Urbi et Orbi -- December 25, 2006.

I am able to view this blog again -- for a while anyway. Please see the "General" and "Digs" sections at my MSN group, which I cannot access as of December 30, 2006 at 6:53 P.M. http://www.Critique@groups.msn.com Hackers insert typos and delete letters or words in these posts regularly.

"Pope Asks for a Spiritual 'Wake-Up,' " http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4558956.stm
"Pope Says Mankind, Despite Its Advances, Still Needs God," The New York Times, December 26, 2006, at p. A5.

Visit my group: http://www.Critique@groups.msn.com, which is regularly subjected to cyberterrorism.



"VATICAN CITY, Dec. 25 (Reuters) -- Mankind which has reached other planets and decoded the genetic instructions for life, should not presume that it can live without God, Pope Benedict XVI said in his Christmas address on Monday."

"In an age of unbridled consumerism," the Pope said, "it was shameful that many people remained deaf to the 'heart-rending cry' of those dying of hunger, thirst, disease, poverty, war and terrorism."

"Is a savior still needed by a humanity that has reached the moon and Mars and is prepared to conquer the universe, for a humanity that knows no limits in its pursuit of nature's secrets and that has succeeded even in deciphering the marvelous codes of the human genome?"

"[The Pope] said that while twenty-first century man appeared to be a master of his own destiny, 'perhaps he needs a savior all the more' because much of humanity was [and is] suffering."

"Some people remain enslaved, exploited and stripped of their dignity; others are victims of racial and religious hatred, hampered by intolerance and discrimination, and by political interference and physical or moral coercion with regard to the free profession of their faith ..."

Finally:

"Others see their own bodies and those of their dear ones, particularly their children maimed by weaponry, by terrorism and by all sorts of violence, at a time when everyone invokes and acclaims progress, solidarity and peace for all."

BBC News Service quoted words uttered by the Pope that seem timely and relevant to many discussions in this blog:

"The men and women in our technical age risk becoming victims of their own intellectual and technical achievements, ending up in spiritual barrenness and emptiness of heart."

Addressing crowds in Bethlehem, specifically, the Pope said the region was "thirsting for peace." He warned of the dangers of deifying science and of failing to recognize the ethical constraints on so-called "scientific" activity.

"God created you not to fear or to kill each other but to love each other, to build and to cooperate together ..."

Human spiritual needs cannot be satisfied by science. The achievements of scientists can improve the material conditions of human lives and alleviate human suffering -- if they are used properly -- but science can also lead to new means of destruction and horrifying weapons.

Nothing -- certainly not science's much vaunted "neutrality" -- can absolve of human beings of the responsibility to choose how they will use their new powers made possible by science. If human nature and history are guides to the future, I fear that science and its wonders will be used just as often to destroy and injure persons as to benefit and improve human life.

For this reason, among others, recognition of human spiritual and ethical realities is essential. No new technology or science will alter the importance and inescapability of the questions posed in the Scriptures that are so apt for this season of endings and renewals:

"Where are you? Where are you going? What is the meaning of your life?"

Welcome to Firing Line!

In the spirit of the season, this is my choice for a suitable image: http://www.danielrussellactor.com/assets/images/A-Christmas-Story-bunny-Sm.jpg Please visit my group: http://www.Critique@msn.groups.com/



In the olden days, before cable television, there were three t.v. networks and a couple of local stations in New York, besides PBS. On Sunday mornings, as I poured cereal into a bowl and got up to change channels (no remote control) -- while mastering the art of getting rabbit ear antenas aligned just right, so that the picture was semi-focused -- I would discover mind-numbingly dull public service broadcasts and ponder my newspaper (the comics), right before going to play basketball with my friends.

One Sunday morning, at 11:00 A.M., I stumbled upon an interview program that seemed very different from all others. Firing Line. Picture a bare stage, two chairs and a speaker's podium in the middle distance. Sometimes there was an audience, usually when the show was taped at an academic institution. The introductory music was, if I remember correctly, from Bach's "Brandenburg Concerti."

The host of this program, William F. Buckley, Jr. spoke a language that vaguely resembled the English I spoke with my friends (Baroque?), but was much more elegant, beautiful, semi-British sounding. Today people would say "he's too fancy or articulate for t.v. People won't understand him or his guests." Maybe they said that then.

Buckley's syntax and vocabulary were rich and very personal -- as with novelist George Meredith or Henry James -- his sentences stayed with you. The Dalai Lama once complained that his English was difficult to understand, but no more than William F. Buckley, Jr.'s words. For some reason, having a kind word for any conservative, even in disagreement, especially for Buckley and other American patricians, is deemed a terrible offense against "political correctness." I have no idea why this is true. However, I am always delighted to think that I have offended the standards of political correctness. Isn't the very idea of "standards" offensive to political correctness? Remember, Gore Vidal is also an American patrician. Vidal's exchange with Buckley is differently understood by people depending on their politics. After reading a description of the incident in a biography of Vidal, I give the edge to Vidal.

I experienced both a feeling of aesthetic bliss in hearing language used with such relish and care, also at the level of conversation possible with the sort of people who were guests on Buckley's program. The discussions were totally different from what was available in celebrity talk shows or sit-coms at that time. There is nothing like it on television now. By today's standards, the stupid stuff available on the networks then sounds like Plato's academy. I discovered Daniel Patrick Moynihan and John Kenneth Galbraith, as intellectuals and jousting partners of Buckley's, long before I knew them as political figures. Moynihan's 1975 speech at the U.N. is more timely and important today than when it was delivered.

Buckley would have debates that were structured and fair to opponents, who were often the most intelligent and articulate spokespersons available for the view that Buckley rejected. One lesson learned from that program is to confront the best spokespeople for the views that you reject, to study and engage with their views, fairly, and then to offer your own reasoning, opinions and conclusions, fearlessly, regardless of the difference in numbers. Buckley never cut off adversaries or cut to a commercial -- there were no commercials. There was an "examiner" to balance Buckley's perspective, in addition to his guest's opinions.

This tolerance of dissent and friendship among debaters was and is a precious and valuable, also ALWAYS IMPERILED, aspect of America's public life. The right to disagree, to be in the minority on any issue is inviolable. You do not prevail in discussions by hiring people to disrupt my blog -- by hiring people to "insert" typos, perhaps -- or to destroy my written work. Such tactics are a confession of intellectual bankruptcy. Right Senator, Bob? Buckley sometimes lost debates -- and included film of such discussions in the highlight program at the end of the season. Debate is a process, not a result. Ideally, debate is both internal and external. The most important debates should be the ones we have with ourselves over a lifetime.

Buckley was and is a political and cultural conservative, whose views I mostly disagree with, though not all. At the time, Buckley's views were "in the minority" on television -- to put it mildly. Yet Buckley was highly adept, well-informed, prepared and articulate in defending conservative views, often winning debates convincingly, despite being outnumbered; always forcing me to rethink my opinions and read more to decide what I really believe. Buckley made it impossible to accept that all conservatives are stupid or greedy and insensitive. I wish I could say the same for New Jersey politicians.

I also read Gore Vidal and agree with Vidal, mostly, on political issues. Yet I learned a lot from Buckley and looked forward to his show, later reading (and admiring) several of his books. I was amused by accounts of the famous "debate" between the two, Vidal and Buckley, which was out of character for both of them. All heat and no light. Neverthless, as I say, Vidal retains the title in a split decision.

There is nothing like Firing Line on t.v. today. This is unfortunate because, even though I am a democratic socialist, many of my views have been influenced by Buckley. More importantly, how I come to have views on controversial subjects has been decisively influenced by Buckley and his guests. It may be true that I agree with Buckley and other conservatives about a few issues only. However, these few issues are very important ones -- like the right to disagree freely, the priceless moral worth of persons, the inviolability of each person's spiritual life, and a few others, especially the essential goodness of the American idea and nation. I make an exception for the putridness of New Jersey's legal system and the vermin that crawl around in that system.

Most of us will not be fortunate enough to attend Andover or Exeter and Yale or Harvard. Many people will not have an opportunity, as I did, to go to a good college or law school, but almost everybody in America has a television. Once upon a time the responsibility to use this most powerful medium, at least sometimes, to expose people to some of the outstanding scholars, scientists and thinkers, artists and political figures in society was recognized. No more. Charlie Rose is a nice guy, I am sure, but he is no William F. Buckley, Jr. -- or Dick Cavett, for that matter, who also featured regular talks with philosophers and university professors as well as movie stars on his program. Charlie Rose is now the best we've got.

Buckley's literary tastes were helpful and instructive. I discovered G.K. Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, Kingsley Amis, and others through his program. I also discovered philosophy on Firing Line, long before I took a college course in the subject. Mortimer Adler, Paul Weiss, Brand Blanshard (I think?) and many other philosophers, both Brits and Americans, appeared on the program. I believe that Angela Davis and Malcolm Muggeridge were also on the program. Political scientists, economists, poets, politicians and activists were guests. Not once do I recall an interview with a stupid person or a celebrity there to sell something and nothing more.

Buckley also took viewers to Oxford Union debates, which were fascinating for the wit and intelligence of participants. These were young people, from all social classes in Britain, being reared for public speaking and future lives in politics. It was clear to me that the level of public discussion was simply higher in Britain than in the U.S., it probably still is higher. Both Carson and Paar said the same, insisting on including British guests on programs. Buckley is the conservative I wanted to debate -- not agree with necessarily -- because the experience would have to be instructive. Instruction or learning (not just persuasion) should be the purpose of debate.

When you make a commitment to rational discussion and debate -- not violence -- to resolve or come to terms with those with whom you disagree, you have already made the most crucial democratic commitment and the essential American political gesture. People in Iraq and other places need to think about this, if they really want democracy. Public, open, discussion and debate about political and legal decisions is the only way to retain personal freedoms. The bases for policy and legal decisions have to be exposed to examination and criticisms. Conservatives should note the tension between "security needs" and America's foundational principle of "free speech." This tension is also an issue to be discussed and debated. It is never a solution to cover-up, conceal, deny, pretend that things have not happened. Much less wise is it to destroy dissenting views or dissenters.

At the conclusion of most programs, Buckley would hold before the camera his guest's book. I found myself rushing to the bookstore after many shows. I read Jean Francois Revel, Cleveland Amory, Mortimer Adler and others immediately after seeing them on Buckley's program. As for Buckley's own writings, his "Blackford Oakes" novels are fun, the new introduction to God and Man at Yale is important, the collection of essays in The Governor Listeth holds up very well, as does his collection of readings on Conservative Thought in America.

Buckley went to school in England. Many people do not know, however, that he also lived in Mexico, as a child, or that Buckley was fluent in Spanish. Buckley is well-informed on subjects of Spanish culture and history, having taught Spanish -- at Yale, I believe. Here are Buckley's words, more timely today, concluding his remarks on the occasion of Dr. King's murder.

... more significant by far than the ghastly executions of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King -- acts committed by isolatable and isolated men -- more significant by far is the spontaneous, universal grief of a community which in fact considers itself aggrieved. That is the salient datum in America, not that we breed the aberrant excutioners of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, but that we generated the most widely shared and the most intensely felt sense of grief over the loss of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. King as is felt over the loss of one's brothers.

That is what I judge to be a newsworthy datum; a point I stress not because I feel the need to flatter the United States of America, but because I feel the need to measure the United States of America, which is the land where I was born and choose to live; which is the land where you were born and choose to live; which land, I feel increasingly, needs us all as her devoted bodyguards, even as Messrs. Kennedy and King needed more bodyguards at the crucial moments in their histories. She needs us, however quarrelsome; however disparate our views; however pronounced our separations. I feel that we should be grateful, whatever our differences, to be facing the sea -- this sea; this enemy -- in this bark. I do believe that the time is overdue to profess our continuing faith in this country and in its institutions -- including its press.

The Best Bookstores in New York.

I love walking in Manhattan. Ever since I can remember, I loved to get away from it all in search of some peace of mind by walking through the city and wandering into old bookstores, searching through shelves for a mysterious or obscure work that transports me far away from that immersion in drek that is so much a part of many people's lives, especially mine.

There is something about the experience of evil and hatred that makes those qualities, along with persons afflicted with such forms of suffering ("suffering" is exactly what hatred and evil are), intensely unattractive and a source of revulsion. The single quality shared by New Jersey politicians and their minions -- including most judges in that crime-infested state -- is that to know them is to loathe them. And I do loathe them, but only in the nicest way.

It may be that many people these days have trouble believing in God, but few of us doubt the existence of evil. And if evil is real, then logically and necessarily, the concept can only be real or meaningful in relation to its opposite, goodness. So that if there is such a thing as ultimate evil, then rest assured, ultimate or absolute goodness must also exist-- at least conceptually -- rendering our options both poignant and "real." Also, allowing for the ultimate absorption of evils into the greatest good. If there are "good" and "evil" options in this world, then it looks like we'll have to choose. Think of this as the "Coke or Pepsi?" theological dilemma. ("Is this atheism's moment?")

One of my misfortunes has been the presence of terrible evils in my life. I have also enjoyed compensating encounters with persons displaying opposed qualities of goodness and generosity, unwillingness to cause others suffering, which makes my familiar encounters with evil tolerable, evoking both my anger and pity for haters. It is only themselves that they truly hate -- and who can fail to understand their self-hatred? No one. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be plagiarized?")

Anyway, "the bookstore as Oasis" is an old tradition in literature. Many writers -- Henry Miller, Gustave Flaubert, George Orwell and others -- have shared my obsession with those dusty shelves. What follows is my list of top New York bookstores, starting with the best megastores and ending with college bookstores. This list includes my favorite indie book locales and descriptions of the denizens to be found in such environments. A bonus is offered by way of exceptional sidewalk book vendors and where you can find them.

Megabooks Are Us.

This category is reserved for Borders and Barnes & Noble. My favorite store in this category no longer exists. At the World Trade Center, there was a huge Borders on the first and second floors of (as I recall) Tower II. A coffee shop on the second floor offered a view of the graveyard at Trinity or is it St. Paul's Church? Plush and comfy leather chairs allowed one to curl up with a volume of poetry or philosophical works, enjoying an excellent view of well-dressed women on their way to the office. Many of these women "claimed" to be blondes. Some still do.

There is something about a woman in business attire -- ideally, wearing a headset of some kind, stockings and Nikes -- that is so sexy. Inevitably, no matter how fancy the suits they wore, these women were purchasing fat, glorified "romances" by female novelists with three names, one of which was always Jewish. "Barbara Taylor Cohen" was very popular.

Sometimes I'd wear a nice suit myself and carry a briefcase, ride the elevator with these people, while holding a Tom Clancy novel and explain that "I am in marketing and distribution." It's always a good idea when exiting such an elevator to say: "Things are looking up this quarter!" You'll get a smile from all the women who will assume that you are a CEO or "important" for some reason, which is clearly not visible to the naked eye.

I always frown, knowingly, burdened with the weight of responsibility and a copy of the Wall Street Journal, then I stroll in a very masculine and purposeful way towards the men's room and wave over my shoulder, like Bill Clinton.

The best Barnes & Noble stores are: 1) Union Square, where artists, hipsters and students meet publishing executives; and 2) Lincoln Center, where music lovers and law students congregate to plan adulteries. The drawback with any Barnes & Noble is rude or indifferent and ill-informed staff people. They will have to look up obscure writers, like Gore Vidal and Steven King. "How do you spell that name?" First name: "S-T-E-V-E-N" Last name: "K-I-N-G!" However, the prices are great. The Mocha Frapuccino with whipped cream and syrup, plus one nutrasweet, is awesome. How much is that cupcake? "$5.95?" American money? I'll pass.

The best post-9/11 Borders is 57th Street and Park Avenue. The Time Warner building's Borders is too filled with chi-chi people in search of a new exercise book or "something, like, really spiritual?" I like the DVD section, however, where I have spotted occasional undercover celebrities, many of whom hire persons to read books for them. Some will even pay you to sip hot chocolate in the Cafe and wear dark glasses, while refusing to sign autographs.

Best Used Books Place.

Academy on (I think) 18th Street was O.K., Skylight was all right, but the boss, the all-time daddy of used bookstore heavens is -- Strand Books, 14th Street and Broadway. Yes, they're on-line. Employees at this establishment have achieved the right balance of insouciance and nonchalance. You, the customer, are an insect and a worm. We are sensitive and poetic, writerly, post-grad grads, residing in the West Village, leading fascinating lives. We wear nose rings. We will answer your ignorant questions and be helpful, even to such sub-humans as you, because that's just the sort of good persons that we are. Once a year -- perhaps at Christmas, if you're lucky, we will smile at you -- especially if you spend more than $100.

Wearing a Strand t-shirt will get you a nod -- even as CIA agents who spot each other across the room at a black tie occasion, smile, knowingly, then nod at one another and proceed to save the Western World -- without committing crimes that may result in indictments with the arrival of a new Administration. "Blackford Oakes is the name; intelligence is the game."

The philosophy section at Strand is excellent. Poetry and fiction are superb. Ambience is awesome. Book lovers of previous eras have left an indelible imprint. Ghosts seem to hover at your elbow. One almost hears a whispered question ... "Where is the mystery section?"

College and/or Academic Book Stores.

NYU and Columbia still have the best bookstores. Students named "Jennifer" (from Connecticut) or "Baxter" (from Washington state) will jostle you on line as you wait to make your purchase at either place. They will write checks on an account in their parents' name, even as they use a credit card that is always tossed at the cashier with an enviable casualness.

"Dad" is an investment banker. They like to go "winter sporting." Europe is "nice," whereas Broadway at 110th Street is "O.K." It is always best to end your casual conversations with males of the elite school species with the remark: "later, man."

Labyrinth Books (now called something else) is the best store for academic titles. Great prices on "Derrida, Foucault and Butler on Gender Theory and Success With Sexually Ambiguous but Politically Aware Women in Search of Your Signifier" -- a work published by Verso, in 2009 -- is assured. I have a Labyrinth card which allows me to get a discount every time I spend $100. Oh, boy. Incidentally, this book will be published every year by Verso, except that it will have a different title with each new edition.

The cashier downstairs is usually named "Kimberly" or "Martha." Your best bet if you have a question is to try the upstairs people. Do not, under any circumstances, admit to being any kind of Republican when visiting this establishment.

Most Hallowed Literary Bookstore.

This category is won, hands-down, by The Gotham Bookmart. Great writers have walked those aisles at the old location, mysteriously transported to wherever the store is now. I once saw former New York Governor Hugh Carey and (I am pretty sure) Katherine Hepburn in the store.

First editions and signed copies are secret treasures of this establishment, which -- like many great writers -- is always burdened with genteel poverty, while displaying undiminished aristocratic or aesthetic refinements. This is a bookstore invented by Tenneesee Williams, or F. Scott Fitzgerald. "Seventeen gentlemen callers! ..."

Mr. Brown, the proprietor of this establishment, loves tormenting book lovers with his latest acquisitions. "I have a signed report card for Gore Vidal, while he was at Los Alamos school. It may be the one original left of Vidal's first report card, when he signed his mother's name."

I will always take the bait: "How much?"

With sadistic glee and undisguised relish, Mr. Brown will whisper: "I sold it to a Norwegian collector for $6,000."

Sometimes, I manage to top him: "I would have paid $7,000. Pity."

Mr. Brown may be depressed for as long as a week or so after one of our chats.

Sidewalk Book Characters.

The guy on seventy-second street has lots of good titles. He pretends to be comatose so as not to be bothered with the riff-raff. The best way to wake him up is to act like you're walking away with one of his books. There is absolute chaos on his tables. On the other hand, there is no telling what you'll find. This is similar to life.

The well-read character sporting a ponytail, safely esconsed by NYU -- who is permanently mellow -- also has good books. "Oh, yeah ... I have the Ronald Hayman biography of Nietzsche. It'll take me a few days to get it." That means he'll charge you twenty bucks and he's got it in his trunk, but wants you to suffer for it.

Up by my neck of the woods ("Inwood"), is a newcomer to the book biz. He's always chipper, has losts of titles, offering a strange combination of classics and ... well, the works of "Barbara Taylor Cohen." Still, I recently purchased some novels by Dickens and the plays of Richard Sheridan, which I'll read over the holidays. I plan to solve, once and for all, the "mystery of Edwin Drood."

Enjoy your literary experiences and remember: "New York is Book Country!"

"On the one hand, but on the other hand ..."

Access to my MSN group was obstructed today, December 10, 2006 1:58 P.M. for about twenty minutes. Several scans later, I'm back -- for a while, anyway. As of December 12, 2006, 8:50 A.M., I cannot view my blogs because both are allegedly blocked by Norton due to "sexual content." I wish there were some. I doubt that this is Norton's error. More likely, this is yet another censorship effort. The following web sites are being blocked as I write this:

https://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/js/4820-44421-20 http://view.atdmt.com/iview/mannkhac.oo11160x600

Last listed attacker: 82.165.243.51 I can not get back into MSN and scans are not helping, but I'm still trying to write.

"Brick Township: Mayor Resigns," The New York Times, December 8, 2006, at p. B7:

"Joseph Scarpelli, [Brick] township's mayor since 1994, has resigned with three years left in his term. Mr. Scarpelli, ... notified the township of his decision on Wednesday in a letter to Township Clerk Virginia R. Lampman, who will serve as acting mayor. He cited personal reasons and did not elaborate. His decision comes amid a federal corruption inquiry that has led to the arrests of several people connected to a trucking [company] in Howell, N.J., who were accused of scheming to bribe government officials, including officials in Brick, according to an indictment. The United States attorney's office has not identified Mr. Scarpelli as a subject of any investigation. ..."

How is Rudy Garcia doing? "Pop" goes the weasel.

Ray Rivera, "Grand Jury Hears Testimony on Menendez Lease Deal," The New York Times, December 9, 2006, at p. B2:

"A federal grand jury looking into Senator Robert Menendez's real estate dealings with a non-profit agency has begun hearing testimony from witnesses associated with the agency, according to a lawyer for one of the witnesses."

"The investigation stems from a 1983 lease deal in which Mr. Menendez rented a building that housed his former law office in Union City, N.J., to the North Hudson Community Action Corporation, an antipoverty agency whose former director was a large contributor to Mr. Menendez."

It is not mentioned whether chromium has been found under that property owned or leased to the non-profit group. Menendez rarely visited his own law office. Most large properties in Hudson County probably are contaminated by buried chromium.

It is also not reported in the newspaper what is the status of the Bayonne project receiving $30 MILLION in federal "seed" money (that's your money, America), thanks to Senator Menendez, at this time -- and whether efforts are now being made to determine if chromium and worse toxins may also be found at that potential development site. Withholding such information from purchasers would be criminal fraud, if it were deliberate and (given the land involved in the Menendez caper) it is difficult to believe that any toxins found in Bayonne would come as a shock to people in Hudson County.

Hudson County leads the nation in illegal and lethal chromium deposits, in legal and political corruption, with the possible exception of Camden County, which is also in New Jersey. People suffering from various cancers in Hudson County should be sure to thank their corrupt public officials. Slick move to sell that rotten turf to America's taxpayers, boys. ("Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics" then "Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.")

Is there a connection betwen those two realities? Political and moral corruption balanced by carcinogens and poisons in the earth. "New Jersey -- What's that smell?"

It is alleged that there are several on-going investigations in New Jersey converging at the moment. There are those who suggest that "much more is coming." Many believe that the greatest surprises have yet to be reported in the media, though this can not be confirmed or denied, at this "point" in time. The manufactured media silence concerning these N.J. atrocities undermines claims of a free press in America. You can't solve this one with a bribe, boys.

Mr. Menendez is a member of the New Jersey Bar Association. Any ethics inquiry by the OAE, arising from these transactions, has not been mentioned in the media. The OAE is not always so careful about protecting an attorney's -- or any target's -- personal privacy nor so reluctant to investigate or "develop" allegations of nefarious conduct by New Jersey lawyers, combined with vicious slanders aimed against a person who is not yet the target of "contrived" grievances. OAE lawyers, of course, are always beyond reproach in their own minds. ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

I wonder why they are so hesitant in this case? Is it true that "John" at the OAE is in deep trouble? What a shame. Would the OAE go after an attorney at the bhest of an elected official in danger of being exposed as a crook? Please tell your friends in the FBI about this interesting situation in New Jersey. Ms. Dow, are you the attorney general of New Jersey? Or are you taking anap for the next four years?

"Should science do away with religion?"

Michael Brooks, "In Place of God," The New Scientist November 18-24, 2006, at p. 8.
Stephen Jay Gould, Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine, 1999), p. 3.


I was walking down Broadway, near Lincoln Center -- minding my own business -- when I noticed a headline in a magazine cover: "A Crusade Against God!" Considering that this magazine purports to be a scientific publication (the headline is one of several examples of militant atheism from scientists that I have seen lately), I thought it was high time to address the issue of whether science makes religion obsolete.

I have selected one typical example of the "let's-do-away-with-religion" genre. I will criticize this article. I wish to make it clear before I do so to people who have also seen quite a few of these articles out there, finding themselves and their faiths dismissed as archaic or unenlightened, that they have nothing to worry about.

The vast majority of persons on the planet are religious in some form -- including most of these "crusading" scientists who are adherents of the new religion of "scientism" -- so that this group of zealots is very much in the minority in their self-contradictory opposition to faith. It is true that only about 15% of scientists believe in a "personal" God. When you expand the question to encompass any concept of God, the number rises to approximately 40%, according to an article I read in the New York Times. When scientists are asked whether they are "religious" or "spiritual" -- as distinct from members of any organized religion -- the number rises even higher. This should make it clear why definitions of terms are so important in these discussions.

What many of these (in a literal sense) "rocket scientists" fail to realize is that any time people speak of a "crusade" against religion, they are using the language of religion and not of scientific rationality. To suggest that you are forming a religion whose goal is to eradicate religion is a little inconsistent. Science does not engage in "crusades."

Science seeks to establish its truths about the empirical world through observation and experiment, proof and rational argument; religion suggests meanings through evocative narratives and images, especially symbols and clusters of symbols, concerned with mysteries at the center of human life, like love and death. These forms of discourse, science and religion, do not -- and should not -- compete. Science and religion jointly contribute to human self-understandings. ("Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Philosophy of Science.")

This article focuses on a gathering of scientists at La Jolla, California for a symposium entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival" hosted by the Science Network, a "science promoting" coalition of scientists and media professionals. The scientists gathered to address three questions: "1) Should science do away with religion? 2) What would science put in religion's place? 3) And can we be good without God?"

Notice the assumptions and confusions in these questions. These guys and gals could use a good course in philosophy. What do you mean by "religion"? If you seek to perform the tasks of religion with science, then you have not eliminated religion. You have merely created a new religion out of science by translating all ultimate issues into the language of the laboratory.

The question is not whether science should do away with religion, but whether such a thing is even meaningful or coherent, as an ambition or intellectual project, since religion is fundamental to the human psyche, presumably for good reasons. Nothing important to human flourishing or survival is just "there" for no reason.

Why are we equipped with this religious impulse? That's a good scientific question, as opposed to the values issues involved in deciding whether science should "do away" with religion. Should science do away with the human drive to make art? Should science eliminate human curiosity about non-scientific subjects? Should science do away with the human need to breathe? Should science eliminate the human capacity for love? Can science do any of these things? No. Get a load of this guy:

First up to address the initial question was cosmologist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas, Austin. His answer was an unequivocal yes. "The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion," Weinberg told the congregation. (p. 9.)

Right, Steve. Thanks. Where are the free donuts? No one asked this guy to define his terms, apparently. The person writing this article fails to tell us whether there was an agreed-upon definition of religion, God, science or truth at this little academic get-together. Potato chips, anyone?

Also, we are not told how these words are being used in this very article. Reading between the lines, it seems that most of these great intellects were equating religion with the Catholic Church, Christian churches, or political power-structures, or antiquated scientific beliefs about the empirical world -- all of which are distinct from religion or the mystery of God.

Richard Dawkins was driven by his "selfish genes" to do his militant atheist act. Carolyn Porco -- I am about to be highly "male" and, I hope, "politically incorrect" -- of the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado (let's be nice she may be a blond with a tan), popped up to contribute this bit of wisdom:

"If anyone has a replacement for God, then scientists do."

Wrong, Carolyn. Scientists are the only people who cannot provide a replacement for God or religion, since science is not -- and should not be -- concerned with "comforting" people or with meanings. Rather, science is about discovering empirical truths in as "objective" and "value free" a manner as possible, subject to ethical constraints. Healing professionals should ponder whether they will be scientists and human beings? Or only one of those two things? Unless you are both, you will not be a very successful or happy person -- nor a very good therapist. This objectivity and value freedom may be impossible for human beings in an absolute sense. "That means it's all relative!" No, settle down fashionistas.

Human knowledge of truth may be limited or partial, concerned with human purposes, even as the total truth to be known is an abstract potentiality or concept existing independently of human wishes or capacities, which is why we need philosophy, science, and religion. Keep epistemology separate from ontology or metaphysics. Ms. Porco tells us that: "Being a scientist and staring immensity and eternity in the face every day is about as meaningful as it gets."

Why is it meaningful? Your experience of awe or meaning is "subjective," Carolyn. It is not revealed by any experiment. It is simply known to you immediately, phenomenologically, shaping and coloring your encounter with the cosmos, as a scientist. It is a religious experience, except that you cannot use the word "religious" because you are assuming that "religious" is a word reserved only for what happens in a church on Sunday.

One of the most religious moments in my life happened in a hospital room as my daughter was born, then when I held her in my arms. Another occurred when I attended my grandmother's funeral. A third took place when my hand touched a woman's face; a fourth when I brushed away a tear from another woman's eyes. None of these moments involved rituals or organizations. All were deeply religious epiphanies. The meaning of these moments is not reducible to results of a scientific experiment.

Notice the leap from "is" to "ought" being made by Ms. Porco in her comments, which is fine by me, provided that she recognizes the profound philosophical implications of such a move, which she doesn't:

The big challenge according to Porco, will be dealing with awareness of our own mortality. The God-concept brings a sense of immortality [not necessarily!] something science can't offer. Instead, she suggested highlighting the fact that our atoms came from stardust and would return to the cosmos -- as mass or energy -- after we die. "We should teach people to find comfort in that thought."

That thought has to do with immortality. Furthermore, it is a restatement of basic Buddhist beiefs. By "teaching" people "to find comfort in that thought," Ms. Porco has stepped out of her role as a scientist ("is") and become a religious guru ("ought"), attempting what she admits scientists cannot do: to provide meaning for human experiences of tragedy and mystery. What she says next is an unconscious linguistic shifting to the poetry of religion as distinct from science:

We can find comfort in knowing that everyone who has ever lived on the Earth will some day adorn the heavens.

This illustrates not the replacement of religion, but the reinforcing of religious insights by the latest scientific findings, which are compatible with the MEANINGS of ancient religious parables and myths. Objections to the idea of God by several speakers centered on the misuse of the concept of divinity to account for what science has not discovered. This is irrelevant to the function of the God or "Deus principle," which is to help us explain the meaning of what science has already discovered and may yet discover. Finally, a voice of sanity at this gathering:

Joan Roughgarden, a professor of geophysics and biology at Stanford University, California, described some of the statements being made as an exaggerated and highly rose-colored picture of the capabilities of science" while presenting a caricature of people of faith. Attempts by militant atheists to represent science as a substitute for religion would be a huge mistake, she said, and might even set back science's cause. "They are entitled as atheists to generate more activism within the atheist community," she told New Scientist. "But scientists are portraying themselves as the enlightened white knights while people of faith are portrayed as idiots who can't tell the difference between a [communion] wafer and a piece of meat. " People of faith are being antagonized, and this is a lose-lose proposition."

As someone whose writing is subjected to every kind of computer attack on a daily basis, whose publication efforts are frustrated by people who (often) have no clue of what I am discussing and no knowledge of the sources that I am quoting, I can relate to this observation. The level of philosophical and theological sophistication among brilliant scientists and middle-brow lawyers is sometimes child-like. Yet these people feel qualified to "teach" the rest of us -- especially someone like me (who is ethnically suspect), who is also to be insulted and informed on matters that I sometimes know far better than they do -- especially about ultimate issues. Why? Racism? Arrogance? Ignorance? Stupidity? I think it is all of the above.

It is deemed unproblematic for these "scientists" to ponder whether they should eliminate religion. Religion -- which is a life or death matter for billions of people throughout the world -- will be eliminated by these few American scientists in California (where else?), who have decided that "we" must move beyond such nonsense. What were they smoking at this gathering?

I am sure that none of these great minds turned to one of the waiters or janitors at this establishment, possibly an illegal immigrant from Mexico or some other country, and asked: "Why are you wearing that religious symbol?" They might have heard a story from that humble worker of human suffering and pain -- humiliation at the hands of comfortable scientists, perhaps -- poverty and hunger, shared and made meaningful or bearable by the love and compassion depicted, let us say, in the image of a man in mortal agony upon a cross expressing love for his tormentors. Stephen Jay Gould writes:

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the EQUALLY IMPORTANT, but utterly different realm of human purposes, meanings, and values -- subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate [and which, I think, overlap with factuality,] but [which science] can never resolve.