Physics, Facts, and Faith

So, I decided not to say anything about my last post. Really, everyone has heard why comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia are fallacious. Those who still accept these comparisons are hardly ever doing it from ignorance, but rather from complete stupidity. Anyway, that's not what I'm intending to discuss.

For those who aren't a personal friend of mine and haven't heard, I got myself switched from roustabout to pipeline. I just wasn't getting enough hours on roustabout, and pipeline was desperate for some workers, so I talked to my boss, and he had no problem transferring me. The only reason I bring this up is because of something that happened this past week at my job.

We've been putting in an 8 inch and 10 inch pipeline for Whiting Oil and Gas. We finished up the 10 inch this past week, except for the tie-ins. So, we had to pressure test the line. Before they put the water in the line for the pressure test, they push this rubber thing called a "pig" through the pipeline to clear out any dirt or other debris. Hardberger and Smylie's pipeline crew doesn't have much experience with 10 inch diameter pipeline. So, they originally brough in the air compressor they used on the 6 inch and 8 inch lines. When it ended up taking much longer than they expected, I mentioned to my boss that I could do some math and get him an estimate of how long it would take.

For those few that may care: The pipe was 10 inch diameter, which meant it had an area of pi*(5/12)^2 square feet, or roughly 0.55 ft^2. The pipeline was 8,000 ft long, which meant that its volume was about 4400 ft^3. The compressor was running at 150 psi, and 185 cubic feet per minute. At this rate, it would take 23 minutes to fill the line. However, the advertised CFM is intake CFM, not exhaust CFM. Using the ideal gas law, one can say that 14.7*CFM1=150*CFM2, which means that it's only actually running at about CFM2=(14.7/150)*CFM1=18.13 CFM.

That means that it would actually take about 242 minutes to push the pig through the line. Much too long! They had a water truck rented and waiting to fill the line. So, they got a pressure truck out there, and got the job done much faster, because of my estimate on the time it would take.

Afterward, the main pipeline foreman said, "you're pretty good at that math. Are you interested in that science stuff, too?" I replied "Of course! I love it." To which he responded, "So, you're one of those non-believers?" That rather shocked me. After all, I am, and a lot of science-minded people are. But, I would have thought it was taboo to ask an individual about their beliefs just because of that.

I didn't know how to respond, so I replied that it was possible to be a Christian and a scientist. He had the misfortune to ask me about this in front of the most religious person on the pipeline crew. I happen to really like this guy, and enjoy working with him. So, I tried to bluff my way through as being a Christian that likes science. Even so, evolution came up.

Very few things in this world anger me more than disbelief in evolution. It's real. It happens. The evidence is simply staggering. To deny evolution is to deny science. I couldn't resist defending it! I said that I thought it occurred. The highly Christian worker in the truck with us answered with that oft-used bromide, "there is no evidence for evolution." He didn't merely suggest it as a possibility, but said it with full-confidence in its truth. What could be more frustrating, but for someone to repeat a complete lie as if it were the purest truth!

I said, "of course there's evidence for it." He demanded an example. Lucky me, I happen to know a bit of biology. So I used the example of whales. Whales are mammals, and like all mammals they breath air. Yet, they're sea-faring creatures. Not exactly the best design! Yet, evolution would predict this quality in a mammal that lives in the sea. The separation of mammals from other creatures occurred well after they left the oceans. It would take much more evolutionary time to re-evolve gills than it would take to simply evolve large lungs and the ability to store lots of oxygen in the blood. A designer who had already created gills would not have this problem, however.

Even so, the individual with whom I was debating said, "Isn't that one of the wonders of God, that he creates such unusual creatures?" I cannot argue against that! It is the height of irrationality. "Isn't it amazing that something which looks like it works this way is actually the product of this, even though there is no evidence for that position?" Rather than get in a heated debate, I quickly moved the conversation on to work. I had much better things to do with my time than argue against the unchangeable mind of a creationist.

Fact: Evolution occurs, whether your faith likes it or not.

One Chipper's Point of View, By Joe

This is an excerpt from a column called "One Chipper's Point of View" in the local newspaper (The Herald Democrat). I don't have time to comment on it tonight, but perhaps tomorrow I'll be able to decide what I want to say about it.

---Excerpt---
This came from the Martin family in Ohio. Wilma Overton's son and daughter-in-law

Jim Neugent is a coach in Childress, Texas

Jim writes:

My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program called "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers decided she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.

My original message was:

ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. "THE PRACTICE" can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a "gay basher."

Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers.' What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative life style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
-- Jim Neugent

Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:

How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says, "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a change!

Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of statement.

Jim Neugent's second response! To ABC: Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I will be praying for you.
-- Jim Neugent

Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible.

Thanks, Jim Neugent.

I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read this story! This is one we should definitely pass on.
---End Excerpt---

Christian Porn

Sorry for the long delay in updating. Work just keeps me so busy I hardly get a chance to think of anything to write about

We all know the classic story re-hashed again and again. Some young person comes into contact with a preacher or a Christian friend. This young person is highly receptive to the constant proselytizing of the Christian friend. After a few discussions on "fulfilled" prophecy, or "irreducible complexity," or just an emotional appeal to Jesus suffering, the young person has a major change of heart, and becomes a Christian.

I thought this story was just reserved for the especially shallow and naive form of Christian; those who haven't actually "studied" the Bible, or attempted to proselytize. Those who don't know that, in fact, the evidence for Christianity is very unconvincing. It should be obvious. My father is a major fan of evangelism, and he has had very limited success. Sometimes (very rarely), he succeeds at convincing one type of Christian to become his type of Christian. Even then, those who take his stance usually end up backsliding into a less insane form of Christianity. Of all the evangelism he has done, I cannot think of any clear example of success.

Despite this personal experience with the unconvincing nature of the classic "evidence" for Christianity, the Church of Christ in Beaver decided to show a series of videos my father suggested which follow this classic theme. Unfortunately, I finished work so early this past Wednesday that I was unable to avoid attending. I conceded that, when work did not interfere, I would attend on Wednesdays.

Anyway, the specific videos which they have chosen to show involve three teenagers hiking in the country. They decided to meet up with one of their professors on this hike. Of course, this professor is highly religious. One of the teenagers is already a Christian, supposedly because of the convincing evidence of this preacher ... excuse me, I meant "professor." In the first video, when they took breaks from hiking, they discussed some "kingdom" the professor had mentioned. Obviously, this kingdom ended up being the kingdom of God. The professor went on, talking about "fulfilled prophecy." None of these prophecies, however, was really that specific. But, these students fell for it, and are now highly receptive to further preaching. In the next few videos they show, they'll be discussing other "proofs" of God. Want to bet the end up praising Jesus by the end of it?

Well, as one can imagine, it's easy to see through this video. A hike is an activity considered non-confrontational and very laid back; very casual. It's an environment "surrounded by God's Creation." Clearly, it's meant to be evidence of the beauty and glory of God. Also, the only adult is a professor. That means he must know best, right? And, he's an authority figure. We wouldn't distrust an authority figure, would we? Then there's the fact that all the teenagers are highly receptive of his message, and do not raise any intellectual objections to what he is saying. In fact, they're a perfect straw man version of the unbeliever. Nothing about this encounter is truly believable as an example of a genuine conversion.

So, what then about this hackneyed story is useful in preparing church-members for the real-world challenge of conversion? Nothing. No true, honest person would say that what the film portrayed is what proselytizing is like in real life. What it does do, however, is bring hope and further conviction to the believer. It makes proselytizing look like a friendly endeavor; something that is fun to do. It makes the unbeliever look highly receptive and unable to raise any good objections. It makes Christianity look obvious and rational. In short, it is a wish fulfillment fantasy for Christians.

Where else can someone find such an obvious example of wish fulfillment fantasy? Where else is the older character such a clear authority figure? Where else does one see no objections raised by the teenagers? Where else is the teenage characters made to look so receptive and eager? Oh, yes, that's right; porn! Is there a porn film where the older character was rejected; where the teens refused to go along with him? Have you ever seen a porn film where the older character spent lots of time working hard to be seductive to the teens? No! No one wants to see that. No one wants to see the porn teens reject the older character. No one wants to see the older character spend lots of time learning to be seductive, and working out in the gym, so that he can be attractive to younger women again. No one wants to see that, because it is not the wish fulfillment of their fantasies. The exact same is true of a film about evangelism that shows nearly every individual as raising serious objections to what they're being told, that shows evangelism as a confrontational behavior which is not welcome, that shows the Christian as being unconvincing and a clearly less authoritative figure than who he is seeking to seduce... excuse me, "convert." No one makes these kinds of films because it doesn't fulfill the fantasies of their Christian audience. Just like no one makes a porn film where no one gets laid.

God is a BAD INVESTMENT

Malachi 3:10 (NIV)

Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

Luke 6:38 (NIV)

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

God loves it when people give to him. So much, he gives more back. So God is a good investment. At least, that's the stance of the Beaver Church of Christ. They've started a series on "Stewardship" on Wednesday nights. The only reason I had to go was that I got off work early enough for it, and as part of the conditions for me living at home with my parents, I have to attend church when I'm not working.

I, of course, feel that I must object vehemently to their perspective on charity and giving. Their stance is that one should give before one has taken any for oneself, and that generosity should always be returned with greater literal wealth. This can be concluded from these two scriptures used in the "lesson" (if spreading falsities can qualify as such), even if one was not present for the actual lesson.

The preacher said, "this might test your faith somewhat." Well DUH! I should think so. It makes no fiscal sense, and it can be downright dangerous.

The great shock of the night came just a few minutes later, however. After the "lesson," my father brought the "message" for the night. He talked about how his faith had been challenged some on this issue. It seems that many years ago, when he was attempting to build a farm, he had been very generous with his donations to the Forgan Church of Christ. Much more so than the typical 10%. I believe he said it ranged from 30-40% gross, pre-tax income.

Now, the Church of Christ in Forgan is a large, dieing congregation of elderly ladies and barely enough men to even have a "church leadership." They have no local programs, and don't contribute to many charities at all. Who can blame them, really? Most of them are the wives of dead farmers, with barely any retirement at all. It's sad, but it's true.

Not only that, but my dad literally went bankrupt trying to farm. Perhaps if he had just taken the money, re-invested what he needed into the farm, and saved the rest, he could have made the farm work. Or, at the very least, have had a seed fund for later in life. Or maybe he'd have just had enough to pay off the debt and avoided bankruptcy.

Of course, my dad had to spin this to fit his belief in the supernatural. He said he had many wonderful things come into his life as a result of getting out of farming. He got to spend more time with his sons. He was able to be involved with the Boy Scouts. He was able to go to foreign countries to do mission work. Etc. Wonderful though these things are, it doesn't change the fact that it's a post-hoc analysis (which are typically regarded as only a way form a hypothesis, not to create a firm theory), and it doesn't change the fact that these are not quantifiable, intrinsically valuable things, as these two scriptures would imply. And it also doesn't change the fact that these sort of things might have happened anyway, had the farm become successful, and he could have had a hired hand for breaks.

On the way home, I had to bite my tongue. I wanted to ask how he could be so stupid. But, the thing is, I know how. I've been there. Faith is a powerful force. Terrifyingly so. Otherwise intelligent, lucid people can force themselves to see the world in a way completely contrary to reality. That's why I fight it. Nothing else can make people so blind.

I had to tone down my response somewhat. Instead of negatively arguing against his point, I decided to positively argue for a secularist view on charity. I noted that Lance Armstrong, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett are all very charitable individuals. They all also happen to be atheists. And they all also happen to have invested their time and money wisely to make sure they had their own lives safe and secure before they donated to charity.

This is the major difference between Christians and secular humanists when it comes to charity. Christians say "give it all to God" (whether God be a homeless man, Focus on the Family, or Kent Hovind's creationist museum effort, before he got busted). They say "hold none back for yourself." Secularists say, "give to a worthy cause" (whether that be cancer research, habitat for humanity, etc., but certainly not Focus on the Family). They say, "make sure you don't become in need of charity yourself before you decide to give to others."

I have nothing more to say for now. I have to get some sleep before work. But, do feel free to comment.

Work, work

Sorry for the huge delay on updating! Still, expect updates maybe once a week or so from here on out. I just started work, and it's going to take up most of my time.

My parents are pretty hardcore Church of Christ. As a result, they won't pay for any college outside of a private CoC university. I did that for a year at Oklahoma Christian, but couldn't stand it, so I moved on to OU. I loved that, but I also didn't get many scholarships because I was a transfer student. So, now I'm broke, and living at home and working to pay for college.

So, off to Hardberger and Smylie Roustabout Service I go. Basically, I spend 60+ hours a week doing (as my brother says) "the bitch work of the oil field." At $7.50/hr., it's not great pay, but it's the best I can find around here.

Anyway, expect roughly weekly updates. I usually am too exhausted after getting off work to actually write, or do anything other than shower, eat, and sleep. Maybe it's just the fact that I haven't adjusted to the job quite yet.

When journalists attack

This is a quick, hacked post. Quality is low, and the writing is trash. But, I found myself driven to make a few quick comments before I go off and have some fun.

Divine justice is perfect and tempered with mercy

All human beings, the philosopher Donald MacKinnon used to tell his Cambridge students, have a desire for a true judgment on the lives they have lived. They want to submit to the verdict of an arbitrator who will have inner knowledge of the cards they were dealt, and the conclusions they drew about the way to play them; who will comprehend at the deepest level their motives and intentions in face of the pressures upon them and who will have mercy when they whisper the truth.

I don't understand what it is that drives some philosophers to believe that they know what "all human beings" desire. I myself don't have a desire to submit to an arbitrator as described by MacKinnon. It is not the judgments of others that I have to live with, but rather the judgments I make of myself. I don't want to be on my deathbed and think, "well, I might not think I've lived life well, but at least God thinks I did!" Honestly, I hope people say, "well, he was kind of an ass, but he had a hell of a lot of fun! And what was with his obsession with charity?"

Such a judge is not obtainable on this earth, MacKinnon observed. This would seem to be what Pope Benedict XVI is driving at in his recent encyclical letter on hope, Spe Salvi, when he says that “I am convinced that the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favour of faith in eternal life”.

Really? The Pope believes God is the ultimate judge? No shit? And I thought he considered the fifth precinct all-powerful!

Benedict does not believe that any secular substitute for the Last Judgment can succeed. In the West, the Christian conception of a divine judge has faded into the background, he writes, and has been replaced by a conviction that human beings must themselves establish justice. Such a protest against a God who allows so much injustice and suffering is “understandable”, Benedict thinks. But no one will ever find a secular judge who can perform the function that MacKinnon described, nor an answer for centuries of suffering, nor a guarantee against the cynicism of power.

Again, how retarded. Of course the Pope thinks no secular judgments can be better than the Last Judgment. HE'S THE POPE! I don't know many Popes who are atheists or naturalists, and believe only in earthly judgment. Nope, I'm not that impressed.

What's So Great About Christianity
(Speaking of the 'new atheists', and specifically Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al.)

"These men, deeply hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular, are also formidable debaters. Last fall, I attended a debate in which Hitchens carved to pieces a leading Christian theologian who conceded far too much, defended his faith far too little, and sought common ground where none exists."

Or perhaps he was just too honest? Perhaps this theologian knew all too well his faith could not be defended strongly. Or, perhaps, Hitchens is actually right, and the theologian was arguing from a position of little or no intellectual foundation? Or, perhaps, Satan put the words into Hitchens' mouth? Hail Satan! Professional orator of all atheists!

According to the writer of this article, "D'Souza's horse kick comes in the form of this new book. And quite a kick it is. D'Souza offers a persuasive, scholarly, and intelligent rebuttal to the main charges made by those who proudly carry the banner of atheism. And unlike the work of some leading atheists, D'Souza's book is blessedly free of rancor and reckless statements."

Well, let's consider a few of the arguments which the author of this article mentions:

First, Christianity is the main foundation of Western civilization and the root of our most cherished values. -- Which is why we observe the Sabbath, and saying "God" without religious intent is illegal, as well as why rebellious children are stoned to death.

Second, the latest discoveries of modern science support the claim that a divine being created the universe. -- Really? So science actually has discovered the world is 6,000 years old? And what of miracles. Why haven't any of those occurred since the invention of the camera, and the scientific method?

Third, Darwin's theory of evolution strengthens, not undermines, evidence for supernatural design. -- By explaining away the need for supernatural causes.

Fourth, nothing in science makes miracles impossible. -- Wrong. The density of water is not sufficient for Jesus to walk on it, no matter how anorexic a Messiah he may be.

Fifth, it is reasonable to have faith. -- What?! No way! No! Seriously, irrational belief in the face of contrary evidence is not reasonable. "Reasonable faith" is an oxymoron. When something is reasonable, it's not called faith. Otherwise, every single human thought could be classified as based on faith. Flag! Arbitrary redefinition! Opponent loses five yards, and other side gets the ball.

Sixth, atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history. -- Again, wrong. Hitler often invoked the name of Jesus and God when rallying the Germans against the Jews. The Inquisition was an actual religious movement. And then look at all the mass murders recorded in the Bible. If there is a God, and the Old Testament is his word, then the Great Flood was a massacre unequaled by all human wars!

Seventh, atheism is motivated not by reason but a kind of "cowardly moral escapism." -- Again, blatantly wrong. Few atheists are immoral or even amoral. In fact, religion is moral escapism; the religious does not have to consider whether an action is moral or not, but whether it is condoned by their religious texts or not. And based upon that logic, racism, slavery, xenophobia, ethnic cleansing, and many other morally reprehensible actions can be justified.

When Darwinists like Dennett invoke evolution as an "all-purpose explanation in cosmology, psychology, culture, ethics, politics, and religion," D'Souza writes, they go far beyond the evidence. -- Well, to a degree, yes. Most of the evolutionary hypotheses in cosmology, psychology, etc. are very early in their development. As far as I know, none of these writers and scientists consider evolution to be the only possible explanation for these things; they're just proposing it as a hypothetical explanation that needs further research. However, they certainly don't go more beyond the evidence than Christian theologians who believe these things exist because the great invisible magic man put them there.

For one thing, evolution cannot explain the beginning of life, and Darwin didn't even attempt it. -- Of course, these famous writers don't pretend that evolution is a pat answer for how life begin. But, it still beats saying "God did it." That is the God of the Gaps, and I would want nothing to do with him; he's prone to hiding in holes, and doesn't help anyone anyway. Bad God of the Gaps! No worship for you.

And among the limitations on evolution is that it cannot explain human rationality or morality. --Oops! Let me point out a few works on this issue: The Selfish Gene -- explains altruism. The Mating Mind -- explains human rationality. Both these works are by influential evolutionary biologists, and both provide superb frameworks for understanding humans from an evolutionary perspective.

We frequently see examples of people acting morally and against self-interest; in fact, we hold a special place of honor for those who die while trying to save people whom they have never met. -- And they were the ones whose evolutionary drive was broken, and as a result behaved in a way that weeded their genes out of existence. Notice how few people actually die while helping others? That's because it's not beneficial. Yet, it can still occur, just like albinism and cystic fibrosis.

Even supposing that human beings have a moral sense based on evolution, why choose to follow it? After all, we have lots of instincts--some noble and some base. Why choose the more noble ones, like cooperation and sympathy, fidelity and fair play? Why not use your power against those you have authority over? Why not rig the game in order to advance your own self-interest? -- It occurs all the time. There are murderers, rapists, child molesters, and more in the world. We lock these people up because they pose a threat to our lives and the lives of our children. That advances our own self-interest, and these poor fellows must resort to prison rape, which has very little reproductive value.

The moral atheist certainly exists, but it is because he lives in a society that takes a transcendent morality for granted. If the atheistic enterprise were to prevail, these beliefs would be unmoored--and the moral world it would create would be barren and bleak. -- I actually heard of a study mentioned on the Non-Prophets which shows that there is a negative correlation between theism and societal health as measured by the occurrence of murder, rape, STDs, theft, and even abortion in the prosperous democracies. In other words, the more religious a country, the less socially healthy. However, it is only a correlation, not a cause-and-effect. If that's greek to you, do some research. Nonetheless, there are highly secular societies which are not "barren and bleak." Look at Japan and Sweden. Very nice! Can me haz seklurism too?

Okay, I'm wrapping up. I've wasted too much time already.

Needles in a haystack

I'm so sorry for the delay in getting up this latest post. I just had to replace the tensioner, idler pulley, and main belt of my car. Then there was a lot of general maintenance. And I'm not much of a mechanic. I've been wanting to do this post for a while, but I haven't had a chance to write it, so I threw something together last minute.

The Oklahoma panhandle. Over twenty-nine thousand people. Over 550 square miles. A population density of 5 people per square mile. In Beaver county, where I live, the numbers get even worse. Nearly 2000 square miles, and 6,000 people; a population density of about 3 people per square mile. In the entire county, there is not a single stop light. The stats say that 10% of the US populace is atheistic. It might be a third of that in Beaver county. Six thousand people, 180 of which might be atheists. The atheistic population density: 0.03 atheists per square mile. For every hundred square miles, you have three atheists.

When people talk about the boondocks, this is the county they imagine. My high school class had 7 people in it going into high school. Two of them dropped out after they became pregnant. In the end, five graduated. Really, the only requirement for graduation was to stay in school. Even those who got pregnant could have stayed in and graduated. In the senior yearbook, every single one of them put God and family in their top two interests. One girl was a rebel. She put God, SCHOOL, family.

It's remote. In Beaver, the county seat of Beaver county, there is a Subway and a Pizza Hut. No McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, movie theater or other well-known symbols of American culture. If you want to go to a movie, visit a bookstore, go to a library that has an actual card catalog, you have to go to Liberal, KS. The family buys groceries from out of state.

Forgan doesn't even have that. There's no grocery store; only a quick stop. If you have a medical emergency, expect to drive the seven miles to Beaver. But, that's not to say that nothing happens out here. During the heat of any sports season, there's easily three games a week. One can go to the stands and see the senior citizens gossiping, the younger children running in the stands, the parents cheering on their son-or-daughter. Afterward, the richer families will go have a barbecue, while the poorer ones will let their teens run off with friends to get drunk.

Then there's church. Not everyone goes to church beyond Sunday morning. Some don't even then. But no one dares to criticize it. There are five different church buildings. This, in a town that doesn't even have it's own hospital! Of those five, the Church of Christ is the only one that insists the other four are going to hell. They're not very well liked. I grew up in the Church of Christ.

Church, out here, is not so much an obligation to God as it is a social activity. Parents and children get a chance to interact and gossip. All the networking that occurs in this town happens in the churches. To not go to church is to automatically put oneself at a disadvantage.

So, how would an atheist go about meeting other atheists or discussing their beliefs? Personally, I can hardly even imagine. Yet, when I look back on it, I can remember one time where I think someone might have been trying to reach out to me.

When I was in grade school, I was already a prolific reader. I was always going into the school library to check out books about everything. I would look in the card catalog, and if I couldn't find what I was looking for, I'd ask the librarian. Occasionally the librarian would make a suggestion. Half the time I took it, half the time I didn't. It just depended on whether my impression of the book and short description in the card catalog caught my interest.

One time, the librarian suggested "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. The only reason I probably even remembered this happening was that it was fiction. When I was younger, I never read fiction. Everything was non-fiction for me. So, when the librarian said, "here's a book to read; it's about an architect" I dismissed it right away. She explained to me that it was an exceptional book, and that she thought everyone should read it. She then went on to recommend "Atlas Shrugged" as a follow-up if I liked "The Fountainhead." The entire time, I just politely nodded.

There were two reason that I didn't read it. First, as I mentioned earlier, it was fiction, and I wasn't that interested in fiction at the time. Second, "The Fountainhead" is pretty long, especially for a grade schooler. Even worse, she had shown me "Atlas Shrugged." The page numbers went up over a thousand! At that point, I probably hadn't read anything beyond two hundred pages long.

After I started college, "Atlas Shrugged" became one of my favorite books, because of its philosophical commitment to reality, and the power of the human mind, and the human will. In many ways, it epitomizes how I try to live my life. If I want something to change, it is a problem to be solved, and I can't expect it to resolve itself if I don't do any work, both mental and physical. The human mind is no good if it is forced to work with false premises. If I want to increase how effective my thinking is, then I have to quit believing and using false premises. Thus, my rejection of theism, especially Christianity.

Now, looking back on it, I realize that this librarian might have been an atheist. If nothing else, she was a rationalist and willing to have her ideas challenged. Yet, in my entire time spent in the library (no small amount!), I cannot remember her ever even implying she was a skeptic, a rationalist, or questioning the status quo belief of protestant Christianity in Forgan. What scares me most is that she might have been these things, and yet was too frightened to ever act on it, except for once telling a bookish little boy that he should read a certain writer at least once, hoping it would open his eyes to the errors in the fundamentalist Christian indoctrination of his parents.