Force itself, the supramental power of universal creativity, incarnates and begins to transform the body/mind into the very cells that evolve beyond the human phase.
Others have called this Homo noeticus, a being of gnosis or deep knowing of the Field out of which we are co-arising. Or Homo divina, as Sister Judy Cauley puts it. Or the universal human, connected through the heart to the whole of life, awakening from within by the core of the spiral of evolution. The implicate order is becoming explicate in us, turning into the essential self, animated by a passionate life-purpose to express our creativity.
There is no reason to assume that the evolution of humanity stops with today's form of Homo sapiens sapiens. We are obviously a young species, immature, incomplete, and actually not viable in our current state of consciousness. The ultimate hope, I believe, is that the evolution of consciousness and freedom is occurring naturally within millions of us, as a sort of spontaneous evolution, an inner punctuated equilibrium amidst the chaos, realizing that as the offspring of universal evolution, we are integral parts of nature, that the evolutionary process is happening within us when we open our eyes to see it, and be it, and do our best to participate in it.
As spirituality, science and technology blend, the evolutionary story becomes in us the sacred way of conscious evolution: a developmental path toward the co-evolution of a universal humanity.


Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The Quantum Apocalypse

Can you hear the train a comin'? Once this is embedded in the human consciousness; once this 'god seed' takes hold, a new humanity will rise from its ashes. We are the WAKING GOD, and the alarm clock is about to ring!

Saturday, August 21, 2010


Here are some interesting excerpts from

"The science of quantum theory is a socially constructed account of the universe, and just one of many possible accounts. In fact, all knowledge of the universe is socially constructed and complimentary, allowing physicists to connect observations in the everyday world of the laboratory with events and processes in the quantum world of the atom. Quantum science is not just a question of a consciousness measuring and perceiving an independent object, but it is a question of unification of object, measuring device and perceiver.

Also, it is not the mere presence of a three-dimensional quality in the environment that makes that quality real and useable; it is our forced and exclusive perception of it. In other words, our perception of reality is a result of our influence on the universe and its influence on us. This synergy weaves non-causal concepts into meaningful narratives to support and enhance the unified experience of animate existence.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning. The standard material features of animate experience are described not as independent immutable properties, but as interrelated parts of a systemic logic derived from purely biological imperatives.

Quantum science can also draw a distinction between those structures which have relevance to physical reality and those which do not. At the microscopic level, we embrace the non-locality, uncertainty, elegant entanglement, decoherence, and indeterminacy of wave-particle duality. For example, we observe that a dynamic state cannot be predicted precisely when photons, neutrons and even whole atoms act sometimes like waves, sometimes like particles, but they actually have no definite form until they are measured.

These measurements, once made, can also be erased, altering the outcome of an experiment that has already occurred. A measurement of one quantum entity can instantaneously influence another far away. This paradox can occur not only in the microscopic realm but even in objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye. In fact, the philosophy of quantum science ambitiously extends physicist Niels Bohr's complementary principle regarding this wave-particle duality of light to the whole of nature.

If we understand ourselves as co-creators of meaning, we also acknowledge as probable that immediate objects of sense depend for their existence upon physiological conditions in ourselves. Indeed, Stephen Hawking remarks that quantum science cannot be described as absolute, especially when the influence of our observing disturbs the object so that we can never observe it accurately."

When you look for God, we must follow the mystical dictum, LOOK WITHIN. This is the GOD SEED we talk about in WAKING GOD. It is that power within us to not only perceive the world, but to create in our likeness and image (imagination). Now that we are looking for this 'god seed' via quantum science, we will find it. Now that we have seen that quantum physics can be seen on the observable, gross level, we will see more of it. What we look for is what we shall find. Seek and ye shall find. Conversely, what you find is what your seek. We are close to a NEW ENLIGHTENMENT and the merging of science and spirituality. We have unleashed the monster of higher knowledge and there is no turning back. Old dogma will die. As we approach 2012 we do so armed with higher awareness-one that will be our saving grace as we discover that the old must give way to the new. It will only be painful if you don't let go!

Saturday, August 14, 2010



Explore the Law of Attraction as taught by Jesus, other religious avatars and explore the newest findings that tell us us, in no uncertain terms, that "We are responsible for our creations!"

Friday, August 13, 2010

Death of British Christianity

There is a simply wonderful article by Johann Hari in the Huffington Post.


"And now congregation, put your hands together and give thanks, for I come bearing Good News. My country, Britain, is now the most irreligious country on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else. Some 63 percent of us are non-believers, according to a 2006 Guardian/ICM poll, while 82 percent say religion is a cause of harmful division. Now, let us stand and sing our new national hymn: Jerusalem was dismantled here/ in England's green and pleasant land."


"How did it happen? For centuries, religion was insulated from criticism in Britain. First its opponents were burned, then jailed, then shunned. But once there was a free marketplace of ideas, once people could finally hear both the religious arguments and the rationalist criticisms of them, the religious lost the British people. Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims non-existent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end."


"As their dusty Churches crumble because nobody wants to go there, the few remaining Christians in Britain will only become more angry and uncomprehending. Let them. We can't stop this hysterical toy-tossing stop us from turning our country into a secular democracy where everyone has the same rights, and nobody is granted special rights just because they claim their ideas come from an invisible supernatural being. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a Holy Lamb of God to carve into kebabs - it's our new national dish. Amen, and hallelujah."

Please the read the entire article, it is quite illuminating and deals with the 'religious worn out dogma' that is presented in WAKING GOD. Kudos to Johann!

Waking God: Book One The Journey Begins

Saturday, July 31, 2010




Came across a wonderful blog, that I hope all visit. I found the above video on that blog. In her blog Kathryn Cassidy says the following:

"The ramifications of the discoveries mentioned in this one video are stupendous. Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran speaks of mirror neurons and his findings exactly 'mirror' what was postulated by the brilliant theoretician Peter Russell a few decades ago. Peter has been involved in the exploration and development of human consciousness for many years and is author of the must-read book The Global Brain. This book first hit the shelves in the 1980's but was republished in 2008 as The Global Brain: The Awakening Earth in a New Century.

Within this Peter Russell cites the fact that there are approximately the same number of nerve cells in a human brain as there are individual minds on this planet and proceeds to a discussion about the way the human brain and humanity appear to be evolving in parallel to each other and this is mirrored in the ever increasing connectivity of the Internet. Speaking of the future, Peter wrote: "No longer will we perceive ourselves as isolated individuals, we will know ourselves to be part of a rapidly integrating global network, the nerve cells of an awakening global brain"

Kathryn then writes about the following:

RECORDED FUTURES- The CIA use companies that predict the future!

"In last weeks edition, and in previous ones, I mentioned that current planetary alignments correlate to the subject of mining. This week the subject of data mining came to the fore. The CIA are making use of data mining programmes which enable them to monitor things such as words or phrases which are being repeatedly used and peaking across global Internet traffic. The CIA use a company called Recorded Futures and obviously they are trying to gather intelligence which could help them thwart incidents such as terrorist attacks. However I have also heard of these systems being used to predict events such as financial crashes. Apparently - and this is all totally in synch with what the Neuroscientists are discovering in the article above this one - when there is a spike in words (like broke, worried, no money, depression, loans etc) amongst the general populace it if often as if the global mind is either tuning into advance events OR, in a spike of enough people having the same thoughts, perhaps the energy changes future reality ( that's in the realm of quantum physics). Either way the increase in the use of words and chatter about fear around finances often precedes.the actual downturn. I recall reading that just before 9/11 there was a spike in words across the globe such as Plane crash, trade, terrorism and collapse**. Data Mining in this way does seem to have a future."

This seems exactly what the so called "BOT" predictions are all about. Form, or reality, is following thought. So what does this have to do with 2012? Clearly, ideas are forming in the human consciousness that are creating a new reality. Some, would have a consciousness of fear-this will lead to the worst of the possible 2012 scenarios. Then, there are those who are diligently warning of this consequence and are trying to build a mirror neuron of peace, love and light. Certainly, this is a time of great choosing. A time when consumer ideas totally alter the direction of the economy. A time when religion tries to maintain its stranglehold on the masses. A time when the far right tries to re-kindle old hatreds and fears. What will you mirror. What reality will you create? What will Book III of the Waking God Trilogy say about all of this. Stay tuned-these are interesting times.

Saturday, July 24, 2010


No matter where you look, science is on the brink of discovering that the universe is mental and we are one.

http://beforeitsnew 104/964/What_ is_The_Quantum_ God_Effect_ I_am_You, _You_are_ Me.html
What Is The Quantum God Effect? 'I Am You, You Are Me'
Contributed by DK Matai (Reporter) 
Fri Jul 16 2010 14:24 

Nature's own solar cells, plants, convert sunlight into energy via photosynthesis. A recent article in the 'Scientific American' suggested that plants use quantum entanglement in photosynthesis. Another paper in 'Nature' shows that there are quantum coherence effects at work in the way some algae produce energy via the eight pigment molecules used in photosynthesis. This discovery overturns some long-held beliefs about quantum mechanics, which suggest that quantum coherence cannot occur at anything other than cryogenic -- near absolute freezing -- temperatures because a warm environment would destroy the effect. However, the Chroomonas algae perform their work at room temperature or 21°C! This does suggest that quantum entanglement effects are at least possible at the biological level, and may therefore be operating in our brains. If so, are the human brain and consciousness working together as advanced quantum computers? Note our briefing: Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Computers and Quantum Mind.
Quantum Entanglement
Quantum Entanglement
Distinguished members of our organisations* may remember that we covered quantum entanglementand associated applications as well as quantum teleportation in 2009 in a series of briefings. Quantum entanglement asserts that two particles or energy packets can be intimately connected so that changes in one are instantly reflected in the other, even if those two entities are 'light years' apart. This is sometimes known as the Quantum God effect: an area of constant development because of its potential in real-life applications, making possible codes that are unbreakable, instant communication across vast distances and teleportation.
Universal Connection
Physics is strange with quantum entangled particles being able to influence each other from across the universe. Furthermore all matter exerts a gravitational pull on all other matter, no matter how far away it is. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that what we think we know about localisation and distinct physical entities operating in space and time may not be really accurate at all. Consider this, one can easily imagine all of us being intimately connected, just as the stars, quantum-bits, and all the matter are connected to each other.
Several years ago physicist Roger Penrose wrote a book suggesting that human consciousness can't be explained by standard chemical and physical processes. The only thing that could explain it, he said, was quantum processes, specifically microtubules that take advantage of quantum gravity effects. Why then do we assume that this very mysterious non-local entity -- named consciousness or awareness -- must have a precise location in space and time and operate discretely? In some ways, consciousness can be compared to a black hole, and we really have no idea what it is. Experts speculate that black holes are really worm holes connecting two different points, and perhaps even other universes!
Let us say for a moment that one is a pantheist. Pantheism is all about the one-ness and unity of everything. Pantheism is the view that the Universe -- including all of Nature on Earth -- and God are identical. Thus all in the Universe is deserving of the deepest kind of reverence. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (Pan) meaning 'All' and θεός (Theos) meaning 'God' -- literally 'All is God!'
Single Consciousness
Considering this mindset, it should be no wonder why one may then come to the conclusion that we might all be manifestations of a single consciousness. Some noted philosophers have suggested 'I Am You' and 'You are me!' This idea of a unified collective consciousness may not sound intuitive to most people, especially the rugged individualists amongst many of us in the West, but it is arguably just as valid as our usual working assumption that we are all separate entities!
Not Very Far
If the universe, or indeed multi-verse, is infinite and there is another organisation of atoms somewhere out in the universe that is in the exact same configuration as the atoms in our brain, then unless we reject the possibility of continuous consciousness, our consciousness could exist simultaneously in multiple planes without being aware of another... just as we may exist as 'illusory discrete entities' in the 'I Am I' and 'You are you' non-holistic view of the world. However, as the world is perceived to become ever more interconnected and interdependent socially, economically and environmentally, how far away are we now from the 'I am You' and 'You are me' perspective? One could humbly suggest, not very far away at all!
Bio Quantum Solar Cells & Quantum Biology
At a practical level, a better understanding of the intersection of photosynthesis microbiology and quantum entangled information is likely to lead to 'bio-quantum' solar cells that are much more efficient than today's photovoltaics. Beyond photosynthesis, quantum-processes have been observed elsewhere in the biological realm, most notably in the electro-magnetic compass cells that allow birds to navigate via Earth's geomagnetic fields. Scientists have also proposed roles for quantum physical phenomena in the animal sense of smell and even in the human brain. This suggests the emergence of an entire new field of quantum biology. Note our briefing: What are your views about Quantum Dots?
Greatest Good For Greatest Number
In parallel, it is worth asking: Are the world wide web and the internet creating some sort of extra layer of a permanently connected and unified global brain, which could be the ultimate technological expression of the underlying sub-conscious will of humanity to embrace unity. If we are indeed all a single consciousness, then we are already a unified global brain, we just don't know it! The Internet may assist in manifesting that hidden truth step by step. How then could we go about realigning with our collective consciousness? The unity of consciousness synthesis has an elegant aesthetic quality to it, and could have positive implications for bridging the egoist-utilitarian divide we are presently confronted with. If I Am You and You are me, how can even the most selfish person or community logically remain separate from the rest of humanity and all sentient beings? The greatest good for the greatest number of sentient beings is likely to triumph given the complex web of quantum entanglement phenomena that are in play throughout the universe.

Recent shows on the Science Channel, with Morgan Freeman, demonstrates that science is catching up with spirituality. All things are indeed connected; the Universe is truly a woven tapestry; energy is the basis of all things; consciousness controls the physical-the observer and observed are one; there are multi-universes, etc are all tenets of ancient philosophy.  The WAKING GOD SERIES speaks to the 'god seed.' Within us is the the seed of all creation, all possibilities, the power to alter perceived reality. Are we, as Bruce Lipton would have us believe, on the brink of a spontaneous evolution where we create consciously? Will, as are predicted by the prophecies of 2012, the old reality crumble and worn out dogma dissolve and make way for a new age of peace and harmony? Clearly, we are not in Kansas anymore!

Thursday, July 1, 2010


It is ironic that Sam Harris, who blasts religious dogma, would then use similar dogma to try to create an “objective morality” based upon science. As I have said in the past, I agree with his assessment of the past, present and future danger of religion. My views are fairly clear in the WAKING GOD trilogy of which was said, “It makes The DaVinci Code” read like a church hymn. But somewhere, Sam Harris has gone astray in an attempt to find a working morality in science.

The very notion of a morality is not even an objective idea. To even say there is, or there should be morality does not logically flow from science, but rather from a subjective notion that humanity should live by some form of underlying, or overriding, set of rules. Let’s face it; if we look at traditional science, the only morality you might find is the “survival of the fittest.” Where in the sciences of chemistry, medicine, physics or biology does one find a basis for morality? I guess all atoms are created equal and that they should be able to combine freely with other atoms might work. But even the idea of equal and free are not scientific terms unless you talk of balancing an equation or free radicals.

Further, objectivity in morality would certainly open the proverbial Pandora’s Box. If, for example, we look at nature, we find no rationale for caring for the elderly, sick, or genetically deviant. Nature culls such creatures for the benefit of the whole and to prevent defects from spreading in the population as a whole. Is this objective morality? Sam Harris also points out that enslavement, mutilating female genitalia, public whippings or stonings are morally and empirically wrong. According to our way of thinking, this statement makes sense. But, it is opinion, and opinion is subjective. In an article called “Toward A Science of Morality” in the Huffington Post, Sam Harris says he agrees with physicist Sean Carroll when he says, “I want to start with a hopefully non-controversial statement about what science is. Namely: science deals with empirical reality -- with what happens in the world, (I.e. what "is.").”

At this point, the entire argument must totally shift. What Sam Harris fails to realize is that discussing issues like the definition of ‘well-being’ is not at the heart of the debate. He seems to think that there is a scientific definition that can lead us out of the valley of death of religious dogma into and into the garden of scientific objectivity. This garden would be free of cultural and religious differences and would create an empirical definition that would be beyond reproach. Sam Harris, unfortunately, has fallen prey to his own outdated paradigm. There is no such thing as objectivity. If this is true, then the notion of an objective morality must be tossed out the window, both the bathwater and the baby.

Look at the following excerpt from a piece written by Robert Lanza. It is but one of many articles that clearly indicate that science is leading us away from any notion of objectivity within the universe. It is becoming increasingly clear that the observed and the observer are one. This being the case, we must discover a new paradigm outside of religion and science that can lead us to a moral high ground.

“But a series of new experiments suggest this may be all wrong, and that part of us exists outside of the physical world. The implications of these experiments have been downplayed because, until recently, quantum behavior was limited to the microscopic world. However, this 'two-world' view (that is, one set of physical laws for small objects, and another set of laws for the rest of the universe, including us) has no basis in reason, and more importantly, is being challenged in labs around the world.

We're trapped in an outdated paradigm. A few more equations, we're told, and we'll know it all -- any day now. There's no adventure left, no lost gardens in far away lands. But we all intuitively know there's more to existence than our science books grant. It's the same nostalgic yearning that gives religion its persistent power over humanity.

We assume there's a universe "out there" separate from what we are, and that we play no role in its appearance. Yet since the 1920s, experiments have shown just the opposite; results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is most vividly illustrated by the famous two-hole experiment. When you watch a particle go through the holes, it behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through both holes at the same time.

This and other experiments tell us that unobserved particles exist only as "waves of probability" as Max Born demonstrated in 1926. They're statistical predictions -- nothing but a likely outcome. Until observed, they have no real existence; only when the mind sets the scaffolding in place can they be thought of as having duration or a position in space. Experiments make it increasingly clear that even mere knowledge in the experimenter's mind is sufficient to convert possibility to reality.
Importantly, this behavior isn't limited to the microscopic world. New experiments carried out with huge molecules called "Buckyballs" show that quantum reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in. In 2005, KHC0₃ crystals exhibited entanglement ridges one-half inch high, quantum behavior nudging into everyday levels of discernment.

Biocentrism tells us that reality is a process that involves our consciousness, and that space and time aren't the hard objects we think. Recent experiments show that separate particles can influence each other instantaneously over great distances, as if they're endowed with ESP. They're intimately linked in a manner suggesting there's no space or time influencing their behavior. In 1997 Nicolas Gisin sent pairs of particles zooming along optical fibers until they were seven miles apart. But whatever action one took, its twin performed the complementary action instantaneously. Since then, other researchers have duplicated Gisin's work.

All of these experiments make perfect sense from a biocentric perspective. Everything we perceive is a whirl of information in our head. Time can be defined as the summation of spatial states occurring inside the mind. But that doesn't mean there's an invisible matrix in which changes occur. We watch our loved ones age and die and assume that an external entity called time is responsible for the crime. There's a peculiar intangibility to space, as well. Like time, it's just a tool of our understanding.

But the solution to this mystery lies within our grasp, a solution hinted at by the frequency with which the old paradigm breaks down. This is the underlying problem: we've ignored a critical component of the universe, shunted it out of the way because we didn't know what to do with it. This component is consciousness -- us, the great observer.”
Robert Lanza, M.D., Scientist, Theoretician,

If we cannot rely upon biased religion or science to create a universal morality, what is left? Are we to be subject to the whims of moral fads or is there something that can guide humanity to a more logical way of living? To this topic, we shall return while keeping in mind that ‘what happens’ in this world is truly up to us.

Sunday, May 23, 2010


There is no such thing as objective science. If physics has taught us anything, it is that the observer and the observed are one. The idea that science can find an objective morality is, by its very nature, an oxymoron. Science is based upon "knowledge,knowledge requires a learner and a learner cannot be objective. Sam Harris would like us to believe that science can lead us to the promise land of well-being. That, while religion and all of its worn out dogma has failed to do so, a new religion of science will show us how to create a land of milk and honey. While I agree with his assessment of religion, his solution is just as inappropriate. In a response to his critics, Sam Harris tried to clarify his position. What follows are parts of his response as posted on his site and my comments are in bold.

Last month, I had the privilege of speaking at the 2010 TED conference for exactly 18 minutes. I was not suggesting that science can give us an evolutionary or neurobiological account of what people do in the name of “morality.” Nor was I merely saying that science can help us get what we want out of life. Both of these would have been quite banal claims to make (unless one happens to doubt the truth of evolution or the mind’s dependency on the brain). Rather I was suggesting that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, perforce, what other people should do and want in order to live the best lives possible. There is an obvious bias in the preceding statements. The notion that science can tell people what they ‘should’ do or should not do indicates simply another form of dogma that has been found not to work by religions. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind. As the response to my TED talk indicates, it is taboo for a scientist to think such things, much less say them public. While there is no doubt that it is appropriate for scientists to discuss such issues, the notion that there are right and wrong answers is a matter of judgment and subjective bias. What is the difference between science telling people what is wrong and the Church, any church, telling people what is right or wrong? Actually, the notion that there is right or wrong, good and evil, flies in the face of science. There are certainly positive and negative forces. But calling hot right and cold wrong is ludicrous. Despite the influence of religion on the issue, calling murder wrong is a moral judgment.

Some of my critics got off the train before it even left the station, by defining “science” in exceedingly narrow terms. Many think that science is synonymous with mathematical modeling, or with immediate access to experimental data. However, this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn. There are many tools one must get in hand to think scientifically—ideas about cause and effect, respect for evidence and logical coherence, a dash of curiosity and intellectual honesty, the inclination to make falsifiable predictions, etc.—and many come long before one starts worrying about mathematical models or specific data. Clearly, from the above definition, i.e. “our best effort to understand,” is not objective. History is replete with our misunderstanding of science and the fire pits are filled with the charred memories of those who defied our ‘best efforts.”

There is also much confusion about what it means to speak with scientific “objectivity.” As the philosopher John Searle once pointed out, there are two very different senses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.” The first relates to how we know (i.e. epistemology), the second to what there is to know (i.e. ontology). When we say that we are reasoning or speaking “objectively,” we mean that we are free of obvious bias, open to counter-arguments, cognizant of the relevant facts, etc. There is no impediment to our doing this with regard to subjective (i.e. third-person) facts. It is, for instance, true to say that I am experiencing tinnitus (ringing in my ears) at this moment. This is a subjective fact about me. I am not lying about it. I have been to an otologist and had the associated hearing loss in the upper frequencies in my right ear confirmed. There is simply no question that I can speak about my tinnitus in the spirit of scientific objectivity. And, no doubt, this experience must have some objective (third-person) correlates, like damage to my cochlea. Many people seem to think that because moral facts relate entirely to our experience (and are, therefore, ontologically “subjective”), all talk of morality must be “subjective” in the epistemological sense (i.e. biased, merely personal, etc.). This is simply untrue. Sorry, Sam, but it is true. While on its face, it is easy to understand why one would claim that five birds just flew by; it is raining; I just stubbed my toe, etc. Reality is only our perceptions. And, I suppose you can also say that quantum physics is also all wrong, too, but that just makes you as dogmatic as those you criticize.

Many of my critics also fail to distinguish between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle to certain questions about the nature of reality. Only the latter questions are “unscientific,” and there are countless facts to be known in principle that we will never know in practice. Exactly how many birds are in flight over the surface of the earth at this instant? What is their combined weight in grams? We cannot possibly answer such questions, but they have simple, numerical answers. Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? For instance, how seriously should we take the claim that there are exactly 23,000 birds in flight at this moment, and, as they are all hummingbirds weighing exactly 2 grams, their total weight is 46,000 grams? It should be obvious that this is a ridiculous assertion. We can, therefore, decisively reject answers to questions that we cannot possibly answer in practice. This is a perfectly reasonable, scientific, and often necessary thing to do. And yet, many scientists will say that moral truths do not exist, simply because certain facts about human experience cannot be readily known, or may never be known. As I hope to show, this blind spot has created tremendous confusion about the relationship between human knowledge and human values. Is it really possible for what science says is a finite mind to know and understand the infinite? Or, is it possible that we see the mind as finite because we define ourselves by it. Since it weighs x grams there is no way it can carry the infinite knowledge of the universe. Or, is it possible that we are not at limited by the size of our brain and that there is transcendent knowledge that we can know?

When I speak of there being right and wrong answers to questions of morality, I am saying that there are facts about human and animal wellbeing that we can, in principle, know—simply because wellbeing (and states of consciousness altogether) must lawfully relate to states of the brain and to states of the world. Facts are merely our ‘best understanding’ at any given moment. Many facts of the past were clearly not. Is it the states of the brain that laws relate to or something bigger? Are there even really any laws. Can we test a law an infinite number of times to see if it ever deviates? Has not quantum mechanics shown that what we have held as physical laws are not true at the sub-atomic level? And have not recent experiments shown, as mystics have known all along, that such deviations to laws can now be demonstrated at the physically observable level?

And here is where the real controversy begins: for many people strongly objected to my claim that values (and hence morality) relate to facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. My critics seem to think that consciousness and its states hold no special place where values are concerned, or that any state of consciousness stands the same chance of being valued as any other. While maximizing the wellbeing of conscious creatures may be what I value, other people are perfectly free to define their values differently, and there will be no rational or scientific basis to argue with them. This is perhaps the one place where Sam Harris is correct, i.e., what we value does relate to well being of consciousness. However, we should not assume a value on levels of consciousness.

Carroll appears to be confused about the foundations of human knowledge. For instance, he clearly misunderstands the relationship between scientific truth and scientific consensus. He imagines that scientific consensus signifies the existence of scientific truth (while scientific controversy just means that there is more work to be done). And yet, he takes moral controversy to mean that there is no such thing as moral truth (while moral consensus just means that people are deeply conditioned for certain preferences). This is a double standard that I pointed out in my talk, and it clearly rigs the game against moral truth. The deeper issue, however, is that truth has nothing, in principle, to do with consensus: It is, after all, quite possible for everyone to be wrong, or for one lone person to be right. Consensus is surely a guide to discovering what is going on in the world, but that is all that it is. Its presence or absence in no way constrains what may or may not be true. There seems to be confusion all around since there really is no current scientific truth.

There are many things wrong with this approach. The deepest problem is that it strikes me as patently mistaken about the nature of reality and about what we can reasonably mean by words like “good,” “bad,” “right,” and “wrong.” In fact, I believe that we can know, through reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. What’s the alternative? Imagine some genius comes forward and says, “I have found a source of value/morality that has absolutely nothing to do with the (actual or potential) experience of conscious beings.” Take a moment to think about what this claim actually means. Here’s the problem: whatever this person has found cannot, by definition, be of interest to anyone (in this life or in any other). Put this thing in a box, and what you have in that box is—again, by definition—the least interesting thing in the universe. Therefore, in order to place a moral value against killing, all must kill-otherwise; the value of not killing has nothing to do with actual/potential experience. Does the value precede the experience or vice versa?

So how much time should we spend worrying about such a transcendent source of value? I think the time I will spend typing this sentence is already far too much. All other notions of value will bear some relationship to the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. So my claim that consciousness is the basis of values does not appear to me to be an arbitrary starting point.

Now that we have consciousness on the table, my further claim is that wellbeing is what we can intelligibly value—and “morality” (whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be) really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the wellbeing of conscious creatures. And, as I pointed out at TED, all the people who claim to have alternative sources of morality (like the Word of God) are, in every case that I am aware of, only concerned about wellbeing anyway: They just happen to believe that the universe functions in such a way as to place the really important changes in conscious experience after death (i.e. in heaven or hell). And those philosophical efforts that seek to put morality in terms of duty, fairness, justice, or some other principle that is not explicitly tied to the wellbeing of conscious creatures—are, nevertheless, parasitic on some notion of wellbeing in the end (I argue this point at greater length in my book. And yes, I’ve read Rawls, Nozick, and Parfit). The doubts that immediately erupt on this point seem to invariably depend on extremely unimaginative ideas about what the term “wellbeing” could mean, altogether, or on mistaken beliefs about what science is.

Those who assumed that any emphasis on human “wellbeing” would lead us to enslave half of humanity, or harvest the organs of the bottom ten percent, or nuke the developing world, or nurture our children a continuous drip of heroin are, it seems to me, not really thinking about these issues seriously. It seems rather obvious that fairness, justice, compassion, and a general awareness of terrestrial reality have rather a lot to do with our creating a thriving global civilization (Creating a thriving global community is not desired by all and not really a value, a goal perhaps, but not a value)—and, therefore, with the greater wellbeing of humanity. And, as I emphasized in my talk, there may be many different ways for individuals and communities to thrive—many peaks on the moral landscape—so if there is real diversity in how people can be deeply fulfilled in life, this diversity can be accounted for and honored in the context of science. As I said in my talk, the concept of “wellbeing,” like the concept of “health,” is truly open for revision and discovery. Just how happy is it possible for us to be, personally and collectively? What are the conditions—ranging from changes in the genome to changes in economic systems—that will produce such happiness? We simply do not know.

But the deeper objection raised by scientists like Carroll is that the link I have drawn between values and wellbeing seems arbitrary, or otherwise in need of justification. What if certain people insist that their “values” or “morality” have nothing to do with wellbeing? What if a man like Jefferey Dahmer says, “The only peaks on the moral landscape that interest me are ones where I get to murder young men and have sex with their corpses.” This possibility—the prospect of radically different moral preferences—seems to be at the heart of many people’s concerns. In response to one of his readers, Carroll writes:

[W]e have to distinguish between choosing a goal and choosing the best way to get there. But when we do science we all basically agree on what the goals are — we want to find a concise, powerful explanation of the empirical facts we observe. This is not true. The idyllic notion here is that all scientists are purists who only seek to discover how the universe works. It assumes no hidden or subjective agenda. While it is fine to argue that a person on a spiritual quest for meaning and truth is really just seeking new dogma to impose on humanity, this cannot be true for the scientist. Clearly, the use of science to further specific political, social, economic or religious goals can be demonstrated throughout history. Again, is there really empirical fact? Sure, someone can choose to disagree with those goals — but then they’re not doing science, they’re doing philosophy of science. Which is interesting in its own right, but not the same thing.

When it comes to morality, there is nowhere near the unanimity of goals that there is in science. That’s not a minor quibble, that’s the crucial difference! If we all agreed on the goals, we would indeed expend our intellectual effort on the well-grounded program of figuring out how best to achieve those goals. That would be great, but it’s not the world in which we live.

Again, we encounter this confusion about the significance of consensus. But we should also remember that there are trained “scientists” who are Biblical Creationists, and their scientific thinking is purposed not toward a dispassionate study of the universe, but toward interpreting the data of science to fit the Biblical account of creation. Such people claim to be doing “science,” of course—but real scientists are free, and indeed obligated, to point out that they are misusing the term. A real scientist? Does that exist? How can you base a system on an imaginary ‘real scientist’? Certainly, a person with a religious agenda cannot conduct this so called pure science. But neither can the mythical real scientist, who, unless they grew up with no human interaction, be free of any bias. Similarly, there are people who claim to be highly concerned about “morality” and “human values,” but when we see that they are more concerned about condom use than they are about child rape (e.g. the Catholic Church), we should feel free to say that they are misusing the term “morality,” or that their values are distorted. As I asked at TED, how have we convinced ourselves that on the subject of morality, all views must count equally? It is clear that Harris cannot make his arguments without reverting to moral judgment.

The very idea that a morality exists has not come from science. To say that women should not be degraded, people should not be enslaved, that there should be no war, did not stem from some scientific observation. To even say that there should be an objective morality is, of itself, a subjective moral judgment. What might nature tell us about morality. Survival of the fittest? No room for the weak? Only cooperate if your own well-being is enhanced? In nature, there are animals that herd together for mutual protection. There are also lone hunters, hives, colonies, predator and prey. Would not objective science say that it makes no sense for the genetically weak or defective to survive? In nature, the weak and deformed are left behind. Why would science make an argument for weakening the gene pool and promote the perpetuation of the "defective?" It is not science that has said that the likes of Steven Hawking should survive. Make no mistake, religion has not provided the answer, but within religion has been pearls of wisdom that form the fundamentals of a working morality. I will continue with Sam's talk on TED in Part II.

Let me leave you with some quotes from a real scientist, Albert Einstein:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."