Are we out of ideas?

In the movie “Time After Time,” the character of a young, idealistic H. G. Wells, played by the veteran actor Malcolm McDowell, states, “The first man to raise a fist is the man who’s run out of ideas.”  I’m not sure if the real H. G. Wells ever said that.  Frankly, I’m pretty sure that he didn’t.  But, whether it was written by the famous turn-of-the-20^th-century author or by a Hollywood screen writer doesn’t diminish its truth or its power.  Indeed, I would argue that since it was written (and spoken) in the late 70s, it has never been more applicable than now.

The election of Donald Trump as the 45^th President of the United States was, to dramatically understate things, unexpected.  Those who view things from the left of the middle saw the election of Trump, by an Electoral College majority, as an aberration unsupported by the popular majority of Americans.  Those who view things from the far left saw it as a repugnant turn toward ultra-conservatism characterized by racism and misogyny.  Those who view things from the right of the middle saw this election as a repudiation of recent policy directions.  Those who view things from the far right saw it as a gift from God which will allow the salvation of the country from a very pro-socialist, anti-capitalist, “un-American” path.

Those who view things from the middle, like me, experienced a wide variety of emotions once the election results were in.  I was confused because the media, the pollsters, and everyone who was “in the know” about such things seemed so certain that Clinton would win.  Although they would never admit it, I somehow came away with a vague sense that even Trump’s camp was surprised by the outcome.  Given some of Trump’s statements and behaviors during the campaign, I was also harboring feelings of uncertainty and trepidation.  Is this really the guy whose finger is now on the nuclear button?

Yet one thought kept coming to the surface as I pondered these strange and unusual events:  The United States of America is bigger than one man.  So, as the days moved forward, I resolved to make the best of the situation.  We’ve had a handful of great Presidents, some good ones, a bunch of average ones, and more than a few bad (or even terrible) ones, and yet our country is still here and still strong,  Those who supported Trump have the opportunity to make changes in the direction they hoped for.  Those who opposed him, as they used to say in the old days, make up the “loyal opposition”—those who are opposed to the President and his policies, yet are loyal to the country.  The latter group may express that opposition by exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly, and ultimately their right to vote him out of office.

Sadly, what I have found almost as surprising as the unexpected victory of Trump is the level of bitter and nasty hatred spewing out of the left and the right.  People are being beaten, cursed, ostracized, and hated simply because they happen to disagree with those on the other side.  And both sides are excusing this by saying that the other side won’t talk.  By that, they mean that the other side won’t listen to them.  Sometimes it’s hard to listen when your disagreement is so strong that you can’t even stand to sit down at the same table with those you oppose.

I’ve already made it clear that I believe in God.  As a believer, I respect the precepts that God has put forth, and I don’t think that it’s optional that we follow them.  Of course these precepts are many, and are almost always open to interpretation, but one of the few absolutes that I believe in is God’s love for all of humanity.  He loves his children on the left, and he loves his children on the right.  Because I know that, I believe that we should shift our political discussion away from talking or even listening.  Perhaps it should be about what the movie character representing H.G. Wells said.  We need to come up with ideas:  ideas for co-existing; ideas for non-violent protest; ideas for presenting your side in a different way or style that might be acceptable to the opposition.  Someone who is busy trying to come up with ideas doesn’t have the time to beat, kick, or pepper spray someone who wears a red hat.  Someone who is busy trying to come up with ideas doesn’t need to use overtly racist language and thinly-veiled racist innuendo toward those they see on the street who are different.  Someone who is busy trying to come up with ideas gives themselves the chance to be the best of what we all hope that it means to be an American, a human being, and one of God’s children.

God and Life

I believe in God.

What?  Why?  Of course, I can’t scientifically or mathematically prove that God exists.  No one can.  We used to believe that we could, when we based our notions of truth and reality on logical reasoning from “first principles.”  Consult Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas for more clarification on that.  Better yet, if you don’t want to spend several months (years?) trying to understand some of the ancient world’s most complex ideas, consult a first-year college philosophy text.

But logic can’t solve every problem, particularly if the premise on which the solution to the problem is based is erroneous to begin with.  Take the movements of the stars and planets and the work of Copernicus and Galileo.  Since they were brave enough not to assume that the earth was the center of the universe, they were able to mathematically calculate the movements of the stars and planets, and to rightly and correctly revamp our notions about these “heavenly bodies.”  A new era of inquiry began which was based on the scientific method, the basis of which is calculable and verifiable experimentation.  This new way of looking at the universe, in relatively short order, took over as the standard by which all knowledge and learning were evaluated.

By the early 20th century, many believed that the scientific method could be applied to all fields of knowledge and human endeavor.  This period marked the rise of the “social” sciences, most ending in “ology,” and usually encompassing the study of things that are inherently incapable of being proven by the scientific method.  [If you want evidence of this, you need only ask a physicist whether he or she really thinks the study of psychology and the “mapping” of the human mind rises to the level of science; the derisive laughter that follows will prove my point.]  Yet regardless of the inherent incapability of scientifically proving everything in the fields of human endeavor, the new standard had been established:  if something was not able to be scientifically proven, it was deemed to be untrue.  Almost as important, however, was the establishment of the notion that even if you couldn’t scientifically prove something, you could only validate your conclusions if you could analyze and quantify its related data.  Thus if some type of inquiry could not be quantified, it was inherently unscientific, and therefore untrue.

Of course moderation in most things, including ways of looking at the world, is something that is almost never achieved.  Before the scientific method became the ultimate standard by which reality (and even truth) were measured, theology and philosophy were the highest forms of intellectual inquiry.  Now, because they concern the study of God and the quest for truth, topics that cannot really be quantified, much less scientifically proven, they have been relegated to the intellectual side roads, and given a status equal to that enjoyed by Grimm’s fairy tales.  Actually, the fantastical tales of the Brothers Grimm are deemed worthy of intellectual study by sociologists, historians, and psychologists. Theology and philosophy are given a far more demeaning status than such fairy tales:  they are considered “unscientific” and intellectually “irrelevant.”

In spite of my sadness at the dismissal of theology and philosophy by the intellectual and academic community, I’m actually OK with this.  I, like many Christians and other believers, accept and acknowledge the facts of science.  I appreciate the brains that God gave us, and I applaud and admire the human ability to use them to increase our knowledge and improve our lives.  What I do not accept is the notion that something that cannot be scientifically proven is not real.  You see for me, the distinction is between what I know is real and what I can prove is real.  Although there are numerous examples of what I am talking about, let’s focus on the idea of “team spirit” or “team chemistry.”  Anyone who has played a role in a group endeavor knows exactly what “team chemistry” is, when it is present, and the effect of its absence.  The fact that you cannot quantify it, measure it, or subject it to rigorous scientific experimentation does not lessen its reality or its effect on your life.

So it is with the search for God and truth.  If you don’t believe in them, I can’t prove to your satisfaction that they’re real.  But I know that their impact on my life is real, and I know that their study has had far more impact on the quality of my life than the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun.  Sorry, Galileo.

I believe in God because I know that he is real……quod erat demonstrandum.

First blog post

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Blog post title

This is an additional placeholder post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.