Complexity, Economics, and Libertarianism

Jim, a member of a Humanist email list I'm on, made an interesting post recently mentioning emergent complexity in economics (he gave this Wikipedia link). Jim seems to be an economic libertarian and sited this as a support to his position. I am a big enthusiast of complexity theory and the work of the Santa Fe Institute for many reasons. As such, his mention peaked my interest, but I think there is something important to note, at least insofar as my position is concerned.

I don't think complexity necessarily justifies libertarian economic philosophy on the grand scheme of things.

To be sure, it certainly suggests we allow economies to function naturally as much as possible. Taoism, in many respects, contains realizations which are ancient precursors to many notions found in complexity science. Naturally, we similarly find a connection between its observations of the world and prescriptions on 'how we should be'. For example, Chuang-Tzu warns of over-intrusive government, saying it is a sign of intolerance of people's natural proclivities and inclinations (On Intolerance), and encourages corruption and oppression (Horses Hooves).

All of these notions point to the same realization, which is that free market economies will tend to operate as a self-organizing complex system with an organic structure (or 'Li', as the Taoists might say) with all of the advantages of growth and adaptability thereof. Government intrusion, then, hampers the free operation and efficiency of that system.

Yes, economics will self regulate as a system. For example, wages will rise and fall because of the supply of certain professionals and the demand for them. Over time, if the wages get too high, too many people will choose that as their profession and supply will exceed demand. Employers will recognize they can get away with paying less because they'll have plenty of desperate people in need of a job. As wages get too low, employers will find that no one wants to work in that profession and will therefore need to raise their rates. The system corrects itself in a beautiful organic process!

But before we kneel at the altar of the economic complex system, we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

First, we must realize that this economic organism is not 'us' individually. Nor is it 'us' in terms of it being humanity. It is not even 'us' in terms of it being our society. It is an independent system in its own right, that yields conditions we suffer or enjoy.

As such, it is not an end unto itself, but rather a means to an end - that end being to provide an ethically sound environment in which people can live well.

As a system, while the economy will indeed correct itself, in the process its variable flow into highs and lows that have little respect of 'what is right' or 'what is humane'. One might think that we drive these variables by our likes and dislikes, thus 'humaneness' and 'rightness' is inherent in the system because those are things we like. However, this simply isn't the case in practice. In reality, wages will often rise above what is excessive and harmful for individual lives and society (which includes more than the economy, but also our social networks, morale, etc). More importantly, wages will sometimes fall well below what is a humane level of compensation for the work done, leaving desperate people with no realistic alternative. The same is the case for all of the economic variables throughout the entire economy. Most of the time it works, but occasionally it veers without concern into environmental conditions which are inherently inhumane and ethically unacceptable.

People who marvel at that intricate and amazing complex system that is our economy, tend to focus all of their thoughts and attention on how best to make it run more smoothly and efficiently. They look at 'averages' and 'trends' and 'indexes' as indicators of whether or not things are 'going well'. Little concern is given for the individuals getting tossed about on the fringes of those overall curves.

Unconscious and as well intentioned as it may be, this is worship of the 'economic organism' at the expense of people, the expense of ethics, and the expense of basic human compassion.

We must instead keep the larger view in mind: that the economy is here to serve human beings as one element in the grand mix of our larger concerns as good people - and we are not here to serve the needs of the economy. When we do, we realize that, yes, we want a smooth running economy that yields good fruits for us. But, we also recognize there are certain conditions and situations that are morally unacceptable, regardless of the indexes, averages, trends, or long term self correcting mechanisms. When that happens we must, as a people (i.e. government) step in and say "no".

Will that hamper the efficiency and health of the economic organism? Yes it will - and that's ok. Some things are worth the price of apples being higher or the growth of new businesses being lower this quarter.

Unlike what Libertarians will tell us, this sort of judicious ethical intrusion in certain areas while being appreciative of the need of an economy to evolve freely, will not necessarily lead to all-controlling socialism, communism, or bureaucratic oppression. We must simply judge these things ethically as we go, considering those factors as well. Tough decisions? Yes. But to simply say that all eyes should remain on the economic organism and trust that individuals will get their just rewards for their obedient worship of that entity, is a harmful notion in my view, that misses major concerns about our humanity.


PS:
It is also good to note Wu Wei, a philosophy specifically designed for skillfully working in and with complex systems. If we use 'skillful means' in our decisions, we see that there is almost a 1-to-1 correlation between money spent on education or on jails. Low wages lead to desperation, which leads to crime, which leads to money spent fighting crime and jails. Thus, the 'interconnectedness of all things' means that we pay either way - it's just a question of how smart we are about it.

Some may be too consumed with judgments about 'what others deserve' and 'who should get what' to look at things as a dynamic system without preconception. That individual therefore puts himself in the very role he would forbid the state, as being inhumane and oppressive.

Therefore, we are benefited in subtle ways by being ethical first. The maxim is maintained: there is never a distinction between what is virtuous and what is wise. Any notion to the contrary is an indication that we are suffering from a delusion about either wisdom or virtue.

Leadership and Stoicism

Two of Stoicism's most prominent philosophers were Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. As professor Michael Sugrue of Princeton University observes in his wonderful lecture on Marcus Aurelius: one of the wonderful ironies about the history of philosophy was that the former was a slave and the latter an emperor. That speaks greatly to the flexibility and applicability of Stoicism, but it also has recently brought to my mind another thought.

In this year I have found myself in a leadership role in my community organization, my profession, and soon, my family. This has made me recognize new aspects of Stoicism. Previously I had conceived of Stoicism as especially useful to those with little or no power. As such, it helps us to focus our energies on the things we can control and learn to accept that which we cannot.

But lately, as my 'say-so' has risen (power is too strong a word), I have found that my stress has risen with it. Given that we are always seeking greater control, one might expect the opposite. But I think this happens because power is a strong temptation. When we are put in charge of something or made responsible for it, we get used to having more control than ordinary. We soon find ourselves expecting that greater level of control. It becomes even easier to fall prey to the delusion that we can control more than we do, and as that delusion intensifies, so too does our suffering.

So now I am thinking that I must begin to approach Stoicism less from an Epictetan point of view, and more from an Aurelian one. Surely the emperor saw something of use in Stoicism that he chose it as a remedy for his affliction of power. We'll see how this line of thought progresses.

God who?

A reader named James recently wrote in with a letter full of questions about my position on God. I have placed his letter and my response on my philosophy site, as I thought James had brought up some great questions:

LINK: Letters on God

What is A Contemplative?

I have been thinking recently about ways to highlight the personal introspective and spiritual, if you will, in Humanism. I call this the Humanist contemplative thought. The first step was forming a club within my local Humanist group called the Humanist Contemplative Club, which has been active at a modest level just over a year now. I have also been making contact with several people who have a similar vision for the expansion of Humanism into a more robust and person living philosophy. Recently, I've come across a nice website and organization called The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. Their classes seem quite pricey and I couldn't, of course, vouch for them personally as I don't know a lot about them. But their website seems to have distilled the essence of the 'contemplative life' which may be of great use:

LINK: The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society

LINK: The Tree of Contemplative Practices

Their list of contemplative practices is excellent and would be worthy of a Humanist Contemplatives time to investigate. Some of them, of course, involve supernatural concepts which are irrelevant to Humanists, but most do not. The video that plays automatically on their home page is nice, but I really recommend the second part of Dan Kowalski's film introducing the work of the center:

LINK: "Part 2: Application"

This video really sums up nicely the essence of contemplative thought and practice. In it, several good points are listed, paraphrased below:

1) Working to integrate contemplative awareness and contemporary life to help create a more just, compassionate, and reflective society.

2) Contemplative practices have been developed over centuries in both secular and religious traditions.

3) They include meditation and yoga, other movement forms like Tai Chi or Qi Gong, contemplative dance, silent reading, times in nature - any activity in which you regularly engage which helps you increase your awareness and compassion can be a contemplative practice.

4) Contemplative practice is designed to help us be more effective in life and integrate our 'hearts' with our 'heads'.

5) As you practice and apply what you learn to your daily life, you being to develop what could be called a 'contemplative perspective', which includes many enhanced qualities, skills, and values:
- Calmness, which allows stability in life;
- The ability to be 'in silence' and learn from that;
- Clarity and spaciousness of mind, which helps us to see things as they are rather than as we want them to be (I and Buddhists would call this mindfulness);
- The ability to act from passion rather than anger;
- Increased kindness and compassion
- The ability to hold two conflicting ideas in the mind at the same time;
- The ability to act from an ethical understanding;
- To be non-judgmental but still hold a discriminating awareness for making decisions;
- The ability to appreciate the interconnection of all people and all life.

What Can't Be Proven?

Matt (aka The Dude) writes in with this question:

"What can't be proven?... I often get into debates, especially religious, where the point gets to someone saying "You can't disprove it, so I'll just keep believing it." My point is this: Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities.

I can't disprove unicorns don't fly around Pluto, but it doesn't mean they're there.

I'm usually at a loss for words when people throw that argument forward. How would you deal with that objection?"

I agree such people are using faulty logic, and I have had similar experiences. But I would differ with the questioner on one point. He says, "Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities". I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Indeed, the lack of disproof does give rise to limitless possibilities. We live in a reality that may ultimately be far more ancient and vast that we can ever know - perhaps infinitely so. Many things are possible - but that isn't the point. The point is, why should someone believe in one specific possibility without any positive proof therein?

The first thing I would note in answering that question is this:
Theism is not the belief that God is possible.
Theism is not the belief that God is likely.
Theism is the belief that God is real - that she/he/it does, in fact, exist.

Given that, we then have to ask ourselves how things would work if we were to have a similar belief about anything and everything that could not be disproved. Clearly, there are many claims and possibilities that, while possible on their own, are contradictory with other equally possible claims that have not been disproved. Therefore, it would be madness to accept every possibility that has not been disproved as real.

On my philosophy site, there is a conversation I held with another person which I've titled "How Do You Determine Truth?". In it, I say that we basically have three options for dealing with claims for which there is no proof or disproof:

1) Believe them all unless or until they are disproved.

2) Believe those things we like believing and disregard the rest.

3) Believe in none of them unless or until they are proven.

I've already noted that #1 would require a person to hold an infinite variety of contradictory claims as true. The most common response seems to be #2, even if only subconscious. Even we skeptical minded folks are guilty of this from time to time about various beliefs we take on in our lives. But only #3 is consistent with genuine reason. Of course, the above simplifies the matter considerably since, in reality, things are rarely either 100% proved or 100% disproved. But the simple delineation of these three options illustrates the essence of the matter.

Therefore, perhaps a more practical way to look at it would be as Carl Sagan suggested: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like to note the implication of this, that ordinary claims require ordinary evidence - thus, the degree of belief in a claim should be proportionate to the degree of evidence for a claim. And, of course, all positions should be provisional and open to reassessment in the light of new evidence.

But perhaps your conversant is someone of a more romantic approach. In this case, it might be more effective to point out the inherent arrogance of making claims about things for which we have no evidence. More effective that accusations of arrogance would be to speak positively of the humility required to acknowledge our limitations to know when we have not received verifiable evidence. Thus, the lack of that humility is implied with the opposite position. This approach is more fully explored in my essay titled, "The Humanist Contemplative".

Thanks for writing! :)

Better Ways to Express Humanism

It's just occurred to me that an essay I wrote a while back for a club's website in my local Humanist group has never been put on my philosophy site. So, I added it today. It's called "The Humanist Contemplative". In this essay, I outline a particular focus within Humanism that our club is based around. But I think the essay has broader value to me because it shows a way of talking about and presenting Humanism that I think should be more common. Throughout the explanation, I utilize concepts from the following...

- Complex systems theory (science)
- Buddhism or the Buddha (3 general references)
- The Kalama Sutra (Buddhist)
- ‘The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow’ (Buddhist)
- Dalai Lama (Buddhist)
- Stoicism (2 general references)
- Epictetus (Stoic)
- The Christian Bible
- The three pillars of Anglican/Episcopalian faith (Christian)
- Jesus (Christian)
- Chuang-Tsu
- Frederick Edwords (2 references)
- Albert Einstein
- Sam Harris
- Paul Kurtz
- Ayn Rand
- Carl Sagan
- Socrates


To read the article, see my philosophy site or click this link:

The Humanist Contemplative

To Be Appearing on Local Television

I have just returned from the studio of the Houston PBS station, where I was invited to be part of a panel on a local television program called "The Connection". The subject was about whether a good and meaningful life is possible without a belief in God. I was announced as the President of the Humanists of Houston. The other guests on the program included Nancy Fay, a retired teacher and a Freethinker who is a Director at the Houston Church of Freethought (and a friend), a Methodist Pastor named Thaddeus Easland of the Hope Church, and Rabbi Stuart Federow of Congregation Shaar Hashalom. The host (and the woman pictured here) was Doris Childress.

For those capable of viewing Houston local PBS, the program will air at 8:00pm on July 6, 2006, and again on July 8th, at 5:00pm.

After both airings have shown, I will try to find a way to take the VCR tape of the program they gave me and convert it into a video that will be available on this site and on the HOH website.

The program went well I thought. Everyone was cordial and we hit on some good points. The program was only a half hour and it passed quickly, leaving still many things unsaid. The host of the show has communicated to me that they would like to do more shows on similar subjects in the future, and may like to invite me back to be on those, which I said would be fine.

Rabbi Federow informed me before the show that he hosts a radio program on 950AM KPRC called 'A Show of Faith' and might like to invite me or the others to be a guest sometime. I told him I'd be pleased to.

After the show has aired and I get the video up on this site, I'll also include some additional commentary and responses to things in the program which I didn't have time to cover.

Update June 2, 2007: Originally this post had incorrectly said the airing would be June 1st and 3rd. Unfortunately, the assistant producer gave us the wrong dates originally. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Update August 5, 2007: Online video of this program is now available on this site. Click HERE to see it, along with some additional comments at the bottom of the page, on things we didn't have time to get into. These may take a few moments to load.

How Messed Up Is This?

I've recently come across the surprising statistic that about 71% of the population of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa is suffering from malnutrition. Almost all of the other nations in Africa that are marked as having malnutrition are around 35% - still highly tragic numbers, but not near the unbelievable rate in DR Congo[1]. This is where a lot of the skeletal children you see pictures of come from.


But that's not the messed up part. The messed up part is who was behind it...

I decided to read up on the history of DR Congo to see what in the world happened to cause their unique situation. What I found began around 1960, during the height of the cold war. At that time, the Congo was controlled by Belgium, as it had been since 1908. This was a remnant of the history of the colonial empires, whereby almost all of Africa had been sliced up by different European nations (you'll recall that apartheid South Africa was controlled by the British, for example, and that British colonialism was also at the root of the beginnings of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict after they closed up shop and left abruptly). During WWII the United States got the uranium it needed for its nuclear bombs from the Belgian Congo, which was rich in the stuff.

The Belgians gave no political power to the Congolese people. The educated people there eventually started a campaign to end the inequality. Following some riots, the Congolese won legalization for their own political parties in 1959. In May 1960 they elected a President and a Prime Minister, and won independence by the end of June. In 1962, Belgium also granted neighboring Rwanda self-government, which it also controlled - thus leading to intense racial conflict between the native Hutu and Tutsis, after an abusive majority came to power.

Back in Congo, however, two provinces didn't like the situation and struggled to secede. In that disorder, a dispute broke out between the President and the Prime Minister. Now, the Prime Minister had previously appointed a man named Mobutu as chief of staff of the new Congo army. By 1965 Mobutu had garnered enough support within the army to take advantage of the leadership crisis and mount a coup against the democratically elected leaders. The President was overthrown and the Prime Minister assassinated. Mobutu renamed the nation Zaire, erected a one-party dictatorship with himself as Head of State and "father of the nation", and was accused of many human rights abuses and corruptions.

Mobutu conducted this military coup against that democracy with the financial backing of the United States (CIA) and Belgium.

As it was, Mobutu was against communism and leftist ideas. He would therefore allow U.S. companies to export the natural resources of Zaire without worrying about environmental, labor, or other regulations. Belgium would also retain mining rights for copper and diamonds.

Now we skip ahead to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. decides that Mobutu is no longer a necessary ally and relations cool. Without that backing, Mobutu's opponents inside Zaire begin to step up demands for reform. Mobutu conducted a lot of 'fake reforms' supposedly to be democratic, but were more cosmetic than anything else. Finally in 1997 a rebellion forced Mobutu to flee Zaire, which was renamed back to the DR Congo[2].

Since 1994, DR Congo has been waylaid by ethic strife and civil war, with its society virtually collapsed. There was also the genocide in neighboring Rwanda, which has resulted in a massive inflow of refugees. The current president, Joseph Kabila, in 2006 became the first Congolese President to be democratically elected by universal direct suffrage (meaning, everyone can vote regardless of race, gender, etc). I read he's trying to implement reforms to combat the malnutrition crisis but we'll see. Kabila is also working with the World Bank in an effort to improve the economy. But here's at least one point of view on the World Bank (from Wikipedia)...

"Corporatocracy is also used by John Perkins in his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man to describe a system of governance controlled by "big corporations, international banks, and government" (Perkins / Plume paperback edition, 94). Harking back to the "military-industrial complex," Perkins claims the corporatocracy is manifested in the following cycle: the World Bank issues loans to developing nations to pay for large-scale development projects; contracts are then doled out to a handful of American engineering firms; as a result, these countries become ensnared in a net of interest payments and debts they cannot repay. American corporations benefit through increased profits, and the U.S. government benefits through securing its political clout and control over developing countries with vast natural resources. According to Perkins, the majority of people in those countries do not benefit since a large portion of their country's budget goes toward servicing the national debt instead of improving living conditions.[3]"

If this is correct, then it could be that the Congo is still the pawn of the U.S., in an even more subtle scheme.

I'm also actually a supporter of capitalism (although not completely Laissez-faire). However I'm not sure that being opposed to mega-corporate rule is inconsistent with that. It could be that such notions as the international mega-corporation are actually contrary to real capitalism.

Three interesting thoughts:

1) Much of the current problems in the world we are paying for today can be traced back, not only to the cold war and ww2, but to 18-19th Century European colonialism.

2) Was the cold war really about the evil Soviet empire that wanted to invade the U.S. and make us all wait in line for toilet paper? Or was it more about stoking that fear for the sake of expanding opportunities for U.S. corporations?

3) Could it be that as far back as the economic buildup after WW2 which catapulted us to superpower status, we've been a de facto Corporatocracy and didn't even realize it?

4) How much of what goes on today with U.S. international policy is about stoking fear for the sake of serving the interest of our corporate oligarchy? 100% maybe?

I'm not one to use the propaganda tactic of making unsubstantiated claims, about things I really already believe for certain, in the form of questions. The above reflect real questions I'm actually wondering about.


[1] United Nations World Food Program Interactive Map [link]
[2] Wikipedia article on DR Congo [link] (other connected articles also used)
[3] Wikipedia article on Corporatocracy [link]

Zeno lives!

In April of 2006 I made a post called Evil and Ignorance. The picture for it was a statue of Socrates that I colorized and tried to bring to life. It was alright but a rush job. I decided to try again, this time with the founder of Stoicism, Zeno. In the Socrates picture, the weakest points were the sculpted hair (which doesn't look right even if you colorize it) and the eyes. So this time I decided to take the Zeno statue and blend in some similar eyes I found online (from a mug shot of some guy), and got the hair from Daniel Dennett's beard, then blended in patches to make it match the shape and style of Zeno's. After that I painted in the various skin tones, added highlights and shadows, and colorized the clothing and background. I think this version came out better. It might be the closest thing we have to what Zeno may have really looked like - I hope anyway!

Update May 23, 2007: Dr. Keith Seddon of the Stoic Foundation has decided to place my picture the foundation's homepage at www.btinternet.com/~k.h.s/stoic-foundation.htm. He put a neat fading effect between the two images, which can be seen in MS-Explorer. Firefox shows the two back and forth, but without the fade.

Analysis: How News Misleads

CBS Channel 11 in Dallas/Ft. Worth recently aired a segment, "Does God Exist?" in which they announced that mathematical physicist Frank J. Tipler has claimed to prove the existence of God through 'hard nosed physics'. I started this entry with the intent to critique Tipler's claim. However, seeing as how his claims have already been thoroughly critiqued in other sources, I have decided instead to critique, not the claims, but Channel 11's coverage of them - a wonderful example of the serious problems inherent in the way news is so often covered.

First a little background on Tipler's claim in two paragraphs. Tipler claims that God is an artificial intelligence or 'Omega point' - a cosmological singularity. He claims that we will eventually create artificial life forms that will go out and populate the universe, gathering so much information that this super intelligence is inevitable. He also claims that this intelligence will love us and thus resurrect all of us in a simulated environment, first by creating every possible combination of gene codes possible for humans, and then by running simulations of history for every possible outcome. Thus, all of us would be sure to somewhere in this vast simulation (or 'emulation' as he calls it to represent a more philosophically real and detailed version of simulation). He claims this intelligence is the God described in Abrahamic religion and several other belief systems, and more specifically connects it with the Christian scheme of things. This paragraph above somewhat encapsulates the general nature of his claim, although I'm sure I haven't captured every detail perfectly. For more information, you can check out Tipler's own website or works HERE, or read his entry in Wikipedia HERE.

This second paragraph will tell you the next important thing you need to know about Tipler and his claim; and that is where they fall in the overall scheme of science and religion. Has Tipler revolutionized physics and religion, or is he a crackpot on the fringe of society? Are his claims being debated seriously among the intellectual and religious elites of our nation or are they not taken very seriously as a real debate at all? In both cases, it would seem the latter is the case. As the Wikipedia article states, the prominent scientific magazine Nature reviewed Tipler's book and called it a "masterpiece of pseudoscience... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline." Tipler's work has also been critiqued by Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, Victor J. Stenger, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, which you should read HERE. It should be noted that Stenger also moves beyond the realm of science in his book, God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. However, I think his critique here is representative of the overall scientific consensus on Tipler (and, by the way, where was Channel 11's groundbreaking report on this book?).

Now that you have some background, take a look at the segment CBS Channel 11 aired and come back to read my analysis...

CBS Channel 11: Does God Exist?
(click the link at the end of the sentence "To hear Tipler explain his ideas, click here")

I have written before about how news media can and does often mislead their audience without ever making any false claims in the segment. As you can from viewing the clip, any person who watched this segment could easily come away with the following impressions:

1) Tipler's work represents a new and profound event.
2) Tipler's claims have caused a large controversy within the scientific and/or religious community.
3) Tipler's claims involve the traditional concept of the Christian God.

All of which are, of course, false. Curiously, one thing we don't get from the segment are what Tipler's claims are! Of course a mathematically detailed presentation of them would be unsuitable for general audiences, but we don't even get an overview of the claims in layman's terms. Rather, we are supposed to make due with a hand writing "=> God exists" on a chalkboard while hearing monk chants.

It is quite easy to imagine and suspect that, the next day after this segment aired, thousands of believers returned to their water cooler at work to talk about how 'even science is coming around and understands that God is real' while atheists are stubbornly clinging to outdated science because they missed last night's program.

Let's take a look at the segment in more detail. It opens with:

"Does God exist? That is a question that is a question which, through the ages, has been mostly a philosophical one. That is until recently..."

Here is where the viewer gets the impression that some new breakthrough has been made. This would be a false impression for two reasons: (1) Tipler's claims are not very new in substance and he himself has been making them for some time, and (2) What he presents is imaginative speculation with a bunch of math thrown in to make it sound scientific. Nothing he presents is truly a breakthrough of any kind. Tipler has not left the realm of philosophy in the least (not to mention that he hasn't even left the realm of 'bad philosophy').

The piece goes on to show Tipler saying that he became a committed Christian of 12. This in itself illustrates a pre-determined conclusion before his work even began. No mention is made of the obvious possibility that he is looking for arguments to prove a pre-determined conclusion, something completely contradictory to the scientific approach.

Nearly a third of the way into the segment we are now hearing how Tipler ignores the notion that science and religion are separate - a common position of many philosophers, scientists, and theologians, which has nothing to do with Tipler's specific claims. We have still yet to hear them.

"Tipler calls God the cosmological singularity stemming from ancient theologians' definition of God."

If ancient theologians called God a cosmological singularity, some affirmation of that or references would be nice. It is obvious here that the reporter spoke only with Tipler himself and basically regurgitated what Tipler said in a nicely edited package.

"Tipler uses hard-core science: Einstein's principles of general Relativity and quantum mechanics."

First, there is no "hard-core" science. There is simply science and non-science. Secondly, the fruitcakes and quacks that try to suggest we have psychic powers and that space aliens built the pyramids also "use" relativity and quantum mechanics to 'prove' their claims. The reporter, Maria Arita, simply states these things in a very gullible and credulous manner, encouraging the same in the viewer - as if she were the spokesperson for Tipler's infomercial.

Now for the part where 'balance' supposedly comes in.

"But not everyone agrees..."

"Not everyone" is a far cry from "almost no one" which would have been closer to the truth in terms of the impression it gives.

"Avowed atheist Dr. Tim Gorski of Arlington says the mere question of God in a scientific sense is flawed."

First of all, why do they need to go to an 'avowed atheist' to ask about this? Addressing God scientifically is a flawed notion and not what science is designed for. Any reputable scientist could have confirmed this; theist or atheist. By going to an atheist the reporter (1) brought people's disliking of atheists into the mix, and (2) made it seem like his position was the oddball minority one, instead of the reverse. Then they go to two different denominations of Christians who say that belief in God is about faith.

We are now two thirds of the way into the segment, and still no details about what Tipler's claims are.

"Professor Tipler knows there are skeptics at church. Even some of his colleagues don't believe."

This is another grievous example. "...there are skeptics at church" Yes - how about, "...at church, a huge number of believers say that God is a matter of faith". That might have given a more accurate impression than a simple acknowledgment that "there are skeptics".

The second sentence is even worse: "Even some of his colleagues don't believe." Yes - how about, "...The vast majority of scientists and major scientific publications consider his claims unscientific." Maybe that would generate a more accurate impression in the viewer than "some of his colleagues".

"Still, Tipler says, God is the divine substance outside of space, time, and matter."

Earlier when responding to Dr. Gorski's statement that science doesn't study the supernatural the reporter retorted, "But the notion that God is in the natural appears to be exactly what Tipler is saying" - well which is it? Is God natural or the divine substance outside of space, time, and matter? To whatever degree it is the latter, it is outside of the realm of science because such things are not susceptible to its methods (not without Tipler's unbridled and pseudoscientific imagination that is).

"And theologians appear to have mixed feelings about the idea, but the debate rages on."

Which debate? The debate about the existence of God? If so, that's true - but it is not the impression this closing line gives. Closing the piece in this way gives the impression that the debate over Tipler's claims 'rages on' - as if his notions have caused a real stir.

Thus, most viewers come away with the impression that some major ripple has happened within science and now there is a big controversy that rages on. Unfortunately, a more accurate description would be that one fringe Christian mathematician is making unfounded pseudoscientific claims largely rejected by any serious sources from religion or science - one of a long line of such people.

If you think I mean that they shouldn't have reported this because it is false, then you have missed a very important point - that's not what I'm saying at all. Reporters don't need to judge the truth or falsity of claims like this - and they should report them. But they should not take fringe claims and set them along side the vast majority of accepted claims as though they have achieved some balance. This misrepresents the overall situation. As such, the report has betrayed everything news is supposed to be about - it is supposed to make people more informed about their world. It is not supposed to give them false impressions about the world.

So, the next question should be, why do reporters do things like this?

First, there is a general inclination to favor anything religious or godly in the news. This is because, as a corporation, the news outlet knows that the majority of its viewers are believers. In addition, many of the news reporters and writers are believers and may not even realize the bias.

Secondly, it is important for a reporter to make her story sound as though it is significant and as timely as possible. Thus, it wouldn't be very exciting without making it sound like some important event has taken place rather than a story about 'yet another fringe crackpot'.

Next, we have the old notion that news seeks out the most extreme and unusual of events to report on. In terms of science, this means that the fringe people, the pseudoscientists, the weirdest and most bizarre people, are the ones that are reported on. Rarely would mainstream accepted views be deemed anything worth reporting, unless we're talking about a news show dedicated specifically to science.

Lastly, there is the matter of time crunch and resources. We see this happen a lot more in local news. Often the reporter has to put together a story and doesn't have a whole lot of time to gather interviews, get input, etc. This can mean only talking to one person or source extensively. The result can then be a simple rehash of only one position to a greater extent than is reasonable.

I would suggest that news agencies can still make compelling news without such distortions. If they want to report on fringe elements in science that's fine. These stories can be very interesting. But they should at least report where that fringe claim stands among the whole of the scientific community.

Claims like Tiplers come and go, and there will always be a degree of pseudoscience out there - that's not extraordinary or newsworthy. The newsworthy item in this situation, however, is the unusual and bizarre practices of our news media - a news media that constantly misleads and misinforms the public. Unlike the continuing existence of unscientific fringe claims, that is something that needn't happen, and something can be corrected.

Thanks to my wife, Julie, for providing the links and info on this.