Is the cat dead or alive: no one cares...

I recently saw this article posted on the physics subreddit, and it annoyed me. It didn’t annoy me because it had some misleading comments and some things that were just blatantly wrong. It annoyed me because people don’t try to learn things from proper sources, and they just let the mainstream media give them the information they think they need. I could go off on a side tangent about this, but I won’t go too far off topic. I just want to point out that if the mainstream media can get science topics so wrong, who’s to say they aren’t getting their other information wrong. I don’t watch the news anymore because I don’t trust news media (NBC/NPR/ABC/CNN/FOX) with my precious time and brain cells. Please don’t take everything you hear/see/read from media sources as credible until you fact check the fact checkers. Especially science Fridays on NPR, I usually get pretty upset with the way they explain a lot of things. Rant over.

So since a lot of people are very curious about the subject, I thought I would write a short explanation of quantum mechanics (I’ll refer to it as QM to save time typing) that hopefully even the lay person could understand. I know that this is not a good explanation for non-science people, but I just want to get the main point across that quantum mechanics just happens and no one knows why.

In order to properly understand the history and premise of QM, one must first understand what science is. Science according to google is: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. That’s a really condensed definition. This basically means that science is a methodology. Scientists perform experiments and make observations. These are either experiments due to a proposed idea, or sometimes just observations out of curiosity. Based on the results of the experiment or data from observations, scientists develop a model for the behavior of the system. We find patterns, and attempt to explain those patterns with a hypothesis/theory/whatever you want to call it. Once we have the model for our system, other scientists will then perform experiments in an attempt to disprove and/or replicate the results of others. If the model cannot be disproved it is published, and then peer reviewed by other objective scientists. When the model is resilient enough to withstand the intense scrutiny of experiments and peer review it is then considered a law/theory/postulate/equation that describes nature. This is not to say however that we consider it to be truth, science does not look for truth like religion does. IN SCEINCE THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH. There is only the best model we have come up with so far, and guaranteed we will find better models to describe nature in the future. This is a good lead in to how QM got started.

The history of quantum mechanics really starts in the mid 1600s with Isaac Newton. Newton was one of the first true modern scientists. He was one of the first thinkers to apply models to observed data. He was then able to show that his models were reproducible in the acceptable reference frame. Newton became the father of what is referred to as classical mechanics. This is usually the typical stuff you learn in an intro to physics class in high school or your freshman year of college. He came up with three ideas that were consistent and reproducible by anyone, which we now know as Newtons three laws of motion. I won’t go into the detail, but basically he came up with a model that described the world, and was able to predict outcomes of motion based on his mathematical models. Before Newton was a guy Johannes Kepler who had taken astronomical data and figured out a mathematical model to describe planetary motion. These are known as Kepler’s laws. When Newton came up with his laws of motion, Kepler’s laws fluidly were just a mathematical outcome of Newton’s laws for planets in orbit. Kepler wasn’t wrong; he just didn’t have the full model to describe things outside the scope of planetary motion. Newton was able to come up with a model that could be applied to any mass in motion.

There are many other scientists that come along the way after Newton that have a huge impact on science and its development. All of them had a significant impact on the field of science; I just don’t think most people want a history lesson on all of physics. I will skip now to the beginning of the 20^th century. By this time there had been experiments which showed that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, which lead to the theory of special relativity. Special relativity just like QM is something that boggles the human mind. It’s something we don’t think is “intuitive”, well because it is not at all intuitive. We don’t travel at half the speed of light when driving to work so we can never just gain intuition on the subject. Instead scientists must remain completely objective when performing experiments and leave any personal bias out of their research. This is arguably why QM and relativity had such a slow start up, is because the older scientists of the day just had a hard time accepting theories that just “didn’t make sense”. Special relativity, however, has still yet to be disproven so it remains as the best model we have to describe such conditions as an electron traveling very fast through an accelerator.

More experiments were conducted in the late 1800s to early 1900s. These experiments gave rise to results not previously explained earlier models of classical mechanics. One such of these examples is the photoelectric effect. Hertz (a scientist in the late 19^th century) observed that light of a certain frequency (energy) is shined on a metal it will start to emit electrons. There is however a minimum amount of energy required in order to “free” this electron from the metal. This is behavior totally unexplained by any theory at the time, and is part of the reason why we call this new model quantum mechanics. It was observed that these electrons had a discrete energy that bound them to the metal, thus the quanta (meaning discrete energy) in quantum mechanics. Other experiments showed that electrons behave as light waves, and that light waves exhibited particle behavior (if you’re interested look up electron diffraction and Compton scattering on Wikipedia). That was crazy talk for the time, and if these were indeed reproducible experiments (which they were), then a new model would have to arise to describe them. Thus quantum mechanics was born.

Quantum mechanics (just like Newton’s laws of motion) are predicated on some fundamental postulates. These postulates CANNOT BE DERIVED as they are first principles of QM. In other words, we observe these things happening, so we model the system based on this set of rules. Some people say that there are four postulates (postulate means thesis, theory, or idea), others say six, and some say anything in between. I will give what’s referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation as it is the most widely accepted point of view among physicists. If you wish to know more look up the Copenhagen interpretation on Wikipedia. I will attempt to restate the 6 principles that Wikipedia refers to in words that are easier to understand.

1.       A system can be described by a wave function which describes the state of the system. This wave function develops in time just like a wave does in acoustics, in the ocean, or any other type of wave. This wave isn’t a physical wave however. It merely describes the system (which could be a particle or several particles). When we take a measurement, however, it gives some kind of information about the system. Since our way of measurement says for example “is the particle here?” we then know where the particle is. In other words, this wave function which gives information about the state of the particle “collapses”. This is to say we took a measurement, and now we know the state of the particle, this happens because of the inherent way in which we measure a system. IE: A system is described by a wave function, until we measure the system. This gives us information about the system, so it is no longer described as a wave.

2.       We describe nature through probabilities. This probability is given by the square modulus of the wave function. I won’t go into the mathy details, but this essentially says we don’t describe things happening in absolutes, but we describe nature in terms of probability of something occurring. A good example of this is nuclear decay; an unstable isotope has some probability of decaying each second. This is why some isotopes are more unstable then others, it is because their probability of decay is higher.

3.       Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is familiar to most people. It is not inherently a postulate per-say, but really it is a bi-product of the math that comes from the other postulates of QM. It says that systems information cannot be known perfect. Most people understand this to mean that a particles position and momentum cannot be known at the same time. This is a bit of an oversimplification. The certainty of our knowledge of some systems momentum is sacrificed with the certainty of knowledge about the systems position. In other words if I kind of know where I am, I can kind of know which way and how fast I’m going. If I know exactly where I am, I can’t know at all where I’m going. Like I say, this comes out of the math from the other postulates, but it also applies to things like energy and time. This is why a vacuum is not actually empty, it has an infinite amount of particles popping in with some energy, and they just have to disappear within a certain amount of time (this is what's referred to as the "quantum foam"). Weird stuff I know.

4.       The wave-particle duality basically just states that anything can be viewed as either a wave or a particle. This is why photons scatter off of electrons elastically, which one wouldn’t predict in classical mechanics. Don’t over think, just accept it and be in awe of the mystery. This is just how the model describes nature, and there is really no underlying derivation to any of these postulates.

5.       The tools we have to measure things are classical instruments. We are limited in what we can measure, because we live in the classical limits of really big stuff. There are properties of matter like spin for example. We don’t really know what spin is, it’s just a property of particles. We can’t directly measure the spin of an electron, since we don’t have quantum mechanical devices. Instead we have to use a property of spin, which is a magnetic moment. This magnetic moment aligns with the direction of the spin of the particle, and so if we shoot an electron through a magnet we can measure the spin by the direction the electron bends towards (for more info on this example look up the Stern-Gerlach experiment).

6.       Classical mechanics is an approximation of QM on a really big scale. If you take average quantum probabilities of Trillions of particles in a system (say a block of aluminum) the math gives you classical mechanics. This is known as the Ehrenfest theorem. This means that Newton was right, because we was observing exactly what happens on a large scale. QM doesn’t necessarily TRUMP classical mechanics; classical mechanics is merely QM on a large scale approximation. Don’t think we’ve forgotten about Newton’s laws of motion because we found the Higg’s boson, if we did then humans would have never reached the moon.

Hopefully this gives a little bit of an overview of the principles of QM. These basic principles give rise to some phenomena that seems impossible (and indeed are) in classical mechanics, but that happen frequently in QM. In fact they are used in our daily lives. I will give some examples, and how we take advantage of the science contained in these phenomena.

·         Tunneling

Tunneling is the phenomena of a particle going through what we could view as in classical mechanics as a brick wall. In classical mechanics we don’t deal in probabilities, we deal in absolutes. In QM the probability of being outside a boundary is a finite possibility. An example of this is alpha decay. One can view an unstable (for example Uranium-235) nucleus as having a free alpha particle trapped inside a well. It is trapped because there is a force called the nuclear strong force that is attractive between nucleons. Although this alpha is trapped inside this nucleus, it has a probability of existing outside this nuclear potential barrier. If at some point the particle finds itself outside the nucleus its positive charge repels the positively charged nucleus, and it flies away. Quantum tunneling is used in all modern electronic devices. It is the reason that diodes and transistors work. Without quantum mechanics, we would not have computers today.

·         Quantization of energy

Quantum mechanics explains the discrete property of nature. Energy in nature is quantized; each state a particle is in refers to a certain discrete energy value. This is how we can know things in chemistry so well. Remember the periodic table? Well the entire thing is predicated on principles of quantum mechanics. The ionization energy of a certain atom has a discrete value associated with the energy state of an electron bound to the nucleus. Quantization of energy is the reason why our different molecules in our eyes are able to see different colors associated with different light wave energies. It is why colorblind people like me can’t see certain colors, because we are missing molecules that can view those energies of light. This is why purple lasers are purple, green lasers are green, why CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and why a microwave or a cell phone cannot physically cause cancer. These are all topics that are much more complicated than me just stating them, but the underlying principles of chemistry, climate change, and the like are all rooted in our quantum mechanical model.

·         Pauli exclusion principle

The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. Fermions are just a class of particles with ½ integer spin. Spin has nothing to do with spinning or rotation, so just view spin as a strange number that has some weird properties to it. Examples of fermions are electrons, protons, and neutrons. Because no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, this gives rise to the way that orbitals are filled up in an atom. If electrons weren’t fermions, then all electrons bound to a nucleus would be in a 1s state. This does not apply to particles known as bosons. Photons (electromagnetic waves) are bosons, which means that they can essentially stack up on top of each other. That’s what a laser essentially is: a whole bunch of photons of the same energy all stacked up on top of each other.

There is a whole list of fantastically fascinating phenomena that occur, which we never understood until we came up with our model of QM. Who knows, maybe in fifty years we’ll come up with an even better model to understand how general relativity and QM can relate to each other. QM is not an absolute truth, just as Newton’s laws are not absolute truth. They are models that help us to understand the universe around us. We as scientists are not trying to find what people in religion refer to as truth. All we want to know is how the universe works, and we get that through experiments and observations. Arguably science will never find truth, just the best model of nature humans can find.

Why How and not Why

                As a human species we tend to have an explosive curiosity for the world around us. I feel it is what makes us unique, and probably is what makes humans the dominant species. I was in the store the other day and I overheard someone else’s child making the inquiring “why” repeatedly. I have to admit I often ask the question why in my own life, it’s what drove me to study science. However, it’s the obsession with the “why” that also causes us to sometimes think irrationally. There are absolute truths in the universe, but what makes something true? Often times we have our minds set so much on the “why” that we miss the entire “what” and “how”. I feel the one absolute truth (no matter what you believe) is that we have no idea what absolute truth and knowledge is.

                I have always studied science to get answers to why things are the way they are. It wasn’t until my last year of undergraduate that I realized that science doesn’t have the answer why (I know that took a long time, but I always thought I just needed to learn more). That caused a deep sense of depression, heartache, and confusion inside of me. The truth is science doesn’t teach “why”, instead scientists answer the question “how”. The laws of physics are defined not because Newton said “that’s why gravity pulls on things”, but because he observed a pattern of things falling due to some imaginary force. What is gravity, why does it exist? Those are two questions scientists don’t know, and only one of them they are trying to answer.

                I feel the problem lies in the false perception we are given as children. Often times people talk about something we call “intuition”. What is intuition? Google says it is “the ability to understand something immediately, without the need to conscious reasoning”.  So when we say science is intuitive, it is because science is just how the universe works. Of course it’s intuitive, it’s because we see it every day of our lives. Few people stop to think the reason we aren’t floating is because of gravity, they just intuitively know that gravity is working and always has. What bothers me is that we give a false impression that science and intuition go together. THIS IS WRONG. Why is quantum mechanics so difficult for people to comprehend? It is because you can’t use intuition unless you are an experimental physicist or physical chemist.

                I finally started piecing the puzzle together after my first year of graduate school. Nothing “makes sense” in physics, it isn’t meant to. Physics answers the question of how things work, and can be used to predict future events based on initial conditions. Quantum physics is the same thing as classical physics experimentation wise. Basically we do a bunch of experiments, and get certain results. The only difference between classical physics and quantum physics: the results. On a smaller scale we get new results, thus we are forced into creating new models for our system. However this does not mean that Newton was wrong, or that Einstein Dirac or Heisenberg was wrong. All this means is that quantum mechanics is a model that works on a smaller scale than classical mechanics. As my graduate quantum mechanics professor put it so elegantly “an electron does what an electron does, and it doesn’t give a damn what you think.” In other words things happen no matter the human reasoning behind it.

                This is why I like to talk about how humans don’t know what absolute truths are out there. Science is a continually evolving field because our experiments get better, and we can build off of old models. We are continually learning “new” “truths”, and sometimes throwing out old “truths”. Our experiments can show how things work, but if we knew the “why” then science would be dead. The why is a by all end all, and really an impossible question to answer. “Why” leads to circular logic and will never be truly answered. So why the obsession with “why” is a question I don’t know the answer to. After all it’s a “why” question. It could be just a genetic trait built into humans, perhaps it’s an evolutionary step to make us the critical thinking tool builders that we are today. It obviously has some benefit since it’s built into us at birth. I do feel, however, it can be the cause of our logical downfall if we are too OCD about it.

                Perhaps this is the cause of religion in the world. If you are religious please don’t be offended by my language here. I fully admit I do not have the answers, and perhaps there is a God or gods or flying spaghetti monster. With that logic, however, I also will tell you that you have no proof of a God or gods or flying spaghetti monster. This is exactly the topic that I would like to discuss.

                Often people try to “prove” religion or philosophy. To be blunt that is probably one of the most ignorant things you can do. I would say proving religion is more ignorant that just believing it based on words (at least that kind of belief has some merit). The reason I say this is that science and religion are two different things (not belief systems, but THINGS). Some atheists say they “believe science more than religion” which is just as ignorant as trying to “prove religion”. Science is not a belief system but it is a method in which we find answers to the “how” in the universe. We evoke the scientific method, perform experiments and then peer review our results and try to replicate them. In other words science is the method used to obtain the answer “how” while ignoring the why. Religion on the other hand answers a completely different question. Religion is the philosophy of “why” without explaining the how. For example, those who take the bible literally will tell you God created the earth in 6 days. That answers the question “why do we exist” but it does not answer how he created the earth or the life on it. Science however does not care about “why do we exist” but it merely states that the earth was formed through the force of gravity, and over millions of years through the process of evolution life evolved into what it is today. To recap SCIENCE TELLS US HOW WITHOUT THE WHYS, and RELIGION TELLS US WHY WITHOUT THE HOWS. This is why many scientists tend to be atheists, not because science is a belief system but because as scientists they really don’t care about the whys (especially if the answer to how is just merely “because God”).

                I hope this can shed some light on our distorted world view. I think this also explains the difference between science and religion/philosophy. Scientists (at least experimentalists) are not philosophers. We find patterns, and express those patterns in mathematical theories. Philosophers answer questions that often times have no application in life, and they have no proof to their answers. Philosophy is the art of using words to reason things. Science is the method of reasoning  through experiments and patterns. So how do to we deal with this constant nuisance of needing to know things that we can’t know? May I suggest it starts with our children and explaining to them the mysteries of the universe in a blatant but straight forward manner? Here are my top 3 ways to cope with curiosity:

1.       Accept the fact you don’t know and can’t know “why”. Teach your children that there are limits to human knowledge. When they ask why, explain the how. If you don’t know the how it is fun to explore and learn together. Thankfully the internet has the answers to most of the “how” questions. Then lovingly help them understand that no one knows why. It is something they probably won’t get until they are much older, but it will be easier to cope with the horrible reality of life if they are exposed to it at a young age. If they know that scientific laws and theories just exist and we don’t know why it will make quantum mechanics much easier to understand. If you are religious, accept the fact that your religion does not have the answers to “how”. You just need to “take it on faith”, that’s really the nature of religion. If that bothers you than maybe religion just isn’t for you. If you’re ok with that, then keep doing what you’re doing if it makes you happy and gives you comfort in life.

2.       Accept the fact that you are just a spec of dust in the universe. The other day I was looking out at the stars and I thought about how weird we are as a human species. We make things like light bulbs and cars and highway signs out of just raw materials in the earth. Then it made me realize that one human couldn’t do any of what human kind has done by him/herself. We are who we are because we work collectively. However if you are just a small person in the human race, imagine how insignificant you are in the universe. This is humbling/depressing/liberating all at once. If we accept that we are but a small pixel in a large painting it gives us a new perspective on life and existence. It can then perhaps help us to understand the beauty of the universe.

3.       Accept the fact that you have no control over anything/anyone but yourself. I say this not because it’s absolutely true. You of course can kick up dust, influence people (for good or for bad), crash your car into a house, etc… But what you think/believe will not change the absolute truths of nature or the universe. We often think we can will people or things into doing what we want. Wouldn’t it be amazing to have “the force” and move objects with our minds or use “jedi mind tricks”. Sure that would be great for us, but it’s just a fantasy. We need to accept that and move on with our lives. The less we try to control things/people and the more we try to work WITH things/people we will be a lot more productive. Just because you think/believe/”know” it’s true doesn’t make it true. Science can prove patterns however and can predict future events. So use science to predict the proper path to take in life. Don’t force your “why” answers on other people, but try to understand “how” you can understand them better.

I feel all of these suggestions build upon each other, and can make for coping with life a little easier. Life is hard; it’s even harder when you don’t know “why”. These suggestions may not be the best for you. I don’t claim to know how to best help you cope with the lack of answers in the world. Maybe you don’t need to cope at all and are doing just fine. But as a scientist these are the patterns I observe in my life that make it a bit easier. May we all be just a little more curious, and find the answers we can find without going crazy over the answers we can’t find.

democracy is hypocrisy

Hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion or a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. I think a better definition would in fact be a human being. We are all hypocrites to some extent, some more than others. I fully admit to my own hypocrisy. I think that the government should have little or no say in my personal life, basically I’m a libertarian. I however am upset when the government does nothing to prevent oil companies and large corporations from exploiting their monopoly on the market. Religiously “right conservatives” are very anti government welfare because they want the government to stay out of their wallets. But yet they are extremely liberal in the sense that they want the government to stay deeply involved in people’s bedrooms trying to stop gay marriage and abortion. The same could be said about those who say government should have a bigger say in society, and that it’s the government’s role to make sure the “ethical” thing happens with the treatment of the poor. However the government should not have grounds to say that gay marriage is in fact immoral. I know a lot of people who deep down inside believe in marriage equality (I guess that’s what they're calling it), but their religion is very against it so they side with their religious beliefs as so to not go to hell. Let’s take the religion I grew up in for instance Mormonism. Mormonism a while back practiced polygamy and the ONLY REASON (I bold this because it’s actually written in cannon by the prophet who stopped the practice that this is the reason) is because the government was intolerant of the practice. Now the church has an official statement about the recent DOMA decision as follows: “Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children.” I’m pretty sure within the last thousand years the church practiced a non-traditional marriage between a man and women, and they seem to think that that is the way a celestial system works. So why are they trying to take away those who are untraditional trying to get gay married rights’ when they so complained about society's intolerance of their own self defined untraditional marriages between a man and women. I feel that if you are intolerant of gay marriage, you have no right to say that the early Mormon pioneers were “persecuted because of their faith.” Perhaps early Mormons were persecuted because they were in fact immoral people, and were destined for hell (that’s what I’m sure a lot of the early persecutors saw those early Mormons as). Now I’m not trying to say that polygamy is bad, nor am I trying to say that homosexuality is bad. In fact shocking I know, but I’m OK with BOTH. Why should I care if they are all consenting adults that are happy with what they are doing? I shouldn’t, and neither should the government. Those are my actual views, and I’ve decided to stick with them. Sorry to go off on this subject, but I’ve had a lot brewing in me for a long time. Anyways, so back to how we are all hypocrites. I once served a mission for the LDS (mormon) church and I was pushed to make sure that I had so many “progressing investigators”. In other words I had to have a certain number of people that were getting ready to be baptized. So instead of being sensitive to peoples beliefs and lifestyles, their personal backgrounds, and their own personal feelings I taught them that the only way to be with their family forever and to have the happiest life in the hereafter is to be baptized and follow a ton of commandments. My personality is very against doing something like that, I like to be open minded, and I like others to respect that. I don’t like to be forced to commit myself to something I hardly know anything about. I, however, shoved by beliefs that I thought “I knew with a surety” down other people’s throats because I am in fact a hypocrite. What drove me to do it?: a mix between peer pressure, a childhood of believing that’s what “righteous” missionaries did, and a slight personal conflict between believing in my church and believing in my gut instincts. This is not the only thing I’m a hypocrite about. I don’t believe in the government taking my money away, just to give to other people, but every tax season I get a big fat check from the IRS giving me sometimes more money than what I paid the federal government (I am in the lowest tax bracket and get student tax benefits as well). You never hear me complain about that, but I should, it’s against my own principles. I hate it when roommates leave their dishes in the sink, but I’m guilty of the same thing all the time. I try and give examples from my own life, because no one ever really looks at themselves if someone is attacking what they do. They tend to get defensive. But when someone says “hey I’m doing this wrong, but I’m trying to change to be better” most people react positively with the same type of self-reflection. So I just want to say, we are all hypocrites. I don’t feel it’s innately bad, we all have acne some worse than others. Can’t really help the fact we have it, but we can take showers and eat a healthy diet to avoid it. In the same way we can try to be a lot more aware of ourselves and our personal world view. If you believe something stick to it, no matter what religion, your parents, or society tells you. However understand that other people also believe things, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. If you are truly sincere and honest about your beliefs and are understanding of others, I’m sure they’ll show the same courtesy. If not they are just ignorant bigots, and didn’t deserve to hear your thoughts in the first place ;). I sincerely hope that we can all (including myself) have more self-reflection and discover our own beliefs. Also I hope that we can accept that others have their flaws and have patience with them. If we can all at least accept that we are all hypocrites I feel that’s the first step to recovery.

Moral Relativity

               When I first started my blog, I was hesitant to write a second entry because I didn’t really have a specific focus or topic. Then I realized that most blogs are for people to rant and express their thoughts and emotions, so I have decided to rant on paper so as to express my thoughts on paper, or in this case ones and zeros.

                I watched the movie “Syrania” while visiting my parents (having both George Clooney and Matt Damon, it’s gotta be a good movie right…?) and although the movie is a bit confusing sometimes I think it illustrates a good point. After discussing the scary fact that oil companies have way too much money and power, and that governments have always been corrupt I began to ponder what motivates people to do such horrible things. My father once had a good friend in the CIA who ended up quitting because no one within the agency really cared about the right thing to do, it was merely self preservation and getting promoted that motivated people. I think it sad that our society is built upon a system in which the individual is always more concerned with him or herself.

                For example President Obama seemed to be the one with all the intelligence on Osama bin Laden, and he appeared to portray himself as the main element in the death of Osama bin Laden. Obviously he is a well informed man, but when it comes to IRS cover ups, he seems to be clueless. I apologize for getting political but I think we can see this behavior in both parties in all positions within the government (Iran-contra and Watergate to name a few so as to not seem to only to hate democrats). I think what made me fear the most is to think that my children will have to grow up in a society where the few people who take a stand to follow their belief system in doing what’s right really won’t get to a position where they can make changes. More often than not these people don’t receive promotions, don’t get elected, and often get taken advantage of. It makes me depressed to think that I might have children living in a world even worse than the one I grew up in.

                Now as I thought of the motivation for peoples actions, I began to think of what defines morals and what defines ethics. Often we hear about ethics in a business setting, and morals in a religious setting. Looking up the simple Google definition I found that they are pretty much the same thing. Morals being defined as: “A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do” and ethics being defined as: “The moral correctness of specified conduct.” So I would really like to explore here what defines morals and ethics to the individual and why I think it’s ridiculous to imply that morals and ethics are an absolute truth.

                Take for example my having grown up in a Mormon home (I use the term Mormon so that people not familiar with the term LDS are not lost and confused). Alcohol is strictly prohibited. Naturally since we are taught that drinking alcohol is a sin, those who drink alcohol are sinners. Whenever I saw people drinking around me I couldn’t help but think slightly less of them since they were not following the moral code I was taught, they were obviously influenced by evil. I find it sad that we have that mindset, and that it is so easy to judge others' behavior that to them is perfectly normal. Obviously excessive drinking, alcoholism, and abuse are all not good (I think anyone could agree on that), but that is not my point. My point is that perhaps others may look upon Mormons as being inherently influenced by evil because they might do thinks that others view as against their principles. Polygamy for example was practiced by early Mormons, and only stopped to avoid problems with the US government. Many people within the religion still believe that polygamy will return and is an eternal principle. It is still practiced to a degree in that a widower can marry another woman for eternity, thus having in essence two wives in the eternal sense. In order for a widow to remarry she must cancel her eternal vows with her dead husband. Many view this as an evil immoral practice and it is just there to satisfy sexual desires. Now any Christian or Jew giving this argument (from my understanding polygamy is permitted according to some Muslims) I feel is silly to say any of that because they would in turn be calling many Old Testament prophets evil. I am also confused as to how incest got such a bad rep religiously. It’s obviously a bad idea to avoid inbreeding because, well, visit the south (that was a joke, please don't take that literally and be offended). But according to the Bible several Old Testament families married their siblings, and it was viewed as a righteous thing. If Adam and Eve were really the first two humans alive, who else was there to marry but your brother or sister?  

                But I digress, I have chosen some extreme examples that might make some people uncomfortable so let me use a simpler example. I have some Buddhist and Muslims classmates. I am always sensitive about not getting pork or beef pizza respectively when I’m around them so that they can partake. I personally feel good about catering to their beliefs because I know I would appreciate it if others catered to mine. But it occurred to me one day that perhaps the same way I felt about people drinking alcohol as a child might be the view that my Muslim classmates might have on me eating pork. Now I love bacon, it’s one of my favorite things ever and I don’t feel morally wrong with eating it, in fact it makes me happy. Now a Muslim could be judgmental of me eating my bacon and say I was influenced by evil and from their point of view in fact they’re right. But I’d hate to be a heathen just for my love of bacon, so to all you who religiously believe that consumption of alcohol is bad, please don’t look at those consuming it as heathens. In that respect you become a heathen for your gluttonous bacon consumption. As a side note, is gluttony really a sin…? I don’t think the Bible has any word for word commandment against it, but yet it seems to come up in a list of sins.

http://xkcd.com/103/

                Anyways, I guess what I’m trying to say here is that morals and ethics are all relative. Many might argue that I’m just trying to justify an evil lifestyle, but I will tell you I’m not. My code of ethics is really above that of many people I know. And why is that, I’d like to believe it’s because I created it for myself and it makes me feel good. I think the problem with governments and religions that enforce ethics and morals either physically, emotionally, or psychologically is that the ethics are then not based upon a personal belief system. I know a lot of people that do things out of a fear of God, or repercussions of jail time. I feel that is why there is so much corruption in the government because there is no system of accountability, so people will do as much as they can until they fear penalties. I’ll admit, many times I do the same (who doesn’t). I’ve also heard the argument “if I’m not getting anything out of it, why would it be worth doing?” It’s no wonder customer service most places is so awful.

                I’d like to point out that I feel that saying that someone is a “good Christian” (as if to say he/she is good cause they’re a devout Christian) is really to me a pretty stupid thing. I’m pretty sure that Christianity is not what makes them good and honest, and if it is that frankly scares the shit out of me. To think that the only thing that motivates a person to be good is religious beliefs means that if somehow they decide to leave their religious beliefs, they in turn become a bad dishonest person. Now perhaps saying someone is Christ-like would be a better way of phrasing it, but my point is that religion does not make one good. I hate how atheists are looked upon by most religions and religious people. It seems that atheist often times is associated with the words immoral, evil, and dishonest. Just because they are Godless does not mean they are heartless. In fact an atheist with high moral standards I think potentially deserves a lot more respect than a religious person with high moral standards because an atheist does it purely from the heart. I’m not saying that all religious people are motivated by fear of repercussions in the afterlife, but I’m saying that many are. I don’t think it matters what you believe, it matters what you DO with your beliefs. After all, who hasn’t heard of or even know anyone who may have been sexually abused by a trusted religious leader. I feel too often society attempts to avoid the appearance of evil instead of concentrating on avoiding the evil itself.

                Anyways, so all of you don’t think I am an awful person I do think religion is a good thing, and brings hope to society. I just wish we didn’t need religion to motivate ourselves to become better people. If Jesus helps you get off the pipe I think that’s awesome, I just wish you could have avoided the pipe in the first place with or without Jesus.

What can we do then to motivate ourselves to become better people? I really think the best thing is to realize that we are not the center of the universe. One of the reasons why the middle ages were so dark is because Europeans couldn’t accept that the earth revolved around the sun. My understanding is that they thought “obviously God created humans, and we are the most important thing to God, so therefore the universe revolves around us”. That seems like a loaded statement (because it is), but I feel there’s a lot of truth to it. Science is humbling because it helps you realize how insignificant we are. After all, statistics would argue that there are other intelligent beings in the universe (whether humanoid or not I don’t know) and they may have the same egotistical complexes we do as well. If every person was to realize that they were not alone, and we all have to share in the joys and depressions of life that would be a great change in society.

Second, we have to apply this newly obtained knowledge. It makes me laugh that we are so proud of ourselves for thinking about doing the right thing and never doing it. Just the thought or fantasy of going to the nursing home on the weekends and visiting some lonely people makes us feel good, and because we already feel good thinking about it we don’t bother doing it. I’ll be the first to admit to being guilty of doing this. We need to understand that if everyone was doing what was in the best interest of everyone else, we as a society would in fact be caring about our own self interest. Now just imagine instead of just you (one person) caring about you, think of millions of people caring about you. I’d much rather give up my own self interest if I knew that everyone else was doing the same. So because I believe in this fantasy (as stupid as it is, and it probably won’t ever happen) I base my morals and ethics upon how I can make others happy. I do that in the hopes that maybe others that need some motivation might catch on. If we did that salesman wouldn’t coerce you into buying a car because they want the sale, they would go out of the way to find the right car for you and your budget. We could talk about religion openly, be more open minded about others thoughts and beliefs and I think we could all be more open to the possibility of changing our beliefs according to what we feel is best.

Finally, we have to continue this pattern of beliefs and behavior in the hopes that others might catch on. Even if others don’t participate in the joyous system of selflessness, one can’t just give up. That defeats the whole attitude of the thing. If one were to think “I’m not benefiting from this, I should quit”, they really didn’t get the big idea to begin with. You follow the golden rule works because you are becoming the OTHERS and not because YOU are getting special treatment (that’s badly worded I know, but just go with it). Anyways, the whole idea is that we can’t be discouraged because of what others define to be moral or just, we need to find our own definitions and respect others.

I know there are things like rape and murder which are completely unacceptable. If you tell me “well if ethics and morals are relative and I need to respect others morals and ethics, shouldn’t I respect someone who murders are rapes under their moral and ethical code?” I would just respond to that, “you’re an idiot”.

I guess to finish off, I’d probably just say that to me the most moral and ethical thing to do is to makes sure no one is uncomfortable, abused, or disrespected because of my actions. That’s my code I live by, and I hope that others would live by the same code. Many people obviously don’t, but if I want my posterity to grow up in a better world I owe it to them to be a good example.

My Thoughts on Religion

                In writing this I don’t mean to take a viewpoint that puts a negative light on religious beliefs in general, those with strong beliefs, or try to justify the viewpoint that religion is not justified in any way at all. I only wish to express my own personal belief system, and why I think that the way society approaches religion has good intentions but can breed ill-emotions, contention, and ignorance.

                I grew up in a strongly LDS home with two loving parents who tried their best and sacrificed a lot to ensure that their children would have the best opportunities to live happy both in this life and in the hereafter. I grew up having nightly family prayers, going to church every Sunday, and having morning scripture study in which we were encouraged to participate and ask questions. I enjoyed going to church, participating in the youth activities provided, reading scriptures, and developing a relationship with God. At a young age I had a strong understanding of what was considered sin, who I was, and my relation with my father in heaven. When I was about six I did something that upset my mother. I went to my room and felt extremely guilty. I said a quick prayer asking for forgiveness from God, and to help my mother forgive me for what I had done. Afterwards I promptly approached my mother, admitted what I had done was wrong, and asked for forgiveness. I think this moment was extremely memorable to me because of the great joy I felt in being humble enough to admit my mistake and ask for forgiveness.

                If you have ever allowed the Mormon missionaries into your home or had an LDS friend explain to you their beliefs you probably know that one of the most basic beliefs in the LDS faith is that one is taught to pray for themselves to know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that the LDS church is the one and only true church on the face of the earth. Ever since I was about seven years old I often took this admonition to heart and would pray about once a year to confirm that I was going in the right direction with my life. Every time I received a very strong emotion that is difficult to describe, but I feel the “burning in the bosom” explanation is the best to describe it. I was often emotional enough to be brought to tears. This was always my foundation for my beliefs as a young child all the way through my adolescent years. I knew what I was doing was right because I had received a witness from God.

                There were many “experiences” I had as a youth that seemed to strengthen my faith in God and his listening to my prayers. My last summer at Cub Scout day camp I really wanted to win the “biggest fish” award because it was my last chance to claim it. I hadn’t caught anything up to the last day of fishing, and I said a quick prayer “Heavenly Father: if you help me catch the biggest fish I promise I will pay my tithing”. Not more than five minutes passed and I caught a fish. Although it was big, my friend had just caught a much larger catfish. I set aside my tithing money anyways as I had made a promise to God and I wasn’t just going to hold out on my end. At the closing ceremonies of camp I earned the biggest fish trophy because apparently catfish did not qualify in the competition. I felt that my prayer had been answered according to my faith in paying my tithing. I am still amused to this day with this story, and if it was God who helped me catch that fish I think that’s awesome.

                Throughout my adolescent years I had a lot of difficulties. Having been homeschooled most of my elementary and middle school years I didn’t have a lot of friends in high school, and being LDS made it even more difficult because it was hard to find friends who had the same beliefs and moral standards as me. I was always afraid that my friends would never meet my mother’s approval so I never really had friends outside of school. I had several good youth leaders at church, but some that also weren’t so great. I felt that I tended to be ignored or punished because I was one of the few youth that didn’t need help with going to church or participating in activities. I completed my eagle scout a week before I turned fourteen with the help of some wonderful leaders. Promptly after I began to lose interest in scouting because even though I had put forth a large amount of effort to complete the “hard and boring” stuff I still had no say in the activities we would participate in because most leaders were not worried about me. I’m sure they had a lot of things on their mind so I don’t mean to judge them, but I felt like I was being punished for doing all the right things.

                At the age of sixteen I left to go to college at Brigham Young University, an LDS owned and run school. My freshman year was full of difficulties in many ways, but it is awkward being two years younger than everyone else and trying to hide it. Nevertheless I had some wonderful church leaders who admired my good qualities and encouraged me in my growth. I think this was the first time that I felt that all my attempts to become more “Christ-like” were finally not the cause for neglect and punishment. I wasn’t looked at as the “know-it-all” but merely a good morally straight young man with a lot of potential. After my freshman year almost all of my friends left to serve a two-year mission to proselyte for the church as they had met the age requirement of being nineteen years old.

                That first summer home was the first time I had ever questioned why I always followed the Mormon standards my whole life. It was the first time I contemplating seriously trying a puff of marijuana or drinking at extended family functions (drinking alcohol, smoking, illicit drug use, coffee, and black tea are all prohibited in the LDS doctrine). I never did do anything with the fear of having to deal with consequences. This fear of consequences consumed my life for the next few years, and although sometimes I felt very happy because of my religious beliefs I often felt weighed down with guilt because of my imperfections. I felt that every time I heard a talk in church I was being attacked personally, and I thought to myself “I’m trying to perfect myself one thing at a time, I can’t do it all at once”.

                It was difficult being a student at BYU for the first three years because of the fact I hadn’t served as a missionary since I was not old enough. I had a girlfriend so I didn’t have to worry about the dating aspect of it (most women at BYU won’t date someone unless they have served as a missionary because this is “proof” they are in good standing in the church and are marriage ready). However my everyday interactions with others were still awkward and I often used to lie and say I had served a mission telling stories from the letters my brother sent home from his missionary service in Oklahoma. I was very frustrated with being treated as immature, not sure of myself, and needing direction just because I had not served as a missionary. I was told by several people that I would probably change my major and career choices after I served a mission because it would be an eye-opening experience that I needed. I often resented this, and contrary to others I kept with my physics major and even continued to study physics in graduate school.

                It was a difficult decision for me to serve as a missionary when I turned nineteen. I had just finished my third year of college and just started the first few classes of the junior core in physics. I had a serious girlfriend who we were “sure” we were going to get married. Leaving both behind for two years was a serious sacrifice. No matter what people tell you, God does not help you magically remember all the schooling you had before serving a mission. My first year back from serving as a missionary in northern Brazil was the most humiliating, confusing, and trying experience in my entire education. I went to the first day of classical mechanics with a quick review of vector calculus and I couldn’t even remember how to take a simple derivative.

                I did make the decision to serve as a missionary, however, because I knew it was what God wanted me to do. I was upset though that I really didn’t have any say in the matter. Society dictated that if I was to please my family, eventually get married, and be in “good standing” in the eyes of members of the church I had to serve a mission. I wanted it to be my decision, but I felt robbed of it because of the LDS culture. I was called to serve in the northern part of Brazil on the east half of the Brazilian amazon. I was thrilled because I had a friend already serving as a missionary there who I was hoping to see and spend time with. I was excited to have an exotic experience as well as to help all the people I encountered to have a better life.

                My first three months as a missionary were spent in Sao Paulo in a missionary training center. Most members of the LDS church would argue that the missionary training center is closer to heaven than most places on earth. For me it was a living hell, being cooped up in a tiny room with a bunch of immature nineteen year olds trying to learn Portuguese, all the complete doctrine of the LDS gospel, and trying not to go insane without any sort of entertainment at all (as missionaries you are not allowed personal cell phones, computers, music outside of “gospel” music, or really anything most young adults are interested in. This is in the hopes that you can focus on only one thing: converting others to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t mean to be critical of it, it was a good thing. I just went crazy.) Our leader in the MTC (missionary training center) was completely disrespectful to me and did not attempt to help me in my struggle at all. When I told him about my difficulties and why I was struggling to stay happy (apart from just the food which was awful) he literally told me that my mind was possessed by Satan himself and that I needed to get control. I never trusted him with any personal matters ever again.

                After what felt like eternity, we finally were sent to northern Brazil to actually go out and teach people. As most people know, Mormon missionaries always work in pairs and your first “companion” is known as your “trainer”. My trainer was a Brazilian who knew very little English, and I knew very little Portuguese. I was sent to a small city on the Amazon where there was really no one who knew English except for the few other American missionaries in the city who one became my best friend throughout my missionary service and is still a great friend to this day. Being innocent I thought that every missionary was perfect and wanted to be a good missionary. I found out that my trainer’s trainer had probably gotten a girl pregnant, left his assigned areas to go party and play soccer in other cities, and generally did not seem to care so much about the strict standards that are supposed to be held by missionaries. I was shocked, and didn’t know what to think. Later I found this to actually be quite common though not to that extreme.

                Apart from finding out that many missionaries did not live up to strict standards, I slowly learned the politics of missionary service. Just like any other human organization that has opportunity for being “promoted” missionaries have a chain of command. Now mission leaders are supposed to receive their “calling” by “inspiration” from their leaders and the mission president who is an older man responsible for all the missionaries in his geographic area. I soon learned that your faith, desires, or actual hard work usually did not end in being given responsibility to care for other missionaries. Instead those missionaries who “talked the talk” typically rose up the leadership ladder. It didn’t matter what you did as long as you talked positive around leaders and “wanted” a million baptisms a week you were often looked at as a good missionary.

                Now I am a person who believes that you cannot force anyone to believe anything. I also don’t believe that God will magically present you with random people who are just waiting to get baptized into the LDS church just because I go to bed on time, read my scriptures every day, and have “faith” that I will baptize someone every week. Because I respect personal agency and NEVER wanted anyone to feel forced into a decision or guilted into being baptized I was considered a bad missionary. We were taught to always invite others to be baptized the first time we ever taught anyone a lesson as this would “bring the spirit” (meaning the Holy Spirit) into the lesson. Now I had always been taught that the holy spirit brought feelings of peace and happiness so when I didn’t feel this when inviting others to be baptized and setting a date for their baptism I stopped doing it. I felt that doing what I felt God wanted me to do took precedence over what anyone else could tell me. I was often rebuked for this “arrogant” or “prideful” attitude which upset me because I felt I was the only one doing truly what God wanted me to do and not the will of some leader whom I didn’t know more than a year ago.

                I felt guilty lying to people saying “we are preparing a baptismal meeting for such and such a date, will you prepare to be baptized on this date?” when I knew that we weren’t preparing a meeting at all, and that nothing would happen on that day if that person said no. That is, however, what we were taught to say almost word for word. I felt angry that I had pressure to baptize to meet a mission quota. I got so angry treating people and their potential eternal salvation as just another number to meet a quota. I was chewed out for three hours one night by another missionary in a leadership position because the reason why my companion and I hadn’t baptized anyone in three weeks was because I did not have the faith sufficient to baptize anyone. When I complained about this experience to my mission president he didn’t defend the particular missionary, but just was silent as to condone his actions. I do not believe that my personal faith could ever affect the decisions of others, in my opinion that would be extremely prideful and very un-Christ-like.

                Apart from the politics between missionaries, the back-biting and tattle-tailing to make others look bad to get promotions, and general ridiculousness of 19-21 year olds I found some other very disturbing occurrences. One thing common to most religions is a common respect for leadership. The Pope is looked up to with utmost respect in the Catholic Church like the Prophet or President of the Church is the Mormon equivalent. Local leaders known as Bishops and Stake Presidents are also looked at and it is taught that they are called of God by inspiration and revelation to be in the positions where they reside. Throughout my mission I saw several congregations that had been torn apart by local leaders losing the respect of the members of the church. I won’t go into specific names, people, or congregations but some were accused of stealing tithing funds, coercing members to give them money, and in some cases committing adultery. In each case the leaders were typically not questioned and the members who did not desist in their talking bad about their leaders were ex-communicated from the church. I was amazed at the lack of questions asked and lack of investigation into these claims. It seemed that anyone in a leadership position had complete immunity and higher authority would not take anything brought to their attention by regular members of congregations with any serious thought. There was a particular case when I knew a particular party was guilty of a minor sin because I had witnessed it, but was told that he denied it and in a “spirit of prayer” it was confirmed from God that he had no issues. Now most of these accusations I don’t know which party was in the right, nor do I understand the complexity of the situation. I do refuse to believe that there was a proper investigation into the matter. I also refuse to believe that I church which claims to rely heavily on revelation from God can have so many potential cover ups.

                I also had issues following my mission leaders because I felt that I was being told to do things against my own personal beliefs. Our mission president had received “revelation” as to how each missionary should work. As a missionary I spent about an hour praying every night before bed and received what I thought was my own answer from God in how he wanted me to work. Many times this conflicted with what I had been told to do. When I followed my own gut feelings I was the happiest and had the most success. I was also chastised, however, for not following the direction of the mission president. Often I was chastised because my “lack of baptisms” came from not following his direction.

                I left on a mission to help people in any way I could, not to baptize as many people as I could. I felt I had success because of the people whose lives I touched in any way, and also the people who touched my life. I felt I was successful because I put my heart and soul into helping others and to me that’s all that mattered. I will always be grateful for my experience as a missionary because it was the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. I matured socially and emotionally and learned to be independent. I learned to stand up for what I believed even if I stood alone. I learned to have confidence in myself, but also received a strong dose of humility (which ironically actually come hand in hand).

                When I first came home from being a missionary I was excited about life. Not just because I would have hot water for the first time in two years or not have to wear a suit and tie, but because I had grown so much emotionally and spiritually. I was going to be the best Christian ever, was going to find a wife quickly, and was going to get called to positions of leadership within the church so I could help others. I soon realized that even though I had been in my little bubble of being a missionary for two years, the real world is just like it used to be. I was amazed by cell phone technologies, how much the computer industry had grown, and how awesome carpet felt. I had to get used to American culture again which compared to Brazilian culture seemed cold and harsh. About a week and a half after returning from Brazil I returned to my studies at BYU.

                I was excited to go to church because I had a new found faith and determination. When I did go to my assigned congregation at BYU I found most people cold. I made conversation with one other person and seemed invisible to everyone else. My ecclesiastical leaders did not seem to notice I existed. After a few weeks I grew discouraged and stopped attending every week. I realized that my “newfound faith and determination” was really just overcompensation for all the doubts that my struggles as a missionary had brought up. I began to accept reality for what it was. After missing several Sundays, I soon became “the project” for a few people at church. People were nice and friendly because they wanted me to be active in church meetings. One leader in particular who had been quite cold with me was all the sudden very interested in my life and had learned my name. I had one true friend in the congregation who was my friend not because of my lack of church attendance but because he was interested in my life. I didn’t realize how ridiculous we as church members were, only being Christ-like to those who we wanted to “bring back to the fold”. In reality most people would not leave if that hospitality had been rendered to begin with. I often prayed for my leaders to give me some kind of direction or answers that I needed, but when nothing came I began to wonder if they were in fact inspired.

                I attended church a few Sundays a month in order to continue my attendance at BYU (church attendance is required). I tried praying, reading the Book of Mormon, and listening for answers from God to give me some reassurance that perhaps the things I saw in my life were just flukes. I didn’t want my perfect bubble to have truly been burst. I wanted to believe that everything in life happens according to God’s will, that all of my church leaders did everything according to inspiration, and that God was really listening to my prayers. I started receiving conflicting “answers” to prayers, most of the time I found it was my own mind talking to myself. I was still sporadic in my Church attendance, and tried to avoid contact with most other members of the congregation (which was actually quite easy as a friend and I always sat alone in church and not a single person came to talk to us, ever). After a while I was made a “project” again and would have visits to the apartment more often. I know that those who visited were doing it out of what they thought was right, but I didn’t feel it was a sincere desire to get to know me personally. It was an attempt to try to get to know the me that would come back to church.

                Now the typical Mormon response that I get from everyone is that “the Church is perfect, but the people aren’t perfect. Don’t judge the church based upon the people.” Now taking doctrine from Ephesians 1 and 4 as well as Romans 8:9 and 1 Corinthians 12 it is my opinion that the members of the church form the Body of Christ. This Body of Christ from my understanding is the church. I won’t argue that perhaps the Mormon interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be perfect. I would argue that saying that “the people of the church being imperfect doesn’t make the church imperfect” is a contradictory statement. If people are imperfect, that means that the leaders are imperfect. If the leaders are imperfect that means that they could accidently teach false doctrines or call leaders that God doesn’t want to be called. This means that the organization of the church or the church itself is inherently imperfect. Perhaps I’m just arguing semantics, but I feel upset about how many times I hear that argument to get people to come back to church.

                After long contemplation about my own personal faith, one day in my nuclear physics class I started asking some deep questions. Finally I got to the point where my professor admitted that science no longer had the answers. My mind was blown, to think that I had gotten to the point where things ceased to make sense. If you have a good understanding of quantum mechanics you will know that it follows rules that are not intuitive to our everyday lives. They are in fact laws of nature, however, whether we choose to accept it or not. I began to contemplate human existence, our purpose, and what/where we came from.

                I had always been taught that we lived as spirit children of God before we came to earth, that we came to earth to gain experience and a mortal body, and that after this life we can return to live with God and become like him. According to Mormon doctrine God was once like us, and he lived a righteous life to become the God that he is. So existence is really this infinite cycle of spirit beings that are created, given a mortal life, and become Gods. Now if you are critical of this belief because it is “silly”, “stupid”, “ridiculous”, and or “unorthodox” I would ask you politely to be respectful. Most people that criticize other beliefs have their own “ridiculous” beliefs. To me a never ending cycle of Gods is just as crazy as God having always existed and will forever exist. Neither view makes any sense to me personally so I think both parties should be respectful of each other.

                All the sudden I began to realize that I knew nothing, and that this entire life could just be the result of a random event leading to others. There are many theories explaining why the big bang happened, but the truth is the first few seconds of the universe we live in is a complete mystery to scientists. What if it was just a random expansion of space and time, we are just a result of evolution and survival of the fittest adapting to our habitats. Nothing else to it, just plain we exist, we die, and it’s done. I had never opened my mind up to the possibility of anything other than the LDS view. It was liberating, exciting, scary, and depressing all at the same time. Liberating and exciting because I felt that I could truly discover the truths of life without any bias holding me back, but scary and depressing because all I had believed built my life upon up to this point could very well not have been the truth I thought it was.

                As I began to contemplate this new view of life, I still prayed for guidance from God to lead me in the right direction. I began to be confused as to if he even existed or if he listened to my prayers. As I did this, I asked once to myself if maybe the LDS church was not the true church. I received the same strong emotion that I had when I prayed to know if it was true. I realized that I received the opposite answer I had as a child, and knew something was wrong. I couldn’t trust the entire reason I had faith in the LDS church anymore because I had received answers contradictory to it. As much as this comforted me in knowing that all the heartache I had seen in my life was not the will of God, it also disturbed me to think I would have to restructure my life into a new belief system.

                I began to take a very agnostic approach to religion. Being a scientist, the scientific method is always the best approach (in my opinion) to find out the truth of something. I had experimented and not received any results. I soon realized that religion is intangible, and in my opinion unknowable. I knew that if I was to believe in any religion I needed some kind of experience beyond the physical. However I could not rely on emotional responses because perhaps my contradictory answers to prayer came from a psycho-emotional response as to what I wanted to hear. In order for me to believe in something I needed concrete proof or evidence it came from God. I am a God fearing person, and I believe that God does not change according to my own opinions and thoughts. If he does exist, I would like to find out his true nature and what (if anything) he wants from me. Once I know with certainty an answer I am prepared to follow it because not to would just be silly.

                One of the most frustrating things I hear from LDS church members is “if you receive an answer no, then it’s because you wanted a no”. This is their way of justifying that their religion is the absolute truth and no one else could possibly receive an answer different from them. Could it also be that “if you receive an answer yes, then it’s because you wanted a yes.” I believe this was my case. I don’t mean to discredit anyone in their beliefs or their spiritual experiences; I mean only to warn others that they cannot know what absolute truth to everyone is. In my opinion to claim that someone is wrong because their spiritual experience differs from yours is the also claim that you are wrong by the same argument. In fact all religions tend to claim everyone else is wrong or “missing” some part of the truth. I get so angered by the bickering and arguing over doctrine. I hated the coercion by missionaries (including myself) to convince others that the LDS church was the one and only true church on the earth. Who am I to say that I am right or wrong, I can merely express my own personal beliefs according to my personal experiences.

                I was talking to an LDS friend recently about my questions and struggles. He chuckled only because his siblings had told him very similar things to what I had told him. He said he was impressed that I still went to church despite my doubts, and he told me not to stop going. I then told him I really had no reason for going to church, since I felt I didn’t have an answer that it was the thing for me to do. He responded “don’t you think that no answer means that you are doing the right thing.” I simply responded “the lack of an answer could justify any religion at all, or bad crazy things.” He simply gave the touché look, and we continued the conversation. I recently had an LDS girlfriend break up with me because of my struggle with my faith. She said “I know it’s true, so it is true.” Then attempted to convince me of the veracity of the LDS religion because of her “knowledge” that is was true. How often do we try to push our beliefs on others, simply because we cannot accept the fact that we might be wrong.

                I have had many deep conversations with friends of different faiths (including no faith at all). Some believe in reincarnation, some are Muslims, some are Evangelical Christians, some are atheists, and others are LDS. I wanted to know what drives people to believe in what they believe. With a few exceptions I was disappointed to find that most didn’t truly have a core belief, or believed it because it’s what society had raised them to believe. It is my opinion that most Christians in America would not be practicing Christians if Buddhism was the cultural norm. I feel that so many people are just complacent in their belief that they choose not to search for truth. I am sometimes criticized because I am “choosing the easy way out” in not believing everything within the LDS religion. I am slightly confused by this because it really just makes my life even harder. It would be the “easy” thing to just go back to complacency in believing what I grew up with, marrying a Mormon wife, and teaching my children the things I was taught as a child.

                I was disappointed to find in a recent poll that Mormons ranked among the lowest in religions who did not believe in human evolution of any form. From the scientific evidence evolution is blatantly a fact, and the fact that humans evolved from primitive primates is very likely. Instead of looking into the matter and maybe even trying to say the evolution was “guided by God” to create man, many choose to just reject the idea altogether. In my opinion that is ignorant and prideful. If humans did in fact evolve from primates some thousands of years ago, it doesn’t matter what you believe. Beliefs do not cancel facts. I think we should all be open to new ideas and attempt to truly discover the facts of life and the nature of God. Now I am open to the idea that maybe I am wrong, and the scientific evidence of evolution is a fluke. If I die, and God shows me I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. However, until I have concrete evidence contrary to it, I will choose to believe that which is most convincing.

                Perhaps one reading this might think my purpose is to attack the Mormon faith. On the contrary, I wish that someday perhaps I will be able to justify it. Of all the current doctrines out there I find Mormon doctrine to make the most sense. Perhaps it’s because it answers the most questions in a logical manner. To those who claim the Book of Mormon is false, and the miraculous story of its finding and translations are crazy I would ask you to read the Old Testament. For the sake of time, I will use only one example. Jonah was supposedly swallowed by a giant fish, survived three days inside of it, then miraculously pops out and tells his story of his running away from God’s calling. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have a shared belief in the Old Testament. So for one of these religions to call any of the others crazy for believing what they believe really should look at how crazy their common beliefs are.

                I am probably viewed as prideful and sinful in my quest for answers. I believe the correct scriptural term for people like me would be a “sign seeker”. I really am not looking for signs per say however. I just can’t believe that if God preformed crazy miracles in the Bible that he would stop performing them for us in our day. Many LDS members would probably have a million “miracles” to share with me, but I’m pretty sure none of them are on the scale of parting the red sea, turning a staff into a serpent, converting water into wine, or walking on water. I really don’t have any faith in any of the miracles in the Bible because to me they just don’t make sense. And I can handle the fact that maybe scientifically they don’t make sense, but it’s the inconsistency that God no longer performs miracles that makes even less sense.

                I guess one of my largest problems with what I like the call the “miracle dilemma” is the specific LDS doctrine that through faith it is possible to do literally anything up to and including moving mountains. Now geologically speaking moving a mountain requires a hefty amount of science. To merely move mountains because of a belief seems ridiculous because it breaks the laws of science. A religious person argues that God doesn’t obey our laws of science, but I’m pretty sure if God exists he created the laws of science. If he is perfect, then the laws of science would be perfect and could not be broken not even by him. I know that we don’t know and understand all the laws of science (that’s good because it means job security for me), but we have a pretty good grasp on the basics of geology, physics, and chemistry. Most miracles don’t have a very good scientific explanation, which is why we call them miracles. That’s why it’s difficult for me to believe it until I see it.

                I up to this point have not decided what truth is. Perhaps I never will come to an understanding of any absolute truth that I can feel good about. Perhaps I will return to the LDS faith with renewed vigor having had the spiritual experience necessary to give me the evidence enough to believe. I will continue to live my life trying to be the best person I can. The one standard I hold myself to is really the golden rule. I will strive to be the best husband and father in the future and give everything for my future family. I am striving to be a better child and sibling. I am trying to be a better friend and stranger. I feel that the attributes we associate with Jesus Christ are things any person should strive for no matter what you believe. Not to be a hippie but I believe that true compassionate love is really the answer to the world’s problems.

                I fear that perhaps our stubbornness in our religious beliefs makes us become hostile towards those who differ in belief. Christians feel hostility towards Muslims because of their differences, when really the two religions seem almost identical in most respects. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been fighting for over a millennium and will most likely continue to fight with each other for the stupidest causes. Presidential candidates are ridiculed because of their faith or lack of faith. Science is banned from some schools because it does not see eye to eye with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Marriages are broken in the LDS church because oftentimes one spouse cannot cope with the other’s lack of faith. Some children are practically disowned because of their “falling away from the faith” or perhaps their sexual orientation. If religion is based upon love, love for God and our fellow man, then why does religion bring so much hate into the world?

                I would like to believe that there truly is a God. Perhaps he doesn’t interfere in our daily lives, but I would like to believe that there is a higher power that loves us. It just makes me feel better to think that maybe there’s something better beyond the awful world we live in. I would like to think that those who practice good can be rewarded for their good acts, no matter what their beliefs. I choose to believe that true religion is whatever helps us grow to be better people. True religion is loving others, understanding and empathizing with their view on the world, and respecting their beliefs as one would like their own beliefs to be respected. Because let’s face it, no matter what we believe it doesn’t change the truth. The most we can hope for is that we can find the truth for ourselves so it can help to change us into better people.