Can We Handle Information?

Constitution day just passed on the 17^th of September. I suppose not many people noticed the day, just as I suppose not many people notice the Constitution itself. One student at a Modesto, California Junior College attempted to pass out copies of the Constitution, but he was quickly stopped by campus officials, according to news reports and the video above. (1) And so life goes on in our safe and insulated little world.

What is disturbing about the incident at an institution of higher learning is what it tells us about our society. When an administrator such as the one in the video has an entire binder full of regulations regarding speech and the dissemination of information, we should scratch our heads and wonder why. Is it because we are not capable of handling opinions that differ from ours? Is it because we cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood on our own? Is it because we cannot say “no thank you” when someone tries to hand us a pamphlet? Such nanny laws sound like a concerned parent telling a young child: “don't talk to strangers!” But are adults on a college campus children? (Ok, ok, maybe they do seem like it much of the time.) The anonymous creators of the binder full of rules apparently think so. Apparently they are trying to protect us from ideas that come from unofficial sources. “Trust your professors and trust your textbooks, but flee the intellectual snares of all others,” they seem to say. And it doesn't matter how historically, politically, and philosophically relevant something may be. Nay, even if it is one of the most important political documents in human history, it should not reach your ears if it does not come from an officially approved source.

No doubt lots of garbage is kept out of circulation this way, but I can't help thinking that I would rather be the one to decide if it is garbage or not. It is not just that I think copies of the Constitution should be passed out: if someone were passing out copies of the Communist Manifesto I would certainly take one, even though I profoundly disagree with it. A college campus, not to mention our society in general, is a place where we should be allowed to hear other people's ideas. Treat adults like children for long enough and they just might become children, or worse, imbeciles.

1 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/19/california-college-bars-student-from-handing-out-copies-constitution/

Why "We" Don't Believe in Science, er, Evolution

The New Yorker recently had an article with the intriguing title: "Why We Don't Believe in Science." The article cites a poll showing that 46% of Americans believe God created the earth relatively recently. In other words, that is 46% who don't believe in evolution. It explains that this number has "remained virtually unchanged" in the thirty years that Gallup has been asking the question. Now, the obvious answer to the article's question of why we don't believe in science (which in the article is often equated with evolution) is that evolution is not true. Unfortunately, the article overlooks this answer and instead posits that the reason we are so backwards and don't believe is because of (wait for it...): "the irony of evolution: our views about our own development don’t seem to be evolving." Yes, that is rather ironic. Humans seem to be hardwired with a belief in a creator and a creation. One cannot help but be reminded of the Psalmist's words: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalms 19:1). Or the philosopher Paul's statement that, "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20).

How does The New Yorker propose to deal with this universally acknowledged fact? One is almost embarrassed at the crudeness of saying what the article proposes: brainwashing. To quote: "This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts." Yes, think about it. It is brainwashing. Yet another indication that Ben Stein was right in his documentary Expelled. The "science educators" of the article are fools... but don't take my word for it. To quote Paul again: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:22-23). Thankfully, according to the poll, only 15% of Americans have become total fools, exchanging God completely for a furry ape or a fish in the primordial slime. Which would you rather have: Father God or father ape?

Not to Itemize but to Generalize

Michael J. Lewis, in an article on architecture entitled The Decline of American Monuments and Memorials, gives his opinion of why American art is uncomfortable with itself and unable to approach coherent greatness. Speaking of both the plastic arts and the written, he says:

"Allegory requires an imaginative act, and is literary, whereas our culture is uncomfortable with figurative language. This began around 1977, the moment the language censors began to attack phrases like “Man does not live on bread alone,” asking “What about women?” A painful literalism set in, which is hostile to figurative language in speech and to abstract allegory in art. Nowadays we tend to think literally rather than literarily, which explains why Frederick Hart had to portray the American military experience in Vietnam by means of three men of three distinct races—and why a women’s memorial was subsequently added. [Even though to the 58,000 male soldiers killed there were only 7 women killed.] The fear of leaving someone or something out is hostile to the allegorical impulse, which seeks not to itemize but to generalize, and to speak not specific truths but great truths. It is not surprising that a culture ill at ease with the notion of absolute truth would find it very difficult to make monuments that show urgency and conviction."

HT: Hillsdale College Imprimis

Education Servilus and Education Liberalis

“Ancient education was divided into two categories: (1) education for slaves (education servilus), which was restricted to teaching the slaves to do a particular job, to contribute to the economic system, and to conform to the demands of the society that enslaved them; and (2) education for the free (education liberalis), which equipped students of the Greek democracy and the Roman Republic to be free citizens who could come up with the ideas, knowledge, creativity, leadership, and virtues necessary for self-governance and the pursuit of excellence.

Today’s dominant approaches to education, both in the public schools and in the universities, are essentially a revival of the education for slaves. To be sure, those with 'successful careers' may be well-paid, but they still think and act like slaves.” --Gene Edward Veith

In a society so enthralled by the economy and making money we should not be surprised by this. Echoing our preoccupation in his inaugural address, President Obama affirmed, "we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age." A new age of slavery.

HT: Redeemedreader.com

Textual Evidence that the Gospels are Reliable History

The video below shows what careful readers like C.S. Lewis have known all along: that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts of real events. In essays like "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" Lewis shows that the literary technique of the Gospels is not like that of ancient myths; that in fact it is not a "literary technique" at all, simply "reportage." Episodes such as Jesus writing in the dust while talking to a woman, or the man who escapes the guards by squirming out of his tunic at the Garden of Gethsemane, are either true events "or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative" (Lewis).

Dr. Peter Williams in the video below makes a similar case, arguing that the occurrence of names, places, and geography in the canonical Gospels is strong evidence of their authenticity.

HT: First Things

Not Surprised

 The hostage standoff at the Discovery Channel building in Maryland should not come as any surprise. James Jay Lee wants to "save the planet" after watching An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore and reading extremist environmental books. But we should not think it is only extremists who want to stop all human population growth and consider babies a blight on mother nature. In a blog post from December 2009, I wrote about this very indoctrination going on wholesale in American colleges. This is an excerpt:

"Convince people that the earth is overpopulated and they will freely give up their right to reproduce; convince people that humanity is a parasite sucking life out of “mother earth” and they will rejoice when whole segments of this parasite are “eliminated” through holocaust, euthanasia, or abortion."

We reap what we sow. The only thing that is surprising is that more wackos indoctrinated in our schools haven't done something similar yet.

California Primary 2010

This year's Republican primary ballot for the state of California has quite a long list of candidates and I was a bit intimidated by it. Since other people probably have questions also I thought I would list some of the people I feel are best qualified. If you are not from California you can stop reading now. If you are not a registered Republican you can read or not read as you choose. If you know something about a candidate, either one I've mentioned or any I've overlooked, please leave a comment and tell us what's wrong or right about him or her. The candidates I've listed seem like the best choice to me now but I may still change my mind if future evidence paints them in a different light than my research into their bios has led me to believe.

Governor:
Realistically there are only two Republican candidates for this office: Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. While an alternative such as the evangelical Christian Ken Miller from San Francisco may be an entertaining diversion, he has no possibility of winning even his home city (er, especially his home city!). The Big Two have many similarities: both supported abortion in the past and now (supposedly) have changed their minds. Both have supported Democrat candidates like Al Gore (Poizner) Boxer (Whitman) and John Kerry (Poizner and Whitman). For a look at their similarities see here. When it comes down to a choice between these similar candidates, I side with the one least tainted by politics: Meg Whitman. She can't be accused of being a career politician, heck, she barely even voted in the past! Meg Whitman has extensive experience as a businesswoman which is what this state needs to balance budgets. She also opposes California's cap and trade bill AB 32. And frankly, she's running an effective advertising campaign against Poizner, making herself sound good.

Lieutenant Governor:
Scott Levitt bills himself as a solid conservative. A practicing attorney, Levitt is quoted on Wikipedia as saying: “there is not a revenue problem in the United States of America, and there is certainly not a revenue problem in the richest state…California. There is an absolute spending crisis.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Levitt#cite_note-6 Levitt is for a leaner government which means less state employees and less bureaucracy. He opposes climate change legislation that will hurt the economy such as California's AB 32. And you've got to like a guy who calls the government, “a hundred armed creature... tentacles stretched into every facet of business and personal life.” http://www.levittforlg.com/?page_id=6

Secretary of State:
Orly Taitz is a colorful person who is entertaining to read about. A Moldavian-born Jew, she lived in Israel before moving to to the US and gaining citizenship in 1992. Bill O'Reilly called her a “nut” for her outspoken lawsuits in the Obama “birther” conspiracy movement. I predict she has little change of winning a general election, although, in addition to 5 languages, I think her varied background and law experience makes her qualified for a job like Secretary of State. Her only opponent, Damon Dunn, was a NFL player who registered as a Democrat in Florida in 1999.

Attorney General:
John Eastman. This man's credentials are in Constitutional law, a big plus over typical “lawyers.” He has worked with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and served as dean of Chapman University Law School. His campaign website http://www.eastmanforag.com/ portrays him as a conservative with a strong respect for the Constitution. Some of his published journal article are at SSRN. all of the titles look interesting, although I haven't yet read any, including one entitled: “We are a Religious People Whose Institutions Presuppose a Supreme Being”

Insurance Commissioner:
All of the candidates but Fitzgerald are termed out assemblymen looking for a new job. Fitzgerald has not done much campaigning so it seems that Mike Villines is the best choice. Villines has been active working on budgets with Schwarzenegger and supports health savings accounts. He has made some serious concessions to the left in past and current offices, but he is a politician in California after all. http://www.mikevillines.com/

United States Senator:
Chuck DeVore sounds like a solid choice. Termed out of the State assembly where he has been serving, DeVore worked with the Reagan administration early on in his career. He has supported traditional and nuclear energy for California as well as being tough on taxes.
Carly Fiorina is another option. She has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, possibly because they worked together during the McCain campaign when Fiorina defended Palin as a speaker and economic advisor for McCain. She also chaired the Republican National Committee's fund-raising efforts.
Tom Campbell is out for defending same-sex marriage and voting “no” on Prop. 8 in 2008. http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/24/ending-marriage-discrimination

United States House of Representatives, 2nd District:
Incumbent Wally Herger.

State Senator, 4th District:
Incumbent Doug LaMalfa

State Assembly, 2nd District:
Charlie Schaupp http://www.charlieschaupp.com/, a Marine Lieutenant Colonel, is pro-life, an NRA member, and has a history of family farming. Jim Nielsen is... well, the incumbent... Neither one sounds terrible, in fact they both sound pretty good. It might be worth while to vote for Schaupp just because he is not a career politician like Nielsen. What do you think?

State Board of Equalization, 2nd District:
Barbara Alby is acting board-member due to Bill Leonard's favorable resignation in March 2010. On her website she promises: “I will fight all tax increases.” However, George Runner may be the best choice for this position thanks to his support of the Tea Party and his promises to fight all taxes and challenge the status quo in Sacramento. http://www.georgerunner.com/ Runner at last check had a significant campaign contribution lead.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction:
Henry Williams Jr. was a homeschooling father for 12 years, as well as a history teacher at Simpson University for 2 years. According to his bio page, 3 children have graduated while a fourth is attending a public school. He enjoys the snow at Mt Shasta. A local?! Why haven't I heard of this guy before? http://www.williamsforstatesuperintendent.com/henry_p.html

But wait, Diane Lenning for Superintendent sounds good too! She wrote a book defending the American Republic in which she encourages everyone to MEMORIZE the US Constitution. See the book at Christian publisher Xulon Press. This is a hard choice, any thoughts about these two?

Be informed. Chime in with additional pertinent information on these candidates. Before the election I plan to post about the ballot measures and some local Shasta county elections.

Making Light of Oppression

Taking a cue from President Barack Obama, who encourages those who watch Glenn Beck and Fox News to vary their diet with the views of “the other side,” I decided to read a news blog that one of Obama's own advisors on religion and politics maintains. Rev. Jim Wallis's blog is called Sojourners: Faith, Politics, Culture. A large number of contributors write on it, including some Emerging Church familiars, most notably, Brian MacLaren. So perhaps this can hardly be called “the other side.”

If I must take a side, however, it would be strongly against a certain contributor's post entitled: Pedagogy of the Oppressor: Arizona's Ethnic Studies Ban. The author, Cezar Baldelomar, first points out that the US forcibly took the land that comprises California, Arizona, and Texas, and therefore illegal immigrants have a right to be there. In his words, “current immigrants... were once the rightful owners of the very territory they are now trying to enter.” But the focus of his article and the focus of my disagreement is not over this somewhat angry side note. The decline of “ethnic studies” in Arizona is what elicits his strongest barbs because Arizona is trying to make light (pun intended) of its “oppression” towards minorities. He quotes the Arizona Schools Superintendent Tom Horne as saying: “We should be teaching these kids that this is the land of opportunity. If they work hard, then they can achieve their dreams. And not teach them that they are oppressed.” But in Baldelomar's view they are “oppressed” and need to be reminded that they are. I believe our President also said he would welcome more “oppression studies.”

It is hard for someone like me who is rediscovering western classical education to be enamored of “ethnic oppression studies.” No pun intended this time, but the idea is foreign to me. Nor can I understand why Mr. Baldelomar (who is a graduate student at the prestigious Harvard Divinity School) thinks he is oppressed. Identifying with his fellow sufferers he exclaims that oppression “is our reality!” Is it really a reality or just an overactive imagination? I can think of one good reason to eliminate “ethnic studies” from schools and it doesn't even have to do with improving grades in important subjects. It is to erase the lingering thought that, “ethnic studies... confirm for minority students what we have been feeling all along, namely, that we were, are, and will be victims of oppression.” Prophesy is a dangerous business because sometimes the prophesy is self-fulfilling. Mr. Baldelomar believes he always will be a victim; maybe he is right... but he should give others a chance to think more highly of themselves. I hope this blog post is not mistaken for a form of oppression against a poor, suffering Harvard student.

America's Best and Brightest

The following are some quotes I compiled from classmates in my Environmental Science class. In the beginning I expected this to be one of my dullest classes, but, quite the contrary, this class won the prize for most entertaining, albeit, unintentionally. My only regret is that I didn't start saving quotes until halfway through so the list is shorter than it otherwise could have been. Some of these sayings are funny, some are sad, some are totally incoherent, but as one student in my Ancient World Literature class remarked: “Truth is, those sayings are quite true.”

[Editors note: Names have been changed to protect the guilty.]

“This section of the book was interesting to me. I have never studied California in depth and did not know that California was once underwater.” --Stephanie S.

“Whether it be the heat and fiery licks of lightning that strike the Earth, or the simmering butt of a cigarette; wildfires are disastrous and continue to devastate based on our actions. I am convinced that lightning and other weather-related causes of fire are effected directly by our fuel emissions (which cause global warming and the ozone layer to deteriorate) and our lack of preservation for forests (chopping down trees for paper, fuel, etc.). So I think it is quite clear what needs to be done in order to improve the health of the Western U.S.’s forests, albeit it may not be the most favored.” --Joy M.

“These two issues are related to each other because. They both happen in the "forest." Also you always see how there are so many Wild fires going on around the unites states on t.v. In the papers everything that has advertisement. I' ve heard a lot of reports in southern California. because winds down there can cause a wild fire to go out of control. These wild forest fires can damage the health of the forest as well. And of the natural environment. For the forest to get healthier we will have to cut back on cutting the forests down. So much for the fact that they are going a way at a rapid rate. Also i believe everyone needs to drastically cut back on there driving. Because the emissions in the air can cause a lot of damage. Did you all know if everyone in the world would not drive for one year our world would get healthy again? its so true look it up i just love this stuff so much:) i pray that everyone can save this world thank you best regards Bill...” --Bill C.

“Some people of the U.S. are saying we dont impact the economy's [could he mean “ecology”?] damage? Let me tell you the people in this country are so greedy that I don’t think that they will care if the planet would blow up tomorrow? This country is so wealthy and powerful that why would any one want to take an extra look at the climate lol except for inviromental scientists lmao! Some examples of what humans are doing to impact the climate are driving cars, using a lot of electricity, using air conditioners, burning coal, terring sown ecosystems, and just destroying the planet damn people! We cant guarantee other countries would follow alone go until we reached a breaking point and the precious planet is gone watch the movie pandorum look how messed up we are on destroying such a beautiful world!” --Bill C.

“there are many types of mining activites that are just killing our precise earth its just to messed up for this to be taking place lol because we need our planet to survie anything lol i say everyone joinning together to comabat this crisis and say you quit in the name of law like back in the sixtys or 70's (hippie) are lol let earth water and frie free hahah thats right the activitys are coal gold copper and many many more this poor earth needs our hope. ps this has been an amazing couple chapters!!! love them.” --Bill C. [p.p.s. This has been an even more amazing couple sentences! Although I cannot say I love them.]

[What follows is a complete and unabridged post in an online forum. I repeat, no editing has been done, this is the entire post.]

“this weeks chapter was interesting:) haha cnt wait tell halloween:D what is every doing for then? hmmm????? well have a happy holidays lol.” --Bill C.

[Not surprisingly, Global Warming propaganda had effectively indoctrinated all but two students in my class. So effectively, in fact, that not just any pollution is destroying our planet, it is "American pollution." Never mind that Less Developed Countries do not use or develop clean technology as the US does.]

“The desolation of ice bergs in the arctic regions, and the horrendous uprisal of hurricanes, tsunamis, and floods, are all natural disasters that are becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pollution. American pollution.” --Faith R.

[Quote from real student in my class]

“The earth will never come to a balance without a catastrophic event, which has happened in the past. People have become the termites, so to say, of the earth. We will destroy the earth from the inside out until it collapses, like a house made of wood.” – Euphoria L.

[Quote from real scientist in US Senate report]

"Many people believe there is a difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2. There is no difference. Carbon dioxide is comprised of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is a natural, vital part of biological life. Ants, termites and decaying foliage account for the formation of most of the CO2. There are more than a quadrillion ants and termites." --Chemist Frank Britton (http://epw.senate.gov/ pg 208)

Hope you enjoyed!

Propaganda In College and Society: Part 2

In my last post we examined some of the most disturbing ideological positions in a college science textbook called Visualizing Environmental Science. In this post I will continue giving examples of the propaganda it contains along with some other observations and random quotes from the text. There is no particular order since I wrote these down over the course of an entire semester as I first came across them. Some of these examples have serious and disturbing ideological underpinnings, others were perhaps intended to be serious but are quite funny, so read with a lighter heart.

What does the book say about evolution? Surely here we can get the hard facts of science without any controversial politicization. “Our immensely complex and multi-dimensional brains evolved precisely because we interacted with growing things, weather patterns, and other animals” (41). Unfortunately, we aren't going to continue evolving because, “the world we have created screens us from all that. The sophisticated devices we imagined and manufactured—such as televisions, computers, and automobiles—now define our world” (41). So if you want to continue evolving you need more interactions with “weather”! Next time there is a thunderstorm get away from everything man-made and go stand on the top of a high hill. I guarantee a little natural electrical stimulus in the form of lightning will help your mind evolve!

On page 28 a large picture shows a “typical” American family of four with all their possessions grouped around them on the street in front of their house in order to show the “large amount of natural resources” they consume. Standing in the midst of this opulence, the mother of the family is prominently seen holding a large family Bible, opened to a picture of Jesus with hands raised. What this picture is meant to suggest I have no idea but no doubt a tree was cut down to supply paper for that huge Bible! These religious fanatics (from Texas, no less!) are part of the problem and should make major changes to their “consumption patterns and lifestyles” (28). The first change, if I might suggest it, would be to get rid of that useless Bible with its “environmentally disruptive” command to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

According to the current paradigm, people are starving from overpopulation and the earth cannot sustain many more people. So... to remedy the situation in Florida, “State and federal governments are working on... the conversion of some agricultural land to marshes... Restoration will take more than 20 years and cost $8 billion” (124). Convert farmland to swamp... no wonder the models all predict that the earth won't be able to sustain any more people. If all farmland is converted into swamp at massive cost to taxpayers not one person will have enough to eat.

“Different groups propose different solutions for resolving the world's food problems, including controlling population growth, promoting the economic development of countries that do not produce adequate food, and correcting the inequitable distribution of resources” (Berg 340). We can only laud the book for giving fair representation to all (well, at least some) of the possible solutions; unfortunately, the first, which deals with world population, is clearly not a solution even by the standards of the text since just two sentences earlier it points out that current agricultural output is sufficient to feed everyone on the planet (Berg 340). In addition, everyone knows that even in the past when population was reckoned in millions not billions, huge numbers of people went hungry. The second solution is at least a valid possibility. The third solution about correcting the unequal distribution of resources is also a valid possibility that has been trumpeted for a long time by Marxist theorists. Socialism, according to a Marx or Trotsky can only be successful on a global scale through the redistribution of all resources. It is interesting that in a discussion of political solutions to world hunger the authors of the book fail to mention the competing political theory that democratic capitalism could reduce world hunger. Perhaps some mention of the theory that since hunger is greater in autocracies and warlord or communist controlled governments what is really needed is freedom to produce food and security to keep it and sell it. Or as Frances Lappe succinctly puts it: “Hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food but a scarcity of democracy” (www.smallplanet.org).

Then there is the stab into psychology and philosophy as if physical science and politics were not scope enough for a science textbook. Sounding like Thoreau meditating on the bank of Waldon Pond, the authors assert: “Wild areas—forest-covered mountains, rolling prairies, barren deserts, and other undeveloped areas—are important to the human spirit. We can escape the tensions of the civilized world by retreating, even temporarily, to the solitude of natural areas” (313). Now, I happen to agree with this statement and what it tells us about the universal human condition; however, I find it out of place in a “science” text of this nature, especially in the context of encouraging the creation and permanent management of more public lands by the federal government. In what almost sounds like an endorsement of religion the text claims that, “organisms not only contribute to human survival and physical comfort, they provide recreation, inspiration, and spiritual solace” (365).

“Slightly more than one-half of US forest are privately owned... Many private owners are under economic pressure to subdivide the land and develop tracts for housing or shopping malls, as they seek ways to recoup their high property taxes.” (322) You got the high property taxes right... but “shopping malls”? How many shopping malls are being built in the middle of the forest? Or again when talking about rangeland the text laments: “...two thirds are privately owned. Much of the private rangeland is under increasing pressure from developers, who want to subdivide the land into lots for homes and condominiums” (325). Seriously, how many condos are being planned on the rangeland of Kansas?

Deforestation. The word can freeze the blood and send an acid rain of sadness and anger pounding on the roof of the mind. Ai! Ai! O forest, where art thou? No doubt logging companies in North America trying to supply lumber to bloated consumer economies like the US account for most of the world's deforestation. Well... not really. Despite the other environmental flaws of the developed world, deforestation is not one of them. We have to give credit to the book for making the unpopular claim that, “Most of the world's deforestation is currently taking place in Africa and South America” (318). Total forests in Europe and Asia have actually grown recently (319). In less developed nations trees are cut down for fuel or slash-and-burn agriculture is practiced. If we want to stop deforestation we need to improve the energy and food supply of Less Developed Countries.

“Most Species facing extinction today are endangered because of the destruction, fragmentation, or degradation of habitats by human activities. We demolish or alter habitats when we build roads, parking lots, bridges and buildings; clears forests to grow crops or graze domestic animals; and log forest for timber. We drain marshes to build on aquatic habitats, thus converting them to terrestrial ones, and we flood terrestrial habitats when we build dams. Exploration for and mining of minerals, including fossil fuels, disrupt the land and destroy habitats. Habitats are altered by outdoor recreation, including off-road vehicles, hiking off-trail, golfing, skiing, and camping” (370).

If you don't feel guilty about that round of golf or ski trip there is something wrong with you. And whatever you do, don't dare wander around in the woods “off-trail” like some modern-day John Muir because that will drive an entire species to extinction!

But, if you read very attentively “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free:” “the effects of many interactions between the environment and humans are unknown or difficult to predict, we generally don't know if corrective actions should be taken before our scientific understanding is more complete” (14). A strangely contradictory admission from those preaching to people everywhere to repent of their evil ways because the time is short and the imminent destruction of the Earth is near.

“The involvement of governments in childbearing and child rearing is well established” (174). Yeah, what next? “They” are already in our bedrooms and our nurseries.

One last funny and off the wall excerpt from the text:
“Contraceptive use is strongly linked to lower TFRs [Total fertility rates]” (172). No kidding! Who would have guessed!?


Linda Berg and Mary Hager, Visualizing Environmental Science. John Wiley and Sons Publishers-National Geographic Society, 2007.

Propaganda in College and Society: Part 1

Visualizing Environmental Science is a textbook used in colleges all over the country in Environmental Science classes. Printed by Wiley Publishers in cooperation with National Geographic, one would assume this book deals with environmental topics like water and air and soil. And indeed it does, to a limited extent. But what it also does is make some pointed political and ethical statements. Embedded in the opening paragraphs the authors make what could be considered the thesis for the book: “Earth's central environmental problem, which links all others together, is that there are many people, and the number, both in North America and world-wide, continues to grow” (Berg and Hager 4). While the imprecision of this statement may cause some English teachers to smile condescendingly, the message is clear enough: people are a “problem” that needs to be reduced or eliminated. Yes, that's right, the same basic premise used by Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to eliminate “socially undesirable” elements of society like the Jews. Only, in this case, the environment--not race or ideology--is used as the justification; all of humanity is the problem and not just one small political or racial minority group.

Consider some of the other ideas that the book puts forth in explicit and implicit terms. This one also deals with population: “A single child born in a highly developed country such as the United States causes a greater impact on the environment and on resource depletion than perhaps 20 children born in a developing country” (9). The obvious conclusion the authors want us readers to reach is that having children is a planet destroying evil. Every child you have is twenty times worse than a child in a Less Developed Country. One is tempted to ask how accurate this statistic is: perhaps it is only 10 children? Perhaps 5? The end of chapter summary has this question for students: “Criticize the following statement: 'population growth in developing countries is of much more concern than is population growth in highly developed countries'” (23). We know what the answer is since we read the text. Children in developed countries are twenty times worse than in Less Developed Countries. Knowing this fact, how could anyone in the United States or Europe dare to have children: it would be immoral!

Turning from the evil of children to the evil of other groups within society, the authors ask this question: “Which groups in society are responsible for the greatest environmental disruption? How can we alter the activities of these environmentally disruptive groups? It will take years to address such questions, but the answers should help decision-makers in business and government formulate policies that will alter consumption patterns in an environmentally responsible way.” (11-12) Clearly, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and Republicans are “environmentally disruptive groups” since they are the ones logging forests, manufacturing cars, and encouraging oil drilling. They need to be stopped by whatever means possible. They are the global enemies.

Perhaps anticipating objections to these positions, the authors dismiss ethical and political counter-arguments by pointing out that, “several areas of human endeavor are not scientific. Ethical principles often have a religious foundation, and political principles reflect social systems” (15). The implication is that because these disciplines are not “scientific” they are somehow of inferior importance and, should a conflict ever occur between them, “science” should always have the final say. But in the surrounding paragraphs the authors take pains to assert the universal postmodern “fact” that even science can never “prove” anything (17). “there is no absolute certainty or universal agreement about anything in science... scientists never claim to know the final answer about anything” (15). “There is no absolute truth in science, only varying degrees of uncertainty” (18). When it comes to some of their ideas, that could be a comforting thought, because it means there might be a possibility of deterring them from plunging humanity into further misery by returning us to the technological conditions of the third-world in order to “save the planet.”

I can hear outraged voices: “nobody wants to return to the conditions of the third world!” Are you sure? On page 36 the authors bemoan the “very unequal distribution of the world's resources” (36). Rather than attempt to raise the living standard of the entire world to that of the 19% who live in industrialized nations, the solution put forth in the text is to lower the living standard of highly developed nations. Backward thinking? Decide for yourself: “Such poverty, along with the enormous pressures of human population growth and consumption rates, are global problems that can't be solved without modifying the standard of living enjoyed in highly developed nations” (36 emphasis mine). Clearly there is an agenda here that seeks to strip away the comfort and security Western nations have provided for themselves. The promotion of socialism is also unmistakable. Invoking an undefined morality (Marx's perhaps?), the text states bluntly that, “everyone must have a reasonable share of earth's productivity” (36).

Far from being a small side issue taken out of context, the evil of the Developed World is a major theme of Visualizing Environmental Science. “Perhaps the single most important lesson you will learn in this text is that those who live in highly developed countries are at the core of the problems facing the global environment today. Highly developed countries consume a disproportionate share of resources and must reduce their levels of consumption” (40). Of course this comes right out of the thinking of environmental idol Paul Ehrlich who in the 1970s said: “Most people do not recognize that, at least in rich nations, economic growth is the disease, not the cure.” (as quoted in Gerdes) How shall we reduce our consumption? The text is quick to point out that the UN could help: “The strengthening of the United Nations as an effective force for global sustainability would contribute greatly to the creation of a sustainable, healthy, peaceful, and prosperous world” (40).

Clearly, from what we have seen, the authors (or the publishers, or both) have a political agenda that includes curbing the world's population, instituting socialism, and giving trans-national organizations like the United Nations legislative authority over national governments. For such a social revolution to take place extensive propaganda must be used. The text itself gives an illustration of the type of propaganda that can be used. Large-scale public health risks are minimal, to paraphrase the example I have chosen from page 72, yet they are often hyped-up by the media. The authors of Visualizing Environmental Science admit that, “these stories are more sensational then factual” (72). Nevertheless, instead of trying to correct and educate by presenting the true facts without the sensationalism, they welcome this misinformation for its usefulness as propaganda. According to the authors, “these stories serve an important role in getting the regulatory wheels of the government moving to protect us as much as possible from the dangers of our technological and industrialized world” (72, emphasis mine).

Using science or psuedo-science as a weapon of propaganda is a powerful means of waging ideological battle. Few people are bold enough or have knowledge enough to defend themselves against “science” or “experts” who tell them what to believe. Convince people that the earth is overpopulated and they will freely give up their right to reproduce; convince people that humanity is a parasite sucking life out of “mother earth” and they will rejoice when whole segments of this parasite are “eliminated” through holocaust, euthanasia, or abortion. Convince them that they are in imminent danger from rising CO2 levels, rising temperatures, and rising seas, and they will give up their money, give up their comforts, and, ultimately, give up their freedom. In the name of “protecting the environment” they will give up protecting all their rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

See also: http://bibliologicalbibblebabble.blogspot.com/2009/12/propaganda-in-college-and-society-part_29.html

Berg, Linda and Hager, Mary. Visualizing Environmental Science. John Wiley and Sons Publishers-National Geographic Society, 2007.

Gerdes, Louise I. “Overpopulation Does Not Threaten the Environment or Humanity.” Opposing Viewpoints: Humanity's Future. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.

Can We Look At Both Sides, Please?

A couple weeks ago in my Environmental Propaganda—er, Science—class, the discussion centered on man-made global warming. “Very good,” I thought, “this will allow everyone—including myself—to investigate the science and the scientists who alternately affirm or reject anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.” After reading the class textbook which, predictably, made man out to be the sole cause of the earth's impending climate change apocalypse, I turned to other resources online for the other side of the debate (i.e. that humans are either not effecting or not adversely effecting the temperature of the planet). Balancing the information of scientists from both sides of the debate heating up the scientific community, I turned to the online discussion forum to see what my peers thought (or did not think) about global warming.

What stood out in my class of about 30 was the large percentage who were firmly convinced not only that anthropogenic global warming is happening but that it was incredible that anyone could be so “ignorant” as to not believe we are killing the planet. Only two (myself and one other student) out of the entire class did any additional research that could call into doubt the “obvious” “facts” about man-made global warming. In an attempt to bring some much needed balance to the discussion I pointed out some of the many scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

After posting my comments, however, I wondered if I had made an error in the way I formulated my post. You see, I used sarcasm to exaggerate that half angry, half wide-eyed wonder I sensed in my classmates that someone could disbelieve in man-made global warming. At the end of my post I included a “liberal” plea for increased understanding and investigation of the often politically charged subject of global warming. I expected disagreement, I expected anger, I expected reproof; what I did not expect was someone to miss my sarcasm altogether and actually agree with the narrow-minded mentality that I was trying to warn against! It was this that made me question the effectiveness of sarcasm and wonder if I should have been blunter in saying what I meant to say all along: anthropogenic global warming is not proven beyond doubt and an increasing number of scientists are disavowing it altogether. Since—with an author's childish and misdirected pride—I still think my post has a twisted humor, albeit, misunderstood, I include it below.

***************************************************************************

Before accepting any scientific hypothesis as fact it is necessary to prove it beyond reasonable doubt with clear experimentation and data. In the case of global warming the data in report after study seems to indicate that man-made (women too!) global warming is going to sear our previously blue planet into a crispy ball of fire. Imminent scientists from Al Gore to Jon Steward have shown beyond a shadow of smoggy doubt that CO2 emissions from cars and factories are the culprits of a disastrous rise in temperature that will wreck havoc and raise the sea levels an alarming 3 inches to 20 feet. How could anyone not believe this?!?! What is particularly disturbing are all the people with Ph.Ds who refuse to accept the horrors of anthropogenic global warming! These people write papers and teach impressionable children!

For instance, can't we stop someone like Dr. George T. Wolff, former EPA Science Advisory Board member, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) committee member, peer-reviewed author and award-winning atmospheric scientist, from saying heretical things like:

“There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” (1)

Even worse is the statement by Dr. John Everett, U.N. Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author and reviewer and former NOAA senior manager who says:

"It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change." (2)

What is it these people don't get? Don't they know that global warming is bad and it is caused by humans?

But here's yet a third narrow-minded scientist denying the obvious, Princton physics Professor and former director of the U.S. Office of Energy Research William Happer:

“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide.” (3)

What's gone wrong with these people? Don't they know the scientific “facts” that “prove” global warming? Surely they can't all believe with Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore who, among 75 other prestigious publications, authored the 2001 version of The NASA Space Science Technology Plan that,

“The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” (4)

Uh-oh, is there a problem here in the “Science” of global warming?

“First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists. Don't let anybody tell you there is.”--Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

According to Dr. David Bellamy, Botanist from Durham University and one-time adherent to the global warming dogma,

“The science [of global warming] has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.” (5)

The many current alarmist theories about global warming are bunk. Even once respectable organizations have degenerated into the politically charged environmental propaganda machines that Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus warns are,

“the largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century.” (6)

The U.N.'s alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is gaining the contempt of real scientists for spreading scientifically deficient ideas. According to Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author and Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, member of the UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.

“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” (7)

In case you take this to be exaggerated language, consider the other 700 scientists who have vocally repudiated the claims of the 52 U.N. scientists who compiled the report. Many of the quotes I have used are from these 700 scientists whose views have been published in the September 2009 U.S. Senate Minority Report that I encourage you to look at.

I close with the statement I began with. Before accepting any scientific hypothesis as fact it is necessary to prove it beyond reasonable doubt with clear experimentation and data. Don't accept everything you read without at least considering that there may be other valid alternatives. Keep an open mind. Do not be afraid to explore and ponder alternatives to the current ideological paradigm. Even our textbook admits that new discoveries in science sometimes make past theories untenable. (8)

(1) Dr. George Wolff http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

(2) Dr. John Everett. “US Senate Minority Report” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

(3) Dr. William Happer. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

(4) Dr. Gregory W. Moore http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

(5) Dr. David Bellamy http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

(6) Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet In Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/objednavka.asp?id=35

(7) Dr. Grant Miles. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

(8) Linda Berg and Mary Hager, Visualizing Environmental Science. John Wiley and Sons Publishers-National Geographic society, 2007. Pg. 18

Spur One Another On Toward Love and Good Deeds

I was shocked and humbled a few nights ago while reading a short story by Leo Tolstoy. It got me thinking about one of the purposes of reading literature. The story (called Two Old Men) commences with old Effim and Elisha setting off on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. A few weeks into their trek, Elisha, feeling thirsty, approaches a hut to ask for water, assuring Effim that he will catch up on the road later. When there is no response to his knock, Elisha decides to open the door and go in. He finds a family on the point of death due to a famine and sickness. Instead of getting water from them, he must get water for them as they are too weak to draw any themselves. He then goes on to feed them, buy back the lease on their field, and get them a horse and cart.

The thing that came as such an unpleasant surprise to me was my initial reaction to the story: I did not want Elisha to help them and spend all his time and pilgrimage money on them. (How callused is that?) My thoughts mirrored those of Elisha on the fourth evening of his stay with the family. He,

“was in two minds... On the one hand he felt he ought to be going, for he had spent too much time and money as it was; on the other hand he felt sorry for the people.

'There seems to be no end to it,' he said. 'first I only meant to bring them a little water and give them each a slice of bread, and just see where it has landed me. It's a case of redeeming the meadow and the cornfield. And when I have done that I shall have to buy a cow for them, and a horse for the man to cart his sheaves'” (Tolstoy 114).

Such a course seems worse than foolhardy for a poor man in the midst of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to honor God. In the end, all his money is used up and his fellow pilgrim, Effim, is weeks ahead in his journey to Jerusalem. Elisha has no choice but to admit he must turn back home.

“I'm afraid I shall never fulfill my vow [to go to Jerusalem] in this life. I must be thankful it was made to a merciful Master and to one who pardons sinners” (117).

What Elisha doesn't know is that his shining bald head had been seen in Jerusalem at the holiest shrines. His friend Effim is amazed that his lost companion had made it to Jerusalem ahead of him (124). The moral of the story, and the one that I was finally forced to accept after my initial stubbornness, was the one Effim saw months later when he got home and learned: “that the best way to keep one's vows to God and to do His will, is for each man while he lives to show love and do good to others” (130). “Or else while I go to seek the Lord beyond the sea I may lose Him in myself”(115).

I mentioned that this story got me thinking about one of the purposes of literature. I was reluctant to let Elisha do the right thing in the story. Because our wills and desires are so often contrary to doing the right thing, we need all the help we can get in the quest to develop a mindset of godliness. Our lives and imaginations need to be saturated with examples of saintly action. The pragmatic and utilitarian “walk by on the other side of the road” mentality often seems to make sense but it is not the right response. We need examples of godly action to spur us on. These role-models can, hopefully, be found in real life but reading the right literature is also a good way to find heroes who will stir up an enthusiasm for virtue. The writer of Hebrews puts it this way: "Encourage one another daily . . . so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness" (Hebrews 3:13). And again: “let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.... let us encourage one another” (Hebrews 10:24).

We need the encouragement of right-acting role-models, real or fictional, that capture our imagination. Allen Bloom points out the need for heroic role-models who practice the classical and Christian virtues when he insightfully observes that: “The moral education that is today supposed to be the great responsibility of the family cannot exist if it cannot present to the imagination of the young a vision of a moral cosmos and of the rewards and punishments for good and evil, sublime speeches that accompany and interpret deeds, protagonists and antagonists in the drama of moral choice” (Bloom 60). A daily dose of stories like Tolstoy's Two Old Men may be the spur that the imagination needs for “love and good deeds” to be eagerly pursued.

Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, New York. A Touchstone Book, Simon and Schuster inc. 1988

Leo Tolstoy, Twenty-Three Tales. Trans. Louise and Aylmer Maude. The World's Classics, London, Oxford University Press. 1947.

"Sorry, We're Closing"

As readers of this blog know, I occasionally venture to read something of a higher intellectual calibre than trashy 19th century novels. When this happens I am often pleasantly satisfied with how I have used my reading hours. When I bought The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom for 20 cents and began reading it I had this pleasant feeling. The Closing of the American Mind gives an overview of the philosophies and ideas that have influenced modern American intellectual life. Such influences as Marxism, Freudianism, egalitarianism, and democracy, among others, are all mentioned for their role in shaping education and the current thought processes in academia.

From the very beginning my pencil was streaking across the pages, trying to preserve in this way all the best thoughts and ideas. Looking back, I see that my system of underlining has a serious problem: too much of the book has been underlined for any sort of quick reference to be effective. Nevertheless I scanned back through the first 80 pages and saw a host of excellent quotes, just a few of which I couldn't resist copying here. The next 300 pages will have to wait for another time.

“History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative” (39).

“To deny the possibility of knowing good and bad is to suppress true openness” (40).

“No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life.... The point is to propagandize acceptance of different ways, and indifference to their real content is as good a means as any. It was not necessarily the best of times in America when Catholics and Protestant were suspicious of and hated one another; but at least they were taking their beliefs seriously” (34-35).

The dreariness of the family's spiritual landscape passes belief... The delicate fabric of the civilization into which the successive generations are woven has unraveled, and children are raised, not educated... The parents must have knowledge of what has happened in the past, and the prescriptions for what ought to be, in order to resist the philistinism or the wickedness of the present. Ritual and ceremony are now often said to be necessary for the family, and they are now lacking. The family, however, has to be a sacred unity believing in the permanence of what it teaches, if its ritual and ceremony are to express and transmit the wonder of the moral law” (57).

“The moral education that is today supposed to be the great responsibility of the family cannot exist if it cannot present to the imagination of the young a vision of a moral cosmos and of the rewards and punishments for good and evil, sublime speeches that accompany and interpret deeds, protagonists and antagonists in the drama of moral choice” (60).

“What poor substitutes for real diversity are the rainbows of dyed hair and other external differences that tell the observer nothing about what is inside” (64).

"Lack of education simply results in students' seeking for enlightenment wherever it is readily available, without being able to distinguish between the sublime and trash, insight and propaganda” (64).

“The failure to read good books both enfeebles the vision and strengthens our most fatal tendency—the belief that the here and now is all there is” (64).

“Students have powerful images of what a perfect body is and pursue it incessantly. But deprived of literary guidance, they no longer have any image of a perfect soul, and hence do not long to have one. They do not even imagine that there is such a thing” (67).

Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, New York. A Touchstone Book, Simon and Schuster inc. 1988

Early Christians Speak

My last post on the growth of the early church was an essay for my Western Civilization class (Thankfully now over). While writing it I scoured my bookshelves for material and had quite a little pile of reference works on my desk. Some of them I had read before and some of them I don't plan on ever reading; however, one book is particularly handy to have around when dealing with the history of the early church. The book is Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries by Everett Ferguson.

Although I wasn't able to glean much from it during the writing of this essay, it has been invaluable in the past. I first stumbled across it at the Simpson University library a few years ago while researching a high school paper on early Christian poetry. After that I put it on my Christmas list and received my own copy. It is more of a reference resource than something to read through. The book is divided into chapters, each one dealing with an issue of early church life and practice such as baptism, worship services, the Lord's Supper, military service, etc. The thing that makes this book great is that it is a collection of quotes. The title says it all: Early Christians Speak, not some historian almost two thousand years later. Each chapter has 10-20 relevant quotes from early church fathers and Christian apocrypha from the first three centuries. But never fear, if this seems too simple and straightforward there is also a heavily footnoted “discussion” of the material at the end of each chapter which regurgitates the information and gives some helpful historical scholarship.

A list of relevant New Testament passages are given at the beginning of each chapter so that the quotes of the fathers can be compared to them. Everett Ferguson explains in his forward that “there is, thus, a stress on historical continuity. We are talking about the same community of people, the same church, as existed in the New Testament. We are tracing out some features of its historical development through the second century” (vii). Other features of the book include a glossary, time chart, and extensive index of references.

I have not read it all but, as I mentioned before, the chapter on “Some Early Christian Hymns and Poetry” was invaluable. Other chapters I've found fascinating are: “Christian Assemblies,” “Early Worship Services,” “The Love Feast,” and “Women in the Early Church.” With each of the nineteen chapters an average of twelve pages long it is possible to get a fairly good understanding of what the early church's position on these topics were without spending a great deal of time reading and studying. Building the book around what early Christians actually said in primary documents makes this an authoritative reference. It is also interesting to hear the very words that early Christians speak.

Everett Ferguson, Early Christians speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries. 3^rd edition, ACU Press, Abilene, Texas, 1999.

The Day Philosophy Died?

The comment below is taken from an online encyclopedia I was reading during research for an essay on the artistic and intellectual achievements of the High Middle Ages. It is unrelated to my essay but I thought it was interesting. What good is a subject that only a select few can even understand?

“Prior to Abelard, philosophy in the Middle Ages had not been an exclusively academic affair. It had been addressed for the most part to any well educated reader interested in the topics being discussed. Boethius's Consolation, for instance, or almost any of Augustine's or Anselm's writings, could profitably be read by any literate person. Soon, however, this all changes. Philosophy becomes an increasingly specialized discipline, pursued by and for those whose livelihood is found only in educational institutions.”

Paul Vincent Spade. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Medieval Philosophy.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/)

The Pride in Monkey

I am currently taking a world literature class. (Who would have guessed.) Anyway, I am. Despite my early fears that its primarily non-western selection of readings would make for a terrible class, I have been pleasantly surprised. We read a few chapters from a long Chinese novel. (At a few thousand pages, longer than a Russian novel even.) I don't think "novel" is even the best way to describe it; it is more like an epic or something. Journey to the West or Monkey as it is more often called, chronicles the journey of a Buddhist priest named Tripitaka from China who is commissioned to find "scriptures" in India. Along the way he picks up a number of helpers or "disciples" to assist him. The first and most important of these is the title character: Monkey.

The story is definitely fantastic (I mean like a fantasy, but it's pretty good too). Monkey really is a monkey, and along with him a whole host of other talking monsters make their appearance in the tale. My class is an on-line course so for this 16th century story by Wu Ch'eng-en we were asked to examine the flaws in Monkey's character. The thing that most struck me and that relates to my last post on C.S.Lewis is how Monkey is consumed by pride and a desire to show off. He says himself: “I only care for fame” (56). This leads him into conflict with supposed monsters rather than stating his mission as he was ordered. If he had done everything right, things would have gone better for the pilgrims but, of course, we also would not have much of a story to read.

Monkey's pride is his greatest fault. At the very beginning he wishes to elevate himself over all the other monkeys and be their king(12). It is a desire to “show off his own powers” that goads him to many of his actions, as the heavenly buddha Kuan-yin points out (27). It is his pride that makes him leave Tripitaka in a huff when rebuked for killing the robbers and for pursuing his own will in so many other episodes. But what shows this better than anything else is what Monkey calls himself: “The Great Sage Equal to Heaven.” The arrogance of this is stunning. Monkey is basically saying that he (remember, a monkey) is on the same footing as all the deities of heaven. Was not this the same over-weaning pride of Satan when he set himself up in opposition to God? For this sin, of which we only get a flashback of because it happens before the opening of the story, Monkey is imprisoned and later put on probation to learn humility under the care of Tripitaka, a common buddhist priest.

The fact that Monkey acknowledges Tripitaka as his “master” is a sign that Monkey is on the right path to learning humility. Before he “had no master and indeed refused obedience to any power in heaven or earth” (26). The examples above, however, along with many other illustrations of his actions, show that he still has a long way to go. The Dragon King admonishes: “You must learn to control yourself and submit to the will of others, if you are not to spoil all your chances (22). We only read a few chapter from the start of the tale so I only got to see an itty-bitty improvement in Monkey but supposedly by the end (and remember it's a long story) he does indeed learn to control his pride and, in Buddhist fashion, reach "enlightenment." There is a dual quest in Monkey that makes it worthwhile reading; the outward exciting journey to India for "scriptures" and the inward delineation of a character on a personal journey.

Wu Ch'eng-en. Monkey (Journey to the West). The Norton Anthology of World Literature: Volume D: 1650-1800. Ed. Sarah Lawall and Maynard Mack. New York: W.W.Norton and Co, 2002. 2nd ed.

If an Imagination Is so Great...

Having shown the prevalence and usefulness of imagination in the first half of his book The Educated Imagination, Northrop Frye uses the second half to briefly outline the order literature should be approached to best train the imagination. Frye says, interestingly enough, that:

“the Bible forms the lowest stratum in the teaching of literature. It should be taught so early and so thoroughly that it sinks straight to the bottom of the mind, where everything that comes along later can settle on it” (110).

I find it somewhat ironic that a secular scholar should say something like this at a time when even many Christians have almost forgotten about the Bible. Literature aside, shouldn't all Christians be taught what the Bible says, “so early and so thoroughly that it sinks straight to the bottom of the mind, where everything that comes along later may settle on it”?

Just like Victor Davis Hanson, Frye also advocates early training in Greek and Latin authors before exploring later modern writers. Biblical and classical knowledge is foundational to understanding both the allusions of later authors and basic literary forms, yet Frye states that there is “a deficiency in the earliest stages of literary teaching for both poet and reader” (113). A few hundred years ago authors were taught the Bible and the classics, today, “modern poets don't get the same kind of education, as a rule: they have to educate themselves” (113). In case you think this is a slightly too dismal accusation of our education system, consider the Ancient World Literature course at my community college. The catalogue reads: “a majority of the works will be selected from a non-Western literary tradition.” As if this were not bad enough, the course isn't even offered this semester so I am stuck with World Literature After 1500 (again, the majority of works in this are from a non-Western tradition). (Plus, they canceled the only American Literature course when I tried to register. Does anyone have a conspiracy theory I can subscribe to that will explain this or should I make one up?)

Fry, Northrop. The Educated Imagination. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1964, (2006?).

What Good Is an Imagination?

The title caught my eye. A slender black volume with the The Educated Imagination inscribed in bold white letters across it. The back cover promised to explain “the value and uses of literature” and why it should still be read in “our scientific age.” Since the study of literature seems to be on the wane and does not appear to offer any practical help to modern man in the 21st century, I wondered how the author would convince me it is still important.

In the first chapter of his book, Northrop Frye classifies language into three categories. (1) The language of description, (2) the language of information, and (3) the language of the imagination. While the first two are practical and deal with the things that are, the language of the imagination projects not what is but what could be; or what ought to be. Obviously, each language uses the same words and in most cases two or more levels are used at the same time. I realize this is boring so to move on quickly, the point is this: we use imagination all the time. An architect uses it to draw up the plans for a house. A politician uses it to picture the changes in society if a certain law is passed. You use it every time you try to make those leftovers in the fridge seem a little more appetizing. Any time we want to tell others what we are envisioning we communicate on the level of the imagination. “Consequently,” says Frye, “we have only the choice between a badly trained imagination and a well trained one, whether we ever read a poem or not” (134-35).

Frye goes on to say: “the fundamental job of the imagination in ordinary life, then, is to produce, out of the society we have to live in, a vision of the society we want to live in” (140). Now since an evolving materialist world-view has no moral wisdom, a vision of what they “want” could be a horrible thing. For a Christian, however, what we want should be what God wants. Though we live in this society we should constantly envision the kingdom of God; the society we “want.” This means both explicit meditation on heaven and visions of “living the kingdom” to our very fullest potential in the future here.

I don't think it is a digression (well, maybe it is but what the heck) to consider some Christian stories that do create “a vision of the society we want to live in.” In regard to Christian artists making use of heaven, what immediately comes to my mind is C.S.Lewis's concluding Narnia story. In it the Narnian heroes reunite in the new Narnia with laughter and joy while climbing “further up and further in.” This is the best narrative I can think of that gives an imaginative glimpse at the joy of heaven. Other poets like Milton and Dante, most famously, have also tried to imagine heaven but, for me at least, their attempts don't stir me like Lewis's in The Last Battle. Of course this theme of Heaven does not need to be the main point of a story nor does it need to be explicit; allegory or one brief mention of joy is often enough to awaken longing. One scene in the Return of the King (if I may borrow from a movie just once) awakens this in me. During a battle Gandalf assures Pippin that this is not the end but only the beginning. Pippin asks what he will see after death and Gandalf replies: “white shores, and beyond that, a far green country under a swift sunrise.” One sentence about a beach and a field at dawn but somehow it does the trick; it “creates a vision of the society we want to live in.”

Apart from implicit and explicit visions of heaven such as these, Christian authors can “spur one another on toward love and good deeds” by example. These visions of a fully Christ honoring society, or individual within a society, can be done any number of ways, from a fantasy hero fighting the bad guys to Joe Average facing life in 21st century California; from a sci-fi planet untouched by sin to a community of believers striving to imitate Christ. Just one example, In His Steps by Charles Sheldon strikingly imagines a town in which citizens begin saying no to the world and instead ask: “what would Jesus do?” The stories are endless but the main idea is: what if? What if in our fallen society we strive to follow the faultless One and eagerly desire to be like him.

The imagination is also useful in defending us from the spirit of the age. Northrop Frye calls this spirit a culture's “mythology.” So America a hundred years ago had a “mythology” about “hard work, thrift and saving for a rainy day.” This has in large measure passed and a new “mythology” of materialism and pleasure has arisen. “Our imaginations,” according to Frye are what “protect us from falling into the illusions society threatens us with” (141). This again, for a Christian, is applicable. Even though not all of these “mythologies” are bad, many of them are and none of them are permanent. While there are other, more direct, defences against the temptation to embrace the world's illusions about what will make us happy—prayer, the study of scripture, etc—the imagination can look beyond what is in this fallen world to what can be when man's relationship to God is restored. Thus a Christian with a purified imagination will more easily see that “the world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:17).

Fry, Northrop. The Educated Imagination. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1964, (2006?).

Logic and Learning

I took my logic final yesterday. It does not follow,however, that I am finally logical. So glad was I to be done with the class that I began to clear my desk of all things relating to logic. (I leave you to interpret the ambiguity and decide if I mean relating to the class or logic itself).

Apart from my main textbook I have a small Mars Hill exercise book that I thumbed through at the beginning of my class and subsequently ignored the rest of the semester. I picked it up again after my final and gave it one parting glance. Skimming the list of fallacies, my eye caught one that was not in my other textbook; however, I recognized it anyway. The term “Bulverism” was coined by C.S.Lewis and that explains why I recognized it and also why it is not an official term for a fallacy in other textbooks. Bulverism does have its corresponding term in my text as the “ad hominem circumstantial.” That is, the second arguer attacks the person of the first arguer by claiming something about the circumstances of the first arguer that makes him or her argue that way. For instance, “he claims the book is exciting and that everybody should read it but he only says that because he is paid by the publisher.”

Since any excuse will serve that allows me to read C.S.Lewis, I no sooner saw the term Bulverism than I pulled down God in the Dock and reread the essay: “'Bulverism:' or, the Foundation of 20th Century Thought.” Just like the ad hominem circumstantial, Bulverism ignores the actual truth or falsehood of an argument and instead tries (and often succeeds) in discrediting the arguer. “In other words,” Lewis explains, “you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly” (273). Lewis records the origin of Bulverism,

a vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it.... Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that the two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third—'Oh you say that because you are a man.' 'At that moment,' E. Bulver assures us, 'there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall' (273).

Why—the day after my final when, at last, there is no need to think about logic—do I write about this subject that, frankly, I didn't like very much while I was taking a class on it? After writing the paragraphs above I asked myself that question and came to the realization that this fallacy became interesting to me because it is connected to something else I am interested in, namely, C.S.Lewis. We learn things best if we are not forced to learn them; when something or someone we love makes us want to find out more. I think George MacDonald had it right when he said: “we must learn things as they come to us and when we want to. Otherwise there will be little remembering. You can never make yourself like a thing” (65). And now, whether you liked it or not, you've read the history of Bulverism and George MacDonald's philosophy of education. The question is, will you remember it or, like me before yesterday, think it is the most boring thing in the world.

Lewis, C. S. God in the Dock: Essays On Theology and Ethics. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1993.
MacDonald, George. The Tutor's First Love. originally David Elginbrod. 1863. Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1989.