In the last week I've been corresponding with an old high school classmate of mine (all right--ALL of my classmates are "old") about a variety of political issues. Since we were both on the debate team in those days, I guess our contentiousness goes back a long way. He's a graduate of the Air Force Academy and helped develop "Star Wars" technology back in the '80s; his favorite President since we graduated is Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile, I'm the vegetarian, Conscientious Objector who has never fired a gun in his entire life. Jeez, I bet you can imagine where this is leading! The results are as predictable as a chemistry demonstration in which two compounds are combined that blow up the lab. The exchanges have been sufficiently voluminous and detailed that I can hardly do justice to them all here. So I'll only focus on a few.
I invited my old chum (let's call him Kyle--not his real name) to read a book that I am just finishing: The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama. (Perhaps you've heard of Obama--he ran for President this past fall.) I thought to myself, if only Kyle would at least read what Obama has to say so he could, at minimum, take the horns and the pitchfork off his picture of the man. (And, by the way, I do recommend the book as a good way to better understand our current CEO.) But after repeated urgings to do so, Kyle has said no, no, and no--he knows Obama by his deeds and his policies, and he would learn nothing by reading the book. Moreover, Obama didn't even write the book--someone else did--so what would be the point? And besides, in Kyle's view, a lot of "tyrants" have written "thoughtful books"--they are just words. So I told Kyle to pretend that I had written it, and that it represented my view of the world (which it pretty much does), and to react to it on that level, but he still wouldn't bite.
Well, OK Kyle, if you won't read the book, can you say ANYTHING positive about Obama? (When I saw Kyle in person a couple of weeks ago, I said, "I'll say something positive about George Bush if you'll say one positive thing about Barack Obama." But he flat-out refused to say anything.) Now, after 7 or 8 e-mail messages, Kyle has yet to offer even his first concession that Obama must believe or must be doing SOMETHING right. Let's just say that Kyle has very firm views.
In fact, Kyle does not even believe that Obama IS the President, in a legalistic sense. I was unaware, sorry to say, that there are people out there who believe that Obama does not meet the citizenship requirements specified in the Constitution for his office--i.e., he's not actually a natural born citizen. I am highly skeptical that this argument is going to go anywhere out in the real world, but Kyle thinks that there could be a "Constitutional crisis" in our future. Stay tuned.
Among his more recent notes, I was particularly struck by his comment that our success in Iraq "speaks for itself." Even a pro-invasion person, it seems to me, ought to see the complexity of such a claim, its good news/very bad news dimensions. A trillion tax dollars down the drain, more than 4,000 U.S. service personnel killed and thousands more injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis either killed or displaced, and plenty of new recruits for al-Qaeda? Those things speak for themselves as well.
Anyway, Kyle--bright as he is, even brilliant--is in a whole different universe than I am, and I need to consider whether it's a good investment of my time to continue our exchanges. I think that I have tried to concede what I can to him, but concessions are not part of Kyle's approach. But as I mentioned to him, one of Obama's goals--which he cynically dismissed--is to bring people like him and me together. And although that's a tall order, I respect Obama for wanting to try; it has been his theme ever since he gave the "no red states, no blue states" speech back in '04. Kyle, give the guy a chance--he's really not the devil!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A note from Pastor Mike
Just when I thought that this blog had a total readership of perhaps one or two hardy souls, along comes "Pastor Mike," who responded to my previous post about "the afterlife" ("Judgment day: no easy decisions here!"). I have no idea who this masochistic fellow is (he must be of that ilk if he's reading ContentiousIntrovert!), but I will paste in his response below, since it might otherwise get lost:
"Well David, I thought you were a learned man??? But your snide comments of God made me rethink my reality. To truly know God is to know that He is a God of love – He is the one and only true God. He does not judge man as our justice system would – He judged His Son on Calvary and Christ Jesus has paid the total debt for the sins of all humanity. The reason some do not enter into Paradise is not due to God! It is due to their lack of faith. It is only by faith in the Son that we are saved (Ephesians 2:8). So to make a short answer even shorter – all God does is look at the person – are they covered in the blood of the lamb? If so they are in – if not then not......there is no bubble. Remember God is love – He loves His creation so much that He will allow anyone not to love Him in return. If I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins.... my sin clings to me and I stand condemned but if I believe my sins are paid in full and I stand righteous and holy before the Father – because of Jesus. To Him be glory forever and ever! Amen. - Your fire and brimstone guy – Pastor Mike"
What to say? I've encountered a lot of sincere and very amiable people in my day, and Pastor Mike may qualify here. Having said that, I might respond in these ways:
1. I think that I am a reasonably learned man--certainly learned enough to know that the questions of human existence do not have simple, pat answers. Pastor Mike seems to believe otherwise, but what he offers is standard Christian dogma--no more and no less--grounded in a document, the Bible, which is thoroughly "human" in its origin. With all due respect, Mike, anyone who believes that the Bible is literally "true" has fallen way off the beam, and I think even most learned people in the field of religion know this all too well.
2. I take exception to the idea that my comments were "snide." I think what I was trying to say is that it's basically impossible to neatly divide the world into two groups: those who are "saved" and those who are not, and that even God would have some problems with such decisions.
3. I have no idea what it means to be "covered by the blood of the lamb"--well, metaphorically I do, but as a more practical and important matter, I don't know how anyone could clearly make such a determination. The beliefs, attitudes, and most importantly the behavior of humans is complex and multi-faceted and does not lend itself to a "yes or no" outcome. Whether Mike wants to believe it or not, there clearly is a "bubble"--if only the world could be neatly divided into the good guys and the bad guys! But dualistic thinking is not very good thinking.
4. The notion that "God is love" is always appealing, but God's notion of "love" (at least, as Pastor Mike formulates it) is rather perverse (and now I AM being snide). If heaven is only for the chosen few, then God is quite the SOB. God, apparently, loves us so much that He's willing to condemn us to an eternity of suffering if we don't do things just right--that's one deep and abiding love! To put it in Mike's terms, I've used the brain that God gave me, used it to the best of my ability, carefully weighed the evidence and the arguments, and concluded that most of Christian dogma is simply preposterous and that God probably does not exist. In good conscience, I could no more believe what Pastor Mike says than I could believe in the Tooth Fairy--and for that, presumably, God would punish me--not just when I die, but for the next several BILLION years. If Pastor Mike cannot see the disconnect there, he is deluding himself; such a stance toward humanity is just plain wrong.
5. One final irony: despite my raging skepticism, I believe in personal choice and being fully accountable for the choices that I make--that's Existentialism 101. In that respect, I have no "original sin," and if I do, Jesus certainly can't or shouldn't erase it for me--that's my obligation, not his. But, I am here to say that I'm completely comfortable with the choices that I have made in life--enough so, in fact, to believe that if there IS a God, and there IS an afterlife, that I have earned a spot there, regardless of whatever Christian dogma might claim. If God really knows me, he also knows I'm a decent guy--too decent to punish in the manner that narrow-minded Christians would propose.
Thanks for writing, Pastor Mike. God bless you, my man!
[P.S. - Pastor Mike has weighed in again about my rantings in the "comments" section after this post. To my hundreds of thousands of loyal readers: feel free to add your own thoughts!]
"Well David, I thought you were a learned man??? But your snide comments of God made me rethink my reality. To truly know God is to know that He is a God of love – He is the one and only true God. He does not judge man as our justice system would – He judged His Son on Calvary and Christ Jesus has paid the total debt for the sins of all humanity. The reason some do not enter into Paradise is not due to God! It is due to their lack of faith. It is only by faith in the Son that we are saved (Ephesians 2:8). So to make a short answer even shorter – all God does is look at the person – are they covered in the blood of the lamb? If so they are in – if not then not......there is no bubble. Remember God is love – He loves His creation so much that He will allow anyone not to love Him in return. If I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins.... my sin clings to me and I stand condemned but if I believe my sins are paid in full and I stand righteous and holy before the Father – because of Jesus. To Him be glory forever and ever! Amen. - Your fire and brimstone guy – Pastor Mike"
What to say? I've encountered a lot of sincere and very amiable people in my day, and Pastor Mike may qualify here. Having said that, I might respond in these ways:
1. I think that I am a reasonably learned man--certainly learned enough to know that the questions of human existence do not have simple, pat answers. Pastor Mike seems to believe otherwise, but what he offers is standard Christian dogma--no more and no less--grounded in a document, the Bible, which is thoroughly "human" in its origin. With all due respect, Mike, anyone who believes that the Bible is literally "true" has fallen way off the beam, and I think even most learned people in the field of religion know this all too well.
2. I take exception to the idea that my comments were "snide." I think what I was trying to say is that it's basically impossible to neatly divide the world into two groups: those who are "saved" and those who are not, and that even God would have some problems with such decisions.
3. I have no idea what it means to be "covered by the blood of the lamb"--well, metaphorically I do, but as a more practical and important matter, I don't know how anyone could clearly make such a determination. The beliefs, attitudes, and most importantly the behavior of humans is complex and multi-faceted and does not lend itself to a "yes or no" outcome. Whether Mike wants to believe it or not, there clearly is a "bubble"--if only the world could be neatly divided into the good guys and the bad guys! But dualistic thinking is not very good thinking.
4. The notion that "God is love" is always appealing, but God's notion of "love" (at least, as Pastor Mike formulates it) is rather perverse (and now I AM being snide). If heaven is only for the chosen few, then God is quite the SOB. God, apparently, loves us so much that He's willing to condemn us to an eternity of suffering if we don't do things just right--that's one deep and abiding love! To put it in Mike's terms, I've used the brain that God gave me, used it to the best of my ability, carefully weighed the evidence and the arguments, and concluded that most of Christian dogma is simply preposterous and that God probably does not exist. In good conscience, I could no more believe what Pastor Mike says than I could believe in the Tooth Fairy--and for that, presumably, God would punish me--not just when I die, but for the next several BILLION years. If Pastor Mike cannot see the disconnect there, he is deluding himself; such a stance toward humanity is just plain wrong.
5. One final irony: despite my raging skepticism, I believe in personal choice and being fully accountable for the choices that I make--that's Existentialism 101. In that respect, I have no "original sin," and if I do, Jesus certainly can't or shouldn't erase it for me--that's my obligation, not his. But, I am here to say that I'm completely comfortable with the choices that I have made in life--enough so, in fact, to believe that if there IS a God, and there IS an afterlife, that I have earned a spot there, regardless of whatever Christian dogma might claim. If God really knows me, he also knows I'm a decent guy--too decent to punish in the manner that narrow-minded Christians would propose.
Thanks for writing, Pastor Mike. God bless you, my man!
[P.S. - Pastor Mike has weighed in again about my rantings in the "comments" section after this post. To my hundreds of thousands of loyal readers: feel free to add your own thoughts!]
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Death by chocolate: not so bad?
There's additional news this week that severely restricting one's caloric intake is associated with greater longevity. In lay terms, if you stay really thin--almost unnaturally thin--you may live longer.
Good to know, although in many ways this is a really old issue, and I have really old responses to it.
Somehow we must find our personal balance point between asceticism and hedonism. Yes, life is finite, and yes, we all want to live a long life, but somewhere in there lies a tipping point where longevity ceases to be an inherent "good" in its own right. If I could live another 20 years by only eating tofu and alfalfa sprouts, I suppose I would consider it--but I hope that I would have the good sense to realize that a long life without chocolate would be a life that's long on quantity and short on quality.
During my formative years, we learned that it is indeed unwise to party a bit too hearty. Those who grew up in my era remember Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison, all of whom died at the ripe old age of 27. They all lived pretty "large" and paid the price for it. We would be wise to avoid their lifestyles--although chocolate was the least of their worries! Still, the bigger idea is that life entails risk, and some degree of indulgence, and grabbing for the gusto. Life must provide at least some immediate rewards; everything cannot be deferred or avoided out of fear.
We all do what we can. I hope that all of my running (coming up on 19,000 recorded miles) is and will be beneficial. My goal is for people to say, "He sure was in good shape when he died!" But damn: what would life be like without mayonnaise, or fried potatoes, or fudge ripple? To some extent, I have to embrace such sinful and self-destructive behavior, even if research monkeys are living longer without it.
Death by chocolate: I can live with that.
Good to know, although in many ways this is a really old issue, and I have really old responses to it.
Somehow we must find our personal balance point between asceticism and hedonism. Yes, life is finite, and yes, we all want to live a long life, but somewhere in there lies a tipping point where longevity ceases to be an inherent "good" in its own right. If I could live another 20 years by only eating tofu and alfalfa sprouts, I suppose I would consider it--but I hope that I would have the good sense to realize that a long life without chocolate would be a life that's long on quantity and short on quality.
During my formative years, we learned that it is indeed unwise to party a bit too hearty. Those who grew up in my era remember Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison, all of whom died at the ripe old age of 27. They all lived pretty "large" and paid the price for it. We would be wise to avoid their lifestyles--although chocolate was the least of their worries! Still, the bigger idea is that life entails risk, and some degree of indulgence, and grabbing for the gusto. Life must provide at least some immediate rewards; everything cannot be deferred or avoided out of fear.
We all do what we can. I hope that all of my running (coming up on 19,000 recorded miles) is and will be beneficial. My goal is for people to say, "He sure was in good shape when he died!" But damn: what would life be like without mayonnaise, or fried potatoes, or fudge ripple? To some extent, I have to embrace such sinful and self-destructive behavior, even if research monkeys are living longer without it.
Death by chocolate: I can live with that.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Judgment day: no easy decisions here!
It has reached the point where I have read and considered a variety of Christian, non-Christian, theistic, and atheistic literature. Despite such an effort, one issue that I've never read about will be discussed here--although this idea must have been examined SOMEWHERE; I'm just not sure where.
In a previous post, I tried to point out what a long time "eternity" really is--long enough that the human mind cannot fully grasp it. But mixed in with the idea of eternal life--or eternal damnation, in the fundamentalist view--is the implicit reality that someone (God, presumably) must make a determination of "who goes up, and who goes down," if you will. Yes or no, black or white, up or down: a simple decision, right? To which I say, "you gotta be kidding."
Imagine taking the 6,500,000,000 or so people on the planet and trying to judge their lives. Could we neatly divide them into "bound for heaven" and "bound for hell"? Imagine trying to list those 6,500,000,000 in descending order from "most worthy" for heaven to "least worthy." At the top and the bottom of that list, there would be some clear and relatively easy decisions: "Adolph, you head to the basement, and Mother Teresa, walk up the stairs." But the part that fascinates me are the hundreds of millions of people who would be "on the bubble." And even more so, where one could ever intelligently draw a line between person #3,258,904,886 (you get heaven) and #3,258,904,887 (sorry, buddy: VERY close but no cigar--but thanks for playing our game!). The stakes here would be enormous! To think that one could miss eternal bliss or be condemned to eternal hell requires the sort of judgment that even God Himself would be simply incapable of making, or at least making in a just manner. In short, the difference between a "worthy" and an "unworthy" candidate for the afterlife would be so subtle, so miniscule, and so arbitrary that it would be ridiculous and unfair, and we all know that God would be neither of those!
At any rate, I defy a "fire and brimstone" person to explain to me how such a dichotomous decision could be fairly rendered. At least in the human criminal justice system, there are levels of crimes and levels of penalties for them, including everything from probation to community service to 10 years in the slammer to lethal injection. In short, we have the ability to differentiate a bit more, which is an utterly sane and sensible approach.
If there is a dividing line between the "saved" and the "condemned," I hope that I'm at least one micron on the upward side of that line. But--oh drat--I once bore false witness or lusted in my heart; that may move me down just enough to spend an endless eternity in hell! Suddenly my days as a Little League umpire seem really easy, even if "balls" and "strikes" can be a tad subjective.
In a previous post, I tried to point out what a long time "eternity" really is--long enough that the human mind cannot fully grasp it. But mixed in with the idea of eternal life--or eternal damnation, in the fundamentalist view--is the implicit reality that someone (God, presumably) must make a determination of "who goes up, and who goes down," if you will. Yes or no, black or white, up or down: a simple decision, right? To which I say, "you gotta be kidding."
Imagine taking the 6,500,000,000 or so people on the planet and trying to judge their lives. Could we neatly divide them into "bound for heaven" and "bound for hell"? Imagine trying to list those 6,500,000,000 in descending order from "most worthy" for heaven to "least worthy." At the top and the bottom of that list, there would be some clear and relatively easy decisions: "Adolph, you head to the basement, and Mother Teresa, walk up the stairs." But the part that fascinates me are the hundreds of millions of people who would be "on the bubble." And even more so, where one could ever intelligently draw a line between person #3,258,904,886 (you get heaven) and #3,258,904,887 (sorry, buddy: VERY close but no cigar--but thanks for playing our game!). The stakes here would be enormous! To think that one could miss eternal bliss or be condemned to eternal hell requires the sort of judgment that even God Himself would be simply incapable of making, or at least making in a just manner. In short, the difference between a "worthy" and an "unworthy" candidate for the afterlife would be so subtle, so miniscule, and so arbitrary that it would be ridiculous and unfair, and we all know that God would be neither of those!
At any rate, I defy a "fire and brimstone" person to explain to me how such a dichotomous decision could be fairly rendered. At least in the human criminal justice system, there are levels of crimes and levels of penalties for them, including everything from probation to community service to 10 years in the slammer to lethal injection. In short, we have the ability to differentiate a bit more, which is an utterly sane and sensible approach.
If there is a dividing line between the "saved" and the "condemned," I hope that I'm at least one micron on the upward side of that line. But--oh drat--I once bore false witness or lusted in my heart; that may move me down just enough to spend an endless eternity in hell! Suddenly my days as a Little League umpire seem really easy, even if "balls" and "strikes" can be a tad subjective.
Friday, July 3, 2009
A divine plan to kill children
News item from yesterday's Star Tribune:
"A 12-foot pet Burmese python broke out of a terrarium and strangled a 2-year-old girl in her bedroom at a central Florida home, authorities said. Shauna Hare was already dead when paramedics arrived . . . Charles Jason Darnell, the snake's owner and the boyfriend of Shauna's mother, discovered the snake missing from its aquarium and went to the girl's room, where he found it on the girl and bite marks on her head . . . Darnell, 32, stabbed the snake until he was able to pry the child away."
A young, innocent 2-year-old is killed by a 12-foot snake. It sounds absolutely dreadful. Now, let's consider this sad story from the perspective of those who believe that God basically orchestrates everything and/or knows everything and/or controls everything. If you are to make such a claim, then you are required to believe that:
1. God helped a 12-foot python out of its cage.
2. God allowed the python to enter a toddler's room and strangle her.
3. God could have stopped all this but chose not to.
In cases such as this one, I don't know how any reasonable person would conclude that God is micromanaging our lives. At the VERY least, can we all agree that something like this, especially if it's divinely ordained by an omniscient and omnipotent higher power, is just plain cruel? And at the VERY least, can we all agree that too many cruel things happen each and every day to suggest that it's all part of a "plan"? What kind of plan involves killing innocent children? Or for that matter, letting Hitler live as long as he did? (There's a great plan: become an enabler for mass genocide! God just stood by while 6 million human beings were treated like garbage--thanks for all the help, my man!)
If all of this is a "design," it's not a very "intelligent design."
"A 12-foot pet Burmese python broke out of a terrarium and strangled a 2-year-old girl in her bedroom at a central Florida home, authorities said. Shauna Hare was already dead when paramedics arrived . . . Charles Jason Darnell, the snake's owner and the boyfriend of Shauna's mother, discovered the snake missing from its aquarium and went to the girl's room, where he found it on the girl and bite marks on her head . . . Darnell, 32, stabbed the snake until he was able to pry the child away."
A young, innocent 2-year-old is killed by a 12-foot snake. It sounds absolutely dreadful. Now, let's consider this sad story from the perspective of those who believe that God basically orchestrates everything and/or knows everything and/or controls everything. If you are to make such a claim, then you are required to believe that:
1. God helped a 12-foot python out of its cage.
2. God allowed the python to enter a toddler's room and strangle her.
3. God could have stopped all this but chose not to.
In cases such as this one, I don't know how any reasonable person would conclude that God is micromanaging our lives. At the VERY least, can we all agree that something like this, especially if it's divinely ordained by an omniscient and omnipotent higher power, is just plain cruel? And at the VERY least, can we all agree that too many cruel things happen each and every day to suggest that it's all part of a "plan"? What kind of plan involves killing innocent children? Or for that matter, letting Hitler live as long as he did? (There's a great plan: become an enabler for mass genocide! God just stood by while 6 million human beings were treated like garbage--thanks for all the help, my man!)
If all of this is a "design," it's not a very "intelligent design."
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Walk softly in Iran
I'm beginning to sound like a charter member of the Barack Obama Fan Club. But I don't think that the guy walks on water. Still, I must defend him in light of recent criticism regarding our stance toward Iran.
For what seems like forever, the United States has decided that it must be the Leader of the Free World. That sounds like a good thing--and in some ways it is--but it has fostered a mind-set which dictates that the U.S. should be actively engaged in every nation in the world. Don't care for Gaddafi or Castro? Try to assassinate them! Don't like Saddam Hussein? Invade! Things don't seem right in Granada? Send in the troops! In many ways, the perception that we are "the world's policeman" is right on target.
Now, some of that military presence is justified--South Korea, for example. But people forget (or never knew) that prior to 9/11 we had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia for many years, attempting to shore up a shaky regime. And it is that presumption that the U.S. must be involved that gives us the reputation for both "meddling," and worse, coming off as "imperialistic." We simply must be able to see ourselves the way that others often see us.
So, back to Iran. I agree with the President that we should be concerned but not particularly engaged in this mess. I agree with him that too often, the U.S. can become a "foil" for others to charge that the U.S. is really behind all the problems in the world. There are times to be actively involved, and there are times to keep our distance; this is one of those times when the latter makes more sense. And such a stance is a far, far cry from "isolationism."
We need to walk softly sometimes. And not even carry a big stick.
For what seems like forever, the United States has decided that it must be the Leader of the Free World. That sounds like a good thing--and in some ways it is--but it has fostered a mind-set which dictates that the U.S. should be actively engaged in every nation in the world. Don't care for Gaddafi or Castro? Try to assassinate them! Don't like Saddam Hussein? Invade! Things don't seem right in Granada? Send in the troops! In many ways, the perception that we are "the world's policeman" is right on target.
Now, some of that military presence is justified--South Korea, for example. But people forget (or never knew) that prior to 9/11 we had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia for many years, attempting to shore up a shaky regime. And it is that presumption that the U.S. must be involved that gives us the reputation for both "meddling," and worse, coming off as "imperialistic." We simply must be able to see ourselves the way that others often see us.
So, back to Iran. I agree with the President that we should be concerned but not particularly engaged in this mess. I agree with him that too often, the U.S. can become a "foil" for others to charge that the U.S. is really behind all the problems in the world. There are times to be actively involved, and there are times to keep our distance; this is one of those times when the latter makes more sense. And such a stance is a far, far cry from "isolationism."
We need to walk softly sometimes. And not even carry a big stick.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Once again, StarTrib editors can't stop me
I'm not sure what my batting average is when it comes to getting letters to the editor actually accepted and printed, but it's probably around .400. That's pretty darn good in baseball, but the CI (Contentious Introvert) likes to get to the plate every time if he's suited up for the game. But enough baseball metaphors: Katherine Kersten, the Strib's "conservative" voice, wrote a column on Sunday about religion that annoyed the crap out of me. And indeed, it annoyed the crap out of more than 300 people who ragged on her at the StarTrib's website, where "interactive journalism" is quite alive and well. Here is what she wrote:
Hostility to religion bodes ill for society
Without belief in a higher truth, people may give way to base impulses.
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
We're increasingly uncomfortable with religion these days.
As a society, we tolerate pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious folks, so long as they confine their message to a vanilla "God is love" theme and bless babies, brides and caskets.
But when religious leaders speak out on the issues of the day -- especially using morally tinged language -- the elite gatekeepers of public opinion in the media, government and academia warn shrilly that a new Dark Age is upon us.
More and more, we see outright hostility to religion -- particularly to Christianity. Consider the wild popularity of a recent spate of best-sellers by "New Atheist" superstars, including Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
Far from being dispassionate critics of faith, the New Atheists are zealous crusaders for their own creed: materialism. They are passionately committed to the idea that the universe is a random accident, that transcendent truth is a myth, and that man's life has no inherent purpose or meaning.
Why the growing audience for notions like these?
Religion poses a serious challenge to our cherished idea of personal autonomy. Unlike our forebears, we define freedom as the right to live as we choose -- to "be ourselves" -- unconstrained by social norms or a morally grounded sense of guilt or shame.
Judeo-Christianity throws a wrench in this, teaching that universal standards of right and wrong trump our personal desires.
In addition, it raises troubling questions about the vision of scientific "progress," so central to our modern age. The mere fact that we are capable of, say, genetically altering or cloning human beings doesn't give us moral license to do so, it cautions.
It's tempting to embrace the New Atheist gospel -- that man makes himself and has no higher judge. But before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.
What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.
And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?
We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.
Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?
The signs aren't promising.
Human beings are prone to selfishness, lust, vindictiveness and cruelty. Once we cease to believe that the moral rules constraining us are rooted in transcendent truth, they become mere preferences -- a matter of personal taste, and so expendable.
Theologian David Bentley Hart, a critic of the New Atheists, puts it this way: "How long can our gentler ethical prejudices ... persist once the faith that gave them their rationale and meaning has withered away?"
The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union -- all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.
Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism -- the notion of the survival of the fittest. Unless scientific ambition is constrained by religion, it can come to see humanity as just another form of technology, to be tinkered with and perfected with utility in mind.
Hart dismisses the New Atheists as intellectual lightweights. They push "attitudes masquerading as ideas" and fail to honestly consider the likely consequences of their creed, he writes. But he takes a different view of Christianity's greatest critic -- philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared in 1882 that "God is dead."
"Nietzsche was a prophetic figure precisely because he, almost alone among Christianity's enemies, understood the implications of Christianity's withdrawal," Hart has written. "He understood that the effort to cast off Christian faith while retaining the best and most beloved elements of Christian morality was doomed to defeat."
Well, for Mr. CI, them's fightin' words. And so I dashed off a quick response, knowing that it had to be brief if there was any chance for it to be published. So in three paragraphs, I wrote:
Katherine Kersten's rant about those who criticize organized religion (Star Tribune, June 7) reveals a profound lack of insight. Worse, it fuels fear that without the dogma of organized religion we would behave like savages.
Her hatchet job on people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is misleading and mean-spirited. These writers do not promote a crass philosophy of "materialism," as she alleges, nor do they say that life without God must be a life without "truth," values, or meaning. And that Kersten fails to grasp the potentially toxic nature of organized religion--that is, the way in which God has been used to justify all sorts of cruelty and inhumanity over the centuries--shows a very selective and narrow-minded understanding of things.
Kersten might consider the empirical example of Japan. Far more Japanese than Americans would regard themselves as atheists, yet civil behavior and human decency in Japan are certainly as or more common than in the U.S. Being Christian or even being theistic is not a prerequisite for being nice, moral, or good. People can be and are decent to one another not because God ordains it, but because humans have decided that it's the right thing to do. If Kersten thinks that only God can give our lives purpose and meaning, she shows a poor grasp of history, philosophy, and sociology in ways that I can only allude to in one short letter to this newspaper.
David Lapakko
Richfield, MN
Well, now I can take a cleansing breath. But I am still pretty agitated that this woman can command as many column inches as she does--and meanwhile, a whole host of savvy critics (some 333 of them on the Strib's website) are left to air their views in the relative obscurity of cyberspace. (The newspaper finally printed one semi-critical letter in response to her commentary, but it was pretty lame and not at all representative of the furor she created on the web page.)
Oh, and by the way, read Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great and decide for yourself if he is, as Kersten alleges, a "lightweight"! She has a lot of nerve to take such a stance.
Hostility to religion bodes ill for society
Without belief in a higher truth, people may give way to base impulses.
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
We're increasingly uncomfortable with religion these days.
As a society, we tolerate pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious folks, so long as they confine their message to a vanilla "God is love" theme and bless babies, brides and caskets.
But when religious leaders speak out on the issues of the day -- especially using morally tinged language -- the elite gatekeepers of public opinion in the media, government and academia warn shrilly that a new Dark Age is upon us.
More and more, we see outright hostility to religion -- particularly to Christianity. Consider the wild popularity of a recent spate of best-sellers by "New Atheist" superstars, including Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
Far from being dispassionate critics of faith, the New Atheists are zealous crusaders for their own creed: materialism. They are passionately committed to the idea that the universe is a random accident, that transcendent truth is a myth, and that man's life has no inherent purpose or meaning.
Why the growing audience for notions like these?
Religion poses a serious challenge to our cherished idea of personal autonomy. Unlike our forebears, we define freedom as the right to live as we choose -- to "be ourselves" -- unconstrained by social norms or a morally grounded sense of guilt or shame.
Judeo-Christianity throws a wrench in this, teaching that universal standards of right and wrong trump our personal desires.
In addition, it raises troubling questions about the vision of scientific "progress," so central to our modern age. The mere fact that we are capable of, say, genetically altering or cloning human beings doesn't give us moral license to do so, it cautions.
It's tempting to embrace the New Atheist gospel -- that man makes himself and has no higher judge. But before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.
What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.
And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?
We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.
Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?
The signs aren't promising.
Human beings are prone to selfishness, lust, vindictiveness and cruelty. Once we cease to believe that the moral rules constraining us are rooted in transcendent truth, they become mere preferences -- a matter of personal taste, and so expendable.
Theologian David Bentley Hart, a critic of the New Atheists, puts it this way: "How long can our gentler ethical prejudices ... persist once the faith that gave them their rationale and meaning has withered away?"
The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union -- all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.
Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism -- the notion of the survival of the fittest. Unless scientific ambition is constrained by religion, it can come to see humanity as just another form of technology, to be tinkered with and perfected with utility in mind.
Hart dismisses the New Atheists as intellectual lightweights. They push "attitudes masquerading as ideas" and fail to honestly consider the likely consequences of their creed, he writes. But he takes a different view of Christianity's greatest critic -- philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared in 1882 that "God is dead."
"Nietzsche was a prophetic figure precisely because he, almost alone among Christianity's enemies, understood the implications of Christianity's withdrawal," Hart has written. "He understood that the effort to cast off Christian faith while retaining the best and most beloved elements of Christian morality was doomed to defeat."
Well, for Mr. CI, them's fightin' words. And so I dashed off a quick response, knowing that it had to be brief if there was any chance for it to be published. So in three paragraphs, I wrote:
Katherine Kersten's rant about those who criticize organized religion (Star Tribune, June 7) reveals a profound lack of insight. Worse, it fuels fear that without the dogma of organized religion we would behave like savages.
Her hatchet job on people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is misleading and mean-spirited. These writers do not promote a crass philosophy of "materialism," as she alleges, nor do they say that life without God must be a life without "truth," values, or meaning. And that Kersten fails to grasp the potentially toxic nature of organized religion--that is, the way in which God has been used to justify all sorts of cruelty and inhumanity over the centuries--shows a very selective and narrow-minded understanding of things.
Kersten might consider the empirical example of Japan. Far more Japanese than Americans would regard themselves as atheists, yet civil behavior and human decency in Japan are certainly as or more common than in the U.S. Being Christian or even being theistic is not a prerequisite for being nice, moral, or good. People can be and are decent to one another not because God ordains it, but because humans have decided that it's the right thing to do. If Kersten thinks that only God can give our lives purpose and meaning, she shows a poor grasp of history, philosophy, and sociology in ways that I can only allude to in one short letter to this newspaper.
David Lapakko
Richfield, MN
Well, now I can take a cleansing breath. But I am still pretty agitated that this woman can command as many column inches as she does--and meanwhile, a whole host of savvy critics (some 333 of them on the Strib's website) are left to air their views in the relative obscurity of cyberspace. (The newspaper finally printed one semi-critical letter in response to her commentary, but it was pretty lame and not at all representative of the furor she created on the web page.)
Oh, and by the way, read Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great and decide for yourself if he is, as Kersten alleges, a "lightweight"! She has a lot of nerve to take such a stance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)