Whistling in the Void

In a recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News, columnist Gordon Keith rose to the defense of the new Atheist church coming to Dallas. He argues that the new church will be a useful resource in the community by providing a sense of "community and clarity", as if the church will be little different than the Kiwanas Club or a local debating society. Ah, but perhaps I am being too judgemental or quick with my thoughts. The church being proposed will not be established on garden variety atheism, but what has come to be called "spiritual atheism".

Unlike true atheists who acknowledge the emptiness and meaninglessness that results from their lack of belief, "religious" atheists seek transcendence and purpose in the void. But in the atheist universe there is none to be found. Purpose and meaning must be created, cobbled together out of the desideratum of existence. They collect the emotions, thoughts, and feelings that appeal to them and reject the unseemly and the cruel. The difficulty is that religious atheists offer a transcendence that cannot be justified in the void. They can only assert an innate beneficence and urge people to demonstrate kindness. They pluck Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would be done unto out of context and thereby deprive it of any imperative. It becomes a caution, a hedge against future misfortune.

Without God or religion, there is no imperative to behave with kindness, show compassion, or demonstrate any other moral act. There is no call to transcend our selfish impulses. Acts of kindness, charity, and compassion depend entirely on noble impulse which, more often than not is dormant in humanity, buried beneath the exigencies of life and the pursuit of self determined ends. Moreover, there is no penalty for disregarding them. The disapproval of others for whom one has no regard is no disincentive to vice or immorality.

Pan Moralists hold out a genteel atheism of love, shared values, and tolerance. They offer a polite, middle class spiritualism better suited to conversation than salvation. They hold a sapless moral and ethical system built on the shifting sands of sentimentality. But there is also the brutal atheism of Nietzsche and Marx. Those who assert we can love and respect others in the absence of God can offer no reason why their vast, untethered morality should triumph over nihilism outside the consciences of the genteel atheist mind.

There can be no such thing as an atheist church for there is no transcendence in atheism.  At best you can have some sort of well mannered spiritual society for those seeking to fill the spiritual void left behind when God is rejected. For those not so well brought up or who lack the sentiments of comfortable, well behaved atheists, there is only the the world and the brief time we have in it to satisfy our desires and achieve our ambitions. Those who appeal to nature as source of morals wear blinders. They see harmony, coexistence, and beauty. They ignore the brutality and cruelty of nature. The see lionesses nurturing their cubs but ignore the hyenas tearing those cubs to shreds. Nature is a machine that cares for nothing and no one. Nature will kill us all.

The thin gruel of "values" cannot sustain the human soul. Man requires substance for his spiritual and moral health. The object of religion is to bring men closer to God, not to be a source of social harmony and justice. All the good that flows from religion, love, charity, compassion, mercy, are its fruits. You cannot chop down the tree of religion and still hope to gather its fruit. There can be no atheist church because there is nothing at its center. There is nothing to set the church on. To attempt to infuse atheism with a sense of transcendence and spirituality is a fool's errand. To worship nature or a set of feelings and ideas is not a religion. It is a cult.

Pan religionists and moralists are often more concerned with concord than truth. Yes, different faiths can get along if they try, but there is no need to gut a faith or dilute it into a thin broth to satisfy the demands of those who have become wary, or even rejected the idea of universal truth. If there is truth you recognize it. If you do not have truth you seek it. If you can't find it, make do with what you can cobble together. Religious atheism is an echo of real religion. It is a sentimental yearning for what it left behind.

The Lap of Luxury

Jayden Smith doesn't think much of school. In a recent statement, the scion of actors Will and Jada Smith declared that "School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth." The young Smith went on to declare that "if Everybody In The World Dropped Out Of School We Would Have A Much More Intelligent Society . . . Everybody Get Off Your Phones And Go Do What You Actually Wanna Do." Perhaps Smith's capitalization of every word was done in intentional defiance of the English language. Perhaps he just doesn't know any better. In either case it makes no difference to Smith. So far from thinking education is important, the young Smith asserts his belief that "if Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth." Fortunatley for him, his lifestyle will never be dependent on his grammar. Jayden Smith will never have to get a job, fill out a tax form, write a letter, or balance a check book. He will never have to read a set of instructions or measure out ingredients. He will never have to figure out how many square feet he has in a room or what size wrench he needs. The young Smith will rely on others to know such things. 

Jayden can be excused for his hubris. He has simply seized hold of the fundamental flaw in modern educational theory. That flaw is the belief that education should serve an economic purpose. The education of our youth should be measured by the extent that education maximizes economic activity. Our schools should be focused on creating productive, useful citizens, not navel gazing philosophers, dusty historians, and idle English majors. Princlings like Jayden need no skills. They contemplate no trade. They need not squander time learning about things that will not be useful to satisfying their appetites. Jayden has what he needs and what he doesn't have he can get. Most likely Jayden always will.

Jayden doesn't need to know what is in the U.S. Constitution, why the U.S. fought WWI, or how to conjugate verbs. A recent image released by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope shows an enormous collection of galaxies and star clusters in stunning detail. Hubble spied 10,000 or so of the estimated 160,000 globular star groupings thought to reside in the huge galaxy cluster. Jayden won't know that either unless someone tells him. I am sure that is the sort of thing Jayden doesn't think is worth knowing. Why should he care? How can that possibly affect his career plans or add to his enjoyment of life? What possible use can such information be to Jayden?

"School Is The Tool To Brainwash The Youth," he went on, "Education Is Rebellion. If Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth."
Finally, Smith declared that "if everybody In The World Dropped Out Of School We Would Have A Much More Intelligent Society . . . Everybody Get Off Your Phones And Go Do What You Actually Wanna Do." The young Smith can afford ignorance. He can afford to do whatever he wants to do. The vast majority of mankind cannot. They have to work for what they want. Increasingly in our modern world, that work requires knowledge. Knowledge is acquired through education. Jayden does not need work therefore he does not need education.

As the U.S. continues to slip in world literacy rankings Jayden proudly boasts of his illiteracy. He holds out that the solution to life's difficulties and travail is not to work hard and labor to improve one's intellect, but to be rich, or at least have rich parents. Will Smith declared "we respect our children the way we would respect any other person. Things like cleaning up their room. You would never tell a full-grown adult to clean their room, so we don't tell our kids to clean their rooms." Why should they? That is what maids are for. They won't tell him to mow the lawn. That's what gardeners are for.

Jayden wrapped up his thoughts by answering a question put to him by others: "People Use To Ask Me What Do You Wanna Be When You Get Older And I Would Say What A Stupid Question The Real Question Is What Am I Right Now?" He is the pampered son of two fabulously wealthy Hollywood celebrities, that what he is right now.

Knowledge for its own sake is a concept completely foreign to a mind like Smith's. Knowledge must serve a particular purpose. In today's world that purpose is predominantly to acquire wealth. Smith does not need wealth. He has it. Therefore he has no need for knowledge. Without a proper education, Jayden's imagination will be crimped and limited to those things that catch his attention. But that is OK, Jayden can afford to live in that world.

If everyone took young Mr. Smith's advice and dropped out of school who would write those wonderful books and scripts that have made his parents so much money? Who would invent all those wonderful gadgets and toys that amuse him and his friends? Who would check to make sure his family's finances were in order? He lives in the bubble of the present. It is a very comfortable bubble.

Should young Mr. Smith ever grow weary of illiteracy and making ignorant statements he can afford to hire people who will write intelligent things for him to say. In the mean time, he will rely on others to know things just in case he has a question or needs something done. Said Will of his son., "he is definitely not going anywhere; he is so scared of being out on his own." Indeed.

After careful thought, the young Mr. Smith concluded that "All The Rules In This World Were Made By Someone No Smarter Than You. So Make Your Own." If the world could afford to, I am sure it would. Jayden Smith will never have to get a job, fill out a tax form or balance a check book. He will never have to read a set of instructions or measure out ingredients. He will never have to figure out how many square feet he has in a room or what size wrench he needs. The young Smith will rely on others to know such things.  Should he ever have a question he can just pay someone to find the answer and explain it to him. He can afford ignorance.

Said Jayden's proud parents, "we respect our children the way we would respect any other person. Things like cleaning up their room. You would never tell a full-grown adult to clean their room, so we don't tell our kids to clean their rooms." Why should they? That is what maids are for. Jayden does not need to go to school. He can afford to hire people who went to school.

Sorry

In the news, it was reported that Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called off a state visit planed for next month over revelations that the US National Security Agency has been intercepting emails and messages from Ms Rousseff, and her aides. The U.S. surveillance came to light in documents leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
 
The White House said Mr Obama had telephoned Ms Rousseff on Monday to discuss the matter. In a phone call to Rousseff, the president promised to investigate the incident. In the mean time, the president expressed his regrets and his concerns over any unpleasantness US intelligence activities may have generated in Brazil. The president went on and vowed that he is committed to doing what he can to ameliorate any hard feelings on the part of Rousseff and her government in regard to the U.S.'s espionage efforts as well as his hopes that the U.S. and Brazil can continue to work together on issues of mutual importance. He hopes that the U.S. and Brazil can "move beyond this issue as a source of tension in our bilateral relationship," In his message, Obama expressed his regrets over any concerns caused by the disclosure of the espionage. In consistency with U.S. policy, absent in Obama's statement was any apology for the espionage itself. As the documents are revealing, nothing and no one is off limits. It is reasonable to conclude that the U.S.'s response to the matter will not be to curtail such activities, but to exercise greater diligence in maintaining the secrecy of future efforts, if for no other reason than to prevent future embarrassments for other world leaders. The U.S. has acquired a voracious appetite for information. It will be hidden. It will be denied. It will be apologized for when necessary. It will never be sated.

The president did not apologize for U.S. intelligence activities. He apologized for the discomfort that their revelation may have caused. He may well have said "I am sorry if you catching my friends going through your things has caused you any distress. It had to be done. I will make a greater effort in the future to protect you from the embarrassment of catching them. In the mean time I hope we can still be friends." What regret there is in Washington is not over spying on our friends, it is over being caught spying on our friends.

 

Finding a Niche

Senator Ted Cruz, the firebrand Republican Senator from Texas, has staked out a position on U.S. foreign policy. Cruz has stated that U.S. policy should be guided by "three simple principles". Those principals are A) a narrow focus on protecting U.S. interests, B) a clear statement of "moral clarity", and C), when the U.S. does commit its military, it should be to win. It is indeed a clear and bold statement on what U.S. policy should be. Beyond a succinct sound bite however, the principles put forward out by Cruz are not simple, far from it. They are the messy guts in the sausage factory that is U.S. foreign policy.

In order to  narrowly focus on U.S. interests, those interests must be clear and devoid of complicating details. Let us glance at Egypt. Recently, the democratically elected government was overthrown by the military. Was the the coup in U.S. interests? That remains to be seen. In the short term, a stable and orderly government that can be relied upon to maintain the status quo in Egypt is in our interests. But if the coup serves to radicalize the opposition and reinforce undemocratic elements in the region by demonstrating the impotency, and ultimate futility of elections, our efforts to spread democracy in the region will be severely undermined. Is there a clear statement of U.S. policy to be made in regards to Egypt? Is there moral clarity? Is the will of the Egyptian people more or less in line with U.S. sensibilities than public order? Where do our interests lie? Do we seek to nurture a nascent, if disorderly, democracy or do we throw our support behind a heavy handed and more predictable military autocracy? A narrow focus might simplify things in the short run but unforeseen consequences await us in the future.

Similarly, "moral clarity" is an elusive idea rarely found in the real world. It is rarely found because it rarely exists. Morals are a fundamentally subjective concept. They vary from person to person, culture to culture, nation to nation and age to age. A person might possess "moral clarity" but a nation cannot. At best a nation might possess a consensus regarding what morality consists of, but clarity is always in jeopardy as sensibilities and populations change. What is morally clear today was not morally clear a generation ago. There was no moral conundrum in WWI when chemical weapons were used. The U.S. did not stay awake at night wrestling with the moral implications of carpet bombing cities or whether to drop atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII. The U.S. showed little reluctance in dropping napalm and using chemical defoliants, white phosphorous or sending B-52s over Hanoi in Vietnam. The U.S. has also retained the option of a nuclear first strike if it is felt the situation demands it.  The use of any particular weapon by the U.S. will be determined by leaders in Washington, not international treaties or conventions. Exactly what that situation might be we alone will decide, even in the absence of "moral clarity". You cannot expect nations to eschew using weapons they deem necessary if their survival is at stake. International "moral clarity" is a modern concept that represents little more than the consensus of any number of nations in regard to the way things happen to be at the moment.

The simple principles put forward by Cruz are not clear. U.S. interests vary from situation to situation. Moral clarity does not exist outside the human mind. Commitment to winning a conflict depends entirely on the the object hoped to be achieved. If by bombing Syria we hope to degrade government capabilities it is likely we will succeed. If it is to achieve a more stable and democratic Middle East it is likely we will fail. By supporting the military in Egypt, the door we worked so hard to open in the region will be closed as the ballot box will no longer be viewed as a reliable method for achieving political aspirations. Another lesson that can be drawn from recent events is the need for governments to be more vigilant in stifling dissent lest a mob rise up and clamor for democracy and thereby create opportunity for international intervention.

Cruz hopes to find a political niche. He seeks to erase moral ambiguity by boldly asserting a clear and forceful U.S. policy on when to involve itself in a conflict. In doing so he would create a reflexive and unthinking approach to foreign policy guaranteed to harm U.S. interests and send us lurching from crisis to crisis. The world is a messy and complicated place. It requires understanding, nuance and subtlety: principles Cruz would eschew in his pursuit of clarity.

We have done an admirable job in this country in keeping kids from smoking. Now, if we can just get them to pay attention in school and stop eating like pigs, we might be OK