A Response to J. Lee Grady’s “7 Things That Prove God Is Real”

I am a skeptic about many things, especially my own beliefs and understandings. My friends tend to get a little annoyed with my seemingly-contrarian or argumentative demeanor, but I don’t argue just to argue (okay, that might not be true). Perhaps I’m merely misguided, but I generally want to believe as few falsities and as little bullshit as possible—and, being the caring person I am, I seek to dispel illusions, undo delusions, criticize unjustified beliefs, and reveal as many falsities as I can (as I hear that consuming bullshit is just as bad for one’s physical health as it is for one’s intellectual growth).

As a general rule, I try to entertain the ideas and opinions expressed by people who assert things I don’t necessarily hold as a way of challenging my own beliefs, disbeliefs, or lack-thereofs — and that’s how I stepped into this steamy pile of 7 Things That Prove God Is Real.

I was genuinely excited when I saw the title because I simply love to hear new arguments for theism; maybe they’ll stump me, or even better, convince me! The first few paragraphs were a litany of ad hominem attacks on some atheist woman who heads an atheist organization followed by a plug for a new movie and, frankly, I was disappointed—but then I got to the meat.. the baby meat:

First Proof that God is Real: Babies

The first proof author J. Lee Grady gives his reader is babies. He asks the zinger question, “How can anyone deny the reality of God when they see a baby?”

Here’s a picture my friend sent me of a baby puking in a woman’s mouth. Clearly engineered by a god. Loki?

A baby is a wonderful little creature (when it isn’t pooping, crying, drooling, vomiting, costing you tons of money, and diminishing your overall happiness) and I can definitely see how one might be in awe of how this tiny, little person just exists and looks so much like his or her parents (even Violent Jay doesn’t get it). Of course, we know the reason for this resemblance. The well-understood mechanisms of heredity are astounding, it’s what lies at the heart of any accurate understanding of biology.

But biology isn’t quite the same as theology, is it? The whole project of science presupposes a naturalistic understanding of the world rather than a whimsical, theistic one. Grady remarks on the amazing fact of how, “The amount of information encrypted in one cell in the human body is equal to that of 1,000 books” and “The total amount of information stored in your DNA is 40 times more than that of the largest set of encyclopedias in the world” (we’ll assume he’s not talking about Wikipedia) but we can understand this in purely naturalistic terms. The author tells us a couple trivial (albeit cool) facts about cells, but they are facts that are well explained by a science devoid of any intelligent designer and understood by anyone who paid attention in their high school biology class.

Second Proof that God is Real: Thunderstorms

Still probably the best city-building game.

Still probably the best city-building game.

“I love to sit on my back porch in Florida and listen to the rumbling of thunder. It reminds me of God’s majesty and power.” You might feel like you’ve caught on here; he must talking about Zeus! Don’t get your hopes up – Grady immediately follows it up with a quote from the Bible that he feels offers the “best evidence of God’s existence” from the delightful book of Romans by the apostle Paul.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen. (Romans 1:20)

If you’re anything like me, you might immediately be perplexed and annoyed by “invisible attributes” being “clearly seen” as some form of evidence, but this is coming from the same guy who says that we need faith to understand the world, faith being defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1 KJV). I suppose if Paul can believe something merely by hoping it’s true there’s just no reasoning with him, but we’re talking about thunderstorms that, strangely enough, can be seen — sort of. Thunder is the sound lightning makes — so you see the lightning and not the thunder, but you definitely hear the thunder and you can clearly see where it’s coming from. I don’t think we need to take this one on faith.

Badass.

That aside, we TOTALLY understand how they work. There’s no Zeus hurling bolts of lightning or Animikii flapping their mighty wings, thunder has a profoundly simple, very cool, and totally naturalistic explanation:


But wait, suddenly Grady goes off on a complete tangent, “Nature is actually full of quantifiable miracles. Just consider the fact that the earth is the perfect distance from the sun to support life. If we were any farther away from the sun, we would freeze; if we were even slightly closer to it, we would burn up. It’s obvious God created this home for us!” Perhaps I set the bar too high for miracles, but I get the feeling he sets them waaay too low. For Grady, it would seem that “miracles” are simply “improbabilities”—but improbability alone is hardly an indicator of intelligent guidance. It’s highly unlikely that you’ll be struck down by a meteorite or bolt of lightning on your way to work tomorrow; if it did happen it’d hardly be a miracle—that’s the sort of superstitious line of reasoning that leads to all sorts of problems. I won’t get into the science of the Goldilocks zone (the area around a star that is capable of supporting life) and why it’s a really poor reason to believe in any supernatural feat, but if you want a good break down just check out NASA’s simple explanation. On this I will just say that the Goldilocks zone is much bigger than creationists like Grady would have you believe.

Third Proof that God is Real: Flowers

“Their job is to simply make the world beautiful.” I almost wanted to give up ripping this article apart when I read that line, but, no, we must press on! So, to clear up this misunderstanding, describing the flower’s job as “to simply make the world beautiful” is sort of like saying “Dicks exist to make the world beautiful.” SPOILER ALERT: They don’t.

Flower penises. (NSFW)

Flowers are the naughty bits of plants and their whole function revolves around reproduction. Whether it’s by attracting insects or other pollen transporting agents to get their inter-special freak on or to launch their pollen (i.e. plant jizz) into the air to hopefully land on another flower, flowers are all about reproduction, not to look pretty for humans.

Suddenly, this picture of a girl blowing a dandelion just got way dirty.

“Did they just haphazardly evolve over time, or did a loving God create each individual shape and color scheme for our enjoyment?”

They did evolve and there’s nothing haphazard about it. It’s 2014, if you don’t understand evolution yet you’re missing out on the most interesting and necessary facts regarding biology that’s ever been discovered. If you don’t know where to begin, I suggest starting here:


Just remember, that when J. Lee Grady tells us, “This is why it’s really important to stop and smell the roses!” he’s telling you to go sniff plant dicks.

Fourth Proof that God is Real: The Bible

There’s something problematic that Grady doesn’t seem to grasp when he says, “Paul wrote that ‘all Scripture is inspired by God’ (2 Tim. 3:16).” The “Scripture” being referred to in Paul’s letter to Timothy isn’t the The Holy Bible, it’s the Old Testament — the latter 27 books and letters comprising the New Testament (which contains the foundation of Christianity) would have been mostly in the works (considering that this letter to Timothy itself would not have been considered “Scripture” at the time of its own writing). If we were to refer only to the Old Testament and not the New, frankly, I don’t think many people would think this God guy was very good even if he did exist. Seriously, just read the Old Testament, flip around a bit, and tell me what you think of God (or just wait for my upcoming series: The Lord Thy God).

“There is nothing like the Bible because it carries the same consistent message throughout all of its 66 different books.”

Consistent messages such as the penalty for adultery? Leviticus 20:10 tells us to stone both of the adulterers, but in John 8:7 Jesus says not to. How about God’s personality? Compare Jeremiah 13:14 to 1 Chronicles 16:34 and let me know if you’re getting mixed messages. Hell, all the verses from Matthew 5:21-42 are Jesus telling us that Moses said one thing but that we should do another — even Jesus doesn’t do what Moses told us to do. I find it very difficult to find a consistent message running throughout the whole of the Bible except for on one topic: Slavery.

When Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, in his speech on the subject of slavery in the territories said, “It is enough for me elsewhere to know, that [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God, that it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations” he knew what he was talking about. Whether we refer to the Old Testament (Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46) or the New Testament (Luke 12:47-48, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2), slavery is condoned or treated as something entirely normal throughout– never once condemned.

Don’t get me wrong, the Holy Bible is an excellent collection of books (my favorites are Ecclesiastes and Job). Many of the books contain very compelling stories, fantastic moral messages, and beautiful poetry – but the idea of taking it wholly, literally, or seriously is kind of a problem if you have a modicum of sense. Grady grants us permission to “laugh at this idea.”

Fifth Proof that God is Real: The Global Spread of Christianity

Grady is quick to point out that, “Over the centuries, the gospel message has been vilified and ridiculed” but what he fails to mention is that it was also institutionalized in many of the areas where Christianity was the predominate belief. In Christian Rome under the rule of Constantine I (reigned 306–337 CE), the emperor first prohibited the construction of new temples and later went on to order the pillaging and tearing down of Roman temples — his persecution of non-Christian mores was so severe he even killed his own wife and son for their violation of them. Christian persecution of pagans in the Roman empire lasted until its fall in 476 CE. The Crusades launched by Pope Urban I in 1095 CE to secure Christianity and influence in the Holy Land started a succession of wars that wouldn’t end until 1291 ensuring that Christianity wouldn’t be wiped from anyone’s memory anytime soon after. The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (aka Spanish Inquisition) was established in 1478 and wasn’t disbanded until 1834—during which time Muslims and Jews were given the option to convert to Christianity or leave.

With the way he's being stretched, you'd think paganism would have spread further.

With the way he’s being stretched, you’d think paganism would have spread further. (Okay, that was bad.)

The Portuguese Inquisition established in 1536 CE wasn’t even formally disbanded until 1821 and the Roman Inquisition lasted from 1588 to 1858. Today, children are often brought up in religious vacuums where the only source of spirituality they are exposed to is Christianity and anything else is literally demonized. With trends like this, it’s no wonder Christianity is still around.

“Our faith is spreading because it is the truth—and history shows that when this truth is mocked and scorned, it actually spreads faster!”

You know what also spreads faster the more people interact with it? Herpes. The spread of an idea, just like a virus, has nothing whatsoever to do with its truth or goodness.

Sixth Proof that God is Real: Jesus

I want to say that I expected better, but that would be lying and apparently hoping for better didn’t make it so. When Grady brings up Jesus as his sixth proof that God is real we’re supposed to take this on faith; presumably, faith in the Biblical account of Jesus Christ—as other accounts of his allegedly remarkable existence are surprising rare or devoid of any mention of his divinity. But this is easily circular:

1. I believe the Bible because it contains the truth of Jesus Christ.
2. I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ because it says so in the Bible.

I don’t believe Jesus didn’t exist, I found Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist? a very compelling and convincing refutation of the mythicists, but saying anything to the effect of, “He was real, ergo God is real” seems like a long shot for me. Many have claimed to be gods and the sons of gods throughout history and in many of these instances, the primary reason their cults didn’t persist was because another took its place—but if the existence of Jesus proves the existence of YHWH, the existence of any historically present figure who made claims just outlandish as those in the Bible seems to be equally permissible proof for any other god. In Christianity alone we’ve seen divergent sects making different claims about Jesus’ divinity, message, and overall nature and, if we refer back to my discussion of reason five, we can see why many of them disappeared within Christianity. Even the allegedly returned-Christ José Luis de Jesús (who died only at the end of last year) has followers who would no doubt attest to claims similar to those made by Grady in his bit on Jesus Christ. Imagine one of José’s disciples saying this

6. José. The most amazing thing about God is not that He exists, but that He loved us so much He was willing to send His Son to earth twice to save us from ourselves. Jesus/José was with the Father from the time of creation, His arrival was predicted numerous times in Old Testament prophecy, and he spoke of his return in the New Testament. He interrupted history and came to live among us, not once, but twice! His crucifixion is historical fact, His resurrection was verified by hundreds of witnesses, and his return to earth once again can be seen by traveling to his church in Miami, Florida. José was not an illusive fairy tale. He was the living, breathing, touchable Son of God.

If what Grady has said is supposed to be proof for God’s existence, I’m just not seeing it. “Jesus is not an illusive fairy tale. He is the living, breathing, touchable Son of God.” Touchable he says? Show him to me and let me stick my fingers in his holes (no homo). Why believe in Jesus and not José? Why not David Koresh, Alan John Miller, or David Icke? Why not Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Kanishka? I’ll tell you why—it’s because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What Grady has given us is no evidence whatsoever.

Seventh Proof that God is Real: My personal friendship with God

“Atheists may not be convinced that God exists after listening to a storm, smelling a hibiscus or reading the Bible. When I am asked to defend my faith, I don’t start an intellectual argument.”

Clearly.

Old Writings on Existence

Parmenides
My first experience with philosophy was through my study of theology and apologeticsI had initially wished to become a powerful and learned Christian theologian when I first set out on my scholarly pursuits. 

The first experience I can recall of a secular approach to philosophy was through a work of Parmenides. I was reading the fragmentary poem On Nature and reflecting on its implications when I wrote (on September 1, 2009) what would be my first philosophical essaywhich I had shortly afterward separated into two parts.

The first part of my essay deals with the notion of that which is and that which is not. The second part was a further look into the fallibility of the senses at perceiving what is. The essays are both very amateur, but I am about to endeavor in the most advanced philosophy class I have ever taken and I felt it would be a good exercise to look back at what I used to think and what I think now to prepare myself for how I might change over the course of the next few months. I wasn’t familiar with any philosophical jargon and wouldn’t understand until years later that the first solely philosophical thought I would express would be on the topic of epistemology.

The following are my essays with the fragment of Parmenides’ poem that moved me to begin writing. After rereading it, I haven’t changed any of my phrasing, only a few typos (with spelling and punctuation) that I felt could not be overlooked. I also can’t help but notice that I never cited anything back when I was writing for myself and it’s possible that I plagiarized, or at least paraphrased, a quote that had greatly impacted me from The Matrix near the end of my second essay. 

Existence I: Argument for Parmenides

For never shall this prevail, that things that are not, are.
Thinking and the thought that it is are the same; for you will not find thought apart from what is, in relation to which it is uttered.
For thought and being are the same.
It is necessary to speak and to think what is; for being is, but nothing is not.

We cannot think of what is not, and thus cannot speak of it. Also, that which can be thought of, or spoken of, must exist.

The Chimera, the mythological offspring of Typhon and Echidna, having the body of a lioness, a goat’s head protruding from it’s spine, and a tail which terminates in a snake’s head — a creature, such as this cannot exist. It is impossible for the anatomy of a lioness, a goat, and a snake to be merged into one being in the likeness aforementioned and this impossibility can be further expanded on to say that a living creature of this sort could not be born of another beast.

It wouldn’t be foolish to say then, “I can think of it, speak of it, describe it in detail. I can even draw a picture of it. Does that mean it exists? Such a claim is ridiculous, and would surely disprove what you said! If it cannot exist, yet I can think of it: I can think of what is not.”

This argument is based on the assumption that existence is merely something that exists in a tangible state of being. If that is the case, then the only things that exist are what we can understand with our senses, but what of thought? What of imagination? Ideas exist in a state of intangibility and can even become tangible by sharing them through words. But still the idea itself exists only within a mind.

The Chimera exists, because the parts which make it up exist. A lioness exists, and therefore can be thought of and spoken of. The same is true for the snake and the goat. Because the parts exist, we are able to assemble it using our imaginations. This is because our thinking of things is object dependent.

Now take into consideration the entire spectrum of colors. Every color that you have seen and can recall are made of different combinations of other colors, with the primary colors being Red, Yellow and Blue. There is no color that can be created without using a combination of these primary colors and no colors combined outside of themselves can recreate them.

Imagine now, a forth primary color. A color composed of neither red, yellow, or blue, which when added to any of them would create entirely new colors. You cannot.

Existence II: Argument for Reality

All color is is a sensation on the eye as the result of the way an object reflects or emits light, with black being the absence of light and white being the entire spectrum of colors being merged into one.

Light, is merely electromagnetic radiation whose wavelengths fall within the range to which the human retina responds. White light consists of an equal mixture of all visible wavelengths (colors) and can be separated to yield any color which we can perceive. This is not to say that other colors do not exist, but simply we can only see within a very limited range, between 390 angstroms and 740 angstroms. For a long time this spectrum was all that we knew of. It is still all we see, but with our ever-expanding knowledge of science and the development of spectroscopy, it is clearly not all that exists.

So is existence merely what we can perceive? Has what existed changed simply because we now understand it? Of course not.

Take into consideration a blind man. He is unable to see, he is completely sightless. His eyes do not recognize light and because of this, he does not see color. Try to explain to him the color of the sky or the difference between red and blue. He cannot fathom it because he cannot sense it. His perception of reality is entirely different than our own, but what exists has not changed.

What can be perceived has no bearing on what actually exists and to think that we can know all of what exists solely based on what we can perceive is foolish and vain. If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain and all of the same sensations can be recreated, demonstrated and simulated within a computer.

Reality is what exists. But who can know it?

Thoughts on Justice, Causality, and Free-Will

Justice, Causality, Free-Will

A man is enrolled in a college course. In this college course it is required that he write his own work and respond to the work of his peers. On at least two occasions, this man has been exposed for plagiarism.

Under normal circumstances, it only takes one strike to failbut the professor gracefully gave the student a second chance… a chance that the student did not take seriously because soon afterwards the man was exposed, yet again, for plagiarismspelling an end to his enrollment in his course and spelling the beginning of another dismal episode in his academic career.

Probably due to my current Behavior Analysis frame of mind, I’d say that this is a perfect demonstration of the principles of Reinforcement and Punishment. The man got away with plagiarizing the first time around, increasing the likelihood that it would occur again.

Justice, Causality, Free-Will 2

In order for behavior to be modified, the desired behavior must be reinforced and the undesired behavior must be punished. In this instance, the man’s behavior was reinforced. The first time around, he received a reinforcing grade for his undesired behavior which was more reinforcing than the aversive talking to that most people would agree should have dissuaded him.

In order for punishment to be effective it must be: 1. Immediate 2. Consistent 3. Aversive.

For a punishment to be truly aversive, I wouldn’t say that punishment needs to “fit the crime”it just needs to be aversive enough to ensure it doesn’t happen again. In this scenario, we could imagine a punishment that might have been aversive and appropriate given the situation:

Justice, Causality, Free-Will 3

Unfortunately for the cheater, we might say his idiocy prevented him from grasping a warning as an aversive enough condition.

But is idiocy really at the core? Perhaps a warning simply wasn’t aversive enoughto the point of maybe being almost reinforcing.

I wonder if this is the result of his behavior being shaped by prior experiencesperhaps getting warnings for his errors without a real response-contingent punishment from parents, professors, and policemen. In behavior analysis it is understood that behavior occurs because it has been reinforced. If this is the case, can we really blame him? He’s just the product of conditioning. So am I and so are you.

All of our wants and desires, values and ideals, attitudes and personalities are the consequences of prior experiencesprior reinforcers and punishments acting on a completely uncontrollable machine composed of neurons. All of our behaviors (intrinsic and extrinsic) boil down to the turning of cosmic wheels. No matter how complex this equation, there is no room for free-will to creep in. As an aside, some pseudo-scientific understanding of quantum indeterminacy might appear to add an element of randomness to the cosmic machine, but it would be comparable to throwing in a dice-roll to the mixwe remain reorganized cogs in an apparently mercurial machine. This appearance of unpredictability, however, is faulty. Whether stemming from obscurity, complexity, a false premise, or simple ignorance, to admit of free-will is to deny the obvious rule of cause-and-effect.

Sam Harris illustrates in his book, Free Will, a short-hand description of what precedes our imagined notion of “free-will”:

Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn’t choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime — by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from?

This cocktail of factors that determine our every thought really can account for all of our wants, desires, wills, decisions, etc.however obscure or impossible that idea might seem.

The student failed because he cheated. He cheated because the behavior had been reinforced. Everything he will ever do is a response to previous consequences of previous actions stemming from the very first stimulus that provoked him to his first behaviorwe can almost call it a primum movens.

The question of free-will, however, is not the question that bothers me. The question that bothers me is: Can he be blamed? In understanding the law of cause and effect, perhaps “blame” is an out-dated concept. We don’t blame the bullet for the destruction it causes, nor the gun for projecting it, we tend to blame the person pulling the trigger. But if people are composed of the same matter that composes everything else — all of their being is subject to the same laws of nature, the same law of cause and effectcan they really be blamed?

Within the context of justice and creating a just society, we certainly need to hold individuals accountable for their actions and act accordingly; but perhaps there is another way of thinking about the problem of responsibility and blame that would make this whole concept make more sense that we (or at least I) have not yet considered.

Perhaps my initial anger at the cheater is an outdated response when considering the much more complex reality of the situation. Perhaps all retaliatory impulses are outdated as well as the laws and punishments that reflect them.

The Mother of all BRCAs

The Mother of all BRCAs
(Photo by Yan Boechat)

Richard Dawkins ends his written critique of faith-based religion, “The God Delusion,” by creating a metaphor between our slim spectrum of sight and the understanding of our size and significance in the universe to the thin slit in a large black burka — the rest of the fabric representing the vast data we cannot see or fathom.

According to Dawkins, the progenitors of science, such as Charles Darwin with his theory of evolution, “seized the window of the burka and wrenched it open, letting in a flood of understanding…” Dawkins explains that we have evolved in Middle World with a Middle World understanding, not too big or too small, slow or fast, by the necessary means of natural selection. The burka is a double entendre, showing both our natural limitations and the ones we force upon ourselves (by means such as religion), like an actual burka.

In closing this chapter, appropriately titled The Mother of all Burkas he states, “We are liberated by calculation and reason to visit regions of possibility that had once seemed out of bounds or inhabited by dragons.”

Optimistically he concludes,

Could we, by training and practice, emancipate ourselves from Middle World, tear off our black burka, and achieve some sort of intuitive — as well as just mathematical — understanding of the very small, the very large, and the very fast? I genuinely don’t know the answer, but I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits.

This is a vision I also find attractive. Unhindered by superstition and unsubstantiated beliefs, the collective understanding of humanity can advance in all scientific, philosophical, and even spiritual fields. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles on the road to knowledge and more still for the greater well-being of people.

This article is not about religion, faith, or indoctrination. This is an exposition into a case of human vice.

Our tale begins in 1980 when a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court was made in the case of Diamond v Chakrabarty. Up until this point, it was understood that living things are not patentable subject matter. This was until Dr. Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, a genetic engineer, developed a bacteria that had the ability to break down crude oil and requested a patent for the bacterium. Initially, he was turned down. But after a series of appeals from both sides of the case, it was officially settled in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the prior understanding ruling that a “live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under § 101. Respondent’s micro-organism constitutes a ‘manufacture’ or ‘composition of matter’ within that statute” — leading to an eruption of biotechnology institutions and corporations patenting various cloned, isolated, artificial, and identified genes. Utah-based Myriad Genetics, Inc. was one of these biotechnological institutions that grew into one of the titans of gene discovery and diagnostics as a result of this ruling.

Bioethicist, Dr. Bryn Williams-Jones observes in his article History of a Gene Patent: Tracing the Development and Application of Commercial BRCA Testing, that

The Myriad case is a harbinger of an increasing number of instances where gene patents provide companies with monopolies on the development, marketing, and provision of genetic tests and therapeutics…this case has become a focal point…for debates about the social and ethical implications of DNA patenting and the commercialization of genetic tests.

BRCA1 (breast cancer 1, early onset) is a human tumor suppressor gene, which produces a protein. This protein is found in the cells of breast and other tissue, where it helps repair damaged DNA and destroy the cell when DNA can’t be repaired. If the BRCA1 gene is damaged, the damaged DNA can let the cell duplicate without control, and turn into a cancer.
Myriad Genetics held the patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes meaning that they have the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. They can open up testing for free or charge outrageous sums of money for such testing ($3000, perhaps).

A friend of mine is afflicted with a mutation of a similar type. If this gene was patented and those suffering it’s mutation were extorted in the way those with the mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2 are, it’s possible that I might have already had to attend my friend’s funeral. As we can see, when science becomes a business it loses the value of a human endeavor and becomes a means to control and extort.

The American Civil Liberties Union pointed out a further problem at the core of the patents when they petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari claiming,

The patenting of isolated DNA violates long-established Supreme Court precedent that prohibits the patenting of laws of nature, natural phenomena, products of nature, and abstract ideas… Patents on isolated DNA, whether small segments or whole genes, also violate the First Amendment because they block scientific inquiry into the patented DNA.

The human endeavor of science is impeded and the lives of many people are hindered, even being cut short, as a result of patents such as these.

As reported by CBS News on March 26, 2012

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling allowing human genes to be patented, a topic of enormous interest to cancer researchers, patients and drug makers.

The court overturned patents belonging to Myriad Genetics Inc. of Salt Lake City on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

This came as a result of a court opinion that was reached, as reported on Patently-O, only days before in the case of Mayo v Prometheus in which the Supreme Court held that “the personalized medicine dosing process invented by Prometheus is not eligible for patent protection because the process is effectively an unpatentable law of nature. This decision reverses the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that the claims were patentable because they included substantial physical limitations.”

I am very happy to see that we’re taking a step back to reexamine an unjust ruling. Patenting genes, or any other product of nature, hinders scientific progress and lives. Money should not hold significant weight against the lives of human beings. Science is a human endeavor and it is more than a mere body of collected facts to be exploited for personal gain; it is a humble means to great ends. When used correctly it is a bright flame which can be used to beat back the enveloping darkness of ignorance and delusion — improving lives and livelihood. When treated by the unjust, science can be used as tool of the avaricious.

By virtue of being human, we have limitations, a burka through which we have only a thin window into the knowledge of truth and yet there are those among us who would close the window further — letting light peak in only when it would give them the advantage.