Why should a person believe in God?

In this world, it is hard to be sure of anything very interesting. I am not sure that my wife really loves me, cannot be sure that my children are my own (!), and cannot be positive that I will live to see the afternoon.

And yet . . . though there is little I can know beyond a doubt, there is much that I can know beyond a reasonable doubt . . . and even more that is reasonable to believe provisionally as a working idea.

Very early in their development, humans are aware of a “me” that seems distinct from their body. Call this self what you will . . . and argue that it comes into being in any way you like, but this “I” is impossible to doubt. It gives meaning to experiences and value to life.

Though they obviously interact, it is also fairly intuitive that knowing about my body is not the same as knowledge about this “self.”

There is a physical universe that seems like my body, but there is also an equally interesting world of Ideas that relate to self. It might be my body (even my selfish genes!) that provide the material basis for my passions or feelings, but it is this soul that gives those feelings meaning.

Most human beings come into contact with the world of Ideas and learn to love the conceptual . . . we love Something . . . and there seems no reason to doubt that this Something exists (however it has achieved that existence). It is unknown to us . . . but as Plato says in Symposium this Unknown is known to us by the passion for the Good, the True, and Beautiful it stimulates.
(more…)

To the Republican Leadership:

A republican form of government exists because opinion polls are not always correct. The “will of the people” at any given moment is not always what the people want when they pause to consider.

The Founders in their wisdom allowed the people (us) to elect representatives who could look at the big picture and vote for what was best for our nation . . . without being swayed by the temporary.

Especially in the Age of New Media when a story is old by mid-day, we need leaders who make decisions based on what is wise and not on fluctuating polls . . . and do what is best for the nation in the long run.

This is especially true in the War on Terror.

There is no good that can come of the political posturing of passing useless resolutions that will not stop the fighting in Iraq, but will aid and comfort our foes.

If the Senate opposes the War, then it should strip the President of funds needed and bring the boys home. There is an argument to be made for this position, I do not agree with it, but it at least does something coherent however wrongheaded.

The Senate non-binding resolution is the worst of all positions. . . the act of cowards.

It does nothing but telegraph weakness and undermine morale.

Yesterday I heard a video DJ proclaiming the day that the Vietnam War ended for America a victory. I suppose the defeat of our Armed Forces was a victory for those who hate our nation. It was a victory for the butchers of North Vietnam and Cambodia who killed millions in their ideological rage.

We can be certain that if we abandon the fledgling democracy of Iraq the result will be even worse. We broke it and now we have to fix it or the genocide that results will be our fault. 9/11 shows that we cannot hide, cannot avoid the fight . . . and that this time we will not just lose a war and take in a few boat people, but lose a war and be bombed at home.

Isn’t our commitment to victory worth allowing the President the chance to finish what we started in Iraq?

My family has voted Republican since Lincoln fought for the Union. I am no fair weather party member . . . but I will not support in any way candidates who stab the Armed Forces in the back uselessly.

I have taken the pledge and I urge my friends in New Media to do so as well.

John Mark Reynolds

I don’t usually respond to letters from readers . . . because I have a day job and can hardly do all the things that it requires, but this one was interesting and captured the ideas in many letters and questions I get. It was also better written than most and so does not represent a “straw man.”

(more…)

Ignorance of sophisticated religion is at the heart of much “anti-religious” nattering from atheists and skeptics.

It is hard to blame them since most schools don’t require reading sophisticated religious writings and will purge religious writers (like John Locke) of religious references when they are read.

Since most of the world’s population is religious, this is a serious gap in the secular elite’s understanding of culture.

Recently Harvard decided religion should not be a central topic in its General Education program. It did so under attack from a science faculty who demonstrated that though they may be world-class scientists . . . their General Education program failed them when they were in school.
(more…)

Ignorance of sophisticated religion is at the heart of much “anti-religious” nattering from atheists and skeptics.

It is hard to blame them since most schools don’t require reading sophisticated religious writings and will purge religious writers (like John Locke) of religious references when they are read.

Since most of the world’s population is religious, this is a serious gap in the secular elite’s understanding of culture.

Recently Harvard decided religion should not be a central topic in its General Education program. It did so under attack from a science faculty who demonstrated that though they may be world-class scientists . . . their General Education program failed them when they were in school.
(more…)

The original Lerner/Lowe musical Camelot is a musical without a moral center . . . a confusing piece of early sixties fluff. It has some great tunes, no team that did My Fair Lady could do less, but a muddle of a book . . .something even sympathetic reviewers note.
Most important, is that the old Camelot is a play without a hero. It has a confused and impotent Arthur and tries to leave the audience feeling fine that his two best friends destroyed everything for selfish desire.

That might have worked for JFK, but the rest of us have seen the wages of sin in our own lives . . . and they are death . . . not the Merry Month of May. The film version is so bad, over-blown, and bluntly wicked that it is hard to finish it.

McCoy/Rigby did not just tweak this version of the play. . . they totally changed it. The result is a deeply moral and Christian work that advocates what is best in the T.H. White books on which it is loosely based and what is best in the old legend. Might for Right. Law above Passion. Forgiveness.

The team that gave us the delightful Peter Pan did this, hoping for the miracle of rescuing first class music from a third class book.

This La Mirada version of the play is (miracles happen!) better than the Broadway run. Camelot is saved . . . made serious without sermons, fun without moral bankruptcy.
(more…)

Great Britain faced great global dangers in the 1920’s and 1930’s. She decided the Empire could not afford to rearm and feared war more than anything else.

Yet war with a still weak, but re-arming Germany could not be avoided. Britain could fight sooner or later, but it would have to fight. London would be bombed eventually, the question was on whose terms and in what kind of war: offensive or defensive. (more…)

As Romney gets ready to run for President, Christians need to avoid making arguments that can easily be turned against their own views. I have argued that Romney’s Mormonism should not disqualify him from office. I stand by that argument, though I have not yet decided who is best qualified to be President this early in the cycle.

I have also warned that secularists would use the Romney run to demonize religious believers. This has started already. As one case, let me present the following with my responses included in the article:
(more…)

Let us be blunt: it is hard to define cool in any generation, but easier to say what cool is not.

Republicans are not cool . . . and lose elections when they try as California Republicans discover every so often. (The belief that “Arnold” is an exception . . . and that as a “movie star” he was “cool” is a sign that you are not, in fact, cool . . . or have not been since the eighties.)

Britain is not cool . . . and the slogan “Cool Britannia” was a sign that Blair’s Britain was not going to work out as he hoped.

Having a baby is not cool . . . no “with it” person knows the meaning of “transition.”

There has never been: a cool Mormon, Evangelical, traditional Christian of any kind, or Orthodox Jew.

Bands are not cool . . . and band teachers who try to make them cool always become absurd in the effort.

Rodeo riders are not cool . . . and it is hard to imagine a cowboy caring. (”Well,” he chewed his words like a cud and spat them out at last, “I don’t know.” when asked about cool and cowboys.)

Giant floats made out of flowers are not cool . . . unless one is alive in the 1930’s.

The Rose Parade is not, and cannot be, cool as it contains every known uncool thing and is watched by uncool people groups . . . it is old, traditional, run by people born in California, watched by folk who think George Lucas is “hip” (”Dude! Ewoks!”), and is watched by families with more than one child.

There is one thing I know about cool (having never been, but having observed from the bleachers): Nothing is less cool than an uncool thing trying.

The Rose Parade has been a constant in our house . . . and is mildly entertaining. You can watch it while blurry eyed from the night before . . . and miss nothing.

A parade is filled with B-list or once-was-a stars . . . that aging boomers can recall fondly saying, “He looks pretty good, how old is he?”

One comes in and out with breakfast . . . or the Slim-fast shake of the New Year . . . and comments on the floats or hatred of Star Wars I. It is all traditional, happy, and safely dull.

Parades are about tradition . . . are only fun live . . . but on television derive their meaning by their existence. The Rose Parade is not profound, not important, not even very entertaining (unless you are there), but what is . . . is old by California standards. It has been for most of our lives (and that is the measure of old in California)!

This year the Rose Parade on KTLA tried to be “up to date” and managed to be merely dated without the glories of tradition.

Like some English cathedral installing power-point screens, they lost the beauty of the event and gained . . . well the ignomy of looking like geeks marching in Storm Trooper suits they built themselves hoping to relate (in this manner) to the “kids.”

In a move of stunning ignorance regarding their own product, KTLA up-dated their booth with a younger announcer . . . ditching their former host Stephanie Edwards.

I watched the result and it was not good.

Stephanie Edwards was an attractive and perfect personality for the event. Heaven knows she was not cool . . . but instead seemed sincere, cared about the traditions of the parade (having made a few of them), and plainly enjoyed the work. She aged in a lovely manner . . . more attractive at (gentleman don’t discuss the number) than most of us are in our twenties . . . unless one is stupid enough to never develop mature tastes in beauty.

Parades are not Plato, but if they must be consumed, then they need hosts that cherish them . . . not hosts mailing it in to do their corporate duty. Stephanie Edwards loved her job, her replacement is as forgettable as last Christmas’ “Barbie” . . . easily replaced by next years plastic consumer driven plaything.

Stephanie Edwards is Disneyland . . . Michaela is Magic Mountain trying to be California Adventure.

Parade commentary (!) is more like radio than television as the personality hardly ever appears on camera. Edwards “replacement” Michaela Pereira has other work she plainly wishes she was doing (and her mud-colored clothing matched her personality on camera), is wit and banter impaired, and appears to know nothing about everything.

A good parade is like a well-executed liturgy and Ms. Pereira is the Vatican II of liturgists.

She reads the cue cards as if she is reading cue cards . . . and plainly never was hooked on phonics.

Our house did a fearful thing at some points in the telecast . . . we paid close attention to what Pereira was saying . . . the death of any good parade host . . . since what she was saying was equally wooden and absurd. One had to listen . . . as one had to watch “Light Magic” at Disneyland (still called “Light Tragic” by park goers) or sit all the way to the end of Santa Claus III.

The new host-ette combined a dollop of condescension at being forced into the whole ridiculous thing with a dullard’s sparkling rejoinders giving the watcher the weird feeling that he was being laughed at by his inferior. . . in short she managed to rain on our parade.

KTLA should bring back Stephanie Edwards and lose the idea of a hip Rose Parade. Michaela is not cool, doesn’t like parades, and is hard to endure for hours.

(Just for good measure I am clear that forty-something philosophers who blog and like Star Trek, Buffy, and Plato are not cool. I am Victorian, not trendy.)