The evolution of evolution

**In this Salon interview, the renowned physicist Freeman Dyson sketches the three stages of evolution. In the first, genes skipped from cell to cell and evolution was very fast. In the second, the resulting creatures kept the genes to themselves and established species, slowing evolution down. Once humans came along, gene transfer is once again going on, deliberately, and this means evolution will speed up again. He believes this speedup will spur technological progress, especially in biology, that will help us to avert some of the looming problems of our time.

NOTE: This is a small part of an interview in which Dyson also condemns the new atheism. By his own admission he has been wrong before (he advised Crick to do something other than study DNA). I believe he is wrong about atheism, but I agree with most of everything else in this interview.

You write that cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the main driving force of change. What do you mean?

---

This is an idea that I borrowed from Carl Woese, who is a very famous biologist. The idea is that you can divide the history of life into three periods. First, the early period where all genes were freely exchanged between different cells, so that the living world consisted of primitive cells and genes, which are really the same thing as viruses, traveling around exchanged from cell to cell. That's what we call horizontal gene transfer. Evolution was then collective. Anything useful that was invented by one cell could be shared wit h all the others, so evolution went very fast.

---

Sometime about half a billion years later, things changed because the creatures started to become selfish and refused to share their genes with their neighbors. They kept the genes for themselves, and that's what we call the invention of species. A species is a collection of creatures that does not breed outside the species. As soon as life became divided up into species, evolution became Darwinian. It was then competition between species. Each invention only benefited the species that invented it. Everybody else had to compete separately. Evolution then went much slower for a couple of billion years. That's what I call the Darwinian interlude.

---

Now, since humans came along, that has changed again. Now we're back in an epoch when genes c an be horizontally transferred. We learned how to move genes around from one creature to another. That's what we call gene splicing. So humans can easily take genes from one animal, put them into a virus or a bacterium and multiply them into a large population, and then put them back into another creature. You can very easily spread desirable qualities from one species to another. That's now the new era of what I call open-source genetics, an analogy to open-source software in the computer business. It means that genes are shared between species. Species in the end will fade out. They will become merged. I think that's a hopeful future, but it's also going to be dangerous, of course. And all sorts of unintended consequences will no doubt come to plague us. But it seems to be happening anyway.

So, it isn't just burnt out religionists like me!

** After 60+ years of carrying the torch for religion in one form or another, it might not be so remarkable that I would choose to spend my final years as a contented atheist. But new research from The Barna Group, which specializes in studying the religious beliefs and behavior of Americans, and the intersection of faith and culture, shows that the thrill is also gone for most younger Americans. Here are some highlights of the report (via DC)

As the nation’s culture changes in diverse ways, one of the most significant shifts is the declining reputation of Christianity, especially among young Americans. A new study by The Barna Group conducted among 16- to 29-year-olds shows that a new generation is more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.

The study of Christianity’s slipping image is explored in a new book, entitled unChristian, by David Kinnaman, the president of The Barna Group. The study is a result of collaboration between Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project.

The study shows that 16- to 29-year-olds exhibit a greater degree of criticism toward Christianity than did previous generations when they were at the same stage of life. In fact, in just a decade, many of the Barna measures of the Christian image have shifted substantially downward, fueled in part by a growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among young people. For instance, a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.

One of the groups hit hardest by the criticism is evangelicals. Such believers have always been viewed with skepticism in the broader culture. However, those negative views are crystallizing and intensifying among young non-Christians. The new study shows that only 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals. This means that today’s young non-Christians are eight times less likely to experience positive associations toward evangelicals than were non-Christians of the Boomer generation (25%)...

First in a series of "deconversion" stories

** Now that I'm looking for them, I find that many people have had experiences similar to mine, even though I used to believe the religion I practiced was so very different from all the others that there could be no comparison. But theology is theology no matter what the stripe, and once one understands that there is no "theos" then all the "logy" is just academic hair splitting. I will share, from time to time, selected stories that at least remind me of my own, and may serve as a platform for others to appraise what it is they are living and dying for. Here is the beginning of an account by "Brother Crow:"

I was a minister for over 25 years, very serious about thoughtful Christianity, a graduate of Emory University with undergrad study in psychology and grad study in religion/theology. Studied anthropology and mythology along the way, because I was fascinated with origins, and because I had a lingering suspicion even in those days that much of what I believed was probably myth. I was a person who chose to believe in the face of dogged unbelief. I struggled with intellectual concerns with Christianity from the day I was "born again" - but my conversion experience was so emotionally gratifying and gave me such acceptance in a tight-knit community that I chose to turn off or "closet" my reasonable objections and simply believe the unbelievable.

And, that is one of the reasons I actually "deconverted" or came out of the closet...I grew tired, after 25 years - of seeing emotion and acceptance be awarded to the converted for choosing to believe something that has no basis in reality. I could no longer live with my own sense of compromised integrity and intellectual dishonesty.

READ THE REST BY CLICKING HERE

What I Now Believe

** Someone recently asked me to explain “how someone can see what Christian Science is and then unsee it.” What follows is a set of conclusions arrived at over a couple of years of careful investigation of alternatives to the ideas I deeply studied, professed and taught over the course of thirty years.

First let me say that I believe Christian Science makes the best sense of all the religions. But the realization I came to is that the issue isn't which theology is the most correct, but that none of them are. Until recently I had always assumed that there was a divine agent that created and maintains the universe and that having a clear insight of this fact could positively alter events and conditions in my life (aka healing.) But now I do not feel this is correct. Phenomena attributable to this divine agent can be explained in other, more rational and verifiable ways. My departure from Christian Science has to do with its very basis, not certain people or the Church itself. Most of the Christian Scientists I've known are fine people and I'm always happy to count them as friends even though we may not agree on what constitutes ultimate reality. Christian Scientists, like most sincere religionists, are among the nicest people in the world even if they believe their goodness rests on spiritual or divine principle. Also, I have no quarrel with the Church or its administrations, present and past, other than its theology. I do not believe in so-called spiritual healing, again because I feel that these phenomena can be explained in other, more convincing ways. Beyond that, I can no longer believe in the various doctrines of Christianity, including the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the divine nature (or possibly even the existence) of Jesus, and the afterlife, among others. I believe death is the end of an individual's existence and so we should strive to improve ourselves and the world through good deeds, cooperation, kindness, patience and the other virtues often ascribed to Christianity, but which are simply wise ways of behaving that everyone instinctually knows. I also believe that much of conventional health care is useful and should be employed when necessary for the alleviation of physical problems, the maintenance of health and enhanced longevity.

Obviously, this puts me completely outside the belief system, and community, of Christian Science. I have done a lot of reading on the subject, and some of my favorite books are by the DDHH quartet: Dennett, Dawkins,Harris and Hitchens, links to which have been posted here earlier.

• Breaking the Spell - Dennett
• Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Dennett
• The God Delusion - Dawkins
• The End of Faith - Harris
• God is Not Great - Hitchens

There have been many others, but these books were most influential. Very well documented, very well written and very persuasive. I feel freer now than I ever thought possible. Everything is a wonder and fascinating.

Comment on MT from "the nicest atheist"

**If it were conceivable that there be a patron saint of atheism, it would undoubtedly be Dan Dennett. A very humane, brilliant thinker and engaging writer, he gently demolishes the unchallenged assumptions of most religionists, while introducing his readers to a wondrous world view made even more so by its lack of a deity. Here's an excerpt from his latest comment in the Washington Post on the recent revelations of Mother Teresa's silent atheism.

Mother Teresa’s agonies of doubt are surely not all that unusual. What is unusual is that she put them in writing and now they are being revealed to the world, in spite of her explicit wish that they be destroyed. I get mail all the time from religious leaders who admit to me in private that they do not believe in God but think that the best way to continue their lives is to swallow hard and get on with their ministries, concentrating on bringing more good than evil into the lives of their parishioners and those for whom their churches provide care. I would never divulge their names without their consent, but I do wonder: How many millions of priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, nuns and monks around the world are living lives of similar duplicity? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the outing of Mother Teresa inspired a few thousand of them to come out of the closet and acknowledge their atheism! Then it might start being obvious not only that faith in God is not a requirement for morality, but that the loss of faith in God often goads people into living more strenuously helpful lives, as seems to be the case with Mother Teresa. Of course, such honesty carries a price: you have to change your mission in a way Mother Teresa never did. She could have devoted herself more single-mindedly to helping the poor instead of trying to convert them. Perhaps it was her guilt at being unable to convert herself that drove her to work so hard to convert others to take her place among the believers.

Books by Dennet that I have read:

• Breaking the Spell (read this twice)
• Darwin's Dangerous Idea
• Freedom Evolves
• Consciousness Explained (Still reading)

Free ticket to hell

** I have to go to Boston. I'm allergic to Boston. Because of its chaotic layout, noise and bad memories, there are only three or four people I'd actually try to connect with if I were forced to go there. One of them is George Kay, the intellectual dentist, inventor, world traveler and general bon vivant with whom I have spent many actually enjoyable hours when I lived there. (Also thousands of dollars and some pain.) It's choosing to let George do it that promises to make my Bosto-phobia all worthwhile.

And all because I have a free ticket on United.

How I came to have a free ticket on United is for another story, another time. Upshot for this entry is that I am betting this ticket on the skin of my teeth. Translation: there's a chance that George can resolve a dental issue that could cost me thousands if done in CA. I can also use the time between my Thursday appointment and my Tuesday departure to connect with that handful of people. But more deliciously, to hang out with my favorite daughter, Clare, who lives in Maine, a pleasant "Downeaster" train ride away.

So I've booked the redeye out of SFO, flight 180 scheduled to depart 11:50PM, arriving at 8:22 the next morning - non stop 5-hr trip. I hate cross country flights - and all airline travel actually – because of the security circus everywhere, the stockyard ambiance and the financial crises that have forced the carriers to downgrade the whole experience and openly not give a shit. But I've been blessed with an iPod that allows me to listen to audio books, and I had a couple that have engrossed me of late ("Pattern Recognition" and "Spook Country" by William Gibson). So in meticulous preparation for the ordeal I had loaded up the iPod with the books, made disc copies of the files, added some chatter-blocker white noise in case the crying baby (inevitable when I'm traveling) gets too distracting and I want to sleep.

13E was the seat assigned to me - a middle seat. The worst for a 5-hr night flight. So I decide to get to the airport waaay early - like around 8:15 – so I could get the seat changed. I even put in for a first class upgrade, using miles, in case coach was full.

Well, they don't allow seat changes until one hour before the flight. OK, I'll just go have a drink and call Dick to see how's he's recovering from his shoulder surgery. Did that. Got back to the departure lounge and pulled out the iPod to listen to the five hours I have left on "Pattern Recognition."

And that's when I realize I am in some kind of Kafka-MarxBrothers movie.

Clicking on "AudioBooks" on the iPod got me a completely blank screen. In fact, none of my music was there either, including the chatter-blocker. What the hell? After countless retries, reinstallations, re-syncings, re-everythings trying to get my life-saving audio back I place a call to audible.com. Kafka replies: "we're not going to help you because we're not open. "

I lose it. Call Joan to spoil her evening with a rant whose expletive-laced outbursts must be louder than I think because I notice several people in the lounge looking at me - some with sympathetic expressions, others with "oh crap, crazy man on board" looks.

Ticket agents appear at the desk. I'm first in line - my rant post. One tells me there are absolutely no aisle or window seats. Furthermore, they've changed the equipment and this plane is smaller than the one originally scheduled so now everything is oversubscribed. Nope, nothing in first class either - they're overbooked there by two and everyone has checked in.

I go back to my seat and fume silently for the next half hour. Boarding - last group of course. Plane jammed. Ahead of me is a family of 5. Two restless chattering little girls and a 7- or 8-month old babe in arms. I hear the mom deliver another Kafka line to one of the girls: "Honey just watch for row 13."

Joan had cautioned me to grab a blanket and pillow because planes can get cold overnight. So I arrive at lucky row 13 looking like a refugee – or someone checking into a prison cell. I have a blanket and TWO pillows in addition to my inflatable, all in my arms, with a heavy backpack in one hand. I can get into my middle seat because the aisle passenger hasn't arrived yet. But I've got this pile of blankets and pillows on my lap and no place to put anything. The blindfolded (why didn't I think of that?) MIT student on my right wants to sleep so that's OK - but I don't want to wake her by squirming around. And besides, there's really no place to put the pile. In addition, I've worn a t-shirt under a long-sleeved heavy shirt with two pockets, which I like to have handy when I travel so I can stuff iPods, cell phones, etc. And because Clare had said it would be "coolish" in Maine I am also wearing my Sleeping Bear Lake hooded parka. The only thing coming out of the overhead nozzle is ... breath. Weak, warmish breath. Like a failing convection oven.

Before I can figure out what to do with my pile, my aisle seat mate arrives. As she bends over to put her bag on the floor, water pours from the glass she's carrying - onto my left sleeve. Inwardly, I start to laugh - no I mean laff - a kind of maniacal mental paroxysm as it sinks in that I am totally screwed the rest of this trip.

Confirmation - and another laff riot - comes a few minutes later. The plane has been towed out to the taxi-way. As we sit there, the sound of a dog being whipped a dozen or so times tears up though the floorboards. ERRRROWWWWEEEE! Then silence. Then Kaptain Kafka again: "This is your captain. You may have noticed us trying to start the left engine. It won't start. So we're going to wait until they tow us back to the gate. You see, the engine is started with compressed air, using the same compressor that provides our air-conditioning. [TMI, and besides, what air conditioning?] We're going to detach that compressor and have an external emergency starter try to get the engine going. It'll be just a few more minutes."

Yeah, sure.

Actually it is. A few more whipped dogs and then the roar of the engine. The baby doesn't like it. But we're off. I decide to try to become very small in my seat - scrunch up and just see if I will doze off. Lean forward a bit - a good angle, propped on my lap-full of cloth.

BLAM!

Guy in seat ahead launches the back of it into my forehead.

Pathetic giggle.

Movie time. Little 9-inch flat screens drop down. They're showing "Shrek" tonight. Boring.

Lady on left squirming. I offer her one of my pillows. Gives me an idea. I offload the blanket by dropping it on the floor between my legs. Another layer gone.

I decide to set my watch to eastern time. But I don't want to turn on the overhead light for fear my two blindfolded seat-mates will awake. But the watch has a backlight. Three seconds to figure out what the other 3 buttons do. Ten minutes of that and I decide to go with the default Pacific time, plus or minus whatever changed while I fiddled with it.

By now the baby has mercifully settled down and I decide to try the on board audio system. I had remembered to bring my ear-muff headset with the big, pouffy cushions that will shut out ambient noises. Oh, and I've already plugged my ears with expanding foam. The only trouble with this system is that my ears sweat after a while, compounded by the airplane breath above me.

On United flights you get to listen to the radio transmissions going on in the cockpit on Channel 9. The captain has told us we could do that if we just wanted to relax. This is definitely not the relaxation channel. (Nothing much this time, but I'll never forget an earlier flight when I heard the word you don't want to hear on that channel: "OOPS!" Tower had instructed pilot to turn right at a certain intersection of taxi-ways. As he got there the pilot said, "You mean left, don't you?" Tower: "Oops, yeah.")

Everything else on the audio menu unappetizing, not what I want to hear when needing to become unconscious. Even the classical channel is "Pops!" Too up for this kind of flight. Also, the selections are too short, which gives the hyper DJ a chance to plug Sirius radio, this United channel and jabber from the liner notes of the recordings he's spinning. I unplug, and take off the headphones. It's kinda quiet at last. And a bit cooler, at least around my ears. I take out the orange foam plugs. Hmmmm...people, including baby ones, are asleep.

I am confined to staring straight ahead. And besides, if I had been interested in Shrek I couldn't see it no matter what I did. Though there is a screen above and just 2.5 feet in front of me, it's a LCD so the viewing angle turns everything dark and negative (not what the makers of Shrek had in mind, I'm sure). Normally, I could watch the screen three rows ahead, but the guy in front of me is about 8 feet tall, so his head comes between me and the screen. Which would be OK as long as he sits still. Which he does. But he's wearing outsize pouffy headphones, like mine, so his head is now effectively about a foot wide.

I've taken two melatonin but I'm still not sleepy. Must be all the excitement. Eventually, another hour drags by and another movie starts up. From the few opening scenes, this one looks interesting. I can't tell which movie it is because the titles are too small to read from ten feet away. But it stars Anthony Hopkins, appropriate companion on this flight. A murder mystery definitely. I don my headgear and tune to channel 1, the movie sound channel.

Enter, Franz Kafka, projectionist. No one on the flight crews seems to have noticed that the tape has been damaged so that not only does a horizontal line dribble slowly down the screen, but the sound track cuts out EVERY FIVE SECONDS. Not easy to follow dialog, you think? I jiggle the headphone plug but no change. I sneak onto my right seat mate's jack and change to channel 1. She stirs. Audio interruptus as before.

Some time later, seat-mate to the left gets up to pee. I take the opportunity to do the same - and exercise my legs. I hang around in the rear galley and start to do toe lifts and other calf stretches. A guy comes in with a baby bottle and asks to have it filled. So I have to get out of the way. After I come out of the can I saunter down the aisle (on therapeutic tiptoe) to my seat, where seat mate is standing waiting for me. Guy in front still has his seat reclined so it's one of those Twister moves to get re-installed into my cage. But at least I've been able to take off the goddam parka and shirt and wet down my head to get the momentary cooling effect of evaporation. Aisle seat sighs. I say: "It's not easy." She agrees and curls up with her/my extra pillow. She's a lot shorter than I so bends quite easily to put her head on the tray table - and the guy in front of her isn't taking target practice on her head.

Another hour goes by and something must have happened to my brain because I don't remember anything about it. I may have slept or blacked out with boredom. When I look out one of the windows on the other side of the plane I see creamsicle sky and know that we're heading into dawn.

Eventually, we land and we're only 15 minutes late. No problem because I've got nowhere to go yet. I head into the handicap stall of the men's room to change out of my sweat pants and t-shirt and put on something more suitable to be seen in in daylight. While I'm in the luxurious quarters of the handicap stall I think about the crazy night I've just had, when just about anything wrong that could happen has happened. I hear a noise outside the stall. I laff again and think: bring it on, baby! I just KNOW it's some guy in a wheelchair or crutches, rocking back and forth or side-to-side, waiting to get in – and give me the evil eye as I slink out. I never see anyone in these spacious stalls but I know this will be just another scene in my long nightmare. And though I know I'll never see him again, I still care - a little - but plan to avert my gaze as I drag my suitcase and backpack and criminal ass out of there. Surprise: no handicapped guy there. Just me playing Kafka.

Mother Teresa: atheist

** Mother Teresa’s revelations have thrown fresh fuel on the debate between atheism and theism. In the following excerpt from the TV program, Hardball, Chris Matthews tries to moderate a debate between atheist Christopher Hitches and theist Bill Donohue. The following excerpts are taken from the blog of Jason Rosenhouse, and include his comments.

Hitchens and Donohue on Hardball

Category: Religion
Posted on: August 29, 2007 6:04 PM, by Jason Rosenhouse

God is Not Great author Christopher Hitchens and Catholic League president Bill Donohue showed up on Hardball yesterday to mull over the issues raised by the Time article. I'd write some commentary, but some things simply defy comment. I have taken the liberty of putting certain choice nuggets in bold:

MATTHEWS: I want to go to Christopher Hitchens. Christopher, you have been tough. You say this is a profound revelation, that this woman did not believe.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AUTHOR, “GOD IS NOT GREAT”: Yes, and a very moving one, actually, and a very honest one, I have to add. She tried her best to believe. Her atheism was not like mine. I can't believe it and I am glad to think that it is not true, that there is a dictator in the heavens. So the fact that there is no evidence for it pleases me. She really wished it was true. She tried to live her life as if it was true.

She failed. And she was encouraged by cynical old men to carry on doing so because she was a great marketing tool for her church, and I think that they should answer for what they did to her and what they have been doing to us. I think it has been fraud and exploitation yet again.

MATTHEWS: Bill Donohue, your reaction?

BILL DONOHUE, THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE: This is laughable. I suppose next week we will find that Mother Teresa considered herself to be a sinner as well. The fact of the matter is the Vatican is standing behind this book. If this is such an embarrassment to the Catholic church, why in the world is the Vatican proud of this book? I am proud of it too. You have to understand, give me a quick anecdote--when she was in the United States, a professor came up to her and said, are you married?

Mother Teresa said, yes. I am married to a spouse who sometimes makes it difficult for me to smile. His name is Jesus. And that's because he is very demanding.

Look, any person of faith understands what I have just said, but if you are a dogmatic atheist, then you would have a very difficult time trying to understand this. Quite frankly, I'm not sure if I have enough time to educate Mr. Hitchens.

HITCHENS: I agree. That does sound like white noise, nonsense, to me, and I think to almost everyone else. If I told you last month--actually, you probably do know that this. All these letters were published in 2002. but if I told you in 2001 that Mother Teresa did not believe that Jesus was present in the Eucharist and couldn't feel--

DONOHUE: She never said that.

HITCHENS: Yes, she did. And father can tell you, has been very clever and honest in saying so, could not feel it in her heart, could feel it in the real presence, so called, of mass of the Eucharist. If I told you that, you would accuse me of slandering your so-called faith.

DONOHUE: Let me ask you this, Christopher, a number of years ago you wrote the thing against her, five and a half inches by eight and a half inches long, 98 pages, not a single endnote, not a single footnote, not a single citation. I have told you before, I'm going to tell you it again tonight, buddy, if you handed that in to me in an undergraduate class, you would get an F.

HITCHENS: You are not likely to be anybody's professor.

DONOHUE: When you make a serious charge against a--an Englishman has to be quiet when an Irishman talks. When you make a serious charge against a serious person, a public person like Mother Teresa, and you have no evidence, whatsoever, what in the world do you expect? You have to get an F.

HITCHENS: This is well below the F level. In my book I say that she took money from the Duvalier family in Haiti, not denied. She took money from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan in exchange for an olive wood crucifix. Not denied.

None of the factual assertions made in my book have ever been challenged. It actually got very respectable views in the Catholic press. For this reason, Mr. Donohue--the reason I got respectful reviews in the Catholic press was this; as Lord McCauley (ph) once brilliantly put it, the great strength of the Catholic Church used to be that it knew how to discipline fanatics and enthusiasts and zealots. It knew how to keep under control people who were too hungry, too fanatical.

Because of the opportunist chance that Mother Teresa offered them for publicity, they failed to restrain someone who really should have been seeking proper help that she never got. Instead, they exploited her to the very end and even gave her an exorcism, as you know. The archbishop of Calcutta has admitted it. He even had to give her an exorcism in 1997, because they had so much despair of her state of mind. It's a cruel exploitation of a simple and honest woman.

DONOHUE: At the end of the day, this is a woman who received 124 awards, who set up hospitals for AIDS patients.

(CROSS TALK)

DONOHUE: Listen--

MATTHEWS: Bill needs some time here. Bill, take 30 seconds.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: Christopher, we have to give him 30 seconds, please.

DONOHUE: She set up hospices, the first one for AIDS victims here in Greenwich Village. She opened up 500 hospitals, hospices, homeless centers, health clinics, orphanages. That is why she is loved all over the world. In India, when they surveyed the people, next to Gandhi, she is regarded as the most revered person.

Now, all the whole world is wrong, and you, with your 98 page book, five and a half by eight and a half inches long--you have no citations. You have no evidence. Who is the world going to believe? Me or you?

HITCHENS: I turned out to be right though, don't I? I do not believe a word of it, and neither did she. I never expected that it would be just the two of us.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me end the citation with a citation that is relevant to this discourse, Jesus has a very special love for you, she wrote to someone. But as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and I do not see. I listen and I do not hear. The tongue moves in prayer, but does not speak. I want you to pray for me. Then I let him have a free hand.

So she must believe in something to ask somebody to pray for her or was that just rhetorical, Christopher?

HITCHENS: He was trying and failing to say that his church, in fact, an answer for everything. If you can't believe it, if it all seems to be radically untrue, nonetheless, faith will square that settle for you. She was trying for that. But as we now know, she failed. It can't be done. You can't make people believe in the impossible. All you can do is make people feel very guilty that they can't make themselves believe it.

DONOHUE: The only people that do not have doubts today are dogmatic atheists, people like you, Chris.