*Tartt's Scientific Approach*

*The God/Sin Question*

Greetings, it's good to be with you again. (The names used in this article have been changed) If one were to ask Greg and Lois: “What do you really think of Bob and Alice? Do you like them? And if not, do they know?” They may reluctantly say no, but they've never told them because they're just trying to be kind. But are they actually lying? Have they done Bob and Alice an injustice in order to manipulate them in some way? After all, Bob and Alice keep Greg and Lois's three kids free of charge rather often. That being the case, are they just “pretending” to be friends in order to get a free babysitter? According to main stream religion and ethics isn't this a sin?

Don and Barb have been married for 12 years. They claim to have a “happy” marriage, but secretly, Don has a mistress. This mistress is named Laura. Laura thinks Don is going to divorce his wife and marry her. (Don lied, he has no such intent). Barb also secretly has a boyfriend named Bill. Bill doesn't want Barb to leave Don because he's just in the relationship for the free sex and the substantial monthly donations she gives to his church. However, Barb being unaware of Bill's actual intensions is preparing to leave Don for him soon. Both Don and Barb suspect the other is having an extramarital affair. They have questioned each other, and both have denied any outside untoward affiliation. I know you're not shocked because these are everyday occurrences.

Now according to the Six Great Religions observed in this country and around the world Greg and Lois are guilty of Lying. Don and Barb are guilty of committing Adultery and lying. Laura and Bill are guilty of committing fornication. Bob and Alice's sin will appear later.

Is there really such a thing as sin? After all, isn't Man an animal? Perhaps he's just acting like one. Is sin just a worldwide “Made up” term invented to help jurisprudence officials control the morality and behavior of the masses? It also enables “Preachers” (of all faiths) and religious corporations to legally collect finances from these masses in the form of tithes and offerings. This tax free entitlement allows religious organizations to participate in what in fact may be global larceny by trick, just plain fraud, or to satisfy an actual sincere, benevolent need for aid to the poor. There is a lot of “wiggle room” in this definition.

*What Is Sin?*

Merriam-Webster's definition of Sin: “Wrongdoing, particularly the breaking of moral or religious rules. “In the Hebrew scripture, sin is viewed as a hatred of God or defiance of his commandments. The New Testament regards sinfulness as the inherent state of humanity, which Jesus came into the world to heal. Judaism divides sin into two categories: Those committed against man, and those committed against God. Many Christian theologians divide sin into actual and Original Sin, consisting of evil acts, words, and deeds. This is in turn divided into mortal sin, in which the perpetrator deliberately turns away from God, and venial sin, a less serious transgression committed without full awareness of wrongdoing. In Islam, sin is a straying from God's path, the Prophet (PBUH) was sent to guide people back to the true path. In Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism the good and evil deeds one commits in this life affect one's rebirth in the next.

I have found that these six religions differ somewhat in ethnicity and the spoken languages in their various ritualistic expressions. However, the steps taken to satisfy those religious requirements may differ, but the desired ritualistic results very closely resemble one another. The major differences in belief (worldwide) is whether one lives again as a spirit, as another person, or vanishes for all time into Hell or oblivion. And this leads us to the basic reality to which we are all prone: Does personal need influence the manner in which we see and treat others? Are most of our friends from certain socio economic or racial groups? And lastly, are we just a bunch of class conscious assimilators unsure of what to actually and internallybelieve? Are we all hypocrites? But why worry about sin? Isn't it another “made up” control mechanism? This whole God/Religion/Science argument has left many of us confused and some of us unsure about major aspects of our personal faith criteria. Is our personal source of information correct? Is what Father Tom, Reverend Green, Rabbi Davis or Imam Malik said this morning factual? How does anyone actually know if what they believe is true? And is having a Faith we cannot prove smart or stupid? If we cannot know whether or not our belief system holds water, how then can we ever be held accountable?

*Which category best describes you?*

1. Atheist: Today many (not all, but many) of the most talented physicists in the world are atheists. But not for the reasons one might think. I've had discussions with some of them. Much of their study calculations have led them to arrive at the conclusion that a God was not necessary in order to create everything we see, taste, smell, touch and hear. (Including the entire universe) The calculations that led them to draw this conclusion have shown that everything has simply “come into existence” independent of any “Supernatural or Devine participation.” And so in view of this phenomenal anonymous achievement using quantum mechanics, quantum physics, general relativity, and gravitational studies some have further extrapolated (as others have for far less academic reasons) that “There is no God.” This constitutes Atheism. Note: Under this latest scientific development, according to this criteria, one can still believe in a God, as long as they realize that the God has no power to do anything. So Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence are “out the window.”
2. Agnostic: The doctrine that certainty about first principles (First Cause) or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. Therefore Agnosticism is the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. It is my view that most of those who share this position are Atheists who fear (for whatever reason) public acknowledgement of their underlying Atheistic position. (I know many former agnostics who in their later years changed their allegiance to a system of belief).
3. Believer: Belief or Believing is defined by Merriam-Webster as: “A feeling of being sure someone or something exists or is true.” Faith is (in general) the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement or philosophy is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits by way of degrees up to full assurance of faith in accordance with the evidence upon which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching. Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is something spoken of as an equivalent to faith. Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it “assent or concurrence” which is an act of the will in addition to an act of understanding. Assent to the truth is the essence of faith and the ultimate ground upon which our agreement to any revealed truth rests. Faith is consummated by the acclaimed veracity of the Deity depicted for belief.

*How sure of this choice are you?*

Many of us claim to believe in this or that system of religion, but every religion has its share of hypocrites. I mean those who want to appear pious and enlightened, but who secretly love only themselves and what they can take from the religion. Some religious edifices are literally “filled” with such people. People who walk around proud and “puffed up” daily professing to be fearless, full of faith and unmoved by gross adversity. They can be seen praying in church/synagogue/mosque with such fervor that they attract attention to themselves. But just beneath the surface these “Pillars of Strength” writhe in fear at the mere thought of their demise. These fearful feelings often elude these cowards until the danger is upon them and the end is actually near. At this point all bets are off! Many western religious people who claim that they “cannot wait” to go to heaven aren't really serious. In fact, while they are praying, dancing, gyrating and being “Slain in the Spirit” (The loss of consciousness during joyous worship) and “speaking in tongues” in their respective religious rituals, if suddenly the Deity of their particular faith walked or “floated” into the edifice and addressing the congregation (to loud applause) The Deity said:

Now I sincerely ask you Ladies and Gentlemen, what do you think would happen at that point? I think you'd better get out of the way because there wouldn't be a brick left standing after at least half of that Holy Group literally tore the building down getting away from their beloved Deity while indiscriminately “trampling and dismembering” the older, slower members of the Holy Congregation underfoot. After all, they've got “things to do that day” and dying isn't one of them! This was their best chance to realize the redemption they had claimed they wanted and what did they do? They had actually lied to themselves and the Deity. If they were not expecting this to happen (some day) why were they there? Didn't they claim to be expecting this? While this was a hypothetical reenactment, I believe it to be a realistic one. Self-preservation may be the first law of nature, but selfishness and self-misrepresentation has become a way of life for a surprising number of otherwise decent people. And of course this action led to the commission of more egregious mortal sin. It seems that fully half of this Holy People didn't really believe what they had been publicly professing, in some cases, for years. What would you have done? Do you really believe?

*God and Sin Today*

Some of our research scientists are once again trying to change the ways in which we view our world, the universe and its associated philosophies. Many of the “There is no God people” and the “There may be no God people” have modified their stance and incorporated a “God was not necessary” position. That's right, (and this point needs repeating) some scientists calculations now indicate that we would still have everything we See, Hear, Taste, Touch and Smell without any help from a supernatural power, being or God! According to recent advances in theory, some claim that the universe (and everything in it) could have come into existence without any help from a “Creator or Designer.” And this could be accomplished without violating any of the laws of physics! In other words they are not saying there is no God, and they are not telling you not to worship Him. Just be aware of the fact that your God may have absolutely *No* supernatural power to create anything! Everything we see and know of happened naturally! They are saying that this universe simply appeared without any assistance. Using simple language, the universe, you and I, just occurred.”

With this understanding, in their description of the universe there is no reason, no justice and no purpose. There is no good, no evil, no heaven, no hell and no hereafter. Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Idi Amin, Hitler and Mother Theresa are all in the same place…the ground! According to the Godless proponents none of these tyrants had to pay for their murderous sins. However, let me be clear, the mathematical structures do appear to be kept in adherence to the anthropic principle. It is entirely possible that if we accept this current interpretation of results (A powerless God) then ultimately all we are left with would be a “blind, pitiless, heartless, existence.” Life would continue to flourish because the DNA molecule is incapable of emotion, and people are incapable (as a whole) of not copulating. DNA neither knows nor cares. And this may lead us to more indiscriminate reproduction and unwanted children. I can't help but wonder what authorities like the late mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan and renowned physicist Albert Einstein would think of this particular understanding and interpretation of present day physics. Einstein himself said there would never be convincing proof of the nonexistence of God. So obviously Einstein and I agree on this issue.

*An Exhausted, Old Fairy Tale?*

“Fairy Tale” or not, if the premise “God and Sin do not exist” ever takes universal root, then the unthinkable suddenly becomes easily litigable. (In the form of lawsuits) Take a step back and see what's happening all around us today. It currently appears that some of our science people are (unknowingly?) assisting the ranks of secular humanist extremists. These people are calling natural laws inhumane, discriminative and cruel as if there was no basis for them in the first place. Please note: I am not speaking about the Gay/Lesbian controversy. I've said all along that all of us deserve equal rights. But I'm telling you that new and radical interpretations will and have developed in the minds of more than a few affluent people. These interpretations will continue to “evolve and devolve” into new areas, like marijuana and powdered cocaine legalization.

Some misguided individuals are already seriously calling for the right to marry their pets! That's right, they actually want to marry their Cats, Dogs, Horses, Pigs etc.! Could laws against rather unusual sexual acts be presented to a court of law as discriminative? Don't laugh. Historically, any right that the majority may claim as legal will be assumed and eventually adopted as law. We will continue down a path where more and more currently prohibited things become permissible in the name of progress. This trauma will continue until we can no longer recognize our civilization as the same one that represents the traditions and common decency of today. No God, no sin and no hope. Do you think this is good? Did some scientists finally get what it wanted? Or are they just telling us the Godless truth? Exposure to this presumption has already occurred. It has degraded both our schools and our streets.

Don and Barb finally broke up and divorced, promiscuity took its familiar toll. But not before they were almost arrested for disturbing the peace in a motel lobby they were both visiting with their respective illegitimate lovers. Fortunately neither saw the others lover. Don (with a broken heart) finally lost Barb and decided to join a local church seeking comfort. He was soon caught trying to seducing a 16 year old female choir member. He was remanded to the Pastor. Barb lost her boyfriend Bill, aka “The Most Reverend Bill" to a younger woman. Disgusted, Barb quit the church and went to work as a stripper at the local night club. Bob and Alice are still married and moved to a very nice suburb. They really like this particular suburb because it is relatively free of minorities. They now have two beautiful children of their own. Bill, who is the Pastor of Barbs former church, is currently Don's minister and faith counselor because of the incident he had with the minor choir member. Unbeknownst to anyone, The Most Reverend Bill is secretly a violent bisexual and will undoubtedly be giving Don a lot more than just “spiritual” guidance in the near future. In every day cases such as these, Sin has become a terminal disease. And like a cancer, it reproduces itself until it destroys its host. Psychologists tell us that thoughts of “No God” can lead to intolerance, increased promiscuity, horrible sexual disease and increased criminality. (Often without remorse)

The known existence of Sin plays a vital role in our personal moral compass. We may call it by other names like hurt feelings, a guilty conscience, or just payback. But without it we will all need to own weapons, change our daily attitude from trust to suspicion and increase the holding capacity of our penal institutions. Nevertheless, sin (by other names?) will still be with us. It cannot be eliminated by scientific “fiat.” We all suffer the consequences of our sins, but there is no penalty after death? Having a God to help us overcome our problems and failures is as necessary as water is for dehydration. Proponents of this Godless view obviously don't know what they're asking for. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the society to report and feature anti-God articles that are still unprovable. While you are taking such a momentous solace from the rich and poor alike (in the name of education and progress) what are you replacing it with? God cannot easily be replaced! (If at all) There is no doubt that the current scientists offering these interpretations of their work are sincere, but this information can be devastating and disturbing to some individuals. This is an area that needs a clearer understanding and exploration of what happens next. Some things are more important than a Nobel Prize. In my view, this is one of them.

*Judgment? What Judgment?*

Like many, Greg, Lois, Don, Barb, Bob, Alice, Laura and Bill have committed so many sins in so short a time that without a forgiving God, they would probably end up in Hell. But of course if there is no Hell then all we have here on Earth is “Old McDonalds Barnyard” An existence in which the only objectives in life will be food, reproduction, power, and class domination. And the masses would be uncontrollable and immensely dangerous. These masses will either be controlled by God, or disciplined by an army with guns. Is what we are witnessing the beginning of the “End of the world” (as we know it?) People that know me also know that I believe in modernity and progress. But if you act in haste, you repent in leisure.

As I said, if there's no God, sin would still exist but in this type of existence there is no hope for man's redemption. In many cases life will be over before one is old enough to even understand or care about what they've done! And nothing you've done would matter anyway. We'd have a world where all that each Man and Woman would have to look forward to would be eventually rotting in the ground. Am I being clear? Is this the philosophy and prognosis you want for your children? And if you are a minority, do you want things like skin color instead of ability to again determine their destiny?

But what if they're wrong? What if the Soul really does exist? What if the opposition's rather parsimonious definition of the birth of the universe is wrong? Perhaps it was too anemically presumptive? What if there really is a God? Are you really prepared to go to Hell? I think not. What about your Soul? In light of all we know today, God is far more powerful (not weaker) than any of us ever imagined. Do we have any tangible scientific evidence of God's existence? (Please read on) The scientific community has nothing to do with the following statement: The existence of God and Sin is also under attack by liberal extremists bent on getting the public to accept and advocate certain values. This attack is for reasons other than science. I give my scientific and personal views of this discussion in the summary below.

*Summary*

I love and respect my deceased relatives. Knowing that we are all composed of “stardust” (the common chemistry of the universe) I look forward to (somehow) seeing them again in what we call the hereafter. I also have a wife and three children that I love dearly. Like many of you, I have family members and friends with whom I gratefully share whatever time and treasure that I have. This traditional view may be unfathomable to some of my esteemed colleagues, but my outlook is not only from an emotional standpoint but also from a scientific one as well. As most of you know I'm not a physicist, I'm a chemist, but I seriously admire and respect the physicist's power and necessity. The dynamic programs at Harvard, Stanford and Princeton (among others) come to mind. But I am often asked how I view this particular discussion. Here is the way I see one of the crucial aspects of this argument, which I call *The God/Sin Question* I'm telling you that it's all well and good for a group of rational, intelligent scientists to give the results of their latest study to the world. But this argument is still only speculative, and may be tantamount to opening the doors of a world-wide asylum full of 800lb Gorillas!

As for tangible scientific evidence of God: Our universe is governed by the laws of Physics. These laws incorporate Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Mass /Gravity relationships, Weak /Strong Forces, etc. This universe (and possibly others?) operates under a “Cosmological Constant.” While there is evidence for a non-zero constant, this cosmological constant is accurate to one part in 10 to the 120. That's accuracy down to 120 decimal places. Just so we don't leave anyone behind in this explanation of what appears (to me) to be a demonstration of God's Ability and unlimited Power: That's *one part in one trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion trillion!* Please listen: Nobody believes this design was an accident! God designed an environment that Man would thrive in. Without this exact amalgamation of complex forces, this universe would be totally unsuitable and hostile to Human beings. We simply would not exist! The projection of this universe “creating itself” would be about the same as the chance of a nuclear explosion creating a fine Swiss watch. If you still require more proof, “there is no education in the second kick of a mule!” You may want to read my article titled “Tartt's Quantum Theory of Life after Death” at: www.henriwtartt.com

And so without the universe's present design *Man* could never have set foot on Planet Earth! Statistical Probability and competent scientific projections loudly proclaim to us that accuracy to this degree could never just occur! This reality literally “Screams the word Designer!” I know how this may sound to some of my peers. But there is an ethereal human component here that is not generally taken into consideration. While none of us can prove or physically produce the source, we somehow know that this Causality (God) exists. Historically, 95% of all 106 Billion of the Human population that has ever lived on this Earth believed in the existence of God. Is it possible that they were all wrong? The Human brain is the most complex organ in the known universe. Were all of them mistaken? Each Human Being has perceptive mental powers of discernment that we don't understand. These abilities are currently being studied, and we use them every day.

Professional assessment of such a miracle of design as the cosmological constant should indicate to all a form of “Intentionality” and therefore a Grand Designer. Without God we'd have a world lost in sinful chaos. We can already see what the removal of God from our schools has done to the mental health of this system. Some students have turned into predators. People that respect and fear God do not murder college students and innocent children. Don't the Godless streets in many of our cities frighten most of us today? Do we want even more violence? Remember, one cannot get morality and ethics from science! And the emotion called Love and its fidelity cannot be replaced or duplicated by lust.

In his infinite wisdom, God has recorded in his Holy Scriptures rules, regulations and examples for Man to live by. Many “Liberal Extremists” want nothing to do with this written map for life. The wisdom of The Mahabharata, The Bhagavad Gita, The Torah, Talmud and Kabbalah, The works of Confucius, The Buddhist Catechetical writings, The Holy Bible, The Holy Quran and The Guru Granth Sahib must be discredited because they identify both God and Sin as real! The “No God No Sin” movement eliminates this wisdom completely. I suggest that you do your best to completely ignore this movement. Be polite and respectful but please pay them absolutely no attention. Let's try and protect what moral standards we have left.

I could go on to illustrate just as many other examples of God's obvious power, love and influence as my colleagues (on the other side) can demonstrate points to the contrary, but that would get us nowhere. Those of us on the Pro side of The God/Sin Question should not just sit back, say nothing and continue to lose scientific ground on this issue. No matter how uneducated some may be, they still deserve the right to expect a decent level of respect for their opinions. This determination has more far reaching adverse implications and consequences on the world's societies than many recognize. All men can look up into the heavens and see the physical marvels that God and Physics has wrought, but Man cannot define or disprove that which may be the work of a *Metaphysical God* by using only Man's physical resources. Originally they said “There is no God” then they said “We just don't know” now they are saying that “God is not necessary.” When all of ones equations and theories leave no room for an indescribable unknown force, then it is not God that one is looking for.

No matter what your religion may be, the existence of Your Deity (s) cannot be disproved. It is my professional opinion that in our hurried, incongruent attempts to explain the unexplainable, we have confused our quest for God with our innate quest for Self and Self-Identity. It is impossible to find God, when you're subconsciously only looking for yourself. Stay well.

*Note: Please feel free to share this article with your Minister, Rabbi, Priest or Imam.

*One by one, like leaves from a tree, all my faiths have forsaken me* - Sara Teasdale

*But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: Neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned* 1 Co 2:14 KJV

All the Best,

- Henri W. Tartt

Henri W. Tartt

Supervising Chemist &

Chief of Microbiology

City of Cleveland, Ohio (Retired)

Email:henri@henriwtartt.com