Hasta La Gadget!

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis is backing an interreligious soccer match that will gather greats from around the globe and is aimed at promoting peace and raising money for at-risk kids.

Former Argentina great Javier Zanetti, who spent 19 seasons with Inter before retiring, said the idea for the Sept. 1 match at the Olympic Stadium in Rome arose during an audience he had with Francis last year. At a press conference Monday, Zanetti said: “The most important thing isn’t the match, but the message of peace that the pope wants to give the world.”

Argentina coach Gerardo Martino and Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger will put together teams featuring Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist players. Among those who have signed up: Lionel Messi, Filippo Inzaghi, Samuel Eto’o.

Francis isn’t expected to attend.

(RNS) From the moment they set foot on North American soil, the Puritans who came to the continent viewed their “errand into the wilderness” through a biblical lens, seeing themselves as modern-day Israelites building a New Jerusalem in the New World.

But today, the culture war descendants of those Puritans are feeling increasingly alienated and even persecuted in the society they once claimed as their own. They’re shifting to another favorite image from Scripture — that of the Babylonian exile, preparing, as the ancient Judeans did, to preserve their faith in a hostile world.

“We live in a time of exile. At least those of us do who hold to traditional Christian beliefs,” Carl Trueman, a professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary, wrote in the latest edition of the conservative journal First Things.

Rampant secularism and widespread acceptance of sexual mores once deemed taboo, Trueman said, mean that “the Western public square is no longer a place where Christians feel they belong with any degree of comfort.”

Trueman was so convinced of that reality that he didn’t argue whether internal exile was an option. Instead, he wondered which form of Christianity was best equipped to survive this inevitable relocation.

His answer, perhaps not surprisingly, was that his own Reformed Protestantism was superior. That prompted a number of well-known Christian commentators to weigh in and champion their particular denomination.

Rod Dreher at The American Conservative argued that his own Eastern Orthodox tradition was best suited to survive the “internal exile.” That, in turn, prompted a post by Baylor University humanities professor (and Anglican) Alan Jacobs, who also dinged Trueman for encouraging sectarian “braggadocio.” Jacobs and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat (a convert to Catholicism) then went back and forth on Twitter, and so it continued.

Leaving aside the confessional competition, the very premise of the exile narrative might be surprising to those who see Christian conservatives as driving, not leaving, the nation’s political dynamics.

For liberals, the religious right is pushing the U.S. back to a cultural and religious Dark Age. For conservatives, on the other hand, the religious right holds the promise of restoring American society to a Golden Age that has been tarnished by years of mainly Democratic malfeasance.

But there is another strain of culturally conservative Christianity that views the political path to renewal as putting, as the psalm says, too much trust in princes. In fact, Christians in that tradition see (and many political scientists agree) that the electoral and cultural trends on issues like gay marriage are moving inexorably against their values. And they don’t put much faith in the Republican Party to save them.

Hence the comparisons of American Christians today to ancient Israelites who were sent into exile in the sixth century B.C. by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, after his armies sacked Jerusalem. “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion,” the psalmist records.

In the U.S., there is some precedent for this sort of withdrawal: after the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Tennessee, when creationists won a court case but lost the larger argument, fundamentalist Christians were so aggrieved by the backlash against them that they retreated into their own Bible Belt enclaves for decades.

It was only in the 1970s that these believers — largely white, Southern evangelicals — re-emerged (ironically under the banner of Jimmy Carter, at least at first). Using the bully pulpit of the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition, they sought to reclaim their stake in American culture, largely through Republican politics.

But those campaigns always left some Christians uneasy. Such altar-and-throne alliances risk compromising the church, the critics said, and they have brought no clear victories.

As far back as 1981, moral philosopher Alasdair McIntyre’s book “After Virtue” argued that the idea of inevitable societal improvement is an illusion. Amid the ruins of civilization, he said, believers must adapt the model of St. Benedict, the sixth-century founder of Western monasticism, and reconstitute themselves into small, intentional communities of faith largely removed from the surrounding culture. Dreher calls this the “Benedict Option.”

Now, that idea seems to be gaining a wider hearing, albeit with various interpretations.

Writing in First Things earlier this year, cultural critic Peter Leithart said that what he called “Christian America” is indeed over and “it’s past time to issue a death certificate.” But he cautioned traditional Christians not to “slink back to our churches.” Instead, he said they should try to recreate a civic Christian culture at the local level to foster what he called “micro-Christendoms.”

Yet others see all this talk as indulging in what Alan Noble called the “Evangelical Persecution Complex.” Writing this month in The Atlantic, Noble, an assistant professor of English at Oklahoma Baptist University, defined that complex as the temptation “to interpret personal experiences and news events as signs of oppression, which are ostensibly validations of our commitment to Christ.”

In The Christian Century, the flagship magazine of liberal mainline Protestantism, Lutheran pastor Benjamin Dueholm also weighed in, echoing Noble’s criticism and calling the exile idea “a dubious and highly troubling premise” because it “trivializes” the experience of real exile, such as Christians and religious minorities who are suffering today in actual Babylon, or what we call Iraq.

“Nothing in the experience of white American Christianity bears the slightest resemblance (to that), and it is unlikely that anything will any time soon,” said Dueholm, associate pastor of Messiah Lutheran Church in Wauconda, Ill. “We still enjoy a kind of wealth, prestige, institutional heft, political clout, and legal protection that would stupefy Jesus of Nazareth.”

Responding to Dreher in The American Conservative, Samuel Goldman also took issue with the “Benedict Option,” writing that the story of the Babylonian captivity offers another alternative to withdrawal — what he calls the “Jeremiah Option.”

The prophet Jeremiah, Goldman says, counseled the exiled Judeans to unpack their bags, set down roots and “to live in partnership with Babylon” while maintaining their Jewishness and seeking holiness. Goldman calls it “engagement without assimilation,” a more optimistic but pragmatic approach to difficult circumstances.

Dreher welcomed Goldman’s critique but insisted that in his view “the trend lines of Jewish and Christian belief in modern America make Benedict your man, not Jeremiah.”

How will this all play out? These could simply be the interesting but ultimately parochial musings of a few religious intellectuals. Or they could articulate a genuine sense of dislocation among tens of millions of American believers.

That alienation could lead them to internal exile and away from the national mobilization that has fueled our political debates for a generation. That would be a milestone in our nation’s history.

Then again, the Babylonian captivity didn’t last forever, and after 70 years the Jews returned to Israel, transformed, and in some ways stronger than ever.

Scott Peck used to collect religious jokes and this was one of his favorites. Chatting in Hell were a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi, and a New Age minister. Why were they down there? “Back on earth I was a whiskey priest,” the Catholic says, “I loved the booze more than anything.” The rabbi pipes up, “It was ham sandwiches that did for me. I just couldn’t leave them alone.” They both turn to the New Age minister and ask why he’s in Hell. “This isn’t Hell,” he replies huffily, “and I’m not the least bit warm.”

Peck’s serious point was that the problem with the New Age movement and prevailing attitudes today was the denial, not so much of Hell, as of the existence of evil. Peck believed that evil was an ever-present part of life and he marshalled some good evidence for that view. But I think the hardest issue for a thinking person to decide today is whether good and evil really exist at all, as a force outside (as well as within) humanity. For me that is a much harder question, and a more important one, than whether God exists. The question also, I believe, has vital implications for how we live our lives and even for how we run our businesses.

Before discussing whether good and evil exist, we have to face one unpalatable truth, one that many people go to unreasonable lengths to avoid. The nicest conclusion would be that there is some force for good in the universe, but there is no force for evil. In religious-speak, God exists, but the Devil does not. That is the “New Age” position. But a moment’s clear thought reveals that is an untenable position. If there is an outside force for good, there has to be an opposing force – not necessarily an equal one – for evil. You simply cannot believe in a “real” spiritual world that includes good but excludes evil. A world like that could exist, but a moment’s observation of what happens in the world tells us would not be our world. There are only two defensible positions:

1. Good and evil exist beyond humanity – there is a good force in the universe and a bad one and they are at war.

2. Good and bad may exist within humanity – there may be bad people, including really “evil” people, as well as good people, and/or, we are all a mixture of good and bad, and/or “good” and “evil” are just names for what we like and dislike – but there is no outside force in the universe for either good or evil.
I’ll present evidence and logic for the position 1 and then position 2, before giving my view.

WHY GOOD & EVIL EXIST

1. The existence of bad or evil people. Peck says, “There really are people out there who like to maim, to torture, and to crush other people.” It is hard to look at the evidence of Hitler’s concentration camps or Stalin’s gulag and think that evil doesn’t exist. This does not necessarily mean that it comes from outside humanity, but there is a strong presumption. Were Hitler and Stalin just terribly misguided folk, whose only flaw was that they believed the wrong things, and pursued them vigorously? I don’t believe it. There was real malice there and it is hard to credit that degree of dedication to badness without some force that used them.

Maybe humans can become horribly bad without outside help – but there is no parallel for such evil in the animal kingdom. Animals may do terrible things to each other but there is no malice in it. As a more evolved being, with the knowledge of what is good and evil, humans have the option of dedicating themselves to one or the other, or neither. If humankind is more “spiritual” than any other species, that creates at least the possibility that there are even more “spiritual” forces for good and evil.

Similarly, there is a small percentage of people who are sociopaths, who want to rape and pillage. One of the most unpleasant but revealing experiences of my life was working for a pathological liar – all decency had been extinguished in the quest for power at any price. John was a scary sight – not so much a man as a monster successfully masquerading as a normal well-adjusted human.

2. Introspection and observation. There are times when normal people give themselves over to good or evil. Times when we are angry, despair, and seek to destroy ourselves and other people. And times when we go the other way, behaving nobly and helping other people with no thought of reward. I think of these downward and upward spirals as being us wallowing in badness or goodness, of yielding to our good or bad emotions, but also – it feels like – being “egged on” from outside forces, human, and also, perhaps, super-human. I’ve never experienced a lynch mob, but I have seen them portrayed, and it seems that they coalesce into something powerful and cohesive, but sub-human. And then there is the small number of “good people”, such as Nelson Mandela, who make the best of a bad job and forgive those who have wronged them terribly. No doubt Nelson had his quirks and character flaws, but it is hard to believe that he didn’t have some outside help in doing what does not come naturally to humans.

3. There is some evidence that – despite Hitler and Stalin and Mao Zedong – society is progressing towards not merely greater prosperity but also higher moral standards. The most developed societies no longer torture their citizens – with a few notable exceptions. Children are treated better than they used to be. We no longer punish gay people for being gay. Animals are treated better too. There is even concern for the environment, which is not purely selfish. Again, none of this necessarily means that there is a force for good outside humanity, but directionality in history is one piece of evidence – the way that nature’s laws work so cleverly and mainly beneficially is another – that there may well be an outside force for good, and that humans are allied with the grain of the universe.

4. There is evidence from the occult and from miracles that nature’s laws are sometimes violated. This evidence is hotly disputed by rationalists, but it is undeniable that weird things sometimes happen. If just one weird thing happens indisputably, we have to attach some weight to that, but the universe is unquestionably mysterious as well as rational. For me, the biggest unexplained power is that of the human brain and specifically our unconscious minds, which seem to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. There may be explanations that don’t involve outside forces, but I find it hard not be at least agnostic (and maybe positive) about the existence of forces beyond our understanding.

WHY GOOD & EVIL DO NOT EXIST

1. Five hundred years ago witches were drowned because they it was thought they were possessed by the Devil. Two thousand years ago, Christians and pagans alike believed that the world “above” and “below” the earth was stuffed full of spiritual principalities and powers. The sky was thick with unseen angels, good and evil, so there must have been very busy and efficient air traffic controllers. Now, only backward tribes and a few religious extremists believe in the existence of evil (or good) spirits. And a good job too – think about the witches and the crusades.

2. The technocratic explanation of progress is powerful. Society has got better as science has advanced – we no longer need God as a hypothesis explaining how the world works. “Good” and “evil” are names we use when we don’t understand human behaviour – but there is always a scientific explanation, or one that, if we understood the background fully, can explain even truly wicked actions. Who could be more evil than Adolf Eichmann, who sent millions of Jews to their deaths? But Hannah Arendt, who reported and reflected brilliantly on Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, showed that Eichmann was more a clown than a monster. She used the phrase “the banality of evil” to explain why he did terrible things – he was not very intelligent, followed orders mechanistically, liked to belong to the Nazi state machinery, and had no malice against the Jews. This does not excuse his actions, she said, but it does mean that he didn’t need outside help to do his unbelievably terrible deeds. By extension, the problem was more that the Nazis had the wrong ideas, than that they were in some sense supernaturally evil. I find this a convincing explanation, as all kinds of “normal” and respected people in early twentieth century Britain and America – including H G Wells, Churchill, and George Bernard Shaw – held vehemently racist views that today we would all find utterly abhorrent.

3. Democracy and the 80/20 principle are both examples of good “memes” – good practices, ideas and observations – that can help society progress. In politics and business, it is quite normal for good people to do a lot of harm (for example, most communists and socialists); and for bad people, sometimes, to do a lot of good. Henry Ford was a nasty piece of work, but gave freedom of movement to ordinary people, perhaps the single biggest piece of philanthropy in the last century.

Ideas overwhelm virtue:

If you have ideas that cause great harm, such as communism and racism, your moral qualities are quite irrelevant. Conversely, if you believe in market forces and advance them, you can have a massively beneficial impact on society even if you are, in the technical phrase, a total shit. Once one admits the force of unintended consequences, the cosmic battle between good and evil looks a little exaggerated, perhaps even threadbare. Mankind has got better, not because we are more virtuous, but because we have more knowledge and insight than we used to. Good and evil may even be a sideshow, or an illusion, compared to knowledge and ignorance.

Two Conclusions

1. I personally find it hard to be sure whether good and evil exist beyond humanity. But I am inclined to believe that they do; and certainly, I think we should behave as if they do. I am sure there is outside help available to us, whether simply because we believe that there is, or because – more likely I think – it really is there. Progress in life is not just technocratic; it also comes from increasing the proportion of “goodness” in our actions. That this also makes us happier is indisputable.

2. Science broadly defined, knowledge, and above all, insight – with or without outside help – are also important sources of moral progress and good. With more insight, it is a great deal easier to do more good, and increase happiness for ourselves and the people around us.

Next week, I will ask whether “goodness” is relevant in business; or whether Adam Smith was right, that the self-interest of the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker – and not their ethics – is what matters.

For anyone who is really serious about stopping being a hamster, I am running a 3-day workshop in Chicago from September 28 – 30.
More information on that here: www.richardkoch.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IntroducingRichardKoch.pdf
To book: https://m171.infusionsoft.com/app/orderForms/koch-seminar-app

If you find my blogs interesting or useful, please share them with a friend, leave a comment, or follow me on Twitter @RichardKoch8020

Augmented reality is awesome , but seriously, you don’t want to wear bulky glasses that use lenses, beam splitters and reflectors that make the magic happen. A Ph.D student at UNC-Chapel Hill has developed a sleek pair of augmented reality glasses that are actually light and compact.

Read more…

Growing nerve tissue and organs is a sci-fi dream. Moheb Costandi met the pioneering researcher who grew eyes and brain cells.

Read more…