Here are a couple of thoughts rattling around my brain at the end of another exhausting work week. If I have any thoughts at all on a Friday night, then it wasn’t really such a bad week.
First – I was reading the 150th anniversary issue of The Atlantic, which had a diverse set of essays regarding “the American idea”. Most of the authors seemed to agree that there was and is “an American ideal” generally having something to do with freedom. As to what freedom is and what it means, however, the authors start diverging rather quickly. That’s where the discussion gets interesting. However, there was little to no discussion on whether the “American formula” is reproducible. That to me is the 20 million dollar question. Is our nation’s high level of success and prosperity a function of a well-designed political and governmental system that maximizes human freedom? Or is America just a set of unique events and circumstances that came together at the right times and in the right places, and there isn’t much in terms of principle that can be profitably transplanted to other lands?
Second – I was pondering the matter of entropy in the universe. You know, the second law of thermodynamics. The classic view is that things generally start off with low entropy, which means high levels of organization and much potential for work. Kind of like how we humans are when we are young. But over time, we get more and more disorganized and our potential for getting work done declines. As such, our entropy is increasing. At first it sounds good that something increases with age (other than the number of years, months and day of our lives), but then it sounds bad in that we get frayed and weaker.
In recent years, however, there has been another view of entropy, an informational view. According to the informational view, the higher the entropy (the more mixed up a big group of things seems), the more information that can be stored in it. For instance, imagine a book full of letters that just kept repeating the alphabet, a to z and then back to a, over and over. That book would be a lot more organized, but it would hold a whole lot less info than a typical book with its seemingly jumbled-up groupings of letters.
So, maybe thermodynamics and information science say something about the human experience of aging. Something akin to “I’m older but wiser”.
Third – I just caught up a bit on the tiff going on over British philosopher Antony Flew and his abandonment in recent years of the hard-core atheistic views that defined most of his life, toward a clear but tenuous belief in “a God of sorts”. Flew’s God is not exactly the Hebrew Testament’s God of power and might, or the New Testament’s God of love and wisdom. Flew is now a “deist”, someone who believes in a remote, unemotional, uncaring God, one quite different from the Judeo-Christian portrait of God. Flew doesn’t think that this God gave us souls that will reunite with “Him or Her” at the end of time; he doesn’t believe in an after-life. However, for a philosopher who intellectually denied the existence of God for decades to turn around and accept the notion that the Universe requires something more than what science can provide to make sense of it is rather important. It at least lays an intellectual foundation beneath the more sober portraits of God that some of our church thinkers present (in their better moments; there’s still too much “snake-handleing” and fairy-tale religion in America).
So, no wonder the atheists are taking “the flight of Flew” seriously. In a recent Sunday NY Times Magazine article,one of their supporters claims that Flew’s conversion had a lot to do with his age (over 80) and a group of Christians who befriended him, perhaps in a conspiracy to brainwash the guy in his elderly vulnerability. It’s no secret that the book about his conversion was written by one of these Christians (Roy Varghese), although attributed to his authorship. If you want to take a peak at some of the arguments and the level of urgency being expressed by both sides to this controversy, take a look at the Amazon book reviews for his recent “There Is A God”. I take my hat off to all of them; these people are taking the issue very seriously. Is Flew a victim of entropic thermo-decay, or a beneficiary of entropic information growth? Is Flew’s conversion a reproducible model or just the story of one man? Ah yes, once again I’ve found a common thread (however frayed) between three diverse subjects. Pretty good for a Friday night when I’m ready to zonk out from exhaustion!
Let intellectual freedom ring.
Jim, I think you did a marvelous job of unifying all these diverse topics!
But now a couple of words to put in my own two cents worth:
RE the “American idea”: A very “sticky” issue. When one thinks of it, the concept really has nothing to do with an “American formula.” It seems to me this concept is a “two-way street” of sorts. On the one hand those without “freedom” in their homeland aspire to the “land of the free!” On the other hand SOME Americans have the idea that because we like America then, we ABSOLUTELY MUST foist our kind of freedom on them–translate that to mean our form of GOVERNMENT. These two things don’t necessarily follow in my consideration. Foisting our form of government on others just does not work. When I really think about it, I wonder how America managed to get where we are. Think about it: Founded by Puritans who had little, if any, concept of “freedom for everybody”; and so on down thru our history for a very long time. We ourselves had little concept of “freedom” for the Native Americans. And then too, all down thru history “freedom” was dearly won by each immigrant group as it entered America. There is not one group we can point to where America said, Oh, sure, come in an enjoy “freedom” with us. Immigrants came, endured serious prejudice, dearly won their “freedom.” And then there were the African-Americans!
On the “older but wiser” topic: There is little respect (in America) for “wisdom”–but maybe that will change as the baby boomers get older and begin to realize that if they don’t acquire “wisdom,” they will turn out to be just doddering old people (as seems to be the attitude of so many toward the “older folk” nowadays–a holdover from the “don’t trust anybody over 30” idea of the 1960s). I absolutely HATE to hear: Well, s/he is 75, 80, (fill in the age) and still SHARP AS A TACK! As if with age one looses one’s ability to think. (Losing one’s ability to think is the result of some kind of brain damage–which can happen to anyone at any age, if one really thinks about it.)
And as to Antony Flew: I still say (as I said before): There are no atheists in foxholes. And it seems that that concept holds even when one separates out the intellectual from any emotional aspects of religion (as Flew has done). I DOUBT Flew was “brainwashed” by some “group of Christians” because he is elderly and vulnerable! Has this man of intellectual achievement suddenly had brain damage???? Why can’t he “evolve” in his thinking? Think about it (again): He’s still in his “intellectual mode.” He hasn’t suddenly come to a very “emotional” argument about God existing. He’s obviously still using his brain the way he always has. He’s just evolved in his thinking. How can that be evidence that his intellectual faculties are diminishing? Any really thoughtful person evolves in his/her thinking over time–or he/she is simply NOT THINKING!
Well, perhaps these are the ramblings of a doddering old lady who can’t recognize her own deficiencies because she’s had brain damage. But I’d strongly disagree with that evaluation of myself; the body may be failing in ways–but I can still think. I say the same thing for Flew (and Ehrman too). But notice Ehrman, being a younger man, is not accused of having his faculties diminished–even tho he’s taken the opposite position in his “evolving” from that Flew has taken.
And lastly: What’s wrong with: Oh, well, how interesting that s/he has taken this new position? So much of the commenting that goes on in today’s information age becomes a criticism of the person. I can see discussion of someone like Flew’s “new” position being discussed for the further development of others; but instead, too much of the “commenting” that goes on is of the nature of the following. This is an ACTUAL, word-for-word comment I heard by a person on a radio program. The discussion was about some parent who was having trouble with a child. The caller said–and I quote: “Well, I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS [!!!!] but I th
Comment by Anonymous — November 10, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Jim, I think you did a marvelous job of unifying all these diverse topics!
But now a couple of words to put in my own two cents worth:
RE the “American idea”: A very “sticky” issue. When one thinks of it, the concept really has nothing to do with an “American formula.” It seems to me this concept is a “two-way street” of sorts. On the one hand those without “freedom” in their homeland aspire to the “land of the free!” On the other hand SOME Americans have the idea that because we like America then, we ABSOLUTELY MUST foist our kind of freedom on them–translate that to mean our form of GOVERNMENT. These two things don’t necessarily follow in my consideration. Foisting our form of government on others just does not work. When I really think about it, I wonder how America managed to get where we are. Think about it: Founded by Puritans who had little, if any, concept of “freedom for everybody”; and so on down thru our history for a very long time. We ourselves had little concept of “freedom” for the Native Americans. And then too, all down thru history “freedom” was dearly won by each immigrant group as it entered America. There is not one group we can point to where America said, Oh, sure, come in an enjoy “freedom” with us. Immigrants came, endured serious prejudice, dearly won their “freedom.” And then there were the African-Americans!
On the “older but wiser” topic: There is little respect (in America) for “wisdom”–but maybe that will change as the baby boomers get older and begin to realize that if they don’t acquire “wisdom,” they will turn out to be just doddering old people (as seems to be the attitude of so many toward the “older folk” nowadays–a holdover from the “don’t trust anybody over 30” idea of the 1960s). I absolutely HATE to hear: Well, s/he is 75, 80, (fill in the age) and still SHARP AS A TACK! As if with age one looses one’s ability to think. (Losing one’s ability to think is the result of some kind of brain damage–which can happen to anyone at any age, if one really thinks about it.)
And as to Antony Flew: I still say (as I said before): There are no atheists in foxholes. And it seems that that concept holds even when one separates out the intellectual from any emotional aspects of religion (as Flew has done). I DOUBT Flew was “brainwashed” by some “group of Christians” because he is elderly and vulnerable! Has this man of intellectual achievement suddenly had brain damage???? Why can’t he “evolve” in his thinking? Think about it (again): He’s still in his “intellectual mode.” He hasn’t suddenly come to a very “emotional” argument about God existing. He’s obviously still using his brain the way he always has. He’s just evolved in his thinking. How can that be evidence that his intellectual faculties are diminishing? Any really thoughtful person evolves in his/her thinking over time–or he/she is simply NOT THINKING!
Well, perhaps these are the ramblings of a doddering old lady who can’t recognize her own deficiencies because she’s had brain damage. But I’d strongly disagree with that evaluation of myself; the body may be failing in ways–but I can still think. I say the same thing for Flew (and Ehrman too). But notice Ehrman, being a younger man, is not accused of having his faculties diminished–even tho he’s taken the opposite position in his “evolving” from that Flew has taken.
And lastly: What’s wrong with: Oh, well, how interesting that s/he has taken this new position? So much of the commenting that goes on in today’s information age becomes a criticism of the person. I can see discussion of someone like Flew’s “new” position being discussed for the further development of others; but instead, too much of the “commenting” that goes on is of the nature of the following. This is an ACTUAL, word-for-word comment I heard by a person on a radio program. The discussion was about some parent who was having trouble with a child. The caller said–and I quote: “Well, I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS [!!!!] but I think….” This person then proceeded to talk for 5 minutes about a topic that the person admittedly KNEW NOTHING ABOUT! Good grief! The most one can say when one knows nothing about a topic is: “I can’t comment as I know nothing about the topic.”
But maybe it’s just this old lady who may be losing her faculties.
Sorry if this has become somewhat “irritable” in its tone, but I have little tolerance for such silliness.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 10, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Jim, I think you did a marvelous job of unifying all these diverse topics!
But now a couple of words to put in my own two cents worth:
RE the “American idea”: A very “sticky” issue. When one thinks of it, the concept really has nothing to do with an “American formula.” It seems to me this concept is a “two-way street” of sorts. On the one hand those without “freedom” in their homeland aspire to the “land of the free!” On the other hand SOME Americans have the idea that because we like America then, we ABSOLUTELY MUST foist our kind of freedom on them–translate that to mean our form of GOVERNMENT. These two things don’t necessarily follow in my consideration. Foisting our form of government on others just does not work. When I really think about it, I wonder how America managed to get where we are. Think about it: Founded by Puritans who had little, if any, concept of “freedom for everybody”; and so on down thru our history for a very long time. We ourselves had little concept of “freedom” for the Native Americans. And then too, all down thru history “freedom” was dearly won by each immigrant group as it entered America. There is not one group we can point to where America said, Oh, sure, come in an enjoy “freedom” with us. Immigrants came, endured serious prejudice, dearly won their “freedom.” And then there were the African-Americans!
On the “older but wiser” topic: There is little respect (in America) for “wisdom”–but maybe that will change as the baby boomers get older and begin to realize that if they don’t acquire “wisdom,” they will turn out to be just doddering old people (as seems to be the attitude of so many toward the “older folk” nowadays–a holdover from the “don’t trust anybody over 30” idea of the 1960s). I absolutely HATE to hear: Well, s/he is 75, 80, (fill in the age) and still SHARP AS A TACK! As if with age one looses one’s ability to think. (Losing one’s ability to think is the result of some kind of brain damage–which can happen to anyone at any age, if one really thinks about it.)
And as to Antony Flew: I still say (as I said before): There are no atheists in foxholes. And it seems that that concept holds even when one separates out the intellectual from any emotional aspects of religion (as Flew has done). I DOUBT Flew was “brainwashed” by some “group of Christians” because he is elderly and vulnerable! Has this man of intellectual achievement suddenly had brain damage???? Why can’t he “evolve” in his thinking? Think about it (again): He’s still in his “intellectual mode.” He hasn’t suddenly come to a very “emotional” argument about God existing. He’s obviously still using his brain the way he always has. He’s just evolved in his thinking. How can that be evidence that his intellectual faculties are diminishing? Any really thoughtful person evolves in his/her thinking over time–or he/she is simply NOT THINKING!
Well, perhaps these are the ramblings of a doddering old lady who can’t recognize her own deficiencies because she’s had brain damage. But I’d strongly disagree with that evaluation of myself; the body may be failing in ways–but I can still think. I say the same thing for Flew (and Ehrman too). But notice Ehrman, being a younger man, is not accused of having his faculties diminished–even tho he’s taken the opposite position in his “evolving” from that Flew has taken.
And lastly: What’s wrong with: Oh, well, how interesting that s/he has taken this new position? So much of the commenting that goes on in today’s information age becomes a criticism of the person. I can see discussion of someone like Flew’s “new” position being discussed for the further development of others; but instead, too much of the “commenting” that goes on is of the nature of the following. This is an ACTUAL, word-for-word comment I heard by a person on a radio program. The discussion was about some parent who was having trouble with a child. The caller said–and I quote: “Well, I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS [!!!!] but I th
Comment by Anonymous — November 10, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Jim,
RE the vast amount of information available in this information age: I long ago realized that I simply cannot read absolutely everything that seems so very interesting. I realized I must start to pick and choose among the vast amount of information available.
On another related but similar note: Reading Valerie Plame’s new book recently, she mentions that the CIA is STILL getting information back from spies that was “floated” 10 years ago. It seems the Russians are just getting around to dealing with the vast amounts of info it has available. I’m sure the same can be said of the CIA.
Then too, there is all the info coming from all the space exploration we having going, which exploration is in many forms. I’ve read that scientists can’t even begin to estimate how long it will take to evaluate and “find out” all the information that they already have from the Hubble telescope (for starters).
Fifty years from now will scientists find out important info that we now have but have not been able to “get at”?
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 10, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Jim,
RE the vast amount of information available in this information age: I long ago realized that I simply cannot read absolutely everything that seems so very interesting. I realized I must start to pick and choose among the vast amount of information available.
On another related but similar note: Reading Valerie Plame’s new book recently, she mentions that the CIA is STILL getting information back from spies that was “floated” 10 years ago. It seems the Russians are just getting around to dealing with the vast amounts of info it has available. I’m sure the same can be said of the CIA.
Then too, there is all the info coming from all the space exploration we having going, which exploration is in many forms. I’ve read that scientists can’t even begin to estimate how long it will take to evaluate and “find out” all the information that they already have from the Hubble telescope (for starters).
Fifty years from now will scientists find out important info that we now have but have not been able to “get at”?
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — November 10, 2007 @ 12:50 pm