Morality in the Streets

Last week the news (especially the BBC) carried quite a bit of coverage of the riots in multiple cities in the United Kingdom. Rightly so.

This year there have been a lot of people taking to the streets. The "Arab Spring", as some have called it, had lots of people in various places taking to the streets for protest and hopes of political or economic change. Some ending peaceably. Some still raging on with conflict.

But it seems like the events in the UK are different. People took to the streets - and to some degree it may have been influenced by economics and politics - but on the whole it seemed that it was mostly just angry mobs, seeking to turn the chaos they were creating into some personal gain. Looting and 'smash and grab' seemed to be the hallmark of the 'assemblies'. There was no call for policy reform or demand for regime change. It was opportunistic greed and anarchy. Lawlessness.

What I find interesting in these kind of events ist what's said about it by rational, self-controlled and in-charge types. Or, more poignantly - what's NOT said.

On the way to work, I tend to listen to 'the Beeb" (BBC) because I often have my radio set to a public station. (judge not) My default morning news source has a British accent (or accents - they certainly vary!) simply because I'm lazy and don't change the station.

I found fascinating what I wasn't hearing. Most of the news bits and bytes surrounding the aftermath of the riots centered around things like the judicial system and how they were handling the arrest, detention and processing of so many people - many of whom are minors. But there was also a great deal of talk from the leadership. Parliament and Prime Minister and Police.

If you take out all the wrangling over how the government should respond and how officials did and didn't react, there's not a ton left. But what you are left with is intelligent people talking about people who were acting criminally. They spoke of these people being from depressed areas. How some had insufficient services and resources. The blight of uninvolved parents and guardians and it's effect on them. They talked about how to make the rule of law and it's application better compel people to behave properly.

What I never heard anyone say about it was anything about morality. Specifically the word "wrong."

Now - don't be confused by that. A great deal was said about laws and the breaking of them. But I don't think that legality and morality are about the same thing. The legal question has to do with laws and the breaking of them: External actions. Morality also has to do with law, and the breaking of it - but of a different sort. It's more all-encompassing. It's about internal evaluation. Morality has to do with the internal world, and the bedrock level beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Everyone has this. It doesn't have to be taught.

External laws and punitive actions have an effect on our behavior - to a point. But only to a point, which varies from person to person. If you were to take away all influence of external laws - take away all possibility for punishment, I think you would get a good read on what people's true internal morals are. People who truly do believe that it's wrong to lie would continue to be honest. People who may say that lying is wrong but at bedrock level believe that personal gain through lying is morally acceptable would not be honest. No sir.

The fact that all societies have laws governing behavior and punishments for when those laws are broken is really a reflection of humanity's moral state. And it's not a pretty reflection. People, left un-compelled by an external authority of law, would tear society apart. And each other. Just look at places today where the government is incapable of controlling factions and ethnic groups. Horrors galore.

The British politicians aren't talking about the morals of the rioters. The reality is that the mobs happened because those people were willing to make it happen. Morally, (internally) they didn't have a real problem with those actions - especially when (for whatever the real reasons were) the capacity of police to compel external obedience to the law was diminished or non-existent.

In this day and age, there's a real fear to 'push morality' on people. Morality is seen as a personal thing and if you insist that I hold myself to a particular moral standard, then you are assigned a place with the Nazis and street preachers. How dare you try to compel me to be a certain way, morally. Who are you to say which moral standards are superior!? How dare you condemn me!

This is absurd. On the external side, what are laws? Isn't that exactly what they are? Are they not a forced morality? Whether you believe that murdering someone is justified or not doesn't matter when you get to the court room. The law is that murder is wrong. The penalties are severe. (and rightly so) All laws are a standard that is placed on a society for what is right and wrong. We don't vote for our laws.(except in California)

But again - the law is external.

Politicians, legislators and the like create more and more rules to govern our behavior - but external laws can't do that. They can compel certain actions or curtail others - but they don't have the capability to control hearts and minds. Or to motivate goodness. They never can.

What's needed for a healthy society are people with good morals. And I believe some moral systems are better than others. (I actually think one moral system is best.) Morally sound people govern themselves - they are compelled by an internal sense of right and wrong. For those kinds of people, the government doesn't need to compel them very much. People who are compelled only by external laws do not form a healthy society because governments can't catch everything and everyone. They just might get away with it. And as that possibility increases, the likelihood that they'll break laws will also increase.

So when I see greed induced riots all over the United Kingdom, what concerns me isn't the effectiveness of policies, or the capacity of police to enforce the law. What concerns me is that so many people would consider it alright to behave in such a way. That, to me, is the biggest issue - and one that no amount of legislation will be able to do anything about. The problem is far deeper than the law, and the dangers for us all are far greater. Perhaps we should start talking about that?

What we need is a clear set of laws for the internal, moral world. And there too we need someone who has the capability to know when those laws are broken and can effectively punish. Is there such a person? Is there such a moral law?

And - what we REALLY need is someone who can change us. Because even if the law written in our internal world is crystal clear and the recording and punishment of lawbreaking is absolute - we still break the law.

What we need is a change of heart. A change of desire. a change in our nature. Because, after all, the laws (internal and external) exist solely because we need them. Left to ourselves, we'll tear each other apart.

But who, then, could change us?

Your Massively Important Smallness

Some months back I saw a post on a friend's facebook page that I found intriguing.

It was a photo of a plaque on which were written a number of scientific statements intended to give perspective to the reader. I'm not sure where it's from, or who took it, but the final statement was strikingly... well - ironic. So much so that I laughed when I read it, but not because it was funny.

Here I mean "ironic" not in the wryly sarcastic way it's often used, but more like this: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

But before I get to the punchline, let's define some terms so we know what we're talking about here. I'll post the photo below, but first let me point something out. Or, ask a question really. What is science?

It's likely that the answer would vary depending on the frame of reference. Who I'm asking. What their field is. Where I'm asking. But broadly. Generally. What is it? How would you define it?

Very broadly, very generally, let's ask our long-dead but still relevant friend Merriam Webster. Here's what he (or his ghost) has to say.


Science. noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

 

Good. Broad and general definitions. Thanks MW. Please note some important consistencies. First, that science deals with knowledge. "Well, duh." But second, it's not ALL knowledge - at least not all at once. A body of facts, a system of study, a branch of knowledge, or knowledge of facts/principles which are gained through systematic study. And Third - most of the time this deals with the physical, observable, natural world. 

 

(Math, you could argue is an exception, but basic math still operates as a representation of the physical world. i.e. the number 2, while an abstraction and conceptual, still represents the concept of 2 of some thing. So does E=mc2)

 

In other words, we know a broad definition of science is that science is knowledge narrowly defined. It peers into the world for answers, but it does not stand on the edge of a canyon at sunset taking panoramic photos, then heading home. No. It goes down into the canyon with specific questions. How was this formed? What kind of rock is this? How deep and wide and old? Then is asks more questions based on the answers to its questions, drilling deeper and deeper. It builds a picture of the canyon by looking closely at its parts - it's physical, observable, testable parts. Science, at least as I learned it, seeks to be objective. It describes objects and the processes that govern them. Agreed?

 

But hey - weren't we talking about some funny plaque about 20 minutes ago, or something? Oh yeah. Back to the plaque. Let's go line by line, then I'll plop in the pic.

Line 1: "You are 1 person out of 7 billion people.

Is this testable and observable? Can I show this to be objectively true? Yup. Hard to count, but possible. 

Line 2: "on 1 planet out of 8 planets"

Yup. Testable, observable and objectively true. (sorry Pluto, you're out of vogue)

 

Line 3: "in one star system out of 100 billion star systems"

Again- yup. Harder to count, but observable.

Line 4: "in one galaxy out of 100 billion galaxies"

Yup. Ok. 

Line 5: ... well - read it for yourself. 

"and you are enormously insignificant"

Here is where I laughed. I did. 

First - and this is enormously petty - but I don't think you should say something is enormously insignificant. Utterly or ultimately maybe. How can insignificance be enormous? That's as dumb as calling something "enormously petty." Petty things are small. 

But, more significantly; Is that last line testable? Observable? Empirical? Does is deal with systems governing the natural world or the nature of the physical world itself? Nope. It's a value judgment. It's a statement of worth and relationship. It doesn't belong at the end of that list. To say that we have no significance at all is far too broad.

 

This is a value statement. Speak of mass, or electromagnetism or gravitational pull or chemical properties when you speak of my significance and I will concede. We're not physically significant relative to the incomprehensible scale of the universe. But value statements are subjective, not objective. There is a story going on in value statements. There is a subject and some consciousness that forms/comprehends a relationship of some kind to it.

The author seems to think little of me - he tells me that I am enormously (snicker) insignificant. But I don't believe him. He doesn't believe it either, otherwise why design, build and post a plaque saying so? If I am completely insignificant, why even pander to me by trying to convince me of it?

And consider the marvelous significance of our ability to even do science, and understand physical laws! That  physical matter can be so organized and structured that it becomes aware of itself and desirous to understand and make use of the properties of matter is incomprehensibly significant. It dizzies one's consciousness to consider that fact alone. Self awareness? Goodness. Is there any other place in the universe where this happens? That we can even consider this questions is remarkable!

The invocation of the word significance (or really, ANY words) itself is a robust objection. Language!? Now we're beyond a single self aware consciousness and on to interaction and communication between ourselves and others conscious 'matter.' Have we observed any other matter in the universe that willfully tries to communicate with other sentient matter? Only here. If someday we found conscious life elsewhere, would that be insignificant? And to apply the word significance means that it's not simply transfer of data, but evaluation of what data is of more importance to us.

Ok - enough. But when I see things like this I laugh first, then shake my head. I love science. It's been an incredible tool for understanding the nature of the world we live in. The knowledge of what the world is like gives us incredible capacities to make use of it, to enjoy it, to preserve it. But science makes a lousy worldview. And it makes a lousy standard for human significance. And there's where the problem lies. 

As a basis for making value judgments and moral decisions - science is insufficient. You cannot scientifically derive meaning, beauty, love or happiness from the physical world because they are relational, conscious-driven concepts. They are real AND they are non-physical. 

 

There are many to whom science becomes their religion - where only the physical world exists and is our source of origin and purpose, but this means they must find a way to explain emotions, a sense of meaning and personal consciousness from only physical/chemical means. They will deny their own humanity in the process. 

 

Either our consciousness and internal lives will become a physically pre-programmed robotic response, or they will become illusions - tricks of our physical mind which are in fact unreal. Lose your will, or lose meaning. Either one reduces us to rubble. There is no meaning, or love, or purpose, or consciousness in a physical-only world. Only chemistry and physics.

But no one can live like that. The author of this sign probably looked up to see the billions of billions of billions of stars and felt real, non-physical mind-blowing awe, began thinking about his place in the world - and got it wrong.

 

Smoke Signals

I'm sure the blogosphere is buzzing over reports today on a little church in Florida that has made plain and public it's plan to burn copies of the Koran in a bonfire this coming weekend - on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Let me make 2 points, or offer a view without too much flailing and gesticulation.

We live in an age of hyperbole and marginalization, where one side demonizes and makes their opponents and their view as crazy as they can. In this case, that doesn't seem to be too hard. I'm sure there are a ton of viewpoints flying around making the "Dove World Outreach Center" to be insane and haters and a litany of other colorful name giving.

I suppose my first point is - let's hold up a mirror. My reflection is the reversal of what I actually look like  - the image of me that I see is flipped. If I were to hold a mirror up to this situation, it seems to me that it would look pretty similar on both sides.

On one side is a minority of believers whose theology is at the more extreme edge of their faith, seemingly full of hate and willing to do hateful acts in retribution toward their enemies. On the other side is a minority of believers whose theology is at the more extreme edge of their faith, seemingly full of hate and willing to do hateful acts in retribution toward their enemies. (is there an echo?) Granted, one side has been willing to do more severely damaging and evil acts than the other. Let's hope that reality doesn't cross the mirror's boundary.

Terry Jones, the pastor of this little church, may argue that he's just trying to purge the world of lies and false teaching, but I have a little trouble imagining Jesus showing up to the book burning, much less organizing it.

I don't think that Islam is true. I think its spread is causing problems around the world because of its large radical elements and percentages who act on that thinking. I think it's oppressive to freedom, to women, to open inquiry - but I also know that my job as a Christian is to take a different tack in opposing it - or any other falsity.

It's pretty clear, if you're at all familiar with Jesus' teachings, that love is the currency of change. That we're to love our enemies. That the approach to change people's worldview is to do so by speaking about and demonstrating to them a better way. That vindictive cycles of hate and revenge cannot bear the weight of forgiveness and kindness and love. Bad worldviews are not dissolved through sheer reason, or bombs or aggrandizement - they are supplanted by better ones.

While Mr. Jones might think he's doing something bold and significant on the side of truth, I think the smoke that rises from those hundreds of burning books will only be seen from the other side of the world as a confirmation and a call. A confirmation of their suspicion that Americans in general, and Christians in particular, are their enemies. And a call to retaliate. Until they're shown something better - why wouldn't they?

And I wonder what the 'World Outreach' is in the Dove World Outreach Center. For Muslims the world over this week, it will be more of a World Outrage Center.

Second Point - and I'll make this one REAL short.

Let's also 'thank' the news media yet again. Being a conduit doesn't mean you're neutral.

When streakers (for whatever reason) cross fields in sports events, the general policy is not to broadcast the stunt. The cameras turn away. Why? Because by sending it out to the world you are rewarding the nut-case and encouraging similar actions for others that I also don't want to see naked.

But not the news media. Their insatiable appetite for 'that which will make you watch us' seems to override what prudence demands. The BBC themselves, in their article on this point out that...

Gen David Petraeus, the top US commander in Afghanistan, said on Monday that the action could cause problems "not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world".

"It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems," he said in a statement.

 And they even help us understand the situation by reminding us of previous events....

There were deadly protests in Afghanistan in 2008, when it emerged that a US soldier deployed to Iraq riddled a copy of the holy book with bullets.

And further lives were lost in Afghan riots in 2005 when Newsweek magazine printed a story alleging that US interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet.

The story later turned out to be false and was retracted by the magazine.

Yeah, Newsweek - you can retract an incorrect story, but you can't retract the 'deadly' part of the protests. Too bad. Did you cause the reaction? No. But you happily pumped it out there. So, you're a bit culpable too. You're not the crazy, but you're glad to report it. People will die. 

Thanks Newsweek. Thanks news media. While this whole new situation is certainly illustrative of a problem that exists, there is a part of me that thinks the news outlets would do better to turn their cameras away from this streak of naked hostility.

Perhaps I need to know this - but can we report on this after the fact, quietly and with tactful forethought? I'd prefer that to your salivating and showing up early to the book burning with a camera man and several sets of billows.


BBC Article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457

I took the liberty of editing the original photo. Hope the Associated Press doesn't mind. Terry might. 

The Praise of Spring

What a wonder - spring!

Which with subtle scents
Gently beckons to me
On soft, cooling breezes
To pause in marvel and praise.

Somewhere, unseen honeysuckles
Send good news of life and beauty
Borne on the wind;
"The cold and death are done!"
They cannot help but cast,
To all who may receive,
The news and aroma of life anew.
Once a forecast
And now a foretaste
Of what is yet to come.

What a worshipper - spring!

Which, with it sensuous sights
Bids me kneel in grateful adulation.
Behold the azalea; altogether common
Yet it somehow gathers
earth and air and light
(All more common than itself)
And transforms them to flowers!
Fragile and
Fragrant and
Flagrant in hue.

And the peonies in their peak,
Too heavy with dew-soaked praise,
Bow their beauty toward the ground.
Glistening beads of gratitude
Laid before Him who
formed the earth
and moves the air
and speaks the light.

Is the world so rich adorned
With sights and scents of Spring
a foreshadow, A fleeting glance
which points us toward a King?

A Good Boy?

Philly news last night lead with a story that left me scratching my head.

The initial line was something like "stock market takes a historic plummet - but first, in Coatesville tonight protesters marched to the local police station."

So my first surprise (but not really) was that a sudden drop in stock value (nearly 10%!) was a runner up in the evening news. That's a big drop, but apparently made less newsworthy for the fact that the market also made up two thirds of its loss by the closing bell. Apparently, the already jittery market was tipped into panic by someone's keystroke error: a 'B' instead of an 'M' which does matter when it preceeds '-illion.'

But the top story, as mentioned above, centered around a local town and some of the events that went on there yesterday. We'll get to the protesters - first what happened.

Here's the shorty short version: Police in the neighborhood started following a car driving with its lights off. (around 11pm) When they ran the plates, it came back as a stolen vehicle. They attempted to stop the driver but he continued to drive. The news deemed it a 'low speed chase.' It ended with the car flipping over after it struck several other cars. The driver in the accident died in the crash. He was partly ejected from the SUV when it flipped, and it crushed him. Horrible.

The surprise here was that he was a local kid, just 13. The police thought he was trying to find a place where he could quickly exit the car and run away, avoiding capture. So he wasn't wearing his seatbelt, which undoubtedly would have saved his life.

Enter the crowd. Family and friends gathered together and marched in protest to the local police station. At this point the news showed footage of people being interviewed. Friends talking about how bad this was and that the kid didn't deserve to die...etc. The most forceful soundbites came from the tearful aunt, who said he was a good boy. He was just a good boy and he didn't deserve to die.

Some people claimed that they were shooting at the car and that they had run into it, prior to it flipping. One kid, tears flowing said "He was 13 years old - why did he have to die? Why couldn't they just stop the car? Why'd they have to kill him?"

And so there was a march, protesting the behavior of the local police. The two officers were put on administrative leave, pending the investigation.

First off, let me just say that yes - this is horrible. It's awful that this child died, and died in this way. It is tragic and my condolences to the family and friends. How terrible.

But there is something in human nature that's absolutely puzzling. What is it about us that always wants to pin blame and responsibility on someone else? I do it. I'll bet you do it. It's been going on since the beginning. We're inherently uncomfortable with being to blame, especially when we really are. It's as if wrong-doing goes against our very natures, yet we are wrong and guilty and lawbreakers at times and that feeling of 'this isn't what I'm supposed to be' persists. What seems to be the default then is to move that right blame to another person. Or circumstance. Or system.

Really, let's say you're a cop in this situation. Your job is to protect people, their property, their rights and their safety. Hold people to the laws.

While on patrol, you see a car driving through town, well into the night with no lights. Maybe they just didn't remember to put their lights on? We've all done that. So you follow him. Maybe there's more to it? So you run the plates and it comes back that this vehicle has been stolen earlier today. So you put your lights on, let's pull this guy over.

He doesn't pull over, he continues to drive. He's not speeding away, trying to outrun you, so you keep following them. No need for drastic measures yet. Call in for backup. Use the loudspeaker to tell him to pull over. Maybe he's violent and armed. Better be ready and call for help.

It seems he might be going slow so he can ditch the car and run into the night. Then the car sideswipes a couple others, reals out of control and flips over. You find the driver pinned under the car. He's a kid. A 13 year old kid.

From my perspective, I don't see anything critically wrong with the cops' behavior. Let's say they did bump him or try to stop him using their vehicle. I don't see a problem with that. Police are trained on how to make forced stops if needed. Did they shoot? Investigation says no weapons were discharged. Is there any hard evidence that they did, or just local hear-say?

And let's assume something here. From the police perspective, it's some person driving a stolen car. That person either knows it's stolen or he doesn't. If he doesn't, why wouldn't he pull over? All they know is that the car is stolen and the unknown driver is refusing to stop. What they don't know is who the driver is. Could be a violent criminal who is armed or a charmingly disoriented grandmother.

If the dispatcher came across the radio and said it was 13 year old boy, what would they have done differently? For those angry with the police, what do they think the police should they have done? Not pursued him because he was going slow? Just stopped?

Dispatch: "Pursuing officers: Be advised, the driver is a 13 year old"
Cop:"13?"
Dispatch: "Affirmative, he's just 13"
Cop: "Roger that, dispatch" then turning to his partner "He's just 13. We just passed a good coffee place. Let's turnaround for some caffeine. I need a pick-me-up. We'll worry about him in 3 more years."

Ridiculous. It's a stolen vehicle. If it was mine, I'd want them to get it back, and I'd want them to catch the guy who did it.

Perhaps emotions take over, and I understand that. I just wish news outlets would be a little more rational and fact reporting. Another quote they aired from the Aunt was "A car like that doesn't hit the curb and flip. They [the police] killed that little boy." "He didn't deserve to die like this"

Again, respectfully. No he didn't, and this is a horrible tragedy, but why are we so afraid to own responsibility? Little Johnny wasn't just a good little boy.

Maybe he stole the car, but I think that's irrelevant. He broke all kinds of laws. He was driving a car - at 13! He was driving a stolen car. (at 13) He refused to stop for the police.

Little Johnny (not his real name) made bad choices which, so sadly and tragically, resulted in his death. Good people don't steal cars, joyride in them, drive when they're 13 and run from police.

Am I saying he was a completely evil person and deserved what he got? Absolutely not. No 13 year old deserves to be crushed by a car. He may have been a great kid. I'm sure he was worthy of love and was lovable. But I'm also sure he was breaking good laws.

He, like the rest of us, was a mixed bag. Full of good, but capable of and practiced at breaking rules. His bad choices led to a situation in which he died - as a result of his own actions.

Let's say he was just joyriding, lost control at the same place and time and died in the same way. What would we say then? ( I wonder, really. ) Would people say that they intersection was too dangerous, or that SUV's tend to roll over too easily? Or that the car owners should have secured the vehicle better? The street should have been better lit? I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Johnny shouldn't have been in a stolen car. He shouldn't have been driving. He should have had his lights on and when the police tried to stop him, he should have. He didn't. And something tragic happened. What we should say is that he made choices that were wrong, put him in danger and he died as a result. And we're heart-broken, sad, regretful and disappointed to the utmost that his life ended like this. We loved him and we miss him terribly.

But isn't it interesting that when we do something wrong, it's only when the law givers or law-enforcers show up that we talk of guilt? And we often blame them. I do that.

I tend to turn everything in to a mirror to look at myself in. Maybe I'm a little too self-absorbed? But I do see a moral tale here - and a clear reference to a greater, but parallel story.

If there is a God, and he's a righteous law-giver, there's something to this pattern. We break the laws and think it's (for the most part) pretty fun to do so until we're faced with the unpleasant point when we must own up to our behavior. We're guilty, the laws are good (and for our protection, really) and justice must be served. When the light shines on our wrongdoing and shameful acts, we'll either run from the light, or, if there's no other option - fight. Deflect the blame to someone else - or in a real act of twistery, accuse our accuser.

And what's both crazy and beautiful about Christianity - and utterly unique, is that it makes an audacious claim; The lawgiver and law-enforcer is also our rescuer. And we, who are about to be crushed under the results of our defiance, are offered an exchange; own up to our defiance, turn from it and have Him knock us out from under the car - saving our lives at the cost of His. Or let the results of our lawbreaking come down squarely on us.

What a crazy notion. Could such a thing be true?

Meanwhile, we're mourn for that local kid.

Black Smoke Monster Song

Hoping to find a more convenient name for Dead-Locke's new identity as the black smoke monster on LOST, some time ago I wrote (i.e. ripped off) a little tune and revised the lyrics. I propose we call the Locke-Monster "Puff" and here's his song...

Puff the Black Smoke Monster

lives by the sea

and tosses people - tears them up

On a show on ABC!

Puff the Black Smoke Monster

May be a Deity

Imprisoned on an island jail

that moves around the sea

Puff the Black Smoke Monster

He's longing to be free

And now that Jacob has been killed

(Big finish) Well, We'll just have to see!

Poetry Slam?

A friend and I have been having a little "poem war" through Facebook. We work with each other so we get to laugh and kid about it. But I've tried to up the ante - especially with my last little entry:

Children fear the thunder, but the power's in the bolt.
It's strength is not cacophony, but measured by the volt.
The little ones, pajama clad - it's thunder they're afraid of
to those distressed, let me divest;
Tis light that thunder's made of.

And so dear friend, let me contend
That rhyming is just thunder.
So let's do more, (though it's a chore)
and aim for works of wonder.
Lines erudite and full of might
in syntax rife with meaning;
these are the things our poems should bring
- like bolts of beauty gleaming.

We'll see if she'll take the challenge to go deeper.

Post-Modernity in Science?

Hackers recently distributed emails from climate research scientists, making them look like they are massaging the truth in favor of Global Warming (or the now popular super-unhelpful term 'climate change.') This has caused some interesting dialogue (or monologues) over the issue - and maybe raised some new ones?

I was pretty surprised to read an article by two guys on the BBC's site earlier this week.

Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz wrote an article, which seems to try to educate the general public in the way that science is done, perhaps to defend the emails which were leaked, and scientists roles in producing scientific discovery and progress.

I'm a little alarmed. It seems, science as I knew it, has succumbed to the amoeba of postmodernity. Here's an excerpt: (with British spelling)

How science has evolved

The understanding of science as a social activity has changed quite radically in the last 50 years.

The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge.

Instead, warranted knowledge - knowledge that is authoritative, reliable and guaranteed on the basis of how it has been acquired - has become more sought after than the ideal of some ultimately true and objective knowledge.

Warranted knowledge places great weight on ensuring that the authenticating roles of socially-agreed norms and practices in science are adequately fulfilled - what in other fields is called quality assurance.

And science earns its status in society from strict adherence to such norms.

For climate change, this may mean the adequate operation of professional peer review, the sharing of empirical data, the open acknowledgement of errors, and openness about one's funders.

Crucially, the idea of warranted knowledge also recognises that these internal norms and practices will change over time in response to external changes in political culture, science funding and communication technologies.

YOINK! Catch the bolded parts? (my bolding) The language is thick and heavy, but please note that the gist of this is that the new trend in science has begun to delineate between 'excellence' of science and objective empiricism.

Warranted knowledge - how you got to your conclusions (peer reviewed, sharing of data, open funding sources) has norms that will change due to politics, funding and the way it's communicated.

Am I reading this wrong? Do you think this is just about science's interface with society and society's understanding, or is this about how science is done?

I originally stuck this on facebook (forgot to post here first) and a friend pointed out that Pharmaceutical Companies fund their own studies, and thus retain the ability to control what results get released, thereby assuring that they'll be able to promote the good and subdue the negative, or dangerous.

Is that what I want from science? Perhaps that's what I've been getting for a while?

If science abandons concepts of truth, empiricism and objectivity, it's just another rudder people (with or without scruples) will use to steer public opinion toward desired results. And won't we wind up in Pilate's shoes - unable to recognize truth. "Quid Est Veritas?" indeed.

Here's the full article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

Christmas Push

May I point out to you that Home Depot had all its Christmas Regalia out on display by September 25th this year? 3 months out.

Has the day become all that it was not?

He emptied himself.
He came meekly, with no pomp.
His goal: to meet our greatest spiritual need.

His day is crammed full.
It is gaudily advertised and promoted for months.
Its end: to fulfill our casual material desires.

And aren't we all distracted?

The Need to Fear?

There seems to be something about those of us who live in the very-developed world that I don't understand.

We are fundamentally healthy people, with access to incredible health care. Our lifespan is one of the longest in the world - probably in history. We're all relatively affluent, with much more than our basic needs for food, shelter and clothing being met. We are, for the most part, living in a safe environment, where there is law and order. Even natural events like earthquakes and hurricanes have reduced effects on us because of communications systems, building codes and infrastructure.

In the grand scheme of history, we enjoy one of the most safe living situations in the history of mankind. Yet, the news-media continues compel us to listen, read and watch by using scare tactics, dire warnings and fear.

Don't believe me? Here's an article from the reputable BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8211543.stm

Let me copy a few lines...

Candle use linked to cancer risk

Experts say rooms should be ventilated when burning candles

Candle-lit dinners may be romantic, but researchers are warning they could be harmful to health.

South Carolina State University experts analysed the fumes released by burning candles in lab tests.

They found paraffin wax candles gave off harmful fumes linked to lung cancer and asthma - but admitted it would take many years' use to risk health.

We are not safe, no not at all - say the 'experts.'

I have more important things to occupy my thoughts than trace amounts of benzene in the air while enjoying a romantic evening with my wife. If we lived our lives based off of the content of the news we'd live in constant anxiety and fear.

Let's take a big fat risk and focus on things that actually are significant and let's celebrate all the things we have to be thankful for - especially the remarkable protection, health and safety we enjoy every day.

And please, stop watching those 24 hour news stations 24 hours a day. Their job is to find something for us to worry about at all times.

Shark Tank

I recently quasi-watched a new TV show called "Shark Tank." Not really interested, but my wife wanted to see it and I can't totally ignore what's on.

What was on? Well, if you didn't see it the 'Sharks" are a group of gazillionaires who have entrepreneurial 'contestants' enter 'the tank' to present a product, business or idea. The contestants are coming looking for money - to expand, develop, market...etc. The Sharks have the money, the entrepreneurs have the new ideas.

Bottom line: Everyone wants money. Money.

The entrepreneurs want the money so they can use it to have a successful business - or a more successful business. They lack the capital to get a great idea off the ground (Or, in some cases, not so great) Some of them, to be sure, want to succeed SO THAT they will make tons of money. Some, however, seem to have a love for their product or idea and want to be a part of creating something - the money, while a major component of their dream, is not all that they're after. But they need it.

The sharks have crazy amounts of money. They're billionaires. In terms of needing money - they don't. Did I mention they're billionaires? There's no case of need for them. Yet, from every indication, they definitely want more. A lot more. In fact, they seem to NEED more. Certainly not because of lack of resources. There seems to be something else at work.

Many of the prospective partners ask for something in the range of $50,000 to a million dollars for something like a 15% share in the profits. The Wealthy laugh. They hurl insults about the ridiculousness of the initial offers. Their counter offers are something like half the company. Many times they want 51% of the company. (not just the profits)

Kevin O'Leary explains that he sees his dollars as soldiers he commands, which are sent out each day to take prisoners, bring them back and increase the size of the army. Interesting. Is that the ultimate goal? In a later episode, he asks someone with a very attractive idea if he wants to make great guitars, or make lots of money. For him, and probably the others as well, all it's about is making more money. More money, more power, more influence, more control. Using wealth to make more wealth to make more wealth to.... you get it.

Now don't get me wrong. I think wealth can be a great thing. Even massive wealth. There are things that wealthy people can do that couldn't be done without a centralized source of capital. There are even things that are at their root primarily about making money but give benefit to a great number of people. Consider life without sports complexes, museums, festivals, new products and services, things of high culture and artistic beauty. Those things enrich our lives and aren't really possible without inaugurating wealth to get them started.

Wealth is a tool, really. Like many things, it only gains its meaning and capacity for good or evil when it's made use of. And, according to my worldview, I believe it's a tool on loan. And there lies my concern and question for the poor sharks, who indeed are in a tank. What are you using the tool for? What's their end-game?

In the end, no matter what they have done with all their riches (and this goes for you and me too) they will lose it all. 100% guaranteed. Their stacks of $$ will be absolutely, irrevocably and completely gone. Or, more accurately, they will be gone. Parted from it, leaving it behind. Left to someone else. It is the fate of us all.

They will also be parted from all that their money accomplished - the buildings, businesses, banks, hospitals, charities and charter schools. Whether the buildings that bear their names are sweatshops or orphanages, They will leave all their material wealth behind.

There must be more. If we simply cease to be when we die, they may have something for the moment. But in the end, the prince and the pauper share the same fate and it didn't really matter. If there is more, if there is an eternal aspect to our being and we continue on, those that seek only wealth for wealth's sake are making a fool's investment.

And so, when I half-heartedly watch Shark Tank, I feel most sorry for the sharks. For the most part, what I see (presented by the program editors) is exceedingly wealthy people spending their time interviewing those who they can leverage to make themselves even more wealthy.

Despite all the comforts with which they can so easily numb themselves, their striving for happiness through riches may be an endless end which will ultimately leave them bankrupt.

How Dare You?

Today is Michael Jackson's funeral, and maybe I'm out of the loop, uncool or clueless, but though I'm sad that he died (and curious about his eternal destiny) I'm very ready to not hear about it much more.

Obviously others aren't. Quite obvious. But I don't understand some attitudes.

A recent BBC piece pointed out that some of the recipient of tickets to the memorial in L.A. (which were won by random lottery) have tried to sell one or both of their coveted prizes on ebay or craigslist - and have been met with vitriolic anger from the online community.

Here's a direct quote from the BBC's piece:

A Jackson family spokesman Ken Sunshine criticized those who would seek to make money out of the event.

"This is a memorial. Words can't describe how horrifying it is that people are ostensibly trying to do that. It's beneath contempt," said Mr Sunshine.

First thought: Wouldn't it just be cool if your last name was Sunshine? Who wouldn't want to hang out with you? "Hey Ed, want to go hang out with Mr. Sunshine?" Ed: "That sounds so very pleasant - sure!!" And thought 1.5: It's hard to picture Mr. Sunshine saying negative things... a burden that comes with the name I guess.

Second, What!? Let's step back and think about that for a second. Mr Sunshine and all the adoring but angry fans blocking winners from selling tickets are effectively saying that it's wrong to try to make money from the death of the 'King of Pop' and his memorial/memory.

At least if you're an individual. An easily identifiable individual. Shame on you for any gain from this loss!! How dare you!!?

But it's another story if you're a huge corporation or media outlet, isn't it? People are glued to watch the hours of TV 'news' and specials. Surely the broadcast execs aren't out to make money? You bet they are. They love tragedy and drama and whatever will get people to watch their shows. I seriously doubt that they're showing the funeral and all the retrospective stuff out of altruism.

TV is commercials, surrounded by content to keep you in place to watch the commercials. That's where the money comes from. That's how it works.

I'm also sure that Record producers are spinning up the DVD and CD copiers right now to handle the glut of increased Michael Jackson media and music sales. Shoot - they might even make a DVD of the funeral.

So, while I think it's in bad taste to auction off seats to a funeral, let's not live with the illusion that a figure as public (?) and popular does not create opportunities for those who will to make money and gain from his passing. It's just easier to single out individuals than to recognize that we as a society, out of curiosity, empathy or voyeurism, want to participate and benefit from such situations.

Sorry to put those clouds of reality out there Mr. Sunshine.

Pop Ups

Just a quick note. Really.

While poking around IMDB after watching the movie "Two Lovers" tonight, I had a pop up ad somehow get past my pop up blocker.

May I suggest this as an effective means to be not taken very seriously. Here's the ad:


That's right - get your degree from us. Don't let the giraffes fool you, this degree is legit.

Certificates and Other I can see. "Congratulations Bobby, through our online program you've matriculated to full day kindergarten.... here's your certificate."

But Doctoral? And what's up - the associate's giraffe looks exactly the same as the doctoral giraffe!!?? Wait a minute - My doctoral dissertation yield the same laminated giraffe seal as the fundamentals of movie appreciation associates degree? What a rip!

Incidentally - back to the "Two Lovers" movie (which I liked, but was a slow pace and a not-to-encouraging relationship head-shaker) may very well be Joaquin Phoenix's last film as an actor. If you haven't seen him lately, you can take in the summary version of his painful David Letterman visit from back in February. On YouTube search "Letterman Joaquin Pheonix" and try - TRY to absorb it. Oh yeah - it's real. Not a publicity stunt.

So that's it.

And if I work hard, I'm sure you can call me Doctor Biddle by the end of the summer. You can come by and see my proudly displayed Degree up on the wall - complete with giraffe stickers.

Engineering Appeal

It's Spring again, and we're enjoying one of the great benefits of this time of year: strawberries. Aren't strawberries amazing? Truly. Nothing quite like them.



I have a friend who has never tasted a strawberry. She's allergic. Tragic!! If that were me, once a year I'd consider getting the ripest, sweetest strawberries I could find, savoring the eating experience, and quickly washing them down with a Benadril Shake. Or maybe a strawberry Benadril shake? Hopefully they would cancel each other. Perhaps the emergency room lounge would be a prudent place to enjoy such a treat?

Last year we went strawberry picking. What stood out to me most from the experience, right after the strangeness of paying someone to watch you work, was the contrast between the ripe, small field berries we picked and the giant, lustrous store-bought ones. In fact, other than being the same berries, grocery store berries and the ones you might find in a field have little in common.

The ones we get in the store now absolutely astound us. They're the size of plums! Some aberrations are bigger. They're red red red. They're beautiful! You feel like they've selected this tiny percentage of berries - elite grade monster berries! All the supermodels of the berry world, right there for me. Look at those sexy berries!

But it's a trick, a ploy. Sure, they're big and colored like a peak-of-ripeness strawberry... but they're not. Below the veneer of red they're white and hard. And frankly, they don't have much taste. I haven't looked this up, but I'm sure that this has all been engineered. It's marketing. Surely these berries are bred and hybridized...engineered perhaps, with the goal to make them red, big, and hard. Of size and color to attract the consumer, a 6 on the Mohs scale for safe transport.

But I can't really blame the producers. It's a market economy and they strive to give us what we want - or at least what's attractive to us. The problem is that, even though I know better, I'm addicted to appearances.

Eyes closed, a red-ripe field berry blows away an engineered one. No contest. The real experience of strawberries is their taste and bouquet. There's a visual element, sure, but that's not the most important quality. But there's something about me that causes my visual perceptions to override the others. Why is that?

It's endemic though. In fact, most of my life I aim for appearances rather than more essential qualities. I want to look like my life is together, thoughtful, controlled and ordered. (It's SO not) I'm overly aware of how others might perceive me, and I craft my responses and image to illicit a favorable reaction from others. I protect myself from being hurt, reduce my relational bruising. I'm the super-market berry. Nice exterior, but hard and flavorless.

The most satisfying and freeing relationships I have are the ones where people really know me to the core. My issues, my faults, my unattractiveness; the real me, my internal world. They see my junk within and love me anyhow. I don't appear so attractive and grand, and I can be bruised easily. But those are the sweetest relationships - and I don't have many. They're not just casually packaged and picked up. They're cultivated, with great care, and they're work. But oh, the richness, flavor and satisfaction they can produce.

And, if that's true, consider for a moment that a relationship with God could be the pinnacle of satisfaction - where you can be most truly known, most deeply accepted, and most free to drop the tiresome engineering of personal appeal and be loved where you're at right now. That's dangerously sweet. Do you know him like that?

Next time you're in the produce section, let those big, attractive rock-berries remind you to take an introspective moment about your potentially sweetest relationships.

And go farther in to find the truly good ones.

The Generous Tree

The Generous Tree,
Arrayed in a veil of splendorous spring -
Color laden and at its glory's peak,
Looks down upon the humble earth
and says;
"Lowly ground unadorned,
Have my raiment now.
Let me clothe you; receive!"
It shivers down its envoys
to the dewy floor
and makes itself plain - for dirt's sake,
composing a lavish mosaic of singular hue.
And I marvel, reminded of an eternal spring
of generously lent royalty
showering down from above.

What you want, What you need.

I recently returned to my alma mater and was a little shocked, despite being warned, that the whole place had changed. Most of the academic buildings have undergone minor changes, mainly improvements and updates, but the big shocker was the on-campus housing.

Granted, most of the dorms, or "residence halls" as the PR spinners prefer, which have been replaced were quite due. Overdue, actually. Now attractive, imposing new buildings, mostly connected into a rambling conglomeration of architecture and landscaping, make up the new character of the my old University.

From the outside, it's a lovely change from the... well, whatever that spate of horrid 70's architectural aesthetic was called. Let's call it "Awefulism." The new buildings are modern, pleasing and impressive.

While I was there for my visit I learned that there was a massive effort to find out what the students living on campus wanted most from their housing. This data was then used to create and taylor a system which would be the most attractive and enjoyable living situation possible. They wanted to give the students what they wanted.

I even learned that there were 10 groups from other universities who were there to study the designs and theories behind the new setup. With all the research and planning, my alma mater's efforts are being held up as something to model other colleges after. Give them what they want!

The problem? Students don't like it.

Not so long ago, the standard "dorm" was made up of 4 basic areas.
1. A public bathroom with multiples sinks, toilets and shower booths.
2. A large public lounge/study area.
3. Humble box-shaped rooms which were usually shared by 2 students
4. A long hallway to connect it all together.

And I hated it.

I hated it because I had to share a small space with a pungent crazy Swiss guy my Freshmen...oops - First Year. (more PR corrections) I hated it because it made me interact with people I normally wouldn't, walk down the long hall and listen to their music, deal with their issues. I hated it because there were people who left the bathroom areas in terrible shape.

What I wanted then is what students want now - and are getting: Self-contained apartment-style housing on campus. A small room to yourself, your own bathroom or shared between you and your suite-mates, who live in one or two adjacent personal rooms. Some have a kitchenette. Some have a common area for the suite-mates, though it is very small. A hallway door which leads to the common area or entryway, with another set of doors to close off your apartment.

Students' chief complaint about new Residence Hall life? They don't know anyone. Is it any wonder? Apart from coming and going to class, there's not much reason to leave your personal space. Some floors hardly have any common areas

After so much survey and study, what they wanted apparently wasn't what they need. Why is it that so often what I want and what I need are totally different?

In my campus living experience, it forced me to interact with different people from different viewpoints, upbringing and cultures. Even if I didn't build deep relationships, there was a community there, a common experience. There was an availability. Doors were often open and barriers to interaction were few. These were great things for me, they were things I needed - but not things I wanted initially.

Is giving us what we want the best policy? What do we lose in doing so?

Consider the revolution in online social networking groups like MySpace and Facebook. They give you a space to make your own, post pictures, music, lists and updates about your doings and goings-on. A self-made window to your personality and personhood. You share yours and you can track your friends'.

A step further is Twitter, which is primarily status updates. It's all about answering the question "what are you doing right now?" You send in regular updates, via some kind of internet application (computer, mobile phone, text messenger...etc) about what you're doing, your attitude and interactions, you're location... all the little stuff. All the updates you make are posted to anyone who is tracking you.

In this way you can track any friend or family member (or moviestar) who is sending twitter updates and learn what they're doing, where they're doing it, why...etc. If you go to twitter's webpage you can watch a great little movie that explains the application.

Here's an interesting quote from the video: "It makes us feel connected, and a part of each other's lives."

And that's what we want, isn't it? To feel connected to others? To be a part of someone's life?

Here's the problem: Proximity is not Community. Information is not Intimacy.

What we want is to enjoy all the benefits and good stuff without having to deal with the rest. We want the distilled package. We want to enjoy community and intimacy with other people, but the real deal is a mess. It's full of the rest of life. The boring stretches, the stuff that causes conflict and pain, the things that make us uncomfortable, and me not always being of sterling character either.

But community without real, deep and true knowledge of each other - good and bad - is just a city bus ride; common location, common direction - but nobody really knows you, or really cares about you. And they are certainly not interested in your junk. (try telling your problems to a bus full of strangers sometime) Rich, sweet community is being fully known and fully accepted, and you don't get there behind closed doors. It means getting into people's lives, into their room and letting them in yours (even if your place is a mess!)

And Intimacy isn't just information. I might know all kinds of information about a person, but it's a sham if there aren't any shared experience, time spent interacting and talking, laughing, crying and doing life together. My guess is that famous people experience this all the time. I'm sure they have people come up to them who feel an intimate connection because they have seen the star on the screen, read about their lives and followed their career. But that information hardly constitutes an intimate relationship and an assumption that it does becomes just weird and annoying. Knowing me and knowing about me are principally different.

We know what we want - but what do we need in order to get there?

I think you need a community in which you can be accepted for who you are, and give acceptance to others - flaws and messed-up-ness included, and go from there.

I think you need a person who can identify with your life, your struggles, your triumphs. Weep with you, rejoice with you. Someone who can know you intimately and love you despite all your junk. (and roll up sleeves to help you deal with it)

I've got a pretty good idea who and where. Care to go a bit deeper?

God Probably Doesn't Take London Mass Transit

In London and the UK, an atheist campaign recently kicked off featuring ads on buses that stated plainly "THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." There are also quotes on the tube. (London's excellent subway system)


Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist and professor was a driving force and contributor toward the campaign. Here's his interesting quote about the matter.

"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion"

Anathema, for you thought-free religious rubes, means "Something or someone that a person vehemently dislikes." (For you very-religious folks, vehement means "showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, intense.')

So, according to Dawkins' quote, the campaign will cause thinking to happen, particularly among the religious - who completely avoid it if possible. Religious people are those that don't think their position through, apparently. Religion and thought are incompatible.

Such statements can only be (honestly) made if you don't really care to think about it. Consider this: According to the wikipedia article on him, Dawkins' perspective is that

"faith - belief that is not based on evidence − is one of the world's great evils."

Faith, per Dawkins, is belief NOT based on evidence.

That is a strange assertion because no one - in the history of the world - has ever believed something without any evidence at all. NO ONE. Why?

Belief in something requires at least some knowledge, information, context or data (which are evidence) in the object of belief, otherwise you wouldn't even be aware of it. It would be like saying that I have faith that lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ is true. Apart from the familiarity I have with the alphabet, lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ bears no reference to an object or idea for me. No one has told me to what it refers or does, or in what context lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ might exist. I have no evidence for belief that it's real because I have no information. (I just hit my fist on the keyboard a couple of times.)

He's saying faith is belief in something you have no knowledge of.

To say I have faith in something but have no evidence for it is a strange claim. It's impossible.
Oops - Dawkins is trying to break down the door of the wrong house. What he really means, I think, is this: religious faith is based on evidence that Richard Dawkins rejects as reliable, accurate and true.

Is all evidence equal? No way. The real debate is not whether Religious Folks have no evidence for their position. (or the Atheist) No - the debate, fundamentally, is about what constitutes good, true and accurate evidence for your beliefs. And that is absolutely a different question, with different rules. It's the question of Epistemology, which deals with how we know what we know, and why we think we can know it.

Dawkins, as a staunch advocate of Naturalism and a scientist, probably works on the epistomological premise that acceptable evidence is limited to that which can be scientifically tested, observed and measured. In short - the physical world. (though I'd argue he's pretty handcuffed even in that realm)

Therefore any evidence for a religious position that cannot be subject to scientific testing is non-evidence to him. "Sorry chap, that doesn't count."

But that's where the debate should lie. Why does Richard Dawkins reject as true anything that cannot be repeatable in a laboratory? For that matter - why should we accept as true anything that happens in a laboratory? That's the bedrock debate, and different answers to what is legitimate evidence will lead us to different assumptions and beliefs. Should all evidence have equal weight? By no means. But should only one type of evidence be considered legitimate? I don't think so.

So, for my reaction to the buses and Hawkins' quotes above. Let me make 3 points.

1. Statements like "thinking is anathema to religion" are unhelpful generalizations and mindless. That's a sophmoric statement - the epochs of human history are littered with great scientists, philosophers and thinkers who were and are "religious." (Perhaps Dawkins might not believe they were actually real - from a strict scientific method perspective - you can't prove any of them existed. You have to jump outside repeatable, measureable, physical evidence in a controlled environment.) Dawkins career alone proves this to be false - he has to spend a lot of time diffusing the arguments of his opponents.

2. I Appreciate their honesty. "God PROBABLY Doesn't Exist" Thank you. Neither Richard Dawkins nor anyone else can say with certainty that He doesn't. (we're back to epistemology again - sorry.) 'Probably' is as strong as an honest atheist can get. Theists too, for that matter. From the physical, scientifically observable evidence, you can't make a conclusive statement about anything, really. Chemicals, atoms, gravity, light, mass, heat - all our scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that the physical "laws" all function every place and in every time as they do in our tiny slice of what we can observe. And that slice is tiny. No human knowledge is comprehensive and so all people (including atheistic scientists) operate on the basis of faith. The question is how good your knowledge is. (see my previous entry on "The Fact of Faith")

3. If the bus ads do spark more thinking and conversation and debate - huzzah! Bring it! God does exist, or he doesn't. You cease to exist when you die, or you don't. You actions matter or they don't. Regardless of which side you land on, let's agree that not choosing to engage in these questions is the worst possible choice. It is the most important quesiton. If this is your only life, don't go through it without some serious contemplation. If there is a life ever-after and your choices matter for eternity - even more so.

Oh, and my dear Atheists... Regarding the ad: I'm enjoying my life immensely, thank you. I do worry though - not that you might be right, because in the end if you are - it won't matter to me. I cease to be and I've lost nothing. (actually, the reality will be that we all lose everything) What I worry about, for your sake, is that Christian Theism is probably right and in the end, being wrong will matter completely and eternally. It seems too heavy a gamble. And I care about you, truly.

But, regarding all this, why stop with skepticism about God? There's a lot more to be unsure about!

Let's quote another Brit:

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young skeptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." - G K Chesterton

Here are my suggestions, if we're going to be completely honest...

A Taste for More

You and I are sensate creatures, but just barely.

At the core of who we are, we are hard-wired with a desire to have our senses engaged, pleasurably so. And not just to a small degree - we want to have full and rich sensations which keep pace with our capacities.

Just think of the vital role in our lives played by simple things such as music, beauty, the flavor of food, and the smells and textures of the world. Without them, wouldn't life be a cruel march to the grave? Simple existence just isn't enough for human kind, we want richness and depth. It's how we're made.

I recently heard a story on public radio about the importance of and distinctions between taste and smell. The doctor being interviewed dealt with patients who had lost most or all of their capability to smell. Most of them due to some kind of brain trauma or disease. This loss was life-altering.

For many of these unfortunate people, two things came as a result; depression and paranoia.

Much of the depression in their lives was tied to food - which, if you think about it, is a major component of daily life, in time, energy and attention. As it turns out, around 90% of food's bouquet, aroma and flavor - most of the experience really - is tied up in smell, not taste. Taste works on a more rudimentary level, dealing with texture and general food information. (salty, sweet, bitter, sour...etc)

Without smell, everything is like oatmeal - the unflavored kind. Bland and unappealing. You and I are probably unaware of just how much joy is derived from the experience of eating. (And may we never know, if loss is the only way to know the extent!)

The paranoia set in, they said, through fears stemming from a lack of info. Did I bathe adequately, or do I have severe body odor? Is this milk bad? Is this meat putrid? What if something catches on fire and I can't smell it? Could there be a gas leak in my house?...etc. You can't be sure about those things without the ability to discern scent, and you can see how paranoia would creep in if you couldn't.

All this just from the loss of the ability to smell!

I write all this to reinforce this thought: Our senses are an absolutely critical component to our well being, and our enjoyment of life.

Now, let me propose something. Something simultaneously horrible and thrilling.

What if you were born with almost no sense of smell (and therefore taste)? You wouldn't really understand what you were missing. Someone could try to explain to you what more there might be. That would be horrible, even if you didn't really realize what you were missing. Horrible because you were so far away from what you are capable of experiencing.

But what if some brain surgeon could fix the problem? What if, after years of eating food that never had taste, the next day you could enjoy the full experience of the culinary arts?! You would be overwhelmed and shocked - and thrilled to no end! Every new food would be a symphony of joy and sensation. (with the notable exception of lima beans, which are irredeemable.) Adjectives would abound!

What if that's us - the whole human race? But the damage is not limited to the sense of smell... it effects every physical sense and every aspect of our lives - physically, mentally and spiritually. This means we might not even know there is anything wrong with us, and we're used to living this way - in a starkly limited capacity. There would be so much more we'd be capable of, if everything was as it should be. Someone could try to explain to us what the full restoration would be like, but the words would fall short since we have so little context. Horrible!

This is the reality of living in a world that is damaged - a world that has been cursed. In biblical terms - a "fallen" world, detached from God and distorted from what it was meant to be. We, because we are also fallen and damaged, don't know what it's like to be fully as we were meant to be either - fully human, meeting our fully capacity physically, mentally and spiritually. Because he knows, God could describe to us what that might look and feel like, but the words would be lost on us. What a sad state.

Here again is the thrilling part: What if we can be restored?

Think about that proposition just in the context of deadened physical senses: If we all experience our senses now at a tiny, tiny fraction of our full capacity, yet we still derive intense joy and pleasure at that meager level, how much more pleasurable and joyful would complete sensation provide? It would be indescribable!

Try to recall the most savory, rich and abundantly wonderful food you've ever had. Relive those first few seconds of experience and sensation, the surprise at its excellence, your delight as more and more of its complexities and flavors reveal themselves to you. You linger on it, savoring that first bite - utterly pleased and satisfied for one delicious moment... but it's only a moment.

What if that moment could be magnified exponentially? A thousand times? A million times? In intensity, quality and duration? Would you want that? Shoot, I would. Words would not describe that level of pleasure - elation, rhapsody, rapture, bliss, thrill, ecstasy? Nothing would capture it.

I want that kind of pleasure bonanza. I really like those moments of deep joy. I'd love more - especially if it was massively better! If that is restoration, that's what I want. Add to that the idea that it's not only our physical senses that would be restored, but every aspect of our person. Everything would be amazingly intensely better and ridiculously shockingly good. All of life would be elation after elation. (and magically delicious)

Next question: when you think of Heaven, what comes to mind? Fogginess maybe? Mistiness, perhaps? (London in Winter?) Boring, probably. But not intensely thrilling. Deeply pleasing, Pervasively enjoyable. (To be fair, there isn't too much detailed description about what Heaven - restored creation and humanity - would look like. Like trying to explain ripe, fresh strawberries to someone whose palate can only perceive texture, perhaps any detailed descriptions would amount to words wasted?)

I wonder about what restoration of our full personhood would look like. The Bible is pretty clear that we live in a world that is cursed, and we are as well. Death and rot pervade. But this is not as it was intended, and God will one day restore things to the way they were meant to be. (for those that love him and want restoration - but it's on His terms.)

I'm theorizing about the extent of our diminished ability to sense and feel, and what the reversal might look like, but here's the real point - shouldn't we want that change? Shouldn't we long for restoration - once we're aware it's available?

(Totally Parenthetical Get-Me-In-Hot-Water-Thought: Sometime, I'd like to have a conversation with the deaf community about their reluctance to restore hearing to deaf folks, and shunning of those who do. I know it's a tight culture of sorts, but, very respectfully, I can't understand why individuals would pass on restoration of their hearing when it's possible. Are there any other disability groups that are so unwilling to let go of what they do not have?? If you gain what was lost, must you lose what you've got?)

Too often most of us are easily satisfied with our present deadened state. We chase after our diminished and broken (and sometimes inappropriate) means of satisfaction and experience when so much more is offered. Perhaps it's ignorance, perhaps it's fear of the surgeon's knife? We tend to not let go of what we have, good or bad, for what is not fully known. But here I am stepping on a popular quote from C.S. Lewis. He is talking about rewards given for behavior here, but I think it dovetails with my point. Why not let him speak:

Indeed, if we consider the
unblushing promises of reward and the
staggering nature of the rewards promised
in the Gospels, it would seem that Our
Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but
too weak. We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased.

"The Weight of Glory" - you should check it out, whatever you may believe.
Read the entire piece here: http://www.doxaweb.com/assets/doxa.pdf

In any case, my point is that we tend to have a bland view of what a restored world might hold for us. Peace and tranquility - sure, but we rarely consider that we will be fully ourselves again, and we were obviously intended to experience (if we just talk about the physical stuff) sights, smells, textures, sounds and tastes - far, far, FAR more fully than we do now. We rarely view Heaven in terms of richness, intensity and depth of those sensations, much less everything else. We make it boring. We should want more than we have, because in reality we have so little.

Nor should we want less! Some religions tell us that the way to happiness, or "oneness" or the goal we should strive for should be the abolition of our desires. Whoa! Not what I want! Quite the opposite. To borrow a line from my favorite band; "I want to feel and then some, I have five senses, I need thousands more - at least!" (Over the Rhine, The World Can Wait)

I want more, not less.

But more isn't only what I want. I don't want every feeling and sensation to simply be intensified. What I really want is intensification of joy and reduction (actually elimination) of pain and sadness and evil, not just higher highs and lower lows. (And herein lies a whole big topic of why no everyone goes to heaven and holiness and justice and sin and not-so-fun stuff. )

Is restoration something you want? Do you have a taste for more?



I don't have a tidy wrap up for these thoughts. And, for better or worse, there's more that could be brought out of this line of thought. But I'd love to know a couple things from you (O imaginary readers).

How happy do you want to be? Seriously.

What would you be willing to give to get there?

(Christians) Do you think there is something wrong with desiring happiness, or more intense joy and pleasurable experience? Why/Why not? How could unleashing those desire help? How could they hurt?

When you think of the concept and prospect of Heaven, what comes to your mind? Be honest.

What do you do with the reality of our mixed nature? We want good things, but we're bad too. How do you justify being part of a restored world? How do you know now where true and lasting satisfaction and happiness lie? (there are tons of counterfeits!)

Love to know your thoughts.