I notice it
most in the fall with the corn. We plant
our corn from seed. The rest of the
garden we purchase as plants. Maybe that
‘s why. And in the fall because as we
dig up the corn stalks and get rid of them (we don’t plow them back into the
garden a sin for which I hope true gardeners will forgive us) I notice how
large they have grown and how much mass they have. Then it strikes me. I’ve done nothing for these plants but put a
seed in the ground and water on the seed and soil. Well, of course I’ve spent some small amount
of time clearing weeds from their bases (not much this time last summer because
we were away quite a bit) and I once applied fertilizer (chemical, a sin for which etc….) but essentially I’ve done nothing.
Friday, October 31, 2014
God's Increase
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Why Are We Here?
One of the luxuries of being retired is that I can take time in the morning to read Interesting Things. Often, I find the interesting by visiting blogs or commentary I've visited in the past and following promising looking links. If I think the linked post worthwhile, I'll see what else looks promising on the site.
Today, I ran across Social Matter and found two posts very intriguing. One argues that political philosophies fundamentally misunderstand the concept of value. The other argues that modern economic theory inappropriately treats the economy as separate from larger goals of society which the economy should be made to support. Both posts, although focused on different aspects of economic life, shared a concern for blind pursuit of a strategy without considering whether the strategies support appropriate ends.
The post on value I found particularly helpful. The author argues logically and consistently in support of a position I have held up to now only based on inchoate feelings. The author advances the principal that appropriate limits exist on individual action and that those limits should be established based on whether the limits will increase or decrease value to broader society. I am not sufficiently conversant with philosophy to know whether the exposition of this particular line of reasoning advances the state of the art (if one can use such terms for philosophy), but as I say it certainly aided my thinking on the matter. It seems to me, however, that the conclusion is inarguable and, I would posit, is in fact not argued by any political philosophy as actually implemented. No extant or former polity (as far as I am aware, conceding that my knowledge is limited) permits individual action without any limit. Even extreme libertarians and anarchists impose some limits. In fact it makes no sense to speak of a collection of individuals without limits on their actions as a group of any sort. Yes, I understand that we are talking about philosophy here uncontaminated by reference to the real. So the question is how as a theoretical matter does one support limits on individual behavior. It seems though that because a political philosophy is meaningless divorced from its effects in the real world those effects are fair game. (I think of criticisms of Communism or Socialism which are often not theoretical but grounded in the real world effects of implementing that philosophy).
But back to value. As the author demonstrates limits on individual actions can be justified based on what increases societal good. Here we hit the wall erected by modern scientific materialism. We have two choices: either we are created and have a purpose or we are accidental accretions of chemicals without one. If we assume the former a basis exists for determining what increases societal good--that which assists us with achieving the purpose for which we were created. If we assume the latter, no basis exists for determining what increases societal good because there is no basis for deciding that one course of action is better than another.
The second article arrives at a similar conclusion: the economy should be considered to be an adjunct to achieving broader societal goals. It should not be managed as an end in itself without considering its effects on achieving the purpose of society. Now it happens that the author, using the Greek root of the word economy ( Oikonomia, which he translates as meaning “'order of the household'"), argues that the economy should be managed to the end of guiding "the formation and maintenance of families" a goal I heartily agree with. But the determination that increasing the formation and maintenance of families is the aim of society depends once again on the assumption that our existence has some meaning or purpose.
All of these discussions, as indeed the discussion of any but the most trivial matters of our lives, leads us back to God--whom no matter how hard we try and no matter how desperately we may want to we cannot avoid and whose overwhelming presence in our lives everyone (even those who most wish to deny his existence and escape his influence) will bend the knee and acknowledge and confess it as the consequence of His perfect love for all of His children.
Today, I ran across Social Matter and found two posts very intriguing. One argues that political philosophies fundamentally misunderstand the concept of value. The other argues that modern economic theory inappropriately treats the economy as separate from larger goals of society which the economy should be made to support. Both posts, although focused on different aspects of economic life, shared a concern for blind pursuit of a strategy without considering whether the strategies support appropriate ends.
The post on value I found particularly helpful. The author argues logically and consistently in support of a position I have held up to now only based on inchoate feelings. The author advances the principal that appropriate limits exist on individual action and that those limits should be established based on whether the limits will increase or decrease value to broader society. I am not sufficiently conversant with philosophy to know whether the exposition of this particular line of reasoning advances the state of the art (if one can use such terms for philosophy), but as I say it certainly aided my thinking on the matter. It seems to me, however, that the conclusion is inarguable and, I would posit, is in fact not argued by any political philosophy as actually implemented. No extant or former polity (as far as I am aware, conceding that my knowledge is limited) permits individual action without any limit. Even extreme libertarians and anarchists impose some limits. In fact it makes no sense to speak of a collection of individuals without limits on their actions as a group of any sort. Yes, I understand that we are talking about philosophy here uncontaminated by reference to the real. So the question is how as a theoretical matter does one support limits on individual behavior. It seems though that because a political philosophy is meaningless divorced from its effects in the real world those effects are fair game. (I think of criticisms of Communism or Socialism which are often not theoretical but grounded in the real world effects of implementing that philosophy).
But back to value. As the author demonstrates limits on individual actions can be justified based on what increases societal good. Here we hit the wall erected by modern scientific materialism. We have two choices: either we are created and have a purpose or we are accidental accretions of chemicals without one. If we assume the former a basis exists for determining what increases societal good--that which assists us with achieving the purpose for which we were created. If we assume the latter, no basis exists for determining what increases societal good because there is no basis for deciding that one course of action is better than another.
The second article arrives at a similar conclusion: the economy should be considered to be an adjunct to achieving broader societal goals. It should not be managed as an end in itself without considering its effects on achieving the purpose of society. Now it happens that the author, using the Greek root of the word economy ( Oikonomia, which he translates as meaning “'order of the household'"), argues that the economy should be managed to the end of guiding "the formation and maintenance of families" a goal I heartily agree with. But the determination that increasing the formation and maintenance of families is the aim of society depends once again on the assumption that our existence has some meaning or purpose.
All of these discussions, as indeed the discussion of any but the most trivial matters of our lives, leads us back to God--whom no matter how hard we try and no matter how desperately we may want to we cannot avoid and whose overwhelming presence in our lives everyone (even those who most wish to deny his existence and escape his influence) will bend the knee and acknowledge and confess it as the consequence of His perfect love for all of His children.
Monday, May 19, 2014
My Privilege
Checking your privilege seems to be the latest meme. It is a question posed, I gather, to white people and appears to me to be an assertion rather than a request to perform any sort of soul searching. I understand that I am accused of being privileged because of my family background. That is, because of my ancestors I have had a leg up on other members of society in competing for jobs and material things. I freely admit that my ancestors by dint of their hard work, dedication to God and their families have bestowed an incalculable benefit on me; I am privileged to be one of their descendants.
All of my great grandparents immigrated from England, Denmark and Sweden in the 1800's after they joined the LDS Church. None of them was rich, They were all of the lower classes in their native countries and all of them made the decision to sell everything they had and travel from their native lands to Deseret which at the time was not part of the United States. All of my great grandparents traveled a thousand miles across the plains of what is now the Western United States by wagon and by handcart carrying with them only what they could carry and what would fit in a wagon, or in some cases a handcart. None of them arrived in Deseret with more than a few cents to their name. When they arrived in the mid 1800's, they found a community barely scratching an existence from the ground in almost desert conditions. They lived at first in mud huts or holes in the ground until they could build by themselves with some neighborly help more suitable shelter. Some were sent to outlying areas to colonize. Those were required to start from scratch yet again after arriving and becoming somewhat established in Salt Lake City.
All of them worked hard and sacrifice for their posterity and taught their children who taught their children who taught me to work hard and sacrifice. Slowly over the generations their material circumstances improved. I still recall hearing from a cousin at my Uncle's funeral recalling his father's story about finding my Grandmother prostrate in tears on the floor because there was nothing to eat in the house and she did not know how she was going to feed her family. But as I say, my family's fortunes improved with time and effort along with those of the rest of the Country.
So yes I am privileged but not because of the color of my skin, but because of those who went before me and established a legacy of hard work and dedication that has been handed down to me through generations. I have tried to pass these lessons to my own children and have tried to help others who are not part of my family establish the same traditions in their families so that their children and grandchildren can one day acknowledge the privilege bestowed on them by their ancestors.
All of my great grandparents immigrated from England, Denmark and Sweden in the 1800's after they joined the LDS Church. None of them was rich, They were all of the lower classes in their native countries and all of them made the decision to sell everything they had and travel from their native lands to Deseret which at the time was not part of the United States. All of my great grandparents traveled a thousand miles across the plains of what is now the Western United States by wagon and by handcart carrying with them only what they could carry and what would fit in a wagon, or in some cases a handcart. None of them arrived in Deseret with more than a few cents to their name. When they arrived in the mid 1800's, they found a community barely scratching an existence from the ground in almost desert conditions. They lived at first in mud huts or holes in the ground until they could build by themselves with some neighborly help more suitable shelter. Some were sent to outlying areas to colonize. Those were required to start from scratch yet again after arriving and becoming somewhat established in Salt Lake City.
All of them worked hard and sacrifice for their posterity and taught their children who taught their children who taught me to work hard and sacrifice. Slowly over the generations their material circumstances improved. I still recall hearing from a cousin at my Uncle's funeral recalling his father's story about finding my Grandmother prostrate in tears on the floor because there was nothing to eat in the house and she did not know how she was going to feed her family. But as I say, my family's fortunes improved with time and effort along with those of the rest of the Country.
So yes I am privileged but not because of the color of my skin, but because of those who went before me and established a legacy of hard work and dedication that has been handed down to me through generations. I have tried to pass these lessons to my own children and have tried to help others who are not part of my family establish the same traditions in their families so that their children and grandchildren can one day acknowledge the privilege bestowed on them by their ancestors.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Road Trip
I'm pretty excited. My wife and I are leaving this afternoon to visit our daughter, her husband and two of our grandchildren in Tucson. We are driving not flying on this trip; we both have the time (my wife has spring break next week and I have all the time in the world) and I like to go on long drives.
It is a perfect day to take off. Sunny blue sky with scattered high clouds and no rain in the forecast. I'm not sure where I get my love for taking long drives. Maybe from my childhood. My parents loved to travel and in that era flying was much more costly. We traveled quite a bit from Berkeley to Southern CA to seem my paternal grandparents and to Utah and Idaho to seem my Mom's family. Oddly enough I quite enjoyed those trips.
There's something about travel, as I noted in a previous post, that is otherworldly. I feel suspended from the present unmoored in time and space; The box has not yet been opened and anything is possible.
T minus 3 hours on the mark.
It is a perfect day to take off. Sunny blue sky with scattered high clouds and no rain in the forecast. I'm not sure where I get my love for taking long drives. Maybe from my childhood. My parents loved to travel and in that era flying was much more costly. We traveled quite a bit from Berkeley to Southern CA to seem my paternal grandparents and to Utah and Idaho to seem my Mom's family. Oddly enough I quite enjoyed those trips.
There's something about travel, as I noted in a previous post, that is otherworldly. I feel suspended from the present unmoored in time and space; The box has not yet been opened and anything is possible.
T minus 3 hours on the mark.
The Regulatory State Redux
Kevin Williamson's column at National Review today put me in mind of another thought I had about the effect of overregulation. Williamson uses the current example of a Rancher in Nevada who apparently has acted in defiance of Federal Regulations relating to the protected Desert Tortoise and now for his act of rebellion faces fines, confiscation of his property, imprisonment and perhaps death (the BLM has deployed snipers by some accounts, which is another discussion entirely: why are so many federal agencies so heavily armed?)
Focusing on the left's attempts to squelch dissent and prevent contrary views from being reflected in public policy he notes
That may not lead directly to open potentially violent confrontations, but it could lead to a type of anarchy where laws exist and enforced on the books, but are in fact ignored while everyone acts in their own best interest regardless of legal niceties.
Focusing on the left's attempts to squelch dissent and prevent contrary views from being reflected in public policy he notes
the Left’s attempts to restrict citizens’ ability to influence policy through things such as campaign donations, to say nothing of proposals to lock people up for unpopular political speech, are more dangerous than is appreciated: With those remedies diminished, open defiance becomes more attractive.But, the frustration that leads to defiance need not be engendered solely by the perception that remedies have been blocked. That frustration can also arise from the types of bureaucratic nightmares I referenced in my post this morning. The frustration need not lead to open defiance to be dangerous either. Because our society, as any society, depends on widespread voluntary compliance with the law anything that undermines the will to comply is dangerous to the society. When people are faced with a daunting regulatory burden seemingly divorced from the real world they will ignore the regulations imposing the burden. If such burdens are common the practice of ignoring them will become equally widespread. At some point most citizens will then feel free and even justified in ignoring the law.
That may not lead directly to open potentially violent confrontations, but it could lead to a type of anarchy where laws exist and enforced on the books, but are in fact ignored while everyone acts in their own best interest regardless of legal niceties.
The Regualtory State
Apparently Phillip Howard has a new book out "The Rule of Nobody" discussed here at Had Enough Therapy. I read his first book "The Death of Common Sense" many years ago. In his new book he apparently returns to the theme of overregulation and its pernicious effects on regulators' ability to exercise discretion and judgment. Preventing the exercise of judgment and discretion results in absurdities such as being unable to remove a fallen tree from a stream even though it was causing flooding without spending thousands of dollars on engineering and planning work required by regulation.
As Schneiderman notes regulators and legislators like detailed regulations for various reasons. The trade off for the regulators is that they in turn escape responsibility. In addition to detailed regulations furthering regulators raison d'etre such regulations also prevent regulators from having to exercise judgment and discretion. Regulators are thus able to avoid any responsibility. This is an advantage as well for legislators who enact broad mandates and leave the detailed implementation to regulators.
This is a common problem. Accountability is widely seen as something to be avoided at all costs. Most people operate by the axiom that they don't care what happens as long as it's not their fault. So, in my view the issue of overregulation is merely a symptom of a larger problem: how do we make our "representatives" in government accountable? It seems to me that the trend over the life of our Republic has been to diffuse accountability. Partly this is a result of a growing population more people means paradoxically fewer people to answer to. But it is also a result of the human tendency to want to avoid responsibility the result of which is that people alter the structures in which they operate to deflect responsibility. Here I am thinking of the tendency to pass laws giving regulators broad discretion in implementation.
Moreover, even when the structures cannot be altered enough to avoid responsibility people try to form a narrative which absolves them of responsibility. Currently this is manifest in Democrats seeking to persuade people that whatever ill effects Obamacare is inflicting are either 1) not that bad really or 2) not their fault.
It has seemed to me that the this problem can only be solved by devolving more governmental power to local political units. It is much more difficult to avoid answering your neighbor's questions than it is to avoid the questions of someone whom you have never seen before and will never see again. This in theory is an approach liberals and conservatives should be able to support. It would allow both to have the chance to implement their particular world views more thoroughly than would otherwise be possible.
Regardless of the approach, something must be done to make those who govern us more accountable for their actions.
As Schneiderman notes regulators and legislators like detailed regulations for various reasons. The trade off for the regulators is that they in turn escape responsibility. In addition to detailed regulations furthering regulators raison d'etre such regulations also prevent regulators from having to exercise judgment and discretion. Regulators are thus able to avoid any responsibility. This is an advantage as well for legislators who enact broad mandates and leave the detailed implementation to regulators.
This is a common problem. Accountability is widely seen as something to be avoided at all costs. Most people operate by the axiom that they don't care what happens as long as it's not their fault. So, in my view the issue of overregulation is merely a symptom of a larger problem: how do we make our "representatives" in government accountable? It seems to me that the trend over the life of our Republic has been to diffuse accountability. Partly this is a result of a growing population more people means paradoxically fewer people to answer to. But it is also a result of the human tendency to want to avoid responsibility the result of which is that people alter the structures in which they operate to deflect responsibility. Here I am thinking of the tendency to pass laws giving regulators broad discretion in implementation.
Moreover, even when the structures cannot be altered enough to avoid responsibility people try to form a narrative which absolves them of responsibility. Currently this is manifest in Democrats seeking to persuade people that whatever ill effects Obamacare is inflicting are either 1) not that bad really or 2) not their fault.
It has seemed to me that the this problem can only be solved by devolving more governmental power to local political units. It is much more difficult to avoid answering your neighbor's questions than it is to avoid the questions of someone whom you have never seen before and will never see again. This in theory is an approach liberals and conservatives should be able to support. It would allow both to have the chance to implement their particular world views more thoroughly than would otherwise be possible.
Regardless of the approach, something must be done to make those who govern us more accountable for their actions.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Economics
I am not an economist. Whatever understanding I have of economics comes from reading general interest stories about economics. I also have my own views based on my observations of my own and others behavior. I thought a bit about economics yesterday.
As part of my exercise routine I use a nordictrack ski machine (I know very old school, but there it is). I watch TV while I'm working out and I find it difficult to hear dialogue sometimes over the noise of the exercise machine. I have addressed that problem recently by watching a Swedish detective show on Netflix called "Wallander" I read the subtitles and don't have to worry about hearing the dialogue.
In yesterday's episode, a priest was shot. As the detectives and policemen were discussing the crime it came out that the priest worked with an outfit that purchases used and surplus medical equipment then resells the equipment to Africa and makes a profit on the sale. This revelation was accompanied by disapproving noises and comments. The company's business was not seen as a voluntary interaction between a willing buyer and willing seller, but evidently as a transaction in which the Swedish party was taking advantage of the African party. The key issue seemed to be the profit the Swedes made in the transaction. If was a minor point in the show, but it got me thinking a bit.
At an emotional level I got the complaints voiced by the Swedish policemen. It felt wrong somehow as if the Swedes were taking advantage of the Africans because I perceived the Swedes as strong and the Africans as week.
At the same time, the business was filling an unoccupied niche. If a charitable organization existed to perform that function, the business would not have been successful. In the absence of such an organization was it not better that the Africans had access to some medical equipment rather than none? And if the policemen really felt that the company was acting inappropriately, why didn't they form a charitable organization and undercut the company?
I think my dual reactions are pretty typical. Most of us feel at some level that material inequality is somehow wrong or at least it makes us feel uncomfortable. Why is that? I think that our feeling of discomfort is an echo in our spirits from our pre-mortal lives. I think that our spirits at some level realize that the appropriate order is for all of God's children to be "equal in earthly things."
Most of us also are disinclined to act completely without reference to our own benefit. The answer to the question about why the charitable niche went unfilled is that people were not sufficiently charitable. I think that our lack of charity is a result of (or demonstrates) our fallen nature. We are separated by our sinful nature from God the source of all charity.
So how do we address the dichotomy and what are the results of our "solutions"?
One way of reacting is to use the force of law to attempt to prevent the inequality: enact legislation making it illegal to buy used medical equipment and sell it to third world countries or requiring that used equipment be provided to Africans for free. This is the communistic impulse. In the real world this doesn't work because if people were inclined to perform that sort of charitable service they would do so without legal coercion and if they are not inclined to such performances legal coercion will not make them. We have fallen and our nature cannot be changed by force. True believers ignore the nature of our fall and insist that the failure to change results simply from the application of insufficient force. This approach may provide some psychic reward, but it causes much physical suffering.
One way of reacting is to allow the inequality. This works in the real world because it allows men to act in accordance with their natures, the physical suffering is less, but it does not sit well with many people because they sense that the results are inappropriate. Allowing such freedom is a much better resolution of the problem than the use of force, because the use of force inevitably leads to corruption of those who wield the force.
So, what we do is attempt to find a middle ground: partially socialistic governments or mostly free but highly regulated societies. But those attempts are never stable because people tug the system one way and the other and in the background, the adversary foments discord leading to violence whenever possible. He attempts to distort all of our impulses noble or base to vicious ends.
The only solution is to change mankind's nature. That cannot be done with outward pressure. Such a change can only be wrought by God working with people who are willing to change and accept him as their leader and guide. Neither unrestrained freedom to act, nor complete control of everyone's actions is the answer. The so-called third way does not consist of any mix of the two extreme approaches; the third way is in fact the only way accepting God in our lives and allowing him to change our nature.
As part of my exercise routine I use a nordictrack ski machine (I know very old school, but there it is). I watch TV while I'm working out and I find it difficult to hear dialogue sometimes over the noise of the exercise machine. I have addressed that problem recently by watching a Swedish detective show on Netflix called "Wallander" I read the subtitles and don't have to worry about hearing the dialogue.
In yesterday's episode, a priest was shot. As the detectives and policemen were discussing the crime it came out that the priest worked with an outfit that purchases used and surplus medical equipment then resells the equipment to Africa and makes a profit on the sale. This revelation was accompanied by disapproving noises and comments. The company's business was not seen as a voluntary interaction between a willing buyer and willing seller, but evidently as a transaction in which the Swedish party was taking advantage of the African party. The key issue seemed to be the profit the Swedes made in the transaction. If was a minor point in the show, but it got me thinking a bit.
At an emotional level I got the complaints voiced by the Swedish policemen. It felt wrong somehow as if the Swedes were taking advantage of the Africans because I perceived the Swedes as strong and the Africans as week.
At the same time, the business was filling an unoccupied niche. If a charitable organization existed to perform that function, the business would not have been successful. In the absence of such an organization was it not better that the Africans had access to some medical equipment rather than none? And if the policemen really felt that the company was acting inappropriately, why didn't they form a charitable organization and undercut the company?
I think my dual reactions are pretty typical. Most of us feel at some level that material inequality is somehow wrong or at least it makes us feel uncomfortable. Why is that? I think that our feeling of discomfort is an echo in our spirits from our pre-mortal lives. I think that our spirits at some level realize that the appropriate order is for all of God's children to be "equal in earthly things."
Most of us also are disinclined to act completely without reference to our own benefit. The answer to the question about why the charitable niche went unfilled is that people were not sufficiently charitable. I think that our lack of charity is a result of (or demonstrates) our fallen nature. We are separated by our sinful nature from God the source of all charity.
So how do we address the dichotomy and what are the results of our "solutions"?
One way of reacting is to use the force of law to attempt to prevent the inequality: enact legislation making it illegal to buy used medical equipment and sell it to third world countries or requiring that used equipment be provided to Africans for free. This is the communistic impulse. In the real world this doesn't work because if people were inclined to perform that sort of charitable service they would do so without legal coercion and if they are not inclined to such performances legal coercion will not make them. We have fallen and our nature cannot be changed by force. True believers ignore the nature of our fall and insist that the failure to change results simply from the application of insufficient force. This approach may provide some psychic reward, but it causes much physical suffering.
One way of reacting is to allow the inequality. This works in the real world because it allows men to act in accordance with their natures, the physical suffering is less, but it does not sit well with many people because they sense that the results are inappropriate. Allowing such freedom is a much better resolution of the problem than the use of force, because the use of force inevitably leads to corruption of those who wield the force.
So, what we do is attempt to find a middle ground: partially socialistic governments or mostly free but highly regulated societies. But those attempts are never stable because people tug the system one way and the other and in the background, the adversary foments discord leading to violence whenever possible. He attempts to distort all of our impulses noble or base to vicious ends.
The only solution is to change mankind's nature. That cannot be done with outward pressure. Such a change can only be wrought by God working with people who are willing to change and accept him as their leader and guide. Neither unrestrained freedom to act, nor complete control of everyone's actions is the answer. The so-called third way does not consist of any mix of the two extreme approaches; the third way is in fact the only way accepting God in our lives and allowing him to change our nature.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Spring Birds
I just sat down to write another post and noticed that the birds are back. The upstairs living room in our house has a cathedral ceiling with windows affording us a nice view of the mountains. A single wooden beam runs the length of the living room supporting the roof. The beam extends beyond the front set of windows outside the walls of our house. Where the beam and the roof soffit meet there is a little gap.
For many years after we moved in birds would appear in the Spring work their way through the gap between the beam and the soffit and nest in our ceiling. At least that is what I surmised from observing the birds and listenting to the sound of birds coming from the ceiling.
Eventually I tired of hearing the birds scrabbling around every year and concluded that it probably was not good for the structure to have them in there year after year. So about 7 or 8 years ago I borrowed a very tall ladder from a neighbor, bought some metal screening and closed off the gap between the beam and the soffit. The birds can no longer access our roof to nest, yet they return every year to make the attempt.
I guess that with birds as with humans old habits die hard.
For many years after we moved in birds would appear in the Spring work their way through the gap between the beam and the soffit and nest in our ceiling. At least that is what I surmised from observing the birds and listenting to the sound of birds coming from the ceiling.
Eventually I tired of hearing the birds scrabbling around every year and concluded that it probably was not good for the structure to have them in there year after year. So about 7 or 8 years ago I borrowed a very tall ladder from a neighbor, bought some metal screening and closed off the gap between the beam and the soffit. The birds can no longer access our roof to nest, yet they return every year to make the attempt.
I guess that with birds as with humans old habits die hard.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
For the Power is In Them
I thought this article was interesting, the author's underlying assumption being that our circumstances essentially determine who we will be. Change the circumstances and you change the individual. He says for example that
This view has always seemed rather demeaning. It contains within itself a message of powerlessness. The message is that you completely lack any means of transcending your condition that you are at the mercy of whatever circumstances in which you happen to find yourself.
I do not disagree that circumstances can affect how we feel about ourselves and can encourage or discourage behaviors, but an individual who cedes all of his power to the circumstances in which he find himself does so by his own choice.
The sense of powerlessness engendered by this philosophy leads to despair which leads to nihlism. If one can do nothing nothing one does matters. We are all protagonists in The Stranger.
Moreover, the author's world view is internally inconsistent as demonstrated by his view of rich people. If we are all controlled by our circumstances then a rich person is no more to be blamed for actions the author perceives to be pernicious than are poor people. If violence by poor people is justified by reason of their circumstances (as the author clearly suggests), then the actions of the rich are equally justified by reason of their circumstances. After all they are only acting according to the programming inherent in their surroundings just as the poor are.
The author by suggesting that rich people are somehow guilty or responsible for the plight of poor people is completely at odds with his argument that actions are dictated and absovlved by circumstnces. One cannot argue that only certain people and not others are controlled by their circumstances and therefore blameless regardless of how they act.
The author's insistence on maintaining this inconsistency, by implying that rich people should change the way in which they act in order to assist the poor, clearly implies that rich people have a power, the power to transcend their circumstances, that poor people lack.
I prefer not to think of certain groups of people as being helpless in the face of their circumstances. All God's children have power, the power to choose, the power to live a happy life, the power to change their circumstances. Some require assistance. Some who are incapable of taking care of themselves need to be cared for. Others who lack the knowledge or habits to be able to care for themselves require teaching, encouragement and material assistance until they can do so. But they have the power and if they never use that power they miss one of life's great experiences.
Certainly there are cultural differences as you scale the income ladder. Living in abundance, not fearing for your children's safety, and having decent food around will have its effect.It is not clear what effect he refers to, but it is clear that in his view material surrounding affect a person's behavior. Change the surroundings and the behavior will change.
This view has always seemed rather demeaning. It contains within itself a message of powerlessness. The message is that you completely lack any means of transcending your condition that you are at the mercy of whatever circumstances in which you happen to find yourself.
I do not disagree that circumstances can affect how we feel about ourselves and can encourage or discourage behaviors, but an individual who cedes all of his power to the circumstances in which he find himself does so by his own choice.
The sense of powerlessness engendered by this philosophy leads to despair which leads to nihlism. If one can do nothing nothing one does matters. We are all protagonists in The Stranger.
Moreover, the author's world view is internally inconsistent as demonstrated by his view of rich people. If we are all controlled by our circumstances then a rich person is no more to be blamed for actions the author perceives to be pernicious than are poor people. If violence by poor people is justified by reason of their circumstances (as the author clearly suggests), then the actions of the rich are equally justified by reason of their circumstances. After all they are only acting according to the programming inherent in their surroundings just as the poor are.
The author by suggesting that rich people are somehow guilty or responsible for the plight of poor people is completely at odds with his argument that actions are dictated and absovlved by circumstnces. One cannot argue that only certain people and not others are controlled by their circumstances and therefore blameless regardless of how they act.
The author's insistence on maintaining this inconsistency, by implying that rich people should change the way in which they act in order to assist the poor, clearly implies that rich people have a power, the power to transcend their circumstances, that poor people lack.
I prefer not to think of certain groups of people as being helpless in the face of their circumstances. All God's children have power, the power to choose, the power to live a happy life, the power to change their circumstances. Some require assistance. Some who are incapable of taking care of themselves need to be cared for. Others who lack the knowledge or habits to be able to care for themselves require teaching, encouragement and material assistance until they can do so. But they have the power and if they never use that power they miss one of life's great experiences.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Noah
So, I haven't seen Noah, but I found this piece in the LA Times a bit much based on what I know of the film. The tenor of the times article is summed up in this quote:
But I quibble. God and his followers are without love or compassion. Belief in God results in massive destruction and what appears to be insanity. It's hard to imagine how Noah could be considered to be a faith based movie when it's central message preaches that faith in God leads to destruction and madness.
Presumably the presence of a loving God faith in whom leads one to all that is good in the world is the literal mindedness the Times believes is missing from this film. The Times also notes that religious whiners are complaining just because the story was not interpreted in the way in which those believers have been taught. Again the interpretation the Times refers to as having been taught to believers is one in which God is good rather than an evil all powerful tyrant as Noah's writers and directors interpretation would have it.
Imagine the temerity of the religious to expect a depiction of sacred text to be an affirmation of the principles espoused in the text rather than a two hour long argument that if you believe that stuff you're crazy. The backlash against protests about Noah as exemplified in the LA Times demonstrates once again that a certain segment of society, prominently including many responsible for our "entertainment," is bent on undermining faith and religion in our society.
The same people who gripe that Hollywood never makes any faith-based movies are complaining because Hollywood has gone and made a religious movie, albeit one that might not be as literal-minded as they'd like.Those wacky God types, there's just no pleasing them. But from what I know Noah is not a "faith based" movie nor is it a religious movie. Noah depicts God has bitter and vindictive inspiring Noah his prophet to murder his grandchildren lest they survive the flood the ostensible purpose of which is to destroy all of humanity without allowing any humans left to multiply and replenish the earth. This of course is totally nonsensical. Why preserve Noah and his family if the intent was to leave the earth completely barren of human life?
But I quibble. God and his followers are without love or compassion. Belief in God results in massive destruction and what appears to be insanity. It's hard to imagine how Noah could be considered to be a faith based movie when it's central message preaches that faith in God leads to destruction and madness.
Presumably the presence of a loving God faith in whom leads one to all that is good in the world is the literal mindedness the Times believes is missing from this film. The Times also notes that religious whiners are complaining just because the story was not interpreted in the way in which those believers have been taught. Again the interpretation the Times refers to as having been taught to believers is one in which God is good rather than an evil all powerful tyrant as Noah's writers and directors interpretation would have it.
Imagine the temerity of the religious to expect a depiction of sacred text to be an affirmation of the principles espoused in the text rather than a two hour long argument that if you believe that stuff you're crazy. The backlash against protests about Noah as exemplified in the LA Times demonstrates once again that a certain segment of society, prominently including many responsible for our "entertainment," is bent on undermining faith and religion in our society.
Retirement
Then there's this. So, why did I retire? I was in a meeting the other day with a well-known prominent attorney who is about eight years older than I am and certainly in a much better financial position than I. He has not retired and does not apparently have plans to retire anytime soon.
Unlike this prominent attorney and many others, there was nothing unique about the services I offered (and in truth the same probably can be said of him). If I was not doing anything that others couldn't do at least as well and probably better, then the only reason I was working was to earn money. Once I had earned sufficient to fund a comfortable retirement, the only reason to keep working, unless I really enjoyed what I was doing, was to earn more money. But, as Hugh Nibley pointed out in one of his essays, when you have enough what is more? Too much.
I didn't particularly enjoy the practice of law and the thought of doing something I didn't particularly enjoy simply for the purpose of adding to a surplus did not appeal to me.
I confess to feeling a bit guilty when I read articles like this. I try to remind myself that working for money is not the only valuable or important work that can be done. Besides, how could I travel for seven weeks as I am going to do this year if I were still working?
Unlike this prominent attorney and many others, there was nothing unique about the services I offered (and in truth the same probably can be said of him). If I was not doing anything that others couldn't do at least as well and probably better, then the only reason I was working was to earn money. Once I had earned sufficient to fund a comfortable retirement, the only reason to keep working, unless I really enjoyed what I was doing, was to earn more money. But, as Hugh Nibley pointed out in one of his essays, when you have enough what is more? Too much.
I didn't particularly enjoy the practice of law and the thought of doing something I didn't particularly enjoy simply for the purpose of adding to a surplus did not appeal to me.
I confess to feeling a bit guilty when I read articles like this. I try to remind myself that working for money is not the only valuable or important work that can be done. Besides, how could I travel for seven weeks as I am going to do this year if I were still working?
Thursday, March 27, 2014
For Time and for All Eternity
The concept of eternal marriage as an explicitly instituted union is, as far as I know (which admittedly is not terribly far), an idea unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Other churches or religions may think of a marriage covenant extending beyond this life or may not limit their marriage vows to this life only, but to my, again admittedly limited, knowledge only the LDS Church explicitly teaches that God intends that marriages performed in sacred temples last forever.
As a point of doctrine, eternal marriage has appealed to couples who have viewed their love for each other as so powerful and enduring that it was difficult to conceive of its ending with life on this earth. As an expression of depth of feeling it has found its way into popular culture with songs expressing everlasting love or proclamations of loving someone always and forever and the fairy tale ending of a couple living happily ever after.
Those popular sentiments have endured even in our modern culture of cohabitation rather than marriage and common divorce among married couples. But I have seen a small but growing number of discussions of "natural" limits to the term of a marriage. Most recently I was reading an article relating to Gwyenth Paltrow's impending divorce when I came across this passage:
This entire idea it seems to me is a case of pseudo science running to the aid of societal changes. Expressions of our natural inability to be with one person for our entire lives are calculated to justify decisions to separate and divorce. "Don't feel bad about splitting up regardless of the reason. It's only natural and expected." This is yet another example of how our popular culture is undermining the family unit by supporting people in following their momentary desires and urges regardless of the effect it might have on others.
As a point of doctrine, eternal marriage has appealed to couples who have viewed their love for each other as so powerful and enduring that it was difficult to conceive of its ending with life on this earth. As an expression of depth of feeling it has found its way into popular culture with songs expressing everlasting love or proclamations of loving someone always and forever and the fairy tale ending of a couple living happily ever after.
Those popular sentiments have endured even in our modern culture of cohabitation rather than marriage and common divorce among married couples. But I have seen a small but growing number of discussions of "natural" limits to the term of a marriage. Most recently I was reading an article relating to Gwyenth Paltrow's impending divorce when I came across this passage:
Paltrow helpfully followed up her initial announcement by posting a 2,000-word treatise on conscious uncoupling from Habib Sadeghi and Sherry Sami, a married couple living in Los Angeles. (Dr. Sadeghi is an osteopathic doctor who runs an “integrative health center” called “Be Hive of Healing,” pun presumably intended, and whose book Within: A Spiritual Awakening to Love and Weight Loss contains a foreword written by Paltrow. His wife is a dentist.)
Sadeghi and Sami begin by explaining that given rapidly accelerating life expectancy, these days it’s unrealistic to expect that we’ll be able to stick it out until death do us part, which suggests we “ought to redefine the construct” of marriage.
“Our biology and psychology aren’t set up to be with one person for four, five, or six decades,” they write.This idea, that we as human beings are not designed for prolonged marriage to one person, is a relatively recent idea (at least to my knowledge). Certainly forty or fifty years ago when the divorce rate was much lower and the marriage rate much higher, there was not much talk about humans' natural inability to be with one person for four five or six decades.
This entire idea it seems to me is a case of pseudo science running to the aid of societal changes. Expressions of our natural inability to be with one person for our entire lives are calculated to justify decisions to separate and divorce. "Don't feel bad about splitting up regardless of the reason. It's only natural and expected." This is yet another example of how our popular culture is undermining the family unit by supporting people in following their momentary desires and urges regardless of the effect it might have on others.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Saved by Grace
I have, for a long time, wondered along with a number of others why individuals and organizations on the left are granted immunity from behaviors roundly condemned by leftists. Why is George Soros, billionaire currency speculator, allowed to be politically active without criticism while the Koch brothers are not? Why are leftist comedians permitted to utter vile words without a murmur from the press while conservative radio hosts are called to task for much less objectionable language? Why are people of color who express conservative views allowed to be referred to by highly objectionable racial epithets while the most indirect reference to race from a conservative is grounds for termination and blacklisting? Why are liberal billionaires and millionaires not considered to be part of the "one percent" and permitted to rail against conservatives of similar, or lesser, wealth without being called on their hypocrisy?
Victor Davis Hansen has pointed out that those on the left are immunized from criticism because they believe, or at least express belief, in all of the right things. They toe the ideological line, their hearts are in the right place. That is certainly true as an objective matter but I have always wondered what the ideological underpinning for such an approach might be. After all if the left is interested in results, one's belief should not trump one's actions; form should not be exalted above substance. The left's actions made no logical sense which is quite extraordinary for a philosophy that prides itself on being rational above all else. I think I found an explanation.
I read with interest yesterday a review of a book called An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America by Joseph Bottum. According to the review (I haven't read the book yet, but it's now on my summer reading list) Bottum's thesis is that
In this view since the purpose of life is to be saved by adopting the required beliefs, actual worldly conditions are unimportant. If the population believes in the leftist program the fact that the results of the program lead to less freedom, opportunity and prosperity and increased misery, death and destruction are completely irrelevant because such worldly concerns are much less important than the souls that are saved.
That is why leftists can with complete internal consistency ignore the misery and death caused by communist and socialist governments: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" The leftist program makes sense only in religious terms. What the left really has to offer is salvation by grace.
Victor Davis Hansen has pointed out that those on the left are immunized from criticism because they believe, or at least express belief, in all of the right things. They toe the ideological line, their hearts are in the right place. That is certainly true as an objective matter but I have always wondered what the ideological underpinning for such an approach might be. After all if the left is interested in results, one's belief should not trump one's actions; form should not be exalted above substance. The left's actions made no logical sense which is quite extraordinary for a philosophy that prides itself on being rational above all else. I think I found an explanation.
I read with interest yesterday a review of a book called An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America by Joseph Bottum. According to the review (I haven't read the book yet, but it's now on my summer reading list) Bottum's thesis is that
post-Protestant secular religion...gained force and staying power by recasting the old Mainline Protestantism in the form of catechistic worldly categories: anti-racism, anti-gender discrimination, anti-inequality, and so forth. What sustains the heirs of the now-defunct Protestant consensus, he concludes, is a sense of the sacred, but one that seeks the security of personal salvation through assuming the right stance on social and political issues. Precisely because the new secular religion permeates into the pores of everyday life, it sustains the certitude of salvation and a self-perpetuating spiritual aura. Secularism has succeeded on religious terms.Viewing the left's attitude as a religious stance it seems to me makes sense of its apparently contradictory attitude. If one views the left as being part of a religion, particularly a religion in the protestant tradition with its emphasis of grace over works, it is possible to understand why simply ascribing to the correct beliefs insulates one from criticism. If the purpose of the leftist program is secular salvation then a declaration that one has been saved by having accepted the leftist saving principles absolves one of the need for action. The grace of the left's ideological program is sufficiently powerful to save the sinner; no other qualification or action is required.
In this view since the purpose of life is to be saved by adopting the required beliefs, actual worldly conditions are unimportant. If the population believes in the leftist program the fact that the results of the program lead to less freedom, opportunity and prosperity and increased misery, death and destruction are completely irrelevant because such worldly concerns are much less important than the souls that are saved.
That is why leftists can with complete internal consistency ignore the misery and death caused by communist and socialist governments: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" The leftist program makes sense only in religious terms. What the left really has to offer is salvation by grace.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Images
I just read an old article from ABC news. The article referred to an advertisement Target Stores had produced advertising a swim suit. Target apologized for photo shopping a picture of a swimsuit clad young lady in the ad which had been altered to create a "thigh gap." The concern over the ad related to portraying an unrealistic "body image" the idea being that models with dimensions very difficult or impossible to achieve set an unrealistic standard for young women who go will go to distressing lengths to emulate the model's appearance. Young women feel that they have to conform to the body types represented in these ads according to some.
I have no doubt that such concerns are real and that we would all be better off if models and popular personalities were of a more realistic experience. But I couldn't help but think that we are straining at the gnat of body image while swallowing the camel of risky and immoral behavior. What is more troubling that a young woman's self esteem might be reduced from her inability to mimic the body of a model or star or that her life might be changed by her desire and ability to mimic the immoral lifestyle of a model or star either modeled in reality or in the movies or TV shows.
This phenomenon is one more demonstration that our culture has completely lost its moorings.
I have no doubt that such concerns are real and that we would all be better off if models and popular personalities were of a more realistic experience. But I couldn't help but think that we are straining at the gnat of body image while swallowing the camel of risky and immoral behavior. What is more troubling that a young woman's self esteem might be reduced from her inability to mimic the body of a model or star or that her life might be changed by her desire and ability to mimic the immoral lifestyle of a model or star either modeled in reality or in the movies or TV shows.
This phenomenon is one more demonstration that our culture has completely lost its moorings.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Atheistic Morality
Only one more observation about the Salon article discussed in the last several posts. Part of what the new radical heroes of atheism attempt to accomplish according to the Salon article is to begin constructing a basis for morality without reference to God.
You can, of course, see the problem confronting atheists. If we are simply an aggregation of chemicals and consciousness is only an accidental by product of the way in which the chemicals are arranged, life has no purpose and no meaning. If our lives are without purpose or meaning nothing that we do or say matters. If nothing that we do or say matters no basis exists for preferring one set of actions over another. If no such preference exists, the only constraint on our actions is our physical limitation: anything we are capable of doing we may do. No constraint on any activity exists unless that constraint is imposed by forces external to the individual.
If any advantage exists to the individual in taking an action, any rational individual will take that action unless he is physically constrained. Evaluating whether an advantage exists will involve evaluating the consequences of the proposed action such as prison or effects on relationships etc. Morality involves restrictions on actions based not on physical limitations (what can be done) but based on limitations concerned with value judgments (what should be done). Because in the atheists' view we are simply aggregations of chemicals our being provides us no guidance about what should be done.
The authors described in the Salon article disagree as summarized by the author of the article "our moral life is also a natural (evolved) phenomenon, not rooted in any divine realm or mind. In this sense, the details of evolution teach us how to live together without any reference to God. Nothing is put in his place, because nothing is needed." So what exactly to the "details of evolution" teach us about living together? Well, according to the author ("Rules to Live By" in his formulation) the answer may be that 1) behaviors that increase well-being for the greatest part of the population, 2) behaviors that increase cooperation, and 3) behaviors that increase trust, as opposed to actions based on assertions of authority (as an aside the author of this particular theory advocates reducing "the power of the state and devolve our lives into parishes, computer networks, clubs and teams, self-help groups and small businesses—'everything small and local.'” which sounds an awful lot like what one might call a "conservative society" at least in the contemporary notion of conservatism. But earlier in the article the author claimed that according to one of these heroes "some forms of social life are less moral than others; that conservative societies have higher rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy and pornography" thus at least implying that conservative societies are less moral than contrasting (presumably progressive) societies "whose members are allowed to maximize themselves and others." This is all very confusing because none of the "heroes" are cited as positing that divorce, teenage pregnancy and pornography are either morally prohibited or the result of immoral behavior so why these outcomes would be indicators of a less moral society is a puzzle.)
These notions completely lack properties we traditionally look for in moral guidelines: guidance about how to act in circumstances where actions are not legally dictated or constrained. What does it mean to say that moral actions are those that increase well-being for the greatest part of the population? This leads only to a popularity contest. Notions of what well-being is and what actions might increase well-being are notoriously difficult to identify and nigh impossible to implement. Does total well-being increase when people are generally thinner for example? If so, are we morally compelled to force people to lose weight even though such actions infringe on an individual's ability to choose?
Morality then merely reflects popular attitudes of the day. What is immoral today becomes moral overnight. At the turn of the century it was generally thought that sex before marriage decreased the well-being of most people. That moral judgment derived from the common (at the time) belief that God through the ten commandments and other scriptures had dictated the proper moral framework for sexual interaction. Today under the new moral framework sex before marriage has lost any stigma of immorality.
In the 1990's the majority of people in Ruwanda (Hutu's) decided that the well being of that majority would be increased by the slaughter of the Tutsi's. Was that a moral or an immoral decision? If it was immoral what made it so? Was it immoral because of the number of Tutsi's? So, for example if the Tutsi's had comprised only 1% of the population rather than a much larger percentage? Was it immoral because the rest of the world did not agree with the Hutu's? What if the rest of the world did agree? Under the "increasing well-being" standard the Hutu's actions would be morally acceptable.
All of these proposed moral standards suffer from the same defect. With a moral code based on majority rule no one and nothing is safe. Is that really what we mean by a moral standard?
But is even worse than it appears because on what basis do we decide that "majority rule" is the proper basis for formulating morality in the first place. Why isn't any other basis for deciding what is moral just as legitimate? Without God, that is without a moral force separate and apart from humanity and the natural world, man is lost in the wilderness without compass or direction. Morality becomes whatever a particular group says it is at the moment and losses all meaning.
You can, of course, see the problem confronting atheists. If we are simply an aggregation of chemicals and consciousness is only an accidental by product of the way in which the chemicals are arranged, life has no purpose and no meaning. If our lives are without purpose or meaning nothing that we do or say matters. If nothing that we do or say matters no basis exists for preferring one set of actions over another. If no such preference exists, the only constraint on our actions is our physical limitation: anything we are capable of doing we may do. No constraint on any activity exists unless that constraint is imposed by forces external to the individual.
If any advantage exists to the individual in taking an action, any rational individual will take that action unless he is physically constrained. Evaluating whether an advantage exists will involve evaluating the consequences of the proposed action such as prison or effects on relationships etc. Morality involves restrictions on actions based not on physical limitations (what can be done) but based on limitations concerned with value judgments (what should be done). Because in the atheists' view we are simply aggregations of chemicals our being provides us no guidance about what should be done.
The authors described in the Salon article disagree as summarized by the author of the article "our moral life is also a natural (evolved) phenomenon, not rooted in any divine realm or mind. In this sense, the details of evolution teach us how to live together without any reference to God. Nothing is put in his place, because nothing is needed." So what exactly to the "details of evolution" teach us about living together? Well, according to the author ("Rules to Live By" in his formulation) the answer may be that 1) behaviors that increase well-being for the greatest part of the population, 2) behaviors that increase cooperation, and 3) behaviors that increase trust, as opposed to actions based on assertions of authority (as an aside the author of this particular theory advocates reducing "the power of the state and devolve our lives into parishes, computer networks, clubs and teams, self-help groups and small businesses—'everything small and local.'” which sounds an awful lot like what one might call a "conservative society" at least in the contemporary notion of conservatism. But earlier in the article the author claimed that according to one of these heroes "some forms of social life are less moral than others; that conservative societies have higher rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy and pornography" thus at least implying that conservative societies are less moral than contrasting (presumably progressive) societies "whose members are allowed to maximize themselves and others." This is all very confusing because none of the "heroes" are cited as positing that divorce, teenage pregnancy and pornography are either morally prohibited or the result of immoral behavior so why these outcomes would be indicators of a less moral society is a puzzle.)
These notions completely lack properties we traditionally look for in moral guidelines: guidance about how to act in circumstances where actions are not legally dictated or constrained. What does it mean to say that moral actions are those that increase well-being for the greatest part of the population? This leads only to a popularity contest. Notions of what well-being is and what actions might increase well-being are notoriously difficult to identify and nigh impossible to implement. Does total well-being increase when people are generally thinner for example? If so, are we morally compelled to force people to lose weight even though such actions infringe on an individual's ability to choose?
Morality then merely reflects popular attitudes of the day. What is immoral today becomes moral overnight. At the turn of the century it was generally thought that sex before marriage decreased the well-being of most people. That moral judgment derived from the common (at the time) belief that God through the ten commandments and other scriptures had dictated the proper moral framework for sexual interaction. Today under the new moral framework sex before marriage has lost any stigma of immorality.
In the 1990's the majority of people in Ruwanda (Hutu's) decided that the well being of that majority would be increased by the slaughter of the Tutsi's. Was that a moral or an immoral decision? If it was immoral what made it so? Was it immoral because of the number of Tutsi's? So, for example if the Tutsi's had comprised only 1% of the population rather than a much larger percentage? Was it immoral because the rest of the world did not agree with the Hutu's? What if the rest of the world did agree? Under the "increasing well-being" standard the Hutu's actions would be morally acceptable.
All of these proposed moral standards suffer from the same defect. With a moral code based on majority rule no one and nothing is safe. Is that really what we mean by a moral standard?
But is even worse than it appears because on what basis do we decide that "majority rule" is the proper basis for formulating morality in the first place. Why isn't any other basis for deciding what is moral just as legitimate? Without God, that is without a moral force separate and apart from humanity and the natural world, man is lost in the wilderness without compass or direction. Morality becomes whatever a particular group says it is at the moment and losses all meaning.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Of Hope and Dispair
I'm going to offer my take on couple more points raised in the Salon article I've mentioned in the last few posts. I want first to tackle the issue of hope and the purpose of life.
The author of the article begins by relating two incidents from Richard Dawkins. It seems after the publication of The Selfish Gene. We are told that "an unnamed foreign publisher...told him that, after reading...The Selfish Gene..., he could not sleep for three nights, so troubled was he by its 'cold, bleak message.'" We are also told that "a teacher 'from a distant country'...had written to him reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book 'because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism.'”
According to the author of the article, Dawkins was shocked!, shocked!, that his view of human life as a chance assembly of chemicals without purpose could lead anyone who took his philosophy seriously into a pit of nihilistic despair.
Dawkins attempts to offer us a way out of the dilemma. While he observes that all purpose in life is "'gone... all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe,” apparently quoting his colleague Peter Atkins’s book The Second Law (1984), he admonishes us that this dispassionate view of the purposelessness of the Universe, of which we are a part, "must not be confused with the loss of personal hope."
Well, that sounds good. What then is it that we are supposed to hope for personally in this life that is completely without purpose? Well, he says "there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our life’s hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don’t; not if we are sane." That sounds like progress. So we don't look to the ultimate fate of the Universe for purpose in our individual lives. We must look closer to home, to something that is on a more human scale. Okay, then what are we to look to?
Well, he observes that "[o]ur lives are ruled by all sorts of closer, warmer, human ambitions and perceptions." Okay that's nice. Then what about those human ambitions and perceptions will provide us with a bulwark against the despair of a life without meaning? It is Dawkins avows a "sense of awed wonder that science can give us and which makes it 'one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable.'”
So, although our lives are completely devoid of meaning and purpose we must not despair because the "closer, warmer human ambition[]" of science will keep the darkness at bay and provide us with our "life's hope." But we never really see what it is we are to hope for. Are we to hope for a privileged view of the inner workings of the Universe through the medium of science? Are we to hope to be able to achieve a "sense of awed wonder" at the world around us?
Of course the author of the article never ascribes to Dawkins any reason for hope or any explanation of what we should hope for. I suppose that because the article is merely a summary of some of Dawkins' work he could provide those answers in one of his books, but somehow I doubt it. No, it is clear to me that for all of Dawkins protestations to the contrary, he doesn't really believe the philosophy he espouses. His demonstrates his insincerity by his very continued existence.
If there is no purpose to anything in the Universe, no purpose in our individual or collective lives; if after all we dissolve into nothingness then whatever joy or pain we experience, whatever success achieve or failure we suffer is completely pointless. Living or not living is exactly the same. The fact that the purveyors of the reductionist deterministic view of the Universe continue to live, that they breath and eat and do all those things necessary to sustain life, means that they believe that life has some meaning or purpose. Otherwise why continue? All of their protestations about living so that they can experience the wonder and awe of the physical world only means that they believe there is some point to doing so. If there is a reason for doing so then there must be a purpose.
The author of the article begins by relating two incidents from Richard Dawkins. It seems after the publication of The Selfish Gene. We are told that "an unnamed foreign publisher...told him that, after reading...The Selfish Gene..., he could not sleep for three nights, so troubled was he by its 'cold, bleak message.'" We are also told that "a teacher 'from a distant country'...had written to him reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book 'because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism.'”
According to the author of the article, Dawkins was shocked!, shocked!, that his view of human life as a chance assembly of chemicals without purpose could lead anyone who took his philosophy seriously into a pit of nihilistic despair.
Dawkins attempts to offer us a way out of the dilemma. While he observes that all purpose in life is "'gone... all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe,” apparently quoting his colleague Peter Atkins’s book The Second Law (1984), he admonishes us that this dispassionate view of the purposelessness of the Universe, of which we are a part, "must not be confused with the loss of personal hope."
Well, that sounds good. What then is it that we are supposed to hope for personally in this life that is completely without purpose? Well, he says "there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our life’s hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don’t; not if we are sane." That sounds like progress. So we don't look to the ultimate fate of the Universe for purpose in our individual lives. We must look closer to home, to something that is on a more human scale. Okay, then what are we to look to?
Well, he observes that "[o]ur lives are ruled by all sorts of closer, warmer, human ambitions and perceptions." Okay that's nice. Then what about those human ambitions and perceptions will provide us with a bulwark against the despair of a life without meaning? It is Dawkins avows a "sense of awed wonder that science can give us and which makes it 'one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable.'”
So, although our lives are completely devoid of meaning and purpose we must not despair because the "closer, warmer human ambition[]" of science will keep the darkness at bay and provide us with our "life's hope." But we never really see what it is we are to hope for. Are we to hope for a privileged view of the inner workings of the Universe through the medium of science? Are we to hope to be able to achieve a "sense of awed wonder" at the world around us?
Of course the author of the article never ascribes to Dawkins any reason for hope or any explanation of what we should hope for. I suppose that because the article is merely a summary of some of Dawkins' work he could provide those answers in one of his books, but somehow I doubt it. No, it is clear to me that for all of Dawkins protestations to the contrary, he doesn't really believe the philosophy he espouses. His demonstrates his insincerity by his very continued existence.
If there is no purpose to anything in the Universe, no purpose in our individual or collective lives; if after all we dissolve into nothingness then whatever joy or pain we experience, whatever success achieve or failure we suffer is completely pointless. Living or not living is exactly the same. The fact that the purveyors of the reductionist deterministic view of the Universe continue to live, that they breath and eat and do all those things necessary to sustain life, means that they believe that life has some meaning or purpose. Otherwise why continue? All of their protestations about living so that they can experience the wonder and awe of the physical world only means that they believe there is some point to doing so. If there is a reason for doing so then there must be a purpose.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
A Modest Observation
Apropos of yesterday's post relating to what an atheistic society might look like, we do have one example of how a governing philosophy that rules out belief in God as one of its basic premises: Communism. The communistic governing philosophy is based entirely on the material (that which can be perceived by the senses or can be shown to exist by way of reasoning from that which can be perceived by the senses). This response to a question about religion posted on a website devoted to Marxism is typical. The author in discussion the relationship between Communism and religion quotes Trotsky "We are of opinion that Atheism, as an inseparable element of the
materialist view of life, is a necessary condition for the theoretical
education of the revolutionist."
So, what does a completely Godless governing philosophy produce? Horror and death on an industrial scale. Communism killed many tens of millions of people and destroyed the lives of many tens of millions more. No one who has read the Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression can doubt that wholesale death and destruction are the necessary result of any implementation of this Godless governing philosophy. Everywhere it has been tried regardless of a society's pre-communist cultural background the implementation of a Communist regime always and inevitably leads to massive death and horror.
Why should this be so? Possibly because the philosophy itself requires behavior that so contradicts human nature that the only way to produce such unnatural behavior is by coercion and punishment. Possibly also because by banishing God from society the practitioners of this vile philosophy are left without any moral compass; all things are permitted and therefore no restraints exist on the measures that can be taken to enforce necessary behavior and discourage improper thoughts and actions.
Perhaps the results of Communism are unique to the Communistic philosophy and have nothing to do with its banishment of God from society. Perhaps it is possible to have a completely atheistic Godless society without the Communistic slaughter. Perhaps. But who really wants to conduct that experiment?
So, what does a completely Godless governing philosophy produce? Horror and death on an industrial scale. Communism killed many tens of millions of people and destroyed the lives of many tens of millions more. No one who has read the Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression can doubt that wholesale death and destruction are the necessary result of any implementation of this Godless governing philosophy. Everywhere it has been tried regardless of a society's pre-communist cultural background the implementation of a Communist regime always and inevitably leads to massive death and horror.
Why should this be so? Possibly because the philosophy itself requires behavior that so contradicts human nature that the only way to produce such unnatural behavior is by coercion and punishment. Possibly also because by banishing God from society the practitioners of this vile philosophy are left without any moral compass; all things are permitted and therefore no restraints exist on the measures that can be taken to enforce necessary behavior and discourage improper thoughts and actions.
Perhaps the results of Communism are unique to the Communistic philosophy and have nothing to do with its banishment of God from society. Perhaps it is possible to have a completely atheistic Godless society without the Communistic slaughter. Perhaps. But who really wants to conduct that experiment?
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Evangelizing Atheists
I read an interesting article at the Salon website the other day entitled: "Atheism's radical new heroes: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and an evolving new moral view." The article referenced several books by the named authors together with several other books whose avowed purpose is to "mount[] a spirited attack on the basic dimensions of religion..." One of the books reviewed in the article was
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006) authored by Daniel Dennett, a philosopher at Tufts University. Relating to this book the author of the article informs us
The belief I refer to in my first point is his belief that God does not exist. Although he does not express his atheism in the quoted language, I think it safe to assume that in expressing belief in evolution he refers to evolution undirected by a larger intelligence and that his fundamental belief of which evolution is part is that God does not exist and the universe and everything in it is a result of random chance.
Dennett's atheism appears to me to be functionally indistinguishable from any other religion from the manner in which he describes his beliefs to the function his beliefs play in his life and the necessity of gathering others into the fold for their own good and the good of all humanity. I am pretty sure atheism is his religion. But some of his theology is less than well thought out.
His explanation of the widely perceived need for spirituality and the way to fulfill that need without reference to God or any higher power, for example, seems completely garbled. According to Dennett, spirituality has nothing to do with the soul or anything supernatural; the secret to spirituality is to let your self go. I can agree with part of that statement. I understand that most religions associate a belief in God with foregoing self in favor of others. A belief in God encourages sacrifice of our own desires in favor of accomplishing the will of God which is to serve his children. But the sacrifice of self in relation to God fulfills our need for spirituality because it allows us to participate in something greater than ourselves. We are enlarged by our sacrifice because through our sacrifice we become part of larger whole with a divine purpose.
By contrast the letting go of self Dennett imagines has only the effect and purpose of leading us to understand that we are even smaller than we appear to be. We will understand essentially that we are nothing compared to the world around us. This letting go of self would it seems to me result in making "hard choices easier" because the result of such choices are completely unimportant in an unimaginably large uncaring cosmos. Dennett avers that this is not true, that his view will lead people to be better. I can't imagine that he is right. We have only been conducting this particular experiment in a godless society for a very short period of time and that preliminary results don't appear to be all that encouraging.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006) authored by Daniel Dennett, a philosopher at Tufts University. Relating to this book the author of the article informs us
In writing his book, he [Dennett] said, he had come across one widespread opinion, albeit expressed in a variety of ways: in essence, this was that “man” has a “deep need” for spirituality. “What fascinates me about this delightfully versatile craving for ‘spirituality’ is that people think they know what they are talking about, even though—or perhaps because—nobody bothers to explain what they mean.”
Dennett had three things to say about how we should live. The secret to spirituality had nothing to do with the soul, or anything supernatural—it was this: let your self go. “If you can approach the world’s complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only just scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the great scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered, and engaged, you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person [italics in original].”
It was a matter of urgency, he thought, that people understand and accept evolutionary theory. “I believe that their salvation may depend on it! How so? By opening their eyes to the dangers of pandemics, degradation of the environment, and loss of biodiversity, and by informing them about some of the foibles of human nature. So isn’t my belief that belief in evolution is the path to salvation a religion? No. . . . We who love evolution do not honor those whose love of evolution prevents them from thinking clearly and rationally about it! … In our view there is no safe haven for mystery or incomprehensibility. … I feel a moral imperative to spread the word of evolution, but evolution is not my religion. I don’t have a religion. (emphasis mine)Hmmm. While he says that evolution is not his religion I wonder if we can perhaps divine another religion from his comments. So let's unpack what he has to say a bit. Dennett 1) expresses a belief in a proposition the truth or falsity of which cannot be determined by rational means; 2) testifies that his belief provides him a way of living that allows him to live life to its fullest and guides him towards being a better person; 3) avers that he feels a moral imperative to "spread the word" of a central tenant of his belief because 4) in his view a person's "salvation" may depend on accepting this central tenant as a truth.
The belief I refer to in my first point is his belief that God does not exist. Although he does not express his atheism in the quoted language, I think it safe to assume that in expressing belief in evolution he refers to evolution undirected by a larger intelligence and that his fundamental belief of which evolution is part is that God does not exist and the universe and everything in it is a result of random chance.
Dennett's atheism appears to me to be functionally indistinguishable from any other religion from the manner in which he describes his beliefs to the function his beliefs play in his life and the necessity of gathering others into the fold for their own good and the good of all humanity. I am pretty sure atheism is his religion. But some of his theology is less than well thought out.
His explanation of the widely perceived need for spirituality and the way to fulfill that need without reference to God or any higher power, for example, seems completely garbled. According to Dennett, spirituality has nothing to do with the soul or anything supernatural; the secret to spirituality is to let your self go. I can agree with part of that statement. I understand that most religions associate a belief in God with foregoing self in favor of others. A belief in God encourages sacrifice of our own desires in favor of accomplishing the will of God which is to serve his children. But the sacrifice of self in relation to God fulfills our need for spirituality because it allows us to participate in something greater than ourselves. We are enlarged by our sacrifice because through our sacrifice we become part of larger whole with a divine purpose.
By contrast the letting go of self Dennett imagines has only the effect and purpose of leading us to understand that we are even smaller than we appear to be. We will understand essentially that we are nothing compared to the world around us. This letting go of self would it seems to me result in making "hard choices easier" because the result of such choices are completely unimportant in an unimaginably large uncaring cosmos. Dennett avers that this is not true, that his view will lead people to be better. I can't imagine that he is right. We have only been conducting this particular experiment in a godless society for a very short period of time and that preliminary results don't appear to be all that encouraging.
Evil
This is just how evil I am. On the way home today I was followed by a big pickup truck. I was in the right hand lane of a four lane road. The driver of said truck moved into the right hand lane to overtake me. Down the road in the right hand lane was another car. So what did I do? I slowly increased my speed so that the pickup truck could not get around me. Then when I was parallel with the car in the right lane, I slowed down so that the pickup was boxed in. Oh, the drive of the pickup truck was not happy with me. When I turned into a store parking lot he stepped on the gas and roared away in a cloud of diesel fumes. I was amused, however, and isn't that the only important thing?
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Keen Observations
My wife, who is home today from he job as a middle school librarian after some minor outpatient surgery yesterday, observed at lunch that she considered herself to be a better librarian than she was a teacher. For myself I told her I am a much better retired person than I was a lawyer.
What a Crime
I have been watching the Swedish version of Wallander as I exercise in the morning. In the episode I completed today several seemingly unconnected murders were eventually found to be related to a former Swedish soldier. It turns out he was executing various people against whom he had carried a grudge for years. His spree of revenge killings was triggered by his having been diagnosed with terminal cancer. It seems once he knew he was going to die he decided to take his enemies with him.
This is a familiar trope for crime shows; when you have nothing to lose why not indulge in all of those fantasies you've nurtured over the years. I started out asking myself why we don't see stories about people who commit mass forgiveness rather than mass murder when faced with death. But of course those sorts of stories would not fit into any of the standard entertainment genres. So, the larger question is why we are drawn to crime drama? I certainly am. I have run through all of the Netflix available episodes of "Midsomer Murders," "Vera," and "Inspector Lewis." But why should I be interested in stories of murder linked to greed, lust and jealousy?
I'm not sure. Certainly I find the characters interesting, but is that enough to overcome exposure to the sordid world they inhabit? I don't know the answer but certainly it must be related to the fact that "the natural man is an enemy to God." Were I not such a "natural man" but "a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love," I would not enjoy such entertainment. My wife and children can certainly attest that I am far from meek, humble and patient. Maybe someday I will reach that state, but it's not today. Today I have another episode of the BBC version of Wallander waiting for me,
This is a familiar trope for crime shows; when you have nothing to lose why not indulge in all of those fantasies you've nurtured over the years. I started out asking myself why we don't see stories about people who commit mass forgiveness rather than mass murder when faced with death. But of course those sorts of stories would not fit into any of the standard entertainment genres. So, the larger question is why we are drawn to crime drama? I certainly am. I have run through all of the Netflix available episodes of "Midsomer Murders," "Vera," and "Inspector Lewis." But why should I be interested in stories of murder linked to greed, lust and jealousy?
I'm not sure. Certainly I find the characters interesting, but is that enough to overcome exposure to the sordid world they inhabit? I don't know the answer but certainly it must be related to the fact that "the natural man is an enemy to God." Were I not such a "natural man" but "a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love," I would not enjoy such entertainment. My wife and children can certainly attest that I am far from meek, humble and patient. Maybe someday I will reach that state, but it's not today. Today I have another episode of the BBC version of Wallander waiting for me,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)