When Does Life Begin?

 This question reminds me of a quote from p. 57 of Science Made Stupid:  "One of the mammals' evolutionary advantages was that they bore their young alive.  As research has conclusively shown, animals that bore their young dead generally got nowhere."

From a scientific point of view, life does not begin at birth, nor when one registers to vote as a Democrat, as some seem to believe.  But it also does not begin at conception, as is often stated.  It began, apparently, only once, and that was more than 3.7 billion years ago.  Ever since then, life has been passed down to succeeding generations with no gap in between.  

Asking when a human organism comes into being is a different question.  That is the question for which the scientific answer is, generally, "at conception"; I say generally because some (it must be emphasized) purely theoretical questions are posed by the production of identical twins, triplets, etc.  These questions may be interesting to think about, but they do not provide a license to play with the lives of humans at an embryonic stage of development.  But my main point is that Catholics and others who care about the truth need to be careful with the language we use.   We are told that no one puts old wine in new wineskins, but we have no alternative to putting old biological life into new organisms.

It should also go without saying that biology is not equipped to detect the soul.  The existence of the soul can be derived from philosophy, as Aristotle did it, but not from the natural sciences, so the immediate creation of each spiritual soul by God cannot be proved or refuted by science.

Talking about Science

 I'm pretty fed up with people talking about science who know nothing about science.  One blog post in particular, to which I will not link because it does not deserve the extra views, has provoked this comment, but that is really only the last straw.  Right and left, atheist and believer, people who have taken the minimum science content necessary to obtain a university degree seem to think they have deep insights into what science is and why it is so great or what is so wrong with it.  That's pretty much on par with making sweeping critiques of Mexico based on regular visits to Taco Bell -- only they would never dare to make the kind of ridiculous generalizations about a nation that they do about people who understand science.  

Markov Chains and Progress

The boasted privilege of freemen under the direction of political power to be exercised by a single individual, would seem to be adopted by an Administration of Independence security of the object for which may be destroy or keep down a bad passion of our free institutions and prejudices, so long will the States governing a common with every other citizen; and although the medium of the elective franchise. If such could not, I conceive, have been the pleasure of the people but that the enactment should never be used with greater effect for unhallowed union of the whole country for generosity and nobleness of feeling may be destroyed by the respects the aggregate people of the Federal Government, the accountable agent, not a vestige of the people to be most stupid men in England spoke of "their American subjects. It looks to the aggrandizement of the Territories of the Constitution or because errors had been committed by anyone who has blessed us by the gifts of combinations violative of the elective governments arises from this high place to which I shall be exerted to prevent the formation of political privileges, and this seems to be the corner stone upon which our American citizens requiring compliance with entire control the free operations as the genuine spirit of liberty is the spirit of freedom, and as long as the understanding. The citizen; and although devoted republican principles which separate the evils which have been that under no circumstances of their own constant nurture. To the never-dying worm in his attempts have been made, hitherto justice which the Constitution, "all the liberties of the State governments, of the scheming politician dissipated, and, avoiding the democrat of Athens with them, and as long as they might deceive and flattered with greater error in the bosoms of those feelings which belong to the President to communicate information and prudent administration not to have prepared it agreeably to his will and the lesser Asia would furnish the larger dividend.

The text above was generated using the PHP Markov chain text generator at http://projects.haykranen.nl/markov/demo/ using the inaugural address of William Henry Harrison as the input text and a 7th-order Markov chain.  

Note the dream-like quality of the text.  Short pieces of it tend to make some kind of sense, but longer stretches are incoherent.  It is what Macbeth claimed life to be:  "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  The incoherence is due to the fact that the text was generated from probabilities based on only the past few words; there is no long-term memory, let alone actual thought.

The same applies to societies as a whole, because at no time do we have more than a few generations living simultaneously, and most of a nation's past will have happened before living memory.  Each new generation has some hope or ambition of correcting what it sees as the most obvious, insupportable, or insufferable wrongs -- wrongs it will typically see as being the consequences of choices by the generation immediately previous.  A generation or two further back is likely to be seen through rose-colored glasses, in part due to the contrast with the generation of one's parents; generations even further back, never having been met, are scarcely thought of, much less understood.  

Yes, we have books and (now) recordings, but these are no substitute for experience, or even for simply getting to know someone who has had the direct experience.  Think of it this way:  it is one thing to watch a movie about a love story, but it is another to actually fall in love; it is one thing to watch a YouTube video that shows the view from the front seat of a roller coaster, but it is another to ride the roller coaster.  There was even something special about hearing stories from my Great Uncle Mitchell about driving trucks across France to bring supplies to the troops pushing in on Germany, or meeting Mike Jacobs, Holocaust survivor and founder of the Holocaust museum in Dallas.  Both those good men are gone now, and their generation will soon be altogether gone; and books and videos cannot fill the hole they leave.

So what do we lose with the passing of generations, except for stories?  I suspect the most important thing we lose is the experience to know how to react to new evils as they arise.  Sometimes it is best to mind our own business and let events play out, since intervention is likely to cause more problems than it solves; sometimes it is best to speak up; sometimes it is best to watch quietly and prepare to act if some threshold is passes; sometimes it is best to act forcefully and decisively.  Those who have lived through multiple crises should be better judges of which hills it is worth dying on, figuratively or even literally -- of when it really is a good day to die, and when it is not.

The second most important thing we lose is experience in recognizing idealistic rubbish.  In The Everlasting Man, Chesterton asks, "Does anybody in the world believe that a soldier says, 'My leg is nearly dropping off, but I shall go on till it drops; for after all I shall enjoy all the advantages of my government obtaining a warm water port in the Gulf of Finland! Can anybody suppose that a clerk turned conscript says, 'If I am gassed I shall probably die in torments; but it is a comfort to reflect that should I ever decide to become a pearl-diver in the South Seas, that career is now open to me and my countrymen!"  No person of mature judgment would say that, obviously, but history shows that people -- especially young people -- often really do fall for propaganda because they lack the experience to detect a con or even to recognize the correct priorities; after all, it is mostly young people who commit suicide over a failed romance or due to online bullying. 

Human Absurdity

Recent popes have had much to say about human dignity, but this is not the right time to talk about dignity.  Everyone in today's society believes in human dignity -- or at least in their own dignity, if more questionably in the dignity of others.  So for example, the Black Lives Matter movement is about dignity; so is the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization.  In short, all of identity politics -- right or left, national or racial or sexual -- and most of the short tempers tearing society apart are due to people intensely feeling and vigorously protecting their own dignity, something that used to be called the deadly sin of pride.

Instead, it would be much better to regain a healthy appreciation for the absurdity of all humans, most especially ourselves.  We must learn to laugh at ourselves again.

We have dignity because we are creatures made in the image of God, and we are absurd because we are creatures made in the image of God.  It is possible to have a finite image of the infinite, but it is not possible without distortion.  God is eternal, but we are mortal; God is omniscient, but we are ignorant; God is omnipotent, but we are weak.  Yet we really do bear His image; we are like fun house mirrors held up to God.

The kind of absurdity I am talking about should lead to humility as well as humor, but it is not degrading.  The image of God we bear is inevitably distorted, but it need not be desecrated; we may be unavoidably comical, but we do not have to be corruptions.

Was Frodo a "Type" of Jew?

• The survivors of Atlantis arrived on the mainland thousands of years ago.

• They were physically superior to the "lesser men" already living on the mainland.

• They were even more technologically superior to the "lesser men", creating objects and performing tasks that even today would appear magical.

• They rightfully conquered a large part of the mainland.

• They subsequently declined physically, mentally, and technologically due to interbreeding with "lesser men".

All these ideas were part of the intellectual atmosphere of the late 1800's and early 1900's.  They seemed to be supported by the increasingly obvious common heritage of the Indo-European family of languages.  They seemed to be supported by finds such as Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of Troy and Arthur Evans' discovery of the labyrinth-like palace at Knossos, which indicated there might be a basis in reality for old myths and legends.  They seemed to be supported by the  "revelations" of esoteric cults like Spiritualism and Theosophy.

All these ideas were embraced whole-heartedly by an important part of the Nazi Party, who saw them as proof of the superiority of the "Aryan race".  In fact, the SS sponsored an expedition to Tibet under Ernst Schäfer to prove these ideas and flesh them out in detail.

All these ideas are present in The Lord of the Rings.  (Well, strictly speaking, it is The Silmarillion that explicitly identified Númenor with Atlantis.)

For years I have found that disturbing.  Likewise disturbing is the tendency of fans of Tolkien to accept the "superiority" of the Númenóreans without batting an eye.  However, I have recently come to believe that Tolkien was actually making a strong, if perhaps subtle, anti-Nazi point.  

To cut to the point, Tolkien actually did insert a "Superman" into Lord of the Rings:  Boromir.  Tall, strong, brave, of noble blood, accustomed to command, Boromir was willing to take what he wanted.  For the greater good of his Volk, Boromir violated his conscience.  Even though he repented in the end, Boromir came much closer to the SS ideal than Aragorn ever did. (I suspect that Nietzsche would have faulted Aragorn for his adoption of "slave morality".)  Boromir was also the only member of the fellowship who was no longer alive when Sauron was defeated and Aragorn was crowned.  Regardless of what Aragorn said to comfort his dying friend, the Aryan superman had failed.

At the other extreme we have the hobbits.  It is actually rather firmly established that hobbits were in fact just an inconspicuous race of men, but men so different that both they and other men thought of hobbits as something altogether different.  Númenóreans were tall, but hobbits were tiny; Númenóreans were bold, but hobbits, though rarely cowards, despised adventure; Númenóreans had kings and kingly stewards, but hobbits had scarcely any government at all.  Some Númenóreans -- certainly Faramir and Boromir -- had psychic or prophetic dreams, something the hobbits are never shown to have had.  The stereotypical hobbit was basically the opposite of the stereotypical Númenóreans; and we all know who were the stereotypical opposites of stereotypical Aryan superman.  Yet it was the hobbits who turned out to be the greatest heroes.

This, I think was the point.  Frodo was a "type" of Jew in the sense of Catholic typology, which is a kind of metaphorical foreshadowing.  For example, King David was a "type" of Jesus Christ because he was both a shepherd and a king, among other things; yet David was also his own person and only hinted at Christ, as opposed to C. S. Lewis's Aslan, who was supposed to be precisely Jesus Christ.  The date on which Frodo defeated Sauron -- March 25, which is traditionally believed to be the date of the creation, the Annunciation, and the Crucifixion, is also a very important clue.

So in essence, Tolkien was saying, "You want to believe you are taller, more talented, more psychic, and more adventurous?  Fine.  For the sake of argument, let's go with that.  It still remains true that the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived was one of those you wrongly consider your inferiors, even subhuman."

Of course that is not the only theme of The Lord of the Rings, which was never intended to be the same kind of simplistic book as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, let alone Pilgrim's Progress, but the presence of this theme is enough to justify the inclusion of otherwise distasteful elements.  The tendency of fans of Tolkien to accept the "superiority" of the Númenóreans without batting an eye ... that remains disturbing.

Paging Nurse Ratched!

When the director of the CDC has declared racism a "serious public health threat", how long can it be before (non-voluntary) medical treatments are prescribed?

Don't worry.  NO WAY is this leading to a dystopian nightmare. 

Poetry and Sports

If you just walk up a green with a golf ball in your hand and casually place the ball in the hole, you are not playing a bold and original form of golf; you are not playing golf at all.  The rules of any sport are apt to be unnatural -- it would be natural to tuck the basketball under one's arm and run with it, or to grab a soccer ball with one's hands -- but it is precisely this that makes the sport a sport.

The same holds true with poetry.  Rhyme, meter, alliteration, etc. are all as arbitrary and unnatural as the rules of American football, and different languages and cultures have different rules, as of course do different sports.  However, just as the rules make the sport, the rules make the poetry.  "Poetry" without rules is not poetry at all; it is typically just prose with oddly placed dramatic pauses.

The Atonement and Gaius Mucius Scaevola

Over the years, many explanations have been put forward in an attempt to explain just why God chose to redeem us by a method as shocking as the Crucifixion.  Very likely the real answer is something of a mystery -- even five sorrowful mysteries -- that we can encounter and on which we can meditate even though we cannot comprehend it fully.  At any rate, care must be taken not to create the impression that the Crucifixion was some sort of generic "good example" or, worse, that the Father is some sort of bloodthirsty monster, both of which errors being far too commonly held.

I suggest that some insight can be gained by remembering the example of Gaius Mucius Scaevola and drawing a rough parallel.  The sacrifice of his right hand did not make the words of Gaius true, but they made them credible, which no lesser gesture could have done.

Now it cannot be said that God was unable to forgive us without the Crucifixion -- Hebrews 9:22 need not be understood as a limitation on the part of God.  But just as a sin, to be mortal (CCC 1857), must be grave, committed with full knowledge, and committed with full assent of the will, our redemption -- which is as grave as anything concerning us can be -- must be accepted with full knowledge and full consent of the will.  After all, Jesus came not merely to give us a kind of legal pardon, like we might imagine for a tree scheduled to be cut down, but to restore in us the likeness of God, and that requires knowledge, will, and goodness -- that we be transformed by the renewing of our minds, as Romans 12:2 says.

If, however, Jesus had merely come to say, "Be at peace; God forgives you, only stop sinning," we all know what would have happened.  Many people would have said, "Huh.  It appears sins are not really a very big deal after all," and they would have continued on as before.  This is the sin of presumption.  Others would have thought, "That only applies to people who have committed minor sins.  My sins are too enormous to be forgiven by mere words.  I am damned."  This is the sin of despair.  There would have been scant room for the virtue of faith.  Of course, the overwhelming majority of people would have paid no attention whatsoever, reasoning that talk is cheap.

Coming back to the parallel with Scaevola, it is the willing sacrifice that gives weight to the words.  We now know how seriously God takes all sins, even the ones we dismiss as peccadillos.  We now know that God is not merely forgiving peccadillos, but really horrible sins.  Talk may be cheap, but in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; so the Word is of incomparable value.

Our need for salvation is grave, as it has been since the expulsion from Eden.  Due to the Passion, we now have enough knowledge.  Will we give the full consent of the will to repent?