Miscellanea

Here are some interesting items that I’ve found in the past week.

I’ll begin with some science news: “Scientists observing a small group of Australian lizards very closely, believe they may be watching evolution happen right before their eyes. A variety of Australian skink – like snake but with four tiny legs – is slowly starting abandon egg laying and beginning to give birth to live offspring like a mammal does.” Follow the link for more information about the visibly evolving skink.

Next, photobugs may find this link interesting. The author has assembled what he (or she) claims are 12 “of the most iconic photographs ever taken.” It’s an interesting selection. Tell me what photos, if any, you would add to such a list.

Vjack acknowledged an interesting “Idiot of the Week” last Saturday. He even has video. Here’s a hint as to what this particular idiot has been up for the past year or so:

The Catholic Church’s difficulties in recruiting young men into the priesthood have even spread to Ireland. “The difficulty in attracting young recruits is a problem that is afflicting vast swathes of the Catholic Church, particularly in secular, developed nations. But Ireland’s recruitment problems will cause concern in Rome because it had always been regarded by the Vatican as a bastion of Catholic mission in the heart of secular Europe.” I’ll admit that I’m neither surprised nor heartbroken by this news.

Additional Catholic news that is disgusting, but not surprising, is that a Catholic priest blamed his behavior on a girl who was 12 years old when he began molesting her: “I made a mistake – you invited me…”. This prick wasn’t a man when he molested a child, and he’s still not man enough to take responsibility for his behavior. What a sickening little worm.

Finally, the deacon and I made a quick trip to Toronto a couple of weekends ago. In between attending a couple of family events, we found a few hours for sightseeing:

– the chaplain

 

P.D. James & Philosophy

My mother recently gave me a couple of P.D. James books, both of which I’d read years ago, but I accepted them anyway. Since I always enjoyed P.D. James’ writing, I started re-reading one a few days ago, Death of an Expert Witness. As I read last night (while listening to Forrest Gump in the background – it was a heavy night for armchair philosophy), I came across an intriguing passage. The conversation you are about to read takes place between Adam Dalgliesh (the detective) and the 15-year-old daughter of a murder suspect:

“Are you going to discover who killed Dr. Lorrimer?”

“I hope so. I expect so.”

“And then what will happen to him, the murderer, I mean?”

“He’ll appear before the magistrates. Then, if they think that the evidence is sufficient, they’ll commit him to the Crown Court for trial.”

“And then?”

“If he’s found guilty of murder, the judge will pass the statutory penalty, imprisonment for life. That means that he’ll be in prison for a long time, perhaps ten years or more.

“But that’s silly. That won’t put things right. It won’t bring Dr. Lorrimer back.”

“It won’t put anything right, but it isn’t silly. Life is precious to nearly all of us. Even people who have little more than life still want to live it to the last natural moment. No one has a right to take it away from them.”

“You talk as if his life were like William’s ball. If that’s taken away, he knows what he’s lost. Dr. Lorrimer doesn’t know that he’s lost anything.

“He’s lost the years he might have had.”

“That’s like taking away the ball that William might have had. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just words. Suppose he was going to die next week anyway. Then he’d only have lost seven days. You don’t put someone in prison for ten years to repay seven lost days. They might not even have been happy days.”

“Even if he were a very old man with one day left to him, the law says that he has a right to live it. Willful killing would still be murder.”

The girl said thoughtfully:

“I suppose it was different when people believed in God. Then the murdered person might have died in mortal sin and gone to hell. The seven days could have made a difference then. He might have repented and had time for absolution.”

Dalgliesh said:

“All these problems are easier for people who believe in God. Those of us who don’t or can’t have to do the best we can. That’s what the law is, it’s the best we can do. Human justice is imperfect, but it’s the only justice we have.”

I find that an extraordinary passage to have been included in a piece of pop lit. Here are some questions to consider in the comments:

• Do you agree that questions of life, death, justice, etc., are easier for believers than nonbelievers?
• Do you agree that people who have even just a little bit of life want to live it to the last “natural” moment? What about terminally ill people who want to control their deaths to some degree and die with dignity?
• Did you see, as I did, a parallel between the idea of imprisoning someone for ten years to repay the loss of seven days and the idea of a deity punishing someone for eternity for the “sins” of a finite lifetime?
• What did you think about the girl’s assumption that the days when people believed in God were past?

As always, let me know what you think in the comments, and let me know if something else in this passage caught your attention.

– the chaplain

 

Cultural Commentary

This past week, I’ve gotten acquainted with two Australians, a husband and wife, who are visiting the USA for a few weeks. I was stunned when I learned that one of the things she most wants to do in this country is shop at Wal-Mart.

Let’s just say it wasn’t a “proud to be an American” moment.

– the chaplain

 

Einstein on God

Rumors of Albert Einstein’s belief in god have been greatly exaggerated:

– the chaplain

 

Prayer Fails & Subsequent Lies

I learned recently that The Salvation Army was once involved in a grand plan to convert Robert G. Ingersoll, America’s Great Infidel, to Christianity. For some reason, that story never made it into the Junior Soldier curriculum. I doubt that it will make it into future editions either, since the scheme failed miserably.

PART ONE: PRAYER FAIL

Here’s AmericanHeritage.com’s brief account of the scheme:

The most massive attempt to convert Ingersoll came on Thanksgiving Day, 1895. Every soldier in Cleveland’s Salvation Army, several hundred members of the Epworth League, and three thousand Christian Endeavorers all offered mass prayers for Ingersoll’s conversion. He took their efforts in stride. “I feel pretty much as the pretty girl did towards the young man who squeezed her hand,” he observed; ” ‘It pleased him,’ she said, ‘and it didn’t hurt me!’”

The author of that article noted that the Thanksgiving Day prayer vigil was just one of numerous attempts to convert Ingersoll, the son of a Presbyterian minister, to Christianity. Ingersoll’s response to the enterprise was recorded in the New York Journal (google “Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, volume VIII” or “Christian Endeavorers Ingersoll”) :

Question. How were you affected by the announcement that the united prayers of the Salvationists and Christian Endeavorers were to be offered for your conversion?

Answer. The announcement did not affect me to any great extent. I take it for granted that the people praying for me are sincere and that they have a real interest in my welfare. Of course, I thank them one and all. At the same time I can hardly account for what they did. Certainly they would not ask God to convert me unless they thought the prayer could be answered. And if their God can convert me of course he can convert everybody. Then the question arises why he does not do it. Why does he let millions go to hell when he can convert them all? Why did he not convert them all before the flood and take them all to heaven instead of drowning them and sending them all to hell? Of course these questions can be answered by saying that God’s ways are not our ways. I am greatly obliged to these people. Still, I feel about the same, so that it would be impossible to get up a striking picture of “before and after.” It was good-natured on their part to pray for me, and that act alone leads me to believe that there is still hope for them. The trouble with the Christian Endeavorers is that they don’t give my arguments consideration. If they did they would agree with me. It seemed curious that they would advise divine wisdom what to do, or that they would ask infinite mercy to treat me with kindness. If there be a God, of course he knows what ought to be done, and will do it without any hints from ignorant human beings. Still, the Endeavorers and the Salvation people may know more about God than I do. For all I know, this God may need a little urging. He may be powerful but a little slow; intelligent but sometimes a little drowsy, and it may do good now and then to call his attention to the facts. The prayers did not, so far as I know, do me the least injury or the least good. I was glad to see that the Christians are getting civilized. A few years ago they would have burned me. Now they pray for me.

Suppose God should answer the prayers and convert me, how would he bring the conversion about? In the first place, he would have to change my brain and give me more credulity–that is, he would be obliged to lessen my reasoning power. Then I would believe not only without evidence, but in spite of evidence. All the miracles would appear perfectly natural. It would then seem as easy to raise the dead as to waken the sleeping. In addition to this, God would so change my mind that I would hold all reason in contempt and put entire confidence in faith. I would then regard science as the enemy of human happiness, and ignorance as the soil in which virtues grow. Then I would throw away Darwin and Humboldt, and rely on the sermons of orthodox preachers. In other words, I would become a little child and amuse myself with a religious rattle and a Gabriel horn. Then I would rely on a man who has been dead for nearly two thousand years to secure me a seat in Paradise.

After conversion, it is not pretended that I will be any better so far as my actions are concerned; no more charitable, no more honest, no more generous. The great difference will be that I will believe more and think less.

After all, the converted people do not seem to be better than the sinners. I never heard of a poor wretch clad in rags, limping into a town and asking for the house of a Christian.

I think that I had better remain as I am. I had better follow the light of my reason, be true to myself, express my honest thoughts, and do the little I can for the destruction of superstition, the little I can for the development of the brain, for the increase of intellectual hospitality and the happiness of my fellow-beings. One world at a time.

–New York Journal, December 15, 1895.

Ingersoll’s statement was impressive for both its clarity and profundity. I won’t detract from it by attempting to comment on it.

PART  TWO: SUBSEQUENT LIES

You will not be the least bit shocked to learn that Ingersoll’s death was followed by rumors similar to those that circulated shortly after Darwin’s demise:

His death came in July 1899, when he was not quite sixtysix. He had been lecturing on religion just the month before, and he was working on new lectures at Walston, his son-inlaw’s elegant estate at Dobbs Ferry on the Hudson. There, surrounded by a family constantly concerned with his comfort and happiness, he died suddenly of what the doctors called angina pectoris. Quickly, rumors began circulating. Ingersoll had recanted on his deathbed, went one. Another held that he had been thrown into such despair by his beliefs that he committed suicide. Although it was strenuously denied by those who were with him when he died, for some the notion was irresistible that Royal Bob, the Illustrious Infidel, dreading the hellfire, had seen the light at the end.

In addition to repeatedly failing to understand why their prayers go unanswered, some Christians have a propensity for lying about the dead people who were once the objects of their prayers. Be prepared to encounter similar stories about Christopher Hitchens, should he succumb to esophageal cancer within the next few years. We already know Christians are praying for him, and he has responded graciously: he accepts prayers for his well-being with gratitude, but doesn’t expect any divine intervention in his life. I’m betting that, should cancer be the death of him, at least a few Christians will succumb to the temptation to manufacture a deathbed conversion story about him. It’s the way they roll: when the prayers fail, the lies begin.

– the chaplain