creative lament

Trying not to lose the plot

• Response to Dawkin's Free Inquiry Letter

  I recently received spam from Free Inquiry inviting me to be a part of their small circulation. Frankly, the only reason I likely won't take them up on it is a lack of time and an abundance of other books to read now. Over the past few months I've received quite a lot of personally-addressed junkmail from secular humanist organisations. I wasn't sure what I'd done to get on that mailing list, but whatever it was, they must have been pretty sure I was a good fit because they sent a ton.

  What really caught my eye with this packet (yes, I open them), was a letter it included from Richard Dawkins. I noted on Facebook that "the fallacies in Dawkin's letter urging me to subscribe to the magazine made me first question it's authenticity— before ultimately questioning my respect for the man." A friend of mine contended that I only saw fallacies because I disagreed with Dawkins, and not because Dawkins was inconsistent.

  This is my response to that concern, and to Dawkin’s letter, which begins as follows:

  Dear Friend,

  If you live in America, the chances are good that your next door neighbours believe the following: the Inventor of the laws of physics and Programmer of the DNA code decided to enter the uterus of a Jewish virgin, got himself born, then deliberately had himself tortured and executed because he couldn’t think of a better way to forgive the theft of an apple, committed at the instigation of a talking snake. As Creator of the majestically expanding universe, he not only understands relativistic gravity and quantum mechanics but actually designed them. Yet what he really cares bout is “sin,” abortion, how often you go to church, and whether gay people should marry. Statistically, the chances are that your neighbours believe all that— and they can vote.

  First, Dawkins fittingly attempts here to do the opposite of what Jesus taught throughout the New Testament. “Look at others,” says Dawkins; Jesus consistently requires that we consider the “planks” in our own eyes before mentioning the “specks” [in comparison] in others’ eyes. When we look at others— especially in the light Dawkins proposes— it’s terribly easy to conceptualize a view in which “those people” have all the problems, and where we have none. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it’s a flatly damaging way to “do” life.

  Secondly, Dawkins chooses his words carefully according to his agenda, unfortunately any allegiance to truth. “Inventors” and “programmers” comprise the eccentric fringe of society; those socially-awkward people responsible for “Venetian Blind Sunglasses” and computer crashes. It’s only after an invention succeeds that its creator is donned the much more laudable title “innovator.” Prior to success exists the repeated failures of the “inventor.” However, far from this idiosyncratic concept, the ideas we’re considering here focus on the veritable Atlas upon which all reality rests! Truth or not, I think it’s a fairly gigantic topic to be considered. Treating it flippantly accomplishes only one goal, and that is to lower the bar for Dawkins’ repudiation.

  Continuing his ad hominem style, Dawkins characterizes Jesus’ birth as another flippant “decision,” in which he merely “[entered] the uterus of a Jewish virgin [and] got himself born.” Again, though I understand his space constraints, this is nothing but the fallacy of reduction. Jesus birth is one of many glimpses in to the character of God. In it we see a great contrast to the gods of the Pagans, to the god of the stereotypical American church (etc). There is very little biblical support for the idea that God sits up on a cloud with a thunderbolt in his hand, angry at the ants below. Rather, this God steps out of eternity, into time, entering into his creation at the lowest place humanity has created. This God isn’t for those who have it all figured out; for those who can breath their own life into their own creation— who can sustain their own very existence. No, This is the God who is there for people who realize that they don’t have it all figured out. Something tells me that an ostentatious arrival and easy life wouldn’t quite communicate that clearly.

  Now Dawkins likely doesn’t believe that (maybe it was never explained to him quite that way), but his mischaracterization cannot be said to support his arguments— but really, how else was he supposed to show up? What kind of God would he be if he just went “poof” and showed up? Clearly there’s a lot more going on here than some inventor “getting himself born.”

  The virgin birth is a step to fulfilling a promise God made to Abraham in the Old Testament— that God would bless “all nations” through Abraham’s offspring. That culminates, fittingly, at Easter. God didn’t “deliberately get himself tortured and executed.” We wouldn’t say that a child hit by a car chasing a ball “committed suicide.” This characterization may be Dawkin’s prerogative, but I haven’t heard a single person profess that God is a masochist, as evidenced by the Crucifixion. Take your pick of red herrings here, but whatever you wish to call it, “the chances” are not good that my next door neighbours believe even that.

  Why, then, the bloody death we find throughout the Synoptic Gospels? There are a plethora of anthropological causes, ranging from the Roman influence and Jewish rejection of the State to Hebraic culture, tradition, understandings, etc. I assume, however, that Dawkins is speaking strictly to his characterization of God himself, and so I’ll similarly limit myself.

  As the Bible explains it, and put simply, God is infinitely positive. Any spec of negativity is infinitely distanced from being infinitely positive— that is, ∞ - 1 = ∞. There is a bit of philosophy and theology involved, but if you consider, for the moment, that I do not have the capacity to sustain my own very existence; that I will die and pass away, you will see the predicament God is in. We weren’t created to be punished, to suffer, or to die. We were created to please God by choosing him. God has a personal stake in our very existence. Put simply, he created us for a reason, and he’d much prefer we stick around. He isn’t done with us, yet. Jesus’ death is the only one large enough to fill an infinitely deep hole.

  This, culminated with Jesus’ lament in the garden, hoping for “this cup to pass from me;” looking for “any other way” can hardly be characterized as God having “deliberately had himself tortured and executed.”

  If this isn’t enough to dissuade you from adopting Dawkin’s exegesis, we’ll move on to his summation of what God “really cares about.” It seems clear to me that God’s primary concern in his creation is a relationship with it. Quite frankly, God could have simply given up. He could have exacted revenge, and what a position he would be in to do so. Instead, he humbled himself and operated by his own rules, dying for us.

  I submit that when people in general have abortions, or try to force one another either direction; when people worry about “how often [others] go to church”, or when they do so to fulfill some legalistic phantom prescription; when people try to pass legislation forbidding or permitting gays to marry— God moans in agony.

  Read the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus isn’t adding a rule to the list. You’re not commanded to be “poor in spirit” because that way you’ll get a cookie. Jesus isn’t bringing a new law. He’s bringing an announcement— that God is on your side.

  Talking snake or not; literal Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or not, literal light on the first day, but sun on the fourth day (ever notice that?)—the reification of these concepts with a derisive objective does not constitute free inquiry, progressivism, or intellectualism. Much to the contrary, Dawkins’ attitude and entire apparent conceptualisation of Christianity is lacking in theology, and heavy in idolatry.

  I am happy to consider anything put before me when it is done in good faith. I have omitted the parts of the letter that are aimed at Islam (although the above points apply) or a blatant advertisement for Free Inquiry (“There are just a few publications that serve as light-houses in a dark, foggy ocean”). However, the does make one point that I wholeheartedly agree with: that many people take for granted that we ought to unquestioningly respect all others’ beliefs. Yes, many people who happen to be Christians actively campaign against homosexuals, on the (apparent) basis of their interpretation of, count them, two verses. I and many others find this and all forms of Constantinianism detestable.

  Believe me, I’ve considered what he says; in this particular point and others, I agree with him. However, he arrived at this conclusion not in good faith— that the world may be a better place— but in an intellectually dishonest attempt to tear people down, apparently believing he’d rise in stature in comparison. In doing so, however, he walks on the same thin ice once again, and ultimately an enormous weight rests in the fallacy of necessity. Further, absolutely no effort is made to accurately present the premises upon which the case for the Creator (as presented by Dawkins) rides.

  So good for Dawkins; he successfully has torched a straw man, and one that absolutely ought to burn. What I can’t figure out is why he crafted it in the first place.

  0 comments More»

• My Theology Unwrapped

  I'm thinking about writing a book.

  I have been consistently confronted with the fact that my viewpoints are not terribly popular. As a rational person, then, I have to repeatedly consider the possibility that I am simply mistaken. In retracing my steps, I often do find more substance to chew on, but— more often than not— my ideas simply clarify rather than change.

  The possibility I'm going to work through here, is that these ideas simply haven't been articulated clearly and in one place. While I doubt there's much of anything new under the sun, there are certainly varying degrees of old.

  Any ideas, questions, comments, brainstorming or similar would be greatly appreciated.

  0 comments More»

• What is Peace?

  Background

  Today is December 9th, 2010. Ten years ago, George W Bush was preparing to take office as President of the United States. Nine months later, I would spend my birthday staring in awe as the most memorable act of terrorism unfolded. After blame for the attacks was assigned to a group in the Middle East, the US entered a dubiously justified and quasi-legal war idiomatically 'declared' on the concept of 'terror.' The US added Afghanistan and Iraq to a list of countries to which its military forces are currently deployed-- a list now numbering over 150 countries.

  In 2008, Barack Obama was elected on a platform which promised in no uncertain terms to end the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. As of now, that promise has not been realized. With Democratic majorities in both the Executive and Legislative branches, the importance of the issue seems to have attenuated. As an oppositional Republican House prepares for the next congress, over 148,000 troops remain deployed to the two countries.

  For Whom do I vote?

  As a person who finds the disproportionate civilian loss of life, the fuel it provides for animosity on all fronts, and the fact that it's in part my productive ability that funds it disgusting, who am I to vote for to bring the horrors to an end? When every candidate in recent memory has been the lesser of two evils, when morality has become unelectable, for whom do I vote?

  The problem with this-- as in so many areas of life-- is focus. When we pause to bring the entire situation into focus, the new definition usually highlights a distinction that was previously lacking. There exists a painful distinction between a candidate's campaign promises and what they'll do. There exists a further distinction between what a candidate can do and the things that make peace possible.

  Jesus clearly instructs his followers in Matthew 5 to "not resist evil." This is completely radical, but surprisingly apt. Imagine, for a moment, that I'm walking across an intersection. I turn my head, talking to a friend, when a bus careens down the road from the other direction. You, seeing we're going to get hit, spring to action. You hop in your bus, put the pedal to the metal-- and hit us first. We've been saved from the former bus; hurray! Unfortunately, we're still flat.

  So it is with evil. Evil is imperfection; sin. To resist sin with further sin in an effort to stamp out sin will always render further sin.

  So it is with government. Governments exist absolutely in one sense: force. In all other matters-- industry, charity, security, organisation, et c.-- they act like any other member (albeit often bumbling and half-interested). At the root of all of these things, however, is a monopoly on force. The poorly-run structures only manage to survive under the threat that they're backed by the point of a gun. Think taxes are optional? When you don't pay, first they demand. Then they come for you. Think that's optional? Guns are drawn very quickly when you disagree with an officer's orders.

  A will to rid the world of evil that manifests itself in the action of voting, then, is antithetical. Government is, fundamentally, comprised of a monopoly of force. Begging leaders, then, or even attempting to force their hands via the vote is at best futile and at worst participating in the very evil we seek to cease.

  To a person who has staked so much on the alluring promises of power and triumph, the realisation that all their eggs were in that basket can be difficult or discouraging to accept. The Jews of Jesus' time certainly had to wrestle with their messianic preconceptions and cultural assumptions. The correct answer, convincingly, is to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is Gods, and finally, to recognize the greater of the two as Point Number One.

  Peace

  So the discussion now turns toward peace:

  Here's my thought about peace- one that lots of people talk about, but nobody DOES anything about. (and if you want to call me naive, so be it. The guy who came up with this was KILLED for saying stuff like this.)

  “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies![s] Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven." (Matt 5)

  Go back to that focus– the immutable distinction is this is this: what is the ultimate point? Is the ultimate goal of reality comfort— or strife? Unbroken bones and carefree lives— or perhaps sacrificial purple-heart-wounds? Maybe a particular tone of voice? In a sense these are merely manifestations of the physical world in which our souls interoperate. They fulfill the role of Point Number One with as much success as holding any other physical aspect of the world supreme. No one holds gravity in high moral regard or lives their life for the relative density of helium.

  It's clear that the ultimate goal for our lives-- the one that is both prescribed and most fulfilling-- is a relationship with God from which all other things flow. Comfort comes from compassion which comes from God himself. Peace comes from the Prince of Peace. Peace is the ideal; what abounds when things return to their natural order.

  Therefor, if one suffers from violence that they could have replaced with their own defensive violence, have they lost anything? Considering Point Number One, are they any worse off? To the contrary, they are both closer to Christ who suffered on the cross and better off for having stayed true to the course. If to live is Christ, and to die is gain, what else is there worry about?

  0 comments More»

• Textmate and Ruby Haml syntax coloring

  Haml is a great way to write HTML for Rails (and elsewhere) but it's always bothered me that Textmate colors Haml syntax wrong when using double-equals (==) with embedded code (#{my_method} syntax. In Ruby, the pound sign is a comment-line delimiter, and so something like

  %span== Logged in as #{current_user.login} since #{current_user.logged_in_at}
  

  will render just fine, but in Textmate everything after the first # shows the flat grey italics of a comment.

  I finally got around to fixing this in the Textmate language grammar. There are probably better ways to do this, but it works for me.

  Code folding is another thing. I tried to help it, and it's maybe a little better, but it's tough to implement in a tab-based format like Haml in Textmate.

  Choose Show Bundle Editor from the Bundle menu in Textmate to use. Hope this helps.

  {   scopeName = 'text.haml';
  fileTypes = ( 'haml', 'sass' );
  foldingStartMarker = '^(\s*)(-|%|=).*\1';
  foldingStopMarker = '^\s*$';
  patterns = (
      {   name = 'meta.prolog.haml';
          match = '^(!!!)($|\s.*)';
          captures = { 1 = { name = 'punctuation.definition.prolog.haml'; }; };
      },
      {   name = 'comment.line.slash.haml';
          match = '^ *(/)\s*\S.*$\n?';
          captures = { 1 = { name = 'punctuation.section.comment.haml'; }; };
      },
      {   name = 'comment.block.haml';
          begin = '^( *)(/)\s*$';
          end = '^(?!\1  )';
          beginCaptures = { 2 = { name = 'punctuation.section.comment.haml'; }; };
          patterns = ( { include = 'text.haml'; } );
      },
      {   begin = '^\s*(?:((%)([\w:]+))|(?=\.|#))';
          end = '$|(?!\.|#|\{|\[|=|-|~|/)';
          captures = {
              1 = { name = 'meta.tag.haml'; };
              2 = { name = 'punctuation.definition.tag.haml'; };
              3 = { name = 'entity.name.tag.haml'; };
          };
          patterns = (
              {   name = 'entity.name.tag.class.haml';
                  match = '\.[\w-]+';
              },
              {   name = 'entity.name.tag.id.haml';
                  match = '#[\w-]+';
              },
              {   name = 'meta.section.attributes.haml';
                  begin = '\{(?=.*\}|.*\|\s*$)';
                  end = '\}|$|^(?!.*\|\s*$)';
                  patterns = (
                      {   include = 'source.ruby.rails'; },
                      {   include = '#continuation'; },
                  );
              },
              {   name = 'meta.section.object.haml';
                  begin = '\[(?=.*\]|.*\|\s*$)';
                  end = '\]|$|^(?!.*\|\s*$)';
                  patterns = (
                      {   include = 'source.ruby.rails'; },
                      {   include = '#continuation'; },
                  );
              },
              {   include = '#rubyembedded'; },
              {   include = '#rubyline'; },
              {   name = 'punctuation.terminator.tag.haml';
                  match = '/';
              },
          );
      },
      {   match = '^\s*(\\.)';
          captures = { 1 = { name = 'meta.escape.haml'; }; };
      },
      {   begin = '^\s*(?==(?!=)|-|~)';
          end = '$';
          patterns = ( { include = '#rubyline'; } );
      },
      {   begin = '^\s*(?===)';
          end = '$';
          patterns = ( { include = '#rubyembedded'; } );
      },
  );
  repository = {
      continuation = {
          match = '(\|)\s*\n';
          captures = { 1 = { name = 'punctuation.separator.continuation.haml'; }; };
      };
      rubyembedded = {
          name = 'meta.line.ruby.haml';
          contentName = 'embedded.text.haml';
          begin = '==';
          end = '$';
          patterns = (
              {   name = 'source.ruby.embedded.html';
                  begin = '#{';
                  end = '}';
                  patterns = ( { include = 'source.ruby.rails'; } );
              },
          );
      };
      rubyline = {
          name = 'meta.line.ruby.haml';
          contentName = 'source.ruby.embedded.haml';
          begin = '=|-|~';
          end = '((do|\{)( \|[^|]+\|)?)$|$|^(?!.*\|\s*$)';
          endCaptures = {
              1 = { name = 'source.ruby.embedded.html'; };
              2 = { name = 'keyword.control.ruby.start-block'; };
          };
          patterns = (
              {   name = 'comment.line.number-sign.ruby';
                  comment = 'Hack to let ruby comments work in this context properly';
                  match = '#.*$';
              },
              {   include = 'source.ruby.rails'; },
              {   include = '#continuation'; },
          );
      };
  };
  }
  

  0 comments More»

• A Christian On Black Friday and Consumerism

  Many people from many backgrounds espouse a certain view of the holiday season-- particularly Black Friday as it contrasts Thanksgiving and whatever people claim ought to be Christimas' "real purpose." They write pieces that lament our wills to buy; our wants to spend as little as possible when we do, and our general insistence on working for better comfort. Many mention a confusion between spending an patriotism— that is, that one has a duty to spend the country back to health.

  They're all interesting reads.

  I suppose I should preface my response, then: I've already been 'defriended' by one pastor for my responses, so please understand that I am not trying to be contradictory; take this in good faith. Also please note that I'm really striving for brevity :)

  First, I'm a Christian Anarchist-- I recognize the legitimacy of God and God alone as the merciful, just, rule-and- life-giver. As such, I tend see patriotism and nationalism (et al) as quasi-idolitrical. Nationalism and self preservation as opposed to loving self-sacrifice has historically led to more suffering through war and feud than I care to consider— right up to what's going on in East Asia as you read this.

  There are many theological considerations that have been made, but my anarchism has practical applications as well. I'll narrow them to the point of your message— specifically American economics. Take a look at a few charts and note what the government is doing with your money: Since 1913 (the year the FED was instituted), the Dollar has lost over 95% of it's value; since sometime in the 80s, the federal debt has increased 1800% (!). For comparison, population growth in that same period was about 130%. Market distortions are inefficiencies that lead to decreased wealth for all (consider what would happen if every shop keeper were convinced that consumers all just tripled their money, or if consumers were convinced that all stores were going to be closed indefinitely past a certain date)

  Also, your contention that money is leaving the country to China (and others) seems likely at face value, but the issue is more complex. Money is simply a liquid vessel for wealth. Wealth is generated through production. When we trade US money for Chinese goods, we get what seems to us to be a good deal. Thus, wealth has not left the country; only money. (It's also a two-way street. Michigan is currently selling more to China than it's buying from them)

  Then we have the fact that Chinese stores simply do not accept US dollars. The Chinese sell US dollars for Chinese Yuan (which stays in their country) and the banks that now have US dollars reinvest them where they're used: the US. Once again we find that the only way America loses wealth is through 1) Bad trade deals (which are small, individual happenings) and 2) The government devaluing the currency (this isn't even to speak of the crap going on in China that makes this all possible).

  Lastly, all of these things are well and good, but when they distract from the kingdom, who profits? The focus ought to be on the worship of God, not money. I think it makes sense that people get into the holidays, and it's great that so many families take the opportunity to get together. Further, while I'm sure there's no shortage of greed to be found, Black Friday represents a chance for people to get even better deals when they make their trades. That's simply being a good steward of one's money.

  0 comments More»