Expelling Women from Pastoral Duty

Latest news from the Baptists. At the 2023 Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in New Orleans a move is underway to expel almost 2000 women from pastoral functions in its churches. A general vote will take place this week.

Apparently, the right wing of the SBC wants to crack down on what it sees as a liberal shift in its membership. Ultraconservatives believe that women pastors are just the beginning of future acceptance of homosexuality and sexual immorality. The ultraconservative fraction of American evangelism has been melding with Republican politics for decades since President Reagan and Jerry Falwell.

Pastor Mike Law from Arlington Baptist Church in Arlington, Virginia, wrote a letter suggesting an amendment to the SBC constitution stating that a church could only be regarded as Southern Baptist if it “does not affirm, appoint or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.” The 111 page letter co-signed by 2000 male pastors and professors. Law cites 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9 in the Bible as backing up his assertion of the role of women in the church.

The language of these verses do not explicitly declare women as ineligible as an “overseer”, but they state that the overseer must be a “husband of only one wife“. The rest of the language goes on to list a number of personal qualities that an overseer must have.

I’m obviously not a Biblical scholar nor a believer in magic. Furthermore, this is a private matter among Baptists. Actually, it amuses me to watch them agonizing over how to polish the big brass knob on the doorway to their hoped for afterlife.

What I do care about is that this is a major setback for women in the 13 million member SBC organization. It imposes an inherent subordination on females based on the assertions of males who have appointed themselves in charge based on their literalist interpretations.

The text that they cite was written in a time when women were mere chattel who were deemed lesser than men. People get so wrapped up trying to do biblical things in biblical ways that they forget the core humane purpose of the church.

Worse than the unreasonable restraints on SBC women is how it will validate the woefully misguided instincts of the ultraorthodox Baptists as they spread into the greater population through politics. They want a theocratic state where people like themselves will rule under “biblical law”. They’re going to be disappointed.

Donny and Vlad

Yet another mournful lamentation on Putin and Trump.

Yesterday, 2/22/22, Trump had words of praise for Putin’s move into Ukraine with “peace keeping” forces. He used the word “savvy” in his praise of the tactic. This is in addition to his spoken admiration of Putin in past years. But he also said that if he were in office this wouldn’t have happened. Trump’s acolyte, Tucker Carlson, seems to be issuing forth the same kind of spew. So, what is Trump really saying?

During Trump’s term he proved to be cool on NATO and America’s place in it. So much so that he spooked EU countries. By most accounts, he had little if any recognizable foreign policy and left a great many important posts unfilled in the State Department. Foreign affairs just didn’t capture his interest. Yet, he says he could have prevented Putin’s invasion if he hadn’t been cheated out of the presidency. I guess the invasion is maybe the fault of Biden supporters.

I have come think of Trump as a wannabe despot who admires Putin the despot (and others) as one professional may admire the work of another. Putin as leader is accustomed to having considerable control of Russia. Trump was in control of numerous private companies and thus not accountable to public shareholders. Both characters are used to the exercise of unquestioned power. Maybe it’s not surprising that there is mutual admiration.

Will Trump followers be disappointed by his open admiration of Putin? It seems doubtful. His supporters have an evangelical zeal for the man. A great many of his followers are conservative evangelical Christians who believe that Trump’s appearance on the scene meshes with their end-times theology. His appearance is related to the beginning of the apocalypse of prophesy. These supporters believe that the man is here due to supernatural forces that must play out and cannot be dissuaded.

If this is your belief, then it must be comforting for you. For the rest of us, it is an incoherent and destructive kind of nonsense. How can it be that the same religion that preaches love and gave us the Beatitudes would also give us a leader the likes of the ethically disabled Trump. Somehow the creator of the universe, the one who set the galaxies spinning and knows the movements of every flea in the tail feathers of every sparrow, gave us a malignant narcissist like Trump. It is not a question shrouded in religious mystery. It is what it appears to be- absurd. Ambitious and destructive characters like Putin and Trump have appeared regularly throughout history. And through the lens of history we can make some good guesses as to what they can do. Both are threats to democratic civilization in their own way and must be contained.

As to the original question, what did Trump mean by his comments, I don’t know. He makes things up as he goes and lies profusely. I don’t think that even he knows what he means.

Witches in Church

Wow. This video has just appeared on the internets. Not only is Tennessee pastor Greg Locke off his rocker, but listen to the crowd clap and cheer. The pastor seems ready to confront the accused witches in the congregation with a stream of bile, angry accusations and promises of divine retribution. These people are our family and neighbors who have fallen for a charismatic leader spewing nonsense.

Civilization is a millimeter thick. It seems to have worn completely through to the bone in Tennessee.

Locke is just one example, granted. What is especially alarming, though, is the enthusiasm with which the congregation receives this information absent any evidence. They seem thirsty for a mystical experience and to witness divine intervention. The preacher-man is very persuasive and could possibly inspire someone to commit an act of violence. This kind of intellectual frailty is another example of why church and state should remain separate at all levels.

An organic chemist looks at evolution

I wrote this essay a few years ago but did not publish it. I don’t remember why. This is not written for evolutionary biologists. For better or worse, here it is.

On weekends I check in on C-SPAN 1 and 2 to see what folks are talking about. A couple of weekends ago on Earth Day there was a C-SPAN 1 broadcast of an April 19th, 2017, panel discussion on the ” March for Science and Threats to Science.” The segment was hosted by The Heritage Foundation and featured a number of well dressed folks who were quite authoritative and highly skilled in the rhetorical arts. Curious thing that the Heritage Foundation chose this topic to weigh in on.

The discussion followed various lines of conservative analysis of the 4/22/17 March for Science and touched on the New Atheism, Neo-Darwinism, with allusions to a supposed endemic misanthropy of some March for Science participants.

One of the panelists was a fellow named Stephen C. Meyer who is a senior Fellow and founder of the Discovery Institute. Meyer is a very articulate and persuasive proponent of creationism. His contribution to the discussion was a recitation of the pro-creationist argument on the weakness’s of Neo-Darwinism. The thrust of his argument centered on the disagreement among scientists meme in the field of biological evolution and how this delegitimizes the whole concept. This line of argument is a common (dare I say standard?) rhetorical trick used by creationists to cast doubt on the science of evolution.

Pro-creationist adherents have learned that they do not have to prove evolution is incorrect. They need only make a case for disagreement in the scientific community of its veracity or infer scientific misconduct. As a friend once quipped, they stir up a dust cloud and then complain because they can’t see anything.

Darwin and the story of the expedition of the HMS Beagle is a tale of 19th century discovery that is inspirational and iconic. Too often, however, Darwin’s writings on natural selection is not portrayed in the historical context relative to modern molecular biology. When I hear creationists discuss evolution, the discussion seems to remain with the work of Darwin. I would maintain that if Darwin and Lamarck had not developed their work on natural selection, modern molecular biologists would have had to postulate evolution themselves.

Public discussion of evolution in the limited context of Darwin is frequently burdened with misinterpretations and half-truths by adherents and deniers alike. It is not unusual for people to become confused by the use of imprecise language when discussing evolution-as-Darwinism. For instance, I’ve heard knowledgeable people assert “… the species evolved (such and so) in order to adapt …”. Well, yes and no. The species may well have over time evolved some adaptation. However, the words “… the species evolved …” may be misinterpreted by some as meaning that a species, when presented with some survival challenge, may have taken the chance to unsheath some mechanism to respond by rejiggering its genetics in a way that would lead to survival of subsequent generations. A more accurate description might be that fortuitous genetic mutations in the past have allowed the organism to survive challenges presented by a changing environment. There is a critical qualifier, however. The lucky mutation must be survivable and facilitate the continued reproduction of the critical trait to subsequent generations. Mutations occurring after the possibility of reproduction lead only to an evolutionary dead end.  Evolution is blind going forward. Descriptive language must be built around that concept.

Rather than consuming time and bandwidth reciting the history and elements of Darwinism, the reader is invited to pick this up elsewhere. Instead, I would like to throw an idea on the table. Perhaps writers and public figures should deemphasize Darwin’s work and emphasize the mutability of the genome.

If we consider that the large scale structural morphologies of organisms are an emergent phenomenon and arise as a result of molecular and cellular scale structures, then we can begin to see evolution much like a performing symphony orchestra is comprised of many instruments, each with characteristic effects. The overall effect is the sum total of all the contributing instruments. Evolution then becomes a matter of changing the score a bit here and there to produce variants. The notion of life as an emergent phenomenon is itself evolving to a high level of theory. See: Pier Luigi Luisi, The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology 2nd Edition, 2016, Cambridge University Press.

With 19th century Darwinian theory, we are limited to observing evidence of change at the macroscopic level but with no credible mechanism for the manner of change or a cause for initiating a change. Without a mechanism, plausibility is a tough sell to students, teachers, and the rest of the lay public. Darwinism is a tidy package with an appealing story. However, without mention of its mechanism it resembles magic. Evolution at the molecular scale can offer mechanisms and measurements. I would offer that Darwinism could be treated in a historical context, but a transition to the level of  molecules appropriate to the intended audience should happen. Evolution rests on the mutability of genes.

Another troublesome aspect of explaining evolution is the plausibility of random change leading to organisms of greater complexity. The notion that the human eye or hand is the result of random change is simply too incredible for non-sciency people to accept. For them, it is an intellectual cul-de-sac that, in parallel with their religion, only validates “creation implies creator”. To folks firmly affixed in concrete reasoning, the notion of non-living, disorganized matter somehow spontaneously organizing to form elaborate life forms is beyond comprehension. This argument is often brought up as a coup de grace against evolution. Randomness as a successful driver seems so implausible.

Perhaps Darwinism is better expressed as only an introduction to the story of  molecular evolution.

Standing in the way of a mature understanding of evolution is the plausibility of random change giving way to greater complexity. What exactly do we mean by random? Does random change imply an infinite range of categories of influence and outcome? What exactly is it that is random? This is difficult even for scientists, let alone the lay public. Let’s consider some relevant aspects of the world of the molecule.

Axiom 1: The initiation of life may be a quite different chemical mechanism from the reproduction of life.

The origin of life and the evolution of life are different processes. The physical conditions and available substances amenable to evolution necessarily diverge from those present when and where life arose.  Origins and subsequent evolution must be pulled apart into separate arguments for the sake of clarity.

Axiom 2: Evolution is a molecular phenomenon.

In order to have macroscopic change there must be microscopic change. The DNA molecule is well established as the repository of stable organizational information necessary for the construction and operation of living things. If change characteristics are to be passed along through successive generations, then DNA has to change accordingly. DNA is ordinary matter and subject to the constraints of chemistry and physics. A part of being subject to chemical change is the effect of adverse conditions to contend with in general (bio)chemical synthesis. Biochemistry is largely aqueous chemistry with all of the constraints and degrees of freedom that follow: Solubility, Gibbs free energy, transition states, polarity, acidity, concentration, catalysis, stability in an aqueous environment, reaction rates, stoichiometry, time, temperature, and reduction/oxidation potential.

All of the parameters listed above represent variables with their own range of values that must be in alignment in order for life to happen. Rather than be overwhelmed by them, they could be considered as a finite number of channels in which a limited range of inputs give rise to a limited range of outputs.

Axiom 3: Atoms and molecules must collide in order to react.

A generalization in chemistry is that atomic and molecular interactions require the components to collide at some range of favorable trajectories. The mobility necessary for atomic and molecular interactions to occur is available in fluids but not solids. If molecules are held in place in a bulk solid phase, then they don’t have the opportunity to bump into one another just right and interact. The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen. Water, H2O, is comprised of the most cosmically abundant element bonded to oxygen, the most abundant terrestrial heavy element.  A planet that has water with a climate and pressure amenable to the liquid phase is a planet that has a start on supporting life. Life is substantially a solution phase phenomenon.

Axiom 4: There is a menu of limitations in the behavior of molecules.

1. The set of atoms necessary for constructing life on earth is of limited number and variety
2. The behavior and properties of a given atom is based on the physics of electric charges and the best description of how and where electrons spend their time. This is successfully described by quantum mechanics.
3. Because of physics and more to the point, quantum mechanics, the electrons which do the chemistry are capable of a finite variety of allowed states according to selection rules.
4. There is a limited set of ways that a given atom can attach to other atoms to make chemical bonds under ordinary terrestrial conditions.
5. Molecules are made of atoms. These atoms naturally form a set of characteristic groupings within a molecule that are energetically preferred and thus common. The groupings are called moieties or functional groups. Examples are stable 5 and 6 member rings of atoms (pentagons and hexagons), carbon chains long and short, single, double, and triple chemical bonds. The variety of connected atoms in living systems include carbon-oxygen, carbon-carbon, carbon-nitrogen, carbon-sulfur, carbon-phosphorus, oxygen-phosphorus, oxygen-hydrogen, carbon-hydrogen, nitrogen-hydrogen, sulfur-hydrogen, and maybe a few more. Atoms can connect or disconnect, but in a finite number of ways. The atoms that make up “biomolecules” have certain features that make them amenable to dissolution in water. In particular nitrogen and oxygen have non-bonding electron pairs that attract certain hydrogen groups to make something called a hydrogen bond. This behavior lends water solubility to biomolecules.
6. Certain groupings of molecules can intimately comingle indefinitely in the liquid state, but other groupings spontaneously separate into separate “phases” or layers to minimize contact. Consider oil and vinegar and how they spontaneously separate for minimum contact in salad dressing. Molecules that have a charged end and a long water insoluble end may form organized structures called micelles in water. It bears a resemblance to the cell wall. It is an example of spontaneous organization because it is energetically favorable.
7. The assembly, behavior, and disassembly of biomolecules follows finite, definable chemical interactions. Synthetic biomolecules are indistinguishable from the biological version.
8. A limited number of liquids are compatible with living systems. Life as we know it requires that molecules are mobile during certain periods. Living things reproduce and grow. This requires changes that are only possible if molecules can move within the system. Movement happens within a fluid system.

The list above sketches out some limitations that atoms and molecules are subject to. It is useful to note that the atoms and molecules of life are subject to constraints that prevent them from behaving in a completely random fashion. Molecules in general will not form in every conceivable connective permutation under terrestrial conditions. Particular routes and end-states are energetically preferred. Things that have only specific behaviors are things that will always behave or react in a particular set of ways to give a limited range of products. Products from molecules that react along alternative pathways will favor the end-state of the fastest pathway. That means that there is exclusion of some molecular products. This is another loss of randomness overall.

Contrary to your camp counselor’s advice, not just anything is possible. What makes the universe sensible and relatively stable is the fact that objects and events interact or unfold in ways characteristic to their building blocks. What follows from the limitations of objects and events is that many forms of behavior or channels of interaction are therefore excluded. That is, there are not an infinite number of ways that a biomolecule can behave. The interactions in which a biomolecule can behave is channeled through a limited number of pathways due to the nature of the chemical pathways that are energetically favorable. The universe is surely chaotic, but not entirely so. Organization in biomolecules, or should we say a finite number of energetically favored structures, are the result of the limited number of ways that molecules can interact under terrestrial conditions.

Is is a common assertion by creationists that the odds of a hand or eyeball spontaneously forming could result from random interactions is 1 in some extremely large number. To the contrary, there is a case to be made that the hand or eyeball is the result of a series of natural molecular collisions, each constrained to a limited range of reaction possibilities over a very, very long period of time. What’s more, a molecule at room temperature is colliding with another molecule at maybe a frequency of 10^12 or 10^14 per second*. Scale that up to 1 million years and you have a tremendous number of opportunities to produce change.

* These frequencies may be off a bit, but it is what I seem to remember.

Gaussling’s 15th Epistle to the Bohemians. Thoughts of a Secularist Liberal Scientist.

If you knew me personally, you’d know that as a reductionist my profile can be reduced to that of a liberal atheist scientist with marginally good manners. I broke the shackles of magical thinking in high school after reading a few books by Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan. Though I have not been the same since, I have come to sympathize a bit with Quakers and their predilection for peace.

My religious upbringing was quite ordinary for a young Iowegian lad in the 1960’s. Confirmation in the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) in 8th grade followed by a short stint as a reluctant acolyte. The church seemed firmly footed in bedrock as an institution and adept at indoctrinating the young. In catechism studies I tried to understand the authoritarian system that is outlined by Martin Luther and the strange collection of narratives that make up the King James Bible.

There were abstractions that didn’t make sense then and are still a mystery to me today. The concept of the Holy Trinity always seemed suspiciously anthropomorphic. Then there is the crucifixion as a kind of “ghostly sorting mechanism” for salvation. It stands out against the backdrop of natural phenomena like physics and biology- mechanistic systems which seem to suffice for everything else. Finally, there is God’s seemingly endless requirement for worship and admiration which has always struck me as a vanity unnecessary for a supreme being. The whole scheme reeks of iron-age anthropology.

I remember the day it happened. I was praying for something or other. Trying to have a little spiritual time with the Big Guy. It finally dawned on me that I was talking to myself and in doing so, wishing for some particular outcome to happen. All those years. Praying and wishing were indistinguishable. I’ll admit, I was never one to volunteer a lot of praise to God. Heaping praise on a deity seemed patronizing and wholly unnecessary. Surely if God could elicit wrath, then he’d certainly pick up on being flattered.

Well, in the end, so what? Another tedious atheist commits apostasy. Like most people in US culture, my moral basis was built on what has been described as Judeo-Christian morals or ethics. It’s hard to avoid. But just as the earth does not rest on a foundation, I am not limited to sensibilities derived only by the sons of Abraham in a far earlier age. My culture and my brain tell me that theft, murder, and the other spiritual crimes (sins) are bad for the common good. That respect for others has a pleasurable and sensible aspect that threats of eternal damnation do not improve on.

The reductionist in me can’t resist the following assertion. Deistic religion reduces to cosmology. In the end, a religion offers a theory of the universe. It is a kind of physics that defines relationships between the prime mover and his (?) bipedal subjects imbued with mystical sensitivities. It claims to define the outcome of the disposition of a soul, whatever that may be.  I don’t even believe in the existence of the mind, much less a soul.  As a form of physics, religion lacks means by which theories can be tested. Quantitation of a spiritual element is an idea that has yet to see practice. It seems to lack predictive capability to estimate an outcome that can be validated. It is definitely not a science. It is not about matter or energy. It is about how to conduct ones life against a backdrop of divine authority and within a box of behaviors.

But our brains seem to be constructed in a manner such that religious/spiritual notions are nearly irresistible. Billions of people have claimed to feel its draw and testify to its merits. The projection of anthropomorphic imagery in myth is common in diverse cultures.  The Abrahamic religions congealed from cultures that were apparently unaware of the concept of zero. Where heaven is death with a plus sign, hell is death with a negative sign. To an atheist death is just zero. It has no sign or magnitude. It is unconsciousness and devoid of the awareness of pain or pleasure. Zero sensory processing. It is neither exaltation nor agony. Just zero. Entropy prevails. Such an outlook is hardly appealing enough to gather followers. It is grim and without hope of graduation to eternal bliss.  The take home lesson is to live in the moment, not the future.

Who am I to argue with millennia of religious thought? I don’t know. All I can say is that even as a cancer patient, I remain refractory to the pull of religious and mystical thinking. So it was and so it is.

Post script.

Divinity students! Relax. I’m no threat to your faith. My conclusions on this life of ours offers no ceremony and precious little fellowship. I can say that I’ve had an eye-full of the clockwork of this universe. Adherence to evangelical doctrines could not have provided the amazing insights. And for that I have no regrets.

Our Family Atheist and the Religious ToE

So it turns out that I am the family atheist and liberal. The social awkwardness and philosophical incompatibility of this condition was evident the other day in a discussion with a family member that diverged into a shouting match. In fact the immiscibilityof my liberal atheist proclivity with my family’s generally Christian conservative foundation has severed ties with a few family members outright and distanced others. My father, deceased nearly a decade ago, never reconciled with his son’s atheism. In his view, it was a choice inevitably resulting in existential tragedy and damnation into the darkest recesses of infinity.

My wife is a Methodist and our kid is being raised under that umbrella. I have taken the position that I will not indoctrinate my child in the analytical consequences of atheism. Rather, the adoption of a philosophical position on existence is a self-guided adventure everyone is entitled to. Whether one is lead deep into the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions, eastern philosophy, or the uncertain swamp of agnosticism, it is the right of all people to come to their own conclusion on the matter of ones place in the cosmos.

I claim that this is a right.  But many otherwise liberty-loving people disagree.  They view indoctrination into the religious fold as a kind of rescue. It is a dash across the finish line that must to happen well before death to ensure that the soul is channeled into the chute leading to paradise.  Once in this enviable condition, the ethereal community of souls can eternally heap praise upon the diety directly rather than across that impenetrable supernatural discontinuity that is resistant to all but the force of prayer. Or so goes the core theory of the Abrahamic religions as I understand them.

To many religious followers, the very fact that their religion is ancient seems to validate the accuracy and veracity of their ideas. The mere continuity of these doctines seems to confer some hopeful message about the vital truth of the doctine.

But I would counter that what continues over time is not the cosmic accuracy of the idea, but rather the psychological consequences of brain physiology.  Architectural features of the brain and the behavior of neurons therein have produced self-awareness. The self-aware brain enables much possibility for an organism.  An effect of our self-awareness is that we come to experience time.

But the very familiarity of self-awareness of the human brain might lead it to assume or calculate that self-awareness is a common condition in the external world. It seems to easily conclude that the apparent organization of the world was conducted by a central organizing influence- a diety. Moreover, it is not unreasonable for the self-aware brain to assume that it’s own self-awareness is part of a continuum of awareness or consciousness. The notion that self-awareness might extinguish would be inconceivable.

I think what the ancient religious texts and doctrines convey is a kind of familiarity. It is a shared experience of mystery, uncertainty, and fear through the common experience of consciousness. The brains of our ancestors communicated through the agency of language their chronicles of hope and fear to our brains which share the the same strengths and weaknesses.  It is this commonality that rings the bell of truth in our self-awareness. It reinforces the mystical experience as a physiological experience because it is fundamentally that.

What is inevitable about our self-awareness is extrapolation. Religion soon mutates from a personal mystical experience to a theory of physics and politics. This is what I cannot accept- Religion as a political template or as a ToE  (Theory of Everything).

Many people come to value alignment to doctrine as a higher calling than the application of love and charity to their fellows who have lost their way or have experienced bad luck or tragedy. I would offer to the reader that what makes a person liberal is the priority choice of people over the politcal doctrine of social Darwinism.

We in the USA have confused economic theory with reality. Economics and business are a subset of sociology. The alleged congruence of economics to morality or metaphysics is a political theory some people have asserted because it serves their purpose in the allocation of wealth.  It’s a part of their ToE. And I’m here to say that some of us can see what they’re doing.

Wherein Th’ Gaussling presumes to take exception

Some matters to which I wish to take exception.

Cray, the supercomputer company, is selling a desktop unit called the CX1. Their product literature uses the term “personal supercomputing” here and there. Also HPC, high performance computing.  A bit of scouting with Mr Google turns up a price of $25,000 (and up) for one of these units. If I had a CX1 I could finally get those hydrodynamic simulations finished for my cold fusion reactor.

I’ve never been able to refer to a computer as a machine. It’s a circuit. Somehow the flow of a few coulombs of charge across the bandgap and through the microscopic vias of lithographed and ion implanted junctions never qualified in my internal taxonomy as a machine.  Surely there are countless pencil necks and Poindexters out there who will line up to quibble. But, it’s a damned circuit. The cooling fan is a machine. The screws that hold the major components are elementary machines. The Klikkenhooters on the mouse are machine-like I suppose.

My eyes cross every time I hear some silly sod in the IT department solemnly state that they have fixed a problem in some persons “machine”.  Oh, is that true skippy? Chances are that young Edison selected a pull down menu and changed the state of some software variable or swapped out an errant disk drive. Machines make you greasy. You skin your knuckles tightening bolts on them. A Harley-Davidson motorcycle is a machine. A Dell laptop is not.

Fiat Lux

On an altogether different topic, an article entitled the Amoral Manifesto over at Philosophy Now raises some interesting issues regarding the basis of morality. The author is starting to get his arms around the qestion of morality without an absolute cosmic foundation. If you look at the physical universe, one of the first things that sorta jumps out at ya is the fact that everything is floating in space. Maybe we should take that as a kind of metaphor when considering absolutisms. We should learn to get along for its own sake, and not just to please angry, dispeptic spirits.  Not that those jabbering snake handling pentecostals would take any notice …

Speaking of dispeptic, Pastor Wingnut in Florida should consider another alternative to book burning. Simply down load copies of the Quran and repeatedly delete them until he feels that warm flush of righteous satisfaction.*  But I think we all know this wouldn’t have quite the spectacle of an actual public immolation. A book burning isn’t about individual books. It is a form of ceremony.  It is a ritual for all to particpate in and is part of the liturgy of indignation. Producing a show like this is in the skill set of any preacher, actually. They are expected to rouse  the emotions of their flock. It’s their job.  Some of it is quite interesting to watch in terms of the art of persuasion.

The pastor in Florida makes the case for why a great many of us do not want a government based on theological notions of law.  Whose law takes precedence- the Baptists?  Whose voice is speaking to you, really? And did you get all of the details? Exactly what kind of authority does an angry but righteous-in-the-Word mob get to have, anyway? How do bronze-age principles help us determine quotas for banana imports, plumbing codes, and the standards governing interstate trucking? Good gravy, we have to figure these things out ourselves people.

The eternal problem of civilization is to find the balance between high principle and pragmatic practice.  Civilization should be run by the living, not dictated by those who claim to know the intent of the long dead. The dead had their time in the sun. It is the privilege and responsibility of the those living the eternal now to sow the seeds of their fate. Easy retreat to the demon-haunted, authoritarian world of spiritualism is the realm of ignorance and fear. And fearful people are especially prone to being driven like sheep at the convenience of the vain and ruthless. History books are full of examples. So instead of burning the Quran, let’s read a few of the others. Maybe take some notes.

* Thanks to the Daily Kos.

Farewell George Carlin

June 22, 2008, Santa Monica, California. Comedian and satirist George Carlin died sunday evening after checking into a Santa Monica hospital complaining of chest pains. He was 71.

Carlin was a brilliant social satirist and comic. He had the ability to look at ordinary things from a different angle and see the obvious obsurdity in things most of us accept as simple background noise. This is one of the key attributes of a successful satirist and comedian.

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately. 

The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, “You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I’m just not close enough to get the job done.”

I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, “Where’s the self-help section?” She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.

There’s no present. There’s only the immediate future and the recent past.

Not only do I not know what’s going on, I wouldn’t know what to do about it if I did.

-George Carlin

Carlin was a serial quipster who pushed the boundaries of social norms. His Seven Dirty Words ended up as the center of a 1978 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right of the state to bar “indecent” of speech on the public airwaves.

While it is common for contemporary comedians to exploit “indecent” speech for shock value today, few seem to have the facility with language that Carlin had. He was able to reduce to a few short humorous sentences the dark uncertainties that many of us have with common subjects.  Carlin’s observations on taboo subjects put him well ahead of his time.

Romney Fires Ejection Seat

Just when I was getting used to the possibility of an epic Mormon Migration to the District of Columbia, Mitt Romney bails from the flaming cockpit of his campaign. At least for the next cycle, we will not see young missionaries in white shirt and tie parking their bicycles at the State Department or the CIA. That Ambassador-at-Large slot for Marie Osmond will have to wait and purveyors of caffeine and intoxicating liquors can rest at ease tonight. No temple garments hanging on the line back behind the White House either.

Utah is occupied by wholesome folk with a really odd theory of the universe. Eventually their time to decorate the Lincoln bedroom will come, but not in 2009.

Dawkins: Speaking the Ineffable

Warning!! The following text contains links and declarative statements that may cause chafing or philosophical infarct.

The Richard Dawkins BBC programs “The Root of All Evil, Part 1 and Part 2“, are quite worth the time to view. It will no doubt be uncomfortable for some. Dawkins is very much a promoter of reason and doesn’t restrain his blunt questions at all. 

What is interesting to witness is Dawkins’ genuine surprise when a few characters respond with an absolute and even threatening rebuff to his reasoning.  I think he truly expected to move these people to see his point of view by the force of reason.  In many ways, this program portrays a world very hostile to the analysis of belief.

The whole notion of belief as an inviolable, sacrosanct capsule of “vital essence” seems to be hardwired into our brains.  For many, the prospect of another person drilling into your personal theory of the universe (God or physics) is both profane and invasive.  Like most people, I am not keen on being “examined” like some analytical sample either. But in the end, a “theory of everything” that can’t survive scrutiny is not worth having.

Perhaps where Dawkins goes astray is at grasping the difference between being analytically correct and just being comfortable with an idea.  Few people have the overlap of both curiosity and the opportunity to cover some new ground in the scholarly examination of the Big Questions.  In fact, it seems that the methodical pursuit of novelty is not a universal trait in culture.  A great many people are perfectly happy to live and believe as the ancestors did. 

Dawkins is not shy about drilling into the bedrock of belief. I think between Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, there is a growing realization that religion should be studied analytically as a natural phenomenon rather than exclusively as a subject of devotion.