The Pitched Battle for the Soul of America!

Copyright 2007 Victor Shane, all rights reserved








According to some postmodern interpretations of “sexuality,” we are led to believe that unless a person commits fornication on a regular basis he or she must be “sexually repressed.” The apostate media and Hollywood seem obsessed with nudity and fornication, sparing no effort to whitewash immorality and dignify perversion.


What is this obsession all about? Whence the source, origin and provenance of this urge to merge sexually? Is it genetic? Is it solely a function of procreation? If it were, it would not be found among homosexuals. What then? If not solely reproductive in source and origin, what else could be driving it? Is there a rational scientific explanation? Indeed there is!


Let us go back to basics. According to the Bible, God formed us from the “dust of the earth” (physics of this universe, oriented toward higher probability states). Contrary to all appearances, we human beings are not detached from the behavioral field of the cosmos, the physical constitution of all of us is “wired” together into the behavioral field of the cosmos in subtle ways that may yet take another century to fully understand. The nature of this “wiring” may not be Newtonian or deterministic, but it most certainly could be statistical and probabilistic (noticeable in sufficiently large samples).


The cosmos into which our physical constitution (our flesh) is “wired” has a property that makes statistical selections in favor of more probable states, a property that feeds back into human nature to produce a subtle bias, inclination or tendency. What then? Can the urge to merge be a subconscious expression or unconscious affirmation of this “wiring”? Can it be a particular instance of general physical law? Put simply, can it be the urge to move toward more probable states?


To answer the question we must be willing to swallow our pride, smash the last pedestal of anthropocentric arrogance, come out of denial and view our material selves in terms of physical systems. Let us refer to scientists David Halliday and Robert Resnick’s Fundamentals of Physics:


In analyzing physical situations we usually focus our attention on some portion of matter which we separate, in our minds, from the environment external to it. We call such a portion the system. Everything outside the system which has a direct bearing on its behavior we call the environment. We then seek to determine the behavior of the system by finding how it interacts with its environment.1



One might venture to say that science investigates the behavior of physical systems in terms of the initial and final states of their intercourse with their environments.


Just as the environment of the earth’s magnetic field orients a compass needle toward north, it would be accurate to describe the environment of the cosmos as a gigantic behavioral field that orients physical systems toward more probable states. Granted, the earth may orient the compass needle through a deterministic mechanism, whereas the cosmos may orient physical systems through a statistical mechanism, but the principle of non-separation and feedback would be similar in both cases.


Physical systems are a part of the operational matrix of the behavioral field of the cosmos. Physical systems receive feedback from the cosmos, just as the compass needle receives feedback from the earth’s magnetic field. And just as the compass needle would “feel the urge” to point northward when exposed to the environment of the earth’s magnetic field, physical systems would “feel the urge” to move toward more probable states when exposed to the environment of the cosmos. And since physical systems are always exposed to the environment of the cosmos, they would always “feel” that urge. There are no zones of exclusion in the cosmos. In the entire universe you will not find a physical system that does not “feel” the common urge to move toward more probable states.


Perhaps it would help to anthropomorphize and describe the universe as a gigantic behavioral field with a “desire” to move toward higher probability (entropy) states, a non-local behavioral field that invests all physical systems with similar local “desires.” One might then describe the cosmos as the aggregate of physical systems united by a common “desire” to move toward more probable states. And how could they actually “fulfill” or “consummate” that desire? Well, one way would be to merge with their environments.


In Fundamentals of Physics, scientists Halliday and Resnick state the generalization of experience described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics in this way:



A natural process that starts in one equilibrium state and ends in another will go in the direction that causes the entropy of the system plus environment to increase.2



If one defines entropy as a measure of probability, or as “proportional to the statistical probability of a system’s state,”3 the generalization can be stated in another way:


A natural process that starts in one probability state and ends in another will behave in such a way as to cause the combined probability state of the system plus environment to increase.



What does this mean? Simply this: “Wired” into the behavioral field of the cosmos, physical systems “feel the urge” to merge with their environments in a general effort to move toward higher probability states and an eventual equilibrium state in which they become indistinguishable from their environments ("death" in the language of man.) In this way, the urge to merge would be a natural (derivative) tendency on the part of all physical systems. Granted, this urge would be held in check by the four major forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces), and granted also that under the right conditions it could be suppressed in open systems. Nevertheless, it would exist as a generalization of experience known to science.


If universal systems are oriented toward more probable states, you would expect to find a generalization of experience associated with that orientation.


What then? Is this the provenance of mankind’s “desire” for illicit sex? Is the “lust” for sex a particular instance of general physical law? Ignoring the reproductive urge for the time being, is the sexual urge to merge traceable back to the physical urge on the parts of systems to merge with their environments? Simply put, is it the urge to move toward higher probability states and eventual equilibrium?


And what about all the other occurrences of the urge that we see in history? Are movements toward such things as “conquest,” “expansion,” “empire” and “globalism” also particular instances of general physical law? What about Wall Street’s “mergers and acquisitions”? Are these urges, and the associated feelings of “power,” “pleasure” and “satisfaction” that they provide for the Caesars and tycoons of this world, local expressions of the universal movement towards higher probability states?


Where the Ten Commandments say, You shall not kill, or You shall not steal, or You shall not commit adultery, or You shall not covet, we can only infer the existence of a tendency to the contrary—something in human nature that would tend to encourage these disordered states. That “something” in human nature is the unconscious urge to move toward higher probability (entropy) states. And who would be in a better position to know this and to warn mankind about its consequences, if not the Creator Himself? If anyone should know the natural inclination of man, it would have to be the God who formed man from the physics of the universe, would it not?


Let us anthropomorphize even further and try to understand the derivative behavior of man in terms of the behavior of physical systems:


(a) Physical systems are oriented toward more probable states;

(b) they lust for more probable states;

(c) they merge with their environments to fulfill that lust;

(d) they sense “pleasure,” “satisfaction,” and “affirmation” in doing.


Now let us apply the principle to the behavior of what the Bible calls “the natural man” in 1 Corinthians 2:14. By “natural” is meant “derivative,” i.e., deriving his existence from nothing more than the nature, property and orientation of the cosmos, ignoring for the time being any spiritual properties inherited from the Creator. Let us remove all considerations of God, exclude the Ten Commandments, strip the human condition of all divine law, spiritual imperative, restraint, discipline and principle, and apply the generalization to the behavior of an average human being called John Doe. What do we have here?



PHYSICAL SYSTEM = John Doe (the self)

ENVIRONMENT = Everything apart from John Doe,

including other human beings

(the non-self)



How do physical systems behave? All things being equal, they tend to move from less probable to more probable states in terms of mergers with their environments. In other words, you would expect to find a general urge or tendency on the part of John Doe (the system or the self), to want to merge with other human elements (the environment or the non-self). Since John Doe cannot chemically or physically “meld” with other human elements, you would expect this urge to find “sexual” outlets.


Now someone may say, “If there is any truth in what you are saying, there would also be a tendency on the part of John Doe to want to have intercourse with the house or building in which he finds himself!” Well, while it would not be possible for John Doe (system) to merge himself with that house or building (environment) in “sexual” terms, the urge to merge could nevertheless find outlets in terms of common vices—greed, avarice, covetousness, iniquity, graft, corruption, theft, violence, aggression, invasion, expansion, etc.


John Doe might end up being a “rich man” obsessed with owning houses, buildings, factories, lands, properties, servants and slaves. He may end up being a Russian mafia boss in control of vast industries. He may end up being a control freak like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, invading and seizing anything he desires by sword and Kalashnikov.


Needless to say, there would be many other ways and means for John & Jane Doe to try to move towards more probable states, ways and means that would span the whole spectrum of derivative behavior from the mundane to the internecine. To give a relatively mundane example, John & Jane Doe could be postmodern teenagers “hanging out,” or perpetually “wired” to their friends and their environments by means of cell phones, electronic gadgets, computers and websites like myspace. To give another mundane example, John Doe could be the in-your-face idiot who uses loud noise to merge his sphere of existence with that of his local environment—everyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot of his blaring “boom box.”


To give an internecine example at the other end of the spectrum, John Doe could be a “suicide bomber” who blows himself up, physically merging the elements of his body (the system) with the elements of the cosmos (the ultimate environment) through diffusion, natural corruption and decomposition.


If John Doe were Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon or Hitler, he could make a grandiose move towards higher probability (entropy) states through conquest, expansion and empire, in effect merging his own sphere of dominion and control (the system) with that of the world (the environment) through military means. If John Doe were a Wall Street tycoon, he could move towards higher probability states through “mergers and acquisitions,” in effect merging his own holdings (the system) with that of others (the environment) through such things as leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers and currency speculation. Granted, all these urges would be held in check by various religious, moral, civil and national laws, but they would exist as generalizations of experience nevertheless.


Notwithstanding, if John Doe were an average human being, incapable of terrorizing the environment like a suicide bomber, or vandalizing it like a computer hacker, or conquering it like Caesar, or dominating it like Alexander, or owning it like Rockefeller, then you would expect to find the main outlet for the urge to take on the outward forms of “sexuality.” You would expect to find exactly what we find in the derivative world today—a psychotic, neurotic and increasingly sadistic and morbid addiction to such things as fornication, pornography, obscenity and perversion. You would expect to find the derivative media and apostate Hollywood feeding on the ideas of “sexuality,” “homosexuality,” “openness,” “lack of inhibitions,” “nudity,” “sensuality,” “fantasy,” “eroticism” and “Kinsey.”


Within the pages of In God We Trust you will learn how to affirm the necessity of Judeo-Christian morality, stem the tide of immorality, reinstate decency and restore America to the dignity of her origins in God.


1. D. Halliday and R. Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970), 343.


2. Ibid., 415.


3. Entropy, Oxford Companion to Philosophy (London: Oxford University Press, 1995), 238.



Ordering Information

Back to top - Back to Home