Not Going Native

Posted on August 14, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

On the whole, I like being an American: which is just as well, since being a good citizen is part of being a Catholic. (July 24, 2016)

So — as long as I follow my culture’s laws and customs, I’m okay; right?

It’s not that simple.

For starter’s there’s that ‘in the world but not of the world’ thing. The idea shows up in John 15:18–19 and 17:14–16, and Romans 12:2.

Joining a cloistered outfit like the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance (Trappists) is an option: they’re part of the Benedictine family, contemplative monks and nuns.

Their website, www.ocso.org, gives a pretty good look at who they are and what they do. The FAQ page is a pretty good place to start; no pressure, of course.

But it didn’t take months of prayerful discernment for me to know that signing up as a monk isn’t my vocation. I realized that getting married and raising a family was what I wanted long before I became a Catholic.

When Catholics who speak my version of English something like “please pray for vocations,” they mean “please pray that young adults will decide try out for monastic life or the clergy.” Clergy and holy orders are vocations: but so is being married, or single. Everybody’s got a vocation.

“VOCATION: The calling or destiny we have in this life and hereafter. God has created the human person to love and serve him; the fulfillment of this vocation is eternal happiness (1, 358, 1700). Christ calls the faithful to the perfection of holiness (825). The vocation of the laity consists in seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will (898). Priestly and religious vocations are dedicated to the service of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation (cf. 873; 931).”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)

I’m in the laity, so part of my job is “…engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will….” (Catechism, 898)

Love, Not the Status Quo

That doesn’t mean trying to drag America back to the ‘good old days’ before 1954, or 1848, or some other bygone day.

I can’t accept the status quo, either. I’ll get back to that.

The Catholic Church is catholic: καθολικός, universal, not tied to one era or one culture.

We’ve been passing along the same message for two millennia: God loves us, and wants to adopt us. All of us. (Ephesians 1:3–5; John 3:17; Catechism, 52, 1825)

That’s why Jesus, the Son of God, became one of us, died on Golgotha, and then stopped being dead. (Catechism, 430–655, 2669)

There’s more to my faith, of course.

I should love God, love my neighbor, see everybody as my neighbor, and treat others as I’d like to be treated. (Matthew 5:43–44, 7:12, 22:36–40, Mark 12:28–31; Luke 6:31, 10:25–27, 29–37; Catechism, 1789)

Acting as if God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — and what Our Lord taught — matter is what applying God’s will to temporal affairs is about. (July 27, 2014)

The Nicene Creed is a pretty good summary of our faith. “…We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come” — but this isn’t a “pie in the sky by and bye” faith.

Crime and/or Evil

As one of ‘those crazy kids,’ I enjoyed the campy humor of Chickenman’s radio adventures.

The fantastic fowl’s comedic battle against “crime and/or evil” contained a (tiny) element of truth.

Sometimes what’s legal is not right.

If I thought the perfect society existed in 1st century Rome, or American suburbia in the 1950s, I’d be doing what I can to restore that way of life.

But like I keep saying, we haven’t had a golden age.

We don’t have a truly just society today, either, so accepting the status quo isn’t an option.

I’m supposed to be a good citizen here in America: contributing “…to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom….” (Catechism, 2239)

But as Paul wrote to the Philippians, “…our citizenship is in heaven….” (Philippians 3:20)

As a Catholic, I must submit to the authority of whoever runs the territory I’m in: unless doing what they say would violate the ‘love God, love your neighbor, everyone’s your neighbor’ principle. (Catechism, 2239, 2242)

That’s what got Thomas More and John Fisher killed. Their king wanted a male heir, understandably.

He wasn’t having any luck with his wife, so he told Pope Clement VII to annul the marriage. The Pope wouldn’t, so Henry VIII of England set up a state church, with Henry as Supreme Head of the Church of England.

Thomas More and John Fisher wouldn’t play along, so they were convicted of treason and killed. Quite a few wives, executions, and pillaged monasteries, later — Henry died. To his credit, by that time he had a legitimate son.

That got messy about six years later: and yes, this is a huge oversimplification.

Legal, but Not Right

Where was I? Trappist monks, Chickenman, Henry VIII. Right.

I’d have to refuse an order to commit genocide, for example, even if the full authority of the United States Congress and Supreme Court was behind it. (Catechism, 2313)

Even the most strident anti-immigrant American politicos have stopped short of campaigning for genocide, though: happily.

On the other hand, back in in 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court okayed a state’s right to remove “defectives” from the gene pool. Eugenics was quite popular — among ‘superior’ folks, at any rate.

I’m no fan of genocide or eugenics, partly because many of my ancestors are of an ‘inferior race,’ I’m rather close to being Lebensunwertes Leben, and that’s several more topics.

Seeing what state-sponsored eugenic programs did dampened enthusiasm after World War II, but forced sterilizations for “therapeutic” reasons, or as a punishment, still happen in my country.

Since the 1960s and 1980s, killing innocent people has been decriminalized in quite a few states: as long as it’s done when they’re under an arbitrary age; or are sick enough.

I think this is wrong. More to the point, the Church says it’s not right — because human life is sacred and murder is wrong, even if it’s legal. (Catechism, 2258, 2270–2279)

“Two Coats of Paint,” Truth, and Money

‘Going native,’1 adopting the lifestyle of the locals, is easy: but it’s not necessarily a good idea.

Pope Francis talked about that sort of thing:

“…In essence, Francis explained, they are ‘worldly Christians, Christians in name, with two or three Christian attributes, but nothing more’. They are ‘pagan Christians’. The have ‘a Christian name, but a pagan life’ or, to put it another way, ‘pagans painted with two coats of Christianity: thus they appear as Christians, but they are pagans’….”
(Two coats of Paint,” Pope Francis, Morning Meditation in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae (November 7, 2014) via L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly edition in English, n. 46, (November 14, 2014))

It’s not ‘those people over there.’ Anybody can slide away from Truth. The trick is paying attention to what’s important:

“…The signs to understand what we are moving toward, the Pope said, ‘are in your heart: if you love and are attached to money, to vanity and pride, you are on that bad path; if you seek to love God, to serve others, if you are gentle, if you are humble, if you serve others, you are on the good path’. And thus, ‘your identity card is good: it’s from Heaven’. The other, however, is ‘a citizenship that will bring you harm’….”
(Two coats of Paint,” Pope Francis, Morning Meditation in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae (November 7, 2014)…)

One more thing — money is okay. It’s love of money that gets us in trouble. (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5; Catechism, 2544)

Humility isn’t delusion, it’s accepting reality; and I’m drifting off-topic again.

Taking Love Seriously

Going with the flow, even if it’s wrong, isn’t an option. Neither is desperately clinging to the way things were: or the way I’d like things to have been.

Both are a ‘two coats of paint’ superficial Christianity: different colors, but the same lack of depth.

My “identity card” is, or should be, from Heaven. But I’m not there yet; and if I take loving my neighbors, all my neighbors, seriously — social justice is a priority.

That doesn’t mean forcing everyone into one cultural mold, or insisting one ‘correct’ form of government. We’re not supposed to be all alike. (Catechism, 1901, 1897–1917, 1928–1942)

I’m just one man living in central Minnesota: so I don’t expect to end world hunger, broker a lasting peace in the Middle East, and cure the common cold.

I can, however, act as if God matters and work at conforming my will to God’s.

I can also suggest that we all work with what we have, doing what we can to correct what is unjust and support what is right. (Catechism, 1936–1938, 2401–2449)

I think we can build a better world. I am sure that we must try.

It won’t be easy. As someone2 said, “humans are allergic to change.” And that’s yet another topic.

Background:

Somewhat-related posts:

1 I haven’t run into the term “going native” for quite a while:

“go native (of a settler) to adopt the lifestyle of the local population, esp when it appears less civilized”
(the Free Online Dictionary)

“Go native is an expression meaning ‘to adopt the lifestyle or outlook of local inhabitants’.”
(Wikipedia)

“to go native (third-person singular simple present goes native, present participle going native, simple past went native, past participle gone native)

  1. (idiomatic) To adopt the lifestyle or outlook of local inhabitants, especially when dwelling in a colonial region; to become less refined under the influence of a less cultured, more primitive, or simpler social environment.
  2. (idiomatic) Of a contractor or consultant, to begin working directly as an employee for a company and cease to work through a contracting firm or agency.”

(Wiktionary)

2 “Allergic to change:”

“Humans are allergic to change. They love to say, ‘We’ve always done it this way.’ I try to fight that. That’s why I have a clock on my wall that runs counter-clockwise.”
(Grace Hopper, developer of the first compiler for a computer programming language, U.S. Naval officer)

Posted in Being a Citizen, Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Earth Overshoot Day and Pollinators

Posted on August 12, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

Australia’s Earth Overshoot Day happened earlier this week.

It used to be called Ecological Debt Day, involves a lot of math, and assumes that Earth’s glaciers, deserts, and oceans, are pretty much all the same thing.

The basic idea, that we shouldn’t waste resources, isn’t silly, and I’ll get back to that.

Some other scientists say that we should pay attention to pollinators. I think they’re right.

  1. Global Footprint Network’s Earth Overshoot Day
  2. Pollinator Peril — or — the Bats and the Bees

Ehrlich, Yeats, and Me

Taking the Bible seriously, including Revelation 6:4–8, isn’t even close to thinking I can second-guess God the Father; and I talked about that last Sunday. (August 7, 2016)

Tightly-wound preacher-prognosticators aren’t the only folks with doomsday predictions and dire forebodings:

“…in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish….”
(Paul Ehrlich, on first Earth Day, (1970))

“…By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people….”
(Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology (September 1971))

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity….”
(“The Second Coming,” William Butler Yeats (1920))

In fairness, William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939) lived in a particularly unsettled chapter of humanity’s story. I’ll get back to Yeats, Lovecraft, and getting a grip: but not today.

Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” came out while I was in high school, and Earth Day started about the same time I entered college. I took environmental concerns seriously then, and I still do. The latest crisis du jour, not so much.

I do, however, realize that the boy who cried wolf could be right. Occasionally.

Painfully-pious crepe hangers notwithstanding, gloominess is not next to Godliness. We’re supposed to desire happiness, and hope is a virtue. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 33, 1718, 1817)

I suspect that some doom and gloom has roots in the fashionable melancholy that’s been “…an indispensable adjunct to all those with artistic or intellectual pretentions…” off and on for the last five centuries.1 And that’s another topic.

Hydraulic Mining


(from the United States Library of Congress, via Wikipedia, used w/o permission)
“The Monitor.” Hydraulic mining for gold in California. (The Century Magazine; 1883 Jan., p. 325)

Romans called their hydraulic mining tech “ruina montium,” “the collapse of the mountains,” or “wrecking of mountains.” Two millennia later, Las Médulas is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and we’ve learned to be a bit more careful.

By the 1860s, the California Gold Rush was in progress. Folks were reducing hills to slurry with high-pressure water jets, extracting gold, and sending the rest downstream.

It was very profitable, until folks living and farming in the Sacramento Valley hired lawyers.

Several lawsuits and an act of Congress later, Americans had a new set of rules that allowed hydraulic mining — under better-controlled conditions. We’re still fine-tuning our environmental rules and policies, and expect that the process will continue as long as this country is around.

Northumbria’s Environmental Activist: St. Cuthbert

St. Cuthbert lived around the time Li Yuan became Emperor Gaozu of Tang and Harsha reunited a sizable fraction of the Gupta Empire.

Cuthbert lived in the Kingdom of Northumbria, that’s now part of southeastern Scotland and northeastern England.

His connection to this ‘environmental’ post is that he set up laws protecting the breeding grounds of various birds on the Farne Islands. That’s about 13 and a half centuries back now.

The birds are still there, and the eider duck is called the cuddy duck to this day in Northumberland.2

Comets, Malthus, and the Green Revolution

There’s good reason for keeping track of comets and asteroids.

Impact events occasionally coincide with an extinction event like the one that killed non-avian dinosaurs, but scientists still don’t have enough evidence to show cause-and-effect.

Even so, if a 10-kilometer-wide hunk of rock hit Earth today, it would do considerably more than disrupt the Rio Olympics.

Stuff like the Chelyabinsk meteor and the whatsit that knocked down trees near Tunguska happens much more often, but isn’t nearly as disruptive.

The 1857 ‘destroyer’ comet in that caricature might have been 6P/d’Arrest — or maybe not. Either way, Earth was still around in 1858, and wasn’t fazed by Hally’s Comet in 1910.

Our planet passed through the comet’s tail, that time, with the usual results:

“…The 1910 pass of Earth was especially close and, thanks to expansive newspaper coverage, eagerly anticipated by the general public. In fact, Earth’s orbit carried it through the end of the comet’s 24-million-mile-long tail for six hours on May 19, earning the story the day’s banner headline in The New York Times.

“While most reporters of the day turned to astronomers to get the facts straight, the yellow press chose to pursue the story in more fanciful ways, helping to fuel the fears of the impressionable that the end of the world was nigh. Despite some published reports leading up to the event, the comet’s tail did not contain poisonous gases, and there was never any danger of a celestial collision, either….”
(“May 19, 1910: Halley’s Comet Brushes Earth With Its Tail,” By Tony Long, Wired (May 19, 2009))

Today’s “yellow press” is the sort of “FBI CAPTURES BAT CHILD!” thing you’ll see in supermarket checkouts: and it’s as fanciful as ever. My opinion.

An — imaginative? — approach to science shows up in serious journalism, too. Happily, I’m not a reporter. I don’t have an editor telling me which stories to cover and how to cover them, and I’ve wandered off-topic.

Decades before Ehrlich’s famous book, “The Population Bomb,” hit the shelves; Fairfield Osborn, Jr. wrote “Our Plundered Planet;” and Thomas Malthus beat them both by 150 years: 2

“The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”
(“An Essay on the Principle of Population,” Thomas Malthus (1798))

About 1,000,000,000 folks were alive then, many of them none-too-well-fed. Japan was recovering from the Great Tenmei famine, India’s Chalisa famine was over, with the Doji bara famine on its way.

Meanwhile, rinderpest was killing about 90% of Ethiopia’s cattle, while locusts were eating their crops, and cholera — they were not having a good time.

As of March 2016, I had about 7,400,000,000 neighbors.

Why didn’t we all die horribly of starvation and/or disease around 1800, or in Ehrlich’s environmental apocalypse?

Basically, because folks kept acting like humans. We developed new technology: the 20th century Green Revolution, for example.3

Like I keep saying, science and technology aren’t transgressions; they’re tools We’re supposed to use our brains, learn about the universe, and use that knowledge. (Catechism, 154–159, 2292–2296)

Sane Environmentalism

I don’t miss the ‘good old days:’ seeing house-size gobs of suds floating down the Mississippi; and a year when my eyes stung, except on Sundays, when the city’s air cleared up.

I was already concerned about pollution, wildlife management, and other environmental issues, by the early 1970s.

At the time, I was glad that environmental awareness was spreading; and thought that some ‘environmentalists’ had more enthusiasm than good sense. I’m still glad that more folks started ‘thinking green;’ and think that Captain Planet helped make environmentalism look silly.

Sadly, some folks still seem to have learned their facts about science and ecology by watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Tentacles, and The Swarm.

The good news is that some scientists have apparently realized that an ecosystem that’s survived at least 3,700,000,000 years is hardly “fragile.”

A run of some 3,700,000,000 years, give or take a few hundred million, isn’t bad for life on a planet orbiting a slightly variable star: despite occasional comet and asteroid impacts, regional volcanic activity, and epochs of continental glaciation.

Other scientists, however, seem to be taking their cues from Revenge of the Creature and C.H.U.D.:

“Environmentalism is undergoing a radical transformation. New science has shown how long-held notions about trying to ‘save the planet’ and preserve the life we have today no longer apply.

“Instead, a growing chorus of senior scientists refer to the Earth with metaphors such as ‘the wakened giant’ and ‘the ornery beast’, a planet that is ‘fighting back’ and seeking ‘revenge’, and a new era of ‘angry summers’ and ‘death spirals’….”
(Clive Hamilton, The Conversation (May 27, 2014))

I appreciate that sort of enthusiasm, and think that (some) environmental concerns are sensible. Fearing the wrath of an angry planet: not so much.

God’s Property, Our Responsibility

As a Catholic, concern about the environment isn’t an option: it’s required. Seeing this universe as beautiful, good, and our responsibility, is part of my faith:

The world doesn’t belong to humanity. It’s God’s property: we’re just stewards, responsible for managing the place. (Catechism, 339, 952, 2402–2405, 2456)

That responsibility includes using this world’s resources wisely, showing concern for our neighbors and future generations. (Catechism, 2415)

1. Global Footprint Network’s Earth Overshoot Day


(From ESA, via NASA, used w/o permission.)
(Earth, seen from the European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft. (November 12, 2009))

“It’s official: We’re wasting our natural resources faster than ever before”
Gavin Fernando, news.com.au (August 9, 2016)

“HAVE you heard of ‘Earth Overshoot Day’? Spoiler alert: it was yesterday.

“No, this isn’t an event that warrants celebration. To the contrary, the closer to the beginning of the year this day occurs, the more concerned we should be.

“Its timing in 2016 has environmental scientists worried about the consequences of how fast we’re burning through the planet’s natural resources.

“WHAT’S GOING ON WITH THE PLANET?

“Earth Overshoot Day marks the point in the year where we run out of our ‘allocated’ supply of natural resources.

“The Global Footprint Network (GFN), an organisation partnered with the World Wide Fund for Nature, produced the results.

“To calculate the date for Earth Overshoot Day, it crunched United Nations data on thousands of economic sectors such as fisheries, forestry, transport and energy production….”

Each Australian uses 9.3 hectares of Earth’s surface: according to the Global Footprint Network, or GFN. As for the GFN’s assertion being “official:” the outfit’s listed as a charitable non-profit think tank in the United States, Belgium and Switzerland.

I assume that the folks who run the GFN are sincere, and really want to help:

“We are an international think tank that provides Ecological Footprint accounting tools to drive informed policy decisions in a resource-constrained world. We work with local and national governments, investors, and opinion leaders to ensure all people live well, within the means of one planet.”
(Global Footprint Network)

Let’s look at those numbers.

Gavin Fernando’s article included that ‘how many Earths’ infographic, and GFN’s assertions about how big a piece of Earth’s resources folks in these countries consume each year:

  • China
    4.8 billion global hectares
  • United States
    2.6 billion global hectares
  • Australia and Iran
    210 million global hectares each

A hectare is 10,000 square meters, 1/100th of a square kilometer. That’s roughly the size of an international rugby pitch, Trafalgar Square, or a square centered on the Statue of Liberty‘s base.

“…But on a per capita basis, Australia’s contribution to the problem is much more dire.

Australia has one of the world’s largest ecological footprints per capita, requiring 9.3 global hectares per person. The only country worse than ours is Luxembourg. China came in at 52nd….”
(Gavin Fernando, news.com.au)

Earth is a pretty big place, with 510,072,000 square kilometers/196,940,000 square miles: 29.2% land and 70.8% water.

That’s 51,007,200,000 hectares total: 14,894,000,000 land and 36,113,200,000 water.

I’m assuming that Mr. Fernando’s “billion” is 1,000,000,000, not the long scale billion, and that’s yet another topic.

Hectares, Global and Otherwise


(From Ali Zifan, with data from CIA World Factbook, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(World population, 2014)

GFN says Americans use the equivalent of 2,600,000,000 global hectares each year.

Since Earth only has 51,007,200,000 hectares total and my country’s 323,425,550 population is only about 4% of the world’s 7,343,330,000 current residents, I figured that means we consume about 5% of the world’s resources.

That doesn’t seem so bad, but the GFN’s global hectare isn’t your ordinary hectare.

It’s “… a measurement unit for quantifying both the ecological footprint of people or activities as well as the biocapacity of the earth or its regions. … Examples of biologically productive areas include cropland, forests, and fishing grounds; they do not include deserts, glaciers, and the open ocean….” (Wikipedia)

By their standards, Earth has around 11,300,000,000 billion global hectares: roughly 1.8 global hectares per person in 2004.

Again by their standards, the 4% who live in my country use roughly 23% of our planet’s resources.2 That sounds like a problem.

Earth has Oceans


(From CIA World Factbook, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Earth’s Pacific, Atlantic, an Indian Oceans)

On the other hand, I’m a tad dubious when experts ignore the 70.8% of my planet that’s under water.

Very few humans live on the “open ocean,” but it is far from being a desert.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says that marine fisheries caught 90,064,000 tonnes of assorted fish, molluscs, and other critters, in 2007; compared to the 10,035,000 tonnes caught from inland fisheries.2

A growing fraction of that catch is from aquaculture: “farming” fish and other critters. We’ve been doing it for millennia, and have been getting much more efficient lately.1

2. Pollinator Peril — or — the Bats and the Bees


(From Brian Cutting, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Pollinators are under threat at a global scale”
(BBC News))

“Action needed to ‘future-proof’ pollinators ”
Helen Briggs, BBC News (August 9, 2016)

“International scientists are calling for action to ‘future-proof’ the prosperity of pollinating insects, birds and mammals.

They say agricultural expansion, new pesticides and emerging viruses present the biggest risks in coming decades.

And the bats that pollinate plants in tropical and desert climates need legal protection, they report in PeerJ.

Some 35% of global crop production and more than 85% of wild flowering plants rely to some degree on pollination.

The research took a horizon-scanning approach to identify future issues of concern over the next three decades…..”

I’ve heard and read that bees were going extinct for years.

I’ve also heard and read that phencyclidine (PCP) and formaldehyde are the same thing, and that we should wear tin foil hats to keep the CIA from reading our minds. Then there’s “Reefer Madness,” and I talked about that last month. (July 10, 2016)

Where was I? Pollinators, PCP, tin foil hats. Right.

Having noticed the four horsemen’s marked disinclination to mount up; despite decades of periodic predicted apocalypses (yes, it’s a real word), faith-based and secular — try saying that fast, five times — I figured the recurring ‘dead bees’ story might or might not be real.

But I decided to not fret about it.

Then I learned that professional apiarists, beekeepers, were having trouble keeping their hives alive.3

That’s a problem for apiarists, and anyone who likes honey.

The good news is that we know a great deal more than we did a few decades ago, and may be able to do something about the situation before it becomes a huge crisis.

It’s Thursday evening as I write this, so I’ll just put links to a few resources at the end of this post,4 and skip lightly over what I think are common-sense ‘to-do’ items.

The seven species of honey bees are the apiarists’ traditional source of honey, but they’re by no means the only pollinators.

Since a great many folks like honey, I figure that studying honey bees with a view to making them more disease-resistant, and developing other honey-making insects into effective commercial producers makes sense.

So, I think, does remembering that bees aren’t the only pollinators around. A remarkable number of birds and mammals carry pollen, including some fruit bats. The latter can be pests, since they eat fruit that we want: but maybe that’s worth the annoyance, if they also pollinate the trees.

I’ve written about animals, being human, and using our brains, before:

1 From “The Elizabethan Malady: Melancholy in Elizabeth and Jacobean portraiture,” Roy Strong; via Melancholia, Art movement. (Wikipedia)

2 St. Cuthbert, Malthusianism, and all that:

3 Pollinators, background:

4 Earth Overshoot Day and related topics:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Last Judgment: Still Pending

Posted on August 7, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

You’ve heard this one before.

At the Vatican, a Cardinal’s secretary bursts into a meeting. “Your Eminence! He’s here! Jesus! He landed in St Peter’s Square! What do we do?!” The Cardinal runs to the Pope’s office, repeats the news and question. The Pope says, “look busy.”

It’s pretty good advice, actually, which brings me to this morning’s Gospel reading: Luke 12:32–48 — or Luke 12:35–40, which covers the main idea:

“8 ‘Gird your loins and light your lamps …
“… You also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.’ ”
(Luke 12:35, 40)

Fizzled Predictions Through the Ages

It’s been about five years since Harold Camping and the silly side of American Christianity gave reporters and cartoonists something to work with.

He’d been wrong earlier, about September 6, 1994 being Judgment Day.

Undeterred, he recalculated, collected money, and advertised our Lord’s impending arrival on May 21, 2011. That didn’t happen, neither did the obligatory fire and brimstone, and the world was still around after October 21, 2011.

I figure we’re due for another high-profile End Times Bible Prophecy any time now. Or maybe not. But I’d be surprised if someone doesn’t trot out another ‘Biblical’ prognostication in the next few decades: and have Camping’s success at publicizing it.

Fizzled predictions of that sort are nothing new. Wikipedia has a partial list that runs from the triple header around the year 500 to Tipler’s assertion that the big day will be in 2057. We had another cluster around the year 1000.

My favorite one, in terms of originality, is Swedenborg’s. His “The Heavenly Doctrine,” published in 1758, said that the Last Judgment had already happened: in 1757.

Interestingly, European architects went into overdrive and started designing Gothic cathedrals a couple centuries after the thousand-year apocalypses didn’t happen. I won’t claim that it’s cause-and-effect, but think that their patrons might have realized that we could have a long wait ahead.

The Last Judgment

As described, the Last Judgment will make Shanghai’s Word Expo 2010 look like a cozy little rural gathering:

14 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
(Matthew 25:31–32)

Just getting the 7,000,000,000 or so folks alive today together in one place would be spectacular. Add everybody who’s lived and died? Just finding a venue big enough might qualify as a miracle.

The Last Judgment is part of the four last things: death, judgment, Heaven and Hell.1

It’s when everyone who died will be resurrected — that’s a topic for another post — our Lord returns, and we see what’s happened: and why. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1038–1038)

As for when that happens, that information seems to be given on a ‘need to know’ basis. Our Lord didn’t know, so I sure don’t expect to get inside information. I’ll get back to that.

Folks in Thessalonica, it’s often called Thessaloniki, is named after Thessalonike of Macedon, half-sister of Alexander the Great, and wife of Cassander, king of Macedonia, who had been named after Cassander, brother of Antipater — where was I?

Harold Camping, Swedenborg, the Last Judgment, getting a grip. Right.

The Big Picture and Me

Paul’s advice to the Thessalonians still applies, I think:

“1 We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him,
“not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a ‘spirit,’ 2 or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.”
(2 Thessalonians 2:1–2)

Like I said, our Lord didn’t know when the big day would be — and recommended being ready, no matter when it comes:

“21 ‘But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, 22 but the Father alone. …
“… So too, you also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.”
(Matthew 24:36, 44)

“Therefore, stay awake, 5 for you know neither the day nor the hour.”
(Matthew 25:13)

” ‘But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
“Be watchful! Be alert! You do not know when the time will come.”
(Mark 13:32–33)

It’s been two millennia now, our Lord still hasn’t returned, and folks are still second-guessing God the Father. If it had been anyone else, we’d have given up long ago; but our Lord isn’t anyone else.

Me? I’m quite content to leave the ‘big picture’ decisions up to God. I’ve got my hands full, ‘working out my salvation,’ as Philippians 2:12 puts it. and that’s yet another topic.

Background:
1 Where to start reading about the four last things in Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Bulldogs, Transgenics, and a Robot

Posted on August 5, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

English Bulldogs aren’t what they used to be: which is a problem for folks who want the breed to survive. A team of scientists says that the British mascot’s bloodline is more than a bit too pure.

Other scientists developed MouSensor, mutant mice with open slots for plug and play genetic code.

Finally, a tiny robot with rat muscles that swims like a fish.

  1. English Bulldogs: Pedigree and Survival
  2. Mutant Mice and Transgenics
  3. A Rat-Powered Robotic Ray

Using Our Brains

Despite a youthful habit of watching more-or-less-dreadful B-movie ‘mad scientist’ films, my first impulse, on learning that we’ve discovered something new, is not fearing that we’ll offend God by using our brains.

Giving writers and directors of “Revenge of the Zombies,” “The Brain That Wouldn’t Die,” and the like, credit: their mad scientists were, arguably, crazy enough to animate powerful creatures — and then engage in shockingly inadequate safety protocols.

Or demand unswerving obedience without realizing that something/someone that’s smart enough to understand the orders is sharp enough to get upset.

Now that I think of it, scientists learned why “tickling the dragon’s tail” is a bad idea back in 1946. Taking crazy chances happens.

They weren’t the first to die while studying something new. Georg Wilhelm Richmann, for example, learned how an insulated rod reacts to a nearby thunderstorm. More accurately, other scientists did — by examining what was left of Herr Richmann.

However, like I keep saying, thinking is not a sin. (July 22, 2016)

Part of our job is learning about the universe, and using that knowledge. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 154–159, 2292–2296)

Where was I? Scientists, mad and otherwise, using our brains, doing our job. Right.

Frankenstein and Free Will

Victor Frankenstein‘s do-it-yourself alchemy project didn’t end well, Shelly’s story was a great deal more thoughtful than “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein,” and I’m wandering off-topic.

H. G. Wells called “The Island of Doctor Moreau” “an exercise in youthful blasphemy.” I see his point, since Dr. Moreau was slicing and dicing live animals in an effort to make them human.

I’m an animal: as a Catholic, that’s something I must believe. I also must believe that I’m able to think, and can decide what I do. (Genesis 1:27; Catechism, 35–38, 1704–1709, 1749–1754, 1804, 1951)

Genesis 1:27–29 says that we’re made “in the divine image,” which doesn’t mean that we’re ‘lords of creation,’ free to commit any daft act we like.

We can, actually, since we’ve got free will; but we shouldn’t. I’ll get back to that.

“Tampering With Things Man Was Not Supposed to Know”

There’s a (very) old story about an elderly lady on an airliner, clearly uneasy about flying. “We should all doing what God intended,” she told her fellow-passenger, “staying home and watching television.”

Over the decades, I’ve heard ardently-expressed denunciations of new tech, like telephones: ‘kids don’t communicate any more, they spend all day talking on the telephone.’ (I am not making that up.)

On the other hand, we seem to have accepted an 18th century ‘affront’ to the Almighty: “metalline conductors,” lightning rods:

“I have read in the Philosophical Transactions the account of the effects of lightning on St. Bride’s steeple. ‘Tis amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you had given, of the identity of lightning and of electricity, and the power of metalline conductors, they should ever think of repairing that steeple without such conductors. How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free enquiry!”
(Letter, To Benjamin Franklin from John Winthrop, 6 January 1768, via founders.archives.gov)

The basic question is whether humans should “…intervene in the created order, perhaps even modifying some of its aspects?”1

About 600 words later, the Pontifical Academy for Life finished explaining why following the orders given in Genesis 1:28 is okay.

Our “dominion” isn’t the sort of ‘we can do what we please’ attitude that made the London death fog and hydraulic mining possible.

For example, we can use animals for food or clothing, put them to work or enjoy their company — within reason. But we shouldn’t let them needlessly experience pain, or lavish attention on them at the expense of our fellow-humans. (Catechism, 2415–2418)

Our world is God’s property. We live here, and part of our job is taking care of the place. It’s sort of like being shop foreman or steward: with the power, authority, and frightening responsibilities that go with the position. (Catechism, 339, 952, 2402–2405, 2456)

The Hapsburg Disaster

Most — I suspect all — cultures practice a mix of exogamy and endogamy: marrying outside one group, but within another group.

The culture I grew up in, for example, thought marrying anyone closer than a second cousin was a bad idea. We’d gotten used to the Irish by then, and were getting around to repealing anti-miscegenation laws.

Can’t say that I miss the ‘good old days.’

Then there were the Habsburgs. They were an up-and-coming aristocratic family a thousand years back.

Somewhere along the line they started marrying their first cousins, or having an uncle marry a niece. On the ‘up’ side, they kept outsiders from getting control of Habsburg holdings.

On the ‘down’ side, all that inbreeding gave recessive genes a chance at self-expression — which may help explain why Charles II of Spain earned the nickname el Hechizado, the Bewitched.

He managed to not die for nearly 39 years; despite an impressive collection of physical, intellectual, and emotional disabilities.

He was the last of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Descendants of the family’s Austrian branch are still around: Otto von Habsburg had seven children, 22 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren by the time he died in 2011.

1. English Bulldogs: Pedigree and Survival


(From Getty Images, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“English Bulldogs are loving family dogs. But as a breed they suffer from health problems”
(BBC News))

“English Bulldog health problems prompt cross-breeding call”
Paul Rincon, BBC News (July 29, 2016)

“Crossing the English Bulldog with another breed is the best way to ensure its survival, scientists have argued.

“Due to centuries of selective breeding for physical traits, the Bulldog has become so inbred it cannot be returned to health without an infusion of new bloodlines, a genetic study suggests.

“The US researchers say the Olde English Bulldogge, a related breed from America, is a viable candidate….”

Don’t let the name fool you. The “Olde English Bulldogge” is the Leavitt Bulldog, and didn’t exist before the 1970s.

David Leavitt crossed English and American Bulldogs to get a breed that looks like the 1820s version, with the currently-preferred friendly temperament.

That’s a good thing, at least for folks who want to keep the British mascot around.

Predictably, some folks don’t like the notion of polluting the bloodline — and others are a tad more interested in keeping the breed alive.

“…Breeders differ widely on what should be done to tackle the illnesses. Some argue that any deviation from the breed’s standards would no longer make it an English Bulldog.

“Others argue that the English Bulldog has constantly evolved over the centuries and favour the introduction of new genetic material, known as outcrossing….”
(Paul Rincon, BBC News)

My attitude comes partly from knowing my family history. One of my ancestors, asked about the family connections of an unsuitable person who was sniffing around her daughter, replied “he doesn’t have family, he’s Irish.”

The kids got married anyway, which eventually resulted in my father, who married a five-foot-nothing black-haired Norwegian.

I married a Dutch-German-English-Swiss-whatever woman, so by now we’re close to reverse-engineering the Celts, and that’s another topic.

Bulldogs, Brexit, and the Munchkin Cat

Bulldogs go back at least five centuries, when they were called Bondogges or Bolddogges. Today’s Bulldogs wouldn’t be much good for bull-baiting; which doesn’t matter, at least in England, since it’s been illegal since the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 passed.

New York Province’s first English Governor used Bulldogs for a more practical job: a citywide roundup of wild bulls. The dogs were trained to hold a bull’s nose long enough for humans to get a rope around the critter’s neck.

Today’s English Bulldogs aren’t quite in the Spanish Hapsburg’s position: but they’re getting there. They couldn’t get an effective grip on a bull’s nose with those excessively-short jaws — which doesn’t matter any more.

But that short snout, broad-based tongue, and oversize palate, makes it hard for them to cool off, which can be a problem. Chondrodysplasia, a cartilage disorder that interferes with bone growth, is part of the English Bulldog’s heritage, too.

My personal preference in dogs, cats, and pets in general, is for those whose ancestry is like mine: mixed. That said, I understand that some folks are passionately dedicated to the purity of their pet Pug‘s pedigree. Or Bulldog’s, in this case.

I’ve met a few Bulldogs, like their combination of tough looks and laid-back attitude, and hope that the breed’s handlers decide that fixing its health problems is more important than strict adherence to a 20th-century look.

“…The feelings of individual English bulldog breeders about the health of their breed and what if anything should be done about it may ultimately be taken out of their hands. English bulldog breeders across the world must take seriously constitutional amendments on the rights of animals. The European Union has recently updated their rules on animal welfare in 2015.21 Although it was written specifically for farm animals; it holds that ‘animals’ have rights of ‘freedom from discomfort’ and ‘freedom from pain, injury and disease.’…”
(“A genetic assessment of the English bulldog” (2016))

That was written before Brexit passed, in June of this year. Whatever the legal issues are now, the practical one of keeping the breed alive is still in play.

Researching this post, I ran into dachshunds and Munchkin cats. As far as I know, nobody’s up in arms because low-slung dachshunds get more than their share of back problems. The Munchkin cat is another matter.

The Fédération Internationale Féline won’t recognize the breed, and says that the critters have a “genetic disease.” The Governing Council of the Cat Fancy says they’ve got “abnormal structure or development.”

That’s technically accurate, on both counts, but their short legs don’t seem to bother Munchkin cats. I didn’t dig into why they don’t balk at cats like the Sphynx, and that’s yet another topic.

More:

2. Mutant Mice and Transgenics


(From SPL (Science Photo Library), via BBC News, used w/o permission.)

“Mutant mice become ‘super sniffers’ ”
Helen Briggs, BBC News (July 8, 2016)

“US scientists have mutated mice to turn them into ‘super sniffers’.

“The aim is to create a new generation of rodents that can sniff out drugs or explosives, with the scientists saying the experiment is a proof of concept.

“In the future, rats, mice, and perhaps dogs, could be genetically altered to track down certain scents, they report in the scientific journal Cell Reports….”

Mice already seem to be pretty good sniffers. They’ve got 1,035 protein-coding olfactory receptor genes, while we get by with only 387 — many of which we share with mice, which is why this research should help us understand how we smell.

Life is very modular on the sub-cellular level, so scientists can plug human ‘sniffer’ genes into the new MouSensor tech.

Since we’re not in the Animaniacs world, I don’t fear mousy plots to take over the world.

I do, however, need to think about the ethics of mixing human and non-human genetic coding.

Taking a line through movies like The Fly, Island of Lost Souls (1932 film), and The Island of Dr. Moreau, I could assume that MouSensor will inevitably lead to pain, death, and perturbed puma-women.

Since I’m a Catholic, I looked at recent discussions of bioethics and transgenics — specifically, putting human genes in non-human animals. Since the mice involved in this case will still be unequivocally mice, my main concerns will be for their welfare.2

More:

3. A Rat-Powered Robotic Ray


(From Harvard, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)

“Artificial stingray is ‘living robot’ ”
Wilko Duprez, BBC News (July 8, 2016)

“Scientists have designed a robotic stingray that could help our understanding of the human heart.

“The miniature robot, one-tenth the scale of the actual fish, moves using heart cells taken from a rat.

“Researchers hope the robotic ray will give new insight into the heart’s ability to pump blood and its potential implications in heart disease….

“The research is published in the journal, Science….

“…’It turns out the musculature in the stingray has to do the same thing as the heart does: it has to move fluids,’ said lead researcher, Prof Kevin Kit Parker of Harvard University, US.

The scientists reverse-engineered the marine animal to understand how it glides in liquid environments.

They then built a robotic prototype, which contains a gold skeleton and a single layer of 200,000 cardiac cells wrapped in a gel-like material similar to the gel used for breast implants….”

The robotic ray is tiny: 16 millimeters, about 5/8ths of an inch, long; takes an hour to move 9 meters, 29½ feet; and is not particularly maneuverable.

It’s not smart, either. Instead of a nervous system, scientists added an optogenetic molecular switch to the muscles. Shining a blue light makes it go, changing the light’s frequency slows it or speeds it up, more light on one side or the other makes it turn.

What they’ve got so far is a prototype that’s not so much remarkable for what it can do, as the fact that it works at all.

Studying it, and more advanced biological robots like it, may help scientists understand how our hearts work — and maybe grow replacement hearts, instead of waiting for a donor.

Meanwhile:

“…Parker regards his team’s miniature ray robot as a piece of art as well as technology: ‘Everyone is going to see something different’ in it, he says. ‘I’m looking at it and I’m trying to understand the heart—and impress my 7-year-old daughter.’ ”
(Elizabeth Pennisi, Science)

More:

More of my take on life, tech, and being human:

1 From “Prospects for Xenotransplantation – Scientific Aspects and Ethical Considerations;” Part Two – Anthropological and Ethical Aspects, Preliminary issues; Pontifical Academy for Life (September 29, 2001)

2 Since the modified mice are still, basically, mice, my ethical concerns involve the critters; and possible environmental impacts:

  1. Concern for the well-being of genetically modified animals should be guaranteed so that the effect of the transgene’s expression, possible modification of the anatomical, physiological and/or behavioural aspects of the animal may be assessed, all the while limiting the levels of stress and pain, suffering and anxiety experienced by the animal
  2. The effects on the offspring and possible repercussions for the environment should be considered
  3. Such animals should be kept under tight control and should not be released into the general environment
  4. The number of animals used in experiments should be kept to a bare minimum
  5. The removal of organs and/or tissues must take place during a single surgical operation
  6. Every experimental protocol on animals must be evaluated by a competent ethics committee
    (Source: “Prospects for Xenotransplantation – Scientific Aspects and Ethical Considerations;”Bioethical Issues, 15 (Pontifical Academy for Life (September 29, 2001))

Background:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Humility isn’t Being Delusional

Posted on July 31, 2016 by Brian H. Gill

Truthfulness and humility are virtues, pride is a sin, and we’re supposed to practice humility.1

So Olympic athletes should say they’re puny?

Small wonder some folks think faith makes no sense.

Accepting Reality

'The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things,' detail; by Hieronymus Bosch or someone else. (1505-1510 or thereabouts)Humility is a good idea, within reason:

“Humility restrains the appetite from aiming at great things against right reason: while magnanimity urges the mind to great things in accord with right reason.”
(“The Summa Theologica,” St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))

“It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels.”
(Augustine of Hippo …, via Wikiquote)

“2 My son, conduct your affairs with humility, and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts.
“Humble yourself the more, the greater you are, and you will find favor with God.
“3 For great is the power of God; by the humble he is glorified.”
(Sirach 3:17–19)

A key idea in that Aquinas quote is “right reason.”

Humility isn’t a psychotic delusion: a morose counterpart to megalomania. Then there’s false humility, what Aquinas calls “irony,” that he talked about in Summa, Question 113.2

Humility is accepting reality.

For me, it involves acknowledging that I’ve got creative talents — including freakishly enhanced language skills.

That’s the kit God gave me.

My contribution has been deciding to do something with the package.

On the other hand, I was born with defective hips — swapping them out a few years back was a huge improvement — which aren’t quite so obviously a blessing. Neither was enduring decades of undiagnosed depression and something on the autism spectrum.

Those are part of the kit I was issued, too.3

On the ‘up’ side, my circumstances helped me learn to see beauty in just about everything: and that’s another topic.

‘Umbleness’ and Reality

Uriah Heep’s unctuous “umbleness” is, happily, fictional.

Self-deprecation can, I suppose, be a useful tool for easing tension. I’m not convinced that it’s a good idea, though: particularly when someone starts believing negative self-talk.

Wanting to seem like more than I really am is definitely a bad idea. That’s what the sin we call pride is about. That sort of pride is as unreasonable as trying to believe I’m stupid. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1784, 1866, 1931, 2093–2094)

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about boasting, humility and pride, including this:

“…The sin of boasting may be considered in two ways. First, with regard to the species of the act, and thus it is opposed to truth; as stated (in the body of the article and Question [110], Article [2]). Secondly, with regard to its cause, from which more frequently though not always it arises: and thus it proceeds from pride as its inwardly moving and impelling cause….”
(“The Summa Theologica,” Question 112, St. Thomas Aquinas)

“…Humility restrains the appetite from aiming at great things against right reason: while magnanimity urges the mind to great things in accord with right reason. Hence it is clear that magnanimity is not opposed to humility: indeed they concur in this, that each is according to right reason….”
“The Summa Theologica,” Question 161, St. Thomas Aquinas)

“…’A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is’; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man’s will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason….”
(“The Summa Theologica,” Question 162, St. Thomas Aquinas)
(translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))

Definitions — Humility, Pride, Sin, and Temperance; Catholic Style

That’s a Pythagorean cup, a thinking person’s dribble glass, sort of; and yuza no ki — gadgets used for teaching moderation.

Since I’m a Catholic, I take balance and moderation very seriously. it’s what we call temperance. I talked about that three weeks ago. (July 10, 2016)

Since I’m a recovering English teacher, I like to include definitions in these posts:

“HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as ‘poverty of spirit’ (2546).”
(Catechism, Glossary, H)

“PRIDE: One of the seven capital sins. Pride is undue self–esteem or self–love, which seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God (1866).”
(Catechism, Glossary, P)

“SIN: An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God. In judging the gravity of sin, it is customary to distinguish between mortal and venial sins (1849, 1853, 1854).”
(Catechism, Glossary, S)

“TEMPERANCE: The cardinal moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasure and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the mastery of the will over instinct, and keeps natural desires within proper limits (1809).”
(Catechism, Glossary, T)

Hubris, Science, and Getting a Grip

At least as far back as Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, we’ve had tales of scientists driven by hubris — self-confidence above and beyond the call of reason.

Cautionary tales like Marlowe’s Faustus, the legend of Daedalus and Icarus, and ‘mad scientist’ movies, can teach useful ideas: like ‘trying to do the impossible may end badly.’

They also give us this sort of dialog:

“Dr. James Xavier: I’m blind to all but a tenth of the universe.

“Dr. Sam Brant: My dear friend, only the gods see everything.

“Dr. James Xavier: My dear doctor, I’m closing in on the gods.”
(“X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes” (1963), via IMDB.com)

Maybe hubris contributed to hoaxes like Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor; and atrocities like the Auschwitz, Dachau, Tuskegee, and Willowbrook State School experiments.

But I wonder if movies like “Cosmic Monsters,” “The Fly,” and “The Brain That Wouldn’t Die,” teach that curiosity is bad: particularly when it’s scientific curiosity.

As I said Friday, Using the brains God gave us does not offend the Almighty. (July 29, 2016)

Science and technology, studying this universe and developing new tech, is part of being human. Ethics apply, same as everything else we do.4

This isn’t a new idea. One of the Genesis creation stories has Adam, not God, naming critters:

“So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.”
(Genesis 2:19)

A scientist occasionally embraces the notion that smart folks are “beyond good and evil,” or that we don’t need God because we’ve discovered that Ussher was wrong by several orders of magnitude.

Interestingly, Anaxagoras got in trouble with Athenian authorities a little over two dozen centuries back for claiming that our sun isn’t the chariot of Helios.

Science and Humility

Folks knew that the universe is vast and ancient when Hemiunu helped build the Great Pyramid of Giza.

That was around the time folks started replacing timber with stone at Stonehenge. A place we call Mohenjo-daro was a major city then, and I’m wandering off-topic.

Learning that the world is bigger and older than some European scholars thought, a few centuries back, doesn’t bother me a bit.

I see it as an opportunity for “even greater admiration” of God’s greatness. (Catechism, 283)

“4 Indeed, before you the whole universe is as a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth.

“But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook the sins of men that they may repent.

“For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.

“And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?”
(Wisdom 11:22–25)

We’re created by God, designed with a thirst for truth and for God — made from the stuff of this world — and made “in the image of God,” creatures who are matter and spirit.(Genesis 1:26, 2:7; Catechism, 27, 355–361)

Using our senses and reason, we can observe the world’s order and beauty: learning something of God in the process. (Genesis 1:26, 2:7; Catechism, 31–35, 282–289)

I think the sensible — and humble — approach to reality is studying God’s universe, accepting what we find, and learning more about it. Insisting that God conforms to ideas published in 17th-century Britain: not so much.

We wouldn’t have science, arguably, if the Church hadn’t been insisting that the universe operates under rational, knowable, physical laws. And that’s yet another topic, for another post.


(From NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); ESA/Hubble Collaboration; used w/o permission.)

1 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1866, 2468, 2482–2486, 2540.

2 St. Thomas Aquinas discusses truth, boasting, humility, and getting a grip, in Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 112 and 113. He had a lot more to say, including this:

“…Pride is directly opposed to the virtue of humility, which, in a way, is concerned about the same matter as magnanimity, as stated above (Question [161], Article [1], ad 3)….”
(“The Summa Theologica,” St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))

3 “Autism spectrum disorder” is the current name for a cluster of mental/neurological quirks. I’m not convinced that it’s a single disorder, but for now it’s a useful diagnostic label for part of what happens in my head.

It’s also a condition that’s fairly well-known, and generally spotted in infancy or early childhood: today. Back in the mid-20th century, not so much.

There’s almost certainly a genetic aspect to “autism spectrum disorder,” so my wife and I weren’t surprised when some of our kids were blessed with something very much like my quirks. Depression is another matter. The genetic link isn’t as obvious, although I’m guessing that some of us are more likely than others to get hit with it.

More:

4 (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159, 2292–2296)

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments