I’m very tired of hearing this definition of insanity: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” People think that they are so clever when they use this definition against their opponent that you can almost see them straining their own arm to pat themselves on the back. For example, I hear this slogan most often as an out of hand dismissal of Communism: “Well, Communism may sound nice, but has been tried before and has failed; therefore trying it again would literally be insane.”
I’m not here to defend Communism; it has some serious problems in my judgment. But I want to discuss this odd analysis of insanity, and then next week, apply these observations to the current health care debate. There are two dramatic insufficiencies with this so-called definition of insanity. First, it would require us to say that it was insane of Edison to try again and again, even 100 times, to invent the light bulb. It must have been insane – right?, because he did the same activity over and over again expecting different results. This, of course, is false. The obvious response is that even though engaged in same activity again and again, he did it in a different way each time. That makes his actions completely sane.
Or consider my adventures with my computer. Sometimes, I click a button, and I get an error message. Then, I click the same button again. And I get the exact same error message again. This may happen a third or fourth time, until the fifth time it finally works. I did everything in exactly the same way, but my actions are not insane because I was hoping – and reasonably so - that the underlying conditions had changed.
What these two examples show is that it is stupid to say, for example, “well, health care reform has been tried several times before, and failed every time; therefore it is insane for Obama to try it again.” It is not insane for both of the reasons introduced above; Obama is trying to reform the health care system in a different way (like Edison). Furthermore, the underlying conditions have changed (like me clicking the same button repeatedly). Next week I want to discuss these underlying conditions that have shifted.
2.15.2010
2.07.2010
American Idol, the Coliseum, and Exploitation
The Roman’s treatment of the Christians in the first century is well-known. According to tradition, Romans went to the Coliseum to watch people ripped to bits by animals, all for the sake of entertainment. This is exploitation: the Christian had a purpose, to stay alive, while the Roman also had a purpose, to be entertained; the attainment of the Roman’s purpose involved over-riding the Christian’s purpose. Today, fortunately, we have evolved as a society. There are no more socially acceptable forms of exploitation this disturbing. Right?
Consider American Idol (AI). As most know, the first few weeks of the show consist of the auditions, of which there seem to be four kinds, three of which are valid entertainment. The first is when someone auditions, and they are basically a joke, but you get the feeling that they are ‘in’ on the joke. So ha, ha, they get their 15 minutes of fame by being silly, and then go back and brag to their friends. Another two types are those who are decent singers, and make it, while some are decent signers, but don’t.
The fourth type of audition, however, is disturbing. These consist of contestants who made the journey, confident that they are in the second or third categories I mentioned (i.e. at least they have a shot at making it). Unfortunately for them, they are there for a very different reason: to be publicly mocked and humiliated (check out this video, starting 2:30 into it). This is exploitation, because this kid goes to his audition, hoping that this may be the first step to a signing career. He realizes this may not happen, but he believes he is being auditioned in good faith. So his purpose is to achieve fame through music. AI also has a purpose, which is to boost ratings. In order to achieve this purpose, they bring in the kid for an audition in order to mock him. The kid doesn’t realize until after the audition that he has been exploited; the audition was not in good faith, as he had believed.
So the result of this exploitation? AI’s ratings inch ever upward, while a teenager was humiliated and destroyed for our entertainment. So who has it worse? The exploited Christian, or the exploited AI contestant? In one sense, of course the Roman Christian had it worse, because the Coliseum created orphans and widows. But besides that, here are some brief considerations in favor of the AI contestant:
1) The Coliseum only held a few thousand, while several million joyfully watched the humiliation of this unsuspecting teenager.
2) The Christian does not have enduring pain (his pain only lasted 20 or so seconds), while the AI contestant will remember it with great embarrassment for the rest of his life.
3) The AI contestant experienced emotional and not physical pain, and thus could easily develop some antisocial behaviors, depression, etc.
4) The Christian was not humiliated in the sense that he was proud and then brought low for all to see. The AI contestant, on the other hand, clearly had the rug pulled out from under him. That is, what he was most proud of was the object of mockery.
5) The Christian, while awaiting the public execution, took heart in the persecution because he believed it is a sign of God’s blessing (Matt 5), while the experience was just purely bad for the AI contestant; there is no silver lining.
For these reasons and perhaps a few that I am not thinking of right now, I just don’t buy that we are any more civilized than those who had season tickets to the Coliseum.
Consider American Idol (AI). As most know, the first few weeks of the show consist of the auditions, of which there seem to be four kinds, three of which are valid entertainment. The first is when someone auditions, and they are basically a joke, but you get the feeling that they are ‘in’ on the joke. So ha, ha, they get their 15 minutes of fame by being silly, and then go back and brag to their friends. Another two types are those who are decent singers, and make it, while some are decent signers, but don’t.
The fourth type of audition, however, is disturbing. These consist of contestants who made the journey, confident that they are in the second or third categories I mentioned (i.e. at least they have a shot at making it). Unfortunately for them, they are there for a very different reason: to be publicly mocked and humiliated (check out this video, starting 2:30 into it). This is exploitation, because this kid goes to his audition, hoping that this may be the first step to a signing career. He realizes this may not happen, but he believes he is being auditioned in good faith. So his purpose is to achieve fame through music. AI also has a purpose, which is to boost ratings. In order to achieve this purpose, they bring in the kid for an audition in order to mock him. The kid doesn’t realize until after the audition that he has been exploited; the audition was not in good faith, as he had believed.
So the result of this exploitation? AI’s ratings inch ever upward, while a teenager was humiliated and destroyed for our entertainment. So who has it worse? The exploited Christian, or the exploited AI contestant? In one sense, of course the Roman Christian had it worse, because the Coliseum created orphans and widows. But besides that, here are some brief considerations in favor of the AI contestant:
1) The Coliseum only held a few thousand, while several million joyfully watched the humiliation of this unsuspecting teenager.
2) The Christian does not have enduring pain (his pain only lasted 20 or so seconds), while the AI contestant will remember it with great embarrassment for the rest of his life.
3) The AI contestant experienced emotional and not physical pain, and thus could easily develop some antisocial behaviors, depression, etc.
4) The Christian was not humiliated in the sense that he was proud and then brought low for all to see. The AI contestant, on the other hand, clearly had the rug pulled out from under him. That is, what he was most proud of was the object of mockery.
5) The Christian, while awaiting the public execution, took heart in the persecution because he believed it is a sign of God’s blessing (Matt 5), while the experience was just purely bad for the AI contestant; there is no silver lining.
For these reasons and perhaps a few that I am not thinking of right now, I just don’t buy that we are any more civilized than those who had season tickets to the Coliseum.
2.01.2010
The Problem of Evil, Part Three
I want to close by addressing two groups who will be skeptical of what I have said. First, there are the believers, who take me to be saying that God is not good. This is false; what I am saying is that God is not omnibenevolent, or what may be equivalent, that God is not moral in the way that we understand morality. As near as I can tell, the Biblical proclamations of God’s goodness amount to saying that in the end, God will make things as they are supposed to be. That’s not the same as saying that God respects the autonomy of persons, acts according to their interests, etc. Those are the ethical standards that we require of other people.
There is at least one extremely important thing that this does not imply. We all know that in matters small (justifying a lie) and great (the terrorist attacks of 9/11), there have been and always will be those who believe themselves to be ‘special agents’ of God’s will, as it were. Since God doesn’t adhere to the normal rules of ethics, and they are God’s agents, they are also above the law. I think that this is the definition of - not merely an example of - bad religion. Run away, dont walk away, from such a theology.
But is this not a double-standard? Is it not unjust for God to require things of us that God does not require of God’s self? Yes, of course it is a double-standard; and no, it is not unjust. Aristotle has a definition of justice that may be relevant here: justice is treating equals equally, and non-equals unequally. Using Aristotle’s observation about justice, we might say that since we are not equal to God, God’s justice does not require treating us as equals.
There will be many non-believers, no doubt, who say something like this: “Well, how could you worship a God who is not ethical?” At some level, there really is no conversation to be had here. If you truly believe that God’s way of doing things is unfair or backwards, then you owe it to yourself to walk away; that would be consistent with your belief. But I will simply refer to my point in the previous paragraph: if there is such a being as a Creator and Sustainer of the universe, then it would be arrogant to assume that that being should be held to our standards. I realize that there is a big, if not impossible, ‘if’ for many, but that is not the point here.
Finally, I want to make it clear that the problem of evil is still something that religious believers will always have to deal with; it’s always frustrating to see injustice, and it there will always be those of us who ask ‘why’ when tragedy strikes. But if my argument the last few weeks is accepted, then the problem of evil is not a logical problem, and this is because God is not omnibenevolent.
There is at least one extremely important thing that this does not imply. We all know that in matters small (justifying a lie) and great (the terrorist attacks of 9/11), there have been and always will be those who believe themselves to be ‘special agents’ of God’s will, as it were. Since God doesn’t adhere to the normal rules of ethics, and they are God’s agents, they are also above the law. I think that this is the definition of - not merely an example of - bad religion. Run away, dont walk away, from such a theology.
But is this not a double-standard? Is it not unjust for God to require things of us that God does not require of God’s self? Yes, of course it is a double-standard; and no, it is not unjust. Aristotle has a definition of justice that may be relevant here: justice is treating equals equally, and non-equals unequally. Using Aristotle’s observation about justice, we might say that since we are not equal to God, God’s justice does not require treating us as equals.
There will be many non-believers, no doubt, who say something like this: “Well, how could you worship a God who is not ethical?” At some level, there really is no conversation to be had here. If you truly believe that God’s way of doing things is unfair or backwards, then you owe it to yourself to walk away; that would be consistent with your belief. But I will simply refer to my point in the previous paragraph: if there is such a being as a Creator and Sustainer of the universe, then it would be arrogant to assume that that being should be held to our standards. I realize that there is a big, if not impossible, ‘if’ for many, but that is not the point here.
Finally, I want to make it clear that the problem of evil is still something that religious believers will always have to deal with; it’s always frustrating to see injustice, and it there will always be those of us who ask ‘why’ when tragedy strikes. But if my argument the last few weeks is accepted, then the problem of evil is not a logical problem, and this is because God is not omnibenevolent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)