Despite being insanely busy, I've had lunch with a different friend almost every day for the last week. Good company, good conversations. Some of the more unusual highlights that have stayed with me...

My one friend considers himself to be so conservative, and so incredibly passionate about it, that almost every encounter with him is guaranteed to downgrade into one of his many political rants. My lunch with him yesterday turned into a "socialist" bashing session, in which he tried to explain to me that most politicians and people in this country are active socialists, and it was his duty to save us from ourselves. He went so far as to say that he isn't pursuing a doctorate degree because it forces him to be part of a government-funded socialist institution like our university (but he emphasized that his decision was not based on an ideological opinion). That's when I explained to him that graduate students are not actually government funded, but that my funding comes from research stipends initiated by companies or other educational organizations. OOPS. I didn't have the heart to tease him about the fact that his misinformation and fanatical ideology-based decision making just prevented him from getting into what is possibly the most politically and economically immune institution in our country: higher education. When the Great Depression hit, who had the most secure jobs? University professors.

Another friend took me to a Mormon $1 lunch last week on campus, and, (as probably deviously planned for by the Mormons), our presence in the church spurned some great religious discussions. It amazes me how confused people our age really are about religion and the deeper questions of life. It amazes me even more watching a fellow scientist attempt to reconcile the strong scientific principles and processes to which we have devoted and pledged ourselves, with glaringly contradicting religious concepts such as faith. He asked me, how can you be a scientist and a person of faith at the same time? Seemingly, the two are mutually exclusive. Science trains us to test our world through experiment, to back up hypothesis with fact and observation. Religion tells us to believe blindly in something which can't be proven; in fact, the very process of requiring a validation demonstrates a failure of faith, and thus, a failure as a devout religious follower.

I explained to him the concept of self-actualization; apparently, it was something he'd never heard of.

He even asked me, "is self-actualization the name of your religion?" ^-- (He was sincere!)

I described to him Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in which the term is defined as "the desire for self-fulfillment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming."

I can't blame my friend for his mistake; really, doesn't the process sound like what one is supposed to get out of religion?
The final step in the process, I explained to him, is the idea of transcendence. This concept defines what the true goal of any religion should be.. one that doesn't compromise the scientific method in understanding it.