IMPORTANT CHANGE: the article was not written by Marc Siegel, but by someone named Michael Guillén. I was fooled by the fact that it is topped by a large photo and video of Siegel touting his new book about modern day medical miracles. Now that I’ve read that, I feel like I should also spend some time criticizing Siegel’s idiotic bullshit about miracles, but for this article, redirect your contempt at Guillén.

Dr Marc Siegel (he really is a doctor, a medical doctor) writes an article for Fox News that makes me question his competence. He is the Fox News Senior Medical Analyst, so keep that in mind when assessing future medical info from Fox News.

When our son was 4 years old, he asked my wife and me: “Can you drive to heaven?” Out of the mouth of babes, right?

It’s a question only a child would ask, but it raises a very adult question: Where exactly is the heaven described in the Bible?

As a scientist,

Stop right there. I dislike that phrase — it’s usually a prelude to an argument for authority. We don’t need to see an MD or a PhD to address an argument by a four year old, so why bring it up?

Probably because he’s conscious that he’s about to make an incredibly stupid argument. It’s actually the second worse As a scientist argument I’ve ever heard.* But this one is pretty bad.

Also, as an adult, I will say that “where is heaven” is not a particularly adult question.

I understand the importance of definitions. According to the Bible, the lowest level of heaven is Earth’s atmosphere. The mid-level heaven is outer space. The highest-level heaven is what we’re talking about: It’s where God dwells.

Yikes. The Bible is not a scientific source; he may have some ideas about definitions, but he knows nothing about the importance of sources. But OK, according to the Bible, where does the Bible talk about the atmosphere? Where does it even mention outer space? The ancient authors of the books that would be incorporated into the Bible thought we lived in a bubble of air encapsulated in a solid firmament, embedded in a universe that was full of water. It’s a bad idea to reference the Bible when trying to describe the cosmic geography.

The best you can get from the Bible is a vague notion that God is above us.

As for heaven’s location, the Bible contains many verses that describe us as looking “up” at God in heaven, and God as looking “down” at us on Earth.

Stop there. That’s good enough for a child; God is somewhere in the sky, so no you can’t drive there. Done. Unless you want to get into a serious discussion about whether Heaven even exists as a physical space, or whether a god even exists. That would be a bit challenging for most 4-year-olds.

It’s way above what your average Fox News reader can comprehend.

But no! Siegel starts talking about pop physics.

Imagine boarding a nuclear-powered rocket and traveling straight “up” into deep space. Will you ever reach a point far enough “up” into space that you finally reach heaven?

Before you laugh off the idea, consider this.

In 1929, American attorney-turned-amateur astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are rushing away from one another like so much shrapnel from a bomb. Hubble also discovered there’s a definite pattern to how galaxies are rushing away from each other, namely: The farther “up” in space a galaxy is located — the farther away it is from Earth — the faster it’s moving away from Earth and everything else. It’s called Hubble’s Law.

What does this have to do with the existence of, the nature of, or the location of heaven?

But, here’s where it gets really interesting.

Spoiler: no, it doesn’t.

Theoretically, a galaxy that’s 273 billion trillion (273,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) miles away from Earth would move at 186,000 miles per second, which is the speed of light. That distance, way “up” there in space, is called the Cosmic Horizon.

That means you and I can never reach the Cosmic Horizon — not even aboard the most souped-up, nuclear-powered rocket imaginable — because, as Einstein explained in his theory of special relativity, only light and certain other non-material phenomena can travel at the speed of light.

The cosmic horizon is the maximum distance from which light from particles could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe, which I think (not being a physicist myself) is about 16 billion light years away. Galaxies at the horizon are not moving at the speed of light. We cannot reach it because it is constantly receding, but…

Hey, what does this have to do with the location of heaven? Does the Bible also incorporate general relativity?

So, then, where is heaven located, exactly? It’s entirely possible heaven is located on the other side of the Cosmic Horizon. Here’s why.

Oh god. He’s not going to shut up.

One: According to modern cosmology, an entire universe exists beyond the Cosmic Horizon. But it’s permanently hidden from us because we can never reach, let alone cross over, the Cosmic Horizon.

Two: Our best astronomical observations — and Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity — indicate that time stops at the Cosmic Horizon. At that special distance, way “up” there in deep, deep, deep space, there is no past, present or future. There’s only timelessness.

Three: Unlike time, however, space does exist at and beyond the Cosmic Horizon. Which means the hidden universe beyond the Cosmic Horizon is habitable, albeit only by light and light-like entities.

Four: According to modern cosmology, the Cosmic Horizon is lined with the very oldest celestial objects in the observable universe. That means whatever exists beyond the Cosmic Horizon predates these oldest objects… predates the so-called big bang… predates the beginning of the observable universe.

One: none of that is in the Bible; two: physics would tell us that we don’t know what’s going on beyond the cosmic horizon, or that our time and space dependent notions of “what’s going on” even apply; three: but Siegel thinks physics claims that there is a habitable universe beyond it; four: what amazing bullshit.

I pity that small child getting this lecture.

Finally, Siegel sums it all up, and brings the Bible back into the discussion.

1. Heaven is, indeed, located “up” there — way above our heads and way beyond the visible, starlit universe — just as the Bible indicates.

2. Heaven is inaccessible to us mortals while we’re alive, just as the Bible indicates.

3. Heaven is inhabited by nonmaterial, timeless beings, just as the Bible indicates.

4. Heaven is the dwelling place of the One who predates the universe — the One who created the universe — just as the Bible indicates.

The Bible doesn’t say any of that.

Is this the sophisticated theology believers are always telling me about?

* The worst As a scientist claim I’ve ever heard was from Lawrence Krauss defending Jeffrey Epstein, As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people. That remains the champion among bad As a scientist claims, now and possibly forever, and it even includes two As a scientist phrases in one sentence.

There is a huckster named Skyler Chan who is raising money from the tech bros in Silicon Valley to build a chain of hotels…on the moon. He has ambitious plans.

Those first two steps are just tests, delivering expandable modules to the moon. However, he is talking about building a habitat on the moon in six years, with even more extravagant plans for the future.

I’m sorry, but this is fucking insane. It’s just a grift to suck money out of techno-optimists who are already unmoored from reality. So why is Ars Technica posting an optimistic review of the idea? It’s not April First.

It sounds crazy, doesn’t it? After all, GRU Space had, as of late December when I spoke to founder Skyler Chan, a single full-time employee aside from himself. And Chan, in fact, only recently graduated from the University of California, Berkeley.

All of this could therefore be dismissed as a lark. But I must say that I am a sucker for these kinds of stories. Chan is perfectly earnest about all of this. And despite all of the talk about lunar resources, my belief is that the surest long-term commercial activity on the Moon will be lunar tourism—it would be an amazing destination.

So when I interviewed Chan, I did so with an open mind.

If you’re a sucker for these kinds of stories, you shouldn’t be writing them. Has Ars Technica no editors?

To think that lunar tourism is a hot prospect for the commercial development of the moon is ludicrous. Why would anyone want to go there like it’s a trip to Bali? Popular tourist destinations here on Earth tend to require a large support staff — there are deep infrastructure demands that you don’t see on the vacation brochures, like the small non-luxury houses of the staff, and the buses to transport them to your glamorous accommodations, and an extensive supply source for the gourmet meals. Who builds the more elaborate structure on the right? Why does it look like it has huge glass windows?

Also unreal: he explains that space travel is currently supported on two economic legs, government funding and the largesse of billionaires. He thinks he can provide a third leg by building tourist hotels that will cost people a half-million dollars per night, not including travel expenses. Who’s going to stay there? Your average middle-class college professor?

There is something wrong with people who look at the white paper put out by the promoter and think it is a serious document. I mean, this is their “master plan”.

1. Build the first hotel on the Moon. GRU solves off-world surface habitations.
2. Build America’s first Moon base (roads, mass drivers, warehouses, physical infrastructure on the Moon).
3. Repeat on Mars.
4. Once the Overton window increases and this moves from non-consensus to consensus, GRU owns property on the Moon and Mars (i.e., The Hudson’s Bay Company owning Rupert’s Land).
5. Use the money to re-invest in resource utilization systems on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, and beyond that are fed into the growing economies and civilizations in space. Reach our final form — Galactic Resource Utilization.
6. Humanity reaches Kardashev scale Type III.

Put the comic books away, kid. That’s fantasy from step 1. But hey, Ars Technica promoted it, so that’ll help con some dim-witted venture capitalist out of some cash, which will allow Skyler Chan to live the high life for a while until reality pops his bubble.

You will not be surprised to learn that Chan graduated from college in May, 2025, and that he interned at Tesla.

Here’s a fanciful artist’s imagining of the GRU Hotel.

Why does it have big windows directly to the exterior? Why is it warmly lit like a Thomas Kinkade painting? Why is there a conventional door to the outside?

Why would anyone go in or out of that fucking door, Skyler?

I’ll be teaching cell biology next fall. Should I be worried?

I’m sure you’ve noticed how creationists only want to talk about their perceived flaws in evolutionary theory, but never about their preferred creationist explanations (they can’t, because they don’t have a reasonable creationist model to discuss.) Here’s a cartoon illustrating that fact.

It’s also the case that they think there is nothing to discuss: you either accept that god did it, or you’re wrong. It all makes conversations with them pointless and boring.

Here’s a taste of what some apparently consider a persuasive argument.

One minute after you die you will be either elated or terrified…and it will be too late to reroute your travel plans. When you slip behind the parted curtain, your life will not be over. Rather, it will be just beginning—in a place of unimaginable bliss or indescribable horror.
— Erwin Lutzer

Ooh, false dichotomy. Also, I have to ask Erwin…how do you know? Have you died (he’s still alive and 84 years old)? Do you have reproducible observations of your two and only two possible afterlives? I think we can dismiss this argument on the basis of its fundamental illogic and its total lack of supporting evidence.

It’s nothing but threats and fear. Sorry, Erwin, you fail. Don’t feel too bad, though, it’s a universal property of all theologians.