Hallway and rooms

My brother-in-law DE is especially fond of this passage from Mere Christianity (at the end of the preface) so I thought I'd share it with everyone:

I hope no reader will suppose that “mere” Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions – as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “Do I like this kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

I think there's some truth in this. While discussing my intention to investigate the LDS Church in a prior post, I mentioned the benefit of community as it pertains to organized religion. That is one aspect of the room vs the hallway that C.S. Lewis is describing above. Using Lewis' metaphor, right now I'm in the hallway and I'm peaking my head into the LDS room, leaning my weight into the door frame, but resisting the momentum to go all the way in. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts and whether I poke my head into any other rooms before finally picking one. I think it's a question of "when" not "if" at this point and I suspect that Lewis will be right when he says that when I do get into my room, I will find that the long wait has done me some kind of good which I would not have had otherwise.

Jesus Christ

I've believed in God for awhile now but it's only been recently that I've started to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as opposed to just a prophet or a spiritual leader. The change came about from reading the following passage in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

[Now] comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was part of God, or one with God; there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhestitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was God whose laws were broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.

Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unpredudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Seems like sound logic to me. Now, the more interesting question is what are all the implications of taking that step from not fully believing in Jesus Christ to believing in Jesus Christ? What about the Atonement? What about the Resurrection? What about the Godhead?

Falling on grenades

I was talking with my brother-in-law DE last night and he made a useful analogy regarding the Atonement. Specifically, he was talking about soldiers who go into battle and find themselves in situations where someone sacrifices themselves to protect the rest of their troop - specifically falling on a live grenade to shield others from the explosion. He talked about the soldiers who survive that experience - the fact that they're glad to be alive but also how they now have a debt they can never fully repay to their fallen comrade. That simple analogy really helped me connect with the concept of the Atonement (thanks DE!). Perhaps others will also find it helpful.

Update (10/7/07): One other thing I found useful about that conversation is that we discussed the fact that there are many situations in which I would be willing to lay down my life (or endure suffering) but comparatively fewer situations in which I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my sons' lives - as God did with his Son.

Update (10/24/07): Since I got asked about this the other day, let me quickly point out that I'm not saying here that this is everything there is to say about the Atonement. All I'm saying is that this analogy was one way that I was able to viscerally connect with the concept of the Atonement in a way I wasn't able to in the past.

Alma 22

My sister-in-law BE suggested that I read Alma 22 in the Book of Mormon. She said it's one of her favorites and it wasn't on the list that had been suggested to me. Checked it out but it didn't resonate as much with me (at least right now) as Alma 32 (see prior post). There was one part, however, that did stand out:

15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.
16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.

Bowing down before God is certainly one of my challenges at the moment (see prior post) so I certainly have a lot of growth to go before I "may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day."

James 1:5 and Proverbs 3:5-6

A new friend of mine SJ recommended that I read James 1:5 and Proverbs 3:5-6 (in addition to a number of other passages of the Bible). For those of you not familiar with James 1:5, here it is:

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

That is the NIV version (according to BibleGateway.com). The King James Version (again, according to BibleGateway.com) is:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

And the version in my NRSV HarperCollins Study Bible is:

If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you.

So all three versions say basically the same thing (if you lack wisdom, ask God and he'll give it to you) but, as an aside, I do find it interesting sometimes how much passages can vary from one translation of the Bible to another.

For those of you who don't have Proverbs 3:5-6 committed to memory, here is the NIV version:

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

Here again, the gist is that we should look to God for understanding (wisdom) and trust that he'll keep us on the right path.

On some level, life isn't so complicated if you're willing to trust in God and look to him for guidance rather than thinking we're in control. I suppose that's a no-brainer for a lot of people but both of these passages got me thinking - especially since it's hard for me to ask God for guidance (even though I've basically accepted at this point that my life is part of His plan and that all of the things that happen in my life both good and bad are largely due to that plan).

Update (9/23/07): One similiar scripture from JW: Doctrine and Covenants 112:10 "Be thou humble and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers."

Investigating the LDS Church

Interesting example (from my perspective) of things happening for a reason. Two weeks ago, I decided to set a weight loss goal of fitting into a pair of size 33 jeans. In the course of writing that post, it made me think of a statement my brother-in-law had made and I decided to also set a goal of deciding what I want to do with organized religion. But the religion goal was almost entirely "oh by the way" compared to the weight loss goal. Then, a couple of hours later, a friend of mine innocently posts a comment on my blog asking me "what [I] hope to get out of organized religion?" A fair enough question. That got me thinking about why I'd potentially want to take things to the next level with organized religion. In the course of thinking about this question, two things came to mind: (1) community and (2) eternal families. Regarding community, I've read in a couple of different places (like this article on ExploreFaith.org) that a relationship with God can most richly be experienced in a community of like-minded believers. Conversely, everyone being too like-minded can also be a problem (see this past post) but I think there's something to be said for community. Regarding eternal families, I've always felt that my relationship with my wife and kids would transcend this world - or at least I'd like to believe it will.

Now, I was planning to send my friend an email with this explanation (and possible post it on my blog) but decided to go looking for an explanation of eternal families that I could share with him. I figured it would be easy to find and I'd be done in 5-10 minutes. Since I knew the LDS Church believed in this concept, I decided to look there. At the time, I wasn't aware that the LDS Church has a monopoly (so to speak) on this belief. At any rate, I figured there would be a page on the LDS web site that succinctly summarized this belief. After viewing a bunch of videos and reading a bunch of pages, I surprisingly couldn't find what I was looking for. The concept was mentioned in multiple spots but there was nothing that would summarize the concept for someone not familiar with the rest of the LDS beliefs.

Now, here's the interesting thing. In the cause of looking for this phantom page, I did come across a page that included a quote from the Book of Mormon: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost?” (Moroni 10:4).

In one of my earliest posts (link), I mentioned the following experience:

My belief in God actually happened quite suddenly when I was 19. My wife (then girlfriend) and her family are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the Mormon Church as it’s more commonly referred to. As my wife’s sister was preparing for her mission to Chile, I began talking to her about religion in general and the Mormon faith in particular. Specifically, I asked her how someone goes from not believing in God to believing. Her simple answer to that question is that you pray about it – you read a particular faith’s doctrinal materials (e.g., the Bible) and ask God whether that faith is “true”. So, that’s what I did. One night I read portions of the Book of Mormon and kneeled down by my bed to pray about it. At first, my mind was very chaotic and I couldn’t focus on what I wanted to say to God. But, moments later, my mind become very clear and I felt peaceful. The feeling didn’t last long and I wasn’t “saying” anything at the time, but that brief moment solidified my belief in God. My interest in God had been growing over time and there were certainly seeds planted prior to this, but that one moment, that feeling of peace was the tipping point.

Ironically, the moment that solidified my belief in God in general did not solidify my belief in the Mormon Church in particular – although the genesis of that pivotal prayer was reading the Book of Mormon. At the time, I was simply seeking the existence of God – something larger than myself. I wasn’t ready for more than that and God didn’t proactively offer it up.

In reality, the question that I asked God that night wasn't "do you exist?" but "is this true?" (after reading the passage of the Book of Mormon above). For a whole variety of reasons (that I won't get into), I've applied revisionist history to that event since an answer to the latter question has farther reaching implications than the former.

So, here I am. In the course of about eight hours, I decide to buy some skinny jeans, set a "by the way" religion goal, a friend of mine asks me an innocent question, I go looking for a simple explanation, don't find it, get reminded of an experience 14 years ago, and view the significance of that experience through a new set of eyes. It's hard for me to believe that's a random set of events.

Now, you might ask the question "if you're sure you had this experience 14 years ago, why aren't you rushing out and getting baptized as quickly as possible?" and that's also a fair question. One answer is "it's already been 14 years, what's another couple of months?" Another answer is "this happened 14 years ago so let's not be too hasty about what it means". That being said, I am taking it seriously and trying to decide for myself what it means for me.

In terms of investigating the LDS Church, one person I spoke with suggested that I begin with the following sections of the Book of Mormon:

Introduction
2 Nephi -- Chapters 2, 31, 32, 33
Mosiah -- Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18
Alma -- Chapters 5, 7, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41
3 Nephi -- Chapters 1, 11, 18, 19, 27
Ether Chapter 12
Moroni Chapter 10

If there are others people would suggest, please post a comment or send me an email directly. Also, I mentioned to this same person that I've never personally connected with any of the Mormon missionaries I've met in the past. When I asked if there is a "self-study" version of the missionary lesson, the person suggested Preach My Gospel (one of the manuals that missionaries use). My sister-in-law HG let me borrow her copy and I've read the whole thing (except the chapters on time management and finding people).

So, there you have it. We'll see where this investigation leads but that's the "back story" for those who are interested.

Alma 32

JW read my previous post regarding faith and the scientific method and suggested that I read Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon. Specifically, the following passages parallel what I discussed in my post (although the entire chapter is good):

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

I really like this passage as I think it can be applied to an investigation of any particular faith, not just the LDS Church. I especially like Alma 32:27 ("But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words"). I certainly have a desire to believe and have more than a particle of faith. So I'll hold on to that, conduct the experiment, and see where it leads me.

Faith and the Scientific Method

I'm a big fan of the scientific method and try to apply this methodology as much as possible in my life. For those of not entirely familiar with this approach, here is a brief description from Wikipedia:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

The approach can be summarized in these seven steps:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

This morning, I was thinking that there's no reason you couldn't apply this same approach to exploring questions of faith. The real difference is that prayer and personal revelation would serve as the experiment and experimental data - thus limiting the generalization of the results to others and the ability for others to indepently reproduce and verify the results. But, in the case of faith, all that matters (in my opinion) is personal belief in the results. The other thing that's important to keep in mind is that the experiment only worked "in your hands" and that similar results should not necessarily be expected in others' hands (i.e., if someone else were to follow the same procedure and prayer, they may not receive the same personal revelation or may even receive contradictory results). Therefore, it is important to limit the intepretation of the results to one's own (personal) faith and not feel threatened if others have faith in different beliefs. Otherwise, the seven steps above can be applied iteratively to arrive at one's own world view and belief system.

Note: the obvious flaw in this logic arises if you believe that everyone should have the exact same world view and belief system but I don't personally believe that.

YRG

I've known a bunch of people who are into yoga and I've tried it a couple of times myself but I just couldn't get into it. Awhile back, I saw an article on the Weight Watchers site regarding the YRG Workout. YRG stands for Yoga for Regular Guys and it was developed by former pro wrestler Diamond Dallas Page (DDP). I was intrigued enough to order the DVD but I was worried it would probably be a waste of money. Thankfully it's turned out to be the real deal. The workout is intense (I'm seriously tired and sweaty by the end) and DDP brings a cool personality/edge to the program. His approach definitely makes yoga much more enjoyable and accessible to "regular guys". I've done the workout about three or four times now and each time I tell myself I should do it more often. Perhaps it will turn into my secret weapon for fitting into my skinny jeans. =)

33

I turned 33 just over two months ago. As many of may recall, I set a goal to reach a weight of 195 pounds by that birthday and barely made it (see post). I also signed up for Weight Watchers Online (see post) but I haven't really gotten into it. So I was trying to think of some new weight loss goal and decided to go with the "skinny jeans" approach rather than the "pick a target weight" approach. Toward that end, I bought a pair of size 33 jeans the other day. The jeans are a bit on the pricey side (ok, more than a bit) but I picked this brand since they also have a line of jeans based on my favorite HBO show Entourage. The pair of jeans I bought isn't from that line (since I didn't like any of the colors / styles) but that's how I ended up with this company. I suppose the other side-benefit of the jeans being expensive is that it will provide additional motivation to fit into them so I can get some use out of the investment. As many of you might know, it's hard for me to spend money on clothes. Just doesn't seem like the best use of money relative to other investment options.

In terms of how much of a "sketch goal" this is, I have a pair of 36-waist jeans and they're very baggy. I also have a pair of 35-waist jeans that fit but also have a bit of room in them. My best guess is that I'm a size 34 1/2 right now. So getting into a size 33 pair of jeans would represent going down roughly 1.5 to 2 pant sizes. The size 33 also have the nice coincidence of being the same number as my age - I love little symbolic connections like that. =)

Speaking of symbolic connections, I figure I'll set one more goal while I'm at it. Before I turn 34 next year, I'd like to figure out what I'm doing with organized religion. After this past birthday, my brother-in-law said to me: "did you know that Jesus was crucified when he was 33?" At the time, I said to myself that was a sign I should go the next step and try to figure things out further. But then I put the thought out of my mind. But it has lingered long enough that I think I need to do something about it. Not exactly sure what the "exit criteria" are for this goal but I'll figure it out as I go. If I were going to "affiliate" with a particular organized religion at this point, it would probably be the LDS Church but that's certainly not a given at this stage of the game.

I suppose if all goes well I'll be wearing my skinny jeans to a church function sometime in the next 10 months. =)

The Most-Praised Generation Goes to Work

There was a WSJ article back in April that I had told my wife about regarding how "uber-stroked kids are reaching adulthood -- and now their bosses (and spouses) have to deal with them" (see PDF for those of you without an online WSJ subscription). At the time I was too busy to blog about this so I read the article and simply set it aside. But my wife asked me about it the other day so I tracked down the article again. Here are some excerpts:

You, You, You -- you really are special, you are! You've got everything going for you. You're attractive, witty, brilliant. "Gifted" is the word that comes to mind. Childhood in recent decades has been defined by such stroking -- by parents who see their job as building self-esteem, by soccer coaches who give every player a trophy, by schools that used to name one "student of the month" and these days name 40. Now, as this greatest generation grows up, the culture of praise is reaching deeply into the adult world. Bosses, professors and mates are feeling the need to lavish praise on young adults, particularly twentysomethings, or else see them wither under an unfamiliar compliment deficit...

Certainly, there are benefits to building confidence and showing attention. But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. The upshot: A lot of today's young adults feel insecure if they're not regularly complimented...

Employers say the praise culture can help them with job retention, and marriage counselors say couples often benefit by keeping praise a constant part of their interactions. But in the process, people's positive traits can be exaggerated until the words feel meaningless. "There's a runaway inflation of everyday speech," warns Linda Sapadin, a psychologist in Valley Stream, N.Y. These days, she says, it's an insult unless you describe a pretty girl as "drop-dead gorgeous" or a smart person as "a genius." "And no one wants to be told they live in a nice house," says Dr. Sapadin. "'Nice' was once sufficient. That was a good word. Now it's a put-down."

And my favorite quote (describing the attitude of earlier generations): "Yes, I get recognition every week. It's called a paycheck." =)

I have to admit that I'm a praise-junkie - although not nearly as much in the last couple of years. I also have to admit that I struggle with the right balance of praise / positive-feedback with my kids. On the one hand, you want to be supportive and recognize their accomplishments but you also don't want to get carried away about every little thing.

Family meetings

Every Sunday morning, we have a family meeting. It's a tradition that my wife started a couple of months ago and so far it's been a big success. I'd certainly advocate the tradition for any family - whether they have kids or not. The meetings are a built-in time to check in, connect as a family, and discuss pertinent ideas or issues. For our meetings, the stated purposes are:

• To give compliments
• To help each other
• To solve problems
• To plan family activities

The kids (particularly JD) really seem excited and empowered by the meetings. Some of the topics JD has asked to discuss are how we can show people we love them, what we can do if someone is not being nice, and how we can keep loving each other even if we have an argument. For each topic, we brainstormed a set of possible solutions and then posted a sign on the door. For example, on April 22, we came up with this set of suggestions if someone isn't being nice:

• Move away, run away, or leave
• Tell the person how it makes you feel
• Tell the person it's not ok to not be nice
• Make an angry face
• Use words. Ask the person if something is wrong, why they're not being nice, and how you can help them feel better.
• Don't have to be not nice back.

Regarding how we can keep loving each other even if we have an argument, here's the list we came up with on May 13:

• Be nice
• Say "sorry"
• Play a game
• Say "I love you"
• Give a kiss
• Be good
• Give a hug
• Be nice and love
• Read a book
• Share a toy

Prior to having kids (and especially after JD and AJ were born), my wife and I had family meetings of our own where we could discuss how things were going for each other and how we could support each other better. We still try to have those "adult-only meetings" once a week - usually while taking a walk - and it makes a big difference in our marriage.

Post frequency

For awhile now, I've felt like I've been neglecting my blog - or at least not tackling the same depth of issues I did in the past. The graph to the right proves out that my post frequency is way down from where it was when I first started this blog. Many of the original posts were focused on religion, spirituality, and balance since those were the issues I was struggling with the most. I wouldn't say that I have them totally figured out but I feel I'm in a much better place than when I first started the blog. So, if post frequency is a reflection of level of struggle, I suppose it's not entirely a bad thing that my post frequency is down. That being said, the more practical reason that I'm not posting as much that is work is very busy and it's hard to squeeze in other forms of self-reflection like this (which isn't a good thing). One of these days I'll get back to the harder issues. For now, I'll do my best to post when I can.

The Marshmallow Test

In one of the venture blogs I read, there was an interesting post that referenced the "marshmallow test". Specifically, there was a test done back in the early 1960s by Walter Mischel with 400 four-year olds at Stanford University.

Children were put in a room by themselves with a two-way mirror and filmed. On the table in the room was a marshmallow. The researcher then told each child that, “I’ve got to leave for about 10 minutes. You can eat this marshmallow now if you want. Or if you wait till I get back, you can have two marshmallows when I get back.” Some of the kids were pretty determined to wait; one child actual licked the table all round the marshmallow but avoided the marshmallow itself. Some could wait a few minutes only. Others gobbled it down immediately. The researchers continued to track these children throughout their school careers and into early adult life.

The results were dramatic. Those who had deferred eating the marshmallow for 15-20 minutes in order to get the bigger prize just a few minutes later were more socially competent, personally effective, self-assertive and better able to cope with the frustrations of life. They were less likely to go to pieces, freeze, regress under stress or become rattled and disorganized when pressured. They embraced challenges, and pursued them instead of giving up even in the face of difficulties; they were more self-reliant and confident, trustworthy and dependable; they took initiative and plunged into projects. This group even scored on average 210 points higher on their SAT.

I doubt the marshmallow test was ever administered to me when I was four years old but I suspect I would have been one of the kids that would have waited it out and gotten two marshmallows at the end. Sometimes I worry I'm a little too focused on delayed rewards, that I'm always investing for the future (for monetarily and career-wise) rather than enjoyed the present. But I suppose that's just how I'm wired.

I'm kind of tempted to administer the marshmallow test on my kids. I'm pretty sure JD would wait (even a year ago when he was four). I'm less sure about AJ but he's only three right now so it's a little hard to judge. That being said, he does pretty well with delayed rewards (e.g., if you do X now, you'll get Y tonight) so he'd probably be in the same camp as JD.

First day of kindergarten

Today was JD's first day of kindergarten. It seemed to go well. The program is dual immersion English-Spanish and 90% of the instruction in kindergarten is in Spanish (but becomes 50/50 by fifth grade). So I think JD was a little mentally exhausted by the end of the day (with all the Spanish being thrown at him) but that was part of the point of putting him in this program. He probably wouldn't be challenged by a regular kindergarten program given where he is right now with reading, math, and verbal communication.

Anyway, I took the day off so I could take JD to school in the morning and pick him up at lunchtime. Given work, I don't know how often I'll be able to do that for him so I figured this was a good day to make it happen. Who knows if it made any difference to JD (he just ran right into class and started exploring the classroom; no clinging or hesitation) but it was a symbolic gesture on my part. It was my way of saying to him that he's important to me and that I want to support him - even if I can't be there all the time.

As luck would have it (or perhaps everything happens for a reason), one of the energy blogs I follow had a personal post today. In it, the blogger (who has a full-time job and family) was discussing the fact that his blog is taking up too much of his time and putting a strain on his family. This excerpt resonated with me:

This past week, my 11-year-old son watched a movie that he really liked. I told him, "Yeah, I have been meaning to watch that with you." He then looked at me, and asked "But why didn't you?"

I know I'm making choices in my life that prevent me from doing every little thing with my kids (or my wife). But I certainly don't want to get to one of these gut-wrenching moments when it becomes perfectly clear your priorities have been in the wrong place for a long while. Hopefully this forum of people can keep me honest in that regard and I can do enough stuff along the way to be an integral part of my kids' lives while also accomplishing something meaningful in other parts of my life (particularly my marriage and career).

Done having kids

People sometimes ask me whether we're planning to have any more kids. My immediate answer is "we're done". Most people are actually quite surprised (and amused) by how immediate the response is. But I'm quite content with the two boys I have and really don't want to go through the baby phase again. I was thinking about this today since we were over at my sister-in-law's house and I was hanging out with her new baby. Her son is totally mellow, quite cute, and loves to a warm body to cuddle up to. But, when I was holding him, I definitely wasn't thinking "wouldn't it be nice to have another kid". Instead, I was thinking about how great it is that my boys are growing up and getting increasingly independent.

From what I understand, a number of dads start to really get into their kids when they hit four years old or so. At that point, you can do more interactive stuff and communicate a lot better. So I suppose my situation isn't much different. Regardless, if my parents want any more grandkids, they'll need to depend on my brother because we're done. =)

The Pragmatic Path to Agnosticism

A friend of mine has a great thread going over on his blog (Running Naked) that explores his path from Catholicism to Aethism to Agnosticism. So far, he's published 4 of the 5 essays: Get Thee Behind Me Jesus!, The Shiny Ball of Atheism, Survival of the Holiest, and The Fundamentalist Atheist. So far, I've really enjoyed the series (along with all his other posts) and look forward to the final installment. If you have some time, I'd highly recommend reading this series.

Amendment (8/22/07): Here is a link to the final installment in this series.

Bit Literacy

A friend of a friend wrote a great book called Bit Literacy. I've previously written about a tool called Gootodo (see post). This book takes things a step further and outlines all the skills and strategies one needs to be successful in this digital, information-intensive age. The book's a quick read so I'd highly recommend it. In my case, I found the first part of the book (about email purges and getting to-do's organized) most useful. The rest of the book was all stuff I already know and do. Then again, my life is more bit-intensive than most.

After reading the book, I emptied my personal inbox. Still working on doing the same thing with my work email. I've also been using Gootodo again although I still sometimes supplement with paper. The real trick with all of this isn't knowing the strategies but being consistent in their application. I probably do better with this stuff than most but it's still a struggle. If others read the book, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on all this.

Temptation

My brother-in-law sent me a quote the other day from C.S. Lewis: "No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is...We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it." I've certainly found this to be true - whether it be with eating, work, or other things. I don't do particularly well in the moment. It's too easy to rationalize the transgression, especially if it seems fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. I've found my best strategy to be avoidance (prevent facing the temptation to begin with). This quote is interesting to me, though, since I know people for whom temptation doesn't appear to be an issue. But I guess you just never know other people's struggles behind the scenes (and they likely don't know mine).

Weight Watchers

Now that I hit my weight loss goal, I was trying to decide what I should do for maintenance. I think the most important thing is better integrating exercise and better eating habits into my lifestyle. That's the only way this stuff is going to stick. I was trying to think of ways to do that and be accountable. I thought about developing a points system based on eating and exercise. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I decided to sign up for Weight Watchers Online. The first three months is $65 and I was able to finance the expense through a generous birthday gift from my wife's parents (thanks!). So we'll see how that goes. If nothing else, it's forcing me to log everything I eat and be conscious of my food choices. Hopefully I'll also be able to get a better handle on portion sizes and a more intuitive sense of the relative point values of different foods. So far I've only done this for two days. The web interface is pretty slick and makes things relatively painless - although there are some weird things (bugs?) in the site I haven't figured out yet.

The other thing I'm still getting my head around is what a good target weight should be (good target = healthy and achievable over the long-term). 190-195 pounds actually seems pretty good to me. But the system suggested setting a target of 143 pounds - 50+ pounds less than I am right now! I think this was based on BMI but that's totally crazy. When I stepped on the scale this morning, I was 193.4 pounds and 22.4% body fat - 43.3 pounds of fat and 150.1 pounds. So I currently have more muscle than Weight Watchers is telling me I should weigh total. Something doesn't fit here. Even if I got down to 8% body fat and maintained my muscle mass (which would be very challenging), I'd still weigh 163.2 pounds. Anyway, I entered 185 pounds into the system as my "goal weight" but I personally think 190-195 pounds makes more sense (even though it technically means I'm still "fat").

Lemonade stand

JD decided a couple of weeks ago that he wanted to do a lemonade stand and yesterday was the big day. It's great to see him take iniative to do things like this. He was very excited to make the lemonade and cookies and even found the recipe for the oatmeal raisin cookies himself in a book he got at the library. He also painted signs for us to hang up in our neighborhood to attract customers.

After 90 minutes, JD, AJ, and one of JD's friends from church had sold out and made $8 in revenue. Each cup of lemonade was a quarter. Same price for the cookies. So they sold 32 items in all - and ate/drank some themselves. Each kid got to put $2.70 in their piggy bank (we kicked in an additional dime to make the revenue split totally even). Being a MBA, I had actually proposed that my wife and I take 50% off the top to cover raw material and marketing costs but she thought it was ok for all the money to go to the kids. She's such a softie. =)

Made it, just barely

Six months ago, I set a target of getting to 195 pounds (or less) by my 33rd birthday (see prior post). To make things more interesting, I also put $1,000 at risk. With one day to spare, I achieved my goal. In the last 3 months, I've gone from 208 pounds to 194.8 pounds.

About a year and a half ago, my wife decided that she was going to lose 19 pounds and go from 139 pounds to 120 pounds. This morning, she achieved her goal as well.

I have to admit that it's satisfying to have met my goal. But I don't really like how I got here. Even after missing my last goal and setting up this self-bet, I didn't take it seriously for the first three months. Then I got motivated and pulled out the stops in the last three months and just barely made my target. It's the moral equivalent of cramming for an exam the night before and then getting an A. It's satisfying but it's not the work ethic that I want to teach my kids. I much more of a believer in "slow and steady wins the race" and not cutting things so close. At some point, these other tactics are going to catch up with you and not going to produce the results you want long-term.

That's why I'm so much more proud of my wife achieving her goal. She's been at this every day for the last 18 months. She injured her knee at one point and she battled through it. We decided to discontinue our membership at the YMCA so she did her workouts at home - early in the morning before the kids got up. The last 5 pounds were just as challenging as the first 14 but she didn't give up. She just stuck to it and made it happen. That's the example that I want my kids to follow, not mine. I couldn't be more proud of my wife's accomplishment.

As an aside, even though I won my self-bet, I just made a $20 donation to Heifer.org to buy a flock of geese for a family in need somewhere in the world.

PS - If folks have ideas for maintenance goals, please let me know. Thanks.

What’s Your Story?

A friend of mine in NYC just started writing a blog. The whole thing is very well done and I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in personal growth. He had one post today that really touched me. It's about a funeral he just attended and the woman who had passed away. As part of discussing that event, he mentioned the following:

Earlier in the day I had reconnected with an old friend. He told me a story of how he had recently met a fascinating woman in Africa in her late 70’s, and during their conversations he had asked her if she had any advice for him in life, anything she could tell him about what life meant. She raised herself up on her tip toes, stabbed her finger into his chest plate and, knowing she had his attention, said “when you’re about to die, someone will ask you the question, ‘what’s your story?’ And your answer… your answer had better be good!”

Here's a version of my story from last March (see prior post).

Can't be right all the time

My dad sent this to me awhile ago and I really enjoyed it. So I'm posting it to my blog so others can enjoy it as well.

GREAT PREDICTIONS BY WISE MINDS.....!

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee DeForest,"Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television.

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923.

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers ." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

"But what is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates,1981

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," --Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody inparticular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the1920s.

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible," -- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)

"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper," -- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."

"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make," -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out," -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," --Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this," -- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads.

"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy," -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented,"-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.

"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." -- Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University.

"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself."-- the head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox.

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872 .

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

And last but not least...
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

So much for the "Wise Minds"......

Tenth wedding anniversary

This weekend, my wife and I had the opportunity to celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary. Our anniversary itself isn't for another two weeks but my parents are in town and agreed to take the kids for 48 hours so we could get away and celebrate (THANKS!). We certainly took full advantage of the opportunity and piled a lot of different activities into two days. On Saturday, we checked in at the Clift Hotel and did some shopping before dinner at Asia de Cuba. Then we headed next door for Jersey Boys at the Curran Theatre. The show was awesome and I definitely recommend it to anyone in the Bay Area or NYC.

On Sunday morning, we worked out at the hotel fitness center, got some breakfast, and did a little more shopping. Then we headed over to Mill Valley (north of the Golden Gate Bridge). Had a nice lunch and did a little shopping before having a massage for two at the Tea Garden Springs. It was the Heaven's Door room and you get a jacuzzi for two for 30 minutes before having side-by-side one-hour massages. Then it was off to the Mountain Home Inn - a quaint inn near Muir Woods. That night, we had a quiet dinner at the inn and setup a fire in our fireplace. We also attempted to watch a movie on my laptop (no TVs) but fell asleep in the middle.

The following morning, my wife used the jacuzzi in our room for a bit and then we had a nice breakfast. Then we did a 3.5 mile hike (roundtrip) from the inn to the East Peak of Mount Tamalpais. The view from the top is supposed to be the best in the Bay Area. We could see around for at least a 50 mile radius - including San Francisco, East Bay, and the Pacific Ocean. Definitely recommend it - even if you drive directly to the top. Afterwards, we did a hike from the inn through Muir Woods (roughly another 4 miles roundtrip). So we certainly got a lot of exercise yesterday morning but we also had lots of time to talk. It also reminded us of a lot of the walks we did during our honeymoon through Acadia National Park during our honeymoon.

All in all, I couldn't have asked for a more perfect anniversary celebration. Thanks again to my parents for making it possible! And thanks to my wife for ten awesome years of marriage - with many more to come.

Did you know? Part 5.

A friend of mine asked me this question: "“how many days of US energy consumption could we replace if we liposuctioned all body-fat over 10% for men and 18% from women in the US?" I'm sure you've all been asking yourself the same question so here's my attempt at an answer. This article says that “By 2002, average weight for men was almost 191 pounds; for women, average weight was 163 pounds”. And this page says that “The average adult body fat is closer to 15%-18% for men and 22%-25% for women”. So let’s assume 16.5% for men and 23.5% for women. That would mean the average man is 31.5 pounds of fat and 159.5 pounds of muscle; 38.3 pounds of fat and 124.7 pounds of muscle for women. So, if men got down to 10% body fat, they’d keep their 159.5 pounds of muscle but only have 17.7 pounds of fat (a reduction of 13.8 pounds of fat). For women, to get to 18% body fat, they’d keep their 124.7 pounds of muscle and have only 27.4 pounds of fat (a 10.9 pound reduction). According to Wikipedia, there are 105.74 million adult men and 112.81 million adult women in the US. So, if each one of those men had 13.8 pounds of fat liposuctioned out and each woman had 10.9 pounds removed, that would be a total of 2,688.84 million pounds of liposuction fat. Per the numbers in my earlier post, the density of liposuction fat is 7.66 pounds per gallon. So 2,688.84 pounds of fat would be 351.02 million gallons. One gallon of fat yields 0.867 gallons of biodiesel. So 351.02 million gallons of fat would become 304.22 million gallons of biodiesel. Biodiesel has about 10% less energy content than regular diesel so 304.22 million gallons of biodiesel would offset the use of 273.8 million gallons of diesel. And, according to EIA, the US uses 64 billion gallons of diesel per year. So 273.8 million gallons would be 0.428% of that or about 1.56 days or about 37.5 hours. Now, note that diesel usage accounts for only 20.4% of overall petroleum usage in the US. And petroleum only accounts for 39.8% of overall energy consumption in the US (source). So, the real answer to your this question is 0.127 days or about 3 hours. Not much of a renewable energy source. The more interesting question from my perspective is "if people in the US consumed less food such that they were at their ideal weight and body fat percentage, how much energy would be saved in terms of farming, packaging, transportation, preparation, etc and how much biofuel could be generated from the equivalent amount of farm land without triggering all these food vs fuel debates?" Don't have time to try to figure that one out but perhaps someone else can take up the challenge. =)

A stairway to heaven?

A friend of mine sent me this article from the Economist. It's about a scientist at UCLA who has an idea about how to transport large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere into outer space. Hopefully he'll submit the idea to the Virgin Earth Challenge and win the $25 million to do this for real (assuming the science is actually sound). Regardless, reading stuff like this does give me hope that we'll find solutions for global warming if we have enough really smart people work on the problem.

You there?

A friend of mine sent me an email yesterday afternoon saying "Are you around? You’ve been quiet and I wanted to see how you were doing?" I appreciate the interest and concern. I've been meaning to post more but just can't seem to find the time. Recently, I've been spending a lot of time trying to work out and lose weight. I need to lose another 2 pounds or so in the next two weeks or I'll need to donate $1,000 to Heifer.org (see prior post). My target weight is 195 pounds and, as of Saturday morning, I was around 197 pounds. We're also way ahead of schedule at work science-wise so things are heating up for me on the business side. More soon...

Did you know? Part 4.

In this mini-series of fun facts, we’ve looked at the fuel efficiencies of chickens, liposuction fat, and coffee beans. But what about cow farts and cow manure? I’m sure that topic’s been on everyone’s mind so let me address it. As everyone may or may not know, cows produce a lot of methane gas and many believe they’re a major contributor to global warming (especially since methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). In fact, cow flatulence produces about 90 kilograms of methane per cow per year (source). Methane has an energy density of about 52.75 MJ per kg (source) so that’s 4,748 MJ of methane per cow per year or 13 MJ of methane per cow per day. One way to convert methane into diesel fuel is a process called Gas-to-Liquid (GTL). That process requires 10.5 GJ of natural gas (mostly methane) to produce 42 gallons (1 barrel) of fuel (source) – so 250 MJ of natural gas for 1 gallon of diesel. If a cow produces 13 MJ of methane per day and 250 MJ are required for 1 gallon of diesel, you can get 0.052 gallons of diesel per cow per day. Assuming a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 30 miles per gallon, you’d be able to drive 1.56 miles per day of cow farts. Stats on bovine flatulence frequency are hard to come by but this source would indicate that cows pass gas every 40-90 seconds. Assuming they do that 24 hours a day (btw, humans fart in their sleep so let’s assume cows do too), that would be about 1,329 farts/belches per day so you can drive only 0.0012 miles per cow fart. [As an aside, while the typical person farts about 14 times a day (source), human farts are much lower in methane content and therefore not nearly as useful for producing diesel fuel via GTL]

At this point, you’re probably asking yourself one of two questions: (a) “what about the methane in cow manure?” or (b) “why am I still reading this crap?” (no pun intended). I’ll assume you’re asking yourself the former question and do my best to answer. This press release says that a herd of 150,000 cattle generate a total 2,500 tons of manure a day. One (short ton) is 907.18474 kilograms so 2,500 tons would be 2,267,962 kilograms of manure for the entire herd – or 15.12 kilograms of manure per cow per day. From this page, we find out that cow dung gas is 55-65% methane. The source doesn’t specify but I’ll assume this is by weight and that all the dung can be converted to cow dung gas. So 15.12 kilograms of manure per cow per day would be about 9.1 kilograms of methane per cow per day. Following the same math as above, that would translate into 1.91 gallons of diesel per cow per day. At 30 miles per gallon, that’s a whopping 57.42 miles per day of cow manure. According to this site, cows poop 11 to 12 times each day. So we can get a very respectable 4.8 miles per cow dump.

With that, I think it’s likely time for a new hobby since I’ve probably taken this one as far as I can. =)

Did you know? Part 3.

I’m sure this post will provoke a couple of “don’t you have better things to do with your time” but, hey, we all need our hobbies and mine appears to be random biodiesel calculations at the moment. =) New fun fact regarding the fuel efficiency of coffee.

There was an announcement last week about a researcher in Brazil working on turning low quality coffee beans into biodiesel. In the press release, it says that “every 100 kilograms of coffee will produce roughly 9 kilograms of oil” and “a liter of biodiesel requires about 15% of a liter of ethanol”. So, what does that mean in terms of fuel efficiency of coffee bean biodiesel? Well, if you consult the always-handy Biodiesel Handbook and the always-handy Google, you find that the fatty acid profiles of coffee bean oil and cottonseed oil are pretty similar (source for coffee bean oil). Using Google again, we find that the density of cottonseed oil is 0.92 g/cm3 or 0.92 g/ml (source). So coffee bean oil has a density of about 7.67 lbs/gallon or 3.49 kg/gal. If 100 kilograms of coffee yields 9 kilograms of oil, that means 100 kilograms of coffee yields 2.58 gallons of coffee oil. And, if ethanol is 15% of the biodiesel by volume, you end up with 3.03 gallons of biodiesel from 100 kilograms of coffee. Now, from before, we know an average diesel engine gets about 30 miles to the gallon but biodiesel has about 10% worse fuel efficiency. So, 3.03 gallons of biodiesel takes you 81.9 miles (3.03 x 27). So, 100 kilograms of coffee gets you 81.9 miles and a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.82 miles per kilogram of coffee beans or 0.37 miles per pound of coffee beans (about 8x less than liposuction fat).

Now, if we take this one step further, 1 pound of coffee beans yields 10.8 pots of brewed coffee (source). So, another way to think about this is that a diesel engine has a fuel efficiency of 0.034 miles per pot of coffee.

Enjoy … and feel free to make fun of my hobby. =)

Praying in Color

It's been awhile since I've read something good on ExploreFaith.org. But this article caught my attention. Here's an excerpt from the beginning of the page:

How do you pray when words become barriers rather than possibilities? When thinking in sentences is too linear to express a rainbow of emotions.

The rest of the article was a bit of a disappointment but I suppose they didn't want to give up too much of the real meat since they want you to buy the book. Regardless, the doodling concept is an interesting one. It's also a good reminder that there are a lot of ways to commune with God beyond formal prayers.

Did you know? Part 2.

Last night, I got to use this factoid at a dinner. Upon hearing that diesel vehicles have a fuel efficiency of 1 mile per chicken, people immediately wanted to know what the fuel efficiency is in terms of human fat. Last December, I read that a company in Norway struck a deal with a hospital in Miami to supply it with 3,000 gallons a week of liposuction fat for conversion into biodiesel. In the article, it says that 3,000 gallons of liposuction fat is enough to make 2,600 gallons of biodiesel. The average diesel engine gets about 30 miles to the gallon of #2 diesel. But biodiesel (in pure form) gets 10% lower fuel efficiency relative to traditional diesel fuel (source). So, an average diesel engine will get say 27 miles to the gallon of pure biodiesel. 3,000 gallons of liposuction fat = 2,600 gallons of biodiesel = 70,200 miles driven. So, 23.4 miles per gallon of liposuction fat.

But that's per gallon, not per pound. Body fat has a density of 0.918 grams per cubic centimeter (source). There are 453.59 grams in a pound and there are 3,785.41 cubic centimeters in a gallon. Thus, a gallon of liposuction fat would weigh 7.66 pounds. And 23.4 miles per gallon would translate into 3.05 miles per pound.

As an additional sanity-check here, diesel fuel typically has an energy density of 40.9 MJ/L (source). There are 3.785 liters in a gallon so 40.9 MJ/L equals 154.8 MJ/gal. If a diesel engine gets 30 miles to the gallon, it takes 154.8 MJ to go 30 miles. A pound of human fat contains 3,500 kcal (source). A kcal contains 4.184 kJ of energy so 3,500 kcal would equal 14,644 kJ or 14.644 MJ. If 154.8 MJ goes 30 miles, 14.644 MJ would only get you 9.46% of that distance - or 2.84 miles.

In terms of the difference between 2.84 miles per pound of liposuction fat vs 3.05 miles per pound, one thing to keep in mind is that some of the energy content of biodiesel comes from the alcohol component of its production (typically methanol). So the 2.84 figure is probably more accurate than 3.05.

Regardless, that’s too much detail for casual conversation. The short answer is that the fuel efficiency of a diesel engine is about 1 mile per chicken or 3 miles per pound of liposuction fat. Use that factoid at your next cocktail party and let me know how it goes. =)

If you really want to impress your guests, you could also mention that according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), 325,000 of liposuction operations were carried out last year to remove fat from various parts of the body - particularly the thighs, abdomen and buttocks – and that the average woman sheds an average of 20 pounds of abdominal fat by liposuction (source). So, 325,000 operations x 20 pounds per operation = 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat. At 3 miles per pound, 6.5 million pounds of liposuction fat would get you 19.5 million miles. And, at 30 miles per gallon, that would offset 650,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Unfortunately, the US consumes about 64 billion gallons of diesel a year - 100,000x the amount you could get from liposuction fat. But every little bit helps and Americans get fatter by the year so perhaps this will make more of a dent over time. =)

Sacrifice

My sister-in-law HG sent me this quote by Joseph Smith regarding sacrifice: “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation." It's a high standard and it should be. But it's also what keeps me from affiliated myself with a specific belief system and organization - at least for the time-being. There are a variety of mostly little things that I'm just not willing to sacrifice. Taken individually, my objections would likely seem petty but taken together they're currently a big barrier for me to overcome.

Did you know?

Today, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods announced a partnership to make "renewable diesel" fuel from animals fats. In a WSJ article about the partnership, it says:

Tyson produces about 300 million gallons of beef, pork and chicken fat each year … Producing one 42-gallon barrel of renewable diesel requires about one barrel of animal fat. And each barrel requires, on average, two steers, or 16 hogs or 1,300 chickens, Tyson officials say.

So, it takes 1,300 chickens to get one barrel of diesel fuel (via their proprietary process). One barrel is 42 gallons. So that’s 31 chickens to generate one gallon. At around 30 mpg fuel efficiency, that’s one chicken per mile.

So, your “did you know” fact of the day is: you can drive one mile on the fat of a chicken. Therefore, diesel vehicles have a fuel efficiency of 1 mpc (1 mile per chicken). Go ahead and use that at your next cocktail party as an icebreaker. =)

Disposable income

My 5-year old JD made his first major purchase recently - a Razor scooter. He spent $30 that he saved up across various birthdays and holidays. It's amazing that he's old enough to start making decisions like this. So far, he hasn't pulled the trigger on the credit card offers he's received in the mail. =)

Fireworks

I'm down in Orlando at the moment for a biotech conference. I'm staying at the Walt Disney Swan and Dolphin Resort over by Epcot. I have a balcony room that faces a man-made lake. As I was getting back from a conference reception, there were fireworks outside my window (see video in 3GP format, taken on my Treo). It was a nice little treat since I'm a fan of fireworks and don't get to see them that often - especially up close. A little piece of Disney magic.

Sky

I'm not really a "stop and smell the roses" kind of a guy. But on my way home from work the other day, I looked up at the sky and stopped to admire its beauty. Might seem like a "so what" occurance for others but it was unique for me.

The Language of God

I just finished reading an excellent book called The Language of God (also see this interview in the SF Chronicle). The author was the head of the Human Genome Project and attempts in his book to reconcile science and religion. In particular, he focuses mainly on the debate around Darwin's theories of evolution. Collins supports a position called theistic evolution (or what he calls BioLogos). Specifically, a typical version of this worldview rests upon the following premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

Collins goes on to say:

If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.

This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.

It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.

Conversations with God

Over Christmas and New Years, I stumbled onto a book on my brother-in-law's book shelf called Conversations with God. An ex-girlfriend had given it to him so his wife didn't mind me taking it. =) Anyway, it was a pretty interesting read. The basic premise of the book is that the author was an unemployed homeless man who was looking for answers. One day, he was essentially writing in a journal when God took over his hand/pen and began writing responses to his questions. Thus began an unexpected "conversation" that turned into a best-selling book.

It's interesting to see the range of reactions to this book on Amazon.com. Some people really love the book. Others write off the author as a delusional heretic. I think a lot of your reaction to the book hinges on whether you believe Walsch had a genuine conversation with God or not. On that count, I can't quite decide. I certainly think that such a dialogue is possible. Religions like the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe in modern-day prophets - and I personally find it unlikely that God would speak through Jesus, Muhammad, etc. and then suddenly stop to send other messagers to spread his message. So I don't reject the possibility that Walsch genuinely communicated with God and that his message is inspired in that way. But I also wouldn't go so far as to say that I then automatically accept everything he says in his book as literally the word of God.

At least from the reviews I read, it seems that most people who disliked the book took most issue with the moral relativism that is espouses - there is no absolute right or wrong, no should or should nots, etc. The book also makes the proacative statement that there is no hell and that Hitler is therefore in heaven. If you take a lot of the book at surface-value, it would be easy to take away the message that what we do in this world doesn't matter and therefore we shouldn't go out of our way to do the right things in our lives. But I really don't think that's the message that the author (or God if you believe the responses are genuine) are trying to make. There was a much more subtle message there - but you have to really work to parse through all the philosophical double-talk. What I believe the message was is that all people are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong along with a desire to do the right thing (what C.S. Lewis would refer to as the Moral Law). So, if people simply listened to their innate sense of right and wrong, there wouldn't be any needs for laws, etc. Unfortunately, many people abdicate their responsibility in this regard and, therefore, civil and moral laws are required.

There are a lot of other things the book discusses but I won't get into them here for lack of time. Interesting book, though. Makes you think - whether you accept the author's ideas or not.

Snap circuits

My son JD just celebrated his fifth birthday. One of his friends (who wasn't able to attend his birthday party last weekend) gave him a present after the fact. It was a Snap Circuits SC-300 set. So cool! It's designed for 8+ year olds to teach them about electricity and circuit design but from JD's reaction (and some of the reviews on Amazon), it seems accessible to younger kids as well. We've made about 6 ot 7 things so far including a working AM radio (displayed on the cover of the box).

As an aside, I remember having a Radio Shack kit like this when I was a kid. This one is so much nicer - especially the snap design. It's so much easier and faster to construct the circuits.

I wouldn't have bought this set for JD. Makes me wonder what else JD (and AJ) would be interested in. All in good time. No rush. I'll leave it to others to buy stuff like this for the time-being. =)

Religion's Generation Gap

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend regarding "Religion's Generation Gap". It was interesting to see that some teens are now "rebelling" by becoming strongly devout (rather than drinking, taking drugs, etc). Apparently it's causing problems in some families - especially if the kids are much more committed to a religion than their parents are. I worry about that a little with my kids (since I'm not active in a religion) but hopefully they can keep an open mind even if they decide to get deeply involved with their religion.

Keeping up with the Joneses

I found out about this image from the Business Explained blog. It does a great job of illustrating the challenge of keeping up with the Joneses. Especially here in Silicon Valley, it's hard not to get caught up in this phenomenon. I think my wife and I are doing a pretty good job of it but I do worry a little about the kids - especially if all their friends have over-the-top toys, houses, cars, etc.

Kind of

We all have our "filler words" - little phrases or words that we fall back on when we're not quite sure what to say but we want to avoid silence. "Umm", "like", "so". My latest is "kind of" although I also use "so" a lot and used to be a heavy user of "like". It's amazing how easily these words enter my speech without me noticing. Periodically, someone like my wife or a co-worker will point it out to me. They're worried about whether others will perceive me as "junior" given these speech patterns. As long as I don't rush (and I pay attention), I'm fine. But if I get a bit flustered, all bets are off. I guess it just takes practice. One more thing to be cognizant of (and worry about).

Adam Smith turns green

I just read an essay in VentureBeat that accurately describes my rationale for moving into the cleantech world. Thought I'd quickly share it in case others are interested.

The Proof of God

I came across a 1955 article from Time magazine the other day entitled "The Proof of God". It said:

No less than 96% of U.S. citizens polled believe in God, according to a survey by George Gallup. Pollsters also asked the 96% what they thought was the most convincing argument for God's existence. The replies, in order of their frequency: 1) The order and majesty of the world around us, 2) There must be a Creator to explain the origin of man and the world, 3) There is proof of God in the Bible (or other church authority), 4) Past experiences in life give me faith that there is a God, 5) Believing in God gives me much comfort...

Outside the world and inside his head, logic ruled. St. Thomas Aquinas formulated his five famed proofs of God's existence with a respect for logic that is not commonly part of modern man's mental furniture. Aquinas rates the proof derived from order last—the other four: 1) motion—the passing from power to act—implies an unmoved Mover; 2) similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; 3) the existence of beings whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Being; 4) the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.

A friend of mine mentioned the "proof" by St. Thomas Aquinas the day. In the course of looking for it, I came across the Time article.

In my opinion, there is no proof for the existence of God other than personal experience. Logic can be a contributing factor but it can't get you there one way or the other on this topic. In terms of the personal beliefs I've arrived at, see here and here.