Someday I will write the book entitled "The Best and Worst Cases for God." The worst case is well known: The Problem of Evil, and is a particular obsession of this blog.
The best case is less known, I think, and is to be found rolling somewhere around in this marvelous documentary from the BBC entitled "Dangerous Knowledge."
The mysterious power of mathematics, which so fascinated Plato and contributed to his Theory of the Forms, is also one of my fascinations.
I don't claim to have the analytical and logical power of a mathematician. One of the great regrets of my life is that I did not pay enough attention in my high school's experimental "Unified Mathematics" course, despite the solicitous concern for my success there by Sister Higgins. (I was too interested in analyzing the various properties of 1653 girls in my new high school.)
But like many philosophers and mathematicians, I am compelled to ask "Why the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics?" (Kurt Godel is a particular fascination. What are the implications of his famous Theorem?)
I have found my way back to mathematics somehow. I hope that somewhere Sister Higgins is smiling.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Talk Shows the Mysterious Power of Mathematics
Here's a very interesting video from the Ted Talks on the origin of fractals, and how they are used extensively in African culture. It reminds me of why I find mathematical history so fascinating.
The speaker, Ron Eglash makes some broad, rather unsubstantiated claims in this, particularly when, like the proverbial man with the hammer who sees everything as a nail, he suggests capitalism is an out-of-control self-replicating system.
Nevertheless, Eglash makes a real contribution to our understanding of mathematics and culture, and raises truly fascinating questions. Particularly about the mysterious power that mathematics offers up to us out of the riddles at its core.
The speaker, Ron Eglash makes some broad, rather unsubstantiated claims in this, particularly when, like the proverbial man with the hammer who sees everything as a nail, he suggests capitalism is an out-of-control self-replicating system.
Nevertheless, Eglash makes a real contribution to our understanding of mathematics and culture, and raises truly fascinating questions. Particularly about the mysterious power that mathematics offers up to us out of the riddles at its core.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Lecture on Evil, Harry Potter and More
Here is a very interesting video about the problem of evil, presented on the Google Channel. It is a a lecture by philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain, with ample examples from the Harry Potter series. It reminded me of the importance of the Platonic and Augustinian conceptions of good even for understanding modern life and literature.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
A Final Thought on Utility in War
One final thought on the post just before this one, in case I didn't make myself quite clear on what I meant by "morally extraordinary" behavior in World War II.
Bret Stephens makes the argument in the posted video that the firebombing of German and Japanese cities - which, it seems, everybody now accepts as morally licit - "hastened" the end of the war.
Well, exactly which bombings? If the earlier acts against non-combatants were moral because they would hasten the war, and presumably save even more lives, then why did we need the later atomic bombs?
Weren't the atomic bombings justified on the grounds that they were "necessary" to end the war? In what sense, if we were already engaged in acts of the same nature, also meant to end the war.
And, as has been argued before, Hiroshima didn't do the trick. Or, did it? No one is really responsible for scientifically pinning down this utilitarian calculus, probably because it cannot be done.
In fact, if atrocities in war are justified on the grounds that they will save more lives later, doesn't that mean that every atrocity, from Genghis Khan on, if done in the name of bringing about peace, was actually morally justified?
These specious arguments make a hash out of the whole notion of just war, and human rights for that matter. As Socrates pointed out, evil is done because it is believed to be good. The question for the American Right in general, and Mr. Stephens in particular, is, "are good intentions all one needs to engage in extraordinary wartime acts?"
Bret Stephens makes the argument in the posted video that the firebombing of German and Japanese cities - which, it seems, everybody now accepts as morally licit - "hastened" the end of the war.
Well, exactly which bombings? If the earlier acts against non-combatants were moral because they would hasten the war, and presumably save even more lives, then why did we need the later atomic bombs?
Weren't the atomic bombings justified on the grounds that they were "necessary" to end the war? In what sense, if we were already engaged in acts of the same nature, also meant to end the war.
And, as has been argued before, Hiroshima didn't do the trick. Or, did it? No one is really responsible for scientifically pinning down this utilitarian calculus, probably because it cannot be done.
In fact, if atrocities in war are justified on the grounds that they will save more lives later, doesn't that mean that every atrocity, from Genghis Khan on, if done in the name of bringing about peace, was actually morally justified?
These specious arguments make a hash out of the whole notion of just war, and human rights for that matter. As Socrates pointed out, evil is done because it is believed to be good. The question for the American Right in general, and Mr. Stephens in particular, is, "are good intentions all one needs to engage in extraordinary wartime acts?"
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Two Voices on Utilitarian Ethics and War
Funny how this issue keeps coming back to haunt me. Second time in a week that it hits the news.
While I have long been aligned with the movement from an economic point of view, I have always found the Right's willingness to embrace utilitarian ethics in warfare, or loosely defined warfare, (WWII, "War on Terror") disturbing.
Bret Stephens, a fine and intelligent gentlemen, has written a piece in the Wall Street Journal defending the "limited use" of waterboarding torture; citing as analogous our somewhat morally extraordinary behavior in World War II. A related video link is below.
Contrast that with journalist Stephen Grey's contention, in his new book Ghost Plane, that horrific things have been done during "rendition" of terror suspects, and that there is serious professional opinion that there are other ways to get information beside waterboarding, etc. See the video link below.
My contention against the Right on this issue (and against situationists in general, Left or Right) has always been epistemological.
The claim to "know" what will happen, and thereby justify "extraordinary" actions, even when rooted most firmly in statistical projection, ignores the nature of moral responsibility, where the actions of war lie within human choices.
We can't "know" that a result will come in the same sense we can predict a chemical reaction - because the choice to carry on or not carry on is always there.
And even where we can predict an outcome, the prediction should not hold the same moral weight.
There is a certain degree of moral vanity and underlying self-interest (pace Oppenheimer, see my last post), I can't put my finger on it, in suggesting that a kind of moral uber-man must emerge to do terrible things in the name of goodness, at any time. (The great myth of the "disinterested" utilitarian.)
Is not this moral vanity at the heart of every repugnant "real-politik" politician and so-called "professional" amoral foreign policy operative we have ever heard of?
One is not responsible to single-handedly prevent evil that will come as the result of the choices and actions of others - so long as one does everything one humanely can to prevent those actions directly. That means against the aggressor. Not against those the aggressor knows or cares about.
And even against the aggressor, cruel and unusal behavior is inherently codependent.
I don't know how to "prove" this. Stephens will cite the "facts" of history to make his case. The War ended. But are those all the facts? As Hadley Arkes once noted in his text, "First Things" the effects of Caesar crossing the Rubicon are never all in. Perhaps the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still inform the thinking of Osama bin Laden? Perhaps they still inform the thinking of our foreign policy establishment, creating new ripples of codependence and reaction.
While I have respect for the facts of math and science, I also know that "facts" are often selected with certain biases. Ethical moments are not over when the news cycle is over. Americans look upon the morality of World War II entirely too much through the haze of triumphalist newsreels, and ignore the potentially codependent after-effects.
In any event, have a look at these two videos. Intelligent cases made. But, one is wrong; the other right.
While I have long been aligned with the movement from an economic point of view, I have always found the Right's willingness to embrace utilitarian ethics in warfare, or loosely defined warfare, (WWII, "War on Terror") disturbing.
Bret Stephens, a fine and intelligent gentlemen, has written a piece in the Wall Street Journal defending the "limited use" of waterboarding torture; citing as analogous our somewhat morally extraordinary behavior in World War II. A related video link is below.
Contrast that with journalist Stephen Grey's contention, in his new book Ghost Plane, that horrific things have been done during "rendition" of terror suspects, and that there is serious professional opinion that there are other ways to get information beside waterboarding, etc. See the video link below.
My contention against the Right on this issue (and against situationists in general, Left or Right) has always been epistemological.
The claim to "know" what will happen, and thereby justify "extraordinary" actions, even when rooted most firmly in statistical projection, ignores the nature of moral responsibility, where the actions of war lie within human choices.
We can't "know" that a result will come in the same sense we can predict a chemical reaction - because the choice to carry on or not carry on is always there.
And even where we can predict an outcome, the prediction should not hold the same moral weight.
There is a certain degree of moral vanity and underlying self-interest (pace Oppenheimer, see my last post), I can't put my finger on it, in suggesting that a kind of moral uber-man must emerge to do terrible things in the name of goodness, at any time. (The great myth of the "disinterested" utilitarian.)
Is not this moral vanity at the heart of every repugnant "real-politik" politician and so-called "professional" amoral foreign policy operative we have ever heard of?
One is not responsible to single-handedly prevent evil that will come as the result of the choices and actions of others - so long as one does everything one humanely can to prevent those actions directly. That means against the aggressor. Not against those the aggressor knows or cares about.
And even against the aggressor, cruel and unusal behavior is inherently codependent.
I don't know how to "prove" this. Stephens will cite the "facts" of history to make his case. The War ended. But are those all the facts? As Hadley Arkes once noted in his text, "First Things" the effects of Caesar crossing the Rubicon are never all in. Perhaps the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still inform the thinking of Osama bin Laden? Perhaps they still inform the thinking of our foreign policy establishment, creating new ripples of codependence and reaction.
While I have respect for the facts of math and science, I also know that "facts" are often selected with certain biases. Ethical moments are not over when the news cycle is over. Americans look upon the morality of World War II entirely too much through the haze of triumphalist newsreels, and ignore the potentially codependent after-effects.
In any event, have a look at these two videos. Intelligent cases made. But, one is wrong; the other right.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Technology Review Editor on Oppenheimer and the Bomb
Jason Pontin of Technology Review has produced a thought-provoking and sobering video letter about the moral and technological implications of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as expressed through the voice of Robert Oppenheimer, creator of the weapons used there.
Pontin uses archival footage of Oppenheimer from an old NBC documentary to raise interesting questions (my paraphrasing):
Was Oppenheimer a man caught up in the unfolding and destructive logic of technology, compelled by historical circumstances to create a weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, rather than allow the Nazis and Soviets to get the weapon first, and do who knows what with it?
Could Oppenheimer then be seen as an archetypal representation of a new humanity, caught up in technological spiral in which "everything that can be tried, will be tried," as he thought? (Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems has made similar arguments. His answer is to stop doing science.)
In which case, where destructive technologies will be developed, do "the good" have to use them first against "the evil" in a way that might be considered evil? Such as in the killing of civilians?
My view, contra my "real politic"-minded conservative chums of many years, is that such a utilitarian calculation is inherently self-deceptive.
We must cling, in truly conservative fashion, to the morality of the just war. (I argued for this in a number of editorial meetings.) The implications of that argument, when considering the bloodshed that would have ensued in the continuation of the war in the Pacific, were just too much for them to bear.
But then, they avert their eyes from the horrible nature of the atomic bombings, which seemed so easy to do, and so easy to not pay attention to. In terms of a "media cycle" the bomb was dropped, only to be displaced shortly thereafter in the news, by the end of the war.
Sixty-plus years later this feels like an academic discussion, of course. But we look to history as our guide. Someday, another generation -- maybe not "the greatest generation" -- will look upon these acts with more dispassionate eyes and see them for what they truly were.
Pontin uses archival footage of Oppenheimer from an old NBC documentary to raise interesting questions (my paraphrasing):
Was Oppenheimer a man caught up in the unfolding and destructive logic of technology, compelled by historical circumstances to create a weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, rather than allow the Nazis and Soviets to get the weapon first, and do who knows what with it?
Could Oppenheimer then be seen as an archetypal representation of a new humanity, caught up in technological spiral in which "everything that can be tried, will be tried," as he thought? (Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems has made similar arguments. His answer is to stop doing science.)
In which case, where destructive technologies will be developed, do "the good" have to use them first against "the evil" in a way that might be considered evil? Such as in the killing of civilians?
My view, contra my "real politic"-minded conservative chums of many years, is that such a utilitarian calculation is inherently self-deceptive.
We must cling, in truly conservative fashion, to the morality of the just war. (I argued for this in a number of editorial meetings.) The implications of that argument, when considering the bloodshed that would have ensued in the continuation of the war in the Pacific, were just too much for them to bear.
But then, they avert their eyes from the horrible nature of the atomic bombings, which seemed so easy to do, and so easy to not pay attention to. In terms of a "media cycle" the bomb was dropped, only to be displaced shortly thereafter in the news, by the end of the war.
Sixty-plus years later this feels like an academic discussion, of course. But we look to history as our guide. Someday, another generation -- maybe not "the greatest generation" -- will look upon these acts with more dispassionate eyes and see them for what they truly were.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Short Film: God is a DJ
Who says you can't make a fun short film with a philosophical theme? This is a beautifully conceived work of art. (Although, the DJ strikes me as a demigod rather than the full deity.)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Remembering September 11th
As I drove into work this morning, with a light rain falling, I listened to a live radio broadcast of the memorial service at Ground Zero.
There was something almost defiant in the sound of the bagpipes and drums. As if to say, "the dead are laughing at you today Osama bin Laden, and so are we the living."
September 11th marked a turning point in my thinking. The senseless death and destruction, the snuffing out of so many good people and their hopes and dreams, the bizarre photograph of one unknown man falling upside down to his death, inverted my sentimental Catholic spirituality and my life.
September 11th reawakened within me the suppressed memories of my mother's grim death from a cancerous brain tumor at 48; the first time that "God's plan" created personal problems for me. Before that, the banality of evil was other people's problem, and just an abstraction for me.
Like the victims of 9/11, my mother had hopes and dreams. She struggled to find the time to do creative, intellectually stimulating things, despite the crushing responsibilities of her life with eight children. It seemed to me that she was on the verge of breaking out in that direction when she died. Did God care? I don't know for sure, but to a mere foolish mortal, it seemed not.
Since 9/11, I have meditated heavily on the apparent futility of human aspiration. Does death make all human striving mere self-deception and vanity? I think it keeps me from composing half the great pieces of music I have in my head, and writing and shooting the screenplays that dance around in this imagination I inherited from my mother.
I have imagined God not caring about my mother's aspirations, or the victims of 9/11, or the victims of the Tsunami, or Katrina, or the countless people who die silently, too young, in hospitals each day. I am guarded about enjoying my life too much, for fear that just when I truly relish the beauty of my own four children, I will be made the ultimate cosmic fool and struck down. Or worse, that they will be struck down.
When my father, a former New York City firefighter, died at 60, of a sudden, massive stroke, we sat vigil outside of his room at Winthrop Hospital in Mineola, N.Y. The Yankees were on the television. I could see the faces of people at the game, enjoying themselves. They were unaware of the terrible thing that was taking place. It takes place thousands of times every day, all around us. Just miles from the ballpark, or the restaurant, in the hospital, or at the nursing home up the hill.
My parents' children today are writers, musicians, painters, scientists and teachers. They take after my creative, cerebral mother that way. They take after their father in revering the New York City fire department. Our father taught us firsthand about the courage the job requires. He worked with the first responders of 9/11 for many years in Brooklyn. He also represented them in the firefighters' union. I shudder to think what he would have felt had he lived to see that dark Tuesday in September.
I wish I could be at Ground Zero today. People there are likely feeling a connection with the transcendent. I have often thought that I should take one day off from work to go look for such a sacred place, where I might find a key to sorting out the things that began to trouble me so deeply, just six years ago.
There was something almost defiant in the sound of the bagpipes and drums. As if to say, "the dead are laughing at you today Osama bin Laden, and so are we the living."
September 11th marked a turning point in my thinking. The senseless death and destruction, the snuffing out of so many good people and their hopes and dreams, the bizarre photograph of one unknown man falling upside down to his death, inverted my sentimental Catholic spirituality and my life.
September 11th reawakened within me the suppressed memories of my mother's grim death from a cancerous brain tumor at 48; the first time that "God's plan" created personal problems for me. Before that, the banality of evil was other people's problem, and just an abstraction for me.
Like the victims of 9/11, my mother had hopes and dreams. She struggled to find the time to do creative, intellectually stimulating things, despite the crushing responsibilities of her life with eight children. It seemed to me that she was on the verge of breaking out in that direction when she died. Did God care? I don't know for sure, but to a mere foolish mortal, it seemed not.
Since 9/11, I have meditated heavily on the apparent futility of human aspiration. Does death make all human striving mere self-deception and vanity? I think it keeps me from composing half the great pieces of music I have in my head, and writing and shooting the screenplays that dance around in this imagination I inherited from my mother.
I have imagined God not caring about my mother's aspirations, or the victims of 9/11, or the victims of the Tsunami, or Katrina, or the countless people who die silently, too young, in hospitals each day. I am guarded about enjoying my life too much, for fear that just when I truly relish the beauty of my own four children, I will be made the ultimate cosmic fool and struck down. Or worse, that they will be struck down.
When my father, a former New York City firefighter, died at 60, of a sudden, massive stroke, we sat vigil outside of his room at Winthrop Hospital in Mineola, N.Y. The Yankees were on the television. I could see the faces of people at the game, enjoying themselves. They were unaware of the terrible thing that was taking place. It takes place thousands of times every day, all around us. Just miles from the ballpark, or the restaurant, in the hospital, or at the nursing home up the hill.
My parents' children today are writers, musicians, painters, scientists and teachers. They take after my creative, cerebral mother that way. They take after their father in revering the New York City fire department. Our father taught us firsthand about the courage the job requires. He worked with the first responders of 9/11 for many years in Brooklyn. He also represented them in the firefighters' union. I shudder to think what he would have felt had he lived to see that dark Tuesday in September.
I wish I could be at Ground Zero today. People there are likely feeling a connection with the transcendent. I have often thought that I should take one day off from work to go look for such a sacred place, where I might find a key to sorting out the things that began to trouble me so deeply, just six years ago.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
"Darwin's God" Raises Troubling Questions for All
Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
I have finally completed Darwin's God by Cornelius Hunter. A very interesting read. Basically, quoting from the writings of Darwin and his disciples, Hunter argues that Darwinism is a kind of theodicy. The reason: nature is too violent and wasteful to attribute to God, so the scientists and other thinkers of the Victorian age attributed such imperfection to the workings of secondary causes.
Hunter identifies this as a kind of gnosticism, because of its dualistic overtones. The imperfections of the material order must remain separated from the perfection of the spiritual.
Such labelling sounds ominous, as if a great heresy has resurfaced, but it simply underscores the point that Christianity, in whatever age, must struggle with how the problem of evil affects the credibility of its claims about the benevolence of the Creator.
(People today are powerfully aware of evil in all its forms, from natural evil to the evil sometimes manifested in the workings of the church. See this interesting article from Christianity Today on Starbucks Spirituality, which highlights the level of distrust Christians face from historically conscious, cosmopolitan coffee lovers.)
Anyway, getting back to the book, quoting from "The Descent of Man," Hunter notes that Darwin's stated primary objective was to disprove the theory of "special creation" of each and every species by God. Secondarily he was out to prove the theory of natural selection.
Read or listen to any number of Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins, and you will find repeated references to God, and attempts to discredit theories of special divine creation. Abstain from references to God, Hunter argues, all of the guesswork and speculation about vestigial organs, homologies, etc. would be glaring, and would never be accepted as "scientific."
Indeed, when many Darwinists argue that the theory is a "fact," what they mean is their interpretation of certain pieces of the physical record apparently falsify a particular account of creation. This despite the fact, as Hunter points out amply, that almost nothing in the physical record can falsify Darwinism. What Karl Popper would say is the mark of pseudo-science.
Indeed, the handwriting was on the wall when Darwin said about the complexity of the human eye that all he needed was to be able to conceive of a possible way, rather than show actual proof for, an evolution from less complex structures, and you see evidence of something other than science taking place here.
(My interpretation of this is that once "supernaturalism" is discarded as falsified by any one of millions of potential physical phenomena, a gestalt shift takes place and there is no choice but to interpret all physical phenomena through the lens of naturalism.)
This is exactly what I noted was troubling to me in a comment by eminent physicist Leonard Susskind's on Fora.tv, who blithely accepted such a speculative approach in response to questions about Paley's Watchmaker analogy and the "irreducible complexity" argument put forward by the "Intelligent Design" camp.
What do I take away from this work? An interesting, historically rich overview of Darwinism as attempted falsification of another theory, and/or a theodicy, full of insights into how the problem of evil vexed the Victorians.
But more importantly, Hunter's book, by its omission, painfully underscores the most pressing issue of modern Christianity. For if, as Hunter argues, Darwinism simply attempts to "falsify" one particular account of creation popular in a particular time, what is the alternative, more rational theory of creation, which can overcome the link between creation's irrationality and the Creator, without drifting into heretical dualism? Hunter doesn't answer that question.
Can anyone?
I have finally completed Darwin's God by Cornelius Hunter. A very interesting read. Basically, quoting from the writings of Darwin and his disciples, Hunter argues that Darwinism is a kind of theodicy. The reason: nature is too violent and wasteful to attribute to God, so the scientists and other thinkers of the Victorian age attributed such imperfection to the workings of secondary causes.
Hunter identifies this as a kind of gnosticism, because of its dualistic overtones. The imperfections of the material order must remain separated from the perfection of the spiritual.
Such labelling sounds ominous, as if a great heresy has resurfaced, but it simply underscores the point that Christianity, in whatever age, must struggle with how the problem of evil affects the credibility of its claims about the benevolence of the Creator.
(People today are powerfully aware of evil in all its forms, from natural evil to the evil sometimes manifested in the workings of the church. See this interesting article from Christianity Today on Starbucks Spirituality, which highlights the level of distrust Christians face from historically conscious, cosmopolitan coffee lovers.)
Anyway, getting back to the book, quoting from "The Descent of Man," Hunter notes that Darwin's stated primary objective was to disprove the theory of "special creation" of each and every species by God. Secondarily he was out to prove the theory of natural selection.
Read or listen to any number of Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins, and you will find repeated references to God, and attempts to discredit theories of special divine creation. Abstain from references to God, Hunter argues, all of the guesswork and speculation about vestigial organs, homologies, etc. would be glaring, and would never be accepted as "scientific."
Indeed, when many Darwinists argue that the theory is a "fact," what they mean is their interpretation of certain pieces of the physical record apparently falsify a particular account of creation. This despite the fact, as Hunter points out amply, that almost nothing in the physical record can falsify Darwinism. What Karl Popper would say is the mark of pseudo-science.
Indeed, the handwriting was on the wall when Darwin said about the complexity of the human eye that all he needed was to be able to conceive of a possible way, rather than show actual proof for, an evolution from less complex structures, and you see evidence of something other than science taking place here.
(My interpretation of this is that once "supernaturalism" is discarded as falsified by any one of millions of potential physical phenomena, a gestalt shift takes place and there is no choice but to interpret all physical phenomena through the lens of naturalism.)
This is exactly what I noted was troubling to me in a comment by eminent physicist Leonard Susskind's on Fora.tv, who blithely accepted such a speculative approach in response to questions about Paley's Watchmaker analogy and the "irreducible complexity" argument put forward by the "Intelligent Design" camp.
What do I take away from this work? An interesting, historically rich overview of Darwinism as attempted falsification of another theory, and/or a theodicy, full of insights into how the problem of evil vexed the Victorians.
But more importantly, Hunter's book, by its omission, painfully underscores the most pressing issue of modern Christianity. For if, as Hunter argues, Darwinism simply attempts to "falsify" one particular account of creation popular in a particular time, what is the alternative, more rational theory of creation, which can overcome the link between creation's irrationality and the Creator, without drifting into heretical dualism? Hunter doesn't answer that question.
Can anyone?
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Hitchens is Not Great?
Although I do not always agree with him, I admire Christopher Hitchens' intellect and persuasive power. When he wades into religion however, like many of his fellow "new atheists" such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, he is out of his depth -- except of course, when beating up the most simple of fundamentalists.
Peter Berkowitz has written a fine piece for the Wall Street Journal on this "new atheism" and its lucrative books sales. He also takes particular issue with his friend Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Good reading.
Peter Berkowitz has written a fine piece for the Wall Street Journal on this "new atheism" and its lucrative books sales. He also takes particular issue with his friend Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Good reading.
Can One Laugh (Be Angry) at God?
Okay, so after watching God, Inc. and Mr. Deity, the old Catholic guilt kicked in, along with my stand-up comedian's sense that comedy is often rooted in anger. So, I decided to check in with my tradition, more specifically the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Here's what it says about blasphemy:
"2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those 'who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.' The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin."
Aside from a swear here or there, I think these shows are off the hook on any blasphemy rap.
What this made me think of, immediately, was Osama bin Laden and much of the Middle Ages. (I'm still waiting to learn if there is a manifesto from scientists declaring totalitarian killing in the name of science, progress or freedom from religion to be a serious evil.)
Secondarily, but more importantly, it made me wonder about those of us who wonder about God's plan, and get a little peeved, in thought or word, about the whole thing. I have not found to date a lot of discussion about this issue, but I will be researching it more. Perhaps you have something to offer from your own tradition or experience.
Here's what it says about blasphemy:
"2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those 'who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.' The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin."
Aside from a swear here or there, I think these shows are off the hook on any blasphemy rap.
What this made me think of, immediately, was Osama bin Laden and much of the Middle Ages. (I'm still waiting to learn if there is a manifesto from scientists declaring totalitarian killing in the name of science, progress or freedom from religion to be a serious evil.)
Secondarily, but more importantly, it made me wonder about those of us who wonder about God's plan, and get a little peeved, in thought or word, about the whole thing. I have not found to date a lot of discussion about this issue, but I will be researching it more. Perhaps you have something to offer from your own tradition or experience.
Friday, August 3, 2007
One Christian's Take on Dawkins' Militant Atheism
Interesting interview with Alister McGrath, former atheist, now a Christian, about debating atheist media superstar Richard Dawkins. His take: Dawkins dismays his fellow atheist intellectuals because of his sloppiness and acidity, but appeals to those atheists around the world who are concerned about an apparent resurgence of (often fundamentalist) religion.
Also part of this conversation: does the atheist Dawkins help balance out religious fundamentalism because he forces people to think seriously about religion? Personally, I think that such attacks do cause people to think more about the relationship between religion, myth and science. But the rhetoric of those attacks can cause serious misunderstandings on both sides.
Also part of this conversation: does the atheist Dawkins help balance out religious fundamentalism because he forces people to think seriously about religion? Personally, I think that such attacks do cause people to think more about the relationship between religion, myth and science. But the rhetoric of those attacks can cause serious misunderstandings on both sides.
Stay on Top of Tech Trends
Subscribe to the e-newsletter of the MIT Technology Review. Between their own reporting and their sifting from other news sources, you can get a daily update on some of the most amazing, hopeful developments in human endeavor.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
My Favorite (Internet) Radio Station
Okay, I'm one of those people who grew up listening to Three Dog Night on a transistor A.M. radio, and thinking it was the coolest thing ever.
My love of music and ability to have control over the dial is probably why it seemed so cool. So, you can only imagine the heaven that I am in now that we have glorious Internet radio, on platforms such as Live365.com, Pandora.com, Yahoo! Launchcast and more. Not to mention tons of archived music video on YouTube et al.
My absolute favorite Internet radio station is called modernera.fm. Someone in San Francisco has exquisite musical taste, and programs the songs all day long on the Live365 platform for a nominal fee. In return, they cover all his permissions, royalties etc. What a great time to be alive.
Modernera.fm features classical, jazz and ambient music from the 20th and 21st centuries. It's truly been an horizon-expanding experience for me, as I have enjoyed great artists such as Brian Eno, William Orbit, The Aqua Velvets, Blue Man Group and more. I've even bought some of the tracks I've heard via download or CD.
Modernera.fm is just one of millions of burgeoning new stations on these exciting Internet platforms. Long live Internet Radio!
My love of music and ability to have control over the dial is probably why it seemed so cool. So, you can only imagine the heaven that I am in now that we have glorious Internet radio, on platforms such as Live365.com, Pandora.com, Yahoo! Launchcast and more. Not to mention tons of archived music video on YouTube et al.
My absolute favorite Internet radio station is called modernera.fm. Someone in San Francisco has exquisite musical taste, and programs the songs all day long on the Live365 platform for a nominal fee. In return, they cover all his permissions, royalties etc. What a great time to be alive.
Modernera.fm features classical, jazz and ambient music from the 20th and 21st centuries. It's truly been an horizon-expanding experience for me, as I have enjoyed great artists such as Brian Eno, William Orbit, The Aqua Velvets, Blue Man Group and more. I've even bought some of the tracks I've heard via download or CD.
Modernera.fm is just one of millions of burgeoning new stations on these exciting Internet platforms. Long live Internet Radio!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Mr. Deity
Okay, I am laughing with a great sense of guilt, but laughing all the same at Mr. Deity, another hilarious new web series looking at God's plan as seen through the eyes of man.
Or is it man's plan, as seen through the eyes of God? I'm not sure.
Similar in spirit to God, Inc. which I described in a previous post, Mr. Deity portrays the workings of universe as organized by a trinity of all-too-human individuals resembling the staff of a showbiz startup. (Which is what they really are!)
Mr. Deity is an aging, absent-minded hipster, "Jesse" (a.k.a. "Jesus") is a dim-witted metrosexual, and Larry a nebbishy administrative type.
And then there is Lucy, Mr. Deity's bitchy ex.
How am I, a critical-minded believer, supposed to feel about this? Is this show truly a guilty pleasure?
Surely some religious people will be swearing a fatwa out on Mr. Deity. And some atheist/skeptic types, such as Michael Shermer, are already happily endorsing the series for their own reasons.
But if you read the FAQs on the series from its producer and director Brian Keith Dalton, you will see it is decidedly middle-of-the-road, and humor-focused:
"I am a formerly religious person (non-bitter), and as such, have great sympathies for the beliefs and feelings of religious people. I love the fact that they are concerned with the big issues like Good and Evil, Existence, Creation, etc... I don't always agree with the answers they provide to these questions, but I deeply respect their concern. Our goal here is not to mock religion, but to use it as a foundation for the humor. I'm thrilled that so many religious people have written to tell me that they love the episodes. In future episodes, I intend to turn the tables a bit and poke fun at what I call the "angry atheists" (of whom I am not fond). We'll see if they take it so well."
What better way to get some perspective on the silliness of life than to pretend you are divine. It makes perfect sense.
My own feeling about this, and I might be wrong, is that you really can't get offended by too many jokes using a limited view of the deity unless your own view of the deity is rather limited. What do you think?
Or is it man's plan, as seen through the eyes of God? I'm not sure.
Similar in spirit to God, Inc. which I described in a previous post, Mr. Deity portrays the workings of universe as organized by a trinity of all-too-human individuals resembling the staff of a showbiz startup. (Which is what they really are!)
Mr. Deity is an aging, absent-minded hipster, "Jesse" (a.k.a. "Jesus") is a dim-witted metrosexual, and Larry a nebbishy administrative type.
And then there is Lucy, Mr. Deity's bitchy ex.
How am I, a critical-minded believer, supposed to feel about this? Is this show truly a guilty pleasure?
Surely some religious people will be swearing a fatwa out on Mr. Deity. And some atheist/skeptic types, such as Michael Shermer, are already happily endorsing the series for their own reasons.
But if you read the FAQs on the series from its producer and director Brian Keith Dalton, you will see it is decidedly middle-of-the-road, and humor-focused:
"I am a formerly religious person (non-bitter), and as such, have great sympathies for the beliefs and feelings of religious people. I love the fact that they are concerned with the big issues like Good and Evil, Existence, Creation, etc... I don't always agree with the answers they provide to these questions, but I deeply respect their concern. Our goal here is not to mock religion, but to use it as a foundation for the humor. I'm thrilled that so many religious people have written to tell me that they love the episodes. In future episodes, I intend to turn the tables a bit and poke fun at what I call the "angry atheists" (of whom I am not fond). We'll see if they take it so well."
What better way to get some perspective on the silliness of life than to pretend you are divine. It makes perfect sense.
My own feeling about this, and I might be wrong, is that you really can't get offended by too many jokes using a limited view of the deity unless your own view of the deity is rather limited. What do you think?
From Crackle:
Monday, July 9, 2007
Darwin, God and Evil
If you look through the content of this blog, you might say that I am "vexed" by the question of God and evil. Funny then, that I happened to stumble across Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius G. Hunter.
It's a fascinating read, about non-scientific influences upon the theory of evolution - particularly, the theological assumptions about what God would and would not do in the often violent, bloody world of nature.
These assumptions, Hunter argues, stand behind the science of Darwinism, which Hunter also argues, is quite "speculative" in the areas of phylogeny, homology, molecular clocks, etc.
Although "Darwin's God" is accessible, it's not exactly light summer reading. That's okay -- except for my brief Tom Clancy jag back in college and grad school, I've never been much for that anyway.
I'll have more to say about this book once I've finished it off.
It's a fascinating read, about non-scientific influences upon the theory of evolution - particularly, the theological assumptions about what God would and would not do in the often violent, bloody world of nature.
These assumptions, Hunter argues, stand behind the science of Darwinism, which Hunter also argues, is quite "speculative" in the areas of phylogeny, homology, molecular clocks, etc.
Although "Darwin's God" is accessible, it's not exactly light summer reading. That's okay -- except for my brief Tom Clancy jag back in college and grad school, I've never been much for that anyway.
I'll have more to say about this book once I've finished it off.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
No Easy Answer for Evil
Another interesting talk from Ted.com. This one by Tom Honey, an English clergyman, who addresses the issue of how God can allow devastating tsunamis. I won't spoil the surprise of his answer. But I will say that I think the strongest part of his argument is that so long as we view God as outside our world when explaining evil, as puppet master, powerless, uncaring, etc. we have something unsatisfying and even offensive. The best case: find God with us, suffering right along with us. The question is: "Why?"
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
God, Inc.
God, Inc. wonders what would happen if the afterlife were run like a modern corporation. The fact that it might be run so irrationally would perhaps make this world make more sense. (Kind of reminds me of David Hume's observation that the world seems to have been made by a committee of gods.) The series features very short, cleverly written and crisply acted episodes. I think you'll enjoy it. Check out this first episode here, and then try the rest on YouTube.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Final Explanation of Everything . . . Not!
As discussed in the previous post, numbers seem to be at the bottom of everything in physics. As Stephen Hawking noted, "a physical theory is a mathematical model."
Father Stanley Jaki has been arguing for years that Kurt Gödel's famous mathematical theorem says something very important about such physical theories, and their ability to provide a complete explanation of reality.
By complete, I mean one that says there is nothing more, and what is has to be here and behave in a fixed, deterministic manner. And that because it is necessarily this way, it is not contingent upon God.
"It should also be obvious," notes Jaki in an important essay entitled "A Late Awakening to Gödel in Physics," "that the more advanced is a physical theory the more mathematics it contains and the more advanced is the mathematics. From this the ground for connecting Gödel's theorem with physics readily follows.
"For insofar as Gödel's theorem states that no non-trivial system of arithmetic propositions can have its proof of consistency within itself, all systems of mathematics fall under this restriction, because all embody higher mathematics that ultimately rests on plain arithmetic. Then it follows that there can be no final physical theory which would necessarily be true at least in its mathematic part."
You may have a physical theory, but because it is based upon mathematics, you cannot know that it is final, and you can never show that the universe is a certain way "necessarily."
The essay goes on to bemoan the fact that many prominent physicists have not picked up on this little inconvenience to their search for a final answer to the universe.
Particularly ironic, as Jaki notes, the close relationship between Einstein - who searched for a unified field theory -- and Gödel, whose work showed he'd fail.
As Jaki notes in another essay entitled "Reflection on Einstein's Theories," "the application of Gödel's theorem to cosmology shows that a disproof of the contingency of the universe is impossible. The mental road to the extracosmic Absolute remains therefore fully open."
Interesting to ponder.
Father Stanley Jaki has been arguing for years that Kurt Gödel's famous mathematical theorem says something very important about such physical theories, and their ability to provide a complete explanation of reality.
By complete, I mean one that says there is nothing more, and what is has to be here and behave in a fixed, deterministic manner. And that because it is necessarily this way, it is not contingent upon God.
"It should also be obvious," notes Jaki in an important essay entitled "A Late Awakening to Gödel in Physics," "that the more advanced is a physical theory the more mathematics it contains and the more advanced is the mathematics. From this the ground for connecting Gödel's theorem with physics readily follows.
"For insofar as Gödel's theorem states that no non-trivial system of arithmetic propositions can have its proof of consistency within itself, all systems of mathematics fall under this restriction, because all embody higher mathematics that ultimately rests on plain arithmetic. Then it follows that there can be no final physical theory which would necessarily be true at least in its mathematic part."
You may have a physical theory, but because it is based upon mathematics, you cannot know that it is final, and you can never show that the universe is a certain way "necessarily."
The essay goes on to bemoan the fact that many prominent physicists have not picked up on this little inconvenience to their search for a final answer to the universe.
Particularly ironic, as Jaki notes, the close relationship between Einstein - who searched for a unified field theory -- and Gödel, whose work showed he'd fail.
As Jaki notes in another essay entitled "Reflection on Einstein's Theories," "the application of Gödel's theorem to cosmology shows that a disproof of the contingency of the universe is impossible. The mental road to the extracosmic Absolute remains therefore fully open."
Interesting to ponder.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
A Philosophically Rich Slice of Web Television
Here is a marvelous video discussion on Fora.Tv with Leonard Susskind, one of the fathers of "String Theory." What will you learn from it? Some very interesting ideas from physics:
Susskind takes issue with Intelligent Design. Call it his "argument from intellectual curiosity." He doesn't deny the existence of God. But, basically, he won't stop looking to reduce things, because he is naturally curious, and perhaps because there is a risk to science in doing so.
I can completely respect his point of view. He strikes me as intellectually honest. However, listen carefully as he describes the Darwinists' refutation of intelligent design of the eye. It sounds not so much as a description, but as enormous guesswork. See # 16, Q2. There is something odd about accepting that much guesswork as "satisfactory."
All in all, however, this is a fantastic presentation, and a demonstration of the cultural potential of the Web. Congratulations to ForaTv for capturing it.
- That when you get to the "basement" of the world as Susskind calls it, you find material reality evaporating into numbers.
- That at the bottom of everything you discover multiple dimensions of reality, maybe up to 11, which makes you wonder why we only have three (or four!).
- The "multiverse" theory of the universe, which suggests that our world is but one emanation from the multiple potentialities that those basement numbers possess.
Susskind takes issue with Intelligent Design. Call it his "argument from intellectual curiosity." He doesn't deny the existence of God. But, basically, he won't stop looking to reduce things, because he is naturally curious, and perhaps because there is a risk to science in doing so.
I can completely respect his point of view. He strikes me as intellectually honest. However, listen carefully as he describes the Darwinists' refutation of intelligent design of the eye. It sounds not so much as a description, but as enormous guesswork. See # 16, Q2. There is something odd about accepting that much guesswork as "satisfactory."
All in all, however, this is a fantastic presentation, and a demonstration of the cultural potential of the Web. Congratulations to ForaTv for capturing it.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A Follow Up Thought on Mr. Jobs' Speech
One additional thought on my last item, the video from Steve Jobs at Stanford. Clearly, he believes that there is an underlying purpose for his life. He is also willing to consider that some choices are not accidents, but part of a plan. Such as, for example, his choice of a typography course after he had "dropped in" on the college he dropped out of.
Because he enjoys remarkable goodwill with the students as an icon of creativity and inventiveness, it seems unlikely that he will draw the ire of any skeptics who doubt the existence of providence and wonder why he is turning these impressionable young minds into believers in the unseen forces of reality. These skeptics have bigger, and easier fundamentalist fish to fry. In other words, they might also be cowards.
The skeptic Michael Shermer said we are "pattern seeking beings" in the video I posted below. Seeking a pattern, he argues, must be restricted to the observable world of science.
While I have become much more suspicious of superstitious thinking about seeing "signs" in your life, I find it unsurprising how deep the hunger is to see such signs. The concern here is not with Darwinian survival, since purpose suggests finality. The concern is with meaning.
Try to deliberately not look for patterns in your life, as I have now, for a while. It's a remarkably difficult thing to do. Maybe you're in a casual habit of doing it yourself. Stop yourself for a while and see what happens.
As a young person, I looked for signs in everything, concerning my career, my romantic relationships, and more. I have stopped looking for signs in these areas because 1) I was often disappointed, and 2) (perhaps because of 1) I have stopped putting so much stock in these things to complete me as a person.
But sometimes, I also wonder if I'm not just clearing away the superstitious noise about every little thing so a bigger sign can make its appearance. LOL
Because he enjoys remarkable goodwill with the students as an icon of creativity and inventiveness, it seems unlikely that he will draw the ire of any skeptics who doubt the existence of providence and wonder why he is turning these impressionable young minds into believers in the unseen forces of reality. These skeptics have bigger, and easier fundamentalist fish to fry. In other words, they might also be cowards.
The skeptic Michael Shermer said we are "pattern seeking beings" in the video I posted below. Seeking a pattern, he argues, must be restricted to the observable world of science.
While I have become much more suspicious of superstitious thinking about seeing "signs" in your life, I find it unsurprising how deep the hunger is to see such signs. The concern here is not with Darwinian survival, since purpose suggests finality. The concern is with meaning.
Try to deliberately not look for patterns in your life, as I have now, for a while. It's a remarkably difficult thing to do. Maybe you're in a casual habit of doing it yourself. Stop yourself for a while and see what happens.
As a young person, I looked for signs in everything, concerning my career, my romantic relationships, and more. I have stopped looking for signs in these areas because 1) I was often disappointed, and 2) (perhaps because of 1) I have stopped putting so much stock in these things to complete me as a person.
But sometimes, I also wonder if I'm not just clearing away the superstitious noise about every little thing so a bigger sign can make its appearance. LOL
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Steve Jobs on Lessons Learned
This is a very nice, concise speech from Steve Jobs based on stories from his life. His remarks to the graduating class at Stanford on the need to have faith in something that connects the dots of your life, and on the importance of death for making something of your life, are particularly interesting and inspiring. Thank you, Mr. Jobs.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Today's Arrogant Atheists
Excellent piece by Sam Schulman in the Wall Street Journal online about the arrogance of today's high-profile atheists.
Schulman notes that Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis could extend some sympathy to atheist arguments because they had been there themselves. They could also take philosophical arguments about science and belief seriously. Yet, today's crusading atheists do not reciprocate and are remarkably "incurious" about anything beyond their own materialism.
Highly recommended.
Schulman notes that Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis could extend some sympathy to atheist arguments because they had been there themselves. They could also take philosophical arguments about science and belief seriously. Yet, today's crusading atheists do not reciprocate and are remarkably "incurious" about anything beyond their own materialism.
Highly recommended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)