The Specific Density of Scientists: And Their Secret Fears

By David Conn

Praise for THE SPECIFIC DENSITY OF SCIENTISTS:

As an expert in understanding and defining the cult mentality, David Conn manages, through logic and his strong faith, to explain the inability, or the refusal, of many scientists to separate the spiritual self from the scientifically driven self (in other words, "to bifurcate"). This, he boldly says, is their real path to illumination, to Jesus Christ, the only source of Truth, the creator not only of science, but of the entire universe. Mr. Conn bolsters his case by way of an inarguable and mathematically proven truism.
--Lillian Carucio, author, Humility, A Lost Virtue and the Search for Truth

In his latest book, THE SPECIFIC DENSITY OF SCIENTISTS, Mr. Conn deals with the cult mentality that has invaded the realm of science and scientists. He explains four major concepts that the unbifurcated wing of science has either refused to consider or has fearfully and illogically swept aside.

He exposes the weakness of the unbifurcated scientists, their minions, and the growing majority of a general population who, having themselves been infused with unscientific scientism, see to it that their children, their students, their spouses, and their friends, are also steeped in it. This errant scientism is a mentality that people are unaware of, but that flows in and out of them in torrents through public institutions, workplaces, artistic expressions, and social networks until it reaches a remarkable status of being something that Everybody knows and believes!

Four major concepts in THE SPECIFIC DENSITY OF SCIENTISTS were introduced in Mr. Conns last book, the Christian science fiction novel, LEDNORFS DILEMMA. One of these concepts, Graths Paradox, is a Terminal Corruption Hypothesis. It is tenuous, at best, as analysts attempt to discern whether the United States has or has not reached the point of no return.

In this latest book, Mr. Conn says: If the point of no return has not been reached, the only hope for a healthy realignment lies with Americas intellectual community and its general citizenry coming to understand that scientists and other intellectuals are wrong to think their brains and education give them special advantages in determining whether or not God exists and participates in the lives of His people. The masses, therefore, should no longer be swayed by scientists who have no special authority in these spiritual matters. It is critical that they pursue the one source of Truth with all their hearts, souls and minds.

David Conn was for ten years a lead analyst with Chevrons big environmental laboratory and then joined the Department of Defense as a Quality Control Representative, a liaison among several Naval and Air Force bases and the Defense Department, performing surveillance over chemicals and fuels and the occasional fueling of Air Force One.

Aside from LEDNORFS DILEMMA, David Conn also co-authored THE CULT THAT DIED (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1980).

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Jul 5, 2012
• ISBN: 9781477207710

David Conn

David Conn, a lead analyst at Chevron’s environmental lab and later a Quality Control Liaison between Naval and Air Force bases and the Defense Department, was educated at Contra Costa College, American River College and Sacramento State University. He studied cult mentalities while investigating Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple.

Book preview

© 2012 David Conn. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 6/28/2012

ISBN: 978-1-4772-0773-4 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4772-0772-7 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-4772-0771-0 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012910295

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

Introduction

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

Chapter Six

Appendix One

Appendix Two

Appendix Three

Appendix Four

Appendix Five

Appendix Six

Appendix Seven

Appendix Eight

Bibliography

To my wife, children, family, friends, and to the memory of my mother whose prayers worked powerfully toward my awakening

Acknowledgements

I want to thank my many friends and relatives who have encouraged me in my longtime effort to expose what I have termed the spiritual insanity that began accelerating since the 1960s.

(A major part of that increase is due to the segment of scientists, social scientists, and their peer sympathizers, who maintain an entrenched mindset that does not accept the distinct scientific evidence for a possible supernatural intelligence. Therefore they reject even the possibility of an almighty and personal God who is aware of us and wants us to love Him.)

In particular I am grateful to Michael A. Bowie who, right from the start, saw a need for this project. Having had me twice as a guest on his blog radio program, he has heralded this critical and spiritual effort to stir the thinking of a significant part of an American citizenry that lingers in apathy. He is a remarkable young man whom I am privileged to have among my close friends. He is, of course, a dedicated Christian and a home schooler.

There are many to whom I am indebted for their spiritual mettle and the impact it has upon me. Heading the list is my wife, Susan. Her faith in God, her insights, her keen feedback, and her steadfast love are a powerful contribution to this project.

Those who have been a major influence over the years include Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Lt. Col. Oliver North, Rev. Russell Coatney, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Chuck Colson, George Coker, Suetta Sprinkle, Arlie Rankin and Lillian Carucio. And there are others (you know who you are), Wilburn, Rick, Ben, Bob, Wayne, Don, William, George, Clarence, Michael, Lance, Patrick, Todd, John, Adel, Janet, Leo and Judy, Norma, Don and Carol, Roy and Carolyn, Mirko, Tim, James, Joe, Sally, and my children – Eileen, Marsha, Sheila, and Chris – whose friendship, love, and warmth have blessed me beyond measure.

There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 16:25)

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. (Winston Churchill)

Preface

Why write a book about scientists being dense? Frankly it is not just about scientists, at least it’s not about scientists in particular. It’s about the scientific mentality, about scientific thinking and how people seem unconsciously to gravitate toward it. It could be traced, I suppose, to the unwitting propensity of nonscientists to identify with the true scientists. Of course there is much evidence that makes this idea more than just a hypothesis. The human inclination is to discover things, to satisfy lingering or even sudden curiosities. I want to be clear, though. There is nothing wrong with scientific thinking per se, as long as it is applied to the realm of the natural universe of physics and biology. The problem arises at the point where it is applied to a realm beyond its long established paradigm.

But I am not concerned with the basic characteristics of true scientific thinking, for they have little to do with pride and cannot therefore be traced to human flaws and failings. What really concerns me is the tendency at all human levels to escape into what is only imagined to be a well grounded and proper scientific mindset, one that disallows the more powerful theological challenges. Such a mindset is little more than a retreat. That is to say: it is a frail and fogbound refuge that restrains any profound look at the inner self. For, to use scientific thinking and its methodology for anything other than natural science is neither proper nor propitious.

It takes, for instance, more than mere scientific methodological thinking to realize the key underlying truth (rarely considered by anyone) that forms the basis for this book: Namely, given the fact that if Absolute Truth does exist it can have only one source, given that many people believe that Absolute Truth does exist, given also that either all sources of this Truth are wrong or only one is valid, we then have a critical choice to make among various traditional faiths and beliefs (religions). There is, however, a stubborn weakness in the masses, almost a mindless response to the critical choice they face. The bellwether of this weakness is a reigning legion of social scientists, followed by new-age ministers, theologians, politicians, journalists and theater artists.

True scientists are much less inclined to escape into that false scientific mindset. Nevertheless, many do. They are, as this book will contend, unbifurcated, and they remain wholly unaware of a critical need: that science and scientific methodology must be completely separated from spiritual considerations. Obviously, therefore, this book is concerned with the unbifurcated among those who are scientifically aligned.

Now, what prompted or forced me to see this decay, this broad migration from common sense reasoning and into a new and irrational realm where thinking is directed from a strictly scientific mindset? It was my nine year investigation of the Reverend Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple cult. For, after getting the full data on his inside operations and how he manipulated the liberals, both in the Disciples of Christ denomination and in San Francisco’s political hierarchy, I became astounded at the mental gyrations of those obviously bright people who, because of his wonderful contributions to the underprivileged, covered their eyes. Early on, I began to see the glazed-over expressions and puppet-like reactions of authorities who not only should have known better but who could have stopped the man right in his tracks. It was extraordinary! (See Appendix One for details of my investigation of Jim Jones.) But in the mid 1980s I watched an old Bob Hope movie, Ghost Breakers, and saw that he understood the kind of mentality I had been confronting. There was a scene in the movie where Richard Carlson tries to warn Hope about the zombies on a little island off Cuba. It’s worse than horrible, says Carlson, because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes, walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring. And that is where the seriously alarmed Bob Hope blurts out: You mean like Democrats? Hope played the part perfectly, intensely straight faced. That said it all. For, humorous as it was, it had captured everything I saw and felt while I endeavored to get through to the judges, politicians, bishops, media people, and heads of State. (There remains a sad irony. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who had gone down to Guyana as an assistant to Congressman Leo Ryan and got shot up badly, has still not awakened to the spiritual dementia that allowed Jim Jones his access to the highest levels of San Francisco and State governance.)

I am certain, however, that one nationally respected person fully understands the mental poverty I have just described in those liberals who propelled Jim Jones to his uncanny position of strong influence in the corrupt San Francisco sociopolitical infrastructure. Dr. James Dobson fully understood everything about the mentality I described in the various elitists who could not see the growing horror of Jim Jones. In our private discussion nearly three decades ago, prior to going on his radio show, I was incredulous that he had such profound insights on the nature of liberalism. For, unlike me who had hobnobbed with all those new-age liberals over the years, he was raised in a good and healthy family atmosphere and then remained solid in the historical Christian faith. How did he gain such a keen perception of that radical mentality? I was a part of it. I lived and breathed it. He did not. Yet, more than four decades ago, he was powerfully aware of everything that drives those kinds of people. So, during our private talk, I simply asked him, Dr. Dobson, how did you come to such a great understanding of these errant minds?

In pure humility (for he is most probably the humblest man I have ever met), he replied, It is not flesh and blood that reveals these things to us, but our Father who is in Heaven. Dobson is a true giant; his wisdom is the most trustworthy I have ever encountered. Had there been one or two Dr. Jim Dobsons on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, Jim Jones would have achieved virtually nothing in the Bay Area.

But, to go on with what prompted this book, I must say this: After being so let down by the liberals who controlled San Francisco politics, new-age church politics, and the California media, I was impelled by an intense curiosity to search out and find their mental frailties – and the extent to which those frailties were semiconsciously sensed. (After all, four decades ago I was one of them. So I would also be discovering much about myself and why I did not awaken and grow up during those strange times.)

There was plenty. I acquired insights, fierce and disturbing, such that I was driven to write a Christian science fiction novel purely as a vehicle by which I could expose the dangerous mentalities hovering with a dissembling innocence at all levels and ranges of human endeavor. And no groups were immune. Blue collar workers, housewives, teachers, theologians, psychologists, social scientists, professors, and intellectuals: none of them was immune to this propensity for escape. For, there was a truculent intellectualism that wheeled its way through all categories. A refuge common to them all, however (because it was either consciously or unconsciously most tempting), was science and the scientific mentality. I concluded that the cleverest persons in every category were utilizing the refuge of scientific reasoning; although in every case I could see that it was a specious kind of scientific thinking, for it avoided certain logical questions (explained by way of Lednorf’s Dilemma in either the main text of this book or in my science fiction novel, LEDNORF’S DILEMMA). Along the way I observed that the escape to scientific thinking is often accomplished indirectly. That is to say, when people engage in a tough discussion and find themselves at a loss for a way out, they will escape to what they have heard from scientists who are not careful in their pronouncements and who have their own agenda. Keep in mind that science has no agenda other than the discovery of everything that goes on throughout the natural universe. Pure science, therefore, is natural science. But in some cases persons who are intellectually inclined will make no bones about it: They will leap quickly to scientific reasoning, or what they think is scientific reasoning. Take the case of a Drake University professor whom I interviewed for more than an hour and a half. When asked a particularly tough question regarding whether or not he could say that a certain unseemly act was necessarily wrong, he then said, Science makes no judgment on the matter of morality. You see, he had a mind so melded with science that there was no remaining part of him that could state the obvious. That is the danger when a scientifically minded person does not understand the concept of bifurcation (which I have also dealt with in the main text of this book and, as I mentioned before, in LEDNORF’S DILEMMA). All this is why my study of these strange mentalities led me to write THE SPECIFIC DENSITY OF SCIENTISTS.

Introduction

The Christian science fiction novel, LEDNORF’S DILEMMA, introduces us to an alien concept, one by which the novel gets its title. But in the book you are about to read we are further pushed to consider the three other concepts in LEDNORF’S DILEMMA. For they bring an understanding of a major problem common not only to most scientists, but to the elitist thinking of more than 90% of the world’s intellectual academicians as well.

It is wise therefore – especially as we begin this bold look into the minds and the mindless postures of those people whom LEDNORF’S DILEMMA has seen fit to label as majestic brains – for us to consider what the The Scientific American wrote on its editorial page back in October of 1964.

There is no evidence that scientists always tell the truth, and the chances are that they are only marginally more honest than, say, politicians.

With that, let us begin our little trek into the minds and ways of scientists, so that we might bring the mystery to light. Our purpose is to penetrate the dark veil that hides a specific kind of density within these technically oriented intellectuals, so that we can see the deeper implications of their gentle and well-disguised arrogance.

The essence of this book flows from the four concepts in LEDNORF’S DILEMMA. Some brief comments are in order, if only to pique your curiosity. The first is Lednorf’s Dilemma. As mentioned, it is an alien concept. It leaves scientists speechless and forces them to face not only their puzzlement, but the awkwardness they experience in trying to answer a question they rarely if ever have been asked. Do you believe the almighty God of the historical faith (who is perfectly fair within His own context) would give you and your majestic brain," a special access to His Kingdom? (The question is dealt with in the conclusion of this book.) You see, after many discussions, I have yet to hear one of them answer the question smoothly and confidently. It simply does not happen. (And it is one of the key reasons why I was compelled to write this book.)

The second concept is Lord Russell’s Truism. It is not, however, an alien concept. It has existed most of a century, since it is the mathematical product of Lord Bertrand Russell, one of the 20th century’s greatest mathematicians. The truism is a necessary element in exposing the intellectual cowardice of those many theologians and other metaphysicians who, out of fear, pride and misapplied logic, have chosen to ignore its inexorable gravity. We will consider it more fully in a later chapter. For now, it suffices to say that in regard to the many world religions Russell’s Truism states quite simply that either all of them are false, or only one is true. This truism is mathematically proven, therefore ineluctable, meaning that it cannot be successfully challenged. Also, as we shall see later, it seems to frighten theologians and philosophers, because they not only avoid it and flee from it, but they are intellectually terrified by its implications. (Metaphorically, it is like a vampire being confronted by a cross wrapped in garlic.) They will never welcome the confrontation! Therefore they are content to ignore both the truism and its implications.

Russell’s Truism is so powerful that it might even compel scholars to see the real intent of the First Amendment. Understandably, then, I will heavily pursue Lord Russell’s Truism in later chapters – along with implications not only staggering, but enlightening beyond what most people might imagine.

The third concept is bifurcation. And, though it primarily targets scientists, it also aims at the more cynical of philosophers, humanists, and other intellectuals who wade freely in the unmoving pools of parapsychology or wing their way through clouds of Eastern mysticism. Here, though, is a critical point: Bifurcation is vital for those intellectuals sharp enough or courageous enough to recognize the full implications of Lord Russell’s Truism. That is to say, if any of them finally realizes that only one faith can possibly be valid, then the search for that one valid life-view demands that they bifurcate. It means that they must separate the spiritual self from the scientifically driven self in order to freely consider the spiritual questions demanded by their very recognition of Russell’s Truism and its unavoidable implications. By no means, though, do I mean to imply that the spiritual self may not use many tools (such as reason, common sense and logic) that are incorporated by scientists. There are two necessary benefits of bifurcation. First, it allows scientists a free and unencumbered path to the pursuit and discovery of various phenomena and processes within the natural universe. Second, it releases the total self from its scientific trench: in order that truth can be pursued by means that are logical within a spiritual context. Bifurcation, in other words, allows the total self to see the obvious: Search for the one God is accomplished only by way of heart and faith as they gracefully unite the intellect with a blessed and special power of reasoning. Intelligent Design Theorists – especially the real scientists among them – do not understand their critical need for bifurcation. And thus they continue to invade the valid realm of pure science, not fully realizing how and why they are the cause of much confusion. Most of them do not realize the need for patience, the need to hold off until the paradigm is finally broken and a new one established, one that embraces the logical probability that the pursuit of Intelligent Design has genuine scientific merit. Until then, most remain unable to see that, for the next one or two decades, they must continue their important work outside the present boundaries of natural science. Until that moment, when science is no longer able to keep the present paradigm from being shattered, they must see themselves merely as agents knocking at the door of pure science, agents who have a new and critically important product to sell.

The fourth concept is Grath’s Paradox. Admittedly it is an alien concept, although it does have a ring of those sociological observations that have attempted over the years to herald the inevitable demise of certain kinds of political structures. Yet the concept is unpleasantly different, in that it claims there is a certain point at which, no matter what steps are taken to eliminate the dangerous elements and destructive values, it is too late; because the society has become economically dependent upon the evil elements. Thus it is that Grath’s Paradox is also labeled as Grath’s Terminal Corruption Hypothesis. So it is tenuous, at best, as analysts attempt to discern whether the United States has or has not reached the point of no return. The novel, though, strongly implies that if the point of no return has not been reached, the only hope for a healthy realignment lies with America’s intellectual community and its general citizenry coming to understand that scientists and other intellectuals are wrong in thinking their brains and education give them an advantage in determining whether or not God exists and participates in the lives of His people. Likewise, these same intellectuals must come to accept the truth that journalism and its academic hierarchy are bastions of Marxist-related bias. The public understands also that America’s value system is being continuously invaded by those very same intellectuals whose non-theory of evil renders them incapable of courageously fighting the forces of decay. Grath’s Paradox is therefore a fierce reality in LEDNORF’S DILEMMA.

Keep these four concepts in mind as we now begin the study of a most unusual kind of mental block, one that has not been seriously pursued or even considered. It is a mental block peculiar to scientists, social scientists, and their minions in media and the world of academics. Those worlds, until now, have not considered this mental blindness. It is no surprise, of course. After all, if those scientists and their flawed followers in the narrow world of intellectualism are close to a total ignorance of Lednorf’s Dilemma, how could their cohorts in literature and journalism ever come to announce the truth of this long kept secret?

I am convinced that what follows in this book is extraordinary in its power and logic. It will likely go beyond the limits of what most modern thinkers have considered. I say this because of one fact alone: Scant few scientists, or other true intellectual thinkers, have considered the deepest implication of bifurcation. There is, you see, a tendency – upon first consideration – for scientists to see no problem with bifurcation. However, the moment they are confronted with its deepest implication, they often recant. And why? It is because its deepest implication is based in pure logic, and it forces scientists out of their atheistic passions and into an entirely new arena wherein agnosticism is now their only logical option. It becomes a disturbance to the universe of majestic-brained scientists. This splendor of disturbance remains at the heart of every premise and every theological or scientific point we will be confronting throughout this book.

It is my hope, then, that you will come to understand why, of the four major concepts mentioned, Bifurcation is the quintessential ingredient that is necessary for an effective understanding not only of Lord Russell’s Truism and Lednorf’s Dilemma, but of the high probability that Grath’s Paradox applies to America and the dangerous direction being forced upon it by radical leftists and postmodernists.

Welcome, then, to that ill-considered world of those who are blessed with – or blocked by – the "majestic brain."

Chapter One

Let’s not tell them what we really think

In an interview with a Drake University professor, and after spotting both his liberal biases and his strong ties to scientism, I posed a question that drove him into serious discomfort. Dr. Miller, I have just finished reading a report that was published under the auspices of the National Science Foundation. It contained a study of New Guinea tribal customs. And they prompt me to ask: Do you agree that it is necessarily wrong, absolutely and unequivocally, for a father to have sex with his seven year-old son?

There was an awkward pause by the professor (who, I confirmed, had been ordained as a minister in the Disciples of Christ denomination). He then said, No, I cannot say that it is absolutely wrong. There followed a hint that he hated the question. Obviously he was frustrated, even angered, by this approach that brought embarrassment. But after he regained composure he added, But, but neither can I say that it is right. (I suppose he thought the remark would take him off the hook.) It was a stunning example of a man so blinded by his ties to scientific materialism that he could not state the obvious. He also revealed his non-theory of evil. It was as if evil did not exist! I was not surprised, then, to find him caught in several deceptions during a debate with a savvy theologian; for this opponent was a minister grounded in the historical Christian faith. In that polemic, Dr. Dale Miller even made a statement that flatly contradicted what he said in one of his recent books, namely that Jesus Christ might not have really existed. So this new-age preacher was either confused or the purposeful servant of confusion. After hearing the debate, it was as if I could almost smell the fumes of sulfur. It was the stench of postmodernism! (See Appendix Three, a detailed study of postmodernism.)

It was not strictly by coincidence that I had previously interviewed a friend of Professor Miller on the West Coast, a theologian and pastor who had taught comparative religion at University of the Pacific. But in this case I had known the clergyman for many years and had become aware of his Marxist-activist postures (for, as my many friends know, I myself was a liberal forty years ago and only began to come out of that mindset when I saw that my intellectual friends, including this very theologian, were so determined to defend and encourage Jim Jones’s cult). Even back then, however, I had serious doubts that this theologian believed in the existence of our Lord and God of the historical faith. So I asked him a key question and in a way that would leave no room for ambiguities. Do you believe that God hears and understands my prayers even more clearly than I hear your words in the conversation we are now having?

His response was immediate and it radiated the boiler plate concepts that I had studied in many of our modern theologians. For this theologian said, "To think that God ‘hears’ our words would in a sense be limiting God to human characteristics. God is beyond all of that. I began to see that this theologian was less a logician and more the parrot, for I got an identical response from another Disciples of Christ theologian who happened to be a friend of both Professor Miller and me. For if God contained all the beyondness" he envisioned, but also had power to hear every word of my prayers, how could anyone say it would be limiting God? Why could he not see that rather than limiting God it would be extending God’s power? It was then that I first began to breathe the polluted air of his unexamined atheism. I needed nothing more to confirm my suspicions.

But less than decade later I did indeed get more. It happened in what he thought was a safe moment. For this theologian, you see, was under the impression that he was having a private conversation with an atheist. But it was not so. The person he thought to be an atheist was in fact a lawyer friend of mine, a professed believer whom I had for years been trying to convince of the fact that most of these new-age ministers and theologians were, in their darkest essence, atheistic. Yet my friend continued in his incredulity until four or five years later when we three happened to be at the same wedding. I introduced my attorney friend to the theologian. The attorney realized an opportunity to verify what I had told him about the modern theologians. So he proceeded then, in a lightly devious way, to engage the minister in a pleasant chat as they stood outside the church. The attorney told the minister that he had gone to the University of California Hastings School of Law in San Francisco. Then he slyly claimed that he came out an atheist. So, there they stood, that pseudo minister of God and that pretend atheist, deep amidst strategic charades destined to go nowhere unless one of them were to admit the truth. Finally, after the lawyer feigned shame and discomfort at having had his original faith torn away – leaving him as the cynical atheist – the clergyman sighed in sympathy. Actually, he said, you and I are not that far apart.

Do you see what took place there? The theologian had merely confessed that he was an atheist, but did it tacitly in the guise of a theologian. His religion was atheistic politics! It was the lawyer’s first encounter with one of these brazenly atheistic, sociopolitical animals. So, after having apprised my lawyer friend for many years about how the classics have endeavored to explain such evil, as well as how to fight it, I knew he then realized that the mainstream churches were full of these monstrously mixed-up ministers of confusion. For it is precisely the metaphorical meaning of Professor Van Helsing’s words in Stoker’s DRACULA when he said, "one vampire meant many."

My friend told me later of the theologian’s confession. And I thought to myself: Leave it to a lawyer to confirm a fact that is difficult to believe.

Of course, one can easily understand why these liberal, pseudo ministers will not tell the laity what they really think. And although I have talked with many of these theologians in several denominations I will confine myself to the Disciples of Christ because I know them best and because they are indistinguishable from United Church of Christ leaders, in regard to their extreme and dark spiritual machinations. In light of what I am going to say, then, I would urge you to keep it in mind that other new-age denominations are barely a foot behind the spiritually insane Disciples of Christ and their cohorts, the United Church of Christ. (By the way, after reading what I have to say, no one should wonder at the fact that President Barack Obama disavowed and rejected the leadership of his own United Church of Christ church there in Chicago; for he made a discovery the hard way – at least he claims it to be a recent discovery – that their leadership is severely off target.) And, while at it, let me say that I believe the United Church of Christ became a refuge decades ago for any Disciples of Christ minister who fled from his denomination for little reason other than embarrassment over being a minister in a denomination that paved the way for the most infamous cult leader in American history – for, indeed, that is what the so-called Disciples of Christ were back then, a fact they later tried desperately to cover up.

But why are we dealing with theological matters so early in a book that is supposed to be concerned with the specific density of scientists? I hope to make the point that these errant theologians and new-age ministers are deeply dependent upon science. It is a way for them to justify their atheism. I want to show the scientists that if they were to wake up they would tell these spiritually insane pseudo ministers to get out of our territory. I also believe that scientists will ultimately be a big help to the true ministers of God. But we will elaborate on this possibility later with excerpts from LEDNORF’S DILEMMA.

On the other hand it is just as fair to say that I want nonscientists to wake up and realize how nonsensical it is to place scientists on some specious pedestal of authority. For, on the most critical matters of life, the scientists have no advantage. Thus, to use scientists and science as a polemical refuge when confronting the toughest problems life puts our way – the heavy questions of truth and morality that hit us full face – is so ridiculous that it can be traced only to abject ignorance. Do you see, then, why the single effective path I see is the one that brings us a glimpse into the specific density of scientists? Only then, you must agree, will nonscientists, and scientists alike, have a graceful opportunity to see and accept the fact that they have identical frailties and weaknesses as they each tackle those increasingly awesome questions on truth and morality, and their graceful source. I mean the source that mysteriously refuses to manifest itself by means that