Egyptian Protests
31/01/11 13:47 Filed in: social justice
"It is amazing these young people were able to acquire the sympathy of the Egyptian people and were able to launch protests that have paralyzed much of the country,"
For the second time in a month, we see growing unrest with a decades long dictatorship manifest itself in civil protests in Africa. What should conscientious individuals make of these protests in this day and era?
To begin, we should take heart in the courage that these oppressed show in trying to bring change in their country, and we should hope, moreover, for like-minded courageous individuals to work for change in our country and throughout the world. The root of this riots is lack of food, lack of work, and lack of political freedom. We should do what we can to support these movements, including putting pressure on the US government to provide material support in the form of food and other necessities to the rioting people. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the freedom of the people remains of paramount importance both as a fundamental human reality and as a political goal.
Freedom remains a human initiative. It is fundamental to human reality to be able to choose the direction of one’s life, to direct one’s conscience, and to participate in shaping the common good of the community. While have a democratic society is only a beginning, it is a beginning.
What we have to fear is that Tunisia and Egypt will adopt the ways and patterns of life of the modern Western world, accepting unquestionable, rampant capitalism and allowing their leaders to establish institutions that take the voice out of their hands rather than placing it in their hands. Democracy consists, not in electing representatives who will bow before the corporate and military elite, but in full participation in articulating and living out the common good of the persons in the community -- all persons, regardless of gender, race, orientation, religion, or status. These are the true legacy of the western world.
Comments
Philosophy, Politics, Pluralism
28/01/11 10:11 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
Lately, I’ve thought much about the role of philosophy in society, particularly in bringing about social justice and helping to create a well-ordered society, for lack of a better word. I’ve also thought about theology in relation to these issues. If one believe in God, believes that God is the final destination of human beings, what does that mean for society, for social organization, and for social justice? How can one order a society, or suggest principles for a just society, when one believes so much about God, yet knows that society is marked by pluralism -- religious pluralism, as well as philosophical, political, and cultural pluralism.
I am not, of course, the first to ask these questions nor the last, I’m sure. Jacques Maritain wrote that one of the characteristics of a society of free persons is that it is Christian or theistic, not in the sense that every member of society would be required to believe in God, but in that
The problem, of course, is that society’s religious pluralism means that no pluralistic society can recognize these things as such. Must we, then, separate into distinct enclaves? Such an answer does not help, partly because these individual conclaves form a society of themselves. That is, they need rules and laws to organize their relations with each other. So where does that leave the Christian? It is not enough to say that not everyone believe in God, for, according to Maritain, his society is “organically linked to religion.” Such an organic link cannot be maintained at the social level in a pluralistic society.
First, it is clear that theology or religion cannot answer the question here better than any other approach. Theology might have something to say about what sort of answer we should look for, but it cannot provide an answer because it ipso facto excludes the non-religious and the other-religious from its scope. Yet, can such an answer satisfy the one who believes that God is the end of society and the end of human persons?
Nor should we deny that in some rare instances some societies have existed which in fact were theistic, pluralistic, and supported freedom of individual persons -- al-Andalus being a primary example.
Second, it seems also clear that any answer to this set of questions must examine the purpose of society. Philosophy primarily carries the burden of answering that question based, to be sure, on empirical studies of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics, among others. Yet, I’ve already said that philosophy itself is disputed within pluralistic societies. Philosophy, however, offers something that theology cannot offer in this case: an appeal to reason which all people are subject to. In fact, if the nature of philosophy is disputed, it might be that one task of society is to provide an arena for such disputes to occur, and this can provide a foundation for a society of free persons.
Here, then, we see some light, for what the nature of philosophy shows us is similar to what the nature of that strange creature homo sapiens shows us. Human beings are made for relational engagement with other as evidenced by the primacy of language and communication in their everyday lives and the primacy of dispute and social argumentation in philosophy. If we can agree to that, we might move even further along the road to addressing society.
I am not, of course, the first to ask these questions nor the last, I’m sure. Jacques Maritain wrote that one of the characteristics of a society of free persons is that it is Christian or theistic, not in the sense that every member of society would be required to believe in God, but in that
society recognizes God as the principle and end of the human person and prime source of natural law, is by the same token the prime source of political society and authority among [people]; and in that sense that it recognizes that the currents of liberty and fraternity released by the Gospel, the virtues of justice and friendship sanctioned by it, the practical respect for the human person proclaimed by it, the feeling of responsibility before God required by it, as much from him who exercises the authority as form him who is subject to it, are the internal energy which civilization needs for its fulfillment.
The problem, of course, is that society’s religious pluralism means that no pluralistic society can recognize these things as such. Must we, then, separate into distinct enclaves? Such an answer does not help, partly because these individual conclaves form a society of themselves. That is, they need rules and laws to organize their relations with each other. So where does that leave the Christian? It is not enough to say that not everyone believe in God, for, according to Maritain, his society is “organically linked to religion.” Such an organic link cannot be maintained at the social level in a pluralistic society.
First, it is clear that theology or religion cannot answer the question here better than any other approach. Theology might have something to say about what sort of answer we should look for, but it cannot provide an answer because it ipso facto excludes the non-religious and the other-religious from its scope. Yet, can such an answer satisfy the one who believes that God is the end of society and the end of human persons?
Nor should we deny that in some rare instances some societies have existed which in fact were theistic, pluralistic, and supported freedom of individual persons -- al-Andalus being a primary example.
Second, it seems also clear that any answer to this set of questions must examine the purpose of society. Philosophy primarily carries the burden of answering that question based, to be sure, on empirical studies of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics, among others. Yet, I’ve already said that philosophy itself is disputed within pluralistic societies. Philosophy, however, offers something that theology cannot offer in this case: an appeal to reason which all people are subject to. In fact, if the nature of philosophy is disputed, it might be that one task of society is to provide an arena for such disputes to occur, and this can provide a foundation for a society of free persons.
Here, then, we see some light, for what the nature of philosophy shows us is similar to what the nature of that strange creature homo sapiens shows us. Human beings are made for relational engagement with other as evidenced by the primacy of language and communication in their everyday lives and the primacy of dispute and social argumentation in philosophy. If we can agree to that, we might move even further along the road to addressing society.
Torture and Catholics
27/01/11 14:06 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | social justice
A disturbing report shows that Roman Catholics are more likely to approve of torture than not. It should be noted that the sample size is relatively small, and I am reluctant to draw broad conclusions from it about Catholics across the United States. However, the fact remains that at least one sampling of Catholics approve of torture.
When I was growing up, we were taught that Jesus was selected to die by Pontius Pilate to help prevent a riot in Jerusalem in which many more would die. We were clearly taught by Notre Dame nuns that one of the problems with Jesus’ execution is the sacrifice of one for many.
Yet, I’ve taught on the death penalty across the bible belt, in Catholic colleges, and seminaries, and I find that Christians have forgotten this lesson. They argue, instead, that it is okay if a few innocents die if that’s what it takes to punish the guilty.
These attitudes are not Christian attitudes and certainly not Catholic attitudes. I do not mean, of course, to deny that Christians or even the Catholic Church has tortured people before. The description of such a sin to extract a confession opens Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, and we know that torture was used in the inquisition. What I mean, of course, is that Catholic morality and Catholic philosophy call us to a different approach, and the fact that many Catholics either ignore or rationalize away this approach shows that the priests, bishops, and pope are not doing their job.
If you can look at the cross and recognize the suffering that Jesus Christ went through to redeem human beings and call yourself a Catholic and yet approve of torture for any reason, then you don’t understand the Cross and you don’t understand Jesus.
Of course, many will challenge me on this: what if it were your family who was threatened and the only way to get them help is to torture someone? That’s playing cheap and dirty. Of course, I would do anything I can to help my family. I also know, however, that torture rarely, if ever, gets accurate information, and all I would do in torturing someone is bring myself to their level. This is why the Joker is so effective in The Dark Knight. He doesn’t care that he gives information - wrong information -- to Batman. He’s caused Batman to lose his soul for just a little bit.
Torture is wrong and cannot be justified for any reason. That’s especially true if you are Catholic or believe in a loving God.
When I was growing up, we were taught that Jesus was selected to die by Pontius Pilate to help prevent a riot in Jerusalem in which many more would die. We were clearly taught by Notre Dame nuns that one of the problems with Jesus’ execution is the sacrifice of one for many.
Yet, I’ve taught on the death penalty across the bible belt, in Catholic colleges, and seminaries, and I find that Christians have forgotten this lesson. They argue, instead, that it is okay if a few innocents die if that’s what it takes to punish the guilty.
These attitudes are not Christian attitudes and certainly not Catholic attitudes. I do not mean, of course, to deny that Christians or even the Catholic Church has tortured people before. The description of such a sin to extract a confession opens Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, and we know that torture was used in the inquisition. What I mean, of course, is that Catholic morality and Catholic philosophy call us to a different approach, and the fact that many Catholics either ignore or rationalize away this approach shows that the priests, bishops, and pope are not doing their job.
If you can look at the cross and recognize the suffering that Jesus Christ went through to redeem human beings and call yourself a Catholic and yet approve of torture for any reason, then you don’t understand the Cross and you don’t understand Jesus.
Of course, many will challenge me on this: what if it were your family who was threatened and the only way to get them help is to torture someone? That’s playing cheap and dirty. Of course, I would do anything I can to help my family. I also know, however, that torture rarely, if ever, gets accurate information, and all I would do in torturing someone is bring myself to their level. This is why the Joker is so effective in The Dark Knight. He doesn’t care that he gives information - wrong information -- to Batman. He’s caused Batman to lose his soul for just a little bit.
Torture is wrong and cannot be justified for any reason. That’s especially true if you are Catholic or believe in a loving God.
State of the Union 2011 -- Reflections
26/01/11 10:29 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | social justice
Here are my reflections on Obama’s SOTU for 2011.
“Just recently, China became home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.”
It’s interesting that Obama does not reflect here on his own challenge during the Presidential campaign that the United States be a developer of first rate green energy before China develops it. Wouldn’t this moment be one for reflecting on his own failures in creating jobs over the last two years and of Congress not moving forward ob green initiatives?
“Remember – for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the
naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous
economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours.”
Here, rather than questioning his own administration, Obama misses a chance to question what is going on in the economy in America. Yes, our workers are more productive -- more productive than they were 10, 20, and even 30 years ago. So why has not the wealth that comes from this production been shared by workers? Instead, workers have seen their wages stagnate while CEO’s pay and bonuses increase exponentially.
“What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.”
True, but then the question becomes, what is required for each person to shape their destiny? How best do we shape society so that each person can pursue her own dreams and goals?
“We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business.”
What does this mean? And why must we make America the best place to do business rather than the best place to achieve individual fulfillment and realization? There is no questioning here of the capitalist paradigm, which means it works as an ideology in our country masking the true issues that can make American lives better.
“We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government.”
Both of these points are true, but Obama has done nothing to do either. First, allowing the tax-cuts for the richest Americans to continue meant NOT taking care of our deficit. Second, reform in government means giving each person a voice, not simply a vote.
“Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation.”
Is this true? Should it be true?
“Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.”
This example suggests not. It suggests that what motivates innovation is an idea of a common good and heroic leadership. Where are these in our country today?
“I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow’s.”
This is certainly a start. The question becomes, is it too little too late?
“And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.”
Of course this ignores the questions about what are the root causes of such failures? Is it our allocation of resources to schools? Why is it that a racial divide appears here? How do we see education? These are primary questions for reforming education, questions we must answer as a nation.
“Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.”
And how are they to do this when they are both working?
“And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.”
Again, another step, but too little for sure. What is the average cost of college today?
“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe.”
Safe?
“This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of
hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to
things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary
of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that
he and his generals believe our military can do without.”
This reminds me of the parable of the poor woman who gave a penny and the rich man who gave a dollar. Why must the poor sacrifice when they’ve already have stagnated wages and the rich military-industrial complex has sustained increase after increase? We should remember that a budget is a moral document -- it tells our values. Where are American values?
“But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.”
Another example where innovation was spurred by love of humankind and not love of money.
There are no surprises in Obama’s speech. It follows a traditional format, laying out plans that do not address the real struggles of every day human beings, praising the army, and threatening cuts to human services rather than to that which destroys human beings. It is up to us, however, to demand more voice in our government, more direction of the money it spends, and more resources in pursuing our personal dreams which have little to do with money and much to do with friendship and love for those around us.
“Just recently, China became home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.”
It’s interesting that Obama does not reflect here on his own challenge during the Presidential campaign that the United States be a developer of first rate green energy before China develops it. Wouldn’t this moment be one for reflecting on his own failures in creating jobs over the last two years and of Congress not moving forward ob green initiatives?
“Remember – for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the
naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous
economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours.”
Here, rather than questioning his own administration, Obama misses a chance to question what is going on in the economy in America. Yes, our workers are more productive -- more productive than they were 10, 20, and even 30 years ago. So why has not the wealth that comes from this production been shared by workers? Instead, workers have seen their wages stagnate while CEO’s pay and bonuses increase exponentially.
“What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.”
True, but then the question becomes, what is required for each person to shape their destiny? How best do we shape society so that each person can pursue her own dreams and goals?
“We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business.”
What does this mean? And why must we make America the best place to do business rather than the best place to achieve individual fulfillment and realization? There is no questioning here of the capitalist paradigm, which means it works as an ideology in our country masking the true issues that can make American lives better.
“We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government.”
Both of these points are true, but Obama has done nothing to do either. First, allowing the tax-cuts for the richest Americans to continue meant NOT taking care of our deficit. Second, reform in government means giving each person a voice, not simply a vote.
“Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation.”
Is this true? Should it be true?
“Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.”
This example suggests not. It suggests that what motivates innovation is an idea of a common good and heroic leadership. Where are these in our country today?
“I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow’s.”
This is certainly a start. The question becomes, is it too little too late?
“And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.”
Of course this ignores the questions about what are the root causes of such failures? Is it our allocation of resources to schools? Why is it that a racial divide appears here? How do we see education? These are primary questions for reforming education, questions we must answer as a nation.
“Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.”
And how are they to do this when they are both working?
“And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.”
Again, another step, but too little for sure. What is the average cost of college today?
“When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe.”
Safe?
“This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of
hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to
things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary
of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that
he and his generals believe our military can do without.”
This reminds me of the parable of the poor woman who gave a penny and the rich man who gave a dollar. Why must the poor sacrifice when they’ve already have stagnated wages and the rich military-industrial complex has sustained increase after increase? We should remember that a budget is a moral document -- it tells our values. Where are American values?
“But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.”
Another example where innovation was spurred by love of humankind and not love of money.
There are no surprises in Obama’s speech. It follows a traditional format, laying out plans that do not address the real struggles of every day human beings, praising the army, and threatening cuts to human services rather than to that which destroys human beings. It is up to us, however, to demand more voice in our government, more direction of the money it spends, and more resources in pursuing our personal dreams which have little to do with money and much to do with friendship and love for those around us.
Women, Evolution, and Rape: Rejoinder Part 2
25/01/11 13:43 Filed in: Human Nature
This is a continuation of an earlier post.
4. Claim 2: “"When the costs of being sexually victimized are highest," reason these investigators, "women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors. Thus, we predicted that women perceive men as more sexually coercive at fertile points of their cycle than at non-fertile points.”” Here, aside from the question about the definition of rape raised in point 1 above, we must also ask, Is this fact a result of evolving to avoid rape or is it, rather, a result of cultural interpretations of rape in our own society? Women might be told that men are likely to rape them because they are sexually attractive or because they are more fertile, but that does not mean that rapists are more likely to attack during those times. In other words, despite the historico-evolutionary aspects of rape, we must also consider how culture influences a person’s interpretation of the pictures of men shown. Here we have a question of data and interpretation.
5. Claim 3: “At least two studies have demonstrated that women at the peak of their fertility are less likely than their peers to have engaged in high-risk activities such as walking alone in a park or forest, letting a stranger into the house, or stopping their cars in a remote place over the preceding 24 hours. Importantly, as German investigators Arndt Bröder and Natalia Hohmann established, ovulating women are not less active in general—they're still busy shopping, going to church, visiting friends, and so on—but they avoid doing those things that make them sexually vulnerable.””
First, a question on the data. Do we also include in this “high-risk activities” being alone with a spouse? Presumably, if women are raped when they are fertile for penetration, then husbands would be the ones more likely to rape them. So being around a husband would also count as a risky behavior.
Second, here we have a question of how we define “high risk activities.” How are these high risk activities coordinated with being alone? Perhaps ovulating women are more social than non-ovulating women, and so the issue isn’t high risk activities, but solitude versus social engagement.
Third, the reader of my blog was right to suggest that “it doesn't seem too tough to imagine straying far from the center of a small social group (say a hunter-gatherer camp) would manifest as not walking through a park at night in a modern context.” Issues of interpretation of the date remain.
6. “Ovulating women are more racists.” In this case, the experimenters note that what has been selected against is engagement with out-group males, and race may be interpreted as a sign of an out-group male. Here, the theory asserts that women avoid those who may not have the same social values and controls as those of their in-group.
Given the question over the biological basis of rape, this conclusion becomes all the more difficult to defend. Biologists and social theorists have shown that skin color varies more within a “race” than between “races.” This means that skin coloration would be used to identify in-group members rather than out-group members.
The authors of this particular study, however, note that cultural associations may be as informative of behavior as evolutionary elements. If we accept this point, however, then we must also bring into play the element of cultural understandings of rape. Once we do that, though, it becomes unclear how rape and ovulation are tied together at the biologico-evolutionary level rather than at the cultural-sociological level. In other words, the interpretation of the data is too in question to make the claim that women have evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault.
4. Claim 2: “"When the costs of being sexually victimized are highest," reason these investigators, "women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors. Thus, we predicted that women perceive men as more sexually coercive at fertile points of their cycle than at non-fertile points.”” Here, aside from the question about the definition of rape raised in point 1 above, we must also ask, Is this fact a result of evolving to avoid rape or is it, rather, a result of cultural interpretations of rape in our own society? Women might be told that men are likely to rape them because they are sexually attractive or because they are more fertile, but that does not mean that rapists are more likely to attack during those times. In other words, despite the historico-evolutionary aspects of rape, we must also consider how culture influences a person’s interpretation of the pictures of men shown. Here we have a question of data and interpretation.
5. Claim 3: “At least two studies have demonstrated that women at the peak of their fertility are less likely than their peers to have engaged in high-risk activities such as walking alone in a park or forest, letting a stranger into the house, or stopping their cars in a remote place over the preceding 24 hours. Importantly, as German investigators Arndt Bröder and Natalia Hohmann established, ovulating women are not less active in general—they're still busy shopping, going to church, visiting friends, and so on—but they avoid doing those things that make them sexually vulnerable.””
First, a question on the data. Do we also include in this “high-risk activities” being alone with a spouse? Presumably, if women are raped when they are fertile for penetration, then husbands would be the ones more likely to rape them. So being around a husband would also count as a risky behavior.
Second, here we have a question of how we define “high risk activities.” How are these high risk activities coordinated with being alone? Perhaps ovulating women are more social than non-ovulating women, and so the issue isn’t high risk activities, but solitude versus social engagement.
Third, the reader of my blog was right to suggest that “it doesn't seem too tough to imagine straying far from the center of a small social group (say a hunter-gatherer camp) would manifest as not walking through a park at night in a modern context.” Issues of interpretation of the date remain.
6. “Ovulating women are more racists.” In this case, the experimenters note that what has been selected against is engagement with out-group males, and race may be interpreted as a sign of an out-group male. Here, the theory asserts that women avoid those who may not have the same social values and controls as those of their in-group.
Given the question over the biological basis of rape, this conclusion becomes all the more difficult to defend. Biologists and social theorists have shown that skin color varies more within a “race” than between “races.” This means that skin coloration would be used to identify in-group members rather than out-group members.
The authors of this particular study, however, note that cultural associations may be as informative of behavior as evolutionary elements. If we accept this point, however, then we must also bring into play the element of cultural understandings of rape. Once we do that, though, it becomes unclear how rape and ovulation are tied together at the biologico-evolutionary level rather than at the cultural-sociological level. In other words, the interpretation of the data is too in question to make the claim that women have evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault.
Women, Evolution, and Rape: Rejoinder Part 1
24/01/11 12:58 Filed in: Human Nature
A reader asked concerning an earlier post on rape what exactly I was objecting to in this article. I appreciate his (and your) reading my post and asking a question. He was right to challenge me to provide a more thorough analysis of the claims made in the original article. In my earlier post, I challenged mainly the definition of rape in the article: “rape will be defined throughout this article as the use of force, or threat of force, to achieve penile-vaginal penetration of a woman without her consent.” Clearly, if one does not accept this definition, and I see no good reason to do so, then one will question the more general facts collected and the interpretation of those facts. I will use this post to respond to the particular claims raised. To wit...
1. Consider, first off, the data collected. All of the date centers around the ovulation of the woman. Thus, claim one is that women are stronger during ovulation, because they are more likely to be raped at that time. But, if we do not accept the definition of rape, then why should we link female strength of ovulation with a evolved response to rape. The same question can be asked about estimating a man’s possibility as a rapist, avoiding safe place during ovulation, and “racism” during ovulation. So, to begin, I question the link of these facts -- assuming, of course, that these are indeed facts -- to an evolved response to rape.
2. Part of the explanation behind evolution and rape is that men who raped were more likely to impregnate women than men who did not rape. Therefore, we have more rapists in our male population now than in the past, because rapists have outproduced men. If this were true, then we would see a corollary in the female population. It would be women who were susceptible to rape who tended to reproduce -- thus producing more women who were similar susceptible to rape. So, it should be the case, following the logic about rapists in the male population, that women-susceptible to rape -- that is, women who are weaker not stronger, women who are not careful about classifying men as rapists, women who are more prone to visit “unsafe” places, and women who are less racists -- would be more prevalent in the general female population today. The way the article is written, however, is that either most or all women are just the opposite. The facts as presented in the article, then, contradict the idea that women have evolved to defend themselves against rape when rape is defined in any way.
3. Claim 1: Ovulating women show greater strength then non-ovulating women. The author writes: “Only the ovulating women who read the sexual assault scenario exhibited an increase in handgrip strength. Ovulating women who read the control passage and nonovulatory women who read the sexual assault material grasped with the same intensity as before.” Increased strength coordinated, then, when two events presented themselves: ovulation and exposure to a sexual assault scenario. I have no reason to question the data itself, but I would question the interpretation. Why should researchers link increased strength with fear of or defense against rape? Consider, for instance, that some studies show that men become more aroused when exposed to sexual assault material. Could not women who are ovulating show increased strength, not because they are afraid, but because they too would like to be in control? (NB: I am not claiming here, and never would claim, that women are turned on by the idea of being rape. Rather, I am suggesting that women might be turned on by the idea of being in control of the sexual encounter.) Would it not make more evolutionary sense to suggest that women have increased strength when they are ovulating so that they can beat other women at mating with the “prime” male of the species?
Further, it is not enough to show that ovulating women exposed to sexual assault scenarios are stronger than ovulating women shown neutral scenarios. Shouldn’t we also compare their strength to ovulating women who are exposed to violent scenarios without rape or sexual assault involved? And, what was the nature of the sexual assault material: male on female, male on male, female on male, or female on female? These questions must be answered and investigated before making the claim that women have evolved greater strength as a response to the threat of rape, especially given the questions raised in point 1 & 2 above.
I will continue this discussion in a separate post tomorrow looking at the other three claims the study makes....
1. Consider, first off, the data collected. All of the date centers around the ovulation of the woman. Thus, claim one is that women are stronger during ovulation, because they are more likely to be raped at that time. But, if we do not accept the definition of rape, then why should we link female strength of ovulation with a evolved response to rape. The same question can be asked about estimating a man’s possibility as a rapist, avoiding safe place during ovulation, and “racism” during ovulation. So, to begin, I question the link of these facts -- assuming, of course, that these are indeed facts -- to an evolved response to rape.
2. Part of the explanation behind evolution and rape is that men who raped were more likely to impregnate women than men who did not rape. Therefore, we have more rapists in our male population now than in the past, because rapists have outproduced men. If this were true, then we would see a corollary in the female population. It would be women who were susceptible to rape who tended to reproduce -- thus producing more women who were similar susceptible to rape. So, it should be the case, following the logic about rapists in the male population, that women-susceptible to rape -- that is, women who are weaker not stronger, women who are not careful about classifying men as rapists, women who are more prone to visit “unsafe” places, and women who are less racists -- would be more prevalent in the general female population today. The way the article is written, however, is that either most or all women are just the opposite. The facts as presented in the article, then, contradict the idea that women have evolved to defend themselves against rape when rape is defined in any way.
3. Claim 1: Ovulating women show greater strength then non-ovulating women. The author writes: “Only the ovulating women who read the sexual assault scenario exhibited an increase in handgrip strength. Ovulating women who read the control passage and nonovulatory women who read the sexual assault material grasped with the same intensity as before.” Increased strength coordinated, then, when two events presented themselves: ovulation and exposure to a sexual assault scenario. I have no reason to question the data itself, but I would question the interpretation. Why should researchers link increased strength with fear of or defense against rape? Consider, for instance, that some studies show that men become more aroused when exposed to sexual assault material. Could not women who are ovulating show increased strength, not because they are afraid, but because they too would like to be in control? (NB: I am not claiming here, and never would claim, that women are turned on by the idea of being rape. Rather, I am suggesting that women might be turned on by the idea of being in control of the sexual encounter.) Would it not make more evolutionary sense to suggest that women have increased strength when they are ovulating so that they can beat other women at mating with the “prime” male of the species?
Further, it is not enough to show that ovulating women exposed to sexual assault scenarios are stronger than ovulating women shown neutral scenarios. Shouldn’t we also compare their strength to ovulating women who are exposed to violent scenarios without rape or sexual assault involved? And, what was the nature of the sexual assault material: male on female, male on male, female on male, or female on female? These questions must be answered and investigated before making the claim that women have evolved greater strength as a response to the threat of rape, especially given the questions raised in point 1 & 2 above.
I will continue this discussion in a separate post tomorrow looking at the other three claims the study makes....
Roe v Wade 2011
21/01/11 11:35 Filed in: social justice | Catholic Social Teaching
We remember the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion on Saturday. 53 million persons have been aborted since 1973, at best count.
Despite that significant and large attack on human life, the Roman Catholic Church, other churches, and conservatives in the United States are fighting a meaningless battle. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a waste of resources, makes the Church appear antagonistic to women, and detracts our attention from the real issues which will reduce the number of murders that occur annually, viz., proper health care and sex education, education in general, defense of women and bodily integrity, and a rejection of capitalism as a root cause of abortion.
Why is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade senseless? Because of the practical politics of the situation. While the moral principles the Church uses are correct, they are either not cognizant of or dismissive of the real political reality in the United States. That political reality is the following:
1. A sitting president chooses at most 2 supreme court judges per eight-year term. The president would have to choose enough nominees to create a secure substantial majority on the court to overturn RvW. Yet, often those who retire are in fact already allies to the cause. So the president does not have the viable opportunity to appoint enough members to court to overturn RvW.
2. Even if the president could appoint enough magistrates to overturn RvW, the president cannot guarantee that his choice would in fact overturn RvW. See Reagan and his nominees.
3. Even if the president could be certain AND could appoint enough nominees, they would have to be approved by congress who would surely not approve overturning RvW, and for at least two reasons.
First, it is congress’ self interest not to overturn RvW because it allows them to attract traditional allies in their run for office. No one wants to undermine their base on either side.
Second, the corporate powers who choose nominees for the citizens to vote on do not want to overturn RvW, and this for two reasons.
First, because keeping people distracted by RvW means they have control over the electorate and because it means people will not challenge capitalism.
Second, because it provides too much money for the corporations.
4. Even if the president could be certain AND she could appoint enough magistrates AND could get congress to approve them, all that would happen is that the abortion decision would switch to the states. In other words, there would either be no decrease in abortion OR there will be no decrease in abortion AND there will be an increase in back-alley abortions which maim and kill women. Why?
This fact is the most essential reason why the Catholic Church and others are wasting their time, resources, and focus on the real issues. Overturning RvW means that individual states then set the limits, if any, to abortion. Since not all states will limit access to abortion, then people in any state will be able to travel to a nearby state for an abortion. Overturning RvW would, at best, take the fight to each individual state which will lead to more sectarian violence, to greater divisions between the states and, thus, an greater destabilization of the government, and greater waste of resources, while continuing to loose focus on the real issues.
The real issues are those which lead women to choose to have abortions: lack of jobs, lack of stable families, career-focus, poor health care, poor communities, etc. The real foe in the abortion debate is not Roe v Wade; the real foe is capitalism and the individualism that terrorizes our country. Until the Church takes a more consistent ethic of life approach and a more supportive attitude toward women, then nothing will be done to end the murder that continues each year -- every day -- in the United States and around the world.
Despite that significant and large attack on human life, the Roman Catholic Church, other churches, and conservatives in the United States are fighting a meaningless battle. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a waste of resources, makes the Church appear antagonistic to women, and detracts our attention from the real issues which will reduce the number of murders that occur annually, viz., proper health care and sex education, education in general, defense of women and bodily integrity, and a rejection of capitalism as a root cause of abortion.
Why is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade senseless? Because of the practical politics of the situation. While the moral principles the Church uses are correct, they are either not cognizant of or dismissive of the real political reality in the United States. That political reality is the following:
1. A sitting president chooses at most 2 supreme court judges per eight-year term. The president would have to choose enough nominees to create a secure substantial majority on the court to overturn RvW. Yet, often those who retire are in fact already allies to the cause. So the president does not have the viable opportunity to appoint enough members to court to overturn RvW.
2. Even if the president could appoint enough magistrates to overturn RvW, the president cannot guarantee that his choice would in fact overturn RvW. See Reagan and his nominees.
3. Even if the president could be certain AND could appoint enough nominees, they would have to be approved by congress who would surely not approve overturning RvW, and for at least two reasons.
First, it is congress’ self interest not to overturn RvW because it allows them to attract traditional allies in their run for office. No one wants to undermine their base on either side.
Second, the corporate powers who choose nominees for the citizens to vote on do not want to overturn RvW, and this for two reasons.
First, because keeping people distracted by RvW means they have control over the electorate and because it means people will not challenge capitalism.
Second, because it provides too much money for the corporations.
4. Even if the president could be certain AND she could appoint enough magistrates AND could get congress to approve them, all that would happen is that the abortion decision would switch to the states. In other words, there would either be no decrease in abortion OR there will be no decrease in abortion AND there will be an increase in back-alley abortions which maim and kill women. Why?
This fact is the most essential reason why the Catholic Church and others are wasting their time, resources, and focus on the real issues. Overturning RvW means that individual states then set the limits, if any, to abortion. Since not all states will limit access to abortion, then people in any state will be able to travel to a nearby state for an abortion. Overturning RvW would, at best, take the fight to each individual state which will lead to more sectarian violence, to greater divisions between the states and, thus, an greater destabilization of the government, and greater waste of resources, while continuing to loose focus on the real issues.
The real issues are those which lead women to choose to have abortions: lack of jobs, lack of stable families, career-focus, poor health care, poor communities, etc. The real foe in the abortion debate is not Roe v Wade; the real foe is capitalism and the individualism that terrorizes our country. Until the Church takes a more consistent ethic of life approach and a more supportive attitude toward women, then nothing will be done to end the murder that continues each year -- every day -- in the United States and around the world.
Jack Kennedy's Legacy
20/01/11 12:32 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching
Today, January 20th, 2011, commemorates President John Kennedy’s inauguration speech. Beginning his speech, Kennedy said “For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
This claim is s true today, if not more so, as it was 50 years ago. We can abolish poverty, as I noted in an earlier post about our war spending. What we lack is the political and cultural will to do so. Why? Why do we continue to condemn ourselves?
Kennedy continued in his speech: “proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.”
I’ve already spoken of these human rights this week. They are our legacy to the future earth, if anyone and anything survives the darkness that surrounds us. Those human rights include the positiver rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Such rights rest on the ability of human beings to be safe in themselves and to own property by which they may work and make a living of their lives. They also include the rights to govern our own lives, rights which we see attacked across the world and within our own country.
Considering such rights, Kennedy makes a pledge to emerging countries. “To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view.”
How far have we fallen from this promise? We continue to press our own selfish corporate interests in Latin America as we support proto-military units that bust unions and execute those who fight for social justice. We continue to press for our own interests in the Middle East, where we kill thousands of others, shaking such deaths off as “collateral damage.” Let us recall Kennedy’s promise and fight for rights everywhere -- rights of life and liberty for each and every person.
Kennedy ends his speech with this call:
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
May we find, in our every day lives, a willingness and a strength to answer his call.
This claim is s true today, if not more so, as it was 50 years ago. We can abolish poverty, as I noted in an earlier post about our war spending. What we lack is the political and cultural will to do so. Why? Why do we continue to condemn ourselves?
Kennedy continued in his speech: “proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.”
I’ve already spoken of these human rights this week. They are our legacy to the future earth, if anyone and anything survives the darkness that surrounds us. Those human rights include the positiver rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Such rights rest on the ability of human beings to be safe in themselves and to own property by which they may work and make a living of their lives. They also include the rights to govern our own lives, rights which we see attacked across the world and within our own country.
Considering such rights, Kennedy makes a pledge to emerging countries. “To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view.”
How far have we fallen from this promise? We continue to press our own selfish corporate interests in Latin America as we support proto-military units that bust unions and execute those who fight for social justice. We continue to press for our own interests in the Middle East, where we kill thousands of others, shaking such deaths off as “collateral damage.” Let us recall Kennedy’s promise and fight for rights everywhere -- rights of life and liberty for each and every person.
Kennedy ends his speech with this call:
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
May we find, in our every day lives, a willingness and a strength to answer his call.
Western Legacy of Universal Law
19/01/11 10:10 Filed in: social justice
News media report today that President Obama pressed Chinese President Hu Jintao to respect human rights. Obama asserted that countries are more successful and societies more harmonious when human rights are respected. It’s unclear, of course, what “success” means here. Does it mean politically? Economically? Harmonious societies seem to be an end in themselves, but we should not be so quick here either. What sort of harmony are we speaking about? Can such harmony mask abuse of human rights?
These questions will be important to ask as we continue to see China rise in the world, soon to outgrow the United States as the main economic and political giant. They remain important for us to ask of our own nation, as well, as we continue to see our own abuse of human rights.
As we witness history here, though, as the West wanes in favor of the East, we want to make sure that the legacy of the West is passed on. That legacy is not capitalism or free market economics. That legacy is in the history of the development of the notion of human law, universal law, and human rights. The idea of law lays hidden far back in time in Mesopotamia. The first code of law exists still in the Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king. What’s central to understanding this code is the way that the law is written to protect the marginalized and poor of Babylonian society. It’s true, of course, that the law protects property; but the law also encodes certain basic duties of society to the poor.
We see this code get rewritten in different societies, until Athens and the Greeks make their own contribution to the notion of law. Because the Athenian army depended on the lower classes to row the triremes and to fight in the army, the lower classes were able to press for greater and greater protections from the rich and greater help from the state. In these times, the notion of “citizen” and “citizenship” takes place. Had it not been for the Greeks, we would not now think of citizens as those who have a say in government.
Moving on through history, Rome, the great inheritor of Greek culture, adds to the notion of law. Early Romans too pressed for protections from the rich and greater help from the state. Moreover, they were able to encode the notion of “universal law.” The true legacy of the Roman Empire is the way that it spread from the British Isles and the Western coast of Spain, from Northern Africa to the eastern borders of India, the idea of a universal law that applies to all people. For all their fears of invasion and their gross displays of wealth and violence and sheer gluttony, the Roman people gave us the greatest gift of history: the idea of a universal morality.
And it was, despite the tortures and the silencing and the outright violence and prejudice that a small group of religious believers pressed upon the world, that this notion of human law passed down from the Roman Empire to the early Europeans and to us. This law is based on respect for peoples and the notion that law should care for the downtrodden of society as much as anyone. In the early middle ages, monks and religious began to speak of these protections with new language -- the language of rights. These rights were always positive rights: people had a right to housing and food, to work, to family life. Only later with the rise of capitalism and the market economy did the notion of rights become “natural” and “negative.”
What we as citizens of the United States and other western democracies must do is pass on these notions of positive universal law, of citizenship as being part of the rule of government, and of the protection of the downtrodden and the marginalized, today encapsulated in the concept of rights. These are the true legacy that we can pass on to future generations and to a changing world.
These questions will be important to ask as we continue to see China rise in the world, soon to outgrow the United States as the main economic and political giant. They remain important for us to ask of our own nation, as well, as we continue to see our own abuse of human rights.
As we witness history here, though, as the West wanes in favor of the East, we want to make sure that the legacy of the West is passed on. That legacy is not capitalism or free market economics. That legacy is in the history of the development of the notion of human law, universal law, and human rights. The idea of law lays hidden far back in time in Mesopotamia. The first code of law exists still in the Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king. What’s central to understanding this code is the way that the law is written to protect the marginalized and poor of Babylonian society. It’s true, of course, that the law protects property; but the law also encodes certain basic duties of society to the poor.
We see this code get rewritten in different societies, until Athens and the Greeks make their own contribution to the notion of law. Because the Athenian army depended on the lower classes to row the triremes and to fight in the army, the lower classes were able to press for greater and greater protections from the rich and greater help from the state. In these times, the notion of “citizen” and “citizenship” takes place. Had it not been for the Greeks, we would not now think of citizens as those who have a say in government.
Moving on through history, Rome, the great inheritor of Greek culture, adds to the notion of law. Early Romans too pressed for protections from the rich and greater help from the state. Moreover, they were able to encode the notion of “universal law.” The true legacy of the Roman Empire is the way that it spread from the British Isles and the Western coast of Spain, from Northern Africa to the eastern borders of India, the idea of a universal law that applies to all people. For all their fears of invasion and their gross displays of wealth and violence and sheer gluttony, the Roman people gave us the greatest gift of history: the idea of a universal morality.
And it was, despite the tortures and the silencing and the outright violence and prejudice that a small group of religious believers pressed upon the world, that this notion of human law passed down from the Roman Empire to the early Europeans and to us. This law is based on respect for peoples and the notion that law should care for the downtrodden of society as much as anyone. In the early middle ages, monks and religious began to speak of these protections with new language -- the language of rights. These rights were always positive rights: people had a right to housing and food, to work, to family life. Only later with the rise of capitalism and the market economy did the notion of rights become “natural” and “negative.”
What we as citizens of the United States and other western democracies must do is pass on these notions of positive universal law, of citizenship as being part of the rule of government, and of the protection of the downtrodden and the marginalized, today encapsulated in the concept of rights. These are the true legacy that we can pass on to future generations and to a changing world.
Unity, Church, and the Seamless Garment
18/01/11 10:30 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching
In yesterday’s post, I reflected on Martin Luther King jr.’s last speech reminding us that we need unity if we are to fight oppression. I want to extend that reflection today to address a specifically Catholic/Christian issue: the right to life.
In the United States, and elsewhere, abortion has become a dominant issue for the Catholic Church energizing the laity in a way few other things can. Rightly, it should energize the laity, and rightly, the Church has reversed a centuries long teaching to condemn abortion. What we know about the first stages of human life is simple: the zygote is created from a sperm and egg. The difference: the sperm and the egg each have 23 chromosomes (usually), but the zygote has 46 (usually) -- the full compliment of human DNA. The human zygote is not just human effluvia, but a full-fledged human being, and we are committed to protecting life.
What has happened, however, is that the Church has become polarized between a Right To Life contingent and a Social Justice contingent. Pro-life groups will elevate abortion to special status or become single-issue voters and ignore other issues of social justice. Social Justice groups can tend to become single-issue voters as well, though I’ve met fewer single-issue voters among that group.
Yet, Church teaching is not so polarized. Instead, in the words of Cardinal Barnardine, Catholic teaching about abortion and jobs is a seamless garment. We cannot ignore issues of unemployment, health care, and environment to focus on abortion not can we ignore the links between abortion and the root causes of unemployment, health care, and the environment.
Take for instance the underlying ideology of our culture: commodity fetishism. We have divorced ourselves from our labor and see in it only a commodity to be exchanged on the open market. Yet, our labor is to a great extent ourselves, so that, when we make of it a commodity, we make of ourselves a commodity. Once we’ve reduced human beings to commodities, there is no problem in seeing zygotes/embryos/fetuses as commodities -- that is, as things.
My point is simple: if we are to end abortion, we must also end the oppression that comes with our dominant way of living in this modern world. We must clothe ourselves in a seamless garment of respect for life which means, not only respect for the unborn, but respect for the old and dying, for the criminal, respect for jobs which are part of human life, respect for the health of our fellow human beings, for what is life without health, and respect for the environment, which is necessary for life. We should not be polarized. We should be united.
And if you want more: consider who has the most abortions: the poor who cannot afford children because they have no jobs and no health care.
In the United States, and elsewhere, abortion has become a dominant issue for the Catholic Church energizing the laity in a way few other things can. Rightly, it should energize the laity, and rightly, the Church has reversed a centuries long teaching to condemn abortion. What we know about the first stages of human life is simple: the zygote is created from a sperm and egg. The difference: the sperm and the egg each have 23 chromosomes (usually), but the zygote has 46 (usually) -- the full compliment of human DNA. The human zygote is not just human effluvia, but a full-fledged human being, and we are committed to protecting life.
What has happened, however, is that the Church has become polarized between a Right To Life contingent and a Social Justice contingent. Pro-life groups will elevate abortion to special status or become single-issue voters and ignore other issues of social justice. Social Justice groups can tend to become single-issue voters as well, though I’ve met fewer single-issue voters among that group.
Yet, Church teaching is not so polarized. Instead, in the words of Cardinal Barnardine, Catholic teaching about abortion and jobs is a seamless garment. We cannot ignore issues of unemployment, health care, and environment to focus on abortion not can we ignore the links between abortion and the root causes of unemployment, health care, and the environment.
Take for instance the underlying ideology of our culture: commodity fetishism. We have divorced ourselves from our labor and see in it only a commodity to be exchanged on the open market. Yet, our labor is to a great extent ourselves, so that, when we make of it a commodity, we make of ourselves a commodity. Once we’ve reduced human beings to commodities, there is no problem in seeing zygotes/embryos/fetuses as commodities -- that is, as things.
My point is simple: if we are to end abortion, we must also end the oppression that comes with our dominant way of living in this modern world. We must clothe ourselves in a seamless garment of respect for life which means, not only respect for the unborn, but respect for the old and dying, for the criminal, respect for jobs which are part of human life, respect for the health of our fellow human beings, for what is life without health, and respect for the environment, which is necessary for life. We should not be polarized. We should be united.
And if you want more: consider who has the most abortions: the poor who cannot afford children because they have no jobs and no health care.
Unite
17/01/11 11:42 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching | social justice
On the day before he died, Martin Luther King jr. said
“Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery.”
I could stop there and let MLK’s words stand for themselves. I think, however, we can reflect on them even more. He is, of course, talking in part about racism. Racism divides person from person almost more than anything. King, however, was talking about more than racism. He was also talking about class. King worked for Civil Rights, but he also worked for economic justice and an end of war. And, of course, class dissolves human unity quite easily. Marx saw this: he wanted class conflict to be overcome. This point is often missed by the popes in their letters on Catholic Social Teaching. They write that communism divides people into classes and see a class warfare. That is not what Marx did. He saw the class warfare and said that the end of civilization would occur through overcoming class warfare.
This message is a Christian message, and it is a good one to reflect on as we celebrate the memory of MLK jr. and celebrate civil rights in our country. For more continues to divide us today.
We still suffer racism: just ask the African-American who does not get an interview because of his name or the Native American who cannot live on his traditional hunting grounds because the US government has not closed the uranium mines.
We suffer classicism: just ask the out of work woman who reads about the plutocrats who are raking in millions, even billions, while the rest of us stagnate.
We suffer sexism: ask the woman who is afraid to go to the police about her husband’s abuse.
We suffer religious discrimination: ask the Muslim whose mosque was threatened.
We suffer, most of all, political division: ask Christina Greene. Or ask Mitch McConnel who stated goal is the singular task of taking down Barack Obama.
Divisions prevent us from recognizing what we have in common as human persons. Divisions prevent us from recognizing a common good that we can pursue as a community of equals committed to each other’s welfare. Divisions prevent us from seeking economic justice for all for the liberty of a few.
We must seek unity if we are to move forward and find peace and a human life.
“Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we’ve got to stay together. We’ve got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh’s court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery.”
I could stop there and let MLK’s words stand for themselves. I think, however, we can reflect on them even more. He is, of course, talking in part about racism. Racism divides person from person almost more than anything. King, however, was talking about more than racism. He was also talking about class. King worked for Civil Rights, but he also worked for economic justice and an end of war. And, of course, class dissolves human unity quite easily. Marx saw this: he wanted class conflict to be overcome. This point is often missed by the popes in their letters on Catholic Social Teaching. They write that communism divides people into classes and see a class warfare. That is not what Marx did. He saw the class warfare and said that the end of civilization would occur through overcoming class warfare.
This message is a Christian message, and it is a good one to reflect on as we celebrate the memory of MLK jr. and celebrate civil rights in our country. For more continues to divide us today.
We still suffer racism: just ask the African-American who does not get an interview because of his name or the Native American who cannot live on his traditional hunting grounds because the US government has not closed the uranium mines.
We suffer classicism: just ask the out of work woman who reads about the plutocrats who are raking in millions, even billions, while the rest of us stagnate.
We suffer sexism: ask the woman who is afraid to go to the police about her husband’s abuse.
We suffer religious discrimination: ask the Muslim whose mosque was threatened.
We suffer, most of all, political division: ask Christina Greene. Or ask Mitch McConnel who stated goal is the singular task of taking down Barack Obama.
Divisions prevent us from recognizing what we have in common as human persons. Divisions prevent us from recognizing a common good that we can pursue as a community of equals committed to each other’s welfare. Divisions prevent us from seeking economic justice for all for the liberty of a few.
We must seek unity if we are to move forward and find peace and a human life.
Evolution and Rape: Women's Defense
14/01/11 10:27 Filed in: Human Nature
I’m not sure what to think about this article by Jesse Bering. Bering is an evolutionary psychologist at Queen’s University Belfast.
I suppose the first thing that struck me is the use of the word rape. The article deals with “scientifically verified” evidence that women have evolved to protect themselves against rape. Bering quickly dismisses the idea that science leads to moral justification of rape, because that conclusion relies on the naturalistic fallacy. Women, it seems, are stronger during ovulation, are more cautious in where they go, are more distrusting of men, oh, and on top of it all, are more racist.
Underlying this notion, however, is the idea that rape involves reproduction. This belief has been discounted over and over again: rape is about power, not reproduction. Men rape women to show they have power over them. This is why men rape older women who can no longer reproduce, or rape women who they then kill.
Further, the idea that women evolved to be more cautious about going out or letting men back into their apartments does not seem to me to be able to hold water. Evolution does not work over short periods, and women have only been able to do many of the “unsafe” things in the last few hundred years.
Moreover, the idea that women classify some things as safe or unsafe must have cultural context. Who defines what is safe or unsafe for women? This “scientific” research seems loaded with cultural and personal values that are purely sexist.
I’m sure we will hear much more about this in the future. What we should pay attention to is the underlying politically and culturally conservative agenda that much evolutionary biology supports. While Bering quickly dismisses the idea that showing men have evolved to rape and women have evolved to defend themselves against rape, his dismissal seem hollow. If claims like this were made in a court as “scientific” we know exactly what the result would be: the rapist would get off because he obeyed an evolutionary instinct and the woman failed to obey hers.
Bering also insists on his innocence because the evidence comes from a gay man who “wouldn't know what to do with an ovulating woman if she came with instructions.” This form of argument is the reverse of the ad hominem. Just because one is gay does not mean that one cannot be misogynist. Or simply mistaken about biology, politics, and ethics.
Or, as most evolutionary biologists are, wrong about human nature.
I suppose the first thing that struck me is the use of the word rape. The article deals with “scientifically verified” evidence that women have evolved to protect themselves against rape. Bering quickly dismisses the idea that science leads to moral justification of rape, because that conclusion relies on the naturalistic fallacy. Women, it seems, are stronger during ovulation, are more cautious in where they go, are more distrusting of men, oh, and on top of it all, are more racist.
Underlying this notion, however, is the idea that rape involves reproduction. This belief has been discounted over and over again: rape is about power, not reproduction. Men rape women to show they have power over them. This is why men rape older women who can no longer reproduce, or rape women who they then kill.
Further, the idea that women evolved to be more cautious about going out or letting men back into their apartments does not seem to me to be able to hold water. Evolution does not work over short periods, and women have only been able to do many of the “unsafe” things in the last few hundred years.
Moreover, the idea that women classify some things as safe or unsafe must have cultural context. Who defines what is safe or unsafe for women? This “scientific” research seems loaded with cultural and personal values that are purely sexist.
I’m sure we will hear much more about this in the future. What we should pay attention to is the underlying politically and culturally conservative agenda that much evolutionary biology supports. While Bering quickly dismisses the idea that showing men have evolved to rape and women have evolved to defend themselves against rape, his dismissal seem hollow. If claims like this were made in a court as “scientific” we know exactly what the result would be: the rapist would get off because he obeyed an evolutionary instinct and the woman failed to obey hers.
Bering also insists on his innocence because the evidence comes from a gay man who “wouldn't know what to do with an ovulating woman if she came with instructions.” This form of argument is the reverse of the ad hominem. Just because one is gay does not mean that one cannot be misogynist. Or simply mistaken about biology, politics, and ethics.
Or, as most evolutionary biologists are, wrong about human nature.
Christina Green
13/01/11 13:55 Filed in: social justice
How Capitalism Works
13/01/11 12:33 Filed in: Catholic Social Teaching
“It is the essence of capitalism that it makes the worker, and what happens to the worker as a result of the system, occur as a result of large scale forces, large-scale working of the system, which immediate action in the immediate environment cannot touch.” Alasdair MacIntyre, 1962
I’ve spoken to friends and family, and even strangers in the coffee shop, and they’ve told me how the system has given them a lower wage, or how the system means that jobs get lost, etc. It’s always the system. And, of course, if it is the system, then there’s nothing we can do about it. The system is something out there. Certainly it is not under my control, and most likely it’s not under anyone’s control. It operates independently of human free will.
This holds true, not only for capitalism, but for politics too, which, in the United States and most western “democracies” is only the slave of capitalism. When Ross Perot ran for president of the US back in 1992, I talked to a lot of people who told me the same story: “I’d vote for Ross Perot if I thought he could win.” But, of course, he can’t win because he’s not part of the system. We have a two-party system, and Ross Perot is outside the system. And we have no control over the system.
This is failed politics; it’s failed human nature; and it’s failed sociology.
Capitalism is a human institution, which means that it is subject to human will. Politics is a human institution, which means it is subject to human will.
The question for us is whether we shall allow ourselves to be human.
I’ve spoken to friends and family, and even strangers in the coffee shop, and they’ve told me how the system has given them a lower wage, or how the system means that jobs get lost, etc. It’s always the system. And, of course, if it is the system, then there’s nothing we can do about it. The system is something out there. Certainly it is not under my control, and most likely it’s not under anyone’s control. It operates independently of human free will.
This holds true, not only for capitalism, but for politics too, which, in the United States and most western “democracies” is only the slave of capitalism. When Ross Perot ran for president of the US back in 1992, I talked to a lot of people who told me the same story: “I’d vote for Ross Perot if I thought he could win.” But, of course, he can’t win because he’s not part of the system. We have a two-party system, and Ross Perot is outside the system. And we have no control over the system.
This is failed politics; it’s failed human nature; and it’s failed sociology.
Capitalism is a human institution, which means that it is subject to human will. Politics is a human institution, which means it is subject to human will.
The question for us is whether we shall allow ourselves to be human.
More Rhetoric over Shooting
12/01/11 10:34 Filed in: social justice
More and more is being written about the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others, because of Sarah Palin’s video concerning the rhetoric of the blame game. The most interesting piece is by the fact checkers found here. I’ve noticed several interesting points in the discussion.
First, most of the commentators have had some sympathy for Palin. They admit that she has a good point to make: that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
The problem is, Palin herself has ratcheted up the rhetoric with the ill-chosen use of the term “blood libel.” As each of the articles cited above will tell you, the term “blood libel” refers to the belief that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make their bread. Fact checker points out that Palin is not the first to use the term in the reaction to the shooting nor in the modern era of politics. Her use, however, is more prominent as she is -- for better or worse -- a more prominent person. Moreover, Palin is not Jewish and has referred to the States - rightly or wrongly -- as a Christian nation, while Giffords, who was shot, is Jewish. Whether others had used the term before or not, Palin should not have given the fact of the religious affiliations of those involved.
Second, I want to bring everyone’s attention to the quote that Palin lifts from Reagan. "President Reagan said, 'We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.'"
This point takes me back to the discussion yesterday on motivation. When we refuse to look at how society impacts motivation, we miss out on understanding who we are, how we act, and how we can change society to better ourselves. Certainly individuals bear the burden of blame when it comes to personal actions, but this fact does not exonerate society or culture from bearing some of the blame. A society which celebrates violence is partly responsible for the violence individuals cause. Just as a society that celebrates peace and love is partly responsible for the good someone does.
If this were not so, then we would not blame the culture of the Catholic Church for the recent sex abuse scandal. But we do.
Of course, what underlies Palin’s and Reagan’s claim is the rampant individualism I’ve discussed elsewhere in this blog. That celebration of individualism is itself partly responsible for the break down of the family and the high divorce rate as well as the current economic situation we find ourselves in. But that is a different topic.
First, most of the commentators have had some sympathy for Palin. They admit that she has a good point to make: that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
The problem is, Palin herself has ratcheted up the rhetoric with the ill-chosen use of the term “blood libel.” As each of the articles cited above will tell you, the term “blood libel” refers to the belief that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make their bread. Fact checker points out that Palin is not the first to use the term in the reaction to the shooting nor in the modern era of politics. Her use, however, is more prominent as she is -- for better or worse -- a more prominent person. Moreover, Palin is not Jewish and has referred to the States - rightly or wrongly -- as a Christian nation, while Giffords, who was shot, is Jewish. Whether others had used the term before or not, Palin should not have given the fact of the religious affiliations of those involved.
Second, I want to bring everyone’s attention to the quote that Palin lifts from Reagan. "President Reagan said, 'We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.'"
This point takes me back to the discussion yesterday on motivation. When we refuse to look at how society impacts motivation, we miss out on understanding who we are, how we act, and how we can change society to better ourselves. Certainly individuals bear the burden of blame when it comes to personal actions, but this fact does not exonerate society or culture from bearing some of the blame. A society which celebrates violence is partly responsible for the violence individuals cause. Just as a society that celebrates peace and love is partly responsible for the good someone does.
If this were not so, then we would not blame the culture of the Catholic Church for the recent sex abuse scandal. But we do.
Of course, what underlies Palin’s and Reagan’s claim is the rampant individualism I’ve discussed elsewhere in this blog. That celebration of individualism is itself partly responsible for the break down of the family and the high divorce rate as well as the current economic situation we find ourselves in. But that is a different topic.
Giffords' Shooting and Politics
11/01/11 11:24 Filed in: social justice | Human Nature
Much has already been written about the shooting in Arizona of Gabrielle Giffords and many others. I think, however, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has one of the more interesting and thoughtful pieces on this incident. Stewart, like the rest of us, I imagine, is disheartened. He is also thoughtful. One thing he points out, and I think he is correct, is that trying to find one direct line of cause from something Sarah Palin said or from some violent video game to Jared Loughner’s shooting spree is pointless. It cannot be done.
Human motivation, and this is what is at the center of this subject, is much too complex to pick out one cause and effect line for any event. We often ask, why do two people who were abused when they were younger end up being different -- one turning into an abuser and the other not? These sorts of questions rest on the premise that Stewart is questioning: that one cause leads to one effect or, more appropriately, one effect has one and only one cause.
My friend, Grant, pointed this out when he wrote, “Every time there's a shooting the left says ban guns & rhetoric & the right says ban video games & be less permissive. Yet there are more permissive 1st World countries with more guns per capita & the same games & divisions. Maybe we need to dig a little deeper?” Every time we try to find some concrete evidence for how something causes some other thing, we look for a direct cause. Perhaps we need to think more clearly about this and look more deeply. We are trying to use the methods of math and science and apply them to society and human action. This approach cannot work. It is an approach that is more and more accepted in our country and trumpeted by people working in evolutionary psychology who try to link human aggression to what human life was like 10,000 years ago in the Serengeti.
This fact is why it is wrong for political parties -- and the Left and the Right are both doing this -- are trying to lay the blame of the shooting at each other’s feet. Political parties are still playing politics in the face of this tragedy partly because, I suspect, they can’t help themselves and partly because of this underlying belief that every event has one and only one cause, when human motivation is much more complex. This point is why we need a much better account of human nature than has hitherto been provided.
We have to think more broadly, as well. Why there so many gun crimes and murders in the United States? We can see something about our culture, here. Something that might clue us in about why Loughner went on a shooting spree, how he was able to purchase a gun when he was known to be mentally unstable, and why he went after this particular group of people. But there won’t be an easy answer here.
And one thing that we -- you and I -- have to do is something that the political rhetoric refuses to do and won’t allow us to do -- question who and what we are as a society.
Human motivation, and this is what is at the center of this subject, is much too complex to pick out one cause and effect line for any event. We often ask, why do two people who were abused when they were younger end up being different -- one turning into an abuser and the other not? These sorts of questions rest on the premise that Stewart is questioning: that one cause leads to one effect or, more appropriately, one effect has one and only one cause.
My friend, Grant, pointed this out when he wrote, “Every time there's a shooting the left says ban guns & rhetoric & the right says ban video games & be less permissive. Yet there are more permissive 1st World countries with more guns per capita & the same games & divisions. Maybe we need to dig a little deeper?” Every time we try to find some concrete evidence for how something causes some other thing, we look for a direct cause. Perhaps we need to think more clearly about this and look more deeply. We are trying to use the methods of math and science and apply them to society and human action. This approach cannot work. It is an approach that is more and more accepted in our country and trumpeted by people working in evolutionary psychology who try to link human aggression to what human life was like 10,000 years ago in the Serengeti.
This fact is why it is wrong for political parties -- and the Left and the Right are both doing this -- are trying to lay the blame of the shooting at each other’s feet. Political parties are still playing politics in the face of this tragedy partly because, I suspect, they can’t help themselves and partly because of this underlying belief that every event has one and only one cause, when human motivation is much more complex. This point is why we need a much better account of human nature than has hitherto been provided.
We have to think more broadly, as well. Why there so many gun crimes and murders in the United States? We can see something about our culture, here. Something that might clue us in about why Loughner went on a shooting spree, how he was able to purchase a gun when he was known to be mentally unstable, and why he went after this particular group of people. But there won’t be an easy answer here.
And one thing that we -- you and I -- have to do is something that the political rhetoric refuses to do and won’t allow us to do -- question who and what we are as a society.
True Grit
10/01/11 14:17 Filed in: Popular Culture | social justice
I took the opportunity to watch the Coen brothers’ version of True Grit yesterday. I think I remember seeing the John Wayne version way back when, but I don’t remember much about it. I did, however, read the book by Portis before seeing the latest movie.
Stanley Fish has also commented on the recent installment. He concludes that True Grit is a religious movie. Religion in this movie I “is everything, not despite but because of its refusal to resolve or soften the dilemmas the narrative delivers up.” That dilemma, according to Fish, is that Grace is given freely -- arbitrarily -- by God regardless of whether one is good or bad in life. Mattie our heroine, for instance, loses her arm and lives as a spinster after avenging her father’s death. Fish does not consider, as one commentator on his blog points out, that “Justice is mine saith the Lord,” which could mean that Mattie is bad, just as bad maybe, as Ned Pepper or Tom Chaney, who killed her father. And, I think it is quite clear throughout the novel and the movie that Rooster Cogburn is no saint.
Fish’s conclusion hinges on his interpretation of a particular sentence that the book and movie share. Fish writes
“The springs of that universe are revealed to us by the narrator-heroine Mattie in words that appear both in Charles Portis’s novel and the two films, but with a difference. The words the book and films share are these: “You must pay for everything in this world one way and another. There is nothing free with the exception of God’s grace.” These two sentences suggest a world in which everything comes around, if not sooner then later. The accounting is strict; nothing is free, except the grace of God. But free can bear two readings — distributed freely, just come and pick it up; or distributed in a way that exhibits no discernible pattern. In one reading grace is given to anyone and everyone; in the other it is given only to those whom God chooses for reasons that remain mysterious.”
Fish sees two ways of understanding how “grace” is free: either one can go up to the lunch line and get it or God gives it to whomever God wants regardless of whether the person deserves it or not. Because Mattie’s world is so hard, and things just happen to good people and bad people, Fish concludes that grace is given indiscriminately by God to whomever God chooses. In many ways, this interpretation is quite Augustinian. Augustine makes it quite clear that if God must give grace to those who deserve and cannot give grace to those who do not deserve it, then we violate the Divine Will. God’s Will cannot be bound by our logic. God gives grace to whom God deems to give it to, good or bad. In this sense, the Coen film and the Portis novel are, not only religious, but Augustinian and protestant.
Yet, I would suggest that a third way presents itself for understand freely. Perhaps we don’t go to the lunch line to pick up grace if we want, and God does not give it to just anyone. Perhaps God gives grace to everyone at judgment day. Portis’ novel clearly depicts the harshness of life and the insight that we know from the Book of Job that the good often suffer and the bad often are rewarded. Yet, grace need not be given in this life, which is what I think the novel truly depicts. Grace is free, but everything else you have to pay for.
Of course, we know that isn’t true either. But perhaps rethinking our conception of grace might help us accept that fact of the present world.
Stanley Fish has also commented on the recent installment. He concludes that True Grit is a religious movie. Religion in this movie I “is everything, not despite but because of its refusal to resolve or soften the dilemmas the narrative delivers up.” That dilemma, according to Fish, is that Grace is given freely -- arbitrarily -- by God regardless of whether one is good or bad in life. Mattie our heroine, for instance, loses her arm and lives as a spinster after avenging her father’s death. Fish does not consider, as one commentator on his blog points out, that “Justice is mine saith the Lord,” which could mean that Mattie is bad, just as bad maybe, as Ned Pepper or Tom Chaney, who killed her father. And, I think it is quite clear throughout the novel and the movie that Rooster Cogburn is no saint.
Fish’s conclusion hinges on his interpretation of a particular sentence that the book and movie share. Fish writes
“The springs of that universe are revealed to us by the narrator-heroine Mattie in words that appear both in Charles Portis’s novel and the two films, but with a difference. The words the book and films share are these: “You must pay for everything in this world one way and another. There is nothing free with the exception of God’s grace.” These two sentences suggest a world in which everything comes around, if not sooner then later. The accounting is strict; nothing is free, except the grace of God. But free can bear two readings — distributed freely, just come and pick it up; or distributed in a way that exhibits no discernible pattern. In one reading grace is given to anyone and everyone; in the other it is given only to those whom God chooses for reasons that remain mysterious.”
Fish sees two ways of understanding how “grace” is free: either one can go up to the lunch line and get it or God gives it to whomever God wants regardless of whether the person deserves it or not. Because Mattie’s world is so hard, and things just happen to good people and bad people, Fish concludes that grace is given indiscriminately by God to whomever God chooses. In many ways, this interpretation is quite Augustinian. Augustine makes it quite clear that if God must give grace to those who deserve and cannot give grace to those who do not deserve it, then we violate the Divine Will. God’s Will cannot be bound by our logic. God gives grace to whom God deems to give it to, good or bad. In this sense, the Coen film and the Portis novel are, not only religious, but Augustinian and protestant.
Yet, I would suggest that a third way presents itself for understand freely. Perhaps we don’t go to the lunch line to pick up grace if we want, and God does not give it to just anyone. Perhaps God gives grace to everyone at judgment day. Portis’ novel clearly depicts the harshness of life and the insight that we know from the Book of Job that the good often suffer and the bad often are rewarded. Yet, grace need not be given in this life, which is what I think the novel truly depicts. Grace is free, but everything else you have to pay for.
Of course, we know that isn’t true either. But perhaps rethinking our conception of grace might help us accept that fact of the present world.
Prayer for Giffords
08/01/11 21:24 Filed in: social justice
I just wanted to take a moment to offer a prayer for Congresswoman Giffords. I also want to offer a prayer for politics and politicians in America. May we find some way to work together for the common good.
Careful of Deistic Proofs
07/01/11 10:43 Filed in: Human Nature
A recent Colbert Report episode demonstrated why is so difficult for religious, even - or maybe especially - the pope, to talk about science. I found it amusing, as I am sure you will too, to watch Bill O’Reilly argue that he could not explain how tides come in and go out or how the sun “comes up and goes down.” As Colbert elegantly says, O’Reilly knows God exists because he can’t explain things.
If we Christians insist on trying to use God to explain the mechanical workings of things we will lose the debate and we will misunderstand God, ourselves, and nature. God is the cause of nature, but that does not make Him the efficient cause of everything in nature, except in the way I explained in a previous post on the big bang.
I also want to point out that proofs for God’s existence are generally inductive. The only deductive argument I know of is the Ontological Argument in its various formulations. As Thomas says, however, we cannot grasp the idea of God, so the Ontological Argument does not work for us. The proofs Thomas gives us are all inductive: which means that they lead to the conclusion that God exists but they do not demonstrate the way mathematics proofs demonstrate a conclusion. Inductive arguments are never definitive.
This point proves important if you are familiar with Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In there, Dawkins recounts Thomas’ proofs and says that Thomas asserted he proved God’s existence deductively, then Dawkins goes on to how that they are inductive arguments that prove nothing. First, as I’ve already said, Thomas admits that they are inductive arguments. Second, inductive arguments to prove conclusions. If they did not, we would know no science and we would never be able to convict someone of a crime.
In short, proof does not come in one flavor, and philosophers, theologians, and news pundits should be more careful when they argue for God’s existence or for anything else.
If we Christians insist on trying to use God to explain the mechanical workings of things we will lose the debate and we will misunderstand God, ourselves, and nature. God is the cause of nature, but that does not make Him the efficient cause of everything in nature, except in the way I explained in a previous post on the big bang.
I also want to point out that proofs for God’s existence are generally inductive. The only deductive argument I know of is the Ontological Argument in its various formulations. As Thomas says, however, we cannot grasp the idea of God, so the Ontological Argument does not work for us. The proofs Thomas gives us are all inductive: which means that they lead to the conclusion that God exists but they do not demonstrate the way mathematics proofs demonstrate a conclusion. Inductive arguments are never definitive.
This point proves important if you are familiar with Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In there, Dawkins recounts Thomas’ proofs and says that Thomas asserted he proved God’s existence deductively, then Dawkins goes on to how that they are inductive arguments that prove nothing. First, as I’ve already said, Thomas admits that they are inductive arguments. Second, inductive arguments to prove conclusions. If they did not, we would know no science and we would never be able to convict someone of a crime.
In short, proof does not come in one flavor, and philosophers, theologians, and news pundits should be more careful when they argue for God’s existence or for anything else.
Government Attack on Unions
06/01/11 15:00 Filed in: social justice
A recent broadcast on labor unions discussed many points about the weakening of private sector labor unions, the squeeze government has placed on public sector labor unions, and the way that labor unions have been stolen from for years, and so now people do not want their taxes paid to subsidize labor union pensions for public sector employees -- firemen, teachers, police. Many governors are either attacking the very idea of labor unions -- suggesting legislation that either does not allow public sector employees to unionize or legislation which would prevent unions from requiring dues -- or by attacking traditional ways in which labor unions work -- for example, cutting pensions or demanding pay freezes.
The broadcast really brought out, however, that the attack by the government on labor unions supports the corporate attack on labor unions. The corporate world has really undermined private sector labor unions over the last 40 years, to where now only 7% of private sector employees belong to labor unions. When I first discovered this fact, I was amazed, because I’d heard so much about how labor unions control the world and how they make such demands on corporations. In fact, however, it is the corporations that have exercised control over unions and, thereby, also over non-unionized labor. Michael Zweig rightly claims then that “the attack on anything having to do with worker rights is now focused on public sector unions.”
Of course, the claim that government cannot pay what is due to labor unions is false. It can pay, but the people that we elect -- yes, so we are responsible for their decisions -- have other priorities, including funding a war, funding tax breaks for large corporations and rich people, and keeping themselves in office by raising corporate dollars to spend on elections.
We have to stand up for unions, stand up against the corporations, and stand up and demand that our elected officials represent us, not the corporations, or at least not the corporations at our expense.
The broadcast really brought out, however, that the attack by the government on labor unions supports the corporate attack on labor unions. The corporate world has really undermined private sector labor unions over the last 40 years, to where now only 7% of private sector employees belong to labor unions. When I first discovered this fact, I was amazed, because I’d heard so much about how labor unions control the world and how they make such demands on corporations. In fact, however, it is the corporations that have exercised control over unions and, thereby, also over non-unionized labor. Michael Zweig rightly claims then that “the attack on anything having to do with worker rights is now focused on public sector unions.”
Of course, the claim that government cannot pay what is due to labor unions is false. It can pay, but the people that we elect -- yes, so we are responsible for their decisions -- have other priorities, including funding a war, funding tax breaks for large corporations and rich people, and keeping themselves in office by raising corporate dollars to spend on elections.
We have to stand up for unions, stand up against the corporations, and stand up and demand that our elected officials represent us, not the corporations, or at least not the corporations at our expense.
God's Big Bang
06/01/11 11:39 Filed in: Human Nature
A lot of people have begun commenting on Benedict XVI’s claim about God being behind the Big Bang.
First, it should be clear that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution since the 60’s. One of the key texts on this was written much later, with John Paul II’s “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth.” In this article, JP II repeated the Thomistic claim that truth from different areas -- especially science/natural philosophy and religion -- cannot contradict each other. They have to be reconciled in some way. Thus, Genesis, as we now know, does not tell the literal story of creation, but explains the meaning of creation. All Catholics must accept evolution as true or risk becoming irrational -- that is, not Catholic.
Second, how we explain God’s action in history must adhere to our understanding of God as unchanging. God is creator. Being a creator means that all of creation depends on God for its existence. Without God, there would be nothing. That truth, however, tells us nothing about “how” God created the universe. It would be mistaken to think of creation as a particular event. Creation is an unfolding of God’s creative power -- it is a sustaining act. Thus, Benedict is right to claim that "In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth.” Creation points to God -- in its beauty, design, and very existence.
This point, however, means that the watchmaker argument isn’t quite right. The watchmaker argument works by analogy. If you were to be walking in the desert and found a watch, its complexity would make you think that someone had created it. Things just don’t fall together randomly in such an organized fashion. On the one hand, this argument proves sensible: if we see the complexity of the universe as a whole, it’s more intelligible to think that it came together from some intelligence rather than randomly. However, we must resist the idea that because things in the world that are complex are created by an intelligence, then the universe as a whole must be created by an intelligence. This way of argument is known as the fallacy of composition. Just because every brick in a wall is six inches by four inches by three inches does not mean that the wall itself is six inches by four inches by three inches.
What we confront when we look at creation with the eyes of science - that is, with the eyes of a mind questioning the order and workings of all that there is -- is a fact that raises the question: why is there anything at all? Science cannot answer this question. Religion can. But neither should contradict the other. They should support each other in humanity’s quest for meaning.
First, it should be clear that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution since the 60’s. One of the key texts on this was written much later, with John Paul II’s “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth.” In this article, JP II repeated the Thomistic claim that truth from different areas -- especially science/natural philosophy and religion -- cannot contradict each other. They have to be reconciled in some way. Thus, Genesis, as we now know, does not tell the literal story of creation, but explains the meaning of creation. All Catholics must accept evolution as true or risk becoming irrational -- that is, not Catholic.
Second, how we explain God’s action in history must adhere to our understanding of God as unchanging. God is creator. Being a creator means that all of creation depends on God for its existence. Without God, there would be nothing. That truth, however, tells us nothing about “how” God created the universe. It would be mistaken to think of creation as a particular event. Creation is an unfolding of God’s creative power -- it is a sustaining act. Thus, Benedict is right to claim that "In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth.” Creation points to God -- in its beauty, design, and very existence.
This point, however, means that the watchmaker argument isn’t quite right. The watchmaker argument works by analogy. If you were to be walking in the desert and found a watch, its complexity would make you think that someone had created it. Things just don’t fall together randomly in such an organized fashion. On the one hand, this argument proves sensible: if we see the complexity of the universe as a whole, it’s more intelligible to think that it came together from some intelligence rather than randomly. However, we must resist the idea that because things in the world that are complex are created by an intelligence, then the universe as a whole must be created by an intelligence. This way of argument is known as the fallacy of composition. Just because every brick in a wall is six inches by four inches by three inches does not mean that the wall itself is six inches by four inches by three inches.
What we confront when we look at creation with the eyes of science - that is, with the eyes of a mind questioning the order and workings of all that there is -- is a fact that raises the question: why is there anything at all? Science cannot answer this question. Religion can. But neither should contradict the other. They should support each other in humanity’s quest for meaning.
Meaning of Marriage
05/01/11 12:54 Filed in: social justice
Think out Loud held a discussion of the meaning of marriage today. I listened to part of the program which included interviews with Maggie Gallagher and Todd Simmons. Maggie did not marry her boyfriend who was the father of her first child, but is now married and works in Washington against gay marriage. Todd Simmons is a supporter of gay marriage, is “married” to another man, and they’ve adopted two children. Both came to the issue from different perspectives. Gallagher says that when she became pregnant in the later seventies, no one even suggested that she should marry the father of her child. Simmons grew up the son of a minister and hid his homosexuality until later in life. For Gallagher, it was her experience as a single mom that made her convinced that marriage is necessary for raising children. For Simmons, marriage arose organically from seeing how committed his husband is and the deep love he has for him.
Historically, marriage came about for many different reasons. Many marriages were, and even now in some countries still are, arranged to make political connections between families. Love had nothing to do with it. Even for people in common classes, love might have little to do with marriage. Today, of course, we think love is essential to marriage. Even the Catholic Church says that love must be the foundation of marriage for it symbolizes the love of Christ for his Church. Love, of course, can grow in relationships, even between people in an arranged marriage, just as love can fail in a relationship. Moreover, we know that, on average, children do much better in a household with a committed couple -- though if there is abuse, then the children and abused spouse are best removed from the situation.
How, then, should we think about the meaning of marriage given our history and given the current culture? What are we to understand by marriage?
I think it is clear that marriage -- however we define, whether as the ideological nuclear family of the contemporary period or the arranged marriages of Solomon, or something in the middle like marriage with the husband keeping concubines -- serves as the foundation of society. Marriage is a social institution that defines duties and responsibilities -- those of the couple to each other, of the couple to the children (and vice versa), and of the society to the couple.
If we look at that last aspect though, we can ask various questions. If marriage is meaningful for society, then why does not society address the many challenges that marriages face? We hear so much about how homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, but the institution of marriage has been under attack for far longer from other institutions in society.
In fact, it does not seem implausible to say that the greatest attack on the institution of marriage has been, not the recent possibility of homosexual marriage, but capitalism and the market economy in which we’ve lived over the last three hundred years. Homosexual relations did nothing to undermine the institution of marriage among the Golden Age Greeks of the third and fourth centuries BCE. Nor did homosexuality undermine the institution of marriage among the Lakota Sioux who were much more accepting of homosexuals than contemporary American society. An institution, however, that alienates individuals from themselves and from others can cause the breakdown of all social relationships, including, and perhaps especially, marriage.
If we truly value marriage, then, perhaps we should look at the real threats to it.
Historically, marriage came about for many different reasons. Many marriages were, and even now in some countries still are, arranged to make political connections between families. Love had nothing to do with it. Even for people in common classes, love might have little to do with marriage. Today, of course, we think love is essential to marriage. Even the Catholic Church says that love must be the foundation of marriage for it symbolizes the love of Christ for his Church. Love, of course, can grow in relationships, even between people in an arranged marriage, just as love can fail in a relationship. Moreover, we know that, on average, children do much better in a household with a committed couple -- though if there is abuse, then the children and abused spouse are best removed from the situation.
How, then, should we think about the meaning of marriage given our history and given the current culture? What are we to understand by marriage?
I think it is clear that marriage -- however we define, whether as the ideological nuclear family of the contemporary period or the arranged marriages of Solomon, or something in the middle like marriage with the husband keeping concubines -- serves as the foundation of society. Marriage is a social institution that defines duties and responsibilities -- those of the couple to each other, of the couple to the children (and vice versa), and of the society to the couple.
If we look at that last aspect though, we can ask various questions. If marriage is meaningful for society, then why does not society address the many challenges that marriages face? We hear so much about how homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, but the institution of marriage has been under attack for far longer from other institutions in society.
In fact, it does not seem implausible to say that the greatest attack on the institution of marriage has been, not the recent possibility of homosexual marriage, but capitalism and the market economy in which we’ve lived over the last three hundred years. Homosexual relations did nothing to undermine the institution of marriage among the Golden Age Greeks of the third and fourth centuries BCE. Nor did homosexuality undermine the institution of marriage among the Lakota Sioux who were much more accepting of homosexuals than contemporary American society. An institution, however, that alienates individuals from themselves and from others can cause the breakdown of all social relationships, including, and perhaps especially, marriage.
If we truly value marriage, then, perhaps we should look at the real threats to it.
Fragmented Manufacturing
04/01/11 12:37 Filed in: social justice
On Here and Now today, they interviewed a professor from MIT about bringing manufacturing jobs to the US. Listening to the interview proved interesting because of the way she explained current manufacturing in the US and her comparison between the US, which has lost manufacturing jobs, and Europe, which has kept good-paying manufacturing jobs.
One important piece for understanding manufacturing in the US, the professor contended, proves to be what I shall call fragmentation of the manufacturing process. Before, an item might be manufactured in a particular building or company that included a technician, a designer, and other people working on the same item. Now, however, businesses have focused on their core function, and one place will design an item and send it somewhere else for technical engineering, and send that somewhere else to be manufactured. In other words, businesses, like IBM, have concentrated on one task and other companies have taken over other tasks for manufacturing a particular item. The MIT professor said that US manufacturing has not learned how to manufacture products given the new business model.
This point, I think, raises the issue of alienation. Marx pointed out that a person becomes alienated from her work when she does not create the whole product. When part of the manufacturing is taken away from a worker, that worker loses control over the product being made. She has less vested in the item, including less of herself, and, thus, can tend to see the item as something out there opposed to her.
MacIntyre pointed out early on that this alienation prevents us from exercising our fully human capabilities. For him, this inability constitutes one of the core moral problems for a capitalistic system.
We should not easily dismiss these points because they arise out of a Marxist analysis. At issue here is how to have a humanizing economy and a humanizing “business” model. Such a humanizing economy rests on making work serve human needs rather than making human beings serve work needs. It might be time we begin to question this fragmented model of manufacturing and ask whether it serves truly human interests.
One important piece for understanding manufacturing in the US, the professor contended, proves to be what I shall call fragmentation of the manufacturing process. Before, an item might be manufactured in a particular building or company that included a technician, a designer, and other people working on the same item. Now, however, businesses have focused on their core function, and one place will design an item and send it somewhere else for technical engineering, and send that somewhere else to be manufactured. In other words, businesses, like IBM, have concentrated on one task and other companies have taken over other tasks for manufacturing a particular item. The MIT professor said that US manufacturing has not learned how to manufacture products given the new business model.
This point, I think, raises the issue of alienation. Marx pointed out that a person becomes alienated from her work when she does not create the whole product. When part of the manufacturing is taken away from a worker, that worker loses control over the product being made. She has less vested in the item, including less of herself, and, thus, can tend to see the item as something out there opposed to her.
MacIntyre pointed out early on that this alienation prevents us from exercising our fully human capabilities. For him, this inability constitutes one of the core moral problems for a capitalistic system.
We should not easily dismiss these points because they arise out of a Marxist analysis. At issue here is how to have a humanizing economy and a humanizing “business” model. Such a humanizing economy rests on making work serve human needs rather than making human beings serve work needs. It might be time we begin to question this fragmented model of manufacturing and ask whether it serves truly human interests.
Higher Ed and Jobs
03/01/11 13:51 Filed in: social justice | Education
On Think Out Loud today, the guests discussed plans to change funding for higher education in Oregon. The guest commented on a variety of interesting issues, including how legislators deal with funding higher education. It should be common knowledge by now that legislatures both in Oregon and across the United States, as well as throughout the industrialized world, have cut back on funding for the last 30 years, if not more. Rising tuition rates coincide with decreased government funding of “public” education. What was more surprising to me was the claim that, in Oregon, at least, legislatures have gone into the university funding system and removed tuition money to make up for depleted government resources. In other words, if the state government faces a financial short fall, they have been known to take the money that students have paid in tuition to make up for that shortfall.
This action violates any number of moral principles, and I would think should violate a number of legal principles, but, I take it, does not.
We are all going to have to decide what to do about higher education -- you and I, the tax payer and the people who rely on this education for our futures. We will have to open up our minds on how we think about this though. If we only focus on funding education -- getting the cheapest bang for the buck -- we are going to be selling ourselves and our society short. We are going to be selling our children and grandchildren short.
We have to discuss the purpose of education.
Unfortunately, the education we’ve been provided at the elementary, secondary, and higher education levels have been inadequate for preparing us to engage in the debates necessary for these discussions. We can tell this in part because educational funding does not begin with a discussion of the purpose of education for a free society. It begins with one and only one goal -- getting people to jobs.
Don’t get me wrong: getting a job is important for everyone. Each and every human being has a right by virtue of being a human being of work, work paid at a living salary to support themselves in their families in humane living conditions. Education and work, however, should not be tied together in the way that it is sold to us.
I say “sold” advisedly. When I lived in Kentucky, the government instituted the slogan “education pays.” When we cheapen education in this way, we are being sold a bill of goods, because education is not about getting a job. Anyone who has ever held a job knows this, because we know that you learn what you need on the job. What education must do is prepare us to enter any job we want so that we can learn in that situation, so that we can adjust to new and changing circumstances, and so that we can live in changing and challenging times.
So long as we continue to discuss funding education without looking at humanizing education, however, we shall never achieve those goals. We will only end up in the movie Idiocracy.
This action violates any number of moral principles, and I would think should violate a number of legal principles, but, I take it, does not.
We are all going to have to decide what to do about higher education -- you and I, the tax payer and the people who rely on this education for our futures. We will have to open up our minds on how we think about this though. If we only focus on funding education -- getting the cheapest bang for the buck -- we are going to be selling ourselves and our society short. We are going to be selling our children and grandchildren short.
We have to discuss the purpose of education.
Unfortunately, the education we’ve been provided at the elementary, secondary, and higher education levels have been inadequate for preparing us to engage in the debates necessary for these discussions. We can tell this in part because educational funding does not begin with a discussion of the purpose of education for a free society. It begins with one and only one goal -- getting people to jobs.
Don’t get me wrong: getting a job is important for everyone. Each and every human being has a right by virtue of being a human being of work, work paid at a living salary to support themselves in their families in humane living conditions. Education and work, however, should not be tied together in the way that it is sold to us.
I say “sold” advisedly. When I lived in Kentucky, the government instituted the slogan “education pays.” When we cheapen education in this way, we are being sold a bill of goods, because education is not about getting a job. Anyone who has ever held a job knows this, because we know that you learn what you need on the job. What education must do is prepare us to enter any job we want so that we can learn in that situation, so that we can adjust to new and changing circumstances, and so that we can live in changing and challenging times.
So long as we continue to discuss funding education without looking at humanizing education, however, we shall never achieve those goals. We will only end up in the movie Idiocracy.
Wishes for the New Year
01/01/11 21:42
What I wish for in the new year:
More peace, less war
More love, less hate
More being, less having
More listening, less talking
More weird and crazy, less following the crowd
More thinking, less reacting
More fulfillment, less starving
More warmth, less homelessness
More humanity, less inhumanity
I know it sounds sappy, but what do you want, really? The ability to take care of one’s family, having control over one’s life and job, living truly and faithfully to one’s self.
More peace, less war
More love, less hate
More being, less having
More listening, less talking
More weird and crazy, less following the crowd
More thinking, less reacting
More fulfillment, less starving
More warmth, less homelessness
More humanity, less inhumanity
I know it sounds sappy, but what do you want, really? The ability to take care of one’s family, having control over one’s life and job, living truly and faithfully to one’s self.