|
Help
in finding Star columns
current
reader correspondence
past
correspondence with critics
Archive of
Faiths and Beliefs
Columns
2009 #747-798
2008 #695-746
2007
#643-694
2006
#592-642
2005
#540-591
2004
#488-539
2003
#435-487
2002
#383-434
2001
#331-382
2000
#280-330
1999
#228-279
1998
#176-227
1997
#123-175
1996
#071-122
1995
#019-070
1994
#001-018
EXCERPTS FROM
SELECTED
READER
RESPONSES
AND VERN'S REPLIES
Two favorable, two disputatious
805. 100217
Recalling the passions
of Bertrand Russell
1. READER:
Russell is like a
petulant child, totally lacking in rigorous logic, unconsciously hoping
someone can prove him wrong. The existence of God from a logical
point of view has long been established by scholars such as Mortimer Adler
in his landmark book for the masses, "How to Think About God." Like
many non- believers, Russell makes the classical error of asking why God
doesn't interact in the "suffering of mankind" and uses this(among other
nonsense) as his non-logical tantrum for being atheistic, like many of
the unwashed.
Adler and others
tell us there is no logical proof that God cares about mankind or that
he intervenes in the affairs of those who Russell pities so much.
If Russell had only elementary knowledge of logic, he would know that for
God to relieve the suffering of man would contradict the concept of free
will. Under the circumstances of divine intervention, the concept of good
and evil among men would be meaningless.
Indeed, the only
logical conclusion is that God expects man to act alone to alleviate his
own torment. God has given man the miracle of free will, to choose between
good and evil, independent of His pulling the strings.
VERN'S REPLY
I think you are being
rather ungenerous in your estimation of Russell. He literally "wrote the
book" on logic: Principia Mathematica, which I mention in
the article. You obviously do not realize he was one of the most important
figures in the development of logic and mathematics in the 20th Century.
While he changed his views on some technical issues, there is no flaw whatsoever
in his logical analysis of the classical "proofs" for the existence of
God to which I referred in my column. While Principia is a technical work,
his popular book, Mysticism and Logic, might interest you.
As concerns the problem
of theodicy, I suggest you read the Al Truesdale's book, If God is
God, Then Why? Letters from Oklahoma City. Truesdale is a now-retired
Nazarene theologian. He is honest about the fact that Christianity cannot
explain the suffering in the world, even as he affirms a powerful Christian
response to it. I am shocked to think that you, an intelligent person,
would hold out the "free will" justification when, as the poet writes,
"Malt does more than Milton can/ to justify God's ways to man." It is a
totally discredited argument. I see no reason why a God could not have
placed all necessary nutrients for life in say, ground-water, so that animals
might live without tearing each other apart in horrible pain. It is perplexing
to me that you oppose divine intervention when the Scriptures repeatedly
tell us of such divine intervention: miracles. And why do Christians pray
for this and that if God does not respond? I am not denying or affirming
miracles; rather I am merely pointing out the clash between your statement
that God does not intervene with what many Christians believe.
Your statement that
"God expects man to act alone to alleviate his own torment" denies the
Christian doctrine of grace, which states that humans are incapable of
rising above sin without the intervention of Christ the Savior. The Scripture
speaks of man's "filthy righteousness" as being insufficient. I am not
defending this or any Christian view, but I am pointing out normative Christian
doctrine. Your perspective sounds more Deistical, for which I have considerable
respect -- but then why muck around with the issue of theodicy?
And as for the existence
of God, please consider what many believers throughout the ages, starkly
put by theologian Paul Tillich, say: "God does not exist. He is being itself
beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to
deny him." Making God another Being, even a Supreme being, an Agent, a
Creator, is certainly not the only way Christianity and other faiths historically
deal with the contingency of the universe.
As an alum of the
University of Chicago and an owner (and user) of the Great Books set which
Adler (with Hutchins) edited, I have considerable respect for Adler.
But his book about God seems to be based largely on Aristotelian logic
and therefore faulty in the context of what we now know about Christianity
and other world religions. (Buddhists have no need to talk about the creation
of the universe. They speak of the "very no-beginning" -- and Buddhist
logic is in many respects far superior to Greek.) Adler's criticism of
folks like Mircea Eliade (also at the University of Chicago) shows an inadequate
ability to think much outside of classical Greek categories. His argument
(not proof) from his version of contingency may well justify his being
characterized as "the Lawrence Welk of the philosophy trade." Adler's appeals
to scientific ideas are, in my view, pathetic.
Instead of Adler,
I recommend Karen Armstrong's book, A Case for God. I think
she has a much better sense of religion than Adler.
As my column says,
I disagree with Russell about religion, but it is hard for me not to have
enormous respect for him and his work.
And would you not
agree with my conclusion, that Russell's passions -- the longing for love,
the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.
-- are essentially religious?
Thanks for reading
my column, and for writing.
2. READER:
Thanks for your remembrance
of Bertrand Russell. I was a student of Dr. Royall at UMKC in 1968
(Norman Royall, Jr., after whom they renamed the Haag Hall annex). Principia
Mathematica was required reading, although I had no hope of absorbing
its message. I made the mistake of discussing the book, and its author,
at a Sunday School class I was attending at the local Southern Baptist
church. They knew of Bertrand Russell, and warned me against reading
"Why I Am Not a Christian". I found that book in the library, and
found it fascinating. I'm still a Baptist (CBF, no longer Southern),
and like you, found that a healthy challenge to faith can strengthen rather
than destroy one's view of the Eternal. It's good to hear that an
eminent philospher of Mr. Russell's stature would take the time to send
a note to a young person. I agree with you that his view of religion
was too narrow, and that essentially he was a man of integrity and compassion.
As are you -- and I thank you for sharing your views through your column.
3. READER:
Thanks so much for
the article yesterday on Bertrand Russell. I appreciate the respect you
gave someone who wrote about not believing as some of us. I don't find
many people from either side who are willing to appreciate the other point
of view if it differs from them. Too bad. My atheist brother gives me some
of the best challenges to my beliefs. Also, if your ears were burning a
few weeks ago, I included some of your thoughts (and gave you public credit)
from "To Believe is to Live With Wonder" in the my sermon since it went
so well with the Gospel reading that Sunday that talked about Jesus telling
the Peter to cast out the net even though they hadn't caught anything on
their last trip. The article made such a good discussion of belief and
living it. . . .
4. READER:
I enjoyed your piece
about Bertrand Russell. The ending, however, gave me pause. Why end
an article paying tribute to an atheist by attributing his “passions” to
religion? Wouldn’t love, knowledge and pity be essentially human
qualities?
VERN'S REPLY:
Thanks for taking
the trouble to read -- and to write about my column today.
I am not sure I
attributed Russell's passions to religion. I simply described
those
passions as religious. I would be wrong for me to credit
religion (in the organized sense) for Russell's appreciation of those qualities.
But I do think love, knowledge and pity are essential religious sensibilities;
and I agree with you that they are indeed human qualities. For me, to be
human is to be religious (homo religiosus). From
the beginning of human existence, I think humans have experienced awe and
wonder, searched for love and knowledge, asked questions about suffering,
and so forth. The record of such experiences is what makes up the history
of religions, with all this glory and horrible distortions. So as I use
the term "religious" in my column, Russell's deep compassion and concern
for justice are part of the history of religion; but then, I think atheism
is a particularly important form of religion, and non-theistic faiths such
as Buddhism and Taoism seem to me to be of a piece with Russell (who does
mention Buddhism favorably).
Also, please note
that my penultimate paragraph uses the term you favor: "Whatever his Freethinker
views, the depth of his humanity . . . ."
I was particularly
glad to write about Russell as I am preparing a talk for a group of atheists
next month entitled, "A God Atheists Can Believe In." I think Russell would
approve of what I plan to say. http://www.cres.org/#100327
From Albert Einstein:
"The
most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power
of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who
can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know
that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the
highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can
comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this knowledge, this feeling,
is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense
only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men."
I appreciate your
writing and I hope these comments will clarify my intent. Thanks for giving
me the chance.
READER'S REJOINDER:
Theses undoubtedly
universal traits--the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and pity
for fellow humans--do not need religion to exist. Those of us who are definitely
irreligious are perfectly capable of demonstrating these passions, and
in my experience many, many cases of religious doctrine run directly counter
to
them. See Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and 20:10-17 as an example. Religion may co-opt
them as part of its dogma, as many have, but those of us with no supernatural
belief carry these traits without the yolk of religion. Richard Dawkins
said, that if, by religious, you mean having a sense of awe and reverence
for the universe, even he could be considered religious. Einstein and Russell
were certainly in the same class.
Einstein, like Russell,
was a fan of Spinoza: “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in
the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
the fates and actions of human beings.” I myself have stood on mountains
and at the edge of the ocean and felt awe at being a speck in the world.
Such feelings did not make me religious, but I appreciate these kinds of
sentiments.
To call atheism a
form of religion is to completely misunderstand it. Atheism is the lack
of belief in the supernatural -to have no theistic belief. Atheism is not
a religion. While atheism or non-theism and atheists and non-theists may
be part of religious history, it is important to make the distinction--especially
when claiming to be an informed speaker.
While the religious
and non-theistic of us may quibble for the right to call famous persons
in history to our “sides” in matters of religion, I believe it is more
important to cherish and honor their contributions and remember their words
as they were, not in ways that twist them.
I wish you good luck
during your discussion with the group of atheists, and leave you with three
quotes also from Mr. Einstein.
“The
mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant
growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than
a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist
of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept
of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”
- Albert Einstein
“For
science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside
of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion,
on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action:
it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.”
- Albert Einstein
“My
position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment
and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially
a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” Albert Einstein
VERN'S REJOINDER:
I appreciate the
thoughtfulness of your reply -- even though I respectfully disagree.
The words "religion"
and "religious" and "secular" depend a great deal on context. For example,
a monk or a nun is a "religious" while a parish priest is "secular."
"Religion" comes from the Latin
re-ligio,
to bind together (in mutual
obligation). ("Ligament" is similarly derived.) In the Roman style, religion
meant, in part, scrupulous carefulness, a sense in which we use the term
still today, such as "I read the Sunday
NY Times religiously."
Most atheists I know
have a very well-developed sense of morality and justice which I admire.
Among these atheists, for example, I find strong belief in the use of reason
and the practice of ethical behavior. To me, this fits definitions of religion
such as "a specific basic set of beliefs and practices generally agreed
upon by a number of persons."
You state: "To call
atheism a form of religion is to completely misunderstand it. Atheism is
the lack of belief in the supernatural -to have no theistic belief. Atheism
is not a religion. While atheism or non-theism and atheists and non-theists
may be part of religious history, it is important to make the distinction--especially
when claiming to be an informed speaker."
I'm afraid this means
we must debate which of is is the more "informed speaker."
Perhaps my perspective
is shaped by a career in the parish ministry and in seminary and university
teaching, as well as with folks of many faiths in Kansas City and at international
religious meetings. I studied, for example, with Mircea Eliade, who edited
the 15-volume
Encyclopedia of Religion, among his nearly
one hundred other books. I have a doctoral degree in the field of religion.
My graduate work was done at one of the most respected and distinguished
universities in the world, in a divinity school of exceptional renown.
I have spent my life studying religious phenomena. This is my area of professional
expertise.
My experience and
study indicates that religion, in the past and today, need have absolutely
nothing to do with belief in God or the supernatural, though indeed it
also may.
When atheists or
other Freethinkers come to me to officiate at their wedding, they often
ask if the ceremony must be religious. I reply as you'll see here in item
#1: http://www.cres.org/work/WeddingsUnions.htm
One of the courses
I have taught many times is an introduction to religion. Regardless of
the textbook, atheism is included. I have collected a number of definitions
of religion, as you'll see at
http://www.cres.org/pubs/ReligionSpiritualityDescribed.htm.
Some of the definitions involve belief, and specifically belief in God
or gods or supernatural powers; others do not.
One of the great
teachers I was priviledged to study with in theological school was Henry
Nelson Wieman, whose theology was naturalistic.
As I mentioned before,
Buddhism and Taoism do not teach belief in God, but are certainly religions.
Jainism is not theistic in the Western sense. In Hinduism, you can believe
in one god, 20 gods, or no god. In fact, the form of Hinduism which is
atheistic is called Carvaka, and its skepticism describes the idea of immortality
as an illusion. To be a Jew you only need to be born of a Jewish mother.
I have many Jewish friends who are atheists. I know several local churches
which welcome atheists as members of their congregations and encourage
skepticism such as atheism as part of the religious life.
Karl Marx was atheistic,
but his dialectical materialism is properly studied as a religious construct
within the monotheistic traditions. His "economic determinism" functions
as God, and the other characteristics of the monotheistic family of religions
are fully present: the prophetic sense about economic justice, the
role of the saving community (the church in Christianity, the umma in Islam,
"the Chosen People" in Judaism, the "party" in communism), the view
that history is moving toward resolution, an eschatological sense
absent in Asian faiths, the emphasis on personhood (as opposed to nature
in the Primal Faiths, for example), the importance of doctrine, etc.
Having also taught
courses on the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures, I am painfully aware
of passages such as Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and 20:10-17, and could cite many
more like them. There is no doubt that organized religion has often been
oppressive.
Any of us may use
words differently in different situations. Einstein is no exception. In
a passage you cite, he seems to condemn a particular form of mysticism.
I happen to agree with Einstein. I think Theosophy and Spiritualism are
in themselves inadequate, though I grant that some people find them useful
and constructive for their lives. However, in the quotation I supplied,
Einstein speaks approvingly of another meaning of the mystical. It is important
to bear in mind the different contexts in which he uses similar words in
order to fully grasp his meaning. For example, in the often-quoted statement
of his that "God does not play dice with the universe," he is clearly using
"God" metaphorically and not in the sense of a Supreme Being who could
chose to play games of chance like those on the boats.
The second quotation
from Einstein you supply raises a very complex issue, the relation between
religion and science, a question I have studied at great length over many
years in conferences and indidvidual study, as well as graduate credit
work at the Institute for Advanced Study of Religion in an Age of Science.
The best single volume I know which comprehensively deals with this subject
is the revised edition of Issues in Science and Religion by
Ian Barbour. Einstein here seems to be saying that science can describe
what is, and religion may prescribe what should be. This is known as "Ritschlian
dualism." I am not going to discuss this further here since it is a complicated
issue, but I want to assure you I am quite familiar with it.
The third quotation
is also a favorite of mine. I have often criticized those forms of religion
which use a reward-punishment system to attempt to control behavior. This
is why I generally favor perspectives such as that found in the Bhagavad
Gita, where one does what is right, whether it is rewarded or not.
While the so-called
"new atheists" ( Richard Dawkins [whose book, River Out of Eden
I cherish], Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris [who is a skilled writer if, alas,
spotty in his information], and Christopher Hitchens [sometimes pretty
nasty]) have much to say of value, in my opinion they know little about
religion and its history, and their important critiques of religion is
unfortunately reduced by their inadequate background, and we are the lesser
for that since they could do so much good with their skills in identifying
flaws and dangers in many current manifestations of religion.
In sum, lack of belief,
and active disbelief, in God or gods or the supernatural is indeed a religious
perspective, using many definitions and descriptions of religion commonly
used by scholars acquainted with the history of humankind. My own perspective
is not narrowed by this culture's tendencies toward Fundamentalism, and
Christianity itself is a most perculiar religion in the strange emphasis
it has given to creedal requirements.
In other words, I
have no argument whatsoever with your skeptism, but rather rejoice and
delight in it. Our argument is about terminology -- or as you put it, which
of us is the more "informed speaker."
I presume you think
you are the more informed. And while you may not agree with me, perhaps
you will at least undestand why I consider myself informed adequately
enough to have my views respected, even as I respect your thoughtfulness.
I care much less
that you agree with how scholars and I might use words than you have the
keen sense of injustice and wickedness too often associated with religions.
And from my career in the parish, believe me, I know how horrible injuries
can be inflicted in the name of religion!
Bertrand Russell
is a hero of mine, and I wonder if you can imagine how much I prize his
signature on the letter that he wrote me in 1962.
I am so glad that
you are a thinking person -- most atheists in this society are, in my experience
-- and that you are terribly bothered by the “kill him if he disagrees
with you” mentality. I founded the KC Interfaith Council in 1989,
and have worked since with religions from A to Z in our area, American
Indian to Zoroastrian. Never, never, never has anyone involved tried
to convert me or anyone else. Our annual Family Thanksgiving Sunday Interfaith
Ritual Meal always includes a Freethinker speaker.
This past November,
he spoke these words: "Freethinkers are grateful for the heritage of religious
liberty enshrined in the vision of our nation's founders. They separated
church and state in our Constitution. Our system of government protects
those who choose any religion and those who choose none. With the insights
of science and the arts, we give thanks for the freedom to think afresh
and work with others to make this world a better place." To which everyone
responded, "Thank you for blessing us with your tradition and companionship,"
as everyone did after the speakers from the 14 other distinct world religions
who preceded the atheist.
So we have different
experiences which form our thought. Your experience has keenly alerted
you to the dangers and distructive power of religion, which I also see.
My experience may be a bit broader because I have seen healing and extraordinary
decency motivated by folks of many different beliefs, including those whose
beliefs involve the sanctity of reason without ecclesiastical structures
(such as atheists).
I hope you sense
my regard for you in the fact that I have taken quite a bit of my busy
day to correspond with you. This is not because I need to be right. It
comes, in part, surely, from my professorial background of seeking to respond
to decent and important questions. But it comes primarily from desiring
to assist in the legitimization of atheism in our culture against the prejudice
I too often find against it, and in a personal gratitude to you that you
would take your time to pursue these questions.
|
809.
100317 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
D R A F T
Among the area’s yearly prayer breakfasts,
none I know compares to the one sponsored by the Raytown Community Inter-Faith
Alliance. Most prayer breakfasts are designed around a speech by a high-profile
figure, with a nice meal and a perfunctory prayer. But the Alliance event’s
focus is actually prayer.
Before the featured speaker,
people form teams at their tables to write local, national and global prayer
requests on index cards of three different colors. During the speaker’s
remarks, a committee collects, studies and arranges the cards. Then three
people, one for each set of cards, lead the assembly in prayer.
I like this because the whole
group gets to hear what everyone is praying for.
But the speaker is also important.
And this year for the first time a Muslim will address the group.
Adam Smith, the Alliance
president and an attorney, became acquainted with Hussain Haideri, a nephrologist,
through Smith’s wife, a nurse practitioner in Haideri’s office, and invited
him to speak at the breakfast.
The Rev. Harold Johnson,
a long-time member of the Alliance, said the group tries to help the community
to become better acquainted with its diversity. He noted that the Alliance’s
speaker at its Thanksgiving program last year was Jewish.
Haideri has been president
of the Crescent Peace Society, a local Muslim group organized in 1996 by
Shaheen and Iftekhar Ahmed to “enhance the understanding . . . as to who
we (Muslims) are and what we stand for,” according to the organization’s
web site, crescentpeace.org.
Haideri says that there are
many misconceptions about Islam. Its belief in democracy is not well understood
because some nations claiming Islam “ignore the just form of governance
Islam advocates to hold onto power,” he said.
“As a religion, Islam also
fosters respect for the rights of the people, and the welfare of all sections
of the population, irrespective of religious and political affiliations.
It requires justice for all, a code of conduct for governmental leaders
and accountability for even those holding the highest office,” he said.
Often I get hateful emails
spewing falsehoods about this, that or another faith. So at the breakfast,
I’ll be praying for greater understanding of Islam and all faiths, locally,
nationally, and throughout the world. My prayer will include giving thanks
for groups like the Alliance and the Crescent Peace Society that multiply
the power of personal relationships, like the Adams-Haideri acquaintance,
into community-wide strength.
For information about
the Mar. 25 breakfast, contact the Rev. Michael Stephens, southwoodpastor@yahoo.com
or 816-353-9090.
808. 100310 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
A model of our urban core
Before we discuss the modern city, here’s
some background.
David conquered Jerusalem
about 3000 years ago to make it the capital of Israel. The kingdom split
about 80 years later; and after another 200 years, the Assyrians crushed
the northern kingdom. The southern kingdom survived for another 125 years
until the Babylonians subdued it and exiled much of the population.
After perhaps two generations
of captivity, Jews were encouraged to return home. Prophets offered insights
into the rebuilding of the nation, and particularly Jerusalem, its urban
center.
You know our local history,
including [emancipation, in-migration,] redlining, blockbusting, white
flight and urban sprawl.
In some ways the challenges
of today’s inner city parallels the bleak biblical situation, according
to Wallace S. Hartsfield II lecturing [February 9] at the Gem Theater just
before he was installed as professor of Hebrew Bible at Central Baptist
Theological Seminary. He is also pastor of Metropolitan Missionary Baptist
Church, where he succeeded his father [in 2008].
Populated by those who had
never left and those who were returning from captivity, distressed Jerusalem
is like today’s inner city, ruined and exposed. What is the remedy for
a “density” inadequate to bolster the people’s hopes?
Hartsfield identified four
responses from post-Exilic prophets, focusing on the role of religious
institutions.
Haggai agitated against
discouragement and complacency. While resources to address the city’s plight
were few, he said building and serving the temple, the executive source
of divine order, would produce prosperity.
Zachariah’s mystical
vision required a moral transformation with God guarding and dwelling in
the midst of a diverse people, with the city guided by civic and religious
leaders.
Malachi criticized
the priesthood for its failures and warned that if God’s presence departs,
the city falls. The temple should mediate divine order for the city.
Trito-Isaiah, whose
writings scholars find in Isaiah 56-66, said that the temple should be
open to foreigners and its sacrifice replaced with liberating service to
the poor and broken-hearted.
What is the role of today’s
religious leadership — confrontation, transformation, meditation or
liberation? Hartsfield said that no single model applies to current
urban problems, but each may fit a different situation.
However, in sum, reconciliation
is the heart of restoration, he said, and faith communities must participate
in the rebuilding of the wounded city.
To create true community,
those who have not talked together must find common ground. Righteousness,
Hartsfield said, must be our ultimate concern.
807. 100303 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
‘People’
only in a legal sense
The Declaration of Independence states
that “all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights . . . .”
Like this historic document,
many faiths proclaim that each person issues from the divine.
But the U.S. Supreme Court,
split 5-4, may have inadvertently implied a new theology in “Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission,” deciding Jan. 21 that corporations are
persons under the Constitution’s First Amendment free-speech clause.
Lloyd Blankfein said last
year that he was “doing God’s work” as head of Goldman Sachs investment
bank. Still, in what sense is even a very good corporation really a person
with inherent, rather than calculable, worth?
Nancy Howell, professor of
theology at the Saint Paul School of Theology, says, “In Christianity,
I am persuaded that the prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels
in the New Testament insist on relationships, but not of the rich and privileged
with each other.
“Instead, Christian roots
point us toward setting aside privilege in order to identify with the disadvantaged
— in Bible language, the poor, the widows and the orphans.
“If only the Supreme Court
had ruled that the poor and disenfranchised persons could have relatively
unlimited access to political influence, what a difference that might make!
As it is, the status quo which benefits the privileged is reinforced.”
Thomas Noble, professor of
theology at the Nazarene Theological Seminary, distinguishes personhood
from individuality, which can imply separateness.
“The Christian idea of personhood
derives from one God in the three ‘persons’ who are in relationship with
each other. Thus what it means to be human is to be in relationship,” he
said.
But Noble questions “whether
a top-down business corporation can routinely deal with the ethical questions
involved with ordinary personal relationships where the focus is on mutuality
rather than profit,” rewarding the shareholder rather than pursuing the
wider good of the community.
Barb McAtee, Baha’i
Faith member of the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, notes
that while her faith encourages trade, commerce and useful economic activity,
the sacred Baha’i writings suggest that corporations are the “legal constructs
of a secular society” and do not “possess any sort of mystical oneness”
as do persons created in “the image of God.”
In a Jewish
tradition, it is said that a choir of invisible angels cry ahead of any
person walking down the street, “Make way! Make way for the image of God.”
Do corporations, created
by governments, receive such angelic attention?
NOTE
This month’s annual interfaith
program offered by the local chapter of the National Council of Jewish
Women was on the theme, “May the God in me recognize the God in you,” a
way of translating the Hindu greeting,
“Namaste.” It is difficult to imagine such a greeting from one corporation
to another.
The Supreme
Court, by inadvertently venturing into the theology of personhood, a danger
it avoided in Roe v. Wade by focusing on practical rule, illustrates the
peril in departing from common law and common sense understandings of personhood.
The court’s
decision has been summarized as invalidating “a provision of the McCain-Feingold
Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from
broadcasting ‘electioneering communications’ in the 30 days before a presidential
primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The decision completely
overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The decision upheld the
requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements,
and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates.”
The decision
was criticized by President Barack Obama in his January 27 State of the
Union address. A poll two weeks after the decision by ABC-Washington Post
showed opposition from 80% of those surveyed. The complete text of the
decision and accompanying opinions can be found on the Court’s website,
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Much of the
comment since the decision has focused on its effects, anticipated by Justice
John Paul Stevens in his dissent, “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus
a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized
a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the
founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential
of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is
a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy
is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought
its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
Other criticism
has come from (1) the fact that the Court violated the professed allegiance
of the majority to stare decisis, the legal doctrine that precedents
should be followed, (2) the hope expressed that when previous rulings
are overturned, the Court would be more united, and (3) the apparent contradiction
embedded in the majority decision that the First Amendment may not discriminate
against corporations on the basis of the status of persons with the Roberts
2007 Morse v. Frederick decision that students' First Amendment rights
in some cases must yield to other concerns.
However, the
issue in this column is not the consequence of the decision but the implied
theology of personhood.
In his dissent,
Justice John Paul Stevens noted that “corporations have no consciences,
no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires,” “they cannot vote or
run for office,” and their (primary) interests are
economic and do not include
the health and welfare of society, do not seek the free flow of ideas,
and in their acts may not reflect the will of shareholders. Justice Stevens
cites American history in which the word “soulless” constantly recurs in
debates about corporations.
After admitting
that corporations’ “‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction,”
Stevens says that corporations "are not themselves members of ‘We the People’
by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”
The legal fiction
that corporations are persons begins with a 1886 Railroad case (Santa Clara
County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) in which a court reporter noted a
spoken remark that the Justices believed that corporations are entitled
to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (assuring Constitutional rights
to former slaves and their descendents). The obiter dictum was subsequently
treated as if it were part of the written decision, which it is not.
It is ironic
that a railroad lawyer had written in 1864 that “Corporations have been
enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the
money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working
upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few
hands and the Republic is destroyed.” That lawyer was Abraham Lincoln.
Nonetheless,
since corporations are created by governments, not by God, many laws in
every state fact regulate corporations in ways that natural persons are
not regulated.
In one of the
classics of American thought, Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932),
theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned that “the institutions of democracy
have never become fully divorced from the special interests of the commercial
classes” whose interest is “to destroy political restraint upon economic
activity” and thus become socially “irresponsible.” He denies that “the
democratic movement” assures “a permanent solution for its vexing problems
of power and justice [pages 14-15 of the 1963 British
printing].” The power of American corporations to
distort the political process and pervert human values is no different
in effect than earlier Continental ruling classes: “The American business
oligarchy is not as hereditary as European landed aristocracies, but is
for that reason neither more virtuous nor less tenacious in clinging to
its power and privilege. [193-194]”
However, Niebuhr, citing Gandhi, distinguishes the oppressive system which
must be confronted with assuming all who occupy position of power are necessarily
evil. Nonetheless, it is “impossible completely to disassociate an evil
system from the personal moral responsibilities of the individuals who
maintain it [249],” though it
is wise tactics to focus on the system rather than the person in conducting
social disputes. While it is rare for a person to act to sacrifice one’s
self-interest, it is even more difficult for a group to do so. When individuals
become part of a group, their ethical inclinations are often submerged
by the ruthlessness of the group. The meaning of Niebuhr’s classic in this
context is clear: a person and a corporation are morally distinct and the
Court’s decision to equate the mighty corporation with the individual citizen
may, without statutory restraints, further corrupt the political process,
though the decision applies to “electioneering communications” financed
by corporations and unions rather than money directly given to candidates.
Nevertheless,
Fred Logan, an astute political observer who knows how politics actually
works, a frequent KCPT “Kansas City Week in Review” guest and regular columnist
for the Kansas City Business Journal, finds (January 29) the
Court majority “got it right” and says that “it’s still Constitutionally
acceptable to place limits on the amounts that donors may give to a candidate
and to require disclosure of donor names and they sums they contribute.”
He also advocates internet posting of contribution information within 72
hours.
806. 100224 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Talmud shows way to purposeful dialogue
Religious arguments are sometimes considered
impolite or even dangerous. But face to face debate with stylized gestures
is actually required in some forms of Buddhist training. The purpose is
to deconstruct and transform doctrines into ways of living.
Perhaps even endless arguments
are important, to remind us that we never can state the truth for all time
and all persons and all situations, for each turn in the controversy may
yield growing insight.
No religious literature may
better illustrate this than the Talmud, the compedium of, and commentaries
on, Jewish law, completed roughly 1500 years ago.
Is the Talmud complete? If
Talmud is a continuing process of argumentation rather than merely a record
of past disputation, then disagreement can be an ongoing, respectful way
of moving toward fuller understandings.
This is what Sergey Dolgopolski,
Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas,
offers in his ground-breaking book, What is Talmud?: The Art of Disagreement.
From Socrates on, the Western
tradition has assumed that the purpose of dialogue is to find agreement.
But Dolgopolski suggests
that Talmud — as an art, not a text — aims instead at reducing misunderstandings.
Suppose I meet my friend
for coffee. I begin the conversation, “It’s really been snowing.” That’s
all I say.
But in context, I was apologizing.
I implied, “I know I’m a bad person for being late. I should have allotted
more time to get here because of the weather.”
My friend says, “I just got
here myself.”
Without being explicit, by
recognizing the traffic mess, my friend is disagreeing with my thinking
I’m incompetent.
The disagreement, in this
case subtle and unspoken, leads to removing a misunderstanding about how
my friend might regard me.
Theological disputes often
involve assumptions that, unlike my perceptive friend, are hidden even
to the proponent until an argument leads to a clarification.
Interfaith conversation is
too often circumscribed by an unspoken fear of argument. Folks sometimes
submerge differences in search for common ground.
But disagreement should be
welcomed, not discouraged. Interfaith exchange need not aim toward mutual
assent but rather toward clarification.
Talmud is a Jewish tradition,
but as a method it can be a gift to the interfaith conversation.
Dolgopolski gives a free
lecture tonight at 7 about Talmud at the Jewish Community Center, 5801
W. 115 St., Overland Park. Call 913 327 4647 for information. Next month
he begins a 4-part mini-course at the Center.
805. 100217 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Recalling the passions of Bertrand
Russell
Forty years ago this month he died in his
98th year, and I’d like to remember him today. I never met him, perhaps
the greatest atheist of the century, but I do cherish a letter he wrote
me in 1962 on stationery from his home in Penrhyndeudraeth, Wales.
The letter is headed “From:
The Earl Russell, O.M., F.R.S.”
Lord Bertrand Russell began
by apologizing for his tardy reply to my inquiry. I later figured out the
delay may have been caused by his being in jail — again — for protesting
nuclear armaments.
In high school I had read
his essay, “Why I am not a Christian.” He seemed to demolish every proof
I ever considered for the existence of God. I became a militant atheist.
Elsewhere he said trying
to prove that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon and other Homeric gods, like the Christian
God, did not exist would be “an awful job,” so in that sense he was an
agnostic.
Later I decided what he wrote
was besides the point. His view of religion was too narrow. He said fear
is the basis of religion, but I think religion arises from wonder.
Still, the stimulus of his
challenge purified my own faith.
Russell was a critic not
only of religion but also of science, which at one point he wrote “is teaching
our children to kill each other,” and worried about scientists as much
as priests “because many men of science are willing to sacrifice the future
of mankind to their own momentary prosperity.”
This year marks the centenary
of the first volume of the work that made him world-famous, “Principia
Mathematica,” written with Alfred North Whitehead.
Russell wrote not only technical
philosophy but popular works as well, such as advocating contraception,
scandalous at the time.
His 900-page “History of
Western Philosophy” was published in 1945. The book is full of wit, humor
and devastating sarcasm.
But as I was recently rereading
his chapter on Spinoza in my well-worn $2.25 copy, I was struck less by
Russell’s rejection of Spinoza’s God-centered metaphysics and more by Russell’s
admiration for Spinoza as a person. Of his ethics, Russell writes, Spinoza
shows us “how it is possible to live nobly even when we recognize the limits
of human power” to end suffering.
In 1950, Russell was awarded
the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Whatever his Freethinker
views, the depth of his humanity is summarized in his own words: “Three
passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the
longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the
suffering of mankind.”
Are not these three passions
essentially religious?
804. 100210 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
A VALENTINE'S TEST OF LOVE
Here’s a Valentine’s Day quiz.
1. St. Paul lists three things
that last forever: faith, hope and love. Which does he say is greatest?
2. Who wrote, “The religion
of love shall be my religion and my faith?”
3. What book in Hebrew scripture
consists of erotic poems?
4. Has love always been the
primary consideration for marriage throughout history in the Christian
West?
5. Which two of these three
ancient Chinese sages thought especially deeply about love? Laozi, Mozi,
Confucius.
6. Has an intimate love relationship
been the dominant goal for most people in all cultures?
7. How many wives did Solomon
have?
8. Did the Greek demigod
Hercules make love to other men as well to women?
9. What Hindu god stole butter
as a child from milkmaids and later, as a young man with his flute, amorously
pursued them?
10. What great Christian
theologian compared marriage to a hospital for curing lust?
11. What group of 17th Century
Protestants called marriage “the little church within the church”?
12. What Muslim scholar praised
romantic love because it made selfish people generous and the unmannered
gracious, and insisted that sex completed “the circuit (to) allow the current
of love to flow freely into the soul”?
13. Did ancient Romans observe
a fertility rite on February 15th?
14. What Buddhist ideal of
unconditional love postpones his or her own enlightenment until all other
creatures are saved?
15. What male Christian poet,
inspired by his ideal woman, wrote that God’s love moves the sun and the
stars?
ANSWERS:
1. Love.
2. The 12th Century Muslim
mystic, Ibn Arabi. Rumi in the 13th Century wrote similarly.
3. The Song of Solomon.
4. No. For much of the last
two thousand years, marriage has been more about property and extended
family arrangements.
5. Mozi taught
that love, the most powerful force in the world, should be extended to
everyone. Confucius focused more on family affections.
6. No. Heroism, for example,
was probably a more important ideal for the ancient Greeks.
7. To Solomon’s 700 wives
we might add his 300 concubines.
8. Yes. 9. Krishna.
10. Martin Luther.
11. The Puritans.
12. Hazm of Cordova, 10th Century.
13. You bet.
14. The bodhisattva.
15. Dante.
803. 100203 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
To believe is to live with wonder
The story of how anything — say today’s
newspaper — came into being is far more involved than we usually recognize.
In The Star’s case, we’d have to mention the Phoenician alphabet, the Great
Vowel Shift, the printing press, the First Amendment, the settling of Kansas
City, William Rockhill Nelson and countless other factors.
The story of religion is
far more complicated.
Here’s where we are: Both
the “new atheists” and many popular religionists focus on the literal truth
of theological statements such as “God exists.” The atheists say such statements
are false while these religionists say they are true.
How did we get to the today’s
situation when pollsters measure the meaning of religion by, in part, asking
what people believe — when historically such questions were besides the
point?
To tell the story, Karen
Armstrong’s new book, “The Case for God,” though focused on Christianity,
ranges from Paleolithic cave paintings to Postmodernism.
For most of history, Armstrong
says, the purpose of religion has been practical, guiding folks how to
live their lives, not about theoretical questions. People need experiences
more than explanations.
Today religion is often characterized
by “belief,” so let’s look at that word’s pedigree.
Related to the Latin word
libido,
desire, and the German liebe, beloved, the term “belief” in English
originally meant trust, commitment, engagement, what you love and prize.
It did not mean assent to abstract theological formulations.
It’s more “I love my spouse”
than “My spouse exists.”
Even the word “creed” was
originally an experiential rather than an intellectual matter. The term
comes from the Latin words cor do, I give my heart. (Cardiology
and donation are related to these two Latin words.)*
With few exceptions until
the modern period, religion directed the heart to models for living with
beauty, suffering and awareness of mortality. Life’s wonders and horrors
were not boxed up into mere strings of words.
Saying God exists was as
unnecessary as saying reality exists.
But in the modern era, God
has been reduced from mystery to a Being among other beings, from what
is beyond discursive language to factual assertions.
Historically, religion has
not focused on literal truth so much as it has been in testing what is
genuine.
Religion at its best offers
experiences and communities that guide us so that we can answer the question,
“How shall I live my life?” by striving to live in wonder, with gratitude,
and by offering compassionate service.
*CRES WEB-ONLY NOTE
The "car" in
cardiology comes from Greek, but both car and cor derive
from earlier Indo-European roots.
802. 100127 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Look to the sky for divine music
In third grade I fell in love with the
mystery of how and why things moved in the sky. By the fourth grade I had
read every book in the library on astronomy.
When my teacher had me give
a talk on my discoveries, the principal sat in and immediately had
me repeat my talk for every other class in the school through eighth grade.
This personal history is
to explain why, when my uncle gave me a telescope and through it I saw
the moon, I was so thrilled to see up close what I considered God’s handiwork.
In 1969 that private thrill
was matched by a public one as the entire world saw a human set foot on
the moon.
Last week I was again thrilled
— at Linda Hall Library, when William
B. Ashworth, Jr., showed me a 400-year old first edition of Galileo’s book
describing his observations of the moon and Jupiter with four of its moons,
with the telescope he himself had made.
By the way, this world-famous
private science and technology library is free and open to the public,
including its William N. Deramus III Cosmology Theater, with continuous
programs with amazing views of the heavens.
In Galileo’s time, faith,
the arts and science were more obviously related than they often are today.
For example, in Book 4, part
1, section 4 of Kepler’s “Epitome of Copernican Astronomy,” Kepler argues
that the reason the sun occupies 1/720th (1/2 of a degree) of the sky relates
to the eight tones of the major and minor musical scales, a theory he advances
by citing Moses.
And Kepler’s 18th reason
that the earth cannot be the stationary center of the universe is that
God wants us to move about, to see his wonders.
The idea of the “harmony
of the spheres” originated with a model of the sky in which the stars and
planets revolve on concentric spheres whose distances were arranged in
divine geometrical and musical order.
Galileo’s troubles with the
Roman Catholic Church are well-known, ending only in our time, beginning
in 1992, when Pope John Paul II acknowledged the Church’s errors, and continuing
with recent praise by Pope Benedict XVI.
I expect to be thrilled again
Jan. 31 by the Friends of Chamber Music’s presentation of “The Galileo
Project: Music of the Spheres” with the Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra performing
with images from NASA and the Hubble Telescope.
Ashworth will lecture at
2:30 about the legacy of Galileo, using images from original editions in
Linda Hall Library, before the 4 pm concert at the Folly Theater,
Scientific advances can help
us appreciate the music of the spheres in ways that would have astonished
even Galileo.
801. 100120 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
MLK's Missouri bookends
One of America’s greatest theologians was
born in Missouri (Wright City, near St. Louis). Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)
influenced Martin Luther King Jr, who, in King’s famous Letter from a Birmingham
Jail, cited Niebuhr’s insight that “groups are more immoral than individuals.”
And Niebuhr’s influence on
Obama’s speeches at West Point and Oslo as well as the Inaugural Address
are now well-known.
Obama himself explicitly
summarized Niebuhr’s thought: “there’s serious evil in the world and hardship
and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate
those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction.”
Words often credited to Niebuhr
are spoken by thousands every day in Alcoholics Anonymous groups, the serenity
prayer, one form of which is, “God grant me the serenity to accept the
things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and wisdom
to know the difference.”
Abraham Lincoln is sometimes
included with Niebuhr and King because all three combined a keen awareness
of injustice with a modesty about eradicating it. Like Lincoln and Niebuhr,
Obama has avoided triumphalism in speaking about war even while it may
sometimes be required.
Niebuhr described democracy
as a “method of finding proximate solutions for insoluble problems.”
From Niebuhr, King learned
that justice is a precondition for peace.
Like Niebuhr, King opposed
the Vietnam War. When I heard King speak about that in 1967 at a clergy
gathering in Washington, DC, the sense of evil was palpable not only about
the war but also in the fear for King’s personal safety I saw in the faces
of his aides. King would be assassinated a year later.
Those who say all we need
to do to bring peace to the world is think happy thoughts and have love
in our own souls are challenged by the “Christian realism” of Niebuhr and
by King’s example.
Still, I think Niebuhr’s
tragic sense of history was moderated for King by Gandhi’s non-violent
method for social change, which reminded its practitioners of their own
evil capacities and the good in their opponents, and by another Missouri
theologian, about whom King wrote in his doctoral dissertation.
Henry Nelson Wieman (1884-1975)
was born in Rich Hill, about two hours south of Kansas City. Although King
questioned Wieman’s naturalism, Wieman’s approach, as in his 1946 book,
“The Source of Human Good,” was more optimistic than Niebuhr’s.
One might say Missouri theologians
were King’s book ends.
800. 100113 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
An evolving view of God
Can you name the book, both praised and
derided by religionists since it was published 150 years ago—Nov. 24, 1859,
to be exact? The last word in its long final sentence is a clue:
“There is grandeur in this
view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed
by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that . . . from so simple
a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been,
and are being, evolved.”
The book is On the Origin
of Species by Charles Darwin, who was awed and amazed by nature.
He had studied theology.
His “Creator” was not the God of those who taught that God made animal
and plant species so perfect from the beginning that they could not evolve.
While Darwin was not the
first to believe in evolution, his book, with unprecedented documentation,
showed that the competition for survival in changing environments naturally
led to “descent with modification.”
Darwin was struck with the
enormous struggle and suffering in the world out of which an astonishing
profusion of life forms emerged.
Ten years earlier the poet
Tennyson had written about “nature, red in tooth and claw,” a phrase that
was later used to characterize Darwin’s views.
The parallel idea of the
survival of the fittest is sometimes used to justify the suffering inevitably
part of the competition in economic capitalism.
The problem of undeserved
suffering has often been used to argue against belief in God. If God is
all-powerful and all-good, why does he permit personal horrors such as
the rape of a 6-year old girl, public disasters like 9/11 and natural catastrophes
like tsunamis?
Why does one animal have
to rip another apart for food, eaten alive, when the Creator could have
provided all necessary nutrients in ground water?
Theologians have wrestled
with many answers, but the one that fits best with Darwin may be the idea
that God works through the natural and moral world not by initial perfection
but by evolving process.
Fifty years ago another book
on evolution appeared in English, The Phenomenon of Man, by Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. Like Darwin, Teilhard was a scientist. He was also
a Jesuit.
Teilhard’s book argues that
God pulls matter upward through evolution. Even though some species fail
and become extinct along the way, various forms of life tend to become
more complex and capable of higher and higher awareness of God.
Do evolutionary or anti-evolutionary
views engender more awe? This question may be more interesting than arguing
about which is true.
CRES WEB-ONLY NOTES
The phrase
trimmed from the quotation of Darwin is "whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity".
The term
"Creator" does not appear in the first edition of Origins, Nov 24,
1859, but does in the second edition six weeks later, January 10, 1860,
and all subsequent editions.
Teilhard was
a geologist and paleonthropologist. He participated in the Peking Man discoveries.The
book was not published until after his death. The English translation followed
the original French edition.
799. 100106 THE STAR’S
PRINT HEADLINE:
Can we apply "Avatar' message?
The science fiction movie “Avatar” borrows
themes from many religions. More importantly, it poses a great question
of faith.
*Of the many borrowed themes,
here are two. The word avatar comes from Hinduism and literally means “a
descent.” An avatar is a god descending into a human form as a partial
manifestation of the divine.
In a way, the movie insults
this traditional usage. In the film it is a human, not a god, who descends.
The film implies that the descended form of the blue-skinned race on a
distant moon is inferior to the human.
Or perhaps rather than insult
this is irony since the avatar term is used by the RDA corporation, a colonizing
power determined at any price to extract a valuable mineral called—get
this—unobtainium.
Hindu gods, particularly
Vishnu, become avatars to save the order of the universe. The movie suggests
something is terribly wrong with a rapacious greed that leads to destroying
the world of nature and other civilizations, and the movie’s avatar averts
ultimate doom.
*The movie’s Tree of Souls
recalls the Norse story of the tree Yggdrasil, an example of a tree supporting
the cosmos found in many traditions. Its destruction signals the collapse
of the universe. Scholars call such trees the axis mundi, the center of
the world. The earth itself shook in the Christian story of the tree of
crucifixion, destroying the old for new life.
In the movie, the avatar’s
saving the Tree of Souls from human assault prevented unrecoverable catastrophe.
*The big religious question
the movie raises can be put this way: Will we see creation hierarchically
or ecologically—governed from above or through mutual interdependence?
The movie preaches the latter,
that a network of energy flows through all things, that disturbing natural
balance leads to disaster.
Christianity has sometimes
been called a religion of colonizers, despoilers and decimators of native
peoples. However, Christian insistence on stewardship of nature, rather
than dominion over it, may effectively respond to that charge. Christian
environmentalism is huge.
New technologies may minimize
environmental problems, but the real solution may be a spiritual reorientation.
The 2001 Kansas City Gifts of Pluralism interfaith conference declaration
contained these words: “Nature is to be respected, not just controlled.
Nature is a process that includes us, not a product external to us. . .
. Our proper attitude toward nature is awe, not utility.”
The 3-D fantasy world of
the movie was gorgeous. But will it remind us to thrill to the beauties
and wonders of the real world, and to cherish it?
CRES WEB-ONLY NOTES
1. With all
due respect for New York Times columnist Thomas F. Friedman who writes
repeatedly about the need for the U.S. “green” energy innovatation, the
awareness of the human-like creatures in “Avatar” that all things are connected
may provide a better path to the future than merely economic arguments.
2. *Flying
creatures carrying humans are part of religious traditions. Buraq was the
winged steed that carried Muhammad on the night journey to Jerusalem and
Heaven. Perseus rode the winged horse Pegasus. Some of the most beautiful
3-D effects in the movie come from flying creatures tamed by their passangers.
3. “The Earth’s
biosphere is the most complicated manifestation of the laws of nature that
we know of.” --Dennis Overbye, science writer in the NYTimes.
|
Miscellaneous
comments
HEARING GOD
Some folks conceive of God as a Supreme
Being, external to us, to which they may pray. Others might think of God
as their "Higher Power," resident within them rather than outside them.
Actually, I think many folks (including some theologians like Cusa) in
the Middle Ages actually had a better understanding of God than the Fundamentalists
who have appeared in the last hundred years, largely adopting a "scientific"
approach to truth (treating myths as literal truth). Throughout much of
Western religious history, especially before the creed-centered Reformation
and catechism-centered Counter-Reformation, God was mainly an awesome Mystery,
such as Einstein wrote about in these words:
"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is
the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this
emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe,
is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists,
manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which
our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this
knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this
sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious
men."
Nonetheless, I would find it difficult to say that
God had spoken to me -- except in the sense that the wind in the trees,
the waves on the ocean, the kind words from a friend, the majesty of the
stars in the sky, the quiet but insistent voice of conscience speak to
me of a mystery beyond joy and suffering that dwells deeply within me and
that in those sacred moments I sense all around me, pervading the universe
and all time.
I confess I am troubled by both Fundamentalist talk
of God speaking to them and by New Agers writing books about Conversations
with God. Seems a bit arrogant to me. But then I remember the provocative
words of William Blake:
"The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me,
and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert, that God spoke to
them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood,
& so be the cause of imposition.
Isaiah answer'd, I saw no God, nor heard
any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover'd the infinite
in every thing, and as I was then persuaded, & remain confirm'd; that
the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences
but wrote."
So all I know is that people, given
ignorance and frailty and genius and insight use the word
"God" in many ways, only a few of which do I understand.. |