Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Chipping Away...
In this article, George Will examines the ways in which our elected officials have begun systematically deconstructing the governmental restraints set forth in the constitution. They've been able to do this by seizing on public fear and outrage, as most recently expressed during the AIG bonus fiasco. It is amazing how subtle these changes have been, and how drastically they are altering the structure of American government and the nature of the American economy.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Great Communicator
I found this on another blog and thought it was worth sharing. The snippets from Obama in this clip are clearly cherry-picked and not terribly illuminating - but I'm more interested in Reagan's control of conservative principles. How long has it been since we've heard a prominent conservative so effortlessly describe the fundamental truths of limited government, free enterprise, individual liberty? And how naive does modern liberalism sound by comparison?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Obama's Lofty Words Mask an Astonishingly Unserious Approach to the Stem Cell Debate
Charles Krauthammer unmasks President Obama's empty rhetoric on the stem cell debate, and reminds us how intellectually and morally sophisticated President Bush's examination of the issue had been by comparison.
(Here's the RealClearPolitics version if you don't have a Washington Post login.)
Here is the full text of Obama's speech.
And here is Bush's for comparison.
(Here's the RealClearPolitics version if you don't have a Washington Post login.)
Here is the full text of Obama's speech.
And here is Bush's for comparison.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Considering Income Inequality Rationally
The excerpt below is from Thomas Sowell's most recent work on economics. If you haven't read Dr. Sowell's economic texts, there has never been a more critical time to do so. I think the passage below completely exposes the false and subversive notion that inequitable income distribution is an evil that any enlightened society cannot tolerate. That assertion, so often parroted by a generation of Americans completely unequipped to think rationally about basic economic principles, has the potential to destroy the prosperity that has enriched the lives of so many and allowed this nation to extend its blessings to less fortunate people around the world. The fact that adherents to this view proceed with the purest of intentions makes it no less destructive.
The version of Dr. Sowell's work presented here is heavily abridged due to obvious space constraints, but the full text of this section can be found on pages 148-152 of Economic Facts and Fallacies.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"[A]n economy is not a moral seminar authorized to hand out badges of merit to deserving people. An economy is a mechanism for generating the material wealth on which the standard of living of millions of people depends. Pay is not a retrospective reward for merit, but a prospective incentive for contributing to production...
"George Bernard Shaw...said: 'A division in which one woman gets a shilling and another three thousand shillings for an hour of work has no moral sense in it: it is just something that happens, and that ought not to happen. A child with an interesting face and pretty ways, and some talent for acting, may, by working for the films, earn a hundred times as much as its mother can earn by drudging at an ordinary trade.'
"Here are encapsulated the crucial elements in most critiques of 'income distribution' till this day. First, there is the implicit assumption that wealth is collective and hence must be divided up in order to be dispensed, followed by the assumption that this division currently has no principle involved but 'just happens,' and finally the implicit assumption that the effort put forth by the recipient of income is a valid yardstick for gauging the value of what was produced and the appropriateness of the reward. In reality, most income is not distributed, so the fashionable metaphor of 'income distribution' is misleading. Most income is earned by the production of goods and services, and how much that production is 'really' worth is a question that need not be left for third parties to determine, since those who directly receive the benefits of that production know better than anyone else how much that production is worth to them - and have the most incentives to seek alternative ways of getting that production as inexpensively as possible.
"In short, a collective decision for society as a whole is as unnecessary as it is impossible, not to mention presumptuous. It is not a question of rewarding input efforts or merits, but of securing output at values determined by those who use that output, rather than by third party onlookers. If the pleasure gained by watching a child movie star is valued more highly by millions of moviegoers than the benefits received by a much smaller number of people who benefit from buying the product of the drudgery of that child's mother, by what right is George Bernard Shaw or anyone else authorized to veto all these people's choices of what to do with their own money?
...
"Despite the popularity of the phrase 'income distribution,' most income is earned - not distributed.... But much of the rhetoric surrounding variations in income proceeds as if 'society' is collectively deciding how much to hand out to different individuals. From there it is a small step to arguing that, since 'society' distributes income with given results today that many do not understand or like, there should be a simple change to distributing income in a different pattern that would be more desirable.
"In reality, this would by no means be either a simple or innocuous change. On the contrary, it would mean going from an economic system in which most people are paid by those particular individuals that benefit from their goods and services - at rates of compensation determined by supply and demand involving those consumers, employers, and others who assess the benefits received by themselves - to an economy in which incomes are in fact distributed by 'society,' represented by surrogate, third-party decision-makers who determine what everyone 'deserves.'
...
"No third parties can possibly know the values, preferences, priorities, potentialities, circumstances, and constraints of millions of individuals better than those individuals know themselves."
The version of Dr. Sowell's work presented here is heavily abridged due to obvious space constraints, but the full text of this section can be found on pages 148-152 of Economic Facts and Fallacies.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"[A]n economy is not a moral seminar authorized to hand out badges of merit to deserving people. An economy is a mechanism for generating the material wealth on which the standard of living of millions of people depends. Pay is not a retrospective reward for merit, but a prospective incentive for contributing to production...
"George Bernard Shaw...said: 'A division in which one woman gets a shilling and another three thousand shillings for an hour of work has no moral sense in it: it is just something that happens, and that ought not to happen. A child with an interesting face and pretty ways, and some talent for acting, may, by working for the films, earn a hundred times as much as its mother can earn by drudging at an ordinary trade.'
"Here are encapsulated the crucial elements in most critiques of 'income distribution' till this day. First, there is the implicit assumption that wealth is collective and hence must be divided up in order to be dispensed, followed by the assumption that this division currently has no principle involved but 'just happens,' and finally the implicit assumption that the effort put forth by the recipient of income is a valid yardstick for gauging the value of what was produced and the appropriateness of the reward. In reality, most income is not distributed, so the fashionable metaphor of 'income distribution' is misleading. Most income is earned by the production of goods and services, and how much that production is 'really' worth is a question that need not be left for third parties to determine, since those who directly receive the benefits of that production know better than anyone else how much that production is worth to them - and have the most incentives to seek alternative ways of getting that production as inexpensively as possible.
"In short, a collective decision for society as a whole is as unnecessary as it is impossible, not to mention presumptuous. It is not a question of rewarding input efforts or merits, but of securing output at values determined by those who use that output, rather than by third party onlookers. If the pleasure gained by watching a child movie star is valued more highly by millions of moviegoers than the benefits received by a much smaller number of people who benefit from buying the product of the drudgery of that child's mother, by what right is George Bernard Shaw or anyone else authorized to veto all these people's choices of what to do with their own money?
...
"Despite the popularity of the phrase 'income distribution,' most income is earned - not distributed.... But much of the rhetoric surrounding variations in income proceeds as if 'society' is collectively deciding how much to hand out to different individuals. From there it is a small step to arguing that, since 'society' distributes income with given results today that many do not understand or like, there should be a simple change to distributing income in a different pattern that would be more desirable.
"In reality, this would by no means be either a simple or innocuous change. On the contrary, it would mean going from an economic system in which most people are paid by those particular individuals that benefit from their goods and services - at rates of compensation determined by supply and demand involving those consumers, employers, and others who assess the benefits received by themselves - to an economy in which incomes are in fact distributed by 'society,' represented by surrogate, third-party decision-makers who determine what everyone 'deserves.'
...
"No third parties can possibly know the values, preferences, priorities, potentialities, circumstances, and constraints of millions of individuals better than those individuals know themselves."
Friday, February 27, 2009
Every Failed Social Experiment Begins With These Words...
Today I was looking over President Obama's sales pitch for his budget, which is rather comically titled "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise." You can find it here, although I can't imagine anyone wanting to read it in great detail. I only mention it here because one phase in particular caught my attention. Near the end of the "President's Message" on the first few pages, Obama writes:
"Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness."
On its face, this phrase seems harmless enough. It's the kind of lofty rhetoric one expects from a man who has built his entire public persona around the idea of "hope." And who can argue with him? We've obviously made mistakes, but we're capable of changing things for the better, right? Well, yes and no.
I think with regard to an individual, this is certainly true. But I believe these simple words, when applied to society generally, are the soil in which every disastrous social experiment in history has taken root. This one phrase is at the heart of the dangerously naive progressive vision of humanity. It is what Thomas Sowell calls "The Vision of the Anointed," (I highly suggest that you read his book on the subject. He explains it much better than I can)
Apparently the President's plan for "renewing America's promise" can be summarized as follows: stop making mistakes. Sounds wonderful...I wish him luck with that. But here's where it gets a little ominous. How, in a free society, can private citizens be prevented from making "wrong" choices for themselves and fouling the whole thing up again? Well, that's obvious. By taking their choices away, of course.
"Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness."
On its face, this phrase seems harmless enough. It's the kind of lofty rhetoric one expects from a man who has built his entire public persona around the idea of "hope." And who can argue with him? We've obviously made mistakes, but we're capable of changing things for the better, right? Well, yes and no.
I think with regard to an individual, this is certainly true. But I believe these simple words, when applied to society generally, are the soil in which every disastrous social experiment in history has taken root. This one phrase is at the heart of the dangerously naive progressive vision of humanity. It is what Thomas Sowell calls "The Vision of the Anointed," (I highly suggest that you read his book on the subject. He explains it much better than I can)
Apparently the President's plan for "renewing America's promise" can be summarized as follows: stop making mistakes. Sounds wonderful...I wish him luck with that. But here's where it gets a little ominous. How, in a free society, can private citizens be prevented from making "wrong" choices for themselves and fouling the whole thing up again? Well, that's obvious. By taking their choices away, of course.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sean Penn's Foolishness
Sean Penn, accepting his Best Actor Oscar for Milk, snidely remarked that anyone opposing gay marriage should consider the shame with which their grandchildren will one day regard their stance on the issue. I have a few thoughts about this statement...
I have no doubt that future generations (at least for a time) will accept the idea of gay marriage more readily than our generation has. But I believe, based on my own religious convictions and observations relating to the historical composition of civilized societies, that they will be wrong to do so. Unlike Sean Penn, I see no reason to assume that our children's moral compasses will be more finely tuned than our grandparents' were simply because they are developed in the 21st century.
His view is based on the progressive assumption that society is gradually perfecting itself, moving ever closer to humanity's social and moral apex. It assumes that my grandchildren will necessarily be more enlightened than I am, and dismisses out-of-hand the prospect that future generations will regress in any way. This view can only be held by one who is idealogically blinded to historical realities.
It seems obvious to me that human history, rather than being a steady march toward perfection, has been and continues to be a moral revolving door - taking us sometimes in one direction and the next moment in another, but ever fixed around a central, unmovable point. I think most of what we would call social or moral "progress" today is nothing more than going around in the same old circles.
Perhaps another metaphor would be useful. Rather than being on a road, as most "progressives" tend to imagine, I think we are in a maze. We may be moving forward, but it is as likely as not that each step only brings us closer to a dead end - at which point we will have no choice but to turn around and walk back the way we came. C.S. Lewis explained this idea most clearly when he wrote: "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." (You might have noticed that I really like this quotation.)
Penn regards traditional values with childish disdain because, quite simply, he considers himself the pinnacle of morality and enlightenment. The rest of us can acknowledge that not all movement is necessarily progress. I hope that my grandchildren will not regard me as a fool or a bigot, but their opinion will say nothing about the rightness or wrongness of my views. My interaction with this world has taught me that things fall apart as often as they come together. Future generations will likely be as wrong about certain things as I have been about others. All that matters is whether they and I will choose to acknowledge Truth, insofar as God has revealed it to us.
And thankfully, Truth has no regard for consensus - whatever the actors may say.
I have no doubt that future generations (at least for a time) will accept the idea of gay marriage more readily than our generation has. But I believe, based on my own religious convictions and observations relating to the historical composition of civilized societies, that they will be wrong to do so. Unlike Sean Penn, I see no reason to assume that our children's moral compasses will be more finely tuned than our grandparents' were simply because they are developed in the 21st century.
His view is based on the progressive assumption that society is gradually perfecting itself, moving ever closer to humanity's social and moral apex. It assumes that my grandchildren will necessarily be more enlightened than I am, and dismisses out-of-hand the prospect that future generations will regress in any way. This view can only be held by one who is idealogically blinded to historical realities.
It seems obvious to me that human history, rather than being a steady march toward perfection, has been and continues to be a moral revolving door - taking us sometimes in one direction and the next moment in another, but ever fixed around a central, unmovable point. I think most of what we would call social or moral "progress" today is nothing more than going around in the same old circles.
Perhaps another metaphor would be useful. Rather than being on a road, as most "progressives" tend to imagine, I think we are in a maze. We may be moving forward, but it is as likely as not that each step only brings us closer to a dead end - at which point we will have no choice but to turn around and walk back the way we came. C.S. Lewis explained this idea most clearly when he wrote: "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." (You might have noticed that I really like this quotation.)
Penn regards traditional values with childish disdain because, quite simply, he considers himself the pinnacle of morality and enlightenment. The rest of us can acknowledge that not all movement is necessarily progress. I hope that my grandchildren will not regard me as a fool or a bigot, but their opinion will say nothing about the rightness or wrongness of my views. My interaction with this world has taught me that things fall apart as often as they come together. Future generations will likely be as wrong about certain things as I have been about others. All that matters is whether they and I will choose to acknowledge Truth, insofar as God has revealed it to us.
And thankfully, Truth has no regard for consensus - whatever the actors may say.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
"Henry Poole is Here" and Religious Devotion
Julie and I watched "Henry Poole is Here" last night. It wasn't particularly good, despite one or two moving scenes and a few funny lines from Luke Wilson. But one scene in particular interested me, and I'd like to discuss it here.
Henry Poole, having only a few weeks to live, moves back into his childhood neighborhood - intending to spend his last days in the one place he remembers being truly happy. The plot takes an odd twist when Esperanza, a devoutly Catholic neighbor, claims to see the face of Jesus in a water stain on Henry's wall. Although irritated by her intrusion into his final weeks, he feels some sympathy for the past pain she has experienced and indulges her delusion. When the stain on the wall begins bleeding and, unbelievably (for Henry), healing neighbors' afflictions, Henry is forced into a decision. He can either continue to dismiss the stain as a delusion or decide to believe in something that contradicts all his rationality. Given his terminal condition, this choice may have very real consequences for Henry.
I'll not spoil the ending, because what really interests me is an exchange between Henry and his Catholic neighbor. It goes something like this (very loosely paraphrased from memory):
Esperanza: "Mr. Poole, why won't you just believe?"
Henry: "Why is it so important to you that I believe? What do you care? You need me to believe so you'll feel a little less crazy. Because if you can convince others to join in your crazy little delusion then it won't seems so crazy anymore, and you could quiet that voice in your head that tells you you're wrong. You could keep silencing your own doubt."
My first response to this exchange was self-examination. Do I seek validation of my beliefs from others in order to ease my own misgivings? Has the goal of my evangelism been to insulate myself from doubt, rather than to help others find Truth? Honestly, I think not. After much reflection, I can say with certainty that my efforts to evangelize have been motivated by a desire to improve the lives of others. But rather than relying on anecdotal evidence to refute Henry's accusation, I'd like to address the charge more systematically.
I'm sure to an atheist or a moral relativist Henry's explanation for the christian compulsion to evangelize seems credible. But for a person of genuine faith it is nonsense. I choose that word carefully, because Henry's assumption, never mind its truth or falsity, doesn't even make sense when applied to religious faith - at least to anyone examining it honestly. Let me explain.
To have faith in God is to acknowledge that there exists in reality a fundamental Truth that is entirely independent of our perception. While it can be perceived, its existence is not derived from observation. It is there, even if we cannot detect it or refuse to acknowledge it. While this might sound far too mystical for the modern, scientific mind, it is nonetheless perfectly rational. In fact, the "scientific mind" that rejects the reality of unobservable truth cannot be regarded as truly scientific in any meaningful way, for scientific endeavor requires extrapolation beyond present observation and all such extrapolation is necessarily faith-based.
[Aside: If the concept of knowable truth detached from observation sounds far-fetched to you, it may be useful to consider the idea in a non-religious context. Consider: Do the lives of others continue when you are not around? When you hang up the phone with your friend, does he or she cease to be simply because you do not perceive him at that moment? Does he fall into a temporary oblivion? You may say no, because you will see him again in the future, or because someone else is perceiving him now, or even that he is perceiving himself. But all of this is purely anecdotal - it can provide no objective assurance to you. You cannot get inside his head or see through his eyes. The fact is, no matter how obvious your friend's continued existence outside of your interaction with him may be, you cannot assert the truth of it without crossing from science into metaphysics. Into faith. And yet, we do act as though the lives of others have inherent value apart from their immediate utility to us. This is because each of us, at the most basic level of our humanity, believes that what is true for one of us is true for all. Since you exist apart from others' perception of you, you feel certain that your friends, family, and neighbors are the same. That conclusion is perfectly rational but completely unscientific. You can be certain of it, but you can never prove it.]
So what does this have to do with Henry Poole's claim that religious evangelism is nothing more than an attempt to ease our own doubts and insecurities? When confronted with the reality of transcendent, objective Truth, it falls apart. Henry's argument is built to persuade relativists. It makes sense only if you have already accepted its fundamental premise - that there is no truth apart from what people can be persuaded to believe - the more people that can be convinced of something, the truer it becomes. But this idea is anathema to genuine religious devotion. Since the existence or nonexistence of God is a matter of transcendent Truth - a question of reality, rather than perception - consensus cannot possibly be relevant to the question.
So while popular culture enjoys portraying the religious as sheep - irrational and delusional followers lacking the courage to stand apart from the herd - it is actually the non-believer who is more likely to take comfort in consensus. To a relativist mind consensus is everything - it defines truth itself. But to the religious mind, consensus may be useful or informative but it is ultimately irrelevant. To believe in God is to believe that even if you yourself were to stop believing in God, He would still exist. If I believe that something is true whether I believe it or not, is that conviction likely to be influenced by the beliefs of others?
The point is...evangelism is an attempt to bring others out of the isolation and self-destruction that plagues humanity and into the contentment that accompanies genuine communion with God and man. If you've conviced yourself, like Henry, that evangelism is essentially a selfish act, aimed at silencing the evangelist's own nagging doubts and fears, you are not seeing it with honest eyes. I encourage you to take another look.
Henry Poole, having only a few weeks to live, moves back into his childhood neighborhood - intending to spend his last days in the one place he remembers being truly happy. The plot takes an odd twist when Esperanza, a devoutly Catholic neighbor, claims to see the face of Jesus in a water stain on Henry's wall. Although irritated by her intrusion into his final weeks, he feels some sympathy for the past pain she has experienced and indulges her delusion. When the stain on the wall begins bleeding and, unbelievably (for Henry), healing neighbors' afflictions, Henry is forced into a decision. He can either continue to dismiss the stain as a delusion or decide to believe in something that contradicts all his rationality. Given his terminal condition, this choice may have very real consequences for Henry.
I'll not spoil the ending, because what really interests me is an exchange between Henry and his Catholic neighbor. It goes something like this (very loosely paraphrased from memory):
Esperanza: "Mr. Poole, why won't you just believe?"
Henry: "Why is it so important to you that I believe? What do you care? You need me to believe so you'll feel a little less crazy. Because if you can convince others to join in your crazy little delusion then it won't seems so crazy anymore, and you could quiet that voice in your head that tells you you're wrong. You could keep silencing your own doubt."
My first response to this exchange was self-examination. Do I seek validation of my beliefs from others in order to ease my own misgivings? Has the goal of my evangelism been to insulate myself from doubt, rather than to help others find Truth? Honestly, I think not. After much reflection, I can say with certainty that my efforts to evangelize have been motivated by a desire to improve the lives of others. But rather than relying on anecdotal evidence to refute Henry's accusation, I'd like to address the charge more systematically.
I'm sure to an atheist or a moral relativist Henry's explanation for the christian compulsion to evangelize seems credible. But for a person of genuine faith it is nonsense. I choose that word carefully, because Henry's assumption, never mind its truth or falsity, doesn't even make sense when applied to religious faith - at least to anyone examining it honestly. Let me explain.
To have faith in God is to acknowledge that there exists in reality a fundamental Truth that is entirely independent of our perception. While it can be perceived, its existence is not derived from observation. It is there, even if we cannot detect it or refuse to acknowledge it. While this might sound far too mystical for the modern, scientific mind, it is nonetheless perfectly rational. In fact, the "scientific mind" that rejects the reality of unobservable truth cannot be regarded as truly scientific in any meaningful way, for scientific endeavor requires extrapolation beyond present observation and all such extrapolation is necessarily faith-based.
[Aside: If the concept of knowable truth detached from observation sounds far-fetched to you, it may be useful to consider the idea in a non-religious context. Consider: Do the lives of others continue when you are not around? When you hang up the phone with your friend, does he or she cease to be simply because you do not perceive him at that moment? Does he fall into a temporary oblivion? You may say no, because you will see him again in the future, or because someone else is perceiving him now, or even that he is perceiving himself. But all of this is purely anecdotal - it can provide no objective assurance to you. You cannot get inside his head or see through his eyes. The fact is, no matter how obvious your friend's continued existence outside of your interaction with him may be, you cannot assert the truth of it without crossing from science into metaphysics. Into faith. And yet, we do act as though the lives of others have inherent value apart from their immediate utility to us. This is because each of us, at the most basic level of our humanity, believes that what is true for one of us is true for all. Since you exist apart from others' perception of you, you feel certain that your friends, family, and neighbors are the same. That conclusion is perfectly rational but completely unscientific. You can be certain of it, but you can never prove it.]
So what does this have to do with Henry Poole's claim that religious evangelism is nothing more than an attempt to ease our own doubts and insecurities? When confronted with the reality of transcendent, objective Truth, it falls apart. Henry's argument is built to persuade relativists. It makes sense only if you have already accepted its fundamental premise - that there is no truth apart from what people can be persuaded to believe - the more people that can be convinced of something, the truer it becomes. But this idea is anathema to genuine religious devotion. Since the existence or nonexistence of God is a matter of transcendent Truth - a question of reality, rather than perception - consensus cannot possibly be relevant to the question.
So while popular culture enjoys portraying the religious as sheep - irrational and delusional followers lacking the courage to stand apart from the herd - it is actually the non-believer who is more likely to take comfort in consensus. To a relativist mind consensus is everything - it defines truth itself. But to the religious mind, consensus may be useful or informative but it is ultimately irrelevant. To believe in God is to believe that even if you yourself were to stop believing in God, He would still exist. If I believe that something is true whether I believe it or not, is that conviction likely to be influenced by the beliefs of others?
The point is...evangelism is an attempt to bring others out of the isolation and self-destruction that plagues humanity and into the contentment that accompanies genuine communion with God and man. If you've conviced yourself, like Henry, that evangelism is essentially a selfish act, aimed at silencing the evangelist's own nagging doubts and fears, you are not seeing it with honest eyes. I encourage you to take another look.
Thomas Sowell's Website
http://www.tsowell.com/
Amazingly, I had never visited Dr. Sowell's website before last night. Truly one of the greatest thinkers of the last 100 years.
Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, your education is almost necessarily incomplete if you've never spent some time reading through his works.
Amazingly, I had never visited Dr. Sowell's website before last night. Truly one of the greatest thinkers of the last 100 years.Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, your education is almost necessarily incomplete if you've never spent some time reading through his works.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Interesting Articles
George Will explains why challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 is ridiculous.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/01/15/the_unconstitutional_constitution?page=full
Cal Thomas perfectly summarizes how conservatives should approach the Obama presidency.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/01/15/welcome_to_town,_president_obama?page=full
Frank Turek, in this poorly titled but well written piece, explores the boundaries between Theology and Science.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/FrankTurek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god?page=full
http://townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/01/15/the_unconstitutional_constitution?page=full
Cal Thomas perfectly summarizes how conservatives should approach the Obama presidency.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2009/01/15/welcome_to_town,_president_obama?page=full
Frank Turek, in this poorly titled but well written piece, explores the boundaries between Theology and Science.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/FrankTurek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god?page=full
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Interesting Articles
This installment is a bit Israel/Palestine heavy...for obvious reasons.
Charles Krauthammer says pretty much everything you need to know about the conflict in Gaza.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101780_pf.html
Dick Morris gives insight into the political motivations behind much of the posturing over the Gaza situation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/01/07/gaza_the_doves_war?page=full
Jonah Goldberg takes a hard look at the disturbing anti-Israel rhetoric that has begun to dominate the "discussion" around the world.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/01/07/who_are_the_real_nazis?page=full
Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel (and likely its next Prime Minister as well) offers his perspective in the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128827234659279.html
John Stossel compares the Madoff Ponzi scheme to government programs that operate in much the same way...and draw no similar condemnation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/01/07/madoff_is_a_piker?page=full
Charles Krauthammer says pretty much everything you need to know about the conflict in Gaza.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101780_pf.html
Dick Morris gives insight into the political motivations behind much of the posturing over the Gaza situation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/01/07/gaza_the_doves_war?page=full
Jonah Goldberg takes a hard look at the disturbing anti-Israel rhetoric that has begun to dominate the "discussion" around the world.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/01/07/who_are_the_real_nazis?page=full
Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel (and likely its next Prime Minister as well) offers his perspective in the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123128827234659279.html
John Stossel compares the Madoff Ponzi scheme to government programs that operate in much the same way...and draw no similar condemnation.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/01/07/madoff_is_a_piker?page=full
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Portrayal of Religion in Ken Follett's "The Pillars of the Earth"
I've just finished reading Ken Follett's novel The Pillars of the Earth. My wife recommended the book to me and, though I had serious doubts about reading anything with an Oprah's Book Club sticker on the cover, I'm glad that she did. I had heard of the book and knew that it was immensely popular and widely read. I also knew that its story dealt, however tangentially or superficially, with religion. I was interested to see how a modern work of popular fiction would portray a historical society where Christianity was absolutely central to every aspect of the social order. What I found was a bit disappointing, but highly instructive.
I should begin my commentary with a caveat: I fully appreciate that the book is intended to entertain. It was not written to effect some fundamental change in the reader, but only to convince them to continue turning pages - and it does that well. Although Follett mentions his atheism in the introduction, I'm quite certain he had no intention of using the story as a tool of indoctrination. The book is, simply put, about the building of a cathedral and the many lives that are intertwined with that monumental task - nothing more, nothing less.
So my interest in Follett's portrayal of religious devotion is not rooted in a desire to unmask some intense anti-religious bigotry or allege any vast atheistic conspiracy; I am, however, interested in examining the prevailing attitudes toward religious devotion in popular culture, especially in works where their influence may otherwise go unchallenged or even unnoticed. With this in mind, I found Follett's work to be entirely and discouragingly antagonistic to the idea of genuine religious devotion.
I should begin my commentary with a caveat: I fully appreciate that the book is intended to entertain. It was not written to effect some fundamental change in the reader, but only to convince them to continue turning pages - and it does that well. Although Follett mentions his atheism in the introduction, I'm quite certain he had no intention of using the story as a tool of indoctrination. The book is, simply put, about the building of a cathedral and the many lives that are intertwined with that monumental task - nothing more, nothing less.
So my interest in Follett's portrayal of religious devotion is not rooted in a desire to unmask some intense anti-religious bigotry or allege any vast atheistic conspiracy; I am, however, interested in examining the prevailing attitudes toward religious devotion in popular culture, especially in works where their influence may otherwise go unchallenged or even unnoticed. With this in mind, I found Follett's work to be entirely and discouragingly antagonistic to the idea of genuine religious devotion.
Some may think this an overly harsh assessment. "After all," they may say, "several of the most sympathetic characters in the book are deeply religious." This, in a sense, is true. But more often than not, a character's goodnes shines through in spite of their religious conviction rather than because of it. The book is intensely cynical.
Follett's characters take a pragmatic approach to religion. It is used as a tool of manipulation and control, even by those in the story whose devotion is genuine. The one character who demonstrates an unshakable commitment to God is still portayed as fundamentally flawed by a single-mindedness that causes him to respond legalistically to the weaknesses of others. He is clearly a good man, but Follett leads the reader to conclude that this is so in spite of his religion, which makes him judgmental and unmerciful.
Follett's view of religion is a modern, jaded one. For a devout christian like myself, his perspective (like most other popular depictions of religion) seems shockingly pessimistic and woefully simplistic. For him, religion is most often nothing but pretense - justification for all manner of evil deeds. Even at its best it is morally limited by its inability to let others live as they see fit. To many modern readers, the idea of religious conviction has become completely synonymous with judgmentalism or even bigotry. And while this may indicate that many religious people have failed to communicate effectively with broader society, I think more of the blame can and should be placed on the hardened heart of the modern reader who refuses to see the actions of others in the best light.
Because of his skewed view of religiosity, Follett struggles to craft any character that convincingly embodies a religious ethic and remains sympathetic. I think this reflects the fact that our society has come to regard tolerance as the highest good. And an undereducated and unchurched people have concluded that religious conviction, by virtue of its claim to transcendent truth, is the worst sort of intolerance.
This idea - that religion, even at its best, unnecessarily constrains otherwise good people by insisting that they conform their actions to the standards of a particular dogma - is the product of a society that has traded its willingness to think critically about morality for the unconstrained right to do whathever feels good at the moment; we refuse to make judgments about the actions of others for fear that our own actions will be similarly scrutinized...and we wouldn't want that. In other words, we have arrived at the abortive conclusion that it is fundamentally immoral to make judgments about morality. Is it any wonder that we struggle to approach religious questions in any meaningful way?
Certainly in the history of Christianity there have been many examples of individuals who have imposed unnecessary constraints in order to exercise control over the lives of others for selfish reasons, rather than to glorify God and help their fellow man follow a path that will lead to a more fulfilling life. But to see an inquisitor around every corner (as Follett seems to do) betrays a disturbing paranoia. Men are corruptible. If a Judge behaves unjustly should we conclude the the law itself is the root of the problem? Clearly not - but this is the sort of irrationality that has come to flourish in our society.
As a whole, this book was good - entertaining and well-crafted, if a bit unfocused - but the author's cynicism toward all things religious will make it difficult for the average reader (and certainly the devout christian) to fully sympathize with any of the characters.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thoughts on St. Augustine's "Confessions" and Intellectual Conceit
Lately I've been reading Augustine's "Confessions" and I'm astonished at their relevance for the modern reader. Augustine lived from 354 to 430 AD, and many of his writings (particularly "The City of God") deal with issues that would be of little practical concern to modern Christians. His "Confessions," however, simply and poignantly illustrate how even the most esoteric theological questions have very real implications in the lives of those who honestly seek truth.
As I read, I am most amused by Augustine's all-too-familiar journey from childish devotion to smug intellectual conceit, then to emotional devastation, and finally back to the foot of the cross. As Augustine moved from youth into adulthood, he began to crave the superficial approval of those around him, not in order to be righteous but in order to be thought accomplished. Erudite. Enlightened. "At this point I feared to speak a barbaric turn of speech more than I feared to commit a barbaric act."
He sought out the type of success that would bring notoriety. "How I loved mine own ways and not Yours. How I preferred my vagabond freedom...The more my work was praised, the better I became at it. Such is human blindness, that we glory in our sightless condition...I swelled with arrogance...Fame was the goal of my detestable vanity, for I rejoiced in human conceit."
Then, suddenly, Augustine's outlook changed. He began to realize that the enlightened members of society whose approval he craved had little interest in truth. Instead, they used philosophy "to seduce by disguising error with long words and subtle arguments and honorable sounding names." But after happening upon a book of Cicero, this was no longer enough for Augustine. "Cicero taught me that every vain hope is worthless. Suddenly I burned with an intense desire to find wisdom that had eternal value...And since at that time I did not understand the Scriptures...I was changed by Cicero's exhortation only to the point that my heart was strongly awakened, and ingnited."
He says, "I began to stir myself to return to You."
But Augustine's arrogance would not be easily overthrown. He says, "I resolved then to bend my mind to the holy Scriptures, that I might see what they contained....[But] these are words that take root more easily in the hearts of little ones. In my grand learning, I would not allow myself to become small. My swelled head sought greatness."
Can we not see in these words the very same conceit that prevents so many today from honestly and openly approaching God's word? Can anyone deny that the Bible is looked down on in the halls of Academia and in the wider popular culture as an object unworthy of serious study? And why? Because the Scriptures possess no wisdom for our times? Because biblical claims have been fully examined and exposed as morally, intellectually, and theologically hollow? Of course not. The reason is simple: The Bible has become unfashionable. Plebeian. Common. It is regarded as below the great minds of our age, just as it was 1700 years ago. And yet it endured the scorn of the "enlightened" then, just as it will again today.
Eventually, Augustine's desire for a truth that was lofty and thoeretical would be dashed against the rocks of very real human tragedy. His greatest friend, with whom he had played as a child and reasoned as an adult, suddenly fell gravely ill. Explaining the intensity of their connection, Augustine says, "Our friendship was made deeper because we had the same study interests. And I took him away from the true faith...We became of one mind in this untruth, and I became dependant on him for spiritual support."
Lying unconscious and close to death, Augustine's friend (whose name is not given) was baptized by his family, who feared for his soul. Augustine thought this a worthless exercise, confident of his friend's unwillingness to accept the Christian faith. He never left the bedside, and when his friend showed signs of recovery, Augustine "began to make a joke of the baptism he received when he was utterly absent in mind and feeling." To his amazement, his friend did not share Augustine's disdain for the family's efforts. Instead, Augustine recounts how "he pulled back from me as if I were his enemy. With a wonderful and sudden freedom, he told me to stop making such comments if I wished to remain his friend."
Augustine sees a transformation in his friend that confounds all his previous instincts - all his attraction to vain philosophies. Suddenly the question of eternal truth was not theoretical. I believe that Augustine's friend, standing at death's door, saw finally that man's attempt to reconcile with God is something more than mass delusion or wishful thinking. Though he was not even awake for the event of baptism, he viscerally understood that only by taking refuge in the love of the eternal God could he find solace from the pains and inevitabilities of this transient life.
Augustine however, having not been pushed to the edge of the abyss, does not yet see as clearly as his friend. And when the fever returned again and claimed his friend's life, Augustine was thrown into despair. He says, "Life was revolting and hateful...a huge load of misery weighed me down." "I carried around my shattered, bleeding self. I was sick of carrying it but didn't know how to put it down." He recalls, "Whatever I associated with my friend became a distracting torture. I sought him everywhere, but he was not to be seen. I hated all places because he was not in them...The depth of my grief was a great riddle even to me. I asked my soul for the reason for such sadness, but I heard no answer....Whatever the reason, I was wretched."
And in this moment when all his arrogance is exposed as hollow, Augustine catches a distant glimmer of God's mercy. He begins down a road that will ultimately lead him to the simple rationality of man's completion in God, and God alone, when he says, "Every soul is wretched that becomes bound...to perishable things. The soul is torn apart when the thing loved is lost."
And with that, Augustine reached a point described vividly by the greatest Christian minds and known to us all: the awareness of man's innate incompleteness. The awareness that there is some thirst in us that cannot be quenched by the things of this world, for they all pass away. The sudden knowledge that to be human is to want for a fulfillment that humanity cannot provide. And this realization will inevitably lead, despite all our resistance, to the foot of the cross and beyond.
We can take comfort that Augustine, a man who lived only 300 years after Christ, was afflicted with the same intellectual arrogance that is rampant in our own lives and in the world around us today; and yet God was able and willing to shake him to his foundations and strip him of all but the simple, rational truth of man's completion in God through the sacrifice of Christ. And He will do the same for us.
As I read, I am most amused by Augustine's all-too-familiar journey from childish devotion to smug intellectual conceit, then to emotional devastation, and finally back to the foot of the cross. As Augustine moved from youth into adulthood, he began to crave the superficial approval of those around him, not in order to be righteous but in order to be thought accomplished. Erudite. Enlightened. "At this point I feared to speak a barbaric turn of speech more than I feared to commit a barbaric act."
He sought out the type of success that would bring notoriety. "How I loved mine own ways and not Yours. How I preferred my vagabond freedom...The more my work was praised, the better I became at it. Such is human blindness, that we glory in our sightless condition...I swelled with arrogance...Fame was the goal of my detestable vanity, for I rejoiced in human conceit."
Then, suddenly, Augustine's outlook changed. He began to realize that the enlightened members of society whose approval he craved had little interest in truth. Instead, they used philosophy "to seduce by disguising error with long words and subtle arguments and honorable sounding names." But after happening upon a book of Cicero, this was no longer enough for Augustine. "Cicero taught me that every vain hope is worthless. Suddenly I burned with an intense desire to find wisdom that had eternal value...And since at that time I did not understand the Scriptures...I was changed by Cicero's exhortation only to the point that my heart was strongly awakened, and ingnited."
He says, "I began to stir myself to return to You."
But Augustine's arrogance would not be easily overthrown. He says, "I resolved then to bend my mind to the holy Scriptures, that I might see what they contained....[But] these are words that take root more easily in the hearts of little ones. In my grand learning, I would not allow myself to become small. My swelled head sought greatness."
Can we not see in these words the very same conceit that prevents so many today from honestly and openly approaching God's word? Can anyone deny that the Bible is looked down on in the halls of Academia and in the wider popular culture as an object unworthy of serious study? And why? Because the Scriptures possess no wisdom for our times? Because biblical claims have been fully examined and exposed as morally, intellectually, and theologically hollow? Of course not. The reason is simple: The Bible has become unfashionable. Plebeian. Common. It is regarded as below the great minds of our age, just as it was 1700 years ago. And yet it endured the scorn of the "enlightened" then, just as it will again today.
Eventually, Augustine's desire for a truth that was lofty and thoeretical would be dashed against the rocks of very real human tragedy. His greatest friend, with whom he had played as a child and reasoned as an adult, suddenly fell gravely ill. Explaining the intensity of their connection, Augustine says, "Our friendship was made deeper because we had the same study interests. And I took him away from the true faith...We became of one mind in this untruth, and I became dependant on him for spiritual support."
Lying unconscious and close to death, Augustine's friend (whose name is not given) was baptized by his family, who feared for his soul. Augustine thought this a worthless exercise, confident of his friend's unwillingness to accept the Christian faith. He never left the bedside, and when his friend showed signs of recovery, Augustine "began to make a joke of the baptism he received when he was utterly absent in mind and feeling." To his amazement, his friend did not share Augustine's disdain for the family's efforts. Instead, Augustine recounts how "he pulled back from me as if I were his enemy. With a wonderful and sudden freedom, he told me to stop making such comments if I wished to remain his friend."
Augustine sees a transformation in his friend that confounds all his previous instincts - all his attraction to vain philosophies. Suddenly the question of eternal truth was not theoretical. I believe that Augustine's friend, standing at death's door, saw finally that man's attempt to reconcile with God is something more than mass delusion or wishful thinking. Though he was not even awake for the event of baptism, he viscerally understood that only by taking refuge in the love of the eternal God could he find solace from the pains and inevitabilities of this transient life.
Augustine however, having not been pushed to the edge of the abyss, does not yet see as clearly as his friend. And when the fever returned again and claimed his friend's life, Augustine was thrown into despair. He says, "Life was revolting and hateful...a huge load of misery weighed me down." "I carried around my shattered, bleeding self. I was sick of carrying it but didn't know how to put it down." He recalls, "Whatever I associated with my friend became a distracting torture. I sought him everywhere, but he was not to be seen. I hated all places because he was not in them...The depth of my grief was a great riddle even to me. I asked my soul for the reason for such sadness, but I heard no answer....Whatever the reason, I was wretched."
And in this moment when all his arrogance is exposed as hollow, Augustine catches a distant glimmer of God's mercy. He begins down a road that will ultimately lead him to the simple rationality of man's completion in God, and God alone, when he says, "Every soul is wretched that becomes bound...to perishable things. The soul is torn apart when the thing loved is lost."
And with that, Augustine reached a point described vividly by the greatest Christian minds and known to us all: the awareness of man's innate incompleteness. The awareness that there is some thirst in us that cannot be quenched by the things of this world, for they all pass away. The sudden knowledge that to be human is to want for a fulfillment that humanity cannot provide. And this realization will inevitably lead, despite all our resistance, to the foot of the cross and beyond.
We can take comfort that Augustine, a man who lived only 300 years after Christ, was afflicted with the same intellectual arrogance that is rampant in our own lives and in the world around us today; and yet God was able and willing to shake him to his foundations and strip him of all but the simple, rational truth of man's completion in God through the sacrifice of Christ. And He will do the same for us.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Introductory Post
This is going to be my first attempt at sustaining a blog. As such, I do not expect my posts to be particularly interesting to casual readers. Rather, I intend to approach this as an intellectual diary of sorts.
The subjects of my posts will, of course, be largely confined to matters of importance to me: politics, faith, philosophy, and their interaction with each other and American society generally, as I encounter it. I address these topics not because I think I have anything unusually insightful to say about them (although I probably do think so), but because there are so few opportunities in daily life to engage with them in an open, unguarded, and meaningful way, despite the fact that they are absolutely central to who I am.
So that is where this is headed. I have no doubt that it will be, at times, unbearably heavy-handed and I apologize in advance. I do tend to be a bit didactic, and my wife tells me this can often lead others to conclude that my conviction is actually closer to intolerance. I will do my best to avoid giving that impression. But if avoiding putting others off means shying away from proclaiming something that I believe to be true, I would rather be occasionally thought intolerant.
So, here we go.
Blake
The subjects of my posts will, of course, be largely confined to matters of importance to me: politics, faith, philosophy, and their interaction with each other and American society generally, as I encounter it. I address these topics not because I think I have anything unusually insightful to say about them (although I probably do think so), but because there are so few opportunities in daily life to engage with them in an open, unguarded, and meaningful way, despite the fact that they are absolutely central to who I am.
So that is where this is headed. I have no doubt that it will be, at times, unbearably heavy-handed and I apologize in advance. I do tend to be a bit didactic, and my wife tells me this can often lead others to conclude that my conviction is actually closer to intolerance. I will do my best to avoid giving that impression. But if avoiding putting others off means shying away from proclaiming something that I believe to be true, I would rather be occasionally thought intolerant.
So, here we go.
Blake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
