Life and Debt

John Perkins is the first speaker of the Speaking Freely series. I watched this episode last night and was reminded of a film I watched many years ago, Life and Debt, which was totally eye opening to me.

Perkins says he used to be an economic hit man. He’d go into poor nations and offer them loans with massive strings attached. These loans would create crippling debt for the nations who received the loans, and often incredible political strife.  They would be touted as a beneficent deal on behalf of the U.S. government to help these nations gain autonomy, but in reality, they were nothing more than a way to enrich U.S. Corporations at the expense of troubled nations.  Perkins resigned in 1981 and now works with indigenous cultures to preserve their cultures, environment, and heritage.  Here’s part of the interview…

“Life and Debt”, by Stephanie Black, is specifically about the results of globalization on Jamaican farmers and workers. It’s pretty tough to watch. The partying American tourists who are having beer drinking contests and hermit crab races at fancy hotels are juxtaposed with the fate of the local impoverished Jamaicans the tourists don’t see.

Jamaica Kincaid reads from her non-fiction book, A Small Place (which is actually about Antigua), throughout the film. She begins by telling tourists what you will not see while on your wonderful, exciting trip to Jamaica. You won’t know that the food you eat comes from Miami. That the sewage is dumped into the ocean. That there have been no new hospitals built in years. That what looks like an outhouse is actually a school.

The film explains how this suffering has occurred at the hands of the IMF, the WBO and the IADB, whose policies are primarily controlled and determined by the U.S. and Western Europe. The mechanisms created by these international lending institutions help make wealthy countries more wealthy while the economic base of poorer countries are eroded. The high interests rates devalue the local currency and make it impossible to compete with wealthier countries who can sell the same products Jamaicans produce more cheaply. This has completely devastated the Jamaican industry.

For a long while, the Jamaican banana industry flourished because Britain allowed for a tax free import quota. But the U.S. protested through the WTO and forced Jamaica to compete with companies in Central and South America (Dole and Chiquita) where labor is cheaper, destroying Jamaica’s banana industry.

Sweatshop conditions are also created. Laborers work 5-6 hour weeks sewing garments for American manufacturers (Hanes) and are paid the legal minimum – $30/week. They are not permitted unions and the materials are brought in containers that never technically touch Jamaican soil so the American manufacturers are not required to pay taxes to the Jamaican government.

At the end of the film, Jamaica Kincaid read, “It was settled by Christopher Columbus in 1493. Not too long after, it was settled by human rubbish from Europe, who used enslaved noble and exalted human beings from Africa…to satisfy their desire for wealth and power, to feel better about their own miserable existence, so that they could be less lonely and empty- a European disease”

IMF policies can be changed only by an 80 percent vote. The United States, Japan, Germany, England, Canada and Italy control more than 80 percent of the votes.

So, are the developing economies of the Third World being deliberately destroyed and turned into captive markets for rich nations? Jamaica was once self-sufficient and is now cheap labor for foreign industry. How did that happen? Yes, partly because mistakes made by it’s own government. But what can be expected of a nation that came to exist through slavery and colonialization? How can we expect it to compete with well-developed countries?

When I was still attending a Catholic Church, the Year 2000 was deemed the Great Jubilee 2000. One of the hopes of this Jubilee was to have Third World Debt forgiven. In the Hebrew Bible, the Jubilee is every 7th year when Jewish farmers are required to allow their land to go fallow (to give the land back to God.) Every 50th year (7×7) the Great Jubilee occurs and Jews are required to “return every man unto his possession” which means all slaves and indentured servants are to be set free.

Australia paid some attention to the Jubilee in 2000, forgiving debt for Nicaragua and Ethiopia. September, 2005, a deal was struck with the IMF to begin forgiving debt of Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Cambodia and Tajikistan. The WBO will forgive the debt of all of these countries except Cambodia and Tajikistan.

But John Perkins claims this means nothing because strings continue to be attached.  All these countries really want is to be allowed to be self-sufficient.  The “strings” don’t allow this to be possible.

Posted in documentaries, social issues | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Waiting for Armageddon

Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I have lived around End Times theology and theories all my life.  Many a lunch break was spent discussing what would happen during the rapture in middle school and high school.  Everyone wanted to be rapture ready because being left behind was unthinkable.

I inherited the mentality from my friends, not my family.  And that was before all the Left Behind books became popular.  As each voyeuristic episode grew more destructive and violent, more people were hooked, and more people started writing their own versions.  (We lived across the street from a semi-popular “left behind” novelist.)  Apparently, millions of Americans love the idea of horrible harm coming to those who do not think as they do.  A compassionate Jesus? Who needs him if you are waiting for Armageddon?

Waiting for Armageddon, a documentary by Kate Davis, David Heilbroner, and Franco Sacchi, explores the people who believe that Armageddon is around the corner and that Israel will be the site of Christ’s second coming.  It begins by stating that more than 50 million Americans believe that the Bible lays out the future of humankind in precise detail.   Among these, many believe that Christ will return to lead a final holy war in the land of Israel.  The show claims that 20 million Americans believe Jesus will return in their life time.  And remember the Pew statistics I quoted the other day?  41% of Americans believe Jesus will return before 2050.

According to many who believe in Biblical prophecy, the world will be destroyed in a chain of miraculous events:

  1. The Rapture – believers are snatched up by Jesus
  2. The Tribulation – seven years of war, violence, and destruction for those left behind
  3. Armageddon – the final epic battle between good and evil
  4. The Millennium – the return of the believers to a paradise on earth where there no longer is any evil

First comes  “The Rapture” which is based on Thessalonians 4:17: “We will be caught up together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

The Rapture comes from the Greek word harpazo which means to snatch up or take up.  When Christ returns in the clouds, he will snatch up believers with him.  This will happen in an instant.  Suddenly, the 50 million or more believers will be gone – whisked out of their offices, homes or wherever it is they happen to be.  One minute they are here.  The next, puff!  Gone.  They will be snatched out of their cars, leaving them unmanned on the road which will cause accidents.  It will completely terrorize those who are left behind.

Second comes “The Tribulation”, based on Matthew 24:21: “Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world.”   Those who chose not to believe in God before “the Rapture” will be left to suffer the seven year tribulation.  75% of the earth will be wiped out.  Ecological disasters, meteors hitting the earth, episodes like 9/11 happening every day, 1/3 of the waters will turn to blood.  Five to six years into “The Tribulation”, half of the world will be dead.  Violence and wars will radically increase.   This is the time period when God finishes his judgment and discipline of Israel.

There is a belief that during this time, there will be enough Jews to create a nation.  Supposedly, 144,000 Jews will convert and evangelize.  The Jews who do not convert, will perish.  The temple will be rebuilt. (The land shall not be sold forever: for the land is mine. Leviticus 25:23.)  Thousands of Americans who believe in End Times make pilgrimage to Jerusalem every year to visit the Islamic mosque that used to be the temple.  This can be problematic because both evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Jews hope for the destruction of the mosque in order that the  temple can be built again.  Jews because they believe it is their right.  American evangelists because it points to Armageddon.  In fact, many Americans interviewed in the documentary dream of something absolutely horrible happening to destroy the mosque (like an earthquake or nuclear boms) so the temple can be rebuilt.  Very few are interested in peaceful negotiations.  It’s no wonder things are so contentious.

American evangelical fundamentalists explain Islam as a world dominating religion. Believers are required to take over the world for Allah.  Yet, throughout history, it could be argued that Islam has been far more tolerant of Jews than Christianity.  And get real – it’ not as though the fundamentalists love the Jews.  They fully expect them to convert or be destroyed by the wrath of God.  It would seem that the God of Christianity wants Christians to take over the world for God more than does Allah want the Muslims to take over the world for Islam.  It’s a projection – cast the finger out there at “those people”, when the finger should really be pointed at yourself.

But that’s the nature of fundamentalism.   You have to have something to point the finger at so that you don’t have to look too closely at yourself.  In the 1970s, the “evil ones” were Red China and the Communist Block of Russia.  But with the fall of Russia and the end of the cold war, the evangelicals have had to find new “evil ones” so have shifted their focus to Islam.   There must be an evil “them” in order to have a righteous “us”.  Doesn’t matter who it is.

Apocalyptic literature was never meant as a script for those in power.  It was written for those persecuted by those in power.  In the hands of the powerful, it is no longer inspirational, but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy of violence and destruction.  For example, John Hagee called for a strike on Iran because of what he understands as Biblical prophecy.  Yet, no where does the Bible claim that WWIII is part of God’s plan.

Armageddon is the third stage in the chain of events.  “Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets.”  Zechariah 14:12.

I’d never heard this before, but mysticism is of genuine concern for many evangelicals because they claim it has led to an interpretation of the Bible that isn’t literal.  Yet, mysticism has been around a lot longer than has fundamentalism and has always been the common link between world religions.  According to Huston Smith, fundamentalism didn’t come into being until the 19th century.    Far from creating bridges, fundamentalism creates deep divides by claiming that it’s way is the only way to Truth.

Anyway, the story goes that the Jews will sign a peace treaty with their Arab neighbors that turns out to be false.  This treaty allows the antichrist to move into the temple and declare himself God.  This will be when the Jews realize he is not the promised Messiah and this will lead to Armageddon, the epic end-time battle.

The Millennium is the fourth stage in the chain of events.  “And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Revelation 20:4.  Christ is going to trash the planet, but he’s going to clean it up for the millennium.  No EPA necessary.

All of this would simply be amusing if there weren’t so many powerful political personalities who believe it.  These people are organized and are making their way into every part of politics, both local and national.  It’s so bad that many evangelicals who don’t share these particular End Times theories are concerned by the power of those who do.

Posted in documentaries, fundamentalism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I Want to Be Left Behind by Brenda Peterson

Did you know that 41% of Americans believe Jesus is going to return to Earth by 2050?  This kind of scares me.  Not because I’m afraid of being left behind.  I really doubt Jesus is going to return in any literal sense and if he does, I agree with Brenda Peterson -  I want to be left behind, thank you.  What scares me is that we are not particularly good stewards of the earth and a large number of us don’t really seem to care what horrible stewards we are.

If you seriously believe Jesus is going to return and whisk you away from Earth by 2050, what reason do you have to take care of the earth for your children and grandchildren?  Why not just leave the Earth in horrible shape for the sinners who get left behind?  It’s their fault for not believing, right?

This view concerns Brenda Peterson who wrote a memoir entitled I Want to Be Left Behind: Finding Rapture Here on Earth.  She quotes Bishop Wright who asks in “Farewell to the Rapture”:  “Is not the ‘Left Behind’ mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon?”

But she also recognizes that there are those who believe in Rapture who continue to care for the earth.  Her memoir begins in Seattle.  She and her neighbor are sharing seal pup sitting duty.  He catches her off guard by informing her, “With 9/11, the blessed countdown for the Rapture has begun.”

Despite having grown up in a family that is absolutely giddy about the “end of times”, Peterson explains that she is far more drawn to the wonders and rapture of the earth than the otherworldly place her family is so excited about going.  Her family has long since quit trying to get her to share in their excitement about the rapture which is why her neighbor catches her off guard.  And while it may be true that 41% of Americans agree with Peterson’s neighbor that the countdown to the rapture is on, not all who believe this are necessarily poor stewards of the earth.   Take the seal put sitting neighbor for instance.  Or the fact that despite their gleeful anticipation of the rapture, Peterson’s large Southern Baptist family are all involved in caring for the world in some way.

Peterson claims that Fundamentalists and Environmentalists share far more similar philosophies than either side realizes.   She offers this quick comparison between the two:

  1. both are enraptured by doom
  2. Fundamentalists – Apocalypse Now/Environmentalists – Apocalypse Near
  3. both share a fear of future consequences
  4. both express righteous anger
  5. both are into “Thou shalt not”
  6. both think themselves “Holier than Thou”
  7. both are humorless
  8. both are into blame, shame and judgment
  9. both are Evangelical

Peterson points to something Biologist Olivia Judson wrote about a study by D.R. Oxley.  (Oxley, D. R. et al. 2008. “Political attitudes vary with physiological traits.” Science 321: 1667-1670.)

People who support warrantless searches, wiretapping, military spending and so on were also likely to startle at sudden noises and threatening images.  Those who support foreign aid, immigration, gun control, and the like tended to have much milder responses to the stimuli.

Peterson wonders if maybe the reason she is not as concerned about leaving this earth is because she was simply hardwired to respond more mildly than the rest of her family.  Maybe the stronger startle response in her family is what makes them believe in such things as Satan and the Rapture.  It follows that religion, for those with a strong startle response, becomes a safety net to assuage fears.  Peterson feels this is very important for liberals to understand – many people seriously believe that danger and persecution are ever-present, even when they are in power.   We aren’t going to create any bridges by making those with a strong startle response even more fearful than they already are.  (That reminds me of Huston Smith’s take on fundamentalism – I’ll try and find what I’ve written on that tomorrow.)

Peterson has also noticed that more recent generations of Southern Baptists are not as enraptured by End Time Theology as their parents or grandparents.  Like Peterson, my parents survived two world wars and I grew up under the shadow of nuclear Armageddon.  Perhaps Peterson is correct in thinking this may be why so many people in both our generation and our parent’s generation have spent so much time plotting an escape from this world.   The current generation, on the other hand, has been through 9-11 but they don’t seem as intent on escaping, and that gives Peterson hope.

Posted in books, fundamentalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Being There

SPOILER WARNING…

I watched Being There, tonight.  I had seen it several years ago and all I remembered was the scene where Chance walks on water.

I’ve been reading (somewhat guiltily) Kitty Kelley’s biography of Oprah Winfrey.  I’ve also been reading Chris Hedges’ Empire of Illusion.  So perhaps I viewed the film in light of both of those books which claim we Americans are ultra-obsessed celebrity worshipers.  What is Chance if not a celebrity by the end of the film?  He’s achieved mythological status like Jesus.  The guy can walk on water.  It sometimes seems like people think Oprah walks on water, too.

Difference between Oprah and Chance?  Oprah truly desired to walk on water while Chance had no such ambition.  He just happened to “be there”.  Actually, he was put there by the people who create the myths, like Oprah (both myth and myth maker).

Even Chance seems somewhat surprised at his water walking ability, although he only questions it enough to measure how deep the water actually is and then takes his water-walking ability at face value.   Chance  places no judgment upon his circumstances.  He’s simply “there”, taking on what he learns from television and reflecting what people want him to be.  But what about being “here”, in reality??  Does that even matter anymore?

Posted in movies | Leave a comment

Committed by Elizabeth Gilbert

I feel a lot better about my own marriage after having read Elizabeth Gilbert’s Committed, A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage.  I haven’t read Eat, Pray, Love, so this is my introduction to Elizabeth Gilbert.  I think I like her.

Gilbert had a bad divorce so was extremely gun-shy of marriage.  She worked through her doubts by delving into research about the history of marriage.  I love a woman who does her research!  Especially when she is willing to share her findings with me!  What she wonders, after all her research, is if perhaps she hasn’t been asking too much of love?

It’s such a great question.  If American woman are looking for inspiration from their men rather than qualities like decency and honesty, maybe we are asking too much these days.  I admit to having once wanted my husband to inspire me.  We’ve been married 20 years and I never got much inspiration out of him so I’ve learned to settle for decency and honesty over the years.

I’ve got little stickies all over my book from her research on the history of marriage.  I’ll try and condense what I found interesting to a few paragraphs (no guarantees, however, I found a lot of it interesting)…

Let’s start from the beginning.

While marriage was a sacred institution for the Jews, the same was not true for Christianity (or Buddhism, for that matter).  Gilbert says marriage was considered better than flat-out whoring, but not by much.  Married couples were viewed as unholy until around 1215, when the church realized it wasn’t going to be able to keep people from marrying.  Instead, it claimed authority over marriage and imposed all kinds of rules and regulations to try and control it.  In early European society, before these controls were imposed (like once married, no getting unmarried and no marriage behind the backs of the church), marriage was much more loosely controlled and divorce happened all the time. It had been a secular institution monitored by families and civil courts until the Catholic Church claimed it for its own.  By being anti-divorce, the church was able to virtually eradicate females because men were allowed to venture outside of the marriage if they were unhappy, but women were not.

Gilbert says that same sex marriage is coming to America because marriage is a civil contract and religious objections cannot stop it.  She points to interracial marriage as an example.  Interracial marriage wasn’t allowed until 1967, and it made it’s way into existence despite the fact that 70% of Americans opposed the ruling.  7 out of 10 Americans believed it should be a civil crime for people of different races to marry each other.  But, as Gilbert puts out, the courts were morally ahead of the people in this case, and eventually everyone got used to interracial marriage which didn’t cause the institution of marriage to fall apart.

However, marriage is on the decline everywhere, today.  People are wary of it and I’m right there with them.  I am not encouraging my kids to get married, especially not my daughter.  I just don’t really think it’s that great of a thing for a woman, although maybe it’s better now than it used to be.  I was raised in the conservative South where people still believe that God wants wives to be subservient to their husbands, so I may be looking at it through tainted glasses.  It always amazes me that same sex couples want marriage so badly.  But I suppose I do take the civil rights marriage offers me for granted.  Same sex couples simply want the same rights I have been given and I can see no reason to refuse it to them.  As Dolly Parton once said (and I’m paraphrasing),  “I don’t understand why same sex couples shouldn’t be as miserable as the rest of us.”

According to Gilbert, the better educated a woman is, the happier her marriage will be.  I had a long discussion about this with my husband because we have been trying to decide whether I am going to go back to school or back to work.  I’ve been wanting to go back to school for years, but when my husband lost his job 5 years ago, that threw a lot of our plans out the window.  I feel fairly certain if I go back to work teaching or doing something administrative, I’ll leave him.  I can’t even imagine having given up so much of my life for the sake of the family only to have to go back to something I don’t enjoy doing.  I can’t even begin to tell you how happy I am that Gilbert’s statistics back me up on this.

Gilbert also says that marriage does not benefit women as much as it does men and that this backed up by study after study.  Marriage has always been quite beneficial for men.  Married men live longer; do better at their careers; are less likely to die violent deaths; suffer less from alcoholism, drug abuse and depression; and they report being much happier than single men.  Sadly, the opposite is true for married women.  Single women live longer, do better at their careers, suffer less from addiction, and report being happier than married women.  Despite this fact, I, like Gilbert’s mother, have chosen my family.

I appreciated Gilbert’s explanation about Greek thinking and Hebrew thinking clashing with one another.  I’ve done a lot of research on this issue myself, and have made a great study of the Existentialists who may have been among the first to recognize the clash and what it is doing to us.  We try to live with both world views, but they are completely incompatible.  I disagree a bit with how she explained it.  She explains the Hebrew mindset as being about tribalism, faith, obedience and respect, while the Greek mindset is about secular humanism and the sanctity of the individual.  I don’t really think this is right.  The Hebrews greatly valued the individual.  In comparison, the Greeks were much more enamored with abstract values.  G-d didn’t become an abstract noun until Greek thought grabbed hold of it.  G-d, for the Hebrews was a process and each and every individual Hebrew was an essential part of this process. But no point bickering, details, I appreciate the argument.  We’ve inherited both worldviews and they are completely and totally incompatible.  There is no way to reconcile them. It makes us “schizophrenic” (not in the real sense but in terms of having a split personality).

Gilbert says that couples invented marriage and that marriage is subversive.  There are patterns that have been repeated throughout history and in all cultures.  First, the powers that be try to eliminate marriage because the strength of families often undermine their power.  Once they realize they can’t eliminate marriage, they seek to control it.  Once they realize they can’t control it, they co-opt the notion of marriage and will go so far as to pretend they invented it in the first place.   Which, of course, is what conservative Christians are doing in America, today.  They act as though they personally created family values and the institution itself when in reality, Christianity began as a serious attack on marriage and family values.

And that, ironically, makes me feel much better about my marriage.  I really like the idea that it is subversive.

Posted in non-fiction | Leave a comment

Beatrice and Virgil by Yann Martel

Now that we are on the other side of my son’s graduation, I can work through my thoughts on Yann Martel’s latest book.  To be honest, however, I really don’t know what to think of Beatrice and Virgil.  I absolutely loved Life of Pi – the story has stuck with me for years.  Maybe that will be true of Beatrice and Virgil, too, but I don’t know that I want it to stick with me.

Maybe that’s what Martel was going for.  Obviously, he wants to evoke some extremely uncomfortable emotion within us and then just leave us there.  As far as I can tell, we are taken into Hell and that’s where we remain.

At the beginning of the book, the main character, Henry, is wanting to publish a flip book.  One side is an essay, the other side fiction.  It is an attempt to present the holocaust in a new way.   The two will merge into one another showing that there really is no ending or beginning.  The ending of the essay morphs into the beginning of the fictional story.  And the ending of the fictional story morphs into the beginning of the essay.  Unsurprisingly, his publishers don’t like it because they don’t think they can sell that sort of ambiguity.  They want something much more definite.  Something with a point so that they can market the book as being about something in specific.  It’s too difficult to market something that merges into itself and never has an actual beginning or end.

Just the other day I watched a documentary about a woman who had been one of Dr. Mengele’s twins.  She had discovered the power of forgiveness and was able to forgive the Nazis.  But when it came to the Palestinians, forgiveness was a little more difficult to come by – especially when she was sitting face to face with several who were blaming her race for afflicting great harm on them.

That’s kind of the way it goes, isn’t it?  We’re horrified with what we see “out there” and are unwilling to point the finger back at ourselves.  We can feel good about forgiving those we believe have hurt us.  It gives us power.  But of what use is this power if we can’t likewise forgive those who hold us accountable for their pain?  When we say we forgive, what exactly does that mean?  That we get to feel superior?  Personally, I think forgiveness is meant to humble us.  Not make us feel superior to other human beings.

What I kept thinking the entire time I was reading Beatrice and Virgil, since it was about two stuffed animals who symbolize the Holocaust, is that the vast majority of us, despite our feelings of outrage against what happened to the Jews, are inadvertently creating unfathomable horrors against animals by our demand for cheap animal products.  In the name of efficiency, the Food Industry not only drives our demand, it does the unthinkable in order to meet it.  If most of us were to face the reality of how poultry, pork, fish and beef have become so incredibly inexpensive, I can’t help but think the demand would drop immediately.  Nobody would be OK with how horribly these animals are treated just so we can have cheap food at dinner.  The only reason we allow it is because we intentionally look the other way. And even if horrible things are happening to these animals, they don’t really matter, anyway.

Beatrice and Virgil are  are characters in Dante’s Divine Comedy.  Virgil is an actual Roman Poet that Dante greatly admired and possibly thought of as a mentor.  Dante used Virgil as the guide through Hell, Purgatory and Heaven.   Beatrice was Dante’s great unrequited love.  He revered her in the deepest sense but marriages were arranged in his society so he could not be with her.  She also died very young.  In Divine Comedy, Dante is reunited with her and it is Beatrice that shows him around Paradise.

Martel turns them into a donkey and a howler monkey.  He says he came up with the names because in Divine Comedy, Dante has lost his way morally.  He is confused, he is lost, he is falling into sin and he wants to come back to the straight way.  The only way to come back to the straight way is by traveling through Hell, Purgatory and Heaven.   Just as Dante’s guides are Virgil and Beatrice, they are Henry’s (and our)  guides through the Holocaust .

To be honest, that doesn’t really help me understand the book.  One reviewer said she had to go take a shower after completing it because it made her feel dirty.  I totally understand what she is talking about.  I felt dirty after reading the book because it made humanity seem like some sort of horrible, tainted horror that can offer no way out.

Beatrice and Virgil were characters who had been created by a taxidermist.  They weren’t “real”.  And they were the only characters that were remotely likable.  I didn’t like Henry or his wife at all.  The taxidermist was at least fascinating, but I didn’t like him, either.   It’s been 25 years since I read Divine Comedy, but I vaguely recall Dante being somewhat likable.

I also didn’t particularly appreciate the ending, probably because I didn’t get it.  I guess it represented the Inferno.  But hadn’t “heaven” essentially been created by the creator of that Inferno?  Perhaps that was the significance of trying to create the flip book with one part merging into the other so that there is no obvious beginning or end?  No definitive line between fact and fiction?

Maybe if I read it a second time, it would make better sense?  But  I have no desire to put myself through that again!

Posted in fiction, holocaust | Leave a comment

The Financial Lives of the Poets by Jess Walters

The Financial Lives of the Poets is the first book by Jess Walter I’ve read.  I hadn’t even heard of him which I suppose is somewhat pathetic given that he’s apparently quite famous and has won several notable awards for previous books.  When I saw The Financial Lives of the Poets in the library, I couldn’t pass up the title.  I must admit that I’m not sure I ever considered that poets might actually have financial lives.

The book was a lot of fun although I’m not so sure it was particularly good for my current midlife malaise.  It’s the adventures of Matt Prior, a 46 year old man (exactly my age) who has lost his job and is about to lose his home and possibly his wife who recently had a crazy Ebay failure of her own.  She’s since hooked up with Chuck from Lumberland, an old boyfriend from high school who stands to inherit the family lumber yard.

Matt is driven to do crazy things and it just keeps getting crazier.  He will periodically burst in with some hefty philosophical thought while considering the potential rebound of the real estate market or the going rate of weed.

Here’s one of Matt’s philosophical thoughts for you:  “I’m also sure of this: I’ll never fall in love again.  I’ve lost my innocence.  And my disappointment is not that my own home has lost half its value.  What disappoints me is me – that I fell for their propaganda when I knew better, that I actually allowed myself to believe that a person could own a piece of the world when the truth is that anything you try to own ends up owning you.”  Amen to that, Matt!!

In trying to decide what to tell his sons, he comes up with this:  “Boys, pay attention to your mother; mothers have a million things to teach you.  But fathers?  We only have two lessons, but these two things are everything you need to know: (1) What to do and (2) What not to do. “  That thought actually made me feel a little bit better about my husband’s lack of involvement with the kids.   Perhaps it is, simply, a male thing.

And maybe it’s OK to feel like you are falling apart.  Maybe it’s even OK to fall apart. Jess Walter’s book is surprisingly hopeful despite being about losing it all (including your mind).

Posted in fiction | Leave a comment

This Emotional Life

I finished an excellent three-part series called This Emotional Life, late last night.  It was available on “Watch Instantly” through Netflix.   Each episode is about 2 hours long and is hosted by Dr. Dan Gilbert, a Harvard Professor of Social Psychology.  The series covers a LOT of a topics which are all extremely interesting.  But four things stood out for me in particular….

  • The first is the idea that we all are born with a certain level of happiness and no matter the ups and downs in our life, if we win the lottery or end up paralyzed, we are likely to return to that designated level of happiness we were born with.  I think my daughter’s level of happiness is extremely high.  It’s more difficult to determine the happiness levels of my son and I because we both so love dramatics and are continually bouncing all over the place.
  • The second is that married couples with children are less happy than married couples without kids.  In fact, the more kids you have, the less happy you are.  Maybe children give you something that is beyond happiness?  Kids can definitely be a pain in the ass, but I can’t imagine my life without them.  They are my very heart!
  • The third is that the best (and probably the only) way to solve post traumatic distress disorder is to directly face the fear and relive the trauma.  I don’t know why, but that totally blew me away.
  • The fourth is that there isn’t a lot of scientific evidence for activities that boost happiness levels except for two totally opposite things: social interaction and meditation.  Studies on meditation are blowing scientists away.   Sitting in silence is not a frivolity.  It completely changes the brain.  When people meditate, their brains become more active, not less active, so something major is going on but no one is sure exactly what that is. (There is a lot of great information starting here.)
Posted in documentaries, psychology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

36 Arguments for the Existence of God

Please bare with me as I work through my thoughts on Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s 36 Arguments for the Existence of God.   I’m a suburban housewife, not a philosopher.  The only philosophical discussions I ever have are with people on-line, so I realize Goldstein’s arguments are completely out of my league.  But I have a ton of jumbled thoughts going through my mind after reading the book and I just want to try and sort through them.

Overall, I genuinely enjoyed the book and had a good time reading it.  One of the major points, I think, is that religious experience has very little to do with religious arguments. I think this is an important point. However, I suppose the implication, given that Cass’s book is called The Varieties of Religious Illusion and that all of the theists are somewhat delusional (or at least extremely manipulative), is that all religious experience is based on delusional emotional experience.  Much religious experience is delusional.  There’s no getting around that.  But is all religious experience delusional?

St. John of the Cross and the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing immediately come to mind.  St. John of the Cross had a very specific method for achieving mystical transcendence and it doesn’t look anything like what Goldstein presents in her book.  In fact, he functions very much like an early psychologist, cautioning against the standard magical experiences of his time and counseling those who are ready on how to get through the “dark night of the soul”.  Transcendence is a transcendence of the ego.  It is a sort of unknowing which demands we let go of all definitions and labels of  God, the Universe, existence, etc. in order to experience it.   It is not a rational experience because reason demands definitions, symbols and labels in order to make sense.  The experience is not magical.  In fact, St. John of the Cross cautions that people be very careful about proceeding if they experience magical events.  He warns that the existence of magical events is more likely a decent into madness than a movement toward transcendence.  A fine line divides the two.

Goldstein shows Cass having a euphoric experience toward the end of the book, and equates this to religious euphoric experience.  But simple euphoria is nothing like the transcendent experience that many mystics report.  What Cass experiences is more akin to the experience of gratefulness – a feeling of overwhelming well-being and love.  According to Meister Eckhart and modern day mystics like David Steindl-Rast, gratefulness is a form of prayer.  It is a practice that can give us an inkling of the ground of our being.  But an inkling of transcendence is not transcendence.  It’s just a glimpse of it.

That remains my problem with the so-called “New Atheists” who lump all religious experience together and claim it is delusional.  If they have not experienced what St. John of the Cross or the author of The Cloud of Unknowing have experienced, how can they know it is delusional?  Just because the experience is nonrational/nonpersonal (an experience from nowhere, nowhen, no center, and no “I”) does not mean it is irrational.  It is transrational/transpersonal.  Although it looks similar, the transpersonal state is very different from that which is experienced in prepersonal state.  The prepersonal state is that which comes before the emergence of a stable, coherent, individuated self .  The transpersonal state can only occur after the self is fully individuated.   What Goldstein is arguing against is religious experience based on prerational thought, not transrational thought.

As far as I can tell, the closest she comes to touching upon transrational thought is Spinoza’s argument (No. 35).  I’ve never read Spinoza so I don’t know if she adequately dismisses his argument or not.  All I know about Spinoza is that he is credited with saying that we live, move, and have our being in God/Reality.  Whether or not this implies Spinoza’s God is the universe, I cannot say.  If this is Spinoza’s God, then I don’t see how it can be considered transcendent since the universe is tangible.

You can’t reasonably argue that transcendence exists because reason relies upon either/or thinking.  Either it is true OR it is false.  A transcendent God “is” AND “is not”.  Either/or thinking cannot comprehend that which “is” and “is not”.  All religious people who claim God IS and refuse to acknowledge that God IS NOT are likely stuck in either/or thinking, just as the atheists who claim only that God IS NOT.   Most people who claim to have had a transpersonal experience, however, have no trouble understanding what is meant by God “is” AND “is not”.  Outside of either/or thinking, the question, “Does God exist?”, makes no sense whatsoever.  Whichever way you answer it, the answer does not point back to a truth.  It merely points back to a demand that things be one way or the other.

I agreed with every single one of the arguments, obviously.  There is no way to prove that God exists.  I have no problem with that.  And I don’t really care if people think God exists or not.  I just don’t like people telling me I should believe what it is they believe.  I took some notes on a few of the arguments…

Argument #1: The Cosmological Argument.  Everything that exists must have a cause.  The universe must have a cause.  Nothing can be the cause of itself…   Goldstein says this argument begs the question, “Who caused God?”  She calls this the Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Explain Another.  So why not just let the buck stop with the first mystery, which she says is the universe?  I don’t necessarily disagree, I just wonder if the universe is truly the first mystery.  We perceive the universe as extant. Maybe the buck should stop at the perception of the universe rather than the universe itself.   Or maybe that’s just splitting hairs.

Argument #11: The Argument from Miracles.  I have no argument with this, but different religious folk define miracles differently.  According to A Course in Miracles, for instance, miracles are strictly distinguished from magic and what this argument refers to (according to ACIM) is magic, not miracles.  A miracle, according to ACIM, is a shift in perception.  There is nothing magical about a shift in perception.  Yet a shift in perception is truly miraculous because it allows us to see things completely differently than we saw them previously.  Miracles happen “in time”.  They do not defy our sense of time, nor do they require transcendence.   A revelation, on the other hand, is beyond a miracle because it collapses our sense of time.  It is transcendent.  But it isn’t magical or irrational.

Argument #22:  The Argument from the Consensus of Mystics.  Goldstein says that it is not unreasonable to think that mystics are all deluded in the same way because non mystics can be made to have mystical experiences in scientific lab experiments.  Euphoria, Nature Oneness, Benign experiences of Oneness like Cass experienced, or experiences of Oneness like those experienced at political rallies are not transcendent experiences even though they are often termed “mystical”.  I’m sure such experiences can be mimicked in a lab.  But I highly doubt that transcendent mystical experiences have been mimicked in labs simply because an immense expansion of awareness is usually accompanied by such experiences.  People don’t just feel euphoric, they are completely changed by the experience.  Have lives been completely changed through lab experiences?

Argument #27: The Argument from the Upward Curve of History.  This argument relies on the idea that there is an upward moral curve to history.  I don’t really have a problem with the argument, just the assumption.  Are we more moral?  Starvation exists on a scale never before experienced.  The wars over the past century have killed more people than could ever before been imagined.  We have the potential to kill ourselves several times over thanks to nuclear technology.  Ethical treatment of animals is at an all-time low thanks to the massive food industry.  We are potentially destroying the environment beyond repair.  Slavery still exists in various forms around the world.  Maybe its just plain arrogance that makes us believe we are more moral than our ancestors.  Things were handled completely differently when the world was divided into tribes rather than civilizations.  The emergence of civilizations required a new way to deal with moral issues so ethics came into being.  But that doesn’t mean civilized folks were more moral than tribal folks – just that the tribal ways did not work within civilized societies.

Anyway, my jumbled thoughts for what they are worth.

Posted in atheism, fiction | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Big Debate: Does God Exist?

I’m reading 36 Arguments For the Existence of God and have greatly enjoyed it up until the big debate about whether or not God exists.  The so-called “defenders of the faith” have been disappointing throughout the book, not that I think the faith needs defending.  Of course, I don’t think atheism needs defending either.  It’s time we move on – how about post-theism???  That may be something akin to what Goldstein is arguing for, but I’m not completely sure, especially since her theists are so wacko!

In the big debate, the person speaking “for” the existence of God, Professor Fidley, is supposed to be a highly regarded, Nobel Prize winning Christian economist from the University of Chicago.  But his arguments for the existence of God are extremely weak and I think it is unfair that Goldstein used this guy to debate Cass for “The Big Debate”.  Of course Cass won!  There really was no debate because Professor Fidley defined God as “Him/He” and refers to “faith in a God who loves each and every one of us”.

God is not considered to be a beneficent being for every “believer”, because not every “believer” assigns attributes to God.  I was taught in my Methodist Disciple Bible Study class that the the divine name of God is too sacred to be uttered.  Richard Rohr, a Franciscan Priest, says the name of God can only be breathed.  God IS breath.  To assign terms to the name of God is merely an attempt to make rational sense out of what transcends rational understanding.

Fidley’s first question to Cass totally pissed me off.   He wants to know if Cass means to suggest that Mother Teresa was a callous person?   It’s a snarky question.  Cass had used “the suffering” argument to refute a God who cares (the God introduced by Fidley).  So the whole argument is based on a God who cares.  My problem with this is that a God who cares is a God we can name – call it the “Caring God”.  By labeling God, God is denied.  God IS and God IS NOT. But to say that God is (fill in the blank), is to limit God to one solitary aspect of being or characterization which denies all other potentialities of “Is-ness”/”Am-ness”.

Despite the fact that Cass was merely arguing a “fill in the blank” form of God presented by Findley, I  didn’t understand how Fidley’s first question really had anything to do what Cass was talking about anyway.  In Come Be My Light, Mother Teresa talks about how she experienced a profound absence of God during the last half of her life.  She found Christ “neither in her heart or in the Eucharist”.  She wrote, “I am told God lives in me — and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”  She served others not because she had some sort of childish blind faith in God.   She didn’t have faith in a (fill in the blank) God.  She simply had faith.  And so she served her fellow man.  In a way, maybe she was similar to Azarya.  It wasn’t a “belief” in God that drove her.  It was some deeper personal experience and a loyalty to humanity that compelled her.  Martin Luther King Jr. made use of the church and “belief in God” for his civil rights activism, but so did southerners who wanted to enforce slavery.  Like Mother Teresa, I think Martin Luther King Jr. was far more motivated by deep, personal experience and a loyalty to humanity than he was to a “belief” in God.  But Cass makes no such argument even though he claims the main point of his book is that the psychology of religious conviction has little to do with religious arguments.

I don’t know if I agree with Cass that the demand for a “transcendent purpose” is redundant (although I totally agree that it is unnecessary).  “Transcendent purpose” is an oxymoron.  What demands purpose and meaning?  Reason, of course!!  Transcendence is that which goes beyond reason.  Transcendence is nonrational, but that doesn’t mean it is irrational.  I think Ken Wilber calls it the pre/trans fallacy.  Prerational states of awareness and transrational states of awareness are both nonrational, but they are not the same.  They can look very much like, however, which creates confusion.  Many rationalists tend to lump all nonrational states of awareness together and assign them to the prerational category.  On the other hand, many spiritualists will mistake a prerational state for a transrational state.  Professor Klapper is a perfect example of this this confusion. Transrationalism is a form of nonrationalism that includes rationalism.  Klapper renounced rationalism which meant his nonrationalism was prerational, not transrational.  He did not transcend his ego.  He just made it bigger.

It is said that the greatest faith comes from those who have faith despite the realization that there is no absolute reason or purpose for it.  Cass points to this sort of faith when he quotes Julian of Norwich, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”  That’s faith!  That’s the faith of  Mother Teresa.  Even though all is dark, all is well.  That’s the faith of Martin Luther King Jr.  Even though you might be killed for what it is you are doing, all is well.  Knowing that even though things may not be how our egoic minds want them to be, all is as it should be and all is well.  That’s the sort of faith that moves mountains.

A transcendent God doesn’t make things matter (not physically or emotionally).  We give everything all the meaning it has.   But we are not God.  Just because something isn’t how we might want it to be doesn’t mean that is the way it should be.  Nor does it mean that it should be the way someone else wants it to be, either.  Transcendence includes the recognition that who we truly are is not our ego, nor is it the sum of our egos.

What was extremely annoying was Fidley’s stupid argument, “Without a God, who is to say that the Nazi’s weren’t wrong?”  This especially bothered me because a thoughtful theist would not make that argument.  Even some of the most fundamentalist Christians among us claim that we are born with an innate sense of right and wrong.  It is said that the laws are not just written on stone, but also on the hearts of every human being.

Cass is absolutely right.  There is no rational argument for the existence of God.   There is no rational argument for the non-existence of God, either.  The problem is that whichever way you answer the question, the answer merely points back to the question itself because it’s an absolutely useless question!!

Which may be Goldstein’s point.  But based on her book, and that she seems to accept the label, “New Atheist”,  I imagine she probably dumps prerationalism and transrationalism into one big nonrational lump and simply discards both.

Of course, most of this is way over my head.  I’m not familiar with the vast majority of the arguments in the book and am not sure I followed all of them. I’ll make an attempt to understand the arguments in the appendix and may have more cohesive thoughts later.

Posted in atheism, fiction | Leave a comment