Alternative Medicine: How much trust does it deserve?

Alternative medicine is a topic that many people are very passionate about because it has this connotation that it is the more natural or pure way of treating the body, bringing it back into balance. Some people feel that there is almost a spiritual nature to it. On the contrary, "evidence based medicine", or "western medicine", is sometimes seen in a very suspect way because of the huge amount of money that is involved and the synthetic nature of many of the pharmacological treatments. While alternative medical treatments have helped many people it can receive more trust than it deserves putting people at great risk of rejecting life saving and quality of life improving treatments. For this reason I would like to point out a few things about these two types of medicine.

Alternative medicine isn't shown to work while evidence based medicine is. 

By definition Alternative medicine is any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method. This definition of alternative medicine doesn't necessarily mean that it never works, it just means that it hasn't been proven to work using the scientific method under reasonable experimental conditions. It also points out the fact that there are some alternative medications that are used which have been scientifically proven not to work, which is a problem.

Evidence based medicine on the other hand is medicine that has been proven to work using the scientific method. These studies have been peer reviewed and the results of the study accepted with high statistical confidence within the community of the medical specialty.

More simply stated by Tim Minchin:

"Alternative medicine, by definition, has either not been proven to work, or proven not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine."

-Tim Minchin

Using these definitions it means that once any substance or method has been proven to work under reasonable scientific experimental conditions it automatically becomes evidence based medicine and ceases to be alternative. Ideally whenever a new treatment is shown to work with a high level of confidence it would instantly be implemented into our health care system but this is not always the case for many different reasons good and bad.

Alternative medicine is not regulated while evidence based medicine is. 

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) was initially set up in 1906 for the purpose of keeping people safe. One of their jobs is the regulation of medical drugs. In order for a drug  to claim it works as a treatment of a specific pathology it needs to have been shown to be safe and effective (benefits outweigh risks). Once approved the FDA monitors the manufacturing process of the substance, labeling and advertising. Each drug has a known toxic dose and effective dose based on studies to ensure it is safe. Even after the drug is released it is monitored to ensure there isn't any long term negative effects.

Dietary supplements, being a large bulk of alternative medicine, is not regulated because in 1994 they were mandated to be regulated as foods rather than drugs under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Therefore they are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and they have no approval requirements. They are not allowed to state on the label that they specifically treat, diagnose or cure any illness and must include a disclaimer on the label.  A 2013 study that looked at 44 different herbal products from 12 different companies showed that:

"Most (59%) of the products tested contained DNA barcodes from plant species not listed on the labels. Product substitution occurred in 30/44 of the products tested and only 2/12 companies had products without any substitution,contamination or fillers. Some of the contaminants we found to pose serious health risks to consumers". 

"Most of the herbal products tested were of poor quality, including considerable product substitution contamination and use of fillers"

So the majority of the time when you are taking dietary supplements what is stated on the bottle isn't necessarily what is in the bottle. Often times the labeling on dietary supplement adds and labels give the notion that they cure specific problems without specifically stating that they do, which is very confusing to consumers.

Alternative medicine usually isn't based on sound scientific principles.

Most forms of medicine that fall under the realm of alternative medicine are based on unsound principles. For example:

Homeopathic Medicine, developed in 1796, is based on the principle that "like cures like", meaning that the substance that caused the disease in a healthy person will cure similar symptoms in a sick person. These remedies are prepared by repeatedly diluting a substance in alcohol or distilled water to a point where none of the original substance remains. In essence you are only receiving water and any positive affect that you are receiving is due to the placebo affect.  A current example of the damaging affects of homeopathic medication include Nosodes, which are homeopathic (diluted down to only water) vaccines that claim to protect people against disease like a normal vaccine.

Traditional Chinese Medicine is not based on any internal anatomy. It was against the law to perform autopsies in China until 1912 and because of this the Chinese had no system of anatomy comparable to western medicine.

Use of alternative medications is often supported by logical errors. 

The idea that just because it is natural it is good is incorrect. While it may appear that pharmaceutical drugs are more of a risk because they are required to list all of the known side effects, natural herbs and other substances have side effects  as well (click the link, I dare ya). These side effects are less understood because they haven't been as thoroughly tested. The consumer is less aware of these side effects because they are not required to release or obtain this information. All substances are toxic to the body at some level, even water. The problem with herbal supplements is that this toxic dose is not always known while with regulated drugs it is required knowledge.

Anecdotal studies and case studies are not adequate scientific proof. There are some very compelling documentaries out there that give the story of only a single person or a few people who benefit from a specific treatment. This is not adequate. There are many types of studies and each type provides a certain level of evidence and until an out come is statistically significant under scientific conditions it isn't proven. Case studies and anecdotal treatments are the starting point of investigation.

Just because something has been used for a long time doesn't mean it works. A common rational for supporting alternative medicine, such as eastern type medicine, is the fact that many methods have been used for thousands of years. This is not always true and could be attributed to a correlation vs causation fallacy. How many years did the native Americans perform rain dances?  The average life expectancy in China in 1960 was only 36.3 yrs while in the United States it was 69.8 yrs. Sam Harris put it well when he stated:

"But the mere endurance of a belief system or custom does not suggest that it is adaptive, much less wise. It merely suggests that it hasn't led directly to the society's collapse or killed its practitioners outright."
-Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape

DISCLAIMERS:

1. I do not consider healthy eating or a healthy life style to be alternative medicine. All people should do their best to eat healthy and stay active in an attempt to prevent problems down the road.
2. Also, I am in no way claiming that evidence based medicine is perfect or that it has all the answers. There are still a lot of unanswered questions that need to be looked at. With time and the use of the scientific method, evidence based medicine will continue to improve. 
3. Evidence based medicine is not biased towards where it obtains its treatments, specific health care systems maybe but that is different. As long as something can be shown to work under reasonable scientific experimental conditions beyond that of current treatments available, whatever the source of the information, be it China or fresh vegetables, it is then considered evidence based. 
4. Testing any hypothesis, takes time and money and I do agree that pharmaceutical companies have a lot of money which allows them to actually test their products.  Numbers probably have been fudged by dishonest companies on rare instances but I personally trust this process of medicine being shown to work over the alternative. 
5. The burden of proof is on these alternative medicines to do high level studies that show with high confidence that their treatments repeatedly work. Until then they will remain under the umbrella of Alternative Medicines. 

A few words from Michael Specter on the matter:

Factors in my decision to leave the LDS church

This is a list of concerns that I came across that played a major part in my decision to leave the church and continue to play a part in my not coming back to the church or having any faith in the message. As far as I know all of these things are true but I am open to eliminating items if I am informed otherwise. Most members of the church are simply not aware of the these facts or are at least not aware of the significant historical backing to these claims (I know I wasn't). I have heard it stated that people who stay in the church handle this information in three ways; (1) Reject it as false information, (2) Shelf it as not to be understood at this present time because we can't understand the things of god or (3) Completely avoid seeing it or thinking about it at all. I believe that we were given a mind to use it and that it is a good thing, not a stumbling block. I invite all those who are currently in the church to investigate these claims so that they can have a better understanding of the history behind the message that they so boldly proclaim. 

Polygamy

1. Joseph Smith had 32 wives (or more). 
2. Joseph Smith married a 14yr girl.
3. Joseph Smith married other men's wives while they were away on missions (polyandry). 
4. Joseph Smith was commanded to perform polygamy by an angle that threatened him with a sword. 
5. Joseph Smith had a "dirty little affiar" with one of his servants, Fanny Alger prior to him coming forth with the revelation of polygamy. 
6. Joseph Smith manipulated girls into marrying him against their will on the premise that their family's eternal salvation depended on it. 
7. Members of the church were part of the mob when Joseph Smith got tarred and feathered and the mob planned on castrating him. 
8. Joseph Smith denied that he practiced polygamy in 1844 in response to a newspaper article written by William Law in the Nauvoo Expositor. 
9. Joseph Smith had the printing press destroyed in Nauvoo due to that article which was one of the main reasons why he went to Carthage Jail, eventually leading to his death. 
10. All of the prophets of the LDS church prior to around 1890 taught that one must practice polygamy to attain the highest degree of glory and that it was an eternal principle.
11. The church claims to have stopped polygamy in 1898 even though the prophet and many members at that time continue to practice polygamy. 

Book of Mormon

1. There is no remnant of the people claiming to live in the American continent as stated in the BoM. 
2. Wars that claimed to have consisted of 2 million people and to have occured in approx 600BC in the BoM at the specific place where the plates were buried, Hill Cumorah, produced no trace of war while older battles are easily verified in other parts of the world. 
3. The DNA shows that the natives living on the American continent were from Asia and came across the Bearing Straight, not from Israelite descent. 
4. The many anachronisms in the BoM that have been shown not to exist in the American continent during the time claimed in the BoM such has horses, wheat, chariots, steel, etc...
5. The BoM was translated by Joseph Smith while he looked at a peep stone in his hat. The same peep stone that he used to unsuccessfully search for treasure. 
6. The Anton papers, which claim to be copies of characters from the original plates, are in existence today, accepted as legit by the church and still no sense can be made out of them even though the church claims that Professor Anthon verified that the characters were true Egyptian characters. The church even used the characters on a 1980's version of the BoM cover. Anthon denies that this ever occurred.  If current information couldn't decipher them then how could Anthon in the 1830's?
7. There are many testimonies from the witnesses and others that they only saw the original plates with their spiritual eyes and hefted them in a box. 
8. Joseph Smith was well read in the Bible to a point that it has been stated that he was able to reference almost any verse as well as he was well read on the current literature during his day. 
9. View of the Hebrews, other books from Joseph Smith's day and stories and experiences from his family and his own life draw very shocking parallels to the BoM. 
10. BH Roberts, who was a GA in the 1920's, looked into the BoM to refute claims by critics due to a request to do so by the Apostles and concluded that Joseph Smith was likely the author.

First Vision

1. Joseph Smith's story about details of the first vision evolved over time from one personage appearing to him to two personages and the purpose of him going to pray also changes from receiving a remission of his sins to seeking which church was right.
2. Prior to 1835 Joseph Smith believed in the trinitarian type God such that God was a spirit and Jesus Christ had a physical body, this being supported by his earliest 1832 account of the first vision stating that only 1 personage appeared to him. This further confirmed by the the 5th Lecture of Faith written in 1835 which states this specifically. The original edition of the BoM also states that the father and the son are the same but many of these passages were altered after 1835 to reflect his change in doctrine. 
3. The newspaper "Messenger and Advocate" covered the history of the church in 1834 and never even mentioned the first vision. 
4. Joseph Smith never told the body of the church of his vision until 22yrs later. 
5. Many other people claimed to have visions around the same time as Joseph Smith and some of these parallel Joseph Smith's description very closely.

Temple

1. The entire temple ceremony directly and almost exactly parallels the Masonic ritual and Joseph Smith was a very active Grand Master Mason. 
2. Current Masons have said that there is no possible connection between the Temple of Solomon and the Masonic rituals according to the authorities of the Masonic faith. 
3. The temple endowment has changed dramatically even though it was supposed to come from God and was never to change at all no matter what. 

Priesthood

1. The stories of John the Baptist, Peter, James & John restoring the priesthood to Joseph Smith were embellished over time similar to the First Vision story. 
2. Joseph Smith didn't even mention the priesthood or authority in 1830 when the church was organized even though it supposedly happened in 1829. 
3. The priesthood wasn't mentioned in the 1833 Book of Commandments (today it has become D&C) 4 years after is supposedly occurred.
4. There is no account of the specifics of Peter, James and John coming to restore the Melchizdek Priesthood in history.

Other

1. The Book of Abraham came from some papyri with some mummies that the church and Joseph Smith bought in 1835. Joseph Smith claimed to translate them. These scrolls still exist today and scholars have used the Rosetta Stone to decipher Egyptian and none of the translations are anything similar to what Joseph Smith claimed they were. Much of the Mormon doctrine is based on the Book of Abraham. This all can be verified by looking at the scrolls in existence still and the notes that Joseph Smith used to "translate" the document. 
2. Joseph Smith obtained some metallic plates known as the Kinderhook Plates and partially translated them but they were later found out in 1980 to be a complete hoax.
3. It is estimated that the church profits (after expenses) 4-6 billion dollars a year and a very limited amount goes to charity or those in need. In fact, a few years back the the church posted the amount of money that they spend on charity and someone figured out that the the church only donates about $5 per member per year. They do not release their financial statements and recently constructed a $5 billion luxury mall next to Temple Square. 
4. The church has specifically instructed it's educators to only teach things that are faith promoting, stating that all things that are true are not necessarily useful.

 These findings, and many others that I will not include, go against everything that I had been taught in church prior my exit. They are serious issues that I feel people should be aware of if they are going to base the way they act and the way they see others on it. I refuse to represent or be a part of a message that just isn't true. From this new perspective I have also been able to see the damage that it can do to children to teach them to view the world in black and white. There are a lot of things to still be figured out in the world and figuring these things out will require intense critical thinking and the humility to change our ideologies when we learn they are wrong, which I feel is very absent in religion as a whole. Truth can be tested and tested and will remain true. The mormon church does not hold up to investigation plain and simple. Truthfulness aside, I do not want to raise my children reading and basing their morality on a book filled with grusome violence, and flagrant racism and sexism.

Ingrained Religion, Severe Cognitive Bias

This is a video of Warren Jeffs, the RLDS prophet, speaking to one of his church members, Nephi, trying to explain to him that he wasn't really a prophet and it was all a sham. Even hearing this confession from the prophet himself he still states that the prophet is only being tested by the lord and doesn't accept it. Mr. Jeffs sees that Nephi isn't getting his message so he reverts into "revelation" mode and states it in a way that it is God speaking through Warren saying that Warren is not, and never was a prophet.

Religion is a such a hard thing for people to let go. It is so severely ingrained into their minds that they can't even accept it from the source. I so badly want to find a way to help those who are following things that are so obviously wrong when looking from the outside in.

How to tell if you are (or were) in a cult.

We ran across this and when comparing it to our previous membership in the LDS church I think it is without a doubt a cult. The weird thing is that we were proud of it.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

This checklist will be published in the new book, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006). It was adapted from a checklist originally developed by Michael Langone

A kooky video about cults......

Monson won't testify

President Thomas S. Monson hasn't testified of the truthfulness of his church in his last 48 conference addresses. Kimber and I find that very interesting. I never even noticed this during the entire time I was a member. No doubt this info will cause people to listen closer to his talks from now on.

Check out the research. http://mormoncanon.com/articles/Monson-fails-to-testify

The recent fraud case against Monson and the church makes us think that Monson's refusal to testify is a legal safety net.

Corporate Church?

Hmmmm..... something seems fishy here.

Silly Mormons.

Why can't everyone think like us?

This video portrays how Kimber and I have been feeling lately. He is a bit vulgar but nails it right on the head.

David Fitzgerald on the Historical Christ

I recently watched a video that brought up a few interesting points on the origin of Christianity and the Bible. The information was presented by David Fitzgerald who received a degree in history at the California State University and has been studying the historicity of Jesus for the last 10 years or more. Some of his points are as follows:

1. No historians or authors that lived during the time of Jesus wrote about him or any of the many amazing things that should have been recorded if people were taking notes. It wasn't until about 100 yrs after that people started writing about his life. 
2. The people who are often stated to have been witness of Jesus all lived way after he had died. 
3. Quotes by Flavius Josephus in his book Antiquities of the Jews (93-94AD) that support the historicity of Jesus are generally accepted by the scholarly community as forgery.
4. There were more than 40 gospels written but only 4 made it into the Bible because they beleived the earth was flat and held up by 4 pillars. 

Interesting information that may require more investigation. 

Albert Einstein's View on Religion

When the majority of people think of someone that is absolutely brilliant I would dare say that they think of Alert Einstein. I recently stumbled on a few quotes that give us some degree of what he thought about God and Religion. It is interesting to note that today depending on the field of science, the majority considers themselves either agnostic or atheist. What does good old Albert have to say?

The following excerpts are taken from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979.

From p. 39
On 17 July I953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of ever lasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's hand writing, is the following sentence, written in English:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

From p. 40
In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.
Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Part of a letter to Eric Gutkin in 1954 (1 year before Einstein's death). 

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

 In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and `rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.  

With friendly thanks and best wishes  

Yours, A. Einstein.

I guess he falls into the same category as most scientists when it comes to concepts of god and religion.

Science vs Religion

I have heard many people say that they compartmentalize science and religion separately. I think that this is done because both are different ways that man uses to explain our surrounds and often times they conflict. Why should these two fields of thought be compartmentalized? Assuming that there is a God who controls this whole world like the majority of the world population thinks, the two should go hand in hand. Science should confirm the things of religion. When science and religion don't see eye to eye on certain things then it can only logically lead to one conclusion; at least one of them is wrong. Both of them could be wrong, but both cannot be right. So where do we put our trust? Many view God, the leader of their religion, as an all knowing, all powerful being that far surpasses our intellectual capability. This view, assuming their religion actually is led by god, has caused many to reject science concluding that man's finite mind cannot understand the things of God and therefore we should trust only our religion and be very skeptical of science when a conflict arises. Who is to say that God doesn't have his hand in science? Assuming that god is the source of all truth, he has his hand in anything that presents truth. So which can and should be more trusted? I believe science, and here are some reasons why.

First lets get some definitions as to what science and religion actually are:

Religion: An organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality. -Wikipedia

Science:  A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. -Wikipedia

Reasons why science should be trusted over religion:

1. Science will admit that they are wrong Sitting a pharmacology class a few years ago the teacher emphasized that only about 50% of the things that he would be teaching us was true. He went on to point out that the problem was that he didn't know which 50% it was. Compare this to religion where people will stand up and say, "I know my message is true". Science is a process of hypothesis and tests. Hypothesis are basically logical guesses as to why something is the way it is. Hypothesis are always followed by tests that either confirm or reject them. Science isn't ever presented in a black and white view but rather as a probability to be further evaluated. Being unable to accept the fact that the way you see things is wrong creates a system that is extremely vulnerable to falsehoods. 
2. Science welcomes critical examination. Before a researcher's work can even be published in a credible journal it must be reviewed by multiple experts in the field. They ensure that the information that is presented is built upon principles that are supported by previous research and that if a concept isn't supported it is clearly stated to be an unsupported assumption. They present the exact method of how they performed their test, a discussion on how they interpreted their results and their conclusion. Once published this information is invited to be tested by other researchers and built upon. If the test included bias' or errors they are discussed publicly. Religion on the other hand completely discourages and avoids doubtful questioning. They focus only on information that supports their case and promotes faith. Not allowing critical examination and refusing to admit that they are wrong opens up religion to conformation biases which produce false information. 
3. Science is a worldwide effort not lead by one person or group. There isn't one person or organization that dictates what science should look into or accepts and rejects things. Science is a worldwide effort. Ideas are presented, evaluated, confirmed, repeated and build upon by completely separate organizations. Religion on the other hand is most often lead by one group or person. This person claiming to be closer to god that all others because they were chosen to be some sort of mouthpiece for god or enlightened. Allowing someone to be a leader and not critically questioning what is being said makes one extremely vulnerable to false information and abuse.
4. Science is testable. Science is a process that quantifies information. The process of science is used to investigate everything, including aspects of religion. My belief is that this world is controlled today by the same laws and powers that have existed since the beginning. Claims from long ago can, and should be, tested today. Religion is based on things that are not testable, not verifiable and stated as truth. Testing things of god is discouraged in many instances. Religion is based on happenings that were recorded long ago in limited detail from unknown sources at unknown times. Not being able to, or allowed to, test aspects of religion makes one vulnerable to accepting false information.

One can reject religion while not rejecting the concept of God. However, when it comes to learning about our universe (which in doing so should help us better learn about God) I believe that placing our trust in only religion puts people at great risk for rejecting or avoiding information provided by science that helps us better understand our surroundings. For those who continue to include religion in their life the balance can be difficult and I wish you the best. 

Subatomic Origin

I have always seen the world in a very real sense. Miracles aren't just miracles but had to occur due to some sort of physical interaction. I have felt that the "spiritual side" of the world had a deeper more physical explanation that the current understanding of physics and chemistry couldn't explain, but that with a perfect understanding could be explained scientifically. 

I stumbled onto some awesome presentations that support this previous feeling. They cover the concept of all matter being ultimately created from only a few basic really small particles. 

The simple explanation......

A more in depth explanation.....

A beautiful theory.....

I don't really claim to understand the details of the concept but the information is mind boggling.

The Complexity of Homosexuality

Since moving from the bubble of Utah to the San Francisco Bay Area I have met many people who are homosexuals. None of these people have fit the picture which I painted in my head, or had been painted for me, previously as to what these type of people were like. The entire idea of being attracted to the same sex was previously always seen as a sin or a weakness that would prevent the person from gaining all that life had to offer. I saw it as something similar to an addiction or weakness to a substance like alcohol or drugs. This view was largely, if not totally, based on religious influences in my life that stemmed from biblical teachings that condemned these types of actions. My experience has been that these people were simply that, people. They just had a bit of different wiring as to what they were drawn to. They are happy, smart, good hearted people that I actually enjoy being around most of the time.

As is the case lately, I been looking at my previous assumptions and seeing what truth there was to them. A few things.

Homosexuality isn't a Black or White Subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports#Kinsey_scale

Research has shown that people are not just gay or straight and that there is a gradient of sexual orientation among our population. Back in the 1940's Alfred Kiney interviewed many thousands or people obtaining what he called sexual histories. His work was foundational to the field of sexology. He created what has been known as the Kinsey Scale, shown above, which divides human sexuality into 6 different categories depending on sexual attraction. It is an interesting topic and his work as been the spring board for further scientific investigation.

Homosexuality Isn't a Conscious Choice 

An interesting video that I recently found showed the prevalence of homosexual activity in nature. This refutes many of the statements that say that it isn't natural and is just a choice. Animals are driven largely by instinct and this video shows that homosexual instincts do indeed exist in nature, and are more prevalent than I ever thought.

Homosexuals Doesn't Have a Negative Effect on Society

Homosexuality is often put in the category of a disorder that is damaging to society. This is a huge false assumption. It isn't a nuclear family but homosexual parents can raise children offering love and every advantage to that child it needs to be a contribution to society. Mr. Granderson gives some great thoughts on the matter.

I personally see no reason why a person that was born to have same sex attractions should be treated any different in society. They should be respected and treated just the same as those that are heterosexual. The idea from the Bible that this is an evil or impure way to live is absurd and should be discarded or reinterpreted. Why would a God create homosexuals of all species and then tell them that they can't have the type of love that they were programmed to have.

Good Science or Bad Science?

Deciphering between good science and bad science seems like an impossible task. The general public is extremely vulnerable to accepting bad science when it is presented in a creative way or by big name people. I recently ran across a set of guidelines presented by TEDx.com for the purpose of filtering out the bad science which can be used by each of us in our attempt to incorporate good science into our lives. 

From TED's website:

TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader. 

TED has a massive database the presents short lectures by world experts on all sorts of different topics ranging from mechanical birds to faith to cochlear implants (go Karl White!!). The lectures are all around 18 minutes long and are an invaluable public source of information.

While the letter including the guidelines is quite long, you can read the complete thing here. But I am going to pull the guts out of the letter and present it below. I have highlighted the ones that commonly lure people in with neon green.

Marks of Good Science:

• It makes claims that can be tested and verified
• It has been published in a peer reviewed journal (but beware… there are some dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t.)
• It is based on theories that are discussed and argued for by many experts in the field
• It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy
• Its proponents are secure enough to accept areas of doubt and need for further investigation
• It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge
• The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification

Topics banned from TEDx stages(meaning that they are rampant with bad science):

• GMO food and anti-GMO foodists
• Food as medicine, especially to treat a specific condition: Autism and ADHD, especially causes of and cures for autism
• "Healing," including reiki, energy fields, alternative health and placebos, crystals, pyramid power
• "Free energy" and perpetual motion machines, alchemy, time travel
• The neuroscience of [fill in the blank] — not saying this will all be non-legitimate, but that it’s a field where a lot of goofballs are right now
• The fusion of science and spirituality. Be especially careful of anyone trying to prove the validity of their religious beliefs and practices by using science

Red Flags 

• Barrages you with piles of unrelated, over-general backup material, attempting to bury you in data they think you won’t have time to read
• Holds a nonstandard degree. For instance, if the physics-related speaker has a degree in engineering, not physics; if the medical researcher does not have an M.D. or Ph.D.; if the affiliated university does not have a solid reputation. This is not snobbery; if a scientist truly wishes to make an advance in their chosen field, they’ll make an effort to engage with other scholars
• Claims to have knowledge no one else has
• Sends information only from websites they created themselves; there is little or no comment on them in mainstream science publications or even on Wikipedia
• Provides data that takes the form of anecdotes, testimonials and/or studies of only one person
• Sells a product, supplement, plan or service related to their proposed talk — this is a BIG RED FLAG

Tips for Looking into a Topic.

Start with some basic web research. Wikipedia is your first stop to gain a basic background. Following primary-source links from Wikipedia, work out from there to university websites, science and health blogs, and databases of papers published in respected journals

The world is full of ideas, both good and bad. Science is the PROCESS by which we "build and organize knowlege". It is the process by which we can work together to improve our universe. Be smart out there when confronted with various ideas. There are a lot of wing-nuts in disguise.

The Bible: Becoming Gray....

As I have come to learn more and more about religion and God I have accepted the fact that nothing is black and white. Absolute truth is really only an idea that gives humans hope. Learning is an eternal process. For me, seeing the world in more of a gray tone, I believe, has opened my mind to information that I would have previously rejected because it didn't conform to the current way I viewed the world. It has also made things more interesting and complex. This view promotes more critical thinking which only further advances the process of obtaining truth and eternally progressing.

This week I had the opportunity to listen to a few more awesome presentations from mormonstories (part of the Open Stories Foundation). One in particular, which will be added to my top 10 list, was in interview with Jared Anderson. Jared was working on his Ph.D. in Religious Studies at the University of Carolina at Chapel Hill, focusing on the gospels and the New Testament at the time of this interview. At this time he was also an active LDS member that even mentioned recently giving his daughter a priesthood blessing. I am not sure what his current status is now but none the less he is an awesome thoughtful guy who has immense depth to views on God and spirituality.

Since breaking the mold and starting my journey to find truth I have realized that many of the things that I have based my beliefs on were only assumptions. I have always been curious about the Bible, where it came from and how reliable it actually is. I, like probably most of the Bible believing population, accepted it on the basic claim that it came from God. I am not sure exactly what I thought that meant but probably simply that God inspired the authors to write down the truth. Having a Mormon belief system I accepted the fact that the Bible could have errors due to translation and therefore never considered it infallible as much of the christian world does. I never thought that the Bible was the all inclusive word of God and only held it as an inspired set of records for me to learn from. A few assumptions that I made about the Bible were:

1. The Gospels were actually written by the disciples that ministered with Jesus, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. 
2. The books of the Bible are presented in chronological order. 
3. The Gospels were written during or shortly after the death of Christ.

Jared presented information about the Bible that opened my eyes to the amount of information that scholars have obtained as a result of many life times devoted to it's study. He presented the information from a scholarly perspective, as opposed to a theological perspective. I learned that the first books in the bible, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, written by Paul (who never even met Jesus in the flesh), weren't written until around 50CE. The first Gospel written was the book of Mark written in 69CE (approx 40yrs after Jesus' death), which is the least detailed book (lacking a birth narrative and a resurrection narrative). All of the authors of the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) are anonymous, the names of the books being added later after they were written. He takes listeners on a "whirlwind tour" of the Bible in chronological order. It was awesomely enlightening. He also discusses, in Part 4 starting at 30min, the historical Jesus. He presented information the supports the idea that a very influential man named Jesus actually did exist. In part 4 starting at 1hr he discusses the many different translations of the Bible and how and why they differ. 

My favorite part of the interview was when he answered the question, "How do you justify staying Mormon?"(Part 5 starting at 1hr 10min). He as a very thoughtful answer that I loved. While I have not decided to remain officially associated with the church I still absolutely value many aspects and principles of the Mormon theology and culture. He answers the question, "What is the purpose of religion?", something that I have pondered frequently. Overall I felt like his words and information were extremely helpful in my search and I would recommend listening to this podcast to anyone who is interested. If  people are hesitant as to the motives of Jared I would recommend listening to the last part where he shares his feelings about God and His plan for us. I still value the Bible and consider it an important document in one's search for truth and progression. Removing and verifying previous assumptions is part of the process of seeking. 

Jared Anderson's interview can be downloaded here: http://mormonstories.org/239-243-jared-anderson-an-academic-introduction-to-the-new-testament/

Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast Series

Podcasts are a great way to learn stuff as you do stuff. I listen to them as I drive and run mainly. A new one that I started listening to which I am very impressed with is called "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe: Your Escape to Reality". The podcast is put on by a bunch of critical thinkers and the organization is dedicated to promoting critical thinking, reason, and the public understanding of science. To give you an idea of the broad array of material that they cover, the few episodes that I have listened to have included discussions on such things as; skin fungi, osteoarthritis, patent trolls, kangaroos, genetically modified foods, debunked Sasquatch sightings, debunked UFO and extraterrestrial sightings, neuroscience, history's most deadly volcano, morality without religion and so much more. It has further opened my eyes to the awesomeness of science and learning.

Wrong for Right, Growing Pains and Complex Choices in the LDS Church

Mormonstories.org has has recently led me to critically evaluate things of the spiritual nature in my life. Once I started listening to the interviews  presented there I have allowed them to occupy much of my free time. I download recordings and listen as I perform somewhat mindless activities such as running and driving. These once mindless activities have been transformed into times of deep thought and pondering. I recently listened to an interview with Daymon Smith who wrote the book, "The Book Of Mammon: A Book About A Book About A Corportation That Owns The Mormons". It was a fascinating interview that covered topics that I haven't previously known much about. My brief thoughts on each of the 4 parts of the lecture. 

Lecture is found here:  149-152: LDS Anthropologist Daymon Smith on Post-Manifesto Polygamy, Correlation, The Corporate LDS Chruch, and Mammon. 

Episode 1: In this interview Daymon discusses the hurdles that the church had to overcome to eventually break off from the practice of polygamy. Polygamy was so deeply ingrained into the minds of the members of the church at that time that this task couldn't be accomplished with the issuing of a simple manifesto as I had always thought and as is taught in the church today. Due to the paranoia at the time that the feds would come and take polygamy practicing brethren away it was difficult to tell which statements concerning polygamy were serious and which were a type of code to appease the federal government and "beat the devil at his own game". This was an extremely complex time in church history. It caused me to ponder the question of what I would do if I was put in the position where I had to go against what I felt God had asked me to do to follow the laws of the land.

Episode 2: This episode discusses that question that probably every member of the church has had at some point, "who the heck wrote this manual". Daymon discusses the evolution of a correlated doctrine in an attempt to handle the rapid worldwide church growth in the middle 1900's. I know I always wondered what part the brethren of the church played in the decision of what goes into the manual. He also mentions that nothing on LDS.org goes back prior to the early 1970's (I think it was 1972), about the time that correlated doctrines began in the church. While I can see how the church had a need to keep the doctrine uniformed throughout the world I also see the problems that it causes with the concept that God's truths are eternal, yet changing behind the scenes. I personally agree with the concept that we should be searching for absolute truths but should always have the ability to reject or improve something that we thought was true at one point. So in essence we need to admit that nothing can be a confirmed absolute truth. This leads us on an eternal search which is only allowed to continue when we accept this fact. Thinking that we have the absolute truth only causes us to stop.

Episode 3: This one was all about the church being a corporation and honestly nothing really stuck. But I'm sure it was good. 

Episode 4: Living is Oakland I pass people on a regular basis that are asking for handouts. They usually have a small cardboard sign with some reason as to why they need some sort of help. Most of the time I give out money I feel as if I am a sucker and that the person isn't honest in his/her efforts. This feeling has prevented me from helping others and causes a small internal wrestle every time. What is the best way to help people? What would our titled perfect example, Jesus Christ, do in these situations? In this episode it discusses what the church does with it's money. While not a lot is known on this topic, because the church doesn't release it's financial statements, there is some information that is available. From income estimates provided by Daymon, the church is bringing in a whopping 13 million dollars a day!!! The ways in which this money is used is the topic of discussion and while there are multiple perspectives to every issue we are given a few facts to help us at least see where the church's money is going. This has led me to thing about how am I living my life? Am I contributing to society? How much should I be expected to contribute? What is the best way to contribute to those in need? These are the hard questions. Brother Smith wraps things up with a powerful testimony in the church, acknowledging that it does have it's problems and probably needs to do some redirecting on certain issues. 

Thanks again Mormonstories for a spiritually/mentally stimulating experience. 

Pseudohistory

Historians go to great lengths attempting to retell the past. They dig through journals of all different perspectives, affidavits, old newspapers, and anything that will help them recreate what actually happened. They also attempt to determine which of the accounts are incorrect if contradictory events are found. It is a very tedious task and there are often alternate story lines presented using the same historical accounts and facts. Richard Bushman, an American historian describes this process in relation to the story of Joseph Smith like this:

“Let me begin by talking about the facts, we sometimes think like these are little nuggets, like marbles they are just there, irreducible. But um…you know in any given letter there are a million facts, and facts only become significant when they are turned into evidence. And they become evidence when there is a perspective, or a theory, or an idea that makes those facts relevant. Then they become evidence. And the reason I stress that is that what we think of are just compelling facts, they just demand, also have underlying them a perspective on Joseph Smith that ties those facts together into some scheme, and until we recognize that whoever is telling us these facts is selectively choosing out of the millions and millions of little facts the ones that he or she wants to tell his particular story. So it isn’t just a matter of controverting the facts. It is identifying the story that is being told and asking is there another story that can contain those facts that ends up being a different picture.”

- Richard Bushman concerning  “the animal we call history”, Mormonstories.com lecture 048, Part II at 12:20-19:50;

The act of not presenting historical events in a way that follows the peer evaluated story is known as pseudohistory. Pseudohistory can occur  as a result of naivety, which is understandable, as much of the information to particular events in history may not have been available at the time the history was presented. Pseudohistory can also occur as a result of a desire to deceive for the purpose of hiding embarrassing historical information.  This deception may be "for the greater good", or it may just take time to change a history that has been so deeply ingrained into its audience. This begs to ask the question whether the one presenting the history is a conned-man, meaning he honestly doesn't know of the details that are contrary to the view of history that he is presenting, or if he is a conman, meaning that he is intentionally presenting incorrect history for a purpose. 

From Wikipedia:

The prefix pseudo- is used to mark something as false, fraudulent or pretending to be something it is not.

Pseudohistory covers a variety of theories that do not agree with the view of history that is commonly accepted by mainstream historians, of which are often not properly researched, peer-reviewed, or supported by the usual historiographical methods.