Do We Need a Perfect Crisis to Get Us on a Better Path?

By Gary Berg-Cross

Seasonal, but traditional Xmas, parties sometimes offer an opportunity for good conversations.  Of course, the recent tragedy in Connecticut serves along with the looming ”cliff” talk serve up ready topics. Its human nature to pay attention to what's in front of us, rather than some abstract topics, but often the one leads to the other via generalization.

In an ad hoc small group at a weekend party a constructive discussion of what it would take to avoid more “disasters” emerged. This was not a group with an End Days belief that claims some biblical chronology of floods and other disasters after the State of Israel was founded. Give me real science and climatologists any day.

While gun security and mental health screening drove the early conversation one DOE person maneuvered the conversation to his specialties. Among his lightweight rants was what he saw as the coming energy crises as we struggle to move off of dirty coal to cleaner energy sources, safe nuclear power and CO2 sequestration. The path of that conversation was convoluted,  but the group the arrived at the idea that we need a “crisis” to “save us” and do what we must do.  In this view normal events and processes don’t seem to allow our current system to effectively self correct in time to avoid cliff-like events. This is well captured in the Toles Zombie cartoon above. What can snap us out of our torpor? Perhaps, it was suggested, a crisis would be needed to snap the system to attention and correct the path.

I had a bit of worry about this, since we seem to have had series of crises (take you pick, Hurricane Katrina, Sandy, the 2008 financial meltdown, Fukushima, European debt, climate change summit failures, any number of shootings etc.) which have moved us only a bit conversationally.  Crisis if often a difficult time since the normal reaction of people in stress is the tendency to be confused, anxious, and highly suggestible.  We may become even less rational and more swayed by emotions and thus may be more easily lead.  

 But who knows where?

In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism Naomi Klein documents how crises, including man-made  ones, such as the Falklands war have been cynically used to steal disasters as opportunities to get self serving rather than lasting and group solutions. It provides a template about something to worry about in times of crises and the supposed solutions they may bring when people are highly suggestible and willing to try something new. New may be better than the old, but not just because it is new of appealing. Crises can "shock" groups into buying manufactured solutions that serve particular interests.  We need to avoid this. I suggested that if we must expect the future to one of crises to produce change what we need is a “perfect crisis.”  This would be one with several ingredients that make it work to change our course. Here are a few ideas:

It can’t be so massive that our entire system is taken down and destroyed so we can’t recover. It has to cause real damage, but it should be more informative than life threatening.  This might happen if it symbolic (such as threatening one of our popular iconic cities) and thus hard to get over for that reason, rather than the swath of destruction.  It should expose the real problems and provide enough time to diagnose solutions. Perhaps it should be a harbinger of foreseeable things to come with enough time to react as in some disaster movies of comets on an intersection with the earth. Such slow trajectory, unfolding disasters give us enough time to react. Something extreme along this lines was a 2 hour show about what we would have to do to evacuate the earth if it was threatened by a rogue neutron start heading our way but taking 75 years or so to get here.

One can image some small crises growing out of the slow trajectory of climate change (including “climate refugees” and “environmental evacuees” to keep our attention on things) that might be clear enough to get a message through.  Still it will take enlightened leadership and not just a science-engineering hat trick, at the time of crises, rather than opportunists, to get us through and on to a better path.

Something to think about in seasons of hope dealing with small despairs.

Image Credits

Toles cartoon: Washingtonpost.com

Can Science Save Us?:http://www.dennytaylor.com/2012/07/can-science-save-us-when-the-temperature-rises-more-than-2-degrees-celsius-what-will-we-do-non-linear-interrelationships-between-atmospheric-and-ecosystem-stressors-and-human-activity/

Natural Disasters 1900 -2007 : http://www.storyoflove.org/2011/02/increase-in-disasters-since-1948-global.html

Stormy Fugures Map: http://blogs.forbes.com/mindylubber/

The Shock Doctrine:http://aglobalview.wordpress.com/

Pius XII & the NY Times

by Edd Doerr

Bill Donohue and the Catholic League ran a 1/4 page ad in the 12/17/12 NY Times extolling the "heroics" of Pope Pius XII re WW II as referred to in Xmas editorials in that paper in 1941 and 1942.

However, more realistic material on Pius XII and Vatican relations with Hitler and WW II may be found in the books by Catholic writers such as Garry Wills's Papal Sin or John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope, not to mention German writer Rolf Hochhuth's play The Deputy (Der Stellvertreter) with intro by Albert Schweitzer.

Donohue and his League represent the ultraconservative end of the Catholic spectrum.

The determinism versus indeterminism question

By Mathew Goldstein

If our universe is deterministic then stopping, rewinding, and then restarting the clock would result in a repeat performance like stopping, rewinding, and replaying a movie. But unlike a movie, we cannot stop and rewind time. A big problem with addressing questions such as this is that it requires technical expertise in physics that most people, including myself, do not have. Nevertheless, it can be useful to try to address a question like this because it is a convenient starting point for disputing related misconceptions.

As pointed out by Gary Berg-Cross in his recent blog post, we shouldn't confuse the multi-factor causal determinism behind complex phenomena, like climate, with "partial determinism". Human behavior has internal determinants, a.k.a. genetics, and external determinants, a.k.a. environment. The mere presence of external determinants doesn't render human behavior "partially determined". So are climate, human behavior, etc., deterministic? In the non-quantum, classical, larger scale realm that we inhabit, our universe appears to be deterministic. Therefore the answer to this question appears to depend primarily on whether or not the small scale, quantum mechanical realm is indeterministic.

It is almost as if quantum mechanics occupies exactly the line that separates determinism from indeterminism, as if it occupies both descriptions simultaneously. Maybe it does. Inconsistent attributes like this are counterintuitive, but under the laws of physics, anything that is permitted to happen arguably does happen, and the results are sometimes counterintuitive. However, just like it is a mistake to confuse complexity with indeterminism, it is also a mistake to confuse probability with indeterminism. Stochastic outcomes like those which characterize quantum mechanics could be compatible with determinism. Some experts describe quantum mechanics as being best characterized by the phrase "determined probabilities".

My non-expert understanding is that Bell's inequalities theorem, which is favored to be true by experimental results, implies that either the principle of locality is false or quantum mechanics is nondeterministic. Furthermore, if locality is false then the laws of special relativity, which have been found to agree with QM to a high degree of accuracy, would be contradicted. Therefore, physicists tend to favor the view that indeterminism is true, which implies that quantum mechanical events are, in some significant sense, uncaused.

For the sake of argument, lets say that our universe is indeterministic at the small, quantum world scale. Under this scenario, when we rewind and restart the clock, the radioactive decay events would repeat with the same predisposition, as reflected in the same half-life probabilities as before, but the individual events would occur at different times than they occurred the first time around. It would arguably be the case that our universe could then be best described as partially deterministic, or partially indeterministic, or mixed. The small scale indeterminism would sometimes change larger scale events and our replayed universe would eventually take a noticeably different course from the original universe. This would be true even if the larger scale events are themselves strictly deterministic. But is there a line that clearly delineates the quantum mechanical and classical realms, and if not then does some of the small scale indeterminism carry over into the larger scales? Strict determinism may be a very accurate and useful approximation while technically being a fiction if taken literally.

Although we may not yet have sufficient evidence to assert with confidence that the aforementioned indeterministic scenario is true, we can answer another question that is often associated with the determinism question: Do we have free will? My answer is that we most likely (almost certainly) don't have free will, regardless of whether the universe is deterministic.

Many people appear to think that the question of the existence of free will is of central importance. I disagree. Our lack of free will arguably undermines the role of nondeterrent retribution in achieving justice. But beyond that it has little, if any, significance. We don't need free will. Our having free will wouldn't clearly be advantageous, and even if it would be advantageous, we are what we are and accurately acknowledging what we are doesn't change what we are. In that sense I agree with Daniel Dennett. But I am unwilling to go so far as to continue utilizing the term "free will" by creating a new category and labeling it "compatibilistic free will" while relabeling the original free will concept as "libertarian free will". Free will is rooted in a mind-body dualism, where the mind is understood to be at least partially extraphysical and nonmaterial, and as such implies not just indeterminism but also supernaturalism. Without the indeterminism, libertarianism, and dualism there is no free will and it is at best confusing, at worst misleading, to retain that label while dispensing with the concept.

Why do such things happen?

By Gary Berg-Cross

An NBC headline reads, “Massacre leaves America shocked and grieving ... again.”

Further below House Speaker John Boehner is quoted appealing to Americans to come together to seek solace.  How?   

“In religion….The horror of this day seems so unbearable, but we will lock arms and unite as citizens, for that is how Americans rise above unspeakable evil. Let us all come together in God's grace to pray for the families of the victims, that they may find some comfort and peace amid such suffering,” 

Psychological studies ( see Chris Mooney's reporting On The Republican Brain and Understanding Confirmatory Bias and Dead End Arguments) of Conservative Republicans,  like  Boehner, tells us that they tend to ignore evidence contrary to their initial position, and they tend to reinforce their previous commitments.  And they value group unity. .As a result.they are quick to close on an issue without studying all sides of it  So Boehner was probably more comfortable talking about some vague notion of evil and the comfort of prayer that fit his group thinking than of taking on the very American, National Rifle Association to give us more security from guns.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had similar words of some narrow idea of unity with a look towards more peaceful days:

“I invite everyone to lift their hearts in prayer for the victims and their families and to unite around the hope that there will soon come a day when parents no longer fear this kind of violence in our nation again,”

And such appeals to come together in ritual are understandable, although some of us would rather it not be around an assumed religious ideas of prayer and evil.Critical thinking using science based evidence is probably a better way to go in the long run.

Religion isn’t unique in providing comfort, which is easier if we accept the irrational in our thinking and in the world, but it is convenient security blanket and indeed there is some thinking that this is one of the main reasons for Religion:

According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers.

OK, so maybe it  provides an easy comfort for people. It has a simple explanation for everything even for people who ask, “Why do such things happen?” It’s part of God’s plan…don’t ask more, it’s beyond us. Broad appeals to prayer and religion provide comfort rather than answers to such things. And we prefer real attempts at understanding rather than religion driven thinking. According to the Huffington Post, Republican Mike Huckabee said the crime should be no surprise because we have "systematically removed God" from public schools.
In his own words, delivered on Fox News:

"We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?"

Yuk and hogwash! Systematically eliminating open inquiry and humanist values, lack of support for counseling, addressing the causes of poverty, stress and mental illnsess and  the like are all things discuss as an alternative criticism.

Some of us want more than that type of blaming or that God is punishing us or, "God has a plan,"  That’s a more difficult take on reality which quickly leads into more divisive topics of policy, politics and interest groups. And we need more understanding to yield us answers that will work. We might prefer the role of secular counselors and Psychologists to handle grief and real problem solvers with political skills and wisdom to deal with the issues.

Image Credits

Brad on religion: http://cafewitteveen.wordpress.com/tag/pope/

Leading the children to safety: http://perezhilton.com/tag/sandy_hook_elementary

Evolutionary Psychology of religion:http://www.fairobserver.com/article/evolutionary-psychology-religion-part-1

No Bad Deeds Go Unrewarded

by Edd Doerr

On Nov 6 Florida voters rejected, 55 to 45, a proposed state constitutional amendment designed to allow diversion of public funds to church-run private schools through vouchers. On the same day Indiana voters ousted state school superintendent Tony Bennett, who had displayed his disdain for teachers and his support for diverting public funds to church-run private schools through vouchers, even though he outspent his Democratic challenger, teacher Glenda Ritz, by 4 to 1 in a state that went for Romney. One month later the Florida state school board appointed Bennett as the new state  education commissioner, thereby showing their contempt for voters, for public education, and for the religious freedom of citizens not to be forced by government to support religious institutions.

Florida and Indiana conservative politicians seem to have little regard  for either voters or their state constitutions.

(I sent this letter to periodicals in Florida and elsewhere as president of Americans for Religious Liberty.)

Birth Control and Abortion

by Don Wharton 

The following graphic says it all. If the far right wants to prevent abortions it must support free contraceptives.  Image from everydayhealth.com.

Image courtesy of everydayhealth.com

Science and Republicans

by Edd Doerr

Charles Blow's NY Times column on 12/7/12 contained this info on the political affiliations of scientists, per a 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center: 6% Republican; 55% Democrat; 32% Independent.  And by ideology: 9% Conservative; 52% Liberal; 35% Moderate.

In Nov, La Gov Bobby Jindal said of the  GOP: "We need to stop being the dumb party." Yet Jindal signed legislation to authorize teaching creationism in public schools and to provide public funding  to private church-run schools that push creationism. Indiana Gov Mitch Daniels signed similar legislation. Ky,  where Romney beat Obama by 23 points, has a Creationism Museum that will  benefit from $43 million in public funds. In June Gallup found that 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; most Dems and independents disagreed.

Sherwin Wine's Last Book

a review by Edd Doerr

A Provocative People: A Secular History of the Jews, by Sherwin T. Wine (International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, 508 pp, 2012, $24.95)

Sherwin Wine (1928-2007) was the founder of the Humanistic Judaism movement (the fifth strain of organized Judaism in addition to Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist), the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, and co-founder (with Ethical Culture leader Edward Ericson) of Americans for Religious Liberty, which I have headed since 1982. Wine ranks with such figures as Spinoza, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell and Paul Kurtz.

When he died tragically in a car accident in Morocco in 2007, Sherwin left the manuscript for this magnum opus unfinished.  The drafts were assembled by editor, friend and colleague Rabbi Adam Chalom and other associates into what can only be described as a work comparable to H.G. Wells' Outline of History.

But first, disclosures. Sherwin and I were friends for over three decades and I contributed a chapter to the festschrift honoring him, A Life of Courage: Sherwin Wine and Humanistic Judaism. In 2000 my wife Herenia and I translated into Spanish and published his 1995 book, Staying Sane in a Crazy World (Como mantener la cordura en un mundo loco: Guia para una vida racional). My own background  is not Jewish, but, rather, Irish/German/Catholic-turned-Humanist/Unitarian-at-age-19.
I have addressed Humanistic Jewish audiences and have been an occasional cantor at Humanistic Jewish services.

A Provocative People defies facile summary. It takes in the long sweep from pre-history until today of the complex evolution and history of the Jewish people and of all the peoples and cultures that influenced them or were influenced by them, the diverse peoples and cultures of the Middle East, the Greeks and Romans, the Germanic tribes that overran the Roman world, the Christians and Muslim Arabs, the Poles and Russians, the Anglo-Saxons and Americans. Sherwin traces the factors that shaped the many and shifting subcultures among the Jews and the complexities of the various anti-Semitisms over more than twenty centuries, from early Christianity to the Inquisition to the Nazi Holocaust/Shoah.

Sherwin's Secular History of the Jews shows his extraordinary command of history, anthropology, archeology, linguistics, theology, psychology and sociology. His prose is eminently readable and his sense of humor shines through.

This is the most complete and compact history of the Jewish people ever published. Five stars.