As far back as I can remember, I was taken to the Jehovah's Witnesses's (JW) Kingdom Hall meetings by my mom, who is a JW to this day. Sometimes I was literally taken kicking and screaming as the Kingdom Hall for me was Kingdom Hell.
Kingdom Hell
Most kids who grow up attending the meetings at the Kingdom Hall find them oppressive and boring in the extreme. "Sounds like the church I grew up in" someone unfamiliar with JW meetings might say. Many people find attending a church as a kid boring, but JW meetings can out bore the best of them.
In the meetings JWs hold, children of all ages are expected to behave as adults. They are expected to sit still and be quiet, attentively listening to the adult lectures, Watchtower magazine and Bible studies. There are no Sunday school classes for children to attend with activities designed for their age group and developmental level. A "public talk" on Sunday mornings lasts about 45 minutes. After a short break, this is followed by another 45 minute discussion of a Watchtower magazine article. Microphone time spent by individuals add more time to these meetings. These Sunday get togethers can thus last three hours.
Other meetings during the week are also attended by children such as the "book study" where another hour and a half is spent reading a chapter from the latest Watchtower Society book and discussing its contents. Never to be forgotten are the "assembly" meetings where thousands of JWs gather in stadiums for all day sessions for two or three days straight.
At least when I was going to these meetings (1960s to early 1970s), playing with toys in your seats, reading, talking or otherwise amusing yourself was discouraged or disallowed. Even getting up to go to the bathroom during the meetings was discouraged as this would distract others. This led to much child discipline many consider abuse. Kids were routinely slapped, hit or whatever it took to keep them silent during these meetings. I remember sitting there in meetings while time screeched to a halt trying my best to imitate a zombie. A zombie I slowly became. I learned how to be quiet and to "hold it in"--both my thoughts and my urine. Letting either loose during a meeting was bad news. I'm still quite good at keeping quiet and being unobserved by the people around me.
When I was six years old say and had no concept of the passage of time such as an hour and a half, these meetings seemed like an eternity of torturous waiting for it all to mercifully end. Especially when I had to sit still and be quiet on a hard wooden bench or chair for hours while those ancient adults discussed riveting topics such as what the hangnail of the third toe on the right foot of the ten headed beast of Revelation symbolized in the activities of JWs during the 1920s. I was "Waiting for Godot" in the Kingdom Hall.
The Control Tower
Another problem for those growing up in the Watchtower Society is it is very legalistic and controlling in the smallest details of their followers lives, even the most personal. There are a lot of do's and don'ts in the Watchtower Society with the don'ts greatly outnumbering the do's. There are very few gray areas where the Society allows for personal choice. Some of the more well known don'ts among JWs are not saluting the flag, not voting, not getting a higher education (recently changed to a gray area due to outside pressure), not accepting a blood transfusion--even to save your life, not celebrating the "holidays" such as Christmas, Easter and other "pagan" celebrations. Do's include mostly tedious, boring and unfulfilling activities such as going door-to-door preaching the "gospel of the established Kingdom," attending several petrifyingly boring meetings a week, reporting how much time you spend in the "preaching work," reading all Society publications and studying them thoroughly as they come out, etc.
When I attended, one wasn't supposed to date before marriage. Heck, you weren't even supposed to hold hands with someone before marriage! Somehow though you were expected to find a suitable marriage partner. They have even tried to control what married couples do after they are married as well, deciding for them what is or isn't appropriate to do while making love.
Demons, poltergeists and phobia indoctrination
When I was growing up around JWs, stories of demons and poltergeists haunting and harassing JWs were common. This produced phobias in me. I remember my mom telling matter-of-fact stories of poltergeist activity in our and other JW's homes. "Demons" would move objects such as chairs, shake beds, make noise and otherwise scare the daylights out of her or other JWs. These stories and the phobias they induced were spread by the Watchtower Society:
The attack by wicked spirit forces can take many forms. From actual cases, we know there may be physical attack, as well as mental attack. There may be a bodily blow, a slap in the face, a throwing of one to the ground.... One may be disturbed while trying to sleep, due to the prevalence of abnormal noises in the house. There may be a tugging of bed covers, a shaking of the bed, an apparition such as a face or a pair of vicious eyes. Often a 'voice' is heard that harasses and terrorizes. The voice usually suggests or commands a certain course of action, which, if followed, can lead to spiritual collapse, violence, insanity or suicide." [1]
There were plenty of these sorts of things going on in the Control Tower when I was a kid. This led to plenty of nightmares and phobias for JW kids like myself trying to get some sleep at night!
Another source of childhood phobias was their frequent illustrations, word pictures and warnings about the soon approach of Armageddon (yes, in the late 1960s I remember hearing about 1975). I studied the 'Paradise Lost' book when I was around 10 or 12. The pictures in it didn't help my sleeping habits either. People falling into huge cracks in the ground with terrified looks on their faces, etc. contributed to a well adjusted, carefree childhood.
I never became a
Teenage Jehovah's
Witness
For these and many other reasons, many children who grow up being taken to JW meetings never become JWs themselves and leave during their teen years. In many cases this results in strained or broken family relations if both parents are JWs. Such a restrictive, controlling and neurotic environment is precisely what many teenagers naturally rebel against. Once I was 12 or 13 and had finished the Paradise Lost book study, my parents left it up to me to decide whether I would continue going to meetings or not. This decision of my parents was apparently due to the fact that my mom was a Witness who wanted her children to grow up in the religion and my dad was of no religious faith. Seeing my first chance at freedom, I left.
My leaving had nothing to do with theology or Biblical positions of JWs. I simply was a teenager who wanted freedom from The Control Tower. At the time I was an agnostic. I didn't even claim to know whether a god existed or not, neither did I care. As a teenager, I was more enthralled with more interesting and important topics such as the girls next door. Believe me, they were much more interesting than the meetings.
My teen years were almost as depressing as my internment in the JWs. The family I grew up in was a poor one in many respects. The current buzz word for this is "dysfunctional." However, I believe in my family's case this would be an entirely too optimistic appraisal. The family rarely functioned in any recognizable sense as a family, let alone attained the lofty heights of a dysfunctional family. All kinds of problems occurred from incest to alcoholism with no one speaking out against it or seeking help. There was and still is a pervasive, heavy silence amongst most family members (this includes me). Like my internment in the Control Tower, I simply put up with it (unfortunately) and never really became involved with the family or tried to confront it's many problems.
My dad died when I was around 16. His sudden death by a heart attack didn't surprise me though. He was an alcoholic and heavy smoker (he had emphysema). I had some friends from time to time but mostly kept to myself. I had a talent for the visual arts and spent a lot of time drawing and painting after school. This helped me greatly in dealing with such an environment.
Right after high school though an experience changed this rather dull, aimless life.
Reefer madness
Marijuana Cigarette Curse
Cannabis sativa, hashish, marijuana, reefers,... are all names for the same curse now rolling over America, introduced from Mexico. The user loses all control over his behavior, may commit the most fiendish crime and have no memory of it, thinks nothing impossible, loses all sense of time and space, becomes sex-crazy, and finally develops insanity.
Consolation, July 26, 1939, p. 11.
Since I kept to myself and my artwork through my teenage years, I didn't get in much trouble or do too many dumb or dangerous things as teenagers sometimes do. However, right after high school I did smoke pot a few times. Unlike one famous American, I even managed to inhale; I shouldn't have, I nearly died.
I was sitting in a van with two others one day when they passed me a pipe to smoke. I took one "hit" off it and the next thing I knew I was slumped over in my seat staring at the floor of the van regaining consciousness. I was staring at the dirt particles on the floor which would change in size from tiny particles to watermelon size as I was trying to figue out what was going on. I sat back up in my seat once I realized where I was. I felt something moving in my shirt, looked down, and my heart was literally flopping around in my chest trying to get restarted. I had a hard time orienting myself in time and space as visual images were fractured, sometimes seemingly from different perspectives at once and sometimes only a "frame" at a time, that is, a single image like a photograph of what was happening around me would be stuck in my head. This would be followed by a flurry of successive images of a sequence of events. Needless to say, this was unnerving. It was like trying to orient yourself inside a three dimensional Cubist film who's projector was getting stuck at times.
After I jumped out the window of my bedroom for no apparent reason, I decided to try and settle down and wait it out. I figured whatever they laced the pot with should wear off in a few hours. Not having a sense of time, the wait seemed endless and I feared I would never "come back" to my senses--reminded me of Kingdom Hall and JW assembly meetings actually.
|
...........Brian Eno: Before and After Science, 1977 |
|
I do not remember much of the rest of that day, but I remember waking up the next morning. I could hardly move a muscle. My entire body was stiff and sore with any movement being difficult. At first, the most I could accomplish was to slide off my bed onto the floor.
I sat there for awhile basically contemplating my naval. I began to ask myself some existential questions such as "Am I alive?", "Did I die yesterday?", "Who am I?", "Why am I here?", "How did I get here?", "Where is 'here' anyway and how did 'here' get 'here'?", etc. It was like my brain was trying to get started again and come to terms with itself. Until then, I had taken my consciousness and life for granted. I now clearly realized for the first time from experience that I wasn't immortal and I could lose my life and even my mind in a second. Not very comforting thoughts for a teenager who a day earlier had not seriously entertained such things.
Shortly after this I heard that a relative was taken to a hospital emergency room after smoking a joint that unknown to her was laced with PCP. She had passed out I think and her heart was flopping around in her chest. Once at the hospital emergency room, the doctor gave her a lecture that if she wanted to live she shouldn't smoke that stuff and with friends like hers, who needed enemies. Her experience sounded vaguely familiar.
The passage of time
is flicking dimly upon the screen;
I can't see the lines
I used to think I could read between.Perhaps my brains have turned to sand ...
Oh me oh my!
I think it's been an eternity.
You'd be surprised
at my degree of uncertainty.How can moments go so slow?
Several times
I've seen the evening slide away.
Watching the signs
taking over from the fading day.Perhaps my brains are old and scrambled ...
-- Brian Eno, "Golden Hours," Another Green World, 1975.
I began to have flashbacks, sometimes with no warning. This began to scare me. What if I was driving a car and had a flashback and didn't know a stop sign from my left elbow and couldn't see where I was going? I felt insecure. Because of this I began to have panic attacks. Whenever I would start to feel I was having a flashback I would panic at the thought of losing control or my mind. This in turn would produce some of the symptoms of a flashback and this became a 'vicious circle.' I would fear having a flashback or panic attack and this would lead to panic and then a panic attack. This went on for two years.
The search
The self conscious existential questions haunted me for the next few years as well. I wanted answers to my existence. Was I really a cosmic accident that didn't matter or was there a purpose to the existence of the universe? I began to read and investigate various subjects and disciplines from religion to science. This occurred between 1978 and 1983.
I quickly dropped studying philosophy books. They were still arguing basic issues after thousands of years of reflection. It seemed that human philosophical reasoning was somehow flawed or at least inadequate in itself to establish the truth of much of anything. Philosophy seemed reduced to contemplating its own navel. Been there. Done that. I wanted answers if possible, not more self conscious existential and epistemological questions to ponder.
I wasn't much interested in religion either, perhaps due in part to my background. I didn't read a lot in this area for awhile except Joseph Campbell's books. Religion didn't seem to offer much evidence, certainly no proof for their dogmatic assertions.
But if you study the logistics and heuristics of the mystics
you will find that their minds
rarely move in a line.So it's much more realistic to abandon such ballistics
and resign to be trapped
on a leaf in the vine.
-- Brian Eno, "Backwater," Before and Aftre Science, 1977.
For these reasons, I quickly became more enamored with science. In science (at least in theory) one can come up with any harebrained hypothesis or theory one wants and it can be tested in most cases as to whether it is true or not. Through various tests and experiments one could determine the nature and effects of gravity, how the human body functions, what causes diseases, etc. Ideas or theories could be refuted or validated by experiments. Your experimental results could be published with your peers confirming or questioning your results with further tests.
I began reading books and subscribing to numerous magazines and journals such as Science, Discover, Science News, Scientific American and others. Cosmology and Astronomy quickly became my favorite topics as they were dealing with subjects such as the origin and nature of the universe as a whole. I read widely in these fields from popular level material to college textbooks and graduate level material. As a result of reading such material, written from an agnostic or atheist perspective, I had to abandon my own agnosticism, and atheism was now out of the running.
(Note: The next few pages details the scientific evidence that led me to a belief in a transcendent, though non-personal God. I present this as it was crucial for me in going from agnosticism to theism. Those who are not interested in discussions of the Big Bang, Cosmology, WAP, SAP, PAP, FAP, creationism vs. evolution and the like and want to hear how I came to faith in Christ specifically can jump down to the "Now What?" subheading. Don't say I didn't warn you!)
An infinite universe
After the fall of the Roman Empire, the West was influenced by a Judaeo/Christian world-view. This held that the universe was created a finite time ago by a Transcendent, Personal God. After the Enlightenment though, Agnosticism and Atheism became the dominant views in intellectual circles.
Two of the most influential individuals in the shift were the philosophers Emanuel Kant and David Hume. Kant reasoned that the universe must be infinite as God could only be expressed in an infinite creation. He believed it was absurd to postulate God using an infinitely small portion of His Omnipotence in creation. He reasoned that given enough time and an infinite number of chance occurrences between an infinite number of atoms in an infinite universe, anything could happen simply as a result of chance.
A common illustration of this concept is the monkeys at a typewriter scenario. Given an 'x' number of monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at some point, solely by chance, one of those monkeys will type out a perfect copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Thus, it was conceptually possible for us to have been created simply by natural, random processes. After Darwin published a plausible mechanism for biological evolution, Agnosticism and Atheism became the dominant philosophies. In Astronomy especially, larger telescopes simply revealed a vaster universe, one that seemed to go on forever. Fuzzy patches of light (at first called spiral nebula) soon resolved into "island universes," galaxies which contained one or two billion stars. It was soon discovered that there were billions of galaxies stretching out to what everyone assumed was endless space. After Einstien though, this view is no longer valid.
In the beginning the universe was created
In reading material in Astronomy, Cosmology and Physics during my search, of course, I found the dominant theory in astronomy to be the Big Bang theory. What impressed me about the theory, in addition to the evidence for it, was it was the dominant theory even though nobody seemed to like the darn thing! Creation Scientists didn't like it due to the time scale assigned to the "creation event" (10-20 Billion years ago). Cosmologists and Astronomers didn't like it because it meant the universe wasn't infinite and eternal (i.e., eternally self-existent) but was created a short time ago by something apparently outside space and time as we know it. (10-20 Billion years is significantly less than infinity and not nearly enough time for atoms to self assemble by chance alone into astrophysicists who believe in such explanations.)
The genesis of the theory was Einstein's General Relativity theory. One of its equations (if you subtract one set of the equations from another) implies the universe is not "static" but expanding and decelerating! [2]
This implies a finite, created universe, not an eternal, self created universe. If you trace the expansion backwards in time, you can determine the approximate time the expansion started. Based on the speed of the expansion, etc., the universe started from an infinitely (or near infinitely) dense point which "exploded." Einstein himself noted the philosophical and perhaps theological implications of a finite, created universe and was "shocked" at this turn of events in science. In 1921, Current Opinion noted:
There is no infinite in the universe. Einstein admits the truth of this inference, but, unlike some of his most ardent followers, is shocked by it, and hopes for a way out. [3]
Einstein was "shocked" at the idea of a finite universe as this ended the philosophical assumption of Kant that the universe was infinite and perhaps eternal. Einstein's "way out" of the "creation event" was to introduce a fifth and unknown force in nature to his equations that would keep the universe "static." It acted something like a reverse of gravity. He called this new factor the "Cosmological Constant."
However, by 1927 Edwin Hubble produced spectral evidence that the galaxies outside our own are rushing away from us at tremendous speed. They are expanding away from us at an exponential rate just as Einstein's unfudged equations had suggested (the further away a galaxy is the faster it moves away from us). Sometime after this Einstein looked at this evidence and was convinced that the universe was an expanding four dimensional "sphere." He later regarded the Cosmological Constant as the "greatest blunder" of his scientific career. He thereafter declared he believed the universe was not infinite, but created and considered himself a Pantheist like the philosopher Spinoza.
I read a lot of material by and about Einstein and his beliefs. They influenced me a great deal for awhile. I even considered myself what I called an "Aesthetic Pantheist" for a short time. Even his radical pacifism impressed me and I resolved not to participate in any war.
The tenth dimension
I also read about "string theory." This was an unproven but useful mathematical theory to describe the behavior of subatomic particles in particle accelerator experiments. These experiments were conducted in part to learn something of the physical characteristics of the Big Bang shortly after it began.
The unique feature of string theory (actually a gaggle of equations) was it required ten dimensions. It stated that in the first split second (10-43 seconds) after the Big Bang started, ten dimensions of space were created. Six dimensions "compactified" and we exist in four (three dimensions of space and one dimension of time).
In the last year or so, while still unproven, string theory has made some mathematical breakthroughs which has strengthened its plausibility. [4]
The beginning of Time
Another thing I read about was the "space/time theorem of general relativity." This is an extension of the equations of general relativity solved for space and time by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking in 1970.[5] The upshot of this being that time as well as space came into existence at the "creation event" (Big Bang) if General Relativity is true. Whatever or Whoever was responsible (through the principle of cause and effect) for the universe coming into existence would of necessity exist in or transcend 10 dementions of space and time itself in order to create them. Thus, it stood to reason that the Originator of the universe exists in or transcends space and time! This began to sound more and more like a transcendent G-O-D to me.
Also, by definition, the universe being created by something beyond or outside itself is a supernatural origin. This shows why many scientists starting with Einstein were "shocked" at such a turn of events.
Down With the Big Bang
Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big Bang is an over-simple view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade ahead.
....this view of the origin of the universe is thoroughly unsatisfactory. For one thing, the implication is that there was an instant at which time literally began and, so, by extention, an instant before which there was no time... the origin of the Big Bang itself is not suseptable to [scientific] discussion.
It is an effect whose cause cannot be identified or even discussed....
Creationists and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang. That, they might say, is when (and how) the Universe was created. The reality of the event is accepted. The question of its cause in the absence of time, is a matter for the imagination. Moderate creationists are no doubt content with that inference.
Lukily for the rest of us, moderate creationists' more impatient (and noisy) brethren seem more concerned to demonstrate that the whole world began just a few thousand years ago, which is why they have impaled themselves on the hook of trying to disprove the...geological record.
- John Maddox, "Down With the Big Bang," Nature, 340 (Aug 10, 1989): 425.
The search for a way out
Once Hubble's evidence was accepted and sunk in during the 1930s, other Astronomers, Physicists and Cosmologists soon were also "shocked" that the universe wasn't eternal and self-created. They didn't give up the Kantian/ Hume view and introduced numerous other explanations to try and get around the implications of a finite, created universe. The Steady State, Hesitation and Oscillating Universe Theories and others were developed and promoted as viable options, mainly to keep the infinite, self creating universe view alive.
Sir Arthur Eddington expressed this revulsion of some astronomers and physicists to this evidence in typical fashion in 1931:
Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me.... I should like to find a genuine loophole. [6]
So he, like many after him, tried to come up with an alternate theory to the Big Bang which would keep the universe infinite so that it would, in his words, "allow evolution an infinite time to get started." [7] The evidence however indicated the universe had a beginning. As Eddington himself expressed the implications of this, "Religion first became possible for a reasonable man of science in 1927." [8] Since he didn't like traditional religion (God) as an option he sought a "loophole." Similar comments made by other leading scientists in various fields I read during my search in the late 1970s to early 1980s illustrated this anti-theism bias. [9]
I became convinced that Robert Jastrow's famous comments in 1978 on this situation were true:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. [10]
The sight of those theologians sitting at the place ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth") it took astronomers and cosmologists centuries to arrive at understandably repulsed many of them. This was more humorously put in Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series of books I read during this time. At the beginning of the second volume he wrote:
The story so far:
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravarted people of Virtvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.... However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely held outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought. [11]
These "other explanations" to a finite, created universe began as somewhat reasonable theories that lacked evidenciary evidence, but are getting as ridiculous as the Great Green Arckleseizure Theory. Natural, non-theist explanations for the universe seemed extremely farfetched to me by the early 1980s. These explanations arose out of yet more discoveries in Physics.
The Watchmaker revisited:
WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP
During the time I went through this research of astronomy and related fields, physicists had measured the "parameters" for about a dozen forces and particles. They were surprised to find that all of them were "finely tuned" in such a way that we could exist. One example: the relative mass of the neutron to the electron. Neutrons are .138% more massive than electrons. Since it thus requires a slightly larger amount of energy to make neutrons than electrons, more electrons (about 7% more) than neutrons were created by the Big Bang. This is fortuitous for us: if the neutron were .1% more massive, there would not be any heavy elements. If it were .1% less massive, all the stars in the universe would rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes. Thus for us to exist, the mass of the neutron must be finely tuned to within less than .1%. There are now over 50 such parameters that have been measured. All are fine tuned, some to an unbelievable degree. Why? How could this be an accident or the result of chance? I could understand "an inteligence" as Einstien put it "of such superiority that compared to it, all the systematic thinking...of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" being responsible, but chance and happenstance?
The non-theist explanations were various versions of the Anthropic Principle. The original or Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), stated that we wouldn't be here to wonder about the "coincidences" or "fine-tuning" of the universe if it wasn't, in fact, fine-tuned. We shouldn't be surprised then, if it is fine-tuned-- if it wasn't we wouldn't be here. The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) stated that for some unknown reason, the universe must take on the finely tuned characteristics for life to be possible. Perhaps there is some unknown "law[s]" of nature that governs this.
The Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) states that conscious observers such as ourselves are necessary to bring about the universe. In some sense, we "participate" in the creation of the universe as we go along by "observing" it into being, in accordance with certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.[12] The Final Anthropic Principle (FAP) states that we are or will eventually become the creator. We will evolve to the point where we will be able to create events in the past, such as the creation of the universe.
However, even proponents of the original Anthropic Principle (WAP) admit that it "doesn't explain anything" in terms of why the universe is designed to such a "fine" degree to allow us to exist. Most Cosmologists use it to explain the "design" apparent in nature, but are not enthusiastic about it. The other Anthropic Principles have only a handful of supporters. Martin Gardner for example made the following famous swipe at FAP which I believed applied to them all to one degree or another:
What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP and FAP? In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle. [13]
He later again took up ridiculing Frank Tipler's FAP explanation (now called Omega Point Theology or OPT). He said he would leave it to the reader to determine if OPT was "a new scientific religion superior to scientology -- one destined to elevate Tipler to the rank of prophet greater than L. Ron Hubbard-- or opt for the view that OPT is a wild fantasy generated by too much reading of science fiction." [14]
To me, the various Anthropic principles sounded (and still do) like another Great Green Arkleseizure Theory. Explaining the creation of the universe from something outside of space and time as we know it and the design parameters of the universe to chance alone, or that we somehow create the universe as we go or will become Omnipotent and Omniscient enough [i.e., God enough] in the future to tweak all the necessary delicate parameters to bring about our existence in the past is beyond "ridiculous" or "CRAP." Douglas Adams, Monty Python, and the Jatravarteds, I believed, could come up with similarly plausible theories.
Take your choice:
Universes for free or one created universe
By the late 1970's, the last major opposing model to the Big Bang was the "Oscillating" or "Bouncing Universe" theory. [15] However, by the early eighties it too was shot down. [16]
So what was left to uphold the old Kantian/Hume/ Newtonian infinite universe model? Since you need an infinite number of chance occurrences for us to arrive by chance alone and "there is no infinite in the universe," the only thing left to do is postulate the existence of an infinite number of "parallel" universes. Various scenarios have been advanced along these lines. In these, an infinite void of nothingness or next to nothingness (an infinite radiation, plasma, or quantum fluxuation field or the like) exists "outside" our universe. This infinite void or radiation field creates an infinite number of universes through quantum "fluctuations." So an infinite number of universes "pop" into existence like virtual particles from nothing (or next to nothing) each with its own physics parameters, amount of matter and energy, etc. Thus, we are here simply because a universe popped with the parameters in just the "finely tuned" way ours is that allowed us to arrive on the scene. Zillions of other universes exist where life is not possible. Other universes exists very similar to ours, but history up to this point is only slightly different (as one wag quipped, perhaps in one, Elvis kicks his drug habit, joins the Republican party and wins the 1996 election instead of Clinton). Accidents happen. (There goes another 2 or 3 Zillion universes now.)
The absurdity to me in postulating an infinite number of universes popping into existence from supposedly an infinite amount of nothing or next to nothing is illustrated in the following proposal by Isaac Asminov:
Where did the substance of the universe come from?... If 0 = +1 + (-1), then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes["prest-o change-o!"], combining once more and vanishing['now you see it, now you don't']. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it. [17]
Asminov was both a science and science fiction writer. I still have a hard time believing the above was not "a wild fantasy brought on by too much reading of science fiction," or in his case, the writing of science fiction. I assume though that it was intended to be considered a scientific and not a science fiction answer.
I couldn't bring myself to have any faith in any of the anthropic principles or infinite numbers of universes spontaneously generating themselves into existence from nothing. It amazed me that many astronomers and cosmologists didn't even mention what seemed an obvious inference to make of all this evidence: that the universe was intentionally designed by an intelligence capable of such design (God). What I found instead was an aversion to this idea, leading to more and more absurd scenarios. However, after ten more years of accumulating evidence that the entire universe is "finely tuned" to make our existence possible, many Astronomers are now more open about mentioning the God hypothesis or the "theistic principle." For example, the renowned cosmologist Edward Harrison stated the following:
Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God--the design argument of Paley--updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument. [18]
This, I believe, accurately describes the current state of affairs in Cosmology and Astronomy. Either you postulate an infinite number of universes somehow popping into existence from nothing (or next to nothing) and we are here because ours just so happened to "bounce" or "pop" with all the physics of the universe "finely tuned" so that we could exist, or a transcendent Creator made this universe on purpose so that we could live. Take your choice: The Ultimate Free Lunch or God. More and more astronomers, cosmologists and physicists are beginning now to lean toward "some sort of god" rather than the various Anthropic Principles.
There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.
-- George Smoot, leader of the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite team that confirmed both the 3 deg. background radiation and small ripples or variations in it allowing for the development of galaxies.
Scientific Creationism, Darwinist evolution and other biases
My belief in a transcendent Creator thus came about through a self study of Astronomy and Cosmology. The big battle ground, starting at about the time I began this research was Biology. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, "Scientific Creationism" became prominent in the United States due to court cases which led to much publicity for the movement. Also at this time, Stephen J. Gould became something of a scientific celebrity after advocating "Punctuated Equilibria" as an alternative to Darwinism and the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. He authored many well written books and articles which I read.
Basically, I believed in evolution to begin with. I didn't think Darwinism was very tenable, but was the best thing going. From the start I had problems with typical 'origins of life' scenarios and with fitting classical Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism with the evidence (fossil record, etc.). The Fossil record basically didn't support gradualist, set-by-step evolution, though in its broad outline it seemed to support some sort of "evolution" [i.e., change or development] in the history of life on earth. It showed single celled organisms first, followed by more complex sea creatures followed by amphibians, followed by reptiles, etc. However, once viewed past this broad outline Darwinism fell apart. There are next to no "transitionals" between major groups of organisms or what could be viewed as such, let alone gradual, step-by-step evolution of one species into another. In fact, all the current Phlya and a dozen or three more now extict appeared fully formed in the Cambrian "explosion" with no "long and honorable pre-Cambrian pedigree" as Gould I think put it. This puts Darwin's "increasing cone of diversification" on its head. The opposite happened. The list of purported transitionals among the subsequent vertabrates and their diversification amounted to an unimpressive half-dozen or so main cases (Archaeoptryx, the horse sequence, homonids, the therapsids and a few others). I expected paleontologists to at least find a few species that could be viewed as transitionals between major groups simply due to what I call the "Platypus effect." In any case, the fossil record was anything but what Darwinism predicted.
For these and other reasons I was more interested in the "Punctuated Equilibria" (P.E.) of Gould which to me was a scientific theory that was at least trying to explain the fossil evidence such as the lack of step-by-step transitions and the general "stasis" of species [a euphemism for species stubbornly not evolving. A recent description of this fact is to call it "static evolution." That's an oxymoron.].
At some point though to completely accept naturalistic evolution, I would need hard evidence for it, not plausible explanations as to why there is so little fossil evidence for it. I didn't find anything compelling in the evidence used to support the various evolution theories and scenarios to ultimately put my faith in any of them. I had an even bigger problem with the origin of life from non-living chemicals. It seemed and still does akin to a kind of alchemy or "spontaneous generation."
As Carl Sagan once said about UFO's, "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence." This statement was rarely applied to the
extraordinary claims of evolution by such men as Sagan, Darwin,
Asminov,
Gould
and others. I would have settled for less than extraordinary, garden
variety evidence. The lack of such evidence in its favor didn't
trouble me too much for a few years. P. E. seemed a much better
explanation than "scientific creationism" which seemed to be the
major alternative presented in what I read.
In this chapter I am using probability as a measure of belief. It is clear that the belief that the molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c or any other protein could appear by chance is based on faith. And so we see that even if we believe that the 'building blocks' are available, they do not spontaneously make proteins, at least not by chance. The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true belivers (Hoffer, 1951) or to people who live in a universe of infinite extension that has no beginning or end in time. In such a universe all things not streng verboten will happen. In fact we live in a small, young universe generated by an enormous hydrogen bomb explosion some time between 10 X 109 and 20 X 109 years ago. A practical person must conclude that life didn't happen by chance (deDuve, 1991).
In response to convincing evidence that no primeval soup ever existed on Earth or on Mars, the argument in support of the primeval soup scenario has moved to starting mass movements, non sequiters and slogons (Dyson, 1979a, b). A typical slogon is: 'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! (Project Cyclops, 1973; Sagan & Newman, 1983)'. Happily for me, the local law enforcement authorities are satisfied that the absence of evidence that I am a bank robber is sufficient to justify the absence of a warrent for my arrest!
-- Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, 1992 (Cambridge University Press), p. 257 (top quote)
(p. 241, bottom quote).
Deism
I basically became a Deist for a couple years. I settled into the belief that the universe was created by a transcendent God who had a "hands-off" policy to His creation. The so-called "problem of evil" seemed to indicate that God wasn't "Personal." He seemed to be a Bystander who never intervened or interfered with anybody or their decisions. It seemed he had left us to our own devices, watching the spectacle from a distance. I sometimes wondered though what He thought of our "evil" shenanigans: rape, murder... Adolf Hitler... Did He care or did He respect our "free-will" to the extent that He allowed us to do what we wanted--good or evil?
In addition I had a problem with Bible-believing Christians. I believed and still do that the young universe explanations of the "Creation Scientists" are as scientifically farfetched as PAP and FAP. I was much more sympathetic with those who viewed young earth creationism as valid as flat earthism. It actually kept me for awhile from seriously studying the Bible and Christianity as Creation Scientists were my sole exposure to Bible believing Christians and their cosmological views (apart from JWs).
I saw their positions and explanations as an a priori commitment to their interpretation of Scripture and thus was biased and not very scientific. The argument for example that God created the photons of light from galaxies millions of light years away only a few miles or so from earth already in transit (complete with a red shift) so we could see them, and not that the light actually traveled millions of light years through space as is apparent, seemed an absurd bending of reality to uphold a world-view.
Slow Train Coming
Somehow though, I began to be increasingly drawn to Jesus and Christianity. I began watching those "televangelists" and listening to Christian programs on TV and the radio. One of my favorite albums at the beginning of this search was Bob Dylan's Slow Train Coming, his first Christian album. The reaction of the secular world to his "conversion" was eye-opening. I read a review of the album in the local Seattle Times which was condescending and patronizing. I heard of his first concert after his conversion held at San Fransisco (of all places). He was booed off the stage and he canceled the tour. What was all the fuss about? Who cares if Dylan repented and believed in a Personal God? Why were his fans getting so bent out of shape? It seemed the "open minded," "inclusive" liberals were getting very intolerant. Imagine a gay singer going to the "Bible Belt" in the U.S. espousing his "lifestyle" to a predominately Christian audience who forthwith booed him off the stage. Cries of "bigotry," "hatred" and even "hate crime" would be heard. I couldn't understand the reaction to Dylan or the non reaction to the reaction.
Gotta Serve Somebody?
The "problem of evil" began to become a perplexing problem for me. Based on what I understood about the origin of the universe I was absolutely convinced a transcendent, intelligent and perhaps Omnipotent God existed and created us on purpose. Our existence was not an accident. So what's going on? Why was there so much "evil" on earth? Why didn't He do something?
To illustrate my thinking on these matters at the time, I remember watchting a talk show on TV. Pearl Bailey {I think}was being interviewed. She had just overcome a serious bout with a brain tumor. Her doctors didn't give her much chance for recovery but she said she had faith that God would heal her, telling the doctors, "If God made the Pacific Ocean, he certainly won't have a problem with a little brain tumor!" She recovered just fine.
This example of a supposedly personal God interested, but bothered me. I admired her simple faith. Putting her comments into my astronomically inclined way I thought, "yeah, if God could make the Andromeda Galaxy, He certainly wouldn't be intimidated by a disease." Why are there any diseases at all if God could make it disapear in a second? Why would he heal Pearl Bailey and let thousands of others suffer? Did He play favorites or something? Or was it simply because Pearl had such a simple faith in Him? Was it who you were serving?
The hound of heaven
I felt an affinity to traditional Christian values or morality and an increasing aversion to the relativism and permissiveness of America in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Most of my peers at work, etc. were in their early twenties and were still caught up in what I viewed as adolescent pursuits such as partying, drugs, and sex. I could only manage to attend a couple such parties my coworkers at a machine shop put on when I was in my early twenties. Most would get drunk and I felt like shaking them by the shoulders and saying, "Excuse me, why are you getting drunk?" It all seemed childish and escapist to me.
Since my dad was an alcoholic and heavy smoker and died as a result and I had a bad drug experience I couldn't join in or relate to any of this. I felt disconnected from my peers and their interests. They all seemed lost. I felt more and more drawn to Jesus and Christianity. Perhaps I was watching those televangelists and listening to Dylan, Pearl Bailey and others too much.
JWs at the door
To show how open I had become to examining the Bible and Christianity, a few days after I had moved into an apartment and while I was visiting my mom, who should show up at the door but two JWs. This surprised me as this was the home of a Witness (my mom)! Did they make a mistake or did my mom set this up? Anyway, we talked about the immorality of my coworkers, evolution/creation, Einstein and other subjects. They asked me if I would like to start a Bible study with them. I said yes. I told them I had just moved and gave them my address off the top of my head. No one ever showed up at my apartment--I must not have memorized the address correctly! I have no idea what would have happened had I actually studied with them.
Someone prayed for me
Not everyone at my job was lost in the partying scene. I made a friend in an older woman at work who was a Christian. She was much more sane and stable than my peers and I felt more of an affinity with her. As you can imagine, being a conservative Evangelical, she began to pray for me. Usually when someone meets me and asks how I "came to know the Lord" I reply that I had someone praying for me so I didn't stand a chance or that it was "all over" after that. That's what happened in a nutshell. I really began to be hounded by heaven.
She didn't tell me she was praying for me, but I knew she was. I knew she was by some experiences I began to have which opened me up to the possibility of a personal God. Nearly every night for a couple weeks when I would go to bed, I could practically hear her praying for me. It was like she was kneeling right in front of my bed. I literally opened my eyes several times to make sure she wasn't actually present. I couldn't make out or understand exactly what she was saying, but I understood the upshot of it: she was praying for my "salvation." She was praying to a God who was responding to her prayers. I could feel another [spiritual] presence in the room at times. This was unnerving, but something else unnerved me more: I could also feel dark spiritual forces that were apparently in control of my life that didn't want to give up their control.
I tried to understand these experiences. I figured there were three or four basic explanations for them. I was either losing touch with reality (delusions), having an experience with ESP (telepathy/mind reading), having some kind of flash-back, or there was a spiritual realm that this person was in touch with that I wasn't.
None of these answers were personally satisfying. I didn't like the first explanation, I didn't believe in telepathy, flash-backs didn't seem probable (I never had an experience like this while on drugs or otherwise so there wasn't anything to "flash-back" to), and the fourth explanation wasn't appealing as I viewed the "personal God" idea as the product of "absurd egotism" as Einstein called it or the wishful thinking of those who couldn't face cold, hard reality. Never the less, I had to deal with these experiences.
The other thing that bothered me about this was the feeling I had that evil spiritual forces were controlling my life and didn't like giving it up. Why would demons be in control of my life? What did I do to open myself up to that? Even if such things existed, I didn't think I was that bad. After all, I was a pretty good kid, I was in my early twenties, still a virgin, etc., etc...
The Assembly of God
After a couple weeks of these experiences, my friend at work told me about a famous evangelist that was coming to her church in about a week. "Well," I said, "you'll have to invite me to your church then." "I am silly!" she replied. I asked her what kind of church she went to and she said an Assembly of God church. Growing up in the JWs, I didn't know the difference between this and a tavern so I asked what kind of church that was. After mentioning a few things she said, "Fundamentalist, I guess." "Fundamentalist!?!" I exclaimed. "Uh-Oh!" I said, thinking of the negative connotations that word conveyed. 'What am I getting myself into?' I thought to myself. She was such a sweetheart I figured it couldn't be too bad. Besides, I didn't want to react the way others had to Dylan.
As you can imagine, after growing up in the Kingdom Hall, going to an Assembly of God as my first exposure to a church was an eye-opener. My first reaction of course was "these guys are nuts". People singing, clapping and waving their hands in the air was a little different than what I expected. I expected somber faced, gray-haired old ladies maybe moaning out a pathetic song or two, but not this!
I spent most of my time just watching the spectacle. The evangelist's message was aimed at teenagers it seemed to me and his message against sex, drugs and rock-n-roll wasn't what I needed to hear. By this time I couldn't stand rock music (except perhaps Brian Eno), I had an aversion to drugs as you can imagine and I was still a virgin and didn't believe in premarital sex. I didn't like his hyperbolic style either. I wasn't much impressed with the guy (If I mentioned his name most would recognize it). All the high schoolers and college age newcomers to the church who had "accepted the Lord" were invited to Sunday school classes for their age group after the service (or show as it seemed). I decided to go to the "Young Adult" group and check that out after Janet, the person from work who invited me to the church, encouraged me. There were several others there who apparently (unlike me) had gone forward at the "altar call." One was asked if he had a Bible or wanted one. He said the only one he had was the New World Translation he had with him! He was encouraged of course to accept a different one from the pastor there. Seeing the "Green Phantom" made me feel a little more at ease there as I could relate to someone finally.
I decided to continue going to this church for awhile and hear their regular pastor and attend some of the young adult classes. The services with the boisterous worship took some getting used to (along with the fairly high decibel preaching), but I found the "young adults" and the classes appealing. The others there who were around my age were very different than those I was used to. They seemed to have a purity and honesty I found refreshing.
Another evangelist
Another evangelist came to the church a few months after the first. I don't remember who he was and have never heard of him since. Actually, I think for what an evangelist is supposed to do in my view, he was quite good.
His first night was on the topic of why we need to be born-again. He spent most of his time expounding the Scriptures on the subject. He started in Genesis with the "fall" and the Old Testament prophecies about the coming New Covenant and its fulfillment in the New Testament with the life and death of Jesus Christ. He spent much time on the subject of the flesh and the Spirit.
In a nutshell, he said in the Garden of Eden Man chose sin and thus "fell" from the perfect condition God originally created us. (Genesis 3) As a result, God has given us over to sin. (Rom. 1) As part of God's judgment of Man, all descendants of Adam and Eve are born in sin with a sin nature or "orientation" to use a current buzz word.(Psalms 51; Rom. 5:12) We have been "sold into slavery to sin." (Rom. 7:14) The New Testament calls this sin nature the "flesh." We are all born of this nature. There isn't a single thing we can do to change our nature or condition. I think he expressed it this way: "You can't pull yourself up by your fleshly bootstraps to overcome the flesh" or "You can't use the flesh to overcome the flesh." Whatever you try using-- your mind, willpower, whatever--is also part of the flesh and all our fleshly righteousness amounts to, as he translated it, "used menstrual cloth" compared to God's holiness. (Isaiah 64:6)
The Old Testament prophesied a new covenant for Israel where God would wipe away their sin and place His law on their hearts--one that would respond to Him and His Spirit. (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:21, 22) This is what Jesus was talking about to Nicodemas, "That which is born of flesh, is flesh, that which is born of Spirit, is spirit. You must be born again." We need new wine in new wineskins. We need a new heart and a new Spirit.
He went into agonizing detail on Romans chapter seven on walking in the flesh and contrasted it with the solution in chapter eight which is to be born of the Spirit and to walk in the Spirit. He gave an altar call for those who wanted to have their "heart of stone" exchanged for a new one, one that was filled with the Spirit of God and to make Jesus Lord of their lives. At this point the Holy Spirit was "convincing" me of sin and that what this guy was preaching was the Absolute Truth, and that Jesus was the Lord and the Truth--so listen up! I thought to myself, 'gee, if I accept this, I'll have to parade around claiming to know the Absolute Truth." This was anathema to my American Public Education indoctrination that everything is relative and there are no absolutes (another liberal absolute!). It was my ego or pride worrying about how others would view my faith in Jesus. But how can you argue with God when He places His finger against your chest and tells you to listen up?
After he gave the third call to come forward I decided to give my life to Christ. The evangelist said one didn't need to come forward, you could pray to receive Christ wherever you were; I did just that. I prayed that I would be cleansed of sin and that Jesus would be the Lord of my life and that God would take out my "heart of stone" and replace it with a new one that was sensitive to Him and His Spirit, etc. After I floated back to my apartment with a "big grin" on my face as a surprised bystander called it, I was so excited I prayed a similar prayer before going to sleep, just to make sure I didn't miss anything in the previous one.
I'm the happiest man in all of the world
because I have something to believe in
I have communion with the Son and the holy God and Creator
and in addition I have eternal life.-- Brian Eno, JuJu Space Jazz, Nerve Net, 1992.
Walking in the Spirit
The first few months after being born again was definitely a new experience for me. I began reading the Bible and for the first time it would "come alive" and practically talk back to me. I remember thinking, "gee, where has this book been all my life?" I had read some of it before of course, but after being born of the Spirit, it was of course a different book.
Jehovah's Witnesses
After a while I began to wonder why there was such a big difference between Christianity as I now knew it and Jehovah's Witnesses. They both claim to follow the Bible. I couldn't imagine more different beliefs and practices than a Kingdom Hall and an Assembly of God. Neither want anything to do with each other, except to try and convert the other. How could that happen?
I began to read Christian books on the subject of JWs such as Jehovah of the Watchtower and Apostles of Denial. I began with comparing theology but soon became floored by all the bizarre statements, beliefs and prophecies of the Watchtower that were quoted in these books. I decided to try and collect Watchtower literature and check out these quotes. I couldn't believe such craziness as Beth-Sarim, 1925, Pyramidology and other past foibles. Everything quoted I checked out checked out though. No more bald heads, glass eyes or false teeth in 1925! Couldn't wait for the next bald JW to stop by.
This was strictly an academic exercise for me to begin with. I undertook it to answer my intellectual questions and curiosity about the Watchtower Society. However, I believe the Lord burdened my heart to take the information I was gathering to help JWs. What did this for me was listening to a tape of Dick and Sue Howitt's testimony given at a Witnesses Now For Jesus convention. While listening to it I realized all this was more than an intellectual exercise or of academic interest for those caught up in it. Lives were being devastated at times by the Control Tower. I was free in Christ and having the time of my life while others were suffering in bondage in the name of God. I decided to start a ministry to JWs. This was how JW Research got off the ground (a few inches).
Angels of the New Light
Another tape of a Witnesses Now For Jesus convention I heard was Duane Magnani's lecture "Angels of the New Light" given in 1987. I researched this for a couple of years and realized after reading tons of Rutherford era to present material that there was a plethora of interesting and even startling material that hasn't been published before on Jehovah's Witnesses. I decided to publish a newsletter that would be open to anyone who didn't have a place to publish on this subject.
The Journal is a lot of work to research and publish, but I've had fun. I've enjoyed spending hours at the University of Washington researching the Society's medical quackery such as the ERA. Watchtower literature itself can be boring. Except for The Golden Age, Consolation and early Awake! magazines. Those are a continual source of entertainment. Believe me, there is still a seemingly bottomless pit of bizarre and interesting material still there waiting for future Journals to explore. It'll keep me busy for years to come.
References and notes
1. The Watchtower, Dec. 15, 1966, p. 740.
2. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, (Orange, CA.: Promise Publishing Co.), 1989, 1991, pp. 48-9.
3. "Has Einstein Turned Physics Into Metaphysics?", Current Opinion, June, 1921, p. 803, quoting the London Times.
4. Gary Taubes, "How Black Holes May Get String Theory Out of a Bind," Science, 268 (1995), p. 1699; Gary Taubes, "A Theory of Everything Takes Shape," Science, 269 (1995), p. 1513.
5. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314 (1970), pp. 529-548.
6. Arthur Eddington, "The End of the World From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics," Nature, 127 (1931), page 450.
7. Arthur Eddington, "On the Instability of Einstein's Spherical World", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 90 (1930), p. 672. Quoted in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, CO.: Navpress), 1993, p. 51.
8. Quoted in Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, ILL.: Searchlight Publications), 1995, preface, p. xviii. In the revised edition of this book, Hereen quotes Eddington'swords as, " It will perhaps be said that the conclusion to be drawn from these arguments from modern science, is that religion first became possible for a reasonable scientific man about the year 1927." He further added, "Yet his own investigations into the new fields of quantum physics had convinced him that the evidence for 'a universal Mind or Logos' was so strong that it might tempt some to promote a scientifically-based faith to the exclusion of true faith. This is the context of his quote at the start of this section." (p. xvii)
9. This is still going on today. A classic example is the editorial in Nature titled, "Down With the Big Bang." In it, the Physics editor of Nature, John Maddox said that "in the doctrine of the Big Bang", creationists "have ample justification for their position." This alone, he said, was a good reason to reject the leading scientific theory in Astronomy. He said that it was "philosophically unacceptable" as it implied the entire universe including time itself was literally created by something outside of time. He confidently stated that with the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope it would be a surprise to him if the theory made it past the coming decade of the 1990s. John Maddox, "Down With the Big Bang," Nature, 340 (1989): 425. However, the 1990s have produced more evidence for the Big Bang such as confirmation of the existence of the predicted 3O microwave background radiation. See, Craig J. Hoan, "Experimental Triumph," Nature, 344(1990) pp. 107-108; George Smoot, et al., "Structure in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometer First-Year Maps," Astrophysical Journal Letters 396(1992), pp. L1-L6; Ron Cowen, "Balloon Survey Backs COBE Cosmos Map," Science News 142(1993), p. 43; Ron Cowen, "COBE: A Match Made in Heaven," Science News 143(1993), p. 43.
10. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, (New York: Simon and Schuster), 1983 (second edition), p. 107.
11. Douglas Adams, The Resturant at the End of the Universe, (New York: Harmony Books), 1980, p. 1.
12. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 1989, 1991, pp. 133,134: George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe, 1988, p. 223.
13. Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP," The New York Review of Books, vol. 23, no. 8, May 8, 1986, pp. 22-25.
14. Martin Gardner, "Notes of a Fringe-Watcher: Tipler's Omega Point Theory," Skeptical Inquirer 15, no. 2 (1991), p. 132.
15. John Gribbin, "Oscillating universe bounces back," Nature 259 (1976): 15.
16. Alan Guth and Marc Sher, "The Impossiblility of a Bouncing Universe," Nature, 302: 505-7; Sidney Bludman, "Thermodynamics and the End of a Closed Universe," Nature, 308: 319-322.
17. Isaac Asminov, "What is Beyond the Universe?" Science Digest, vol. 69 (April, 1971), p. 69. Sarcastic material in brackets mine. :-)
18. Edward Harrison, Masks of the Universe (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan), 1985, pp. 252, 263.
