On I-pods and Ray Bradbury

On Sept. 9, Apple is scheduled to host a media event in San Francisco, where the company is expected to unveil an updated line of iPod media players. Coincidentally, I have just finished teaching an online interdisciplinary studies class, wherein we read a selection from Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451.

Two years before Steve Jobs was born, Ray Bradbury predicted the I-pod, only he called it Seashells, “radios in the ear that fill every minute with pop music and idle talk.” (Marvin Perry, Humanities in the Western Tradition: Readings in Literature and Thought, p. 290).

Montag's wife Mildred wears two of them, to keep a painful reality at bay:

The little mosquito-delicate dancing hum in the air, the electrical murmur of a hidden wasp snug in its special pink warm nest. The music was almost loud enough so he could follow the tune.

Without turning on the light he imagined how this room would look. His wife stretched on the bed, uncovered and cold, like a body displayed on the lid of the tomb, her eyes fixed in the ceiling by invisible threads of steel, immovable. And in her ears the little Seashells, the thimble radios tamped tight, and an electronic ocean of sound, of music and talk and music and talk coming in, coming in on the shore of her unsleeping mind. The room was indeed empty. Every night the waves came in and bore her off on their great tides of sound, floating her, wide-eyed, toward morning. There had been no night in the last two years that Mildred had not swum that sea, had not gladly gone down in it for the third time

At another point, Captain Beatty explains how Montag’s job works—why firemen burn books:

“You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, what do we want in this country, above all? People want to be happy, isn’t that right? Haven’t you heard it all your life? I want to be happy, people say. Well, aren’t they? Don’t we keep them moving, don’t we give them fun? That’s all we live for, isn’t it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these.”

(From Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. Published by Doubleday in 1953. )

Indeed, Captain Beatty, it does!

My Ways Are Not Your Ways:

The Moral Character of the God of Abraham

Not long now until Steve and I will be attending a Center for the Philosophy of Religion conference, "My Ways Are Not Your Ways" at the University of Notre Dame. The last time we were away together for such fun was in 2005, when we went to the Wheaton Philosophy Conference, "Heaven and Hell," with Jerry Walls as keynote speaker. It's about time for another get away.

Here is a description of the conference:

The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible

Adherents of the Abrahamic religious traditions contend that human beings are made in the image of God and that modeling the character of God in one’s life represents the pinnacle of human flourishing and moral perfection. Defenders of this tradition commonly point to passages in the canonical texts of the Jewish and Christian faiths that portray God as loving, merciful, patient, etc. in support of such a position.

Since the seventeenth century, however, numerous critics of these Abrahamic traditions have argued that God, especially in the Hebrew Bible, is often portrayed as anything but a moral role model. On the one hand, historical narratives in these texts describe God apparently committing, ordering, or commending genocide, slavery, and rape among other moral atrocities. On the other hand, a number of commands purportedly issued by God seem to commend bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia. In recent days, similar criticisms of the Abrahamic traditions have been raised by philosophers (Daniel Dennett), scientists (Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris), social commentators (Christopher Hitchens), and others.

Are these apparent commendations and commands of the Hebrew Bible consistent with the claim that the Abrahamic God is perfectly good and loving? Those defending this tradition have two avenues of response open to them. The first response would be to argue that the aforementioned troubling narratives or commands should simply be rejected. Those taking this approach would have to explain how they think such passages could be rejected without placing in peril the Abrahamic religions, which have traditionally claimed that the Hebrew Bible is, represents, or contains the inspired word of God. The second response would offer explanations aiming to show that the apparently untoward consequences can be avoided without rejecting the narratives or commands. Those taking this approach must explain either why the untoward consequences do not follow, or why they are not, in the end untoward.

However, while defenders of this tradition have both routes available to them, few of these defenders seem to have taken the challenge to heart. Despite these recent, forthright criticisms, only a handful of theologians or philosophers in these traditions have sought to respond to the criticisms.
The present conference aims to remedy this deficiency, taking as its focus the charge that the Abrahamic tradition should be rejected because of its foundation in the Hebrew Bible, which portrays God as immoral and vicious. The presenters and commentators include philosophers—both theistic and nontheistic—as well as Biblical scholars.

The papers, comments, and replies from the conference will be collected in a volume provisionally titled Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham. We have a contract with Oxford University Press for this volume and expect it to be published in 2010.

Participants include

Alvin Plantinga – University of Notre Dame
Eleonore Stump – Saint Louis University
Richard Swinburne – University of Oxford
Peter van Inwagen – University of Notre Dame
Michael Murray – Franklin and Marshall College
Michael Rea – University of Notre Dame
Stephen T. Davis – Claremont McKenna College
John Hare – Yale Divinity School
Daniel Howard-Snyder – Western Washington University
Christopher Seitz – Wycliffe College, University of Toronto
Mark C. Murphy – Georgetown University

But most exciting is the discovery that one of our VCC students who attends Calvin College will be attending. We look forward to seeing Kaylee and her friends, and sharing some great conversations.

Rain Choir

Via Gary-- this is amazing.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks: The Home We Build Together

I have great respect for Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Sir Jonathan Sacks, and stumbled upon this stimulating image of his from an article in TPM Online

The key metaphor in [Rabbi Sacks'] latest book is one which offers three models for how society treats newcomers: the country house, the hotel, and the titular “Home We Build Together”. The country house model sees most citizens as essentially guests of the host. This is fine up to a point, but there is an inherent discrepancy of status between those who offer hospitality and those who accept it. On the hotel model, newcomers are on a par with long term residents, but the hotel is home for no one, and there is no sense of a genuine shared space. When society is a home we build together, however, everyone is equal, in what they contribute and take, and as a result, everyone belongs.


The Home we Build Together: Re-creating Society Continuum, 2007.

Incense needed...lots of incense!

via Brad, Internet Monk explains that "If I become Lutheran, Anglican or Catholic, it will be because I watched this too many times." Specifically, IMonk presents us with "The worst worship ever."



The comments are really the best part of the blog entry. I love Father Ernesto's suggestion:

"Well, in situations like this, I suggest a healthy dollop of incense, to be used at the time when the socks are being taken off to be flung around."

Wonders for Oyarsa offers an amazing contrasting video:

Patricia Piccinini: artist and theologian?

More works of one of my favorite contemporary artists, Patricia Piccinini are collected here . She writes:

The sculptures present a series of creatures that I have designed to ‘assist’ a series of the endangered Australian animals. In the photographs, we follow more closely one of these creatures, ‘The Bodyguard (for the Golden Helmeted Honeyeater)’. It is very seductive to think that we could find a simple technological solution to complex ecological problems such as extinction. It is far more exciting to talk about genetic engineering than to designate a large area of habitat/real estate as national park so that dozens or even hundreds of native species might be given a better chance of survival. We have a long history of scientifically introducing new stuff into our environment in order to make it better, however it has rarely worked. Yet our relatively recent understanding of genetics seems to have left us ready to add yet more stuff in an unprecedented way. Why do we think we have it all figured out now?

I wonder how much of what she says is transferable to the way we think about the church? Continuing the long obedience in the same direction...

Knowledge and Mystery

Our God invites us into relationship with Him, and healthy relationships don’t need to keep secrets.

The Biblical meaning of the word mysterion is “something formerly unknown that has been revealed." This doesn't mean that we have all the answers. It does mean that God does, and that He delights in revealing Himself to us.

In our fallenness we ping-pong back and forth between idolizing human reason and vilifying it. In the process, we vilify mystery or idolize it. The truth is that we never will have the complete truth, but that that doesn't mean that we don't have any truth at all.
"Things are known because they are created; things are unfathomable because they are created," writes Josef Pieper. How much more then, is God knowable because He is Truth; and God is unfathombable because He is Truth.

Fr. Norris Clarke: 1915-2008

I have just learned that Fr. Norris Clarke died in June. His impressive vitae is still available here. Anyone who knows me, or who reads my blog, will quickly figure out that I have been greatly influenced by Fr. Clarke's The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics. Praise God for his life and work.

Lux æterna luceat eis, Domine,
cum sanctis tuis in æternum,
quia pius es.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine;
et lux perpetua luceat eis ;
cum Sanctis tuis in aeternum,
quia pius es.

Available Only in St. Louis: Gooey Butter Cake

:
Available in almost every bakery and supermarket in the St. Louis area, the gooey butter cake is a coffee cake that is unique in taste, texture and appearance. I have never seen it outside of my home town. Paula Deen gives a recipe that uses cream cheese and yellow cake mix, but that is mistaking cubic zirconium for a diamond.

I have wonderful memories of going to the old St. Louis Bakery in the South County Mall on Saturdays with my mom, and buying gooey butter cakes there that were so gooey that once they were cut, they had to be stored at a tilt so the goo wouldn't run all over. Here's the authentic recipe. It's a lot of work, but so worth it when paired with a cup of hot black coffee!

Dough:
1/4 cup warm water (110 degrees)
4 1/2 teaspoons instant yeast
1/2 cup warm milk (110 degrees)
1/3 cup granulated sugar
2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract
1/4 cup (1/2 stick) unsalted butter, softened
1 egg
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour, divided

Gooey butter topping:
2 1/2 cups granulated sugar
1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, softened
Dash salt
1 egg
1/4 cup light corn syrup
2 1/3 cups all-purpose flour
1/4 cup warm water (110 degrees)
2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract
Confectioners' sugar, for sprinkling

For dough, combine water and yeast in mixing bowl of electric mixer; hand-whisk to mix, then let stand a few minutes. Stir in milk, sugar, vanilla, butter, egg, salt, and 2 cups of the flour. Switch to dough hook and knead on slow speed, sprinkling in as much of the remaining 1/2 cup flour as needed, until dough is smooth, about 5 to 8 minutes. Cover bowl with a towel and let dough rise in warm, draft-free place 45 to 60 minutes, or until almost doubled.

Meanwhile, prepare gooey butter topping. Combine granulated sugar, butter, salt, egg, corn syrup, flour, water and vanilla in work bowl of food processor fitted with metal blade; process 20 to 30 seconds, or until mixture is a smooth paste. (Or beat with electric mixer until well mixed.)

To assemble: Generously spray two 9-inch square baking pans with nonstick cooking spray. Line a baking sheet with parchment paper.

Gently punch down dough. Divide dough into two equal pieces. Press one portion into each prepared pan, pressing lightly to fit. Use fingertips to crimp edges about halfway up side of pan to make a border (so gooey butter will not run underneath). Use a fork to prick a few holes in dough to prevent bubbling (do not prick dough all the way through). Divide gooey butter into two equal portions; spread over dough in each pan. Let stand, uncovered, 25 minutes.

Place pans on prepared baking sheet. Bake in preheated 375-degree oven 20 minutes, then reduce heat to 350 degrees and bake 15 minutes. Topping should be bubbly and golden brown. Do not overbake; topping will not be gooey if cakes are baked too long.

Remove pans from oven and transfer to wire racks to cool until the topping settles and cake is just a bit warmer than room temperature. Sprinkle tops with confectioners' sugar.
Serve warm or at room temperature.

Yield: 2 cakes; 10 to 12 servings each.

United Breaks Guitars

Statement

Stackhouse: "A Bigger--and Smaller--View of Mission"

The following is a must-read from John Stackhouse. His bigger vision takes an inclusivist position on salvation, and his smaller vision calls for greater humility.



Of course, my metaphysical antennae were applauding when I read about binary oppositions...<g>


A Bigger--and Smaller--View of Mission

"...Let's begin, then, with two ways in which our view of mission should expand. First, Christians typically have believed that those who have not heard the name of Jesus are simply lost and destined for hell. Much of the energy of the great 19th-century missionary movement among Westerners, and much of the impetus of missions work around the world to this day, has come from the horror of a Niagara of souls pouring into a lost eternity for want of an evangelist.

We also need to acknowledge, however, a corresponding horror in the hearts of many—including many missions-minded Christians—about a God who allows whole nations and generations to plunge into a lost eternity simply because no one happened to reach them with the gospel. Does faithfulness to the Bible mean we must retain this picture?..... "

-------------------

"....Furthermore, we must beware of a second problem that lies nearby. And that is the idea that missions is all about getting people saved, and particularly about rescuing their souls from hell so that they can go to heaven. Multiple theological errors, in fact, attend this view of salvation.

God is not interested in saving merely human souls. He wants human beings, body and soul. Furthermore, he does not settle for saving human beings, but the whole earth. He made it in the first place, pronounced it "very good," and he wants it all back. So he is saving us, the lords he put over creation, as part of his global agenda to rescue, indeed, the globe.

What God rescues us to, furthermore, is the original agenda he set out for us in Genesis 1, namely, to "fill the earth and subdue it." He planted a garden for us to tend (Gen. 2) and commanded our first parents to raise up generations of gardeners to fan out across the earth to till the rest of it. This is what it means to bear the image of God. We, too, are to improve the situation, to cultivate what we encounter, to make shalom in every sector of life. And such work is our ultimate destiny as well, as we are to "reign with him" over the new earth he promises (2 Tim. 2:12). Thus we are not going back to Eden, nor up to a (spiritual) heaven, but forward to the New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven to earth as our proper home (Rev. 21). ..."

-------------------

"....In these ways, then, our view of mission must be properly large. At the same time, however, it may need reducing in some key respects. In particular, the virtue of humility would properly deflate several exaggerations of our missionary outlook. "

Meditation for Worship: August 2, 2009 "Seven Ones"

Texts:

Psalm 78:23-29
Exodus 16:2-4, 9-15,
John 6:24-35

Sermon text: Ephesians 4:1-16


Lord God,

We live in a broken world
Our own lives are shattered.
And our churches have fractured,

But you tell us “There is one body”

We are advised to seek enlightenment,
To rebel and proclaim our autonomy,
While at the same time we worship throngs of celebrities.

But you tell us “there is one Spirit”

We are urged to pursue whatever we desire,
Stake our claim and set our course by it,
Only to have it fade, crumble and perish beneath our touch.

But you tell us “There is one Hope.”

We reject contradictions in math and science but
Embrace them as profundities when it comes to religion;
We are blown about by every wind of teaching;
Skeptical that there can be anything that is Real or True or Good

But you tell us “there is one faith”

We insist that the best way to know you is privately,
Apart from rituals and institutions.
We maintain that water, and wheat and wine
Are elements unable to contain your Mystery

But you tell us “there is one baptism”

We were stunned when Jesus not only told, us but showed us:
“There is one God and Father of all,” and that he was One with You.

So now we unite to worship You:
Father who is over all,
Son who is through all
Spirit who is in all.

Lord God, build us up, that we might do the work you have for us.

Health Care Debate in Eugene: Two Physicians Face Off

Two local physicians have had a debate on the opinion page of the Eugene Register Guard. I reproduce it here for your
interest, because it seems to me to capture two possible pure positions

Doctors take an oath to serve, not a vow of poverty

By I. Howard Fine. M.D.
For The Register-Guard
Appeared in print: Sunday, Jul 26, 2009
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/17388970-47/story.csp

Health care reform is a hot topic today. To most people, reform means reducing the cost of health care. There is much in our current health care delivery system that could be improved, but ultimately with only a relatively marginal reduction in costs.

The only way to dramatically reduce health care costs is to dramatically reduce health care — and that means allowing people to suffer and die early from treatable diseases. Unacceptable, you say. And I agree.

This forces us to recognize how much we value good health, without which much of the joy is taken from our lives. What else that we look upon as valuable do we believe to be our right at a very low cost? Food? Shelter? Clothing? Cosmetics? (Americans spend more on cosmetics each year than on medications).

We all look forward to the availability of a cure for cancer and heart disease, our biggest killers, but that can come only at a huge cost — a cost in which, one way or the other, we must all participate. If we remove or significantly reduce profits from manufacturers of medical devices and pharmaceuticals, their research budgets will disappear. How much medical innovation is created in Great Britain or Canada?

Physicians take an oath to serve, but they do not take a vow of poverty. Like almost everyone else, they wish to achieve financial security for themselves and their families. If we devalue the worth of their long training, hard work, expertise and responsibility, their numbers and their productivity will decline.

In spite of the very high taxes that the Swedish people pay for universal health care, there was recently a five-year wait after diagnosis for cataract surgery in the first eye and an additional seven-year wait for surgery in the second eye. That is a 12-year wait for bilateral visual rehabilitation. Those who could left the country for their cataract surgery. A law was passed in Sweden allowing privately paid cataract surgery in ambulatory surgery centers, and within a very short time the 12 year wait was reduced to about six months. That happened without an increase in the number of surgeons. It’s not surprising.

An emphasis on preventive care is a cornerstone of our impending health care reform: Smoking, obesity, substance abuse, auto accidents and emotionally undisciplined living extract a huge amount of precious health care resources and are totally unrelated to the availability of health care professionals or facilities. This is not new, and it is totally preventable. It depends on voluntary behavior modification by our citizens, which thus far has not been forthcoming.

When we cure cancer and heart disease, people will live longer and be more free of symptoms.

But more people will need more medical care for a longer time to address the chronic infirmities of increasing age — increasing the overall cost of health care. Like global warming, this is an inconvenient truth.

We all want the best of health care. When President Obama and the U.S. Congress say we can save billions of health care dollars each year over the next decade, we should also all want to know how.

Health care is already rationed

By Todd Huffman. M.D.
For The Register-Guard
Appeared in print: Saturday, Aug. 1, 2009
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/17196580-47/story.csp

How tiresome it is that the backers of for-profit health care continue to use FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to maintain the unjust and unjustifiable status quo.
Even esteemed colleagues are not above attempting to frighten the public with anecdotes of rationing of care and long waits. Of course, what is neglected to be mentioned is that this is exactly the situation we have now under our current “system.” Right now, right here in the United States, health care is indeed being rationed, by CEOs behind the closed doors of corporate board rooms.

Wouldn’t it be wiser, fairer and more justly American to take the tough decisions about health care out of the boardrooms and shareholder meetings and put them in the hands of professionals, patients and the public?

The truth is that the U.S. rations care more harshly than any other country. We ration care by wealth, by employment, and by age. Conservative estimates are that nearly 20,000 Americans die every year due to lack of insurance, while millions more go without needed care every day because of cost. Now that’s rationing!

Health care should be guided not by unregulated profit motives but rather by science, compassion and rational policy. It should be rationed, yes, by outcome and not by income. We must ignore when profiteers and fear mongers raise the specter of rationing when their pocketbooks feel threatened.

And as for vows, mine were “to come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice.”