Author Archives: Ron Lipsman

Does the ‘God Particle’ Prove that God Does or Does Not Exist?

The scientific world is abuzz with news of the ratification of the existence of the subatomic particle called the Higgs boson – or more colloquially, the ‘God particle.’ This subatomic particle’s existence – which was verified recently (with virtually near certainty) by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland – lends credence to several long-standing physical theories such as the so-called Standard Model and the Big Bang Theory.

 

The nickname God particle is ironic for two reasons. First, generally, the nuclear physicists who deal with these matters – postulating the fundamental physical laws of the universe and then setting about to either verify or refute them – tend not to be regular church-goers. While there are some highly prominent scientists who balance personal, religious beliefs with professional, scientific quests, most probably go along with the thoughts of the world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking:

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. [Interview in The Guardian, 7/9/12]

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God… [from his book; The Grand Design, 2010]

So it is a bit ironic that physics’ most famous quest has resulted in the discovery of the ‘God particle.’ Most physicists are quite comfortable having their names associated with famous – even if dead – humans like Newton, Einstein or the afore-mentioned Hawking. One will find few, if any, attributions to deities in the objects that physicists discover and name or the theories they propose.

Second, and more importantly, the discovery that the God particle really exists does not – as the name suggests – imply that God played some role in the creation of the universe. In fact, quite the opposite. The matter is discussed at some length in the July 9 Daily Beast by Lawrence Kraus, a well-known physicist/cosmologist from Arizona State University:

This term [God particle] appeared first in the unfortunate title of a book written by physicist Leon Lederman two decades ago, and while to my knowledge it was never used by any scientist (including Lederman) before or since, it has captured the media’s imagination.

What makes this term particularly unfortunate is that nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming the particle in question is indeed the Higgs, it validates an unprecedented revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics and brings science closer to dispensing with the need for any supernatural shenanigans all the way back to the beginning of the universe…If these bold, some would say arrogant, notions derive support from the remarkable results at the Large Hadron Collider, they may reinforce two potentially uncomfortable possibilities: first, that many features of our universe, including our existence, may be accidental consequences of conditions associated with the universe’s birth; and second, that creating “stuff” from “no stuff” seems to be no problem at all—everything we see could have emerged as a purposeless quantum burp in space or perhaps a quantum burp of space itself. Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge. The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God.

So the term God particle was first used by a scientist, but was picked up and popularized by the media. It’s catchy and enhances interest in the subject among the public. But like so much else that the media promotes, it is misleading and inappropriate.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Inauspicious Beginning to the Most Important Election in Decades

The presidential nominees for the election this fall are set. The battle lines are drawn and the legions of supporters for each side are increasingly engaged. It is shaping up to be a monumental struggle, reflective of the fact – as we are told often by the pundits – that this is the most important election in decades. But if that is so, then why are the media and the campaigns largely focused on some of the most trivial, irrelevant and inconsequential issues?

The public is yearning to hear serious discussion of such weighty matters as: the federal deficit and debt; the role and size of government; the level and nature of taxes; the size and posture of the military; how to restore and grow the economy; the ongoing relevance of American exceptionalism and the reality of the American Dream for the future; whether the inspiration for our nation should continue to come from the Founding Fathers or instead from late 19th/early 20th century European progressives; and which ideals America should pursue – liberty, opportunity and responsibility or equality, fairness and entitlement.

Instead we are treated to a diet of pathetic platitudes on peripheral problems of little import, which shed no light on the fundamental issues that do indeed make this the most consequential election since 1980, or perhaps since 1936, or maybe 1912, or 1860, could it be 1800, or conceivably ever.

The media coverage of the campaigns is saturated with ridiculous stories about: what the candidates did as adolescents; events in their parents’ or grandparents’ lives; whether their wives are admirable or not; how many bucks they’ve accumulated in their lives, and how; whom they hung around with in their past; how assiduously they pursue their religion; and various other personal minutiae, which, while interesting, is not at all what makes the selection between them of such great moment.

Of course, the answers to these questions tell us something about the character of the candidates, and that is important – but not absolutely critical. We’ve had scoundrels who were presidents of great consequence (Jefferson, FDR) as well as megalomaniacs who were flops (Nixon, LBJ) and others in between (Clinton). We’ve had paragons of virtue who succeeded spectacularly (Washington, Lincoln, Coolidge), failed miserably (Carter, Hoover) or landed somewhere in between (Ford, Truman). Let us grant that Obama and Romney are men of good character. Much more importantly, the people are desperate to understand where they truly stand on the grave issues that confront the nation, which policies they plan to implement to address those issues, and what qualities of leadership they possess that will enable them to do so successfully.

In fact, when the media does finally move from character matters to the issues, we are treated to:

  • the “war on women”
  • amnesty for the children of illegal immigrants
  • gay marriage
  • the availability of contraception
  • fast and furious
  • the Arab spring
  • White House security leaks.

Again, these are interesting, but they do not strike at the essence of the existential choice that awaits us. The first four (of these seven) are imaginary issues, promoted by the left; the last three, while quite serious, are advanced by the right as a means to embarrass the Obama administration. The absolutely critical issues outlined in the opening paragraph receive scant attention, while the above seven of lesser – or no – importance get most of the ink. How does this come to pass?

The answer for the first group is simple. Obama has been revealed as the incompetent, inexperienced, hardcore leftist that he is. Rather than unite the country behind a post-partisan, pragmatic, problem solver as he advertised himself – and as far too many Americans naively assumed him to be; he has plunged the country into a statist, debt-ridden, economically stagnant, environmentally hysterical, energy-starved, militarily ambivalent funk that has endangered the nation, and especially its children. It is a record that must be ignored if he is to secure a second term. And his treacherous allies in the media are most happy to accommodate him. Thus they attempt to keep the focus of the campaign on peripheral issues that can be twisted to Obama’s advantage.

The accidental complicity of the right in this dreadful game is more surprising. The media strategy outlined above keeps them off balance. Instead of concentrating on the main issues that would galvanize the voters’ attention, they waste time and resources addressing the trivia that the media tosses at them. Perhaps more out of pique than planning, the right doesn’t counter with a bold treatment of the crucial issues, but instead it lobs bombs of its own (like the above three) designed to make Obama look bad. Even if these gain some traction with the voters, it distracts them from the critical issues that should decide the election.

Obama and his cronies in the media will not cease to raise absurd issues, divorced from his atrocious record of the last three and a half years, and designed to pander to various special groups that he believes can ensure his re-election. Romney and his cohort need to avoid the trap of meeting Obama on the stage he has invented for the battle. Romney and supporters like Paul Ryan clearly have some good ideas for reversing the downward spiral instigated by Obama and his leftist minions. It is those ideas that Romney should be pressing on the American electorate. The voters are smart enough to separate bold solutions to critical problems from the silly smoke puffed out by the Obama men to divert attention away from his dismal record.
_________
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:
 as well as in The Land of the Free at:

Which is More Dangerous: Obama’s Head or Obama’s Heart?

Two of the more fascinating reads published recently are Mark Levin’s Ameritopia and Dennis Prager’s Still the Best Hope. Both provide penetrating analysis on why a century of progressivism has propelled the USA to the brink of a national catastrophe. And both offer a compelling vision of a return to bedrock conservatism as the only and obvious solution to the economic and cultural calamities that barely checked liberalism has bestowed upon the nation. Each author writes with great passion, as exemplified in the following typical excerpts:

Levin. America today is not strictly a constitutional republic because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, federal power. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. America is becoming, and in significant ways has become, a post-constitutional, democratic utopia of sorts. It exists behind a Potemkin-like image of constitutional republicanism. Its essential elements and unique features are being ingurgitated by an insatiable federal government that seeks to usurp and displace the civil society.

The Founders would be appalled at the nature of the federal government’s transmutation and the squandering of the American legacy. The federal government has become the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider, and pension guarantor. Its size and reach are vast. Its interventions are illimitable.

Prager. This book delineates with scores of examples the toxic impact Left-wing thought and actions have had on civilization. From the far Left – with its virtually unparalleled mass murders and totalitarianism – to the democratic Left, nearly every area of life that the Left has influenced has been adversely affected. The culture has been debased, from the fine arts with their scatological exhibits and contempt for beauty and excellence, to the popular culture’s nearly omnipresent vulgarity. Education has been corrupted, with students learning less and propagandized more. Economies have been wrecked by the irresponsible accumulation of debt, almost entirely a result of government expansion and entitlement programs. Masculinity and femininity have been rendered archaic concepts. The will to fight evil has been almost eradicated in the Western world outside the United States. The moral character of great numbers of people has been negatively affected … [by] the effects of the welfare state on the character of citizens. And in the United States the Left has marshaled its influence in schools and universities, labor unions, news media, entertainment media, and the arts to undermine the bases of Americanism – liberty, small government, God-based ethics, and E Pluribus Unum.

The authors’ passionate arguments lead them to very similar conclusions. However, there is a major difference in the approaches of the two works. Levin emphasizes the flawed political and economic theories that animate the progressive agenda. He explains how four fundamentally utopian fantasies (Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto) have provided the political playbook from which liberals over the last century have drawn their inspiration and hatched their strategies. Prager, on the other hand, attributes much of the motivation for liberal initiatives to a reaction to the innate feelings that progressives have about the issues that confront the nation. Rather than follow a specific blueprint for ‘hope and change,’ progressives are inclined, according to Prager, to follow their feelings about how things should be, why they are not and how to bring them about.

Of course, whether they heed their head or their heart, liberals advance their progressive agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence that their statism results in: high unemployment, decreased productivity, diminished freedom, cultural decay, inadequate defense capabilities, entrenched poverty, and the erosion of family, community and the pillars of civil society. Now the most important progressive operating in the US today is President Obama. Any self-respecting conservative – and one would hope, any objective American who is not hypnotized by leftist propaganda – is appalled at the economic and cultural carnage thrust upon the country by the Obama administration. His removal from office is mandatory if the country is to be rescued from the pit toward which he is driving us with reckless abandon. Therefore, to maximize the chances of that eventuality, it would be helpful to know exactly what motivates the President – his head or his heart?

Levin and Prager are in apparent agreement that the progressive portion of America comes in two flavors – intellectuals and, for lack of a better term, ordinary foot soldiers. The former consists of professors, lawyers, school administrators, Hollywood glitterati, liberal think tank leaders, librarians, journalists, most media types, certain philanthropists, many clergy and even some corporate moguls. These are people who are true believers in Levin’s four utopian (actually dystopian) fantasies; people who are convinced that America’s founding was based on flawed principles, and that the country must be remodeled according to a more progressive image. The insidious nature of their venture is that they pursue their revolutionary goals using the language and tools of the Founding (the Constitution, the invocation of freedom, appeals to rights), but at every turn, they subvert founding principles to serve their revolutionary purpose. The danger they pose to the Republic springs from the transformational plans in their heads.

Progressives who lead with their heart, on the other hand, tend to be “ordinary” Americans – government employees, union laborers, school teachers and secretaries, cops and cab drivers, farmers, firemen and factory workers – who feel  that rich people have too much and more of their wealth should be spread around. They’ve never read Levin’s four utopian fantasies and rarely, if ever, think about the philosophical characteristics of progressivism or conservatism. Throughout their entire life, they have been subjected to a progressive programming (really a brainwashing) carried out by their teachers, public officials, union leaders, media sources, liberal clergy and even their parents. They are clueless as to the radical alteration that American society has already undergone. What they do know is: they are uncomfortable with perceived inequities in American society; the government has had success in the past at alleviating the discrepancies; but much more needs to be done in that vein. They have been told, and they believe that America’s economic system, i.e., free market capitalism, while it offers the opportunity for a few to amass great wealth, keeps most citizens – like themselves – in a perpetual state of stress trying to meet monthly bills, perform satisfactorily on the job, provide adequate sustenance for one’s family and find some time to enjoy life.

Moreover, such thinking infects the substantial portion of the population that does not consider itself progressive. As Prager relates, the pervasive liberal brainwashing to which all of America is subject explains how, despite the fact that only 20% of the people self-identify as liberal – whereas 40% self-identify as conservative, and another 40% as moderate – a hardcore, unabashed liberal like Barack Obama could be elected President.

Obama is clearly from the intellectual class, not a foot soldier. So the answer to the question posed in the title is presumably that his head is more dangerous than his heart. Ah, but here is a point that is mentioned, but not emphasized in both books. Namely, the heart of an intellectual progressive is every bit as devoted to the progressive cause as is his head. Progressives are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their philosophy and the justice of their cause. Therefore, the legitimacy and necessity of the remake of society that they seek to engineer – and at which they have been remarkably successful – is so deeply ingrained in the fiber of their being that it is inevitable that their feelings about the cause are as strong, if not stronger, than they are among the foot soldiers. In principle, one can argue with and try to persuade a progressive of the error of his philosophy if his motivation is solely intellectual. But if the impetus is internalized and abetted by powerful feelings, then – as anyone who has tried knows – arguing with a progressive is a futile exercise.

So a final word to conservatives. When criticizing Obama, it is pointless to attack his feelings, preferences or motivations. The feelings are ingrained and will not change. Moreover, attacks on his personality or character are likely to be a turn off for “moderate” or undecided voters. Instead, it is Obama’s progressive philosophy that should be squarely in the cross hairs. At this point, at least half the voting public recognizes progressive policies for the disaster they represent. Conservatives only need to convince a few more undecided voters of the danger posed by Obama’s head – and his heart – should he gain a second term. By attacking progressive principles, and by providing beneficial conservative alternatives, Mitt and the GOP should be able to chase Obama from the White House without breaking a sweat.
____
This article — without the quotes from Levin and Prager — appeared in The American Thinker at:
 and in The Land of the Free at:

Thoughts on Gay Marriage

Marriage, as it was traditionally understood, constituted the healthiest, safest and most natural way for the human race to procreate, survive and prosper.

For more than four millennia, marriage has been understood as a sacred union of one man and one woman – virtually everywhere in the world, in almost all societies. The family that resulted was viewed as the fundamental unit of society, whose main purpose was to create an environment in which children could be conceived, nurtured and raised to succeed their elders as adult members of society. The arrangement was rarely, if ever, questioned. Marriage, as it was traditionally understood, constituted the healthiest, safest and most natural way for the human race to procreate, survive and prosper.

This is not to say that the phenomenon of homosexuality has not existed since the dawn of humanity. While celebrated in some ancient cultures, it was more commonly viewed as an aberration. The homosexual act was labeled an abomination in biblical times; those who perpetrated such acts were viewed with pity, sometimes scorn. The idea that a homosexual couple could provide a nurturing home for children did not arise.

In more recent times, homosexuality has been considered more an abnormality than a sin, unnatural rather than criminal, sometimes as an illness. But in the more enlightened era in which we find ourselves now, it is treated as an “alternate lifestyle,” well within the bounds of normality. Maltreatment of homosexuals is considered to be as loathsome as mistreatment of women, minorities, disabled persons, religious people or senior citizens. Moreover, having arrived at this progressive viewpoint, it follows that there is absolutely no reason not to allow – even to encourage – homosexual marriage and the parenting of children by same sex couples. The common wisdom of four thousand years has been deemed WRONG.

But gay marriage flies in the face of human nature. It is not natural. Even if that were so, say proponents, there is no reason to prohibit it. Well, yes there is. One cannot render something natural if it is inherently not. One cannot declare something possible when it is manifestly not. If a man has the misfortune to be born blind, he is not going to play shortstop for the NY Yankees. If a woman has a cleft palette, she is not going to sing Puccini at the Met. If a person is nervous and easily excitable, that person will not be invited to join the bomb disposal squad.

Well, if a man lies with another male, rather than a female, he is not going to produce a baby. The latter combination, when it occurs under the rubric of normal marriage, is, according to the accepted wisdom of all mankind stretching back through the ages, the natural and right way to structure a family for the preservation of the species. Artificially declaring that unnatural alliances – such as gay unions, polygamy or man-child love groupings – constitute equally valid forms of marriage is the height of human arrogance and folly. It represents one more nail in the coffin of Western Civilization – indeed of civilization itself.

The key feature of American civilization – or the American experiment, as it is commonly known – is the establishment and preservation of individual liberty. Within the bounds of the rule of law and without doing any harm to fellow citizens, Americans are free to pursue their own destiny – economically, culturally and politically. That freedom guarantees the individual the right to pursue his sexuality with members of the same sex if he so chooses.

Similarly, an individual is free to be a pacifist who will not take up arms under any circumstances. But that does not change the accumulated wisdom of centuries, which teaches that evil lurks in the world, evil forces sometimes threaten peace-loving peoples and that if the latter do not defend themselves, they run the risk of death and destruction.

An individual is free to be an atheist. But that does not change the accumulated wisdom of centuries, which teaches that without the moral laws that arise from religious belief, a free people cannot govern itself and its society will eventually degenerate into tyranny or anarchy.

A young person is free to declare his independence from his family. But that does not change the accumulated wisdom of centuries, which teaches that a child’s ability to make reasoned and sensible decisions is not equal to that of his parents, and that the best environment for growth from childhood to adulthood is in the bosom of a loving family.

Well, the accumulated wisdom of centuries also teaches that the institution of marriage between one man and one woman is the fundamental building block of a healthy society – for nurturing children, for building strong and stable communities, and for respecting the moral laws that undergird a free society. The legalization of homosexual marriage is a blow – perhaps a fatal blow – to the classic institution of marriage. We undertake it at our peril.
______
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

The Coming Decline of the Academic Left*

It is no secret that what passes for an education at most of the nation’s colleges and universities is suspiciously akin to indoctrination. An asterisk: With the exception of a few areas – specifically, climate and the environment, certain fields within biology and medicine, history of science and the interaction between science and public policy – the rot that infects the rest of academia has been averted in science and engineering schools.[1] A student who seeks a higher education in the unsullied areas of science and engineering can obtain truly the finest technical education that can be found on our planet at innumerable universities throughout the United States.

But when surveying the remaining disciplines in academia, as well as the administrative structures that direct the nation’s academic enterprise, one can say that today’s students are subject there to a less than subtle, mind-numbing, conformist indoctrination. Numerous polls conducted in humanities and social sciences departments – at elite, State and minor universities – reveal a stunning skew between liberals and conservatives at least as distorted as 90%-10%. The inherent bias spills over into classroom presentations, selection of curricula and grading. Moreover, it has been thus for at least two generations.

The consequences of this warp in the political spectrum in academia are well known. The students are taught, with conviction and certainty, that:

  • The United States is a deeply flawed nation – stained by a legacy of slavery, discrimination against women, genocidal policies toward the indigenous population, unjustified foreign wars, homophobia and persecution of minorities.
  • America’s unfair system of rapacious capitalism creates unacceptable distortions in income distribution, punishes low-income workers in favor of well-heeled corporate moguls and unscrupulous entrepreneurs, and needlessly subjects the economy to convulsive upheavals such as the 2007-08 financial crisis.
  • The US ignores environmental concerns and is the world’s leasing abuser of fossil-fuel sources of energy.
  • The US’s adherence to Judeo-Christian religious principles and values is no longer – if it ever was – appropriate, and a secular, humanist ethic should rightfully take its place.
  • There is no meaningful American culture; American exceptionalism is a myth; and America is not a “shining city on a hill,” nor a beacon of liberty. Rather it is a multicultural society in which different value systems have equal merit, just one more country among the nations of the Earth.
  • The Constitution is as antiquated as the Bible; neither provides a roadmap for the country’s destiny.
  • The notion of rugged individualism is nonsense; we strive for a society of equals, guided by a benevolent and powerful government that wisely charts a proper course for our citizens.

In short, the only thing exceptional about America is that it has resisted the transformation that European nations have undergone into social welfare states. The above interpretation of the “true” nature of America is widely taught at American universities – sometimes subtly, more commonly openly – as if it is gospel. More insidiously, despite the university’s reputation as a place where a student is exposed to numerous different ideas, the “wisdom” encapsulated above is passed on as if it is irrefutably established truth and students risk grade and opprobrium if they challenge it. This smells more like indoctrination than education to me.

However, the nation’s colleges might be on the cusp of a major crisis which could pose a serious challenge to the leftist domination of campus. It is my purpose here to explain why and what the consequences might be. Actually, the ingredients of the crisis are well known:

  • The graduates of our social sciences and humanities programs are increasingly found wanting in the workplace. Unless they can find employment in a leftist dominated milieu (e.g., government, academia, public sector union, media conglomerate), the American business world finds them ill-equipped to function successfully in what remains of the US entrepreneurial society.
  • The costs of a university indoctrination – er, that is, education – have skyrocketed. In light of the previous bullet, consumers – i.e., the students’ parents – find it increasingly hard to justify the expense.
  • Intense criticism of the faculty is on the rise: they can’t teach; or what they teach is garbage or propaganda; they’re too busy with their “research”; and they are overpaid.
  • Administrative policies make no sense – multiculturalism trumps achievement, political correctness outweighs impartiality.
  • Most damaging, our universities, after a prolonged period of indoctrination, return students to their parents in a form that parents cannot recognize – their opinions, values and behavior have been altered beyond repair. (To be fair, it is encouraging that a not insignificant percentage of college grads manage to resist the brainwashing on campus.)

How are the leftist dominated American universities responding to this crisis? Simple answer: the same as the leftists running our government – namely, double down on the very policies that have caused the crisis in the first place. In this strategy, there is an eerie resemblance to the tactics of the Obama administration. Exactly as our federal government is bankrupting itself by its unsustainable tax and spending profligacy, university presidents keep raising tuition and fees in order to vigorously pursue their expansive and flawed policies. The addiction to spending is the same in both enterprises, but universities can’t print money like the feds. So instead they hike tuition, beg for more financial assistance from federal and state governments, and prostitute themselves in the search for corporate and government grants. As for the tyrannical, leftist mindset that dominates the humanities and social sciences, it grows more and more entrenched.

But people are fed up. In the same way that frustrated citizens rose up to challenge the profligate spending of federal and state governments, parents and students will rise up to protest the out of control spending and leftward drift of the nation’s universities. Let’s call it the Stench Revolution – a revolt against the foul propaganda that emanates from leftist humanities and social sciences departments. The conservative political revolt in America against the decades-old leftward drift of the nation – typified by the TEA Party – has resulted in some signature successes: more robust and influential conservative think tanks (Heritage, Cato, Manhattan Institute); talk radio; Fox News; grassroots public organizations like Americans for Progress or the Club for Growth. I predict that an analogous movement will occur in regard to academia. The result will be: the growth of conservative academic online sites (like this one); more balanced professional organizations like the NAS; more Hillsdale and Grove City Colleges; more public figures like David Horowitz and Dennis Prager who expose the treachery on campus. It will be a long, laborious process, but there is no alternative if traditionalists wish to restore our universities to their former state as bastions of truth and knowledge, which is disseminated objectively.
====

* This essay appeared in the Manhattan Institute’s online journal, “Minding the Campus” at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2012/05/the_coming_decline_of_the_academic_left.html

[1] Actually, there are other corners of academia that have also eluded the indoctrination mode to a substantial extent, e.g., business schools, professional schools and agricultural schools.
===