As I said at the beginning, I am not sure my series on The Problem of Knowing Good and Evil is one whit helpful. I hope it is. But I am not quite certain I have finished with it, as I sense there is more to say. I will keep an eye on it, and augment the series if necessary.
In keeping with the theme of good and evil, there is evil abundant in the heart and mind of the heartless and mindless cyberworld. When working on the very first part of my series, I went to Technorati, a blogger's Grand Central Station, looking for tags to paste to my blog to assist others in their various searches. One of the very first tags I looked for was Hitler. When Technorati coughed up the tag code I would paste into my blog, it offered, as it always does, other tags popularly associated and used (in other blogs) with the one I sought. In this instance, my query for Hitler also brought to the fore the tag for that other Hitler, George Bush. In other words, when countless other bloggers have pasted Hitler into their posts, they've connected Hitler with Mr. Bush.
And it's the neo-cons who are the scaremongers! Such sad days, these.
As I've said more than once, which is far too many times, to equate Hitler with Bush is to diminish Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust. It is a grotesque intellectual sin; it is an abuse of the mind worse than crystal meth or any psychotropic that attacks the central nervous system. It is all so much cognitive reductionism, a self-amputation of the brain, a lobotomy done not with a scalpel but with willful self-delusion. Or, at best, it is all an indication of how thoroughly effective the Holocaust deniers have been in their propaganda that the Holocaust did not happen; sort of like how Bush's Holocaust has never happened (and it never will). For a person to connect Hitler and Bush is to admit, with pride, I suspect, that such a person does not understand. Forsooth, ignorance is wildly popular these days, particularly if it makes lots of money, or generates lots of campaign contributions and votes.
And I am not afraid to say that referring to George Bush as Hitler and his administration as the Third (or Fourth) Reich is a form of anti-semitism, as it suggests that what the Jews suffered under Hitler does not deserve solemn respect; nor could it have been so grave that such suffering cannot be used (and cheapened) for tawdry political gain. Shame is too mild a word for all of this.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
The Problem Of Knowing Good And Evil, Part IV
[Part I of this series begins here.]
I've never known a person not touched by evil, pain, suffering. But I have known many people who have never known joy.
The other day, while I was sitting in a park photographing cedar waxwings (not my photo), an old salt-of-the-earth New Englander asked me a question. He had recently seen a bird, a black bird with red patches on its wings. "I have never seen one before. Do you know what it was?" I cheerfully told him that it was one of my favorites, the red-winged blackbird (not my photo either). I told him all I knew of the bird, and the old man continued on his way. But it was clear that the man, who surely seemed to have his wits about him, had never seen what is utterly a common bird in New England. Since the beginning of this essay (this morning) I have had several visit my feeders just outside the window, and they are always busy flitting about wetlands everywhere. They are remarkably obvious birds, extremely chatty, very active. It is hard to imagine that there are people around who have not seen one of them.
But then again, there are all kinds of things that surprise us, not least of which is that there are people who have never even been loved. This may be too hard for us to entertain even in the most detached, academic way. We do not know how such a fact could ever be possible. But reality is often too much for us, especially when that reality so thoroughly contradicts our experience: There are people who have not been loved for one second of their lives. How could this happen?
Perhaps there is some solace, and a small answer, in the pronouncement that God loves those who are unloved, or even unlovable. But it is not a very convincing sort of solace; we are not convinced that this is enough to restore someone who has never been loved to any sense of self worth. After an encounter with a very sad man on a city street (I was working as a photojournalist at the time), and after a very brief argument with an editor at the newspaper where I worked, I wrote the following poem:
In human interest
I submit the photoshopped images to the news queue
a disfigured head, gigantesque in its distortion
twisted grin his normal straight
brow like the elephant man’s
I pull them up to show you and you
give a face that has sales written all over it
I remember meeting this news feature
before you either saw him as news or
even as a feature:
You say, you’re too philosophical to be a
journalist.
I say, thank you. Really.
You walk away muttering about your circulation.
***
I've never known a person not touched by evil, pain, suffering. But I have known many people who have never known joy.
The other day, while I was sitting in a park photographing cedar waxwings (not my photo), an old salt-of-the-earth New Englander asked me a question. He had recently seen a bird, a black bird with red patches on its wings. "I have never seen one before. Do you know what it was?" I cheerfully told him that it was one of my favorites, the red-winged blackbird (not my photo either). I told him all I knew of the bird, and the old man continued on his way. But it was clear that the man, who surely seemed to have his wits about him, had never seen what is utterly a common bird in New England. Since the beginning of this essay (this morning) I have had several visit my feeders just outside the window, and they are always busy flitting about wetlands everywhere. They are remarkably obvious birds, extremely chatty, very active. It is hard to imagine that there are people around who have not seen one of them.
But then again, there are all kinds of things that surprise us, not least of which is that there are people who have never even been loved. This may be too hard for us to entertain even in the most detached, academic way. We do not know how such a fact could ever be possible. But reality is often too much for us, especially when that reality so thoroughly contradicts our experience: There are people who have not been loved for one second of their lives. How could this happen?
Perhaps there is some solace, and a small answer, in the pronouncement that God loves those who are unloved, or even unlovable. But it is not a very convincing sort of solace; we are not convinced that this is enough to restore someone who has never been loved to any sense of self worth. After an encounter with a very sad man on a city street (I was working as a photojournalist at the time), and after a very brief argument with an editor at the newspaper where I worked, I wrote the following poem:
In human interest
I submit the photoshopped images to the news queue
a disfigured head, gigantesque in its distortion
twisted grin his normal straight
brow like the elephant man’s
I pull them up to show you and you
give a face that has sales written all over it
I remember meeting this news feature
before you either saw him as news or
even as a feature:
He was sitting on a bench, where else?I say, I wonder if anyone ever loved him.
on Main Street near Railroad Ave.
his head twice the size of most
fairground balloons
I wondered whether he had ever been touched
What’s your name? I asked.
Johhhhhnnnyyyy! he replied, Ya gaht aaany mmmonnney?
I emptied my pockets, a few bucks and I handed it to him.
At that instant a cab pulled up to the curb, and Johnny
jumped in. I laughed, but knew I’d be back for more.
You say, you’re too philosophical to be a
journalist.
I say, thank you. Really.
You walk away muttering about your circulation.
***
It seems like a loveless world. Darwin tells us, when we really think about it, that it is all about competition: there is no equality in Darwin's mean streets, there is no rest or peace or promise of uninterrupted comfort anywhere on the face of the earth. We balk at this, or we kick at the portents of atheism in so much Darwin-inspired, dread-saturated, post-modern emptiness. We wonder how a people who demand so much meaning out of life, who expect justice and love and joy, could have evolved from a primordial ooze that is utterly without meaning. How does the desire for purpose evolve from purposelessness; how does the want for love evolve from lovelessness?
Life does not seem fair: the child born with no face (as shown recently on TV); the newborn boy discarded in a garbage pail, now pushed from orphanage to orphanage; those families crammed into railroad cars heading toward gas chambers. I ask how it is that, if we've evolved from nothing, we then don't blame nothing for evil, or how we even see anything as evil at all. Why, if the radical evolutionists are right, why do we even care about suffering, or why would we blame God, if, indeed, there is no God at all? How did we get here, when our starting point was the void? It's as if we fundamentally defy as creatures the very physics of the universe, where it is a law that you can't get more energy out of a thing than what's in it. How is it that humans can demand, inspire or expect more meaning and love than the meaningless, loveless universe from whence they came can ever offer?
Life does not seem fair: the child born with no face (as shown recently on TV); the newborn boy discarded in a garbage pail, now pushed from orphanage to orphanage; those families crammed into railroad cars heading toward gas chambers. I ask how it is that, if we've evolved from nothing, we then don't blame nothing for evil, or how we even see anything as evil at all. Why, if the radical evolutionists are right, why do we even care about suffering, or why would we blame God, if, indeed, there is no God at all? How did we get here, when our starting point was the void? It's as if we fundamentally defy as creatures the very physics of the universe, where it is a law that you can't get more energy out of a thing than what's in it. How is it that humans can demand, inspire or expect more meaning and love than the meaningless, loveless universe from whence they came can ever offer?
***
Did God create death camps? Did God create cigarettes, guns, nuclear bombs, chainsaws, alcohol, crystal meth? Is God responsible for polluted rivers, polluted air? Did He make us fly jets across the Atlantic, scarring the atmosphere; did He make us fly planes into skycrapers, skyscrapers that He built on fill in Lower Manhattan?
If there is a proof for the existence of God I might think it resides here, that humans blame Him for the things they created. One might also find an argument for the existence of God in His apparent absence: if I were God I might hide from humanity too. But there really is nothing hidden about God, as He is evident in every wingbeat of the red-winged blackbird. Heidegger's haunting question might even help us see God even where Heidegger could not: How is that there is anything here at all? What keeps everything from slipping into the abyss of non-being?
For some of us, the question might get us to begging, begging for a miracle. We want intervention (and we want it NOW!) not realizing that the very squirrels and birds and grasses and winds are divine signs. God is at work. Jesus may have impressed His disciples by walking on water. But the miracle is not in the walking, it is in the water; that there is any water at all. Raising the dead is miraculous, no doubt, but not anymore miraculous than that there was any person who lived in the first place. Sadly, we are too dulled, or too fearful, to live in the miraculous. We comfort ourselves in the presence of natural laws, oblivious, mostly, that the predictability of nature is often illusory and, more importantly, that the very laws themselves are miraculous. Breathing is really more of a miracle than Christ's resurrection. In fact, I believe He rose from the dead to prove that very thing, granting us life eternal so that we might breathe forevermore. But we hardly notice the miraculous in the commonplace until the wind is knocked out of us, or when we sense our last inhale will indeed be our very last.
If there is a proof for the existence of God I might think it resides here, that humans blame Him for the things they created. One might also find an argument for the existence of God in His apparent absence: if I were God I might hide from humanity too. But there really is nothing hidden about God, as He is evident in every wingbeat of the red-winged blackbird. Heidegger's haunting question might even help us see God even where Heidegger could not: How is that there is anything here at all? What keeps everything from slipping into the abyss of non-being?
For some of us, the question might get us to begging, begging for a miracle. We want intervention (and we want it NOW!) not realizing that the very squirrels and birds and grasses and winds are divine signs. God is at work. Jesus may have impressed His disciples by walking on water. But the miracle is not in the walking, it is in the water; that there is any water at all. Raising the dead is miraculous, no doubt, but not anymore miraculous than that there was any person who lived in the first place. Sadly, we are too dulled, or too fearful, to live in the miraculous. We comfort ourselves in the presence of natural laws, oblivious, mostly, that the predictability of nature is often illusory and, more importantly, that the very laws themselves are miraculous. Breathing is really more of a miracle than Christ's resurrection. In fact, I believe He rose from the dead to prove that very thing, granting us life eternal so that we might breathe forevermore. But we hardly notice the miraculous in the commonplace until the wind is knocked out of us, or when we sense our last inhale will indeed be our very last.
***
We can ask where God is in the midst of suffering, as long as we are asking where we are in the midst of it, too. As we have seen, God has taken the blame for creation, for suffering, for evil; and He has taken the blame for things He did not even create. There should be joy in this news; we should receive this news with dancing and laughter and merriment. But we have even grown used to joy, I am afraid, even when it comes so rarely; good news is old news, and even joy seems tired, boring, predictable. We are too worldly to laugh, to dance in the freedom of forgiveness, to drink deep draughts of holy, redeemed merriment. Holiness, joy, redemption, forgiveness -- these are greeted with a big yawn by the all-knowing sophisticates we think we are. We snicker at the idea of a banquet with a Holy Family, because we know families, and they are all broken and disappointing. Laugh for a while, we say, but before long you'll be at each others' throats, just like so many holidays with our own too-often unholy families. Heaven? bliss? No thanks. That's for those who need such assurances.
***
The Christian message is simple regarding suffering, and it is painful. God loves both the murderer and the murdered, and He knows what it is to be both. He cannot stop being all-knowing, all-present, and thus is always both victim and victimizer. To intervene in world affairs in terms familiar to us, action figures that we think we are, would be for God to have to choose sides. But God is, until time has run out, on all sides: He is a Yankees and Red Sox fan; He roots for Manchester United as fervently as He roots for Arsenal. In short, He cheers on people, not ideologies, except the Gospel itself. He did not root for Hitlerism, but surely He adored Hitler. He did not root for Arafat's hatred, but surely He loved Arafat. He did not love the blood on King David's hands, but surely He loved the hands that were David's. The red-winged blackbird killed by a goshawk in my yard recently, killed right before my eyes, was no less loved by God than the goshawk that carried the dead bird away. After all, had God stopped the hawk from smashing that helpless blackbird into the side of my house, right next to me, would He not have had to bring the whole cosmos to a halt?
The Gospel of Christ declares this: That God loves you more than He loves His own life, and even His own joy. Better to be with you in hell than in heaven without you. Better to crucify the Creator than to stop Creation. Better to bring God to a screeching halt than the hawk in its deadly flight. Better to bring God to the grave than Hitler to annihilation.
Strange, though, how few people point out that Hitler was indeed stopped. No one seems to thank God for that, do they? Perhaps God did intervene -- perfectly, the only way Omniscience can. He KNOWS what He is doing, right? Otherwise, He can't be God. And if He is not God, we are indeed pitiable, and lost.
"Come unto me, all you who labor, and I will give you rest." It is always a good thing to remember that the very first miracle that Jesus performed was to make more wine. Sounds exactly like the sort of message one would expect of a God who cares, who pays attention.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil, The New Yorker
The Gospel of Christ declares this: That God loves you more than He loves His own life, and even His own joy. Better to be with you in hell than in heaven without you. Better to crucify the Creator than to stop Creation. Better to bring God to a screeching halt than the hawk in its deadly flight. Better to bring God to the grave than Hitler to annihilation.
Strange, though, how few people point out that Hitler was indeed stopped. No one seems to thank God for that, do they? Perhaps God did intervene -- perfectly, the only way Omniscience can. He KNOWS what He is doing, right? Otherwise, He can't be God. And if He is not God, we are indeed pitiable, and lost.
"Come unto me, all you who labor, and I will give you rest." It is always a good thing to remember that the very first miracle that Jesus performed was to make more wine. Sounds exactly like the sort of message one would expect of a God who cares, who pays attention.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil, The New Yorker
Sunday, June 04, 2006
The Problem Of Knowing Good And Evil, Part III: To Hell With Jesus
[I post this essay with trepidation. It is a long entry in this series on good and evil. But it is a necessary one. That is not where my fear lies. I am afraid that I have gone too far. (Part I of this series begins here.)]
This series began with Pope Benedict XVI praying at Auschwitz. It won't end there, not because I am interested in following the Holy Father to another scene, but because the issue of good and evil has no earthly terminus. We will be asking questions until answers are finally given.
In the February 6, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, in an article called "Forgiveness", author Timothy W. Ryback discusses the Pope's difficult past –– of growing up in Nazi Germany and serving in the Hitler Youth and the Nazi military. But in Ryback's piece one reads the following about then-professor Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) teaching at the University of Tübingen as a young man:
This series began with Pope Benedict XVI praying at Auschwitz. It won't end there, not because I am interested in following the Holy Father to another scene, but because the issue of good and evil has no earthly terminus. We will be asking questions until answers are finally given.
In the February 6, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, in an article called "Forgiveness", author Timothy W. Ryback discusses the Pope's difficult past –– of growing up in Nazi Germany and serving in the Hitler Youth and the Nazi military. But in Ryback's piece one reads the following about then-professor Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) teaching at the University of Tübingen as a young man:
In 1966, when Ratzinger arrived in Tübingen, the university was a center of theological dispute. Students disrupted lectures with cries of "Verflucht sei Jesus!" ("To hell with Jesus!"). Protestant faculty members endorsed flyers denouncing the crucifix as "an expression of sadomasochistic glorification of suffering."We have already spoken of both human indifference and human culpability regarding suffering and evil. I have argued that humanity is remarkably silent about horrors, except when it comes to horrors and God, and then humanity is quite boisterous about God's alleged weakness, moral turpitude, indifference, or even His non-existence. If there is a God, God is to blame; He's the one who must give account, He is the one who must be judged. God is the source of horrors.
***
I cannot think of a more complex religious image: the Vicar of Christ, the Pope of the Holy Catholic Church, a former Hitler youth and soldier in the Nazi cult, standing at Auschwitz. It is a stillpoint; it is the crux of the matter. Can a sinner be a saint? Are redemption and sanctification possible? Does God love the indifferent and brutal as much as He loves the compassionate and merciful? Does God love the abuser as much as he loves the abused? Are Hitler and Elie Wiesel (a famous Holocaust survivor) loved equally by God?
There is something essentially Christian about Benedict XVI standing within the gates of death. There is something essentially Christian about the very idea of redemption: St. Paul, the outstanding Jew who was a murderer, is the quintessence of the Christian message: all are saved who would be saved. God, as St. Paul says, takes the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; He is a God of gracious irony, proving that grace, love and mercy always trump the rules. My own earthly father taught me this: he taught me that he loved me more than he loved his rules, his reputation, his honor. I was more important than a statute, a commandment. The sheep is more important than the sheepfold; a hole in the fence did not mean that the fence was broken but that a sheep was lost, and in jeopardy. God cares for the lost, He pursues them; and He finds them in order to make them whole. This is what my father taught me, and it is essentially Christ's message to the world.
And yet there is a whole world of people who believe that rules are God; that a lost sheep deserves his or her plight; that the fence should just be fixed to keep only the good sheep in, and the bad sheep out.
Perhaps I am rambling, but I ramble over brambles and thorns to get to one important point, a point that might indeed save one sheep from a disasterous decision, and that point is this: To hell with Jesus indeed!
There is something essentially Christian about Benedict XVI standing within the gates of death. There is something essentially Christian about the very idea of redemption: St. Paul, the outstanding Jew who was a murderer, is the quintessence of the Christian message: all are saved who would be saved. God, as St. Paul says, takes the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; He is a God of gracious irony, proving that grace, love and mercy always trump the rules. My own earthly father taught me this: he taught me that he loved me more than he loved his rules, his reputation, his honor. I was more important than a statute, a commandment. The sheep is more important than the sheepfold; a hole in the fence did not mean that the fence was broken but that a sheep was lost, and in jeopardy. God cares for the lost, He pursues them; and He finds them in order to make them whole. This is what my father taught me, and it is essentially Christ's message to the world.
And yet there is a whole world of people who believe that rules are God; that a lost sheep deserves his or her plight; that the fence should just be fixed to keep only the good sheep in, and the bad sheep out.
Perhaps I am rambling, but I ramble over brambles and thorns to get to one important point, a point that might indeed save one sheep from a disasterous decision, and that point is this: To hell with Jesus indeed!
***
I have said it before and I will say it again: The Christian gospel has it all exactly right. Christianity is separated from all other religions by having, not the valley climb to the summit, but the summit tumble down to the valley. There is no Moses climbing to receive a Word from God in the Gospel story; there is no Muhammad receiving the very words of a radically transcendent God whose message is all about making men better men. The message of Christianity is about a God tumbling to Hell in order to make God a better God. I border on blasphemy, I know, but hear me out.
***
Years ago I was painting a school gymnasium with a college friend when a horse fly, a large nasty bloodthirsty fly with stinging jaws, landed on my friend's leg. My friend was quick to snatch it, and, in the course of looking at it, my friend asked me if the pest was "one of the nasty biting flies". I told him that it was indeed, and that it was cousin to the smaller though no less nasty deer fly. To my horror, my friend pulled the wings off the fly and tossed it to the ground. "Suffer!" he shouted. I quickly walked over and crushed the wingless fly beneath my foot.
Odd that such a moment should have become a defining moment in my life. Earlier that year I had a young man in my dorm (I was an RA for three years) whose father, an atheist, threw out a stiff challenge to the idea of original sin or original culpability. "Why should God be upset with me if I cannot help but be a sinner? I did not ask to be born. How then am I accountable?" It is a great challenge, and I was stumped for months. But when I crushed the fly beneath my foot, I knew I had an answer. And that answer begins with the character of God. Was my friend, the wing-ripping, sardonic and merciless man before me, anything like the God of the universe? Did God delight in abusing that which itself was abusive; did God aim to punish a fly that was just being itself? Would a just God punish a being that had no choice but to be unpleasant?
The clarity with which I divined my way through the problem took the following course. I imagined that I, an outsider to the fly's world yet a being full of love for all flies, descended to the mere existence of a fly. I was, to a perfect match, a horsefly. And to the other flies I spoke:
I know that you do not know exactly what it is you do. But if I were to tell you that you were an awful, nasty creature, what would you say? If I told you that the things you bite, the things from which you draw your life, are injured viciously by you, and that they loathe you, would you care? Trust me when I say this: I am not blaming you. In fact, let me state that you were even made this way. I made you this way. But now I ask you this. What if I were to tell you that you could become something new, wonderful, lovely? What if I told you I could transform you, I could liberate you from this plight? Would you follow? Would you choose to be new, different, lovely, though still in essence who you were created to be? Would you choose to be more lovely than the butterflies if I promised you such wonder? Or would you reject me?
My question to you, dear reader, is this: If I really could transform the flies, if I really could deliver them from their plight and I showed them incontrovertibly that I could, who would be responsible if they refused? If the flies could be completely transformed and yet essentially remained their fully undifferentiated selves, and they refused so great a blessing, who is to blame if they chose to remain nasty biting bugs? Surely not their creator, even if He, indeed, had created them to bite. For now He was offering them a singular gift, a chance to participate in their creation; they were to be co-creators in their new lives. But, and here is a critical point, if they refused their new lives, they would be endorsing their viciousness as wonderful and desirable. In short, if they chose to be nasty and untransformed, they would become the sole creators of who and what they were.
For those who have an understanding of the problem of predestination and free will, we come to another crux, another crossroad. For here we see something amazing. Even if the creator of the flies made them to be vicious, should they refuse his offer, they have become their own creators, setting the creator free. The flies can no longer complain that they were made to be mean by someone else: they have freely made their decision, and they have continued in their evil ways. The flies have chosen, and their NO to the creator is the one thing that is truly their own: It is a wondrous act of free will.
However, should any fly choose to be transformed, should any fly choose to be a co-creator in his (or her) re-creation, that fly would make a startling pronouncement: I had nothing to do with it at all! For the fly, now more glorious than a butterfly, would announce that his choice was not of his making, as the wondrous world in which he lived was not his doing: "You see, I am indeed new, but I had nothing to do with either the option or the choosing. I did not present the choice to myself, it came to me; I did not create the idea of a butterfly, it came from above. My assent is hardly a choice. It is more that I have been chosen, for my creator came to me at a point in time with a wonderful bit of news; I did not come to HIM with the news, but He came to me." In other words, the transformed fly would say that his YES to the creator was not really his; he was predestined to be transformed. For he did not come up with the whole idea in the first place. And, as a result, both the creator and created were set free.
So in short, free will means saying NO; but it has nothing to do with saying YES.
Where does this fit in with the problem of evil? It fits right here: that Christ became a fly, was confronted by the vicious who could not be, on their own, otherwise; they submitted Him to capital punishment for making the cosmos in the first place; He died and descended to Hell, and returned as a transcendent butterfly with POWER. And then He said, "You've killed me. I've suffered. I've taken the blame for starting it all; I have taken your sins upon me and called them my own. And now the whole of sin is buried, hidden away, tossed into the abyss. I am the murderer, and the murdered; I am the rapist and the raped; I am the Nazi and the Jew. I have been all things in all ways in all times; you have punished me and I have succumbed. And now that you are no longer to blame, now what? Will you come to me now? For there is no one left to blame."
Odd that such a moment should have become a defining moment in my life. Earlier that year I had a young man in my dorm (I was an RA for three years) whose father, an atheist, threw out a stiff challenge to the idea of original sin or original culpability. "Why should God be upset with me if I cannot help but be a sinner? I did not ask to be born. How then am I accountable?" It is a great challenge, and I was stumped for months. But when I crushed the fly beneath my foot, I knew I had an answer. And that answer begins with the character of God. Was my friend, the wing-ripping, sardonic and merciless man before me, anything like the God of the universe? Did God delight in abusing that which itself was abusive; did God aim to punish a fly that was just being itself? Would a just God punish a being that had no choice but to be unpleasant?
The clarity with which I divined my way through the problem took the following course. I imagined that I, an outsider to the fly's world yet a being full of love for all flies, descended to the mere existence of a fly. I was, to a perfect match, a horsefly. And to the other flies I spoke:
I know that you do not know exactly what it is you do. But if I were to tell you that you were an awful, nasty creature, what would you say? If I told you that the things you bite, the things from which you draw your life, are injured viciously by you, and that they loathe you, would you care? Trust me when I say this: I am not blaming you. In fact, let me state that you were even made this way. I made you this way. But now I ask you this. What if I were to tell you that you could become something new, wonderful, lovely? What if I told you I could transform you, I could liberate you from this plight? Would you follow? Would you choose to be new, different, lovely, though still in essence who you were created to be? Would you choose to be more lovely than the butterflies if I promised you such wonder? Or would you reject me?
My question to you, dear reader, is this: If I really could transform the flies, if I really could deliver them from their plight and I showed them incontrovertibly that I could, who would be responsible if they refused? If the flies could be completely transformed and yet essentially remained their fully undifferentiated selves, and they refused so great a blessing, who is to blame if they chose to remain nasty biting bugs? Surely not their creator, even if He, indeed, had created them to bite. For now He was offering them a singular gift, a chance to participate in their creation; they were to be co-creators in their new lives. But, and here is a critical point, if they refused their new lives, they would be endorsing their viciousness as wonderful and desirable. In short, if they chose to be nasty and untransformed, they would become the sole creators of who and what they were.
For those who have an understanding of the problem of predestination and free will, we come to another crux, another crossroad. For here we see something amazing. Even if the creator of the flies made them to be vicious, should they refuse his offer, they have become their own creators, setting the creator free. The flies can no longer complain that they were made to be mean by someone else: they have freely made their decision, and they have continued in their evil ways. The flies have chosen, and their NO to the creator is the one thing that is truly their own: It is a wondrous act of free will.
However, should any fly choose to be transformed, should any fly choose to be a co-creator in his (or her) re-creation, that fly would make a startling pronouncement: I had nothing to do with it at all! For the fly, now more glorious than a butterfly, would announce that his choice was not of his making, as the wondrous world in which he lived was not his doing: "You see, I am indeed new, but I had nothing to do with either the option or the choosing. I did not present the choice to myself, it came to me; I did not create the idea of a butterfly, it came from above. My assent is hardly a choice. It is more that I have been chosen, for my creator came to me at a point in time with a wonderful bit of news; I did not come to HIM with the news, but He came to me." In other words, the transformed fly would say that his YES to the creator was not really his; he was predestined to be transformed. For he did not come up with the whole idea in the first place. And, as a result, both the creator and created were set free.
So in short, free will means saying NO; but it has nothing to do with saying YES.
Where does this fit in with the problem of evil? It fits right here: that Christ became a fly, was confronted by the vicious who could not be, on their own, otherwise; they submitted Him to capital punishment for making the cosmos in the first place; He died and descended to Hell, and returned as a transcendent butterfly with POWER. And then He said, "You've killed me. I've suffered. I've taken the blame for starting it all; I have taken your sins upon me and called them my own. And now the whole of sin is buried, hidden away, tossed into the abyss. I am the murderer, and the murdered; I am the rapist and the raped; I am the Nazi and the Jew. I have been all things in all ways in all times; you have punished me and I have succumbed. And now that you are no longer to blame, now what? Will you come to me now? For there is no one left to blame."
***
"Verflucht sei Jesus! To Hell with Jesus!" To Hell indeed. For it is the God that was believed to be vindictive and petty, mean and cold, that we discover in Christ is a different God: He is the God who SUFFERS, who succumbs to the death inherent in even the smallest sin. He would rather be in hell with us than in heaven without us. He has come, He has shown us that He is a different God. "Come unto me, and I will give you rest," He offers to Jew, Gentile, and Nazi alike. And yet, and yet …
There are those who refuse, who resist transformation, healing. And in so doing their NO to God becomes a YES to sorrow, sin, death, and suffering. They freely choose to be sole creators in their sorrow; and they resist the gentle Hand that reaches forward. God does not pull off wings; He does not say "Suffer!" We say it in every moment of resistance to transformation; and in keeping our pitiable sorrows we refuse to have our sins transformed to gems. We, those who protest against such grace, true protestants as we are, are the sadomasochists: it's not the God on the Cross who is sadist, masochist. It's the obdurate who view Him that way who are mired in sadomasochism.
Pope Benedict XVI, formerly a little boy in Nazi Germany who helped the Hitler cult perform even one heinous deed, is that perfect emblem of Christianity: The wise are confounded by the grace of a God who saves -- and transforms -- not only that which is lost, but that which is revolting. Grace abounds in Christianity, from sea to sea, star to sun, earth to hearth, Heart to heart. There is no peace without forgiveness, the forgiveness of God toward man, and man toward God; and, most importantly, man to man, woman to woman, brother to sister and Palestinian to Jew. There will be no end to woe without forgiveness. Mark my words.
Forgiveness always requires that something dies, is buried. And then comes the freedom. It is the gospel, the glad tidings. Glad indeed!
Peace to you.
(Concluding thoughts tomorrow, which begin here.)
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved. (Dedicated to James Saunders.)
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil,
The New Yorker
There are those who refuse, who resist transformation, healing. And in so doing their NO to God becomes a YES to sorrow, sin, death, and suffering. They freely choose to be sole creators in their sorrow; and they resist the gentle Hand that reaches forward. God does not pull off wings; He does not say "Suffer!" We say it in every moment of resistance to transformation; and in keeping our pitiable sorrows we refuse to have our sins transformed to gems. We, those who protest against such grace, true protestants as we are, are the sadomasochists: it's not the God on the Cross who is sadist, masochist. It's the obdurate who view Him that way who are mired in sadomasochism.
Pope Benedict XVI, formerly a little boy in Nazi Germany who helped the Hitler cult perform even one heinous deed, is that perfect emblem of Christianity: The wise are confounded by the grace of a God who saves -- and transforms -- not only that which is lost, but that which is revolting. Grace abounds in Christianity, from sea to sea, star to sun, earth to hearth, Heart to heart. There is no peace without forgiveness, the forgiveness of God toward man, and man toward God; and, most importantly, man to man, woman to woman, brother to sister and Palestinian to Jew. There will be no end to woe without forgiveness. Mark my words.
Forgiveness always requires that something dies, is buried. And then comes the freedom. It is the gospel, the glad tidings. Glad indeed!
Peace to you.
(Concluding thoughts tomorrow, which begin here.)
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved. (Dedicated to James Saunders.)
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil,
The New Yorker
Thursday, June 01, 2006
The Problem Of Knowing Good And Evil, Part II
In Part I of this series, I spoke of suffering, of evil and death; of the Holocaust. I discussed the problem of evil, that the existence of evil proves that God is weak, mean, or both; and that for many people the best conclusion drawn from the harsh realities of suffering is that there is no God at all.
I added my own thoughts on the problem of evil as classically defined, arguing that the problem ignores the obvious assumption in our definition of God, that God is omniscient. As an omniscient Being, God might know that the only way to eradicate evil and suffering from the cosmos is exactly the way we see events unfolding in our lives: omniscience IS at work in every tragedy and in every joy. In other words, God IS doing something, the very thing an all-wise God can only do; and it looks like Life. And it might very well be the case that God was not silent at all during the Holocaust. His voice may indeed have been quite strong. In fact, I have even heard it suggested that had Hitler not been distracted by the Jews in Germany, Poland, France; had Hitler instead ignored them and turned the German machinery of death, destruction and warfare on his enemies, he would have won World War II and far more than 6,000,000 Jews would have been killed. The suggestion posits a heroic idea, that the Jews were something of a glorious sacrifice that saved us all from Nazi tyranny: the Jews were freedom fighters even in their alleged weakness. It was the Jews who destroyed Hitler. Churchill and Roosevelt had nothing to do with it.
This is not an attempt on my part to palliate the evils of the Holocaust, nor am I trying to cheer up the surviving victims of Germany's death camps. I am making a point that God may have indeed been very much at work in profoundly effective and yet strange ways, which is what one would expect of an omniscient God. Omniscience, in fact, may behave in utterly bizarre and contradictory ways; and it may act in obscurity.
A couple of years ago, I had a bit of a spat with a local shop owner about suffering, God, justice. He followed me out to the sidewalk and, in the heat of debate said, "I've done more for the suffering of starving Africans than God ever has." I must say that I understand the sentiment behind this conceit, but I do not understand the conceit. God appears not to be doing anything most of the time; He does not seem to even care. But one of the real problems associated with evil is not that God doesn't care, it's that there is sweepingly broad empirical evidence that most humans don't care either.
About 15 years ago I received a phone call from an old friend grieving about the sad death of a young mother we both knew. My friend was angry at God, for God had let not only Penny (the dead woman) down, He let lots of others down, too. My friend wondered how God could choose not to heed the prayers of Penny and her son, or the prayers of countless people surrounding that tragedy. Even Penny believed that she would be healed! How could God not honor that? How could He be content with yet another motherless child?
After awhile I shared with my friend something that hit my conscience hard. I said that in all of the time that Penny was living, all 26 years of her life, not once had anyone called me to proclaim how glad they were that Penny existed. No one called to praise Penny's smile, her laughter, her sweet goodness. No one called me to praise God for His wonderful creation which was Penny in all her simple glory. No one called to complain that there was not MORE of Penny everywhere; and no one ever said that God was too kind to us all to have created such a wonderful woman in the first place. And yet, in spite of all this silence, people were now mad that God had taken Penny away. Before, there was no gladness around Penny, but after her death there was nothing but madness. No one praised God yesterday, and yet now people were poised to curse Him today.
My friend agreed, and I believe we were both changed during that phone call.
I am reminded of all this because we often expect an explanation for something taken from us without ever asking ourselves how we were given the thing to begin with. A man may be mad at God when his son is killed in a car wreck; but was he ever grateful to God that he even had a son who would, eventually, die?
What has come to surprise me about many reactions to death and suffering is that people respond with such surprise. When a child dies of a brain tumor or a woman is raped and murdered, one would think that such a thing had never before happened, judging by many survivors' reactions, particularly their reactions toward God. God is to blame, it seems, even though few people take the responsibility for suffering themselves. Like the shopkeeper who thinks he does more to alleviate sorrow than even God, many forget that they are perhaps the reason there is suffering at all. For surely each of us who has had a child knew about rape, murder, disease, fire, pestilence, earthquake, pedophilia, and car crashes BEFORE we had children; surely there is NO ONE on this planet choosing to have children who did not know about these things. And yet, AND YET, knowing this, knowing that death occurs every day; knowing that there are murderers and rapists and wars and droughts and suicides and divorce and cannibals and cancers, and that we nonetheless still choose to have children; all of this should lead us to one question, and one question only: When it comes to suffering and evil, who among us is NOT to blame?
Please note: I am responsible for every bit of suffering my child experiences in life, every bit. Why? Because I knew beforehand that dreadful things MAY happen; I might even have known that they WILL happen, and yet I (not anyone else) CHOSE to bring a child into this world. I am the source of suffering. If there was at least ONE thing I knew before reproducing a child, it was the simple fact that that child will someday DIE.
Interestingly, as I may be responsible for my child's sorrow, I cannot say that I am responsible for my child's joys. And this for the simple reason that before having a child I had no certainty that joy would come his or her way; but I was indeed certain that death MUST come. Life does not guarantee joy, and there is no proof that it ever did, or ever could, or ever will. But every graveyard is proof that even if there is joy, joy, eventually, falls into the ground. With family planning the only guarantee one has is death.
But since sorrow is one of life's guarantees, we can be glad that joy, should it come, is one of life's infinitely wonderful privileges. After all, there is no joy if one is entitled to it; there is no bliss if bliss is one's guaranteed right. Joy can only come in the form of a surprise or it is not joy. Hence, we take a gamble with every breath and in every birth. We hope, we pray; we throw our chance into the hand of omniscience. Surely we cannot blame God when things go wrong, particularly when we don't "blame" Him when things go remarkably right. But when things do go right, surely we are out there thanking God for the privilege of simple existence.
Well, one can only hope.
More tomorrow. [Part III begins here.]
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil
I added my own thoughts on the problem of evil as classically defined, arguing that the problem ignores the obvious assumption in our definition of God, that God is omniscient. As an omniscient Being, God might know that the only way to eradicate evil and suffering from the cosmos is exactly the way we see events unfolding in our lives: omniscience IS at work in every tragedy and in every joy. In other words, God IS doing something, the very thing an all-wise God can only do; and it looks like Life. And it might very well be the case that God was not silent at all during the Holocaust. His voice may indeed have been quite strong. In fact, I have even heard it suggested that had Hitler not been distracted by the Jews in Germany, Poland, France; had Hitler instead ignored them and turned the German machinery of death, destruction and warfare on his enemies, he would have won World War II and far more than 6,000,000 Jews would have been killed. The suggestion posits a heroic idea, that the Jews were something of a glorious sacrifice that saved us all from Nazi tyranny: the Jews were freedom fighters even in their alleged weakness. It was the Jews who destroyed Hitler. Churchill and Roosevelt had nothing to do with it.
This is not an attempt on my part to palliate the evils of the Holocaust, nor am I trying to cheer up the surviving victims of Germany's death camps. I am making a point that God may have indeed been very much at work in profoundly effective and yet strange ways, which is what one would expect of an omniscient God. Omniscience, in fact, may behave in utterly bizarre and contradictory ways; and it may act in obscurity.
A couple of years ago, I had a bit of a spat with a local shop owner about suffering, God, justice. He followed me out to the sidewalk and, in the heat of debate said, "I've done more for the suffering of starving Africans than God ever has." I must say that I understand the sentiment behind this conceit, but I do not understand the conceit. God appears not to be doing anything most of the time; He does not seem to even care. But one of the real problems associated with evil is not that God doesn't care, it's that there is sweepingly broad empirical evidence that most humans don't care either.
About 15 years ago I received a phone call from an old friend grieving about the sad death of a young mother we both knew. My friend was angry at God, for God had let not only Penny (the dead woman) down, He let lots of others down, too. My friend wondered how God could choose not to heed the prayers of Penny and her son, or the prayers of countless people surrounding that tragedy. Even Penny believed that she would be healed! How could God not honor that? How could He be content with yet another motherless child?
After awhile I shared with my friend something that hit my conscience hard. I said that in all of the time that Penny was living, all 26 years of her life, not once had anyone called me to proclaim how glad they were that Penny existed. No one called to praise Penny's smile, her laughter, her sweet goodness. No one called me to praise God for His wonderful creation which was Penny in all her simple glory. No one called to complain that there was not MORE of Penny everywhere; and no one ever said that God was too kind to us all to have created such a wonderful woman in the first place. And yet, in spite of all this silence, people were now mad that God had taken Penny away. Before, there was no gladness around Penny, but after her death there was nothing but madness. No one praised God yesterday, and yet now people were poised to curse Him today.
My friend agreed, and I believe we were both changed during that phone call.
***
I am reminded of something G. K. Chesterton once said. He imagined a rather randy man complaining to God about women and matrimony. "Explain to me God why I can't be with all women?" the man might have asked. To which God replied, "If it comes to that, explain to me why you can be with even one woman?" Chesterton went further, suggesting that Adam and Eve, given the entire cosmos and yet prevented from having just one thing -- an apple -- might have asked God something similar: "Explain to us why we can keep everything we have if we don't have just one thing? Explain why we can't have the apple, too?" God's reply? "Well, if it comes to that, explain the apple."I am reminded of all this because we often expect an explanation for something taken from us without ever asking ourselves how we were given the thing to begin with. A man may be mad at God when his son is killed in a car wreck; but was he ever grateful to God that he even had a son who would, eventually, die?
What has come to surprise me about many reactions to death and suffering is that people respond with such surprise. When a child dies of a brain tumor or a woman is raped and murdered, one would think that such a thing had never before happened, judging by many survivors' reactions, particularly their reactions toward God. God is to blame, it seems, even though few people take the responsibility for suffering themselves. Like the shopkeeper who thinks he does more to alleviate sorrow than even God, many forget that they are perhaps the reason there is suffering at all. For surely each of us who has had a child knew about rape, murder, disease, fire, pestilence, earthquake, pedophilia, and car crashes BEFORE we had children; surely there is NO ONE on this planet choosing to have children who did not know about these things. And yet, AND YET, knowing this, knowing that death occurs every day; knowing that there are murderers and rapists and wars and droughts and suicides and divorce and cannibals and cancers, and that we nonetheless still choose to have children; all of this should lead us to one question, and one question only: When it comes to suffering and evil, who among us is NOT to blame?
Please note: I am responsible for every bit of suffering my child experiences in life, every bit. Why? Because I knew beforehand that dreadful things MAY happen; I might even have known that they WILL happen, and yet I (not anyone else) CHOSE to bring a child into this world. I am the source of suffering. If there was at least ONE thing I knew before reproducing a child, it was the simple fact that that child will someday DIE.
Interestingly, as I may be responsible for my child's sorrow, I cannot say that I am responsible for my child's joys. And this for the simple reason that before having a child I had no certainty that joy would come his or her way; but I was indeed certain that death MUST come. Life does not guarantee joy, and there is no proof that it ever did, or ever could, or ever will. But every graveyard is proof that even if there is joy, joy, eventually, falls into the ground. With family planning the only guarantee one has is death.
But since sorrow is one of life's guarantees, we can be glad that joy, should it come, is one of life's infinitely wonderful privileges. After all, there is no joy if one is entitled to it; there is no bliss if bliss is one's guaranteed right. Joy can only come in the form of a surprise or it is not joy. Hence, we take a gamble with every breath and in every birth. We hope, we pray; we throw our chance into the hand of omniscience. Surely we cannot blame God when things go wrong, particularly when we don't "blame" Him when things go remarkably right. But when things do go right, surely we are out there thanking God for the privilege of simple existence.
Well, one can only hope.
More tomorrow. [Part III begins here.]
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Problem Of Knowing Good And Evil, Part I
Perhaps this will not help at all.
Pope Benedict XVI stood at Auschwitz this past weekend. He entered death chambers. He knelt before the gates of death, and he prayed. And then there was a rainbow.
It is not that the several elements, the prayers and presence of a Pope and a rainbow, are causally connected. It is that we hope they are.
Auschwitz is that geographic point that exists like an oracular black hole. Oracles, as you know, were where pilgrims traveled to hear news from the divine, hopefully good news, though usually not. Auschwitz is like an oracle in reverse: there is nothing proclaimed there, only asked. But no answer comes in that crushing dark, the oppressive silence. Auschwitz is the place of questions, the abyss with no answers. We plead for God, and God hides behind veils of smoke, the smoke of burning bodies. Atop gas chambers, birds sing. God says nothing.
The problem of evil, at least in theology, is framed something like this: If God is all-powerful and all-good, He could or would stop evil. Since there is evil, God is either not all-powerful or all-good. Many philosophers have chosen to dismiss God as not all-powerful, needing God to be at least all-benevolent. Many have rejected the idea of God altogether in light of the facts of evil and suffering. And a few malcontents have chosen to see God as so much badness, a real sadist in the sky.
Those theologians and philosophers who believe that God must be both omnipotent and benevolent often defend Him by noting God's free choice to give humanity free will; as such, He permitted us to make a mess of things. And so we have. Of course, really shrewd thinkers note that if God did in fact design humanity and the cosmos this way He is still responsible for starting the whole thing in the first place. Free will arguments don't really absolve God of apparent culpability.
Pope Benedict XVI, like countless other people before him, stood at Auschwitz and asked, “Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?" Of course, I recognize that the Holy Father is asking the question rhetorically; that he is revealing his humanity, his compassion, and his ability to identify with doubt, sorrow, pain. He is like the Psalmist, or like the prophets before him: How long, O, Lord, will you let our enemies prevail? Even the Christian Savior asked in His darkest hours, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Women huddled in a gas chamber asked the question with perfect lucidity.
If readers will permit, I would like to confront the problem of evil (theodicy) in a few posts here at Contratimes. And the first place I would like to start is with the problem itself. For it strikes me as self-evident that the classic problem, that God can't be either omnipotent or benevolent before the facts of evil, is thoroughly wrong-headed.
Not long ago I called a radio talk program to join in on a conversation about this very problem. The guest was a former professor of mine, Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, and I asked if anyone had considered whether perhaps an omniscient God, one knowing everything in a state of all-wisdom, would KNOW that the only way to overcome evil in the world is to overcome evil exactly the way we see things working out every day. For all any one of us knows, an all-wise God would say to us, "You know, I am destroying evil, I am alleviating suffering; and this is the ONLY way for me to do so. This is omniscience intervening." In other words, omniscience would know exactly how to destroy the evil and suffering that besets all creatures, and that destruction might be what we are witnessing in every breath and in every sunset. There can be no other way. Should God just step in and stop, for instance, Hitler from killing Jews, then a far greater evil may follow. Oddly, the talk show host would have none of this: She wanted to blame God for being weak or malevolent. She could not buy the idea of omniscience. And I believe that she could not buy it because she had never thought of it before.
Peter Kreeft, as would be expected of a philosopher, ran with the question. He added that some have speculated that if Hitler had not committed suicide, for example, and that he was instead arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, we might find ourselves living under the dreaded Nazi flag today. For a person cannot tell how one thing ultimately influences another; one cannot tell what is materially the less evil path in the long run. One can only hope; one can only stand on principles when confronting injustice and evil. But one cannot know, unless one is God, whether one's actions will have an ill or healthy effect on the world. Kreeft's words were engaging, and correct.
Hopefully Dr. Kreeft won't mind if I put his words differently. If it were up to us, our battle with evil might be a bit like administering antibiotics: they appear to work as a victorious solution to infections, but in the long run, antibiotics may in fact have weakened humanity's innate abilities to self-immunize. The infections we beat short-term may have been overcome long-term by themselves had we just waited long enough for the human immune system to evolve. One simply does not know. Nor does doltish humanity know what God's sudden "dramatic" intervention might look like, or what effect it might have.
But the assumption in all theological discussions is that God does indeed know. God is either omniscient or He is not. If He is not, it is awfully hard to call Him God. And if He is omniscient, then one can only conclude that the very reality we are in is the best reality for overcoming sin, evil and suffering. To return to the antibiotic image for a second, it would be wrong for a sceptic to conclude that because there is a battle between cells in a person's body the antibiotics are not working, for the battle is proof that they are. If anyone concludes that an antibiotic that does not work "fast enough" (for whom?) or "well enough" is neither potent nor good, that person should be reminded that there are plenty of measures one can take to instantly and completely eradicate an infection. Killing the patient is one such measure. But good doctors are a bit like God. They are wise to the idea that killing the bad often takes time so as not to kill the good. God could perhaps instantly wipe the earth clean of all evil, but what would be left, and where is the wisdom in that?
And yet there is one more thing that complicates matters, and it is a hard pill to swallow: God is that antibody that loves everyone. In other words, God, who is love as well as justice, and who exists as the only all-wise being, loves the very persons many of us consider evil. This is alarming for many of us, but it is Christianity's truest, boldest and most controversial assertion: God loved the Jews in the gas chambers as much as he loved Hitler outside them; God loves the victimizer as much as any victim. It is almost too difficult to even write, let alone admit into one's reflections on these matters. But it must be true. God cannot HATE what we might hate; His wisdom must not be void of love or justice, nor can His love and justice be void of wisdom. God loved Hitler, and all other disgusting tyrants, as much as He loves any of us. And we know Christ the Shepherd leaves the beloved flock to find the one beloved stray, even if that stray is a rebel. That is the most difficult problem in the eradication of evil: How does God eradicate it without destroying everybody, and everything? How does God purge humanity of evil without destroying the entire body?
Only an omniscient Being has the knowledge, and power, to do that. Or there is no such Being at all.
More tomorrow, I hope. (Part II begins here.)
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Related post at WI Catholic can be read here.]
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil
Pope Benedict XVI stood at Auschwitz this past weekend. He entered death chambers. He knelt before the gates of death, and he prayed. And then there was a rainbow.
It is not that the several elements, the prayers and presence of a Pope and a rainbow, are causally connected. It is that we hope they are.
Auschwitz is that geographic point that exists like an oracular black hole. Oracles, as you know, were where pilgrims traveled to hear news from the divine, hopefully good news, though usually not. Auschwitz is like an oracle in reverse: there is nothing proclaimed there, only asked. But no answer comes in that crushing dark, the oppressive silence. Auschwitz is the place of questions, the abyss with no answers. We plead for God, and God hides behind veils of smoke, the smoke of burning bodies. Atop gas chambers, birds sing. God says nothing.
The problem of evil, at least in theology, is framed something like this: If God is all-powerful and all-good, He could or would stop evil. Since there is evil, God is either not all-powerful or all-good. Many philosophers have chosen to dismiss God as not all-powerful, needing God to be at least all-benevolent. Many have rejected the idea of God altogether in light of the facts of evil and suffering. And a few malcontents have chosen to see God as so much badness, a real sadist in the sky.
Those theologians and philosophers who believe that God must be both omnipotent and benevolent often defend Him by noting God's free choice to give humanity free will; as such, He permitted us to make a mess of things. And so we have. Of course, really shrewd thinkers note that if God did in fact design humanity and the cosmos this way He is still responsible for starting the whole thing in the first place. Free will arguments don't really absolve God of apparent culpability.
Pope Benedict XVI, like countless other people before him, stood at Auschwitz and asked, “Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?" Of course, I recognize that the Holy Father is asking the question rhetorically; that he is revealing his humanity, his compassion, and his ability to identify with doubt, sorrow, pain. He is like the Psalmist, or like the prophets before him: How long, O, Lord, will you let our enemies prevail? Even the Christian Savior asked in His darkest hours, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Women huddled in a gas chamber asked the question with perfect lucidity.
If readers will permit, I would like to confront the problem of evil (theodicy) in a few posts here at Contratimes. And the first place I would like to start is with the problem itself. For it strikes me as self-evident that the classic problem, that God can't be either omnipotent or benevolent before the facts of evil, is thoroughly wrong-headed.
Not long ago I called a radio talk program to join in on a conversation about this very problem. The guest was a former professor of mine, Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft, and I asked if anyone had considered whether perhaps an omniscient God, one knowing everything in a state of all-wisdom, would KNOW that the only way to overcome evil in the world is to overcome evil exactly the way we see things working out every day. For all any one of us knows, an all-wise God would say to us, "You know, I am destroying evil, I am alleviating suffering; and this is the ONLY way for me to do so. This is omniscience intervening." In other words, omniscience would know exactly how to destroy the evil and suffering that besets all creatures, and that destruction might be what we are witnessing in every breath and in every sunset. There can be no other way. Should God just step in and stop, for instance, Hitler from killing Jews, then a far greater evil may follow. Oddly, the talk show host would have none of this: She wanted to blame God for being weak or malevolent. She could not buy the idea of omniscience. And I believe that she could not buy it because she had never thought of it before.
Peter Kreeft, as would be expected of a philosopher, ran with the question. He added that some have speculated that if Hitler had not committed suicide, for example, and that he was instead arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, we might find ourselves living under the dreaded Nazi flag today. For a person cannot tell how one thing ultimately influences another; one cannot tell what is materially the less evil path in the long run. One can only hope; one can only stand on principles when confronting injustice and evil. But one cannot know, unless one is God, whether one's actions will have an ill or healthy effect on the world. Kreeft's words were engaging, and correct.
Hopefully Dr. Kreeft won't mind if I put his words differently. If it were up to us, our battle with evil might be a bit like administering antibiotics: they appear to work as a victorious solution to infections, but in the long run, antibiotics may in fact have weakened humanity's innate abilities to self-immunize. The infections we beat short-term may have been overcome long-term by themselves had we just waited long enough for the human immune system to evolve. One simply does not know. Nor does doltish humanity know what God's sudden "dramatic" intervention might look like, or what effect it might have.
But the assumption in all theological discussions is that God does indeed know. God is either omniscient or He is not. If He is not, it is awfully hard to call Him God. And if He is omniscient, then one can only conclude that the very reality we are in is the best reality for overcoming sin, evil and suffering. To return to the antibiotic image for a second, it would be wrong for a sceptic to conclude that because there is a battle between cells in a person's body the antibiotics are not working, for the battle is proof that they are. If anyone concludes that an antibiotic that does not work "fast enough" (for whom?) or "well enough" is neither potent nor good, that person should be reminded that there are plenty of measures one can take to instantly and completely eradicate an infection. Killing the patient is one such measure. But good doctors are a bit like God. They are wise to the idea that killing the bad often takes time so as not to kill the good. God could perhaps instantly wipe the earth clean of all evil, but what would be left, and where is the wisdom in that?
And yet there is one more thing that complicates matters, and it is a hard pill to swallow: God is that antibody that loves everyone. In other words, God, who is love as well as justice, and who exists as the only all-wise being, loves the very persons many of us consider evil. This is alarming for many of us, but it is Christianity's truest, boldest and most controversial assertion: God loved the Jews in the gas chambers as much as he loved Hitler outside them; God loves the victimizer as much as any victim. It is almost too difficult to even write, let alone admit into one's reflections on these matters. But it must be true. God cannot HATE what we might hate; His wisdom must not be void of love or justice, nor can His love and justice be void of wisdom. God loved Hitler, and all other disgusting tyrants, as much as He loves any of us. And we know Christ the Shepherd leaves the beloved flock to find the one beloved stray, even if that stray is a rebel. That is the most difficult problem in the eradication of evil: How does God eradicate it without destroying everybody, and everything? How does God purge humanity of evil without destroying the entire body?
Only an omniscient Being has the knowledge, and power, to do that. Or there is no such Being at all.
More tomorrow, I hope. (Part II begins here.)
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[Related post at WI Catholic can be read here.]
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil
Monday, May 29, 2006
Why Forget?
In America, today is Memorial Day. It is a very patriotic day. In honor of this holiday, I recommend this essay by Wade Zirkle. It is quite good.
As Canadian singer-songwriter Bruce Cockburn once wrote, "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight/Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight."
We keep kicking.
As Canadian singer-songwriter Bruce Cockburn once wrote, "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight/Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight."
We keep kicking.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Contratimes Writing Tip #1: Behold The Verb
I hear a lot from folks who wish they could become better writers. I empathize: I want to be a better writer, too. So, I am excited to announce a new thing here at Contratimes: Contratimes Writing Tips. I hope you will find this occasional feature helpful as you strive to perfect your craft.
One little note: there is nothing said here that is absolute (at least I don't think it is). Writing is a varied and wondrous art. It is impossible to reduce it to simple rules. The tips that are presented here will be exactly that –– tips –– simple suggestions that will help and hopefully never hurt. Consider them little tricks to add to your repertoire.
Tip #1. Use strong verbs
Great writers are surely masters of description, fixing a reader's attention to the essential details of scene, place, time. But most emerging writers misunderstand this part of a writer's very essential work: They think and see adjectives, missing the verbs. Hence, young writers in particular are all about adjectives, jamming descriptives here and there and just about everywhere else.
Pretty good, eh?
Now how about this:
OK. Maybe not any better, but you get the point. Great writing bursts not with static but active description. Readers don't really care if the flames are red, they want to know what the flames are doing, eating, ravaging, scorching. Readers don't care if a man is wearing Ralph Lauren when he is moving down the sidewalk, they care that he is sprinting. Think action, not adjective. Paint with verbs.
Seriously, great writers use great verbs.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Writing Tips, Writing
One little note: there is nothing said here that is absolute (at least I don't think it is). Writing is a varied and wondrous art. It is impossible to reduce it to simple rules. The tips that are presented here will be exactly that –– tips –– simple suggestions that will help and hopefully never hurt. Consider them little tricks to add to your repertoire.
Tip #1. Use strong verbs
Great writers are surely masters of description, fixing a reader's attention to the essential details of scene, place, time. But most emerging writers misunderstand this part of a writer's very essential work: They think and see adjectives, missing the verbs. Hence, young writers in particular are all about adjectives, jamming descriptives here and there and just about everywhere else.
Yesterday morning, while wearing a mauve IZOD polo shirt, Eddie Bauer chinos and Sperry Top Siders, I walked out of my red aluminum office breezeway and noticed something across the asphalt street. The red brick schoolhouse, built in a rococo style, was on fire. Great red and orange flames could be seen against the midnight-dark smoke. Immediately I went to the nearby firehouse, a red cedar and pine gambrel nestled between two large red maples, and I told the fire chief the news. Red firetrucks quickly left the red cedar-with-a-barn-motif firehouse and went to the scene.
Now how about this:
Yesterday, when I stepped out of my office, I spotted smoke pouring out of the school across the street. Brilliant flames crackled behind the windows, with panes of glass bursting out everywhere. I rushed to the nearby firehouse, screaming for help. Firefighters instantly bolted toward the scene; firetrucks raced madly down the street, sirens blaring. Hoses were pulled, ladders raised. Flames hissed and steamed at blasts of water jetting through shattered glass as firemen frantically aimed their nozzles. One fireman, teetering on the slippery roof, smashed massive holes through broken tiles, as plumes of heat belched forth in swirling, volcanic fury. Smoke blacked out the sun. Paramedics scrambled toward victims. It seemed the whole street trembled ...
Seriously, great writers use great verbs.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Writing Tips, Writing
The Lion Of The Tribe Of Joy
[Just a simple, and playful, Sunday meditation.]On several occasions I have had the distinct pleasure of holding (and playing with) lion and leopard cubs. There is nothing particularly noteworthy in such a simple fact other than that such creatures make the heart burst. There is truly a feral ferocity inside even the tiniest cub, and yet that cub will nonetheless play and frolic till it faints.
And it will also purr.
I know Aslan, that wondrous leonine creature, was a stirring prince of peace, or so Clive Staples Lewis (ouch!) suggests in his fantastic portrait of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. But I wonder if Mr. Lewis had ever been in the presence of a Siberian tiger. For while the African lion is indeed rather regal, the Siberian tiger makes all other cats, including the King of the African savannah, look like they are on training wheels.
I recall the first moment I encountered a Siberian, its massive body moving with a grace only great power can achieve. It was a giant male. When he saw me he moved quickly toward my side of his cage (how sad!), rubbing his snout on steel bars, spreading pheremones released from scent-glands hidden somewhere on that glorious face.
And he was purring†.
A cat's purr remains something of a mystery. Is the purring mechanism part of the respiratory or circulatory system of felines, or is it a little of both? What purpose does it serve? Is it a sign of contentment?
That it is a sign of contentment is perhaps a hopeful projection, a hopeful anthropomorphism we need to lavish on our favorite pets and favored mammals. But there is something to it. Veterinarians report that gravely wounded cats purr right to the brink of death; that some cats even purr during surgery. Some experts suspect that purring has a healing and sedating quality; that cats not only comfort but heal themselves with a restorative rumble deep inside their breasts, a sonorous agency emanating not far from their hearts. In fact, studies have shown that the frequency of a cat's purr is identical to that used in successful therapies where sound is used to regenerate compromised bone. It is all too much to comprehend.
If Jesus is indeed the Lion (or Siberian tiger) of the Tribe of Judah, one wonders if he purrs with an archetypal resonance. Did the woman reaching for the hem of his garment hear first a purr? Did Jesus purr as he knelt beside Jairus' dead daughter, or stood, weeping, outside Lazarus' crypt? Did the formerly deaf report a sound like feline contentment the moment Jesus touched them? One can only hope.
And one can only hope that the earth shook with a great purr as Jesus tumbled from the Cross, descending to hell; and that the sepulchre's stone gate was rolled away by the Lion of Judah purring Himself -- and you and me and everyone else -- to wholeness.
There is something merry in all of this, no? Is there nothing more mirthful than a person healed? raised from the dead? Indeed, there is not. But to think that it might all have something to do with kittens, well, that is merriment almost beyond measure.
Find a kitten, or any old cat. Lie on your back. Place your feline friend on your heart. Pet your way to peace. Purr a prayer of gratitude, and be healed.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†It is important to note that my assertion that a tiger purrs is a debatable one. One source argues that if a cat can roar it cannot purr; another suggests that big cats purr only while exhaling. However, every source I've read on this matter concedes that the purring mechanism is not entirely respiratory, nor is it entirely circulatory: it seems it might be a little of each (as I said above). But if I concede that what I've heard is not a purr, so be it. This post is more about what I'd like and not so much about what is. It is about being healed by the beauty which is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.
PS. Though I am a photographer who occasionally posts pictures here, the above photo is not one of mine. A note of appreciation to Brent Rasmussen for the link. Great shot, no?
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Guilty, With Pardon To Follow: Enron Perversities
It is good to hear that justice has been served. Former ENRON executives Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skillings have been found guilty in a court of law in what can only be described as a decisive jury verdict.
But there is more to it than meets the eye. I wonder if you can recall hearing the constant, snarky remarks during the 2004 US presidential campaign, or the Martha Stewart insider-trading fiasco, that US President Bush and his minions were quick to mete out justice on lesser-knowns or lesser-crimes, but were flat-out protecting ENRON from prosecution (it was a popular Howard Dean mantra). Martha Stewart was in jail, critics announced incredulously, while Ken Lay walked about freely. It was the perfect stuff for fomenting anti-Bush sentiments.
Today, how things have changed. It appears that the Bush Administration has brought a powerful conviction upon the now impotent power company, and this despite the near-constant reminders that ENRON contributed money to the Bush campaign. Martha went to jail for a few months; she did her time and is now, once again, flourishing. But there is hardly a doubt that should Lay and Skillings get their chance at flourishing, they will do so as very old men. Their time has come, and it is long.
But there must be some sort of liberal interpretation in all of this, no? Surely it can't simply be that justice was served, that campaign contributions in Bush's case are shown not to have been bribes, that ENRON's contributions hardly made the President's notice? No, of course it can't be that easy. Daily Kos' Darksyde has posted moments ago his prediction: President Bush is going to pardon his buddy Ken Lay. Not that there is any evidence Bush is going to pardon anybody. To do so would not only be scandalous, it would be nefarious (and bad politics for Republicans). No one pardons bad guys like that. No one, of course, other than Bill Clinton, who did indeed pardon a bad guy, Marc Rich. Not that any of that matters. It's just good to make note of the sort of pattern set by that singular President who surely inspired so many writers† at Daily Kos.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†There is no suggestion here that Daily Kos' Darksyde was a Clinton supporter.
Technorati tags: Marc Rich, Enron, Enron, Enron, Jeffrey Skilling, Martha Stewart, Daily Kos
But there is more to it than meets the eye. I wonder if you can recall hearing the constant, snarky remarks during the 2004 US presidential campaign, or the Martha Stewart insider-trading fiasco, that US President Bush and his minions were quick to mete out justice on lesser-knowns or lesser-crimes, but were flat-out protecting ENRON from prosecution (it was a popular Howard Dean mantra). Martha Stewart was in jail, critics announced incredulously, while Ken Lay walked about freely. It was the perfect stuff for fomenting anti-Bush sentiments.
Today, how things have changed. It appears that the Bush Administration has brought a powerful conviction upon the now impotent power company, and this despite the near-constant reminders that ENRON contributed money to the Bush campaign. Martha went to jail for a few months; she did her time and is now, once again, flourishing. But there is hardly a doubt that should Lay and Skillings get their chance at flourishing, they will do so as very old men. Their time has come, and it is long.
But there must be some sort of liberal interpretation in all of this, no? Surely it can't simply be that justice was served, that campaign contributions in Bush's case are shown not to have been bribes, that ENRON's contributions hardly made the President's notice? No, of course it can't be that easy. Daily Kos' Darksyde has posted moments ago his prediction: President Bush is going to pardon his buddy Ken Lay. Not that there is any evidence Bush is going to pardon anybody. To do so would not only be scandalous, it would be nefarious (and bad politics for Republicans). No one pardons bad guys like that. No one, of course, other than Bill Clinton, who did indeed pardon a bad guy, Marc Rich. Not that any of that matters. It's just good to make note of the sort of pattern set by that singular President who surely inspired so many writers† at Daily Kos.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†There is no suggestion here that Daily Kos' Darksyde was a Clinton supporter.
Technorati tags: Marc Rich, Enron, Enron, Enron, Jeffrey Skilling, Martha Stewart, Daily Kos
The Pope Answers A Question
Many detractors of Christianity are critical not so much of the Faith but the faithful. Christians, you see, are regarded as being rather dumb. And indeed there are dumb Christians, just like there are dumb Muslims, Rastafarians, and graduates of Harvard. Dumbness is not unique to any one group other than that group which willfully chooses to be, in fact, dumb (call it the DeMensa Society). But there is nothing unusual or anomalous, or so I suspect, about the number of dumb Christians. Dumbness is shared equally, from atheist to theist. And even geniuses are occasionally known to stumble about stupidly.
But Christians (and other religious) are often dismissed as dumb not because they are intrinsically stupid but because they are deemed contra-rational. This is mostly a popular man-on-the-street sort of notion; professional academics know better. But the usual saw that is often heard is the one squeaking on about how Christians are all about blind faith, while the thinking and independent person is all about wide-eyed reason.
I will leave the debate for another time. Instead I turn to Pope Benedict XVI's recent response to a student's question about the mutuality of Christian revelation and scientific inquiry. Richard John Neuhaus, the eminent Catholic writer, brought Benedict's remarks to the attention of readers of First Things, Neuhaus' outstanding journal. Neuhaus reports that it is a rarity that a pope would answer questions in a question-and-answer forum with on-the-record replies. Please note two things: the thoughtfulness of the 17-year-old's question to which the Pope replies, and the erudition–and nuance–of the Pope's reply. Regarding the former, I know I could not have asked such a question at 17 years old; regarding the latter, I know I could never respond off-hand with such clarity, depth and reflection.
The following is clipped from ZENIT, a Catholic news organization based in Rome:
I know that there might be more than a few readers who will argue that the Pope is arguing just another form of the ontological argument for the existence of God (that ideas correspond with Being and must be caused by such), or even the cosmological one (from design, i.e. that subjective reason and objective reality coincide rather nicely). But the fact is this: Father Benedict has offered a very reasoned and intelligent reply to a very intelligent question. It may not be a right reply–I think it is–but it ought not be discounted as either thoughtless or dumb.
Peace and mirth.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, First Things, ZENIT, Richard John Neuhaus, Galileo, Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument
But Christians (and other religious) are often dismissed as dumb not because they are intrinsically stupid but because they are deemed contra-rational. This is mostly a popular man-on-the-street sort of notion; professional academics know better. But the usual saw that is often heard is the one squeaking on about how Christians are all about blind faith, while the thinking and independent person is all about wide-eyed reason.
I will leave the debate for another time. Instead I turn to Pope Benedict XVI's recent response to a student's question about the mutuality of Christian revelation and scientific inquiry. Richard John Neuhaus, the eminent Catholic writer, brought Benedict's remarks to the attention of readers of First Things, Neuhaus' outstanding journal. Neuhaus reports that it is a rarity that a pope would answer questions in a question-and-answer forum with on-the-record replies. Please note two things: the thoughtfulness of the 17-year-old's question to which the Pope replies, and the erudition–and nuance–of the Pope's reply. Regarding the former, I know I could not have asked such a question at 17 years old; regarding the latter, I know I could never respond off-hand with such clarity, depth and reflection.
The following is clipped from ZENIT, a Catholic news organization based in Rome:
Holy Father, I am Giovanni, I am 17 years old, I am studying at Giovanni Giorgi technological and scientific secondary school in Rome, and I belong to Holy Mary Mother of Mercy Parish.
I ask you to help us to understand better how biblical revelation and scientific theory can converge in the search for truth.
We are often led to believe that knowledge and faith are each other's enemies; that knowledge and technology are the same thing; that it was through mathematical logic that everything was discovered; that the world is the result of an accident, and that if mathematics did not discover the theorem-God, it is because God simply does not exist.
In short, especially when we are studying, it is not always easy to trace everything back to a divine plan inherent in the nature and history of human beings. Thus, faith at times vacillates or is reduced to a simple sentimental act.
Holy Father, like all young people, I too am thirsting for the truth: But what can I do to harmonize knowledge and faith?
Benedict XVI: The great Galileo said that God wrote the book of nature in the form of the language of mathematics. He was convinced that God has given us two books: the book of sacred Scripture and the book of nature. And the language of nature -- this was his conviction -- is mathematics, so it is a language of God, a language of the Creator.
Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: In itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.
The surprising thing is that this invention of our human intellect is truly the key to understanding nature, that nature is truly structured in a mathematical way, and that our mathematics, invented by our human mind, is truly the instrument for working with nature, to put it at our service, to use it through technology.
It seems to me almost incredible that an invention of the human mind and the structure of the universe coincide. Mathematics, which we invented, really gives us access to the nature of the universe and makes it possible for us to use it.
Therefore, the intellectual structure of the human subject and the objective structure of reality coincide: The subjective reason and the objective reason of nature are identical. I think that this coincidence between what we thought up and how nature is fulfilled and behaves is a great enigma and a great challenge, for we see that, in the end, it is "one" reason that links them both.
Our reason could not discover this other reason were there not an identical antecedent reason for both.
In this sense it really seems to me that mathematics -- in which as such God cannot appear -- shows us the intelligent structure of the universe. Now, there are also theories of chaos, but they are limited because if chaos had the upper hand, all technology would become impossible. Only because our mathematics is reliable, is technology reliable.
Our knowledge, which is at last making it possible to work with the energies of nature, supposes the reliable and intelligent structure of matter. Thus, we see that there is a subjective rationality and an objectified rationality in matter which coincide.
Of course, no one can now prove -- as is proven in an experiment, in technical laws -- that they both really originated in a single intelligence, but it seems to me that this unity of intelligence, behind the two intelligences, really appears in our world. And the more we can delve into the world with our intelligence, the more clearly the plan of Creation appears.
In the end, to reach the definitive question I would say: God exists or he does not exist. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of creative reason that is at the beginning of all things and is the principle of all things -- the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom -- or one holds the priority of the irrational, inasmuch as everything that functions on our earth and in our lives would be only accidental, marginal, an irrational result -- reason would be a product of irrationality.
One cannot ultimately "prove" either project, but the great option of Christianity is the option for rationality and for the priority of reason. This seems to me to be an excellent option, which shows us that behind everything is a great Intelligence to which we can entrust ourselves.
However, the true problem challenging faith today seems to me to be the evil in the world: We ask ourselves how it can be compatible with the Creator's rationality. And here we truly need God, who was made flesh and shows us that he is not only a mathematical reason but that this original reason is also love. If we look at the great options, the Christian option today is the one that is the most rational and the most human.
Therefore, we can confidently work out a philosophy, a vision of the world based on this priority of reason, on this trust that the creating reason is love and that this love is God.
I know that there might be more than a few readers who will argue that the Pope is arguing just another form of the ontological argument for the existence of God (that ideas correspond with Being and must be caused by such), or even the cosmological one (from design, i.e. that subjective reason and objective reality coincide rather nicely). But the fact is this: Father Benedict has offered a very reasoned and intelligent reply to a very intelligent question. It may not be a right reply–I think it is–but it ought not be discounted as either thoughtless or dumb.
Peace and mirth.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, First Things, ZENIT, Richard John Neuhaus, Galileo, Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Unfair: The New York Times Wants To Know
Dear Editors of The New York Times,
I wonder what you could have meant by publishing today the truly curious story, "Clintons Balance Married and Public Lives," found on page 1, or on the front of the NYT's website. It's not that the Clintons are not important: they are, for many Americans, a beloved former First Family. Any thinking person understands that a major political figure's marriage is newsworthy: how that marriage endures the travails of office and home is important, particularly for a president. But what is curious is not that the Clintons' marital stability is newsworthy. What is curious is that this sort of thing is news today when it apparently wasn't in 1992.
Those of us with recollective faculties not dulled by grinding revisionism or sundry opiates recall that when Mr. Clinton campaigned for president in 1992, his sexual peccadilloes (alleged, of course) were dismissed as nobody's business but Mr. Clinton and his wife's. Shrewd defenders of then-candidate Clinton opined that what mattered was not his performance (or lack thereof) in the bedroom, but his abilities in the Oval Office (which he eventually used somewhat like a bedroom, or so it is rumored). Privacy trumped publicity in these matters: if the Clintons could live with his foibles, what business was it of ours to perseverate on his infidelity? Bill Clinton was running for the office of the nation's president, after all, not the office of National Husband. Leave his alleged womanizing to the Clintons' own care.
Of course, the nation largely did go silent about the Clintons, particularly after Mrs. Clinton's apparent "stand by your man" moment on CBS' 60 Minutes. As we all know, millions of people accepted the argument that a man was bigger than his marriage (and that, believe it or not, was why Mr. Clinton found room for that bigness outside of his wedding vows). But there were many questions ignored by the American electorate: Would you want in the Oval Office a President dealing with divorce litigation? Would you want jaunting here and there in Air Force One a President locked in a custody battle? Would you want in the White House a President standing at a state dinner as cuckold to his wife's illicit affair? Would you want a President parading mistresses through Camp David? If such questions were ever posed to the electorate in 1992, they were asked in a whisper.
But alas, a new question arises for the electorate, and The New York Times has asked it: How will Bill and Hillary's marriage affect Hillary's bid for the White House? There is something almost Solomonic about the question, for it carries with it a very interesting proposition, namely, that Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president (should she run) is sui generis, with a former two-term president at her side. But why should this unique inquiry into marriage matter now when it did not seem to matter 14 years ago? Is it merely because of the near-royal status applied to the Clintons? Or is it representative of a double standard, one that treats a man differently than a woman when it comes to running for high office? With Bill's former presidency, impeachment and peccadilloes stipulated as unique facts, why does it matter how Hillary handles their complex marriage if privacy always trumps publicity? Or is this a concession by The New York Times that privacy surely does matter in many public circumstances, with the presidency being the most important public circumstance?
My guess is that The New York Times has probably not thought all of this through. But I also suspect that there is a latent double standard here. I mean, we all know that married men fool around; we all know that many folks believe that men, especially powerful ones, SHOULD fool around. A great woman will always stand alongside her notoriously unfaithful husband if he is in all other aspects a notoriously great man. But women in power? Well, perhaps their marital lives should be more stable and palatably traditional. Maybe a powerful woman should distance herself from her husband's infidelity, unless, of course, that husband is running for president, and then she should work it out in private (by sticking with him through his thick and thin). And while the standard commentary since 1992 is that Bill Clinton benefited from his spouse's closeness during his candidacy and presidency, the NYT seems to be suggesting that Mr. Clinton as spouse can only help his wife by staying away. That paradox, I am afraid to say, looks a lot like a double standard indeed.
Sincerely,
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Clinton Marriage, The New York Times,
I wonder what you could have meant by publishing today the truly curious story, "Clintons Balance Married and Public Lives," found on page 1, or on the front of the NYT's website. It's not that the Clintons are not important: they are, for many Americans, a beloved former First Family. Any thinking person understands that a major political figure's marriage is newsworthy: how that marriage endures the travails of office and home is important, particularly for a president. But what is curious is not that the Clintons' marital stability is newsworthy. What is curious is that this sort of thing is news today when it apparently wasn't in 1992.
Those of us with recollective faculties not dulled by grinding revisionism or sundry opiates recall that when Mr. Clinton campaigned for president in 1992, his sexual peccadilloes (alleged, of course) were dismissed as nobody's business but Mr. Clinton and his wife's. Shrewd defenders of then-candidate Clinton opined that what mattered was not his performance (or lack thereof) in the bedroom, but his abilities in the Oval Office (which he eventually used somewhat like a bedroom, or so it is rumored). Privacy trumped publicity in these matters: if the Clintons could live with his foibles, what business was it of ours to perseverate on his infidelity? Bill Clinton was running for the office of the nation's president, after all, not the office of National Husband. Leave his alleged womanizing to the Clintons' own care.
Of course, the nation largely did go silent about the Clintons, particularly after Mrs. Clinton's apparent "stand by your man" moment on CBS' 60 Minutes. As we all know, millions of people accepted the argument that a man was bigger than his marriage (and that, believe it or not, was why Mr. Clinton found room for that bigness outside of his wedding vows). But there were many questions ignored by the American electorate: Would you want in the Oval Office a President dealing with divorce litigation? Would you want jaunting here and there in Air Force One a President locked in a custody battle? Would you want in the White House a President standing at a state dinner as cuckold to his wife's illicit affair? Would you want a President parading mistresses through Camp David? If such questions were ever posed to the electorate in 1992, they were asked in a whisper.
But alas, a new question arises for the electorate, and The New York Times has asked it: How will Bill and Hillary's marriage affect Hillary's bid for the White House? There is something almost Solomonic about the question, for it carries with it a very interesting proposition, namely, that Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president (should she run) is sui generis, with a former two-term president at her side. But why should this unique inquiry into marriage matter now when it did not seem to matter 14 years ago? Is it merely because of the near-royal status applied to the Clintons? Or is it representative of a double standard, one that treats a man differently than a woman when it comes to running for high office? With Bill's former presidency, impeachment and peccadilloes stipulated as unique facts, why does it matter how Hillary handles their complex marriage if privacy always trumps publicity? Or is this a concession by The New York Times that privacy surely does matter in many public circumstances, with the presidency being the most important public circumstance?
My guess is that The New York Times has probably not thought all of this through. But I also suspect that there is a latent double standard here. I mean, we all know that married men fool around; we all know that many folks believe that men, especially powerful ones, SHOULD fool around. A great woman will always stand alongside her notoriously unfaithful husband if he is in all other aspects a notoriously great man. But women in power? Well, perhaps their marital lives should be more stable and palatably traditional. Maybe a powerful woman should distance herself from her husband's infidelity, unless, of course, that husband is running for president, and then she should work it out in private (by sticking with him through his thick and thin). And while the standard commentary since 1992 is that Bill Clinton benefited from his spouse's closeness during his candidacy and presidency, the NYT seems to be suggesting that Mr. Clinton as spouse can only help his wife by staying away. That paradox, I am afraid to say, looks a lot like a double standard indeed.
Sincerely,
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Clinton Marriage, The New York Times,
Monday, May 22, 2006
Neanderthal Man On Facile Fuel
I am terrible, truly, with understanding conspiracy theories. Surely I've proven my ineptitude in the last two essays here at Contratimes. But since I am so obtuse, I have concluded that I must practice a bit, doing problem solving right before the public. Like this:
If it is the case that the Bush Administration is in cahoots with Big Oil; nay, if it is the case that the Republican Party is up to its neck in Big Oil, then we must conclude that it is a fairly counterproductive relationship. Moreover, if the American automakers are in cahoots with Republicans and Big Oil, maintaining obscenely inefficient gas consumption/mileage standards (CAFE standards), and that they also stubbornly refuse to create more fuel-efficient engines so Big Oil can sell more oil, then I am indeed obtuse. The next thing I am going to hear is that Hollywood is producing more movies and that Major League Baseball schedules 162 games per team per season so Big Oil can sell as much gas to moviegoers and baseball fans as possible. But I am only gassing.
If the Bush Administration, Detroit automakers, and Big Oil are in dark, oily cahoots, how is it that they maintain this conspiracy when it is so utterly backfiring? President Bush's approval rating sputters around 30-35%; Detroit is unloading thousands of workers; people are buying hybrid cars and more efficient Japanese vehicles; Big Oil burns rubber rushing to justify its record profits. What, pray tell, is the political gain in all of this? Where is the great benefit?
Of course, the great benefit is to be found in the Democratic Party. But the incoherence of the "conspiracy" suggests little more than that the conspiracy is indeed incoherent: the theory explains far too little. And with Republicans perhaps poised to lose control of both the House and Senate in November, one might conclude that the conspiracy between the powers in High Places is not what it seems. But it is a conspiracy working wonders–perhaps–for Democrats.
If it is the case that the Bush Administration is in cahoots with Big Oil; nay, if it is the case that the Republican Party is up to its neck in Big Oil, then we must conclude that it is a fairly counterproductive relationship. Moreover, if the American automakers are in cahoots with Republicans and Big Oil, maintaining obscenely inefficient gas consumption/mileage standards (CAFE standards), and that they also stubbornly refuse to create more fuel-efficient engines so Big Oil can sell more oil, then I am indeed obtuse. The next thing I am going to hear is that Hollywood is producing more movies and that Major League Baseball schedules 162 games per team per season so Big Oil can sell as much gas to moviegoers and baseball fans as possible. But I am only gassing.
If the Bush Administration, Detroit automakers, and Big Oil are in dark, oily cahoots, how is it that they maintain this conspiracy when it is so utterly backfiring? President Bush's approval rating sputters around 30-35%; Detroit is unloading thousands of workers; people are buying hybrid cars and more efficient Japanese vehicles; Big Oil burns rubber rushing to justify its record profits. What, pray tell, is the political gain in all of this? Where is the great benefit?
Of course, the great benefit is to be found in the Democratic Party. But the incoherence of the "conspiracy" suggests little more than that the conspiracy is indeed incoherent: the theory explains far too little. And with Republicans perhaps poised to lose control of both the House and Senate in November, one might conclude that the conspiracy between the powers in High Places is not what it seems. But it is a conspiracy working wonders–perhaps–for Democrats.
***
What happens when you buy less of product X? What happens when everybody buys less of product X? Do the producers of X continue to produce as much X as when more units were being sold? They do if they are stupid businessfolk. But if they are good businessfolk they will cut production, and cut their costs. For example, when Detroit begins to sell fewer domestic cars, it produces fewer of them; and it cuts jobs that are no longer needed. What it does not do is sell its cars on the cheap (though some Detroit promos came close).
How then is it that rational people believe that if each one of us buys LESS gasoline we will drive the prices down? For if we CONSERVE fuel, will not the producers of that fuel just scale back production? Or do we think that they will produce so much fuel there will be a massive surplus standing on a street corner with its hands in its pockets, and that they will be forced to sell it to us at some ridiculously low price? (And, curiously, if America produces MORE oil domestically in an effort to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, foreign oil producers will simply scale back production or sales for our market, thus maintaining our dependence on that portion we CANNOT produce for ourselves. Or do I have this wrong?)
How then is it that rational people believe that if each one of us buys LESS gasoline we will drive the prices down? For if we CONSERVE fuel, will not the producers of that fuel just scale back production? Or do we think that they will produce so much fuel there will be a massive surplus standing on a street corner with its hands in its pockets, and that they will be forced to sell it to us at some ridiculously low price? (And, curiously, if America produces MORE oil domestically in an effort to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, foreign oil producers will simply scale back production or sales for our market, thus maintaining our dependence on that portion we CANNOT produce for ourselves. Or do I have this wrong?)
***
Hopefully you know that President Bush's approval ratings are in the tank (no doubt due to those expensive gas tanks we fill everyday). But it must be asked: The people who respond to these polls designed to track a president's popularity, from where do they get their information about the president? Do they listen to his every press conference from start to finish? Do they read his every piece of correspondence? Do they visit the White House website daily to read Tony Snow's press briefs? Do they download PDFs spelling out current White House agendas?
It is no stretch to say that the answer to each of the last four questions is a rather easily uttered, "No." Most people don't even hear President Bush speak but a few seconds a month; most people read but a few sentences of his ideas a year. Most Americans are indeed ignorant of the President firsthand; egads, they are ignorant of the whereabouts of Iraq or even the White House. In fact, many Americans are often chided for knowing how to find Wal-Mart in a blizzard without knowing how to find the First Amendment on a Bill of Rights. But when it comes to negative approval ratings, Americans suddenly become something of a collective political genius. It is truly stunning that pundits, particularly those on the Left (right now), find that the majority of Americans know not only how bad President Bush is, they know how a good president should perform his duties. Let us ignore the telling fact that this is the same majority that "believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11", as so many tedious analysts have scoffingly opined since the beginning of time.
Look. We all know majorities are "enlightened" when they agree with you and "Neanderthals" when they don't. But the Neanderthals of a few years ago now "understand" that the President is incompetent. What would be really interesting is to take a poll to determine how highly Americans approve of themselves. I am sure there would be convincing data proving that Americans always think rather highly of their own grand capacities. Heaven knows we can now safely conclude from sundry polls that the vast majority of Americans know how to run a country. What a relief.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Big Oil, oil prices, Gas Prices, Approval Ratings, Conspiracy Theories
It is no stretch to say that the answer to each of the last four questions is a rather easily uttered, "No." Most people don't even hear President Bush speak but a few seconds a month; most people read but a few sentences of his ideas a year. Most Americans are indeed ignorant of the President firsthand; egads, they are ignorant of the whereabouts of Iraq or even the White House. In fact, many Americans are often chided for knowing how to find Wal-Mart in a blizzard without knowing how to find the First Amendment on a Bill of Rights. But when it comes to negative approval ratings, Americans suddenly become something of a collective political genius. It is truly stunning that pundits, particularly those on the Left (right now), find that the majority of Americans know not only how bad President Bush is, they know how a good president should perform his duties. Let us ignore the telling fact that this is the same majority that "believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11", as so many tedious analysts have scoffingly opined since the beginning of time.
Look. We all know majorities are "enlightened" when they agree with you and "Neanderthals" when they don't. But the Neanderthals of a few years ago now "understand" that the President is incompetent. What would be really interesting is to take a poll to determine how highly Americans approve of themselves. I am sure there would be convincing data proving that Americans always think rather highly of their own grand capacities. Heaven knows we can now safely conclude from sundry polls that the vast majority of Americans know how to run a country. What a relief.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Big Oil, oil prices, Gas Prices, Approval Ratings, Conspiracy Theories
Sunday, May 21, 2006
The Hole In Brown Ground
Perhaps it was an act of quiet protest. Who knows? But instead of packing myself into a theater to see The Da Vinci Code Friday night, struggling for elbow space with people dressed like Mona Lisa, I went to a rather empty theater to see United 93, the riveting film about the 9/11 flight that crashed into a Pennsylvania field. Perhaps it is wrong of me to note that there are many people who believe that The Da Vinci Code is real and that 9/11 was not. But that this surprises any of us is alarming, as most of us pride ourselves at not being shocked by the crazies among us. But the crazies are out: 9/11 was the result of nefarious American military operations and the Church has been hiding the fact that Jesus had children (and that I am one of his descendants).
If you want reason to slit your wrists and bleed out in a Da Vinci Code chalice (soon to be made available with McDonald's Happy Meals, I think), then check out any number of 9/11 conspiracy media, particularly the brooding "documentary" Loose Change. But I warn you: with headphones on (and several one-hitters on your Cheech and Chong bong) you will not only doubt that 9/11 happened as you KNOW IT DID, you will doubt whether bleeding yourself to death is the best way to silence your outrage. (Seriously, I warn you: Loose Change is disturbing, not because it is at all right, but because it does not offer you alternative explanations.) But if you don't want to watch something, you can read hundreds of webpages that will prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy pulled off by literally thousands of people (which proves that miracles DO occur). I am sure that the next thing we will find out is that those who "died" in 9/11, especially those passengers on the four deadly planes, are actually alive and well, held for re-assimilation in Guantánamo Bay (affectionately known as Club Re-med, or so say the voices in my head). By the way, if you do watch Loose Change and you need to regain a foothold on the world, go here for help.
United 93 is a powerful, frank, straightforward tale. But it is not as powerful as one's imagination, especially if one has a strong imagination and is at all familiar with flying in commercial planes. Reality is far worse than the film could depict, which is not to say that the film flinched at realism but rather to admit that film, any film, is limiting. Irrespective of this film's limitations, I wept (which I am wont to do at such movies) during many of the film's scenes. And one line struck me as significant: "We have a real world situation here." Real world indeed.
______________
When I used to paint houses (on the side, pun intended) I became pretty good friends with Bob, the man who worked the counter at the paint store. Bob Peterson was a simple man in the good sense of the word; he surely was not a simpleton. His simplicity was more Thoreau than Forrest Gump; and yet he was far more St. Francis than he ever was that recluse on Walden Pond. Bob also was a Christian, and he wore his faith beautifully, but not on his sleeve; he wore it in his every word and deed. He was an exemplar of everything Christ might be as a husband, father, paint store clerk. And yet Bob no doubt could have been more, more like his brother, a man who attended MIT and Harvard and later became the president of a major company. For Bob, his calling was far less lofty.
Bob told me about his brother several times. The most poignant tale was right after the first anniversary of 9/11 when Bob and his family traveled to Pennsylvania to meet President Bush, to hold hands with others in ceremony, to cry and weep and pray on a quiet tract of land. Bob told me that before the ceremony, a firefighter was assiduously looking for members of the Peterson family. Finally finding them, the firefighter specifically spoke to Bob's nephew. The fireman shared how he was one of the first people to arrive at the scene of the plane crash one year earlier. He said that as he got near the crater left by the plane's horrific impact, the very first thing he found was a lightly scorched Bible. Apparently it still smelled of jet fuel.
The Bible belonged to Bob's brother, Don Peterson. Don and his wife, Jean, sat in Row 14 on September 11, 2001.
_______________
I think of conspiracy theories, and I think of how cruel they are. The 9/11 theorists, to me, are committing a gross form of spiritual and emotional abuse, even battery. To read (and see) suggestions that Don Peterson's Bible was scorched not by the evil acts of terrorists (and the heroic feats of the United 93 passengers) but by a missile, or some other outside violence, is hard to countenance without anger. It is even harder to countenance without being wounded. 9/11's effects have been monstrous, with not only the collapse of common sense but the collapse of common decency being the most obvious.
The mythology of The Da Vinci Code may indeed lead some people to hell or some sort of apostasy. But the conspiracy theorists scavenging on fear and uncertainty in the wake of a truly awful tragedy are already in hell, the hell of a well-repudiated delusion.
There remains a gaping hole in the earth, with all sorts of things crawling forth.
Remember 9/11.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: The Da Vinci Code, Don Peterson, United 93, Conspiracy Theories, Loose Change, 9/11
If you want reason to slit your wrists and bleed out in a Da Vinci Code chalice (soon to be made available with McDonald's Happy Meals, I think), then check out any number of 9/11 conspiracy media, particularly the brooding "documentary" Loose Change. But I warn you: with headphones on (and several one-hitters on your Cheech and Chong bong) you will not only doubt that 9/11 happened as you KNOW IT DID, you will doubt whether bleeding yourself to death is the best way to silence your outrage. (Seriously, I warn you: Loose Change is disturbing, not because it is at all right, but because it does not offer you alternative explanations.) But if you don't want to watch something, you can read hundreds of webpages that will prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy pulled off by literally thousands of people (which proves that miracles DO occur). I am sure that the next thing we will find out is that those who "died" in 9/11, especially those passengers on the four deadly planes, are actually alive and well, held for re-assimilation in Guantánamo Bay (affectionately known as Club Re-med, or so say the voices in my head). By the way, if you do watch Loose Change and you need to regain a foothold on the world, go here for help.
United 93 is a powerful, frank, straightforward tale. But it is not as powerful as one's imagination, especially if one has a strong imagination and is at all familiar with flying in commercial planes. Reality is far worse than the film could depict, which is not to say that the film flinched at realism but rather to admit that film, any film, is limiting. Irrespective of this film's limitations, I wept (which I am wont to do at such movies) during many of the film's scenes. And one line struck me as significant: "We have a real world situation here." Real world indeed.
______________
When I used to paint houses (on the side, pun intended) I became pretty good friends with Bob, the man who worked the counter at the paint store. Bob Peterson was a simple man in the good sense of the word; he surely was not a simpleton. His simplicity was more Thoreau than Forrest Gump; and yet he was far more St. Francis than he ever was that recluse on Walden Pond. Bob also was a Christian, and he wore his faith beautifully, but not on his sleeve; he wore it in his every word and deed. He was an exemplar of everything Christ might be as a husband, father, paint store clerk. And yet Bob no doubt could have been more, more like his brother, a man who attended MIT and Harvard and later became the president of a major company. For Bob, his calling was far less lofty.
Bob told me about his brother several times. The most poignant tale was right after the first anniversary of 9/11 when Bob and his family traveled to Pennsylvania to meet President Bush, to hold hands with others in ceremony, to cry and weep and pray on a quiet tract of land. Bob told me that before the ceremony, a firefighter was assiduously looking for members of the Peterson family. Finally finding them, the firefighter specifically spoke to Bob's nephew. The fireman shared how he was one of the first people to arrive at the scene of the plane crash one year earlier. He said that as he got near the crater left by the plane's horrific impact, the very first thing he found was a lightly scorched Bible. Apparently it still smelled of jet fuel.
The Bible belonged to Bob's brother, Don Peterson. Don and his wife, Jean, sat in Row 14 on September 11, 2001.
_______________
I think of conspiracy theories, and I think of how cruel they are. The 9/11 theorists, to me, are committing a gross form of spiritual and emotional abuse, even battery. To read (and see) suggestions that Don Peterson's Bible was scorched not by the evil acts of terrorists (and the heroic feats of the United 93 passengers) but by a missile, or some other outside violence, is hard to countenance without anger. It is even harder to countenance without being wounded. 9/11's effects have been monstrous, with not only the collapse of common sense but the collapse of common decency being the most obvious.
The mythology of The Da Vinci Code may indeed lead some people to hell or some sort of apostasy. But the conspiracy theorists scavenging on fear and uncertainty in the wake of a truly awful tragedy are already in hell, the hell of a well-repudiated delusion.
There remains a gaping hole in the earth, with all sorts of things crawling forth.
Remember 9/11.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: The Da Vinci Code, Don Peterson, United 93, Conspiracy Theories, Loose Change, 9/11
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Channel Surfing With Da Vinci In New Hampshire
My apologies. I have been very, very busy lately, preparing, as I must, for the big debut of the movie adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. You see, in case you haven't figured this all out, I am a direct descendant of Mary Magdalene and Jesus's gnostic tryst in Palestine. Not that gnostics were generally having sex together, since they believed that the true path of enlightenment was found in the abnegation of the flesh and its carnal pleasures, but my ancient mater and pater were indeed human after all; and I, along with a whole bunch of other Da Vinci cognoscenti, mill about the earth illuminating the rest of you. Of course, if Jesus and Mary Magdalene did indeed have a "family", and Jesus was nothing other than an itinerant rabbi, there is no great legacy gained as a descendant of their ignominy, unless you're Mary Baker Eddy. I mean, at the very least, they were bad gnostics. But I digress.
'Tis true, I am wildly excited about all the hoopla. There are even groups offering "Da Vinci Code Tours" for the countless people who are unable to separate legend from fact. Such folks––I know, I know, we keep hearing that a work of fiction can't adversely affect readers' and viewers' religious understanding––but such folks are actually taking tours to search for more hidden clues in a variety of paintings and architectural details in far-off lands. What delight! MSNBC interviewed one church docent in Britain who said (somewhat contemptuously, I thought) that an American couple refused to leave his church until staffers removed a carpet near the altar so they could see for themselves the Star of David hidden beneath. Alas! There was no star! See? The conspiracy IS true!
I am just a little more excited than I was in August 1987, when I was channeling the spirit of John the Baptist on the summit of a California mountain during the outstanding, world-changing Harmonic Convergence. Surely you remember that wondrous two-day event?! Recall the bliss, will you, that followed those momentous days? Irrespective of the naysayers (I had drone-ish friends calling it the Moronic Disturbance), that age-shifting, paradigm-shaking, two-day reliving of certain Woodstock acid trips was a resounding success (at least for those of us with a fetish for sackcloth, wild locusts and honey).
Soon, I believe, I will be interviewed for Pro-gnosis Magazine about my role in channeling all sorts of gnostic energy toward my fellow New Hampshire resident, Dan Brown, "author" of the Code (he didn't write The Da Vinci Code, Juno did; Brown was merely Juno's amanuensis, though Brown did manage to seal the deal on the transcription's royalties, proving that Brown is also a lousy gnostic). The interview will be held in the same soundstage where the phony moon-landings were filmed for NASA by Oliver Stone. I can't wait to hit New Hampshire-astronaut Alan Shepard's golf ball (I know he allegedly used a four-iron but I am bringing my Big Bertha [Bertha is the goddess of golf, you know]). I mean, there is no way Shepard hit a ball on the moon: we all know there are no tees on the lunar surface. Forsooth, the lunar golf theme was so obvious––a flag, a golf cart, and something that looked like a clubhouse––that one can only conclude that all this was done in Area 51. I promise to tell you all about my time there, and what it was like setting the aliens free.
And after the interview I will be attending the first showing of "The Da Vinci Code" at New Hampshire's "Stonehenge." During the showing David Blaine is slated to reveal himself as the Dark Lord of the Underworld. He is also expected to make Great Britain disappear (proving that The Da Vinci Code is true). Of course, Blaine's trick might prove problematic for all those clear-thinkers enjoying their Da Vinci tours. In the wake of Blaine's magic trick, I have inside knowledge (gnosis) that he will pin the disappearance of Britain on George W. Bush by stuffing the Downing Steet Memo into Osama bin Laden's bottle of Bud.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: The DaVinci Code, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Gnosticism, New Hampshire, Alan Shepard, Area 51, David Blaine, Juno, Harmonic Convergence, Mary Baker Eddy, Mary Magdalene, Jesus, Conspiracy Theories, da vinci code
'Tis true, I am wildly excited about all the hoopla. There are even groups offering "Da Vinci Code Tours" for the countless people who are unable to separate legend from fact. Such folks––I know, I know, we keep hearing that a work of fiction can't adversely affect readers' and viewers' religious understanding––but such folks are actually taking tours to search for more hidden clues in a variety of paintings and architectural details in far-off lands. What delight! MSNBC interviewed one church docent in Britain who said (somewhat contemptuously, I thought) that an American couple refused to leave his church until staffers removed a carpet near the altar so they could see for themselves the Star of David hidden beneath. Alas! There was no star! See? The conspiracy IS true!
I am just a little more excited than I was in August 1987, when I was channeling the spirit of John the Baptist on the summit of a California mountain during the outstanding, world-changing Harmonic Convergence. Surely you remember that wondrous two-day event?! Recall the bliss, will you, that followed those momentous days? Irrespective of the naysayers (I had drone-ish friends calling it the Moronic Disturbance), that age-shifting, paradigm-shaking, two-day reliving of certain Woodstock acid trips was a resounding success (at least for those of us with a fetish for sackcloth, wild locusts and honey).
Soon, I believe, I will be interviewed for Pro-gnosis Magazine about my role in channeling all sorts of gnostic energy toward my fellow New Hampshire resident, Dan Brown, "author" of the Code (he didn't write The Da Vinci Code, Juno did; Brown was merely Juno's amanuensis, though Brown did manage to seal the deal on the transcription's royalties, proving that Brown is also a lousy gnostic). The interview will be held in the same soundstage where the phony moon-landings were filmed for NASA by Oliver Stone. I can't wait to hit New Hampshire-astronaut Alan Shepard's golf ball (I know he allegedly used a four-iron but I am bringing my Big Bertha [Bertha is the goddess of golf, you know]). I mean, there is no way Shepard hit a ball on the moon: we all know there are no tees on the lunar surface. Forsooth, the lunar golf theme was so obvious––a flag, a golf cart, and something that looked like a clubhouse––that one can only conclude that all this was done in Area 51. I promise to tell you all about my time there, and what it was like setting the aliens free.
And after the interview I will be attending the first showing of "The Da Vinci Code" at New Hampshire's "Stonehenge." During the showing David Blaine is slated to reveal himself as the Dark Lord of the Underworld. He is also expected to make Great Britain disappear (proving that The Da Vinci Code is true). Of course, Blaine's trick might prove problematic for all those clear-thinkers enjoying their Da Vinci tours. In the wake of Blaine's magic trick, I have inside knowledge (gnosis) that he will pin the disappearance of Britain on George W. Bush by stuffing the Downing Steet Memo into Osama bin Laden's bottle of Bud.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: The DaVinci Code, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Gnosticism, New Hampshire, Alan Shepard, Area 51, David Blaine, Juno, Harmonic Convergence, Mary Baker Eddy, Mary Magdalene, Jesus, Conspiracy Theories, da vinci code
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
A Really Inconvenient Fact
I may not have a B.S. in any scientific discipline, but that has never stopped me from recognizing BS, especially when I step in it. I know, I know: it is dubious at best to come to Contratimes for a science lesson, but once in a while it is OK for us to think like scientists, you know, critically.
My starting point is the rather recent installment of PBS's NOVA called "Dimming the Sun", which I watched a couple of weeks ago (and where I stepped into some serious BS). The point of that rather stimulating science program was that particulate matter released into the atmosphere as a result of human industrial activity, along with myriad contrails produced by airliners, combine to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the lower levels of the atmosphere. Studies in the Maldives, for instance, have shown that air pollution may indeed reduce sunlight by as much as 10%. The result, obviously, is that air temperatures in "smoggy" zones are cooler. And cooler air has drastic effects on weather patterns, perhaps even distorting weather and (ocean ?) currents to such a degree that droughts and other sundry calamities occur.
But this is only half of NOVA's story. The other half has to do with reducing air pollutants, especially the particulate matter associated with solar dimming. The idea is that with cleaner air more sunlight reaches the lower atmosphere and ground, thus increasing air temperatures. In other words, the theory is that visible pollutants are masking the invisible catastrophe awaiting us: MASSIVE global warming due to invisible and dangerous levels of greenhouse gases which will "trap" heat should more light penetrate the atmosphere. For a full explanation and a virtual synopsis of the NOVA program, read the Wikipedia article "Global dimming." I urge you to read it not merely because it is interesting, but because of what it never mentions. And you know what? NOVA never mentions "it" either.
But before I tell you what "it" is, I must make one observation about the NOVA program. I might be wrong about this, but I don't think I am: NOVA did not interview a single person with a countervailing opinion regarding dimming, cooling or warming. Not one! Add to that the fact that NOVA only aired the opinions of at best five experts, and one MUST conclude that NOVA might best be taken with something like a grain of salt.
Permit me to back into what is missing in both NOVA's "scientific inquiry" and Wikipedia's article. This passage from Wikipedia is a great starting point. I mean, this is science at its (political?) best:
It is now thought that the effect (global dimming) is probably due to the increased presence of aerosols [sic] particles in the atmosphere. Aerosol particles absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back to space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles, and more aerosol particles result in the clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets, which in turn makes them more reflective: bouncing more sunlight back into space.
Now there is nothing wrong with this virtual rehashing of NOVA's major premise. It is, for our purposes, completely true. But there is something massive, literally, missing from all of this, and one wonders how it could not be mentioned even in passing. I wonder if you have guessed what "it" is. Need a clue? Well, try this one, or this.
Yes, that's right: Volcanoes. What is missing in the global dimming report is the earth itself: that the earth is its own heat engine; and is its own cooler.
Remember in 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo absolutely ripped a hole into our earth's atmosphere, belching material in unimaginable quantities into the earth's very stratosphere? Remember what you were told, that the eruption would affect the entire globe for years? Remember hearing the same when Mt. Saint Helens blew apart in 1980? Remember hearing that such eruptions would cool the earth's atmosphere, even though they hurled millions of tons of gas and heat skyward? Well, if you need a refresher on Pinatubo alone, read this, this and this.
Now let's for a moment return to the Wikipedia quote above, where it is mentioned that global dimming is a result of the presence of aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Alas, there is no mention of volcanic activity. Yet in all three Pinatubo links above we read something like this:
Pinatubo injected about 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it reacted with water to form a hazy layer of AEROSOL particles composed primarily of sulfuric acid droplets. Over the course of the next two years strong stratospheric winds spread these aerosol particles around the globe.Unlike the lower atmosphere (or troposphere, which extends from the surface to roughly 10 km), the stratosphere does not have rain clouds as a mechanism to quickly wash out pollutants. Therefore, a heavy influx of aerosol pollutants, like the plume from Mount Pinatubo, will remain in the stratosphere for years until the processes of chemical reactions and atmospheric circulation can filter them out. In the case of Mount Pinatubo, the result was a measurable cooling of the Earth's surface for a period of almost two years.
Because they scatter and absorb incoming sunlight, aerosol particles exert a cooling effect on the Earth's surface. The Pinatubo eruption increased aerosol optical depth in the stratosphere by a factor of 10 to 100 times normal levels measured prior to the eruption.
Oopsy! Just a small detail left out of Wikipedia and NOVA's uh, science. Call it a mere blippish oversight. And to think someone went to the Maldives in the 1990's to run tests to determine whether smog blocks sunlight!
Moreover, what is also not mentioned in either source is the effect the earth's core temperature has on climate; that the earth is not a frozen ice ball (though surface materials are indeed "frozen" in the scientific sense), but a sphere with an incredibly volatile heat source not far below its skin. That source of heat is not only important in maintaining life on this planet, it is important in this discussion of global warming and cooling. But more importantly, that NOVA and Wikipedia never mention either volcanic activity or the earth's radiant heat suggests that real scientific inquiry is not what either is interested in. Finally, neither the TV program nor the online encyclopedia mentions increases or decreases in solar activity, which also wreak havoc on terrestrial atmospherics.
Al Gore has released a new movie called "An Inconvenient Truth," in which he apparently divides for us the facts from fiction regarding global warming. I will venture a guess that the complexities of vulcanism and any one volcano's impact on climate make naught but a small appearance in Gore's film. But that's fine: he is a politician, after all, and he needs science to work for his agenda, which is, in part, to distance himself from "Big Oil," you know, that industry allegedly most responsible for global warming (and the one allegedly associated with Republicans). But that NOVA, an apparently neutral science program, should have neglected not only any countervailing opinions but the facts of Pinatubo––that such an eruption lowered global temperatures as much as .6 degrees C in 15 months––should give us all pause.
There is more that NOVA failed to tell us in "Dimming the Sun," but I will leave that for another time. But let us not in all this permit such "fact-based" programs and resources to have a dimming effect on our much needed minds. We need to think clearly about the complexities before us. I mean, let us beware (unlike Al Gore) of committing non causa pro causa fallacies, you know, mistaking correlation with causality. Gore and NOVA might be right, but we won't ever know if we accept only part of the data.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
For a complete transcript of NOVA's program, go here.
Pinatubo photo courtesy of http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/pinatubo/volcano/
Technorati tags: Al Gore, Global Warming, Global dimming, NOVA, Mt. Pinatubo, vulcanism, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate Change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)