Demagoguery, Anger and Politics

I have often wondered what it was like to live in Germany during the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, to see the tentacles of Nazism wrap themselves around daily life and begin to control all social and political discourse.  We see Hitler and his henchmen as such evil and detestable characters today that it is difficult for us to imagine how they could have seized power in one of the most educated and sophisticated countries in the world.

Was Hitler a ridiculous figure at first to most people?  Did everyone find his ravings amusing and good fodder for parody?  At what point did people become aware that his following was growing rapidly and that his brown shirts were a real and terrifying force?  Did ordinary people shrug their shoulders and acknowledge that Hitler had tapped into a deep anger and frustration, never thinking that he might actually force his way into the halls of power?  At what point did they begin to realize that this was not just humorous political theater?

Donald Trump leads the polls for the Republican nomination.  When he announced his candidacy, politicians on the left and right smiled patronizingly and predicted that he would provide good entertainment, but certainly no serious threat.  Recently, Jeb Bush acknowledged that Trump was ‘tapping into anti-establishment anger’, but his campaign staff is apparently delighted by Trump’s strong showing, believing that the more successful and poisonous Trump is, the more Jeb will be cast as the ‘serious’ antidote candidate.

What is all this anger about anyway?  Political issues have always sparked emotional responses, but the anger and the paranoia these days seem to be at fever pitch.  Are people angry about the economy, about slow job growth?  Well, certainly the economy could be better and there are not enough middle class jobs, but the economy doesn’t seem to be in the kind of horrible shape that would cause deep anger.  Is the anger all about our foreign affairs?  Does anyone think there are easy answers to the morass of international issues any administration faces?  Perhaps the anger is about social issues - gay rights, promiscuity, religion or abortion?  Or perhaps about the changing face of America – the immigration of Hispanic, Asian and African people, legal or illegal.  But all of this seems manageable, not justifying the very visceral anger that seems to lurk under the surface across America.

It is almost as though people enjoy being angry, even about issues that are abstractions and far removed from their daily lives and pleasures; that there is an insidious temptation to look for the dark side and revel in rumors of plots, conspiracies and apocalyptic events.  I have seen blogs and comments that indicate an unfeigned joy at the thought of armed struggle in the United States.  Over what?!!

I suspect that identifying with a demagogue and his or her associated causes is a way to find meaning in an otherwise banal and uneventful life.  It is a means to deflect self-hatred or regret and to aim this energy and fury at perceived enemies.   It is also a way to escape the relentless change that our society is undergoing and the huge effort required, both intellectual and emotional, for people to adjust – the change in our cultural identity, the change in technology, the change in sexual mores, the change in employment models, etc. etc.

It seems alarmist to worry about a Nazi type of demagoguery and anger taking hold in the U.S. today.  We have a long history of peaceful political dialogue that resists violence even when tempers and passions are at meter pegging levels.  But is it really that far-fetched?  It is difficult to discern whether Donald Trump is a harmless buffoon or a dangerous megalomaniac.  People who are so certain of themselves and so unwilling to accept ambiguity and nuance in the world are unpredictable.

I take comfort in the fact that most likely Donald Trump will self-destruct in the coming months and be recognized by the good American people for the blowhard that he is.  But there is just enough charisma in the man and just enough wingnuts in the land to make one wonder whether this could be the beginning of a very strange and very frightening odyssey.

Vanity, Envy and Competition Part 2

Freud introduced a model of the psyche that was based on concepts of the id, ego and super-ego.  The id is defined as the primal, instinctual desires and impulses that every human being has.  The ego acts to mediate between the id and reality.  Freud said the ego is like a man on horseback, controlling the superior power of the id based on real circumstances and needs.  The super-ego is similar to conscience, an internalization of cultural rules and standards that is developed over time. The ego must balance the id and super-ego, thus careening from passion to guilt to joy to sorrow.

When we speak of egotism, we recognize that in our most primitive state we are focused on our own needs and desires.  Even with the modifying influences of the super-ego and the social contract that our environment imposes, we cannot help but be egotistical to some degree.  But why does this egotism so often express itself in competition or comparison to others, and why do our self-image and contentment become so entangled in those comparisons?

As infants we are trained to seek approval and affirmation.  We squeal in delight as our parents lavish praise upon us – ‘What a good baby!’, ‘What a smart baby!’, ‘Look at you crawling!’, ‘Look at you talking!’ and on and on.  We learn to equate praise with love.  To be loved is to be happy, therefore to be praised is to be happy. And so it begins.

At first, this praise is focused on individual achievement that is unrelated to other human beings.  But soon enough our parents, teachers, coaches and others begin to praise us for being better than someone else – the best grade in the class, the best time in the 100m freestyle, the one who scored the goal, the one who solved the puzzle, the pretty one, the sexy one (well, that comes a little later one would hope!)

Eventually, the pleasure of praise becomes an addiction.  When this praise is not as fluidly forthcoming as it was in early childhood, our ego seeks out implicit praise by establishing our own internal evaluations that we must constantly validate.  Even if we are not explicitly praised by others, we assume that they are praising us if we are smarter, faster, better looking, have better clothes, have a nicer car, have a higher paying job, go to a better school.

Our culture heaps praise on the winners.  Even once we are beyond the tender, innocent praise of our parents, the monster of our addiction grows unfettered as every facet of our lives is weighed in the scale of cultural significance and we are assigned our rank.

Where our parents’ guileless indoctrination leaves off, the media and the culture take over.  Every magazine, movie and television image tempts us with comparisons – do we have the right clothes, the right car, the right house?  Do we eat at the best restaurants, do we vacation at the best locations, are our careers noteworthy? 

Most of consumer advertising is based on producing a feeling of inadequacy that must be transformed into contentment by the acquisition of various material items.  But even non-advertising media tend to reinforce society’s valuation of people based on comparisons.

As infants, we strive to grow and learn from instinct and a native curiosity.  But as we grow older, our efforts become more goal driven, and often that goal is to garner accolades from some quarter or to attain some measure of status.  We may play a sport because we love the game, but once success comes, the relentless practice and ambition is certainly motivated in part by a desire for renown and praise. 

In many of our endeavors, it is difficult to separate our own joy in an activity from the desire to be acclaimed for our efforts.  And the more acclaim we receive the more we need it.  It is truly an addiction.  We see it again and again with the most successful and famous.  Does Donald Trump want to become President because of an altruistic desire to help the nation?  Don’t make me laugh!  His vanity compels him!  He is not content to be one of the richest men on earth because the addiction he has is even larger than his wealth.

Vanity is defined by Webster as excessive pride in one’s appearance, qualities, abilities or achievements.  I would modify this definition by taking out the word excessive.  All pride for oneself is vanity.  Being happy or content with one’s appearance, achievements, etc. is fine. But to me the word pride implies a comparison with others.  And once that act of comparison begins, where does it end?

Our vanity is not just a pleasure-seeking mechanism.  It is also a futile attempt to avoid the discomfort of our insecurity.  Vanity and insecurity are the ying and yang of our daily social interactions and internal struggles.  We are locked in an unending pendulum swing from one to the other.

The irony of vanity is that from a rational point of view it makes almost no sense.  What we are praising and seeking and feeling is for the most part a purely random act of nature.  Have you ever noticed that one of the highest forms of praise is:  ‘He got an A on that test and he didn’t even have to study!’, or ‘He is an incredible natural athlete!’  How absurd!!  If he didn’t study, then his achievement is solely on the basis of his native intelligence, which was an accident of birth.  The same is true of the natural athlete.  We are celebrating luck!  There is no merit here, only a fact of genetics.

So much of our vanity centers on natural endowment – beauty, intelligence, athleticism. Even such traits as energy, ambition, and drive are probably heavily influenced by our genetic makeup.  Yet we celebrate them and seek acknowledgement of our good fortune in the thousand interactions where we subtly or explicitly proclaim our accomplishments.

Is there human activity that is not sullied by the curse of vanity?  Of course!  Fortunately, there are many moments where we are liberated from this vicious cycle and can revel in the joys of this world.  But sadly the effects are prone to hang over us like a dark cloud and plague us in the quiet moments when we contemplate our life’s value and meaning.

Vanity, Envy and Competition - Part 1

“I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.” 

This verse from Ecclesiastes, ostensibly written by King Solomon, is a pretty complete dismissal of mankind’s striving.  The fact that Solomon, who had achieved so much in his life, was so cynical about human effort, is pretty sobering.

Not long after I started college something focused my attention on the large role that vanity plays in our lives and I have been in equal parts fascinated and horrified by it ever since.

In writing this little piece of analysis, I am somewhat fearful of exposing myself as a terribly vain and insecure person, but I am fairly certain that I am not unusual in this regard, so I will take the risk.  After all, Solomon is pretty good company!

I had grown up in the heart of the 60’s and my high school years were a far cry from today’s cauldron of competition and egomania.  Few of my classmates worried about grades and we certainly didn’t talk about them. Even the dreaded SAT’s were fairly low key.  We were more worried about the Vietnam War than getting into college and we focused much of our energy and thoughts on the social changes around us.

Now of course no adolescence is complete without the ‘thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to’ during this period – the social hierarchy and posturing, the gain and loss of friends, the athletic competition and so on.  But I do believe my generation’s experience, particularly in the realm of competition and pressure, is a cakewalk in comparison with the gauntlet that today’s youth must run.

However, when I went off to Stanford (okay, already a pretentious remark – this is, after all, a piece about vanity!) in 1972 I soon encountered a much more obvious strain of vanity than I had experienced before.  And I say this believing strongly that the Stanford of my day cannot hold a candle to the super citadel of ego that Stanford is today (see my blog entry on Stepford University - http://www.rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2014/11/stepford-university.html - for more on that!).

My classmates were subtly (and occasionally, quite brazenly) probing one another for details on SAT scores, family wealth, travel experiences and a host of other scoring factors to determine the relative pecking order.  Even drug experiences and joint-rolling prowess could potentially establish one’s superiority or uniqueness in a group that was filled with super achievers.

This is not to say that we spent all of our time engaging in such nonsense.  But it happened often enough that it made an impression on me.  I found myself envying some of my fellow students their wealth or social position.  Some could speak foreign languages and I soon felt inadequate in this arena.  I was repulsed by the posturing whenever I encountered it, but I found that I was not above subtly bragging when the opportunity came my way. 

Yet the irony was that bragging and pretension did not produce a positive feeling in either the bragger or the reluctant recipient.  Why then, were we so apt to engage in it? What possible benefit were we deriving?  What horrible psychological problem was at the root of it all?

And thus began my investigation into the complex web of vanity, envy and competition that is both the curse and the driving force for much of human endeavor.  I am not quite vain enough to believe that I have anything unique or definitive to say on the subject, but I have done enough thinking in this area to pose some interesting questions for my readers to ponder.  More to come.

The Insolence of Time

When I was a young boy I was playing football with a group of friends on a lush lawn covered with leaves one autumn afternoon.  I was experiencing such immense joy.  As the light began to fade, I wanted so badly to keep playing and to somehow have time suspended so that this incredibly fun game would not have to end.  But of course it did end . . .

Time is the merciless master of our lives.  Omar Khayam, the Persian poet, expresses the painful fact in a beautiful way:

“The moving finger writes, and having writ,

moves on, nor all thy piety nor wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line

Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it”

Sometimes I want to cry out in frustration at the relentless nature of time.  Each moment experienced, then gone, never to be re-captured.  We are told to live life in the present or the moment, but the moment goes so quickly, often before we can even understand its import.  We are left with a memory, which then also proceeds to slowly fade away.

Of course sometimes the passage of time is of comfort – a trauma or a sadness that becomes less acute, less painful as the memory of it ebbs.  If time did not pass and memories fade, then the heartache and tragedies of this world would be unbearable.

When I am trying to rein in my eating and become more disciplined, I play a game and remind myself that the act of eating will only last a few moments and then the taste and the pleasure will only be a memory - hardly worth all the calories!  I am often successful in this little trick, but it has the nasty side effect of making me rather depressed.

Most human beings don’t focus on this transitory aspect of our lives other than to vaguely acknowledge it.  To dissect time too fervently is a philosopher’s habit and it can only lead to an unsettling malaise.

We speak in abstract terms about time as a fourth dimension, and of the space-time continuum.  Movies and books depict time travel and we are allowed to envision time as a kind of real-life video, with rewind, fast-forward and pause functions at our fingertips.  Would it be pleasurable to re-experience our lives whenever we wished to do so; to go back to wonderful moments and savor the emotions and the feelings exactly as they first occurred?  Not to change them, but simply to enjoy the experience again?  I don’t know.  The repeated re-living of an event might backfire, make it mundane.

Memories are interesting.  At first they are so vivid – almost as if one is experiencing the moment rather than simply observing it in one’s mind.  But as time goes on it becomes more difficult to summon that same feeling.  In the end, a memory becomes a story, and we are not entirely certain whether something actually happened or we have just been telling ourselves the story for so long that it seems real!  We can no longer ‘envision’ the event itself or see it in our mind’s eye.

The reason people identify with the ‘live in the moment’ adage is the sad fact that we spend so much of our lives either reminiscing or looking forward to something that will happen in the future.  But living in the moment is not easy!  The mind is a restless nomad.  If one’s mind is idle for even a few seconds, it will wander to the past or the future.  It takes great discipline to focus on the ‘moment’ unless one is busily invested in some activity that prevents one’s mind from wandering.  And if the mind is busy in that pursuit, is it really consciously living in the ‘moment’ – aware of its pleasurable state?  Tis a paradox!

The unyielding, forward-moving nature of time is particularly distressing for those of us whose lives are more than half spent and hurtling inexorably toward the great abyss!  And to make matters worse, time accelerates in a most unpleasant matter with age.  We want to scream out “SLOW DOWN!”, but we know it is futile.  So we try to derive what pleasure we can from fading memories and limited anticipations, as our bodies decay in a most undignified manner.  Well, I guess that is a bit melodramatic.

I will confess that overall my life has been quite joyful.  I am grateful beyond words for the majority of what I have experienced and hopeful for the years I have remaining.  But I will say that TIME is confusing and a bit frustrating, and, when I think deeply upon it, downright unsettling.

Sex

Is it just me becoming more conservative with age, or does it seem somewhat absurd to describe a film or play or TV show that probes ever deeper into our sexual lives as ‘courageous’ or ‘groundbreaking’?  Hasn't the ground been pretty much broken, pulverized even?  Is there really any risk in the entertainment industry these days in creating a sexually provocative work?

I am no advocate for censorship or a return to the repressive times of yesteryear.  And I recognize that much good has come from the sexual revolution of the past fifty years.  Open discussion and awareness of sexual issues, techniques and feelings have contributed to a much healthier approach to sexuality.  The pendulum has indeed swung dramatically from the conservative mores of the post-WW2 era and even more from those of the Victorian age.

But perhaps the pendulum swing has now lingered at the extreme of sexual obsession.  From Freud to Madison Avenue, sex has been elevated to a dominant place in our lives. There is almost nothing in our cultural landscape that does not rely heavily on bold references to sex.    What are the implications of that saturation, and how do we regard sex in the 21^st century?

For most cultures through the ages, sex was viewed as closely related to procreation and marriage.  Both religious and cultural mores regarded sexual promiscuity as dangerous and immoral, and strongly prohibited adultery, often applying capital punishment to violations.  Sexual desire was acknowledged, but seen as a weakness of the flesh.  Of course there was always a contradictory and often hypocritical approach to sexuality by religious leaders and other authority figures.  Even today we find that many who strongly lament the degradation of societal morality end up in the news because of a lurid affair.

But then came the sexual revolution, launched in part by the availability of much better birth control methods and the woman’s liberation movement.  It shattered some of the more repressive taboos and allowed a healthier and more open dialogue on sexuality.  With men and women putting off marriage until their twenties or later, the notion of pre-marital celibacy seems antiquated and a recipe for mass frustration.  It also makes sense for a couple to test their sexual compatibility before committing to a long term relationship.

Recent polls have indicated that abstinence before marriage is a rare thing, with most men and women averaging 8 or more sexual partners before settling on a single partner. 

But like many things, once an absolute is abandoned, the question of where to draw the line is a tricky one.  If one believes that some sort of a relationship is a pre-requisite for physical intimacy, then what criteria make sense?  Is ten dates a relationship, or will one really good date suffice!  There is no easy formula, and it seems that for most people the level of relationship required diminishes rapidly as they notch more conquests on their belts!

After all, sex is pleasurable, even when there is no love or commitment or trust or slow buildup of a relationship. And it is an amazingly strong impulse. So in the last 50 years since the sexual revolution started one might claim that it has become acceptable to view sex as a recreational activity, like any other pleasurable activity.

It is an interesting question to ask oneself: Can sex be viewed as a purely physical activity and enjoyed without worrying about feelings or relationships or commitment?  Is the association of sex and love a relic of the repressive past?  Or can sex be both things – an amusing act of whimsy for purely physical stimulation in one instance, and a passionate, deeply felt act of intimacy in another?

If we accept the idea that sex can be purely a recreational activity, then is it not a logical next step to continue to have sexual encounters with other people even when one is in a relationship?  It is interesting that despite what appears to be a relentless move toward more indiscriminate pre-marital intimacies, there is still a prevailing rejection of the open relationship or marriage. Couples seem to be willing to ignore the past peccadilloes of their partners, even while often having to socialize with some of their mate’s prior bedfellows, but they draw the line at new improprieties once they are married or in a serious relationship.

Is this last restriction a legacy of the repressive sexual mores of the past, likely to be swept aside by a final wave of erotic emancipation?  Or is there some deeply embedded awareness in us that our sexual freedom has limitations, and that sex is not quite the same as playing a spirited game of tennis?  I have done no research, but I have seen anecdotal reports on communes and other attempts at open marriage, and they seem to have generally self-destructed.

Thus, like so many of the issues that we wrestle with in our human condition, sex is probably best handled (so to speak) with a fine degree of balance.  The Apollonian and Dionysian impulses are antithetical, but a certain harmony or synthesis can be constructed.

A number of years ago there was a pop song ‘Kiss Me’ with the chorus:

Oh, kiss me beneath the milky twilight
Lead me out on the moonlit floor, lift your open hand
Strike up the band and make the fireflies dance
Silver moon's sparkling
So kiss me

At a time when lyrics are portraying love in increasingly raw sexual terms and images, I find the romance and simplicity of this song about a kiss enchanting.  I guess I have become a bit sentimental!

Guns

The question of how to reduce gun violence in the U.S. and to eliminate or at least drastically curtail the number of public massacres is always a hot topic for debate.  In a nation where the gun genie was long ago let out of the bottle, there are no easy answers.

First of all, there can be no debate about the fact that the U.S. has a lot of guns of all types.  There are more guns per capita in the U.S. than any other nation in the world.  In fact, the U.S. has 35-50 % of the world’s civilian-owned guns divided among only 5% of the world’s population.  We have almost one gun for every man, woman and child in the country.

Second, the homicide by firearm rate in the U.S. is about 3 per 100,000 people, which is about eight to ten times higher than almost every other developed nation.  Interestingly, the developed country that comes closest to the U.S. in homicide rate, Switzerland (with a 0.7) is also number three in the gun ownership ranks.  Most Swiss men go through military service and keep some sort of weapon afterwards – probably a rifle.  But the U.S. still has more than four times the homicide rate that Switzerland does.

So one question is whether high rates of gun ownership can be correlated to high rates of homicide.  I don’t believe there can be any doubt that this is the case.  However, countries with low rates of gun ownership can also have high homicide rates if the countries have high crime rates and are politically chaotic.  In this case, the actual number of guns in circulation may be much higher than the statistics show.

Some nations with fairly high gun ownership do not have big problems with homicides.  Australia, Austria, Norway, New Zealand and Canada are examples.  My guess is that the gun ownership in these nations is generally focused on rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes as opposed to handguns for self-defense, but I am not certain about that.

Clearly the gun violence problem in the U.S. is not solely due to gun ownership or availability.  The U.S. also has more crime and more people in prison than any other developed nation.  One of the primary reasons that there is major opposition to more stringent gun control or even gun reduction (God forbid!) is the fear that more gun control will only result in less available guns for law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves against the criminal element, who can always obtain guns. 

The public does not generally believe that gun control will reduce crime and homicides.  Gun control opponents point to Mexico with its very tight gun control laws and very high homicide rate to show the supposed folly of such an experiment.   But given the drug cartel situation in Mexico, which is, of course, a result of our insatiable hunger for drugs, it is not clear that Mexico is a good example of the results of gun control.  One can point to other countries with strong gun control laws in Europe that have had tremendous success – Great Britain being a good example.

But in the end crime and guns must be addressed together to make any real progress on this front.  Why is there so much violent crime in our country?  Why are so many of our citizens behind bars?  Why are we so different in this regard from Great Britain and Germany and France and Australia?  Is there any relationship between our gun culture and the level of violent crime we have?  What is the relationship between violent crime and drugs, or gangs?  It is estimated that about 12% of the homicides in the country are gang-related.  Now we face a triad of related issues – guns, crime and drugs.

But this triad does not explain the frequent occurrence of massacres such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook Elementary.  Is there something else in our culture or society that increases the probability of such attacks?  Is some potent mix of cultural decadence, violent video games and movies, and gun mania to blame for these horrific all-too-frequent national nightmares?

A mass shooting is clearly the act of someone who is mentally deranged.  But why does the U.S. have such a large number of mentally unbalanced or psychotic people who are willing or motivated to commit these horrible acts?  Do we have a larger problem with psychosis, or a problem with identification, or is the availability of weaponry the critical factor?  Some have argued that more rigorous background checks would reduce the incidence of these events, but it is not clear that any of the recent assailants would have been identified as psychotic before they acted.

At a minimum, it would seem reasonable to aggressively outlaw and eliminate the civilian ownership of multi-round semi-automatic rifles, which generally are the main weapons used in these tragedies.  Why is there such resistance to this proposal?  Both Australia and Great Britain took similar steps after massacres and have had great success.

But the opposition to gun laws is very deeply embedded in our society.  Why is it so uniquely vociferous in our country?  Part of it is the libertarian abhorrence of anyone telling people what they can or cannot own or do.  Part of it is a gun fetish that goes far beyond a healthy interest in hunting and sport shooting.  But the most intriguing and disturbing part of it is the anti-government paranoia that makes people want to stockpile guns in preparation for fighting against the government when they feel it has gone too far in controlling their lives.  This is what the 2^nd amendment really means to many Americans.  And it has taken on an almost religious symbolism and significance.  The NRA is the church organization for this religion.

So gun control is opposed for four reasons:  hunting, sport shooting, self-defense and protection against a future over-zealous government.  Hunting and sport shooting don’t really have much to do with the current gun debate.  Strong gun control and elimination of automatic weapons would not impact these hobbies.  The real opposition to gun control runs in a much deeper vein of government distrust and fear of the criminal element.

Recently, the gun lobby has changed its strategy from a defensive posture against more stringent gun control to an offensive strategy of supporting open carry and stand-your-ground laws. The argument is that if more people openly carry firearms there will be less crime and Sandy Hook/Columbine-type massacres will be curtailed. 

The counter-argument is that guns at-the-ready will cause far more accidents and moment-of-passion shootings (road rage, domestic arguments, bar fights, etc.) than the number of crimes or shootings they will prevent.  If handguns are available at a moment’s notice, then a moment’s fury or a youthful indiscretion is all that it takes to create a tragedy.  Are we really ready to sacrifice so many lives in accidents to make us feel a little bit more secure in our cars or homes?  Would we really be any more secure?

In the end, having more people carry weapons can really only be characterized as a cynical and short-sighted response to the problem of crime and mass shootings.  If we do not address the deeper problems of crime, incarceration, gun availability, mental illness and drugs, we will decay into a third-rate nation of fortress communities and frontier justice.  That would not be a place that many of us would choose to live.

Conscience, Morality and an Argument for the Existence of God

 I wrote this piece several months ago while going through yet another wrestling session with questions of faith.  It is just one aspect of this continuous debate.

The Enlightenment sparked a firestorm of intellectual debate about religion.  A Newtonian universe did not seem reconcilable with the miracles and myths of ancient religions and many began to question whether traditional religious dogma could be believed.  A profound confidence in man’s ability to reason caused many to view theology through the prism of rational thought and to acknowledge a belief in some sort of Deity, but not in the institutions of any religion.

American thinkers like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and later Ralph Waldo Emerson and many others, were strong adherents of this ‘Deist’ wave of thought.  Jefferson famously cut out all of the so-called mythical parts of the New Testament to create a ‘Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth’ that was in his view a masterful expression of ethics and morality, but not a story about the son of God.  Jefferson and the others did not appear, though, to reject the notion of God, but merely the dogma of the church.

This skepticism about religion was sent into warp drive by the 19^th century development of the theory of evolution and discoveries about geological aging that seemed to preclude any literal interpretation of creation events.  As the impact of ‘Darwinism’ made its way into the intellectual landscape, many abandoned any belief in God at all and defined themselves as atheists.

This trend of intellectual rejection of God has continued to the present day.  It is probably safe to say that the majority of college professors and scientists are at least agnostic, if not defiantly atheistic.  But once one leaves the lofty domain of the intellectual the religious question is much murkier.  In the western world, church attendance has continuously diminished over time.  Yet the percentage of people that believe in some sort of God and heaven is still fairly high (typically greater than 50% and often as high as 75-90%), even in Europe where church attendance is almost non-existent.  This may be due in some cases to a ‘hedge your bet’ or ‘wishful thinking’ attitude rather than a thoughtful consideration of the arguments pro and con, but it is an interesting statistic nonetheless.

The Question of a Non-Religious Morality

One of the most basic characteristics of religion or theology is a set of moral precepts.  It is often stated that the biggest area of similarity in the world’s religions is their morality.  To be sure, there are plenty of gray areas, and ethicists make a good living exploring the nuances of moral and ethical laws, but the similarities are indeed striking and the basic moral structure is clear.

When one rejects God and religion, then morality and ethics become an interesting puzzle.  How does one derive a moral structure in a completely material world with no higher authority dictating it?  Is there a morality among the plants, or the animals, or the planets or the cosmos?  Is morality whatever we as humans define it to be?

Perhaps we should derive our morality from the laws of nature and the theory of evolution?  If we do this, how would it differ from what is generally accepted as moral behavior today?  We often cite Darwinism as ‘survival of the fittest’, a moniker that is probably not really completely accurate.  But there is certainly an element of truth in it. If the universe’s morality is based upon whatever causes it to become more efficient or more complex or more optimized or more highly developed, then certainly we must be willing to make some fairly hard-hearted decisions.

This logical train of thought is what actually occurred in the latter part of the 19^th century and into the middle of the 20^th century.  It included Nietzsche’s Superman and his belittling of the Christian ‘slave morality’ or morality of the weak.  It included the strong interest in eugenics to allow for a pruning of the human race to eliminate the weak-minded or physically impaired so as not to hinder the rapid progress of humanity.  It included the economic and quasi-philosophic (a la Ayn Rand) theories that celebrated (and still do!) the entrepreneur and the fabulously wealthy tycoons over the lowly worker, and argued for total free markets to propel the human race to ever higher achievements.  This morality was a morality of the strong, because the strong dictated the pace of development and progress.

Some of this morality took on nightmarish forms in the 20^th century – the Nazis and their eugenic holocaust for one - and became discredited.  But it can be argued that its logic is still incontrovertible if one believes only in a material world, perhaps just less dramatically or arbitrarily applied.

When one rejects the notion of a higher authority dictating morals, then the question of conscience becomes very interesting.  Why do we recoil at the thought of sterilizing the handicapped or the mentally deficient?  Why are we reluctant to kill others to get their food or possessions?  Is it because our conscience will not allow us to consider it?  And what is this conscience and where does it come from if not from some sort of higher authority?  Is it a product of evolution?  Why would we evolve to have such a conscience?  The animals don’t appear to be troubled by such concerns.  When they are hungry they eat another animal without the slightest bit of remorse!

Now we can argue that our higher evolved state has developed a conscience to allow us to form a more complex society to achieve ever more wonderful states of being.  This is certainly feasible where it concerns certain parts of the moral code – killing and stealing for example – that would otherwise cause society to unravel and create a less ideal situation for all.

But what about our compassion for the mentally deranged or the physically malformed or the developmentally disabled?  Or even those who appear not to have much motivation to work or contribute?  What a huge drain they are on our society!  We could develop our perfect world much more rapidly without dragging that part of the gene pool along with us!  Surely the part of our morality that prevents us from finding a quiet ‘solution’ for the infirm is a relic from the silly old religious times and ought to be jettisoned!

But our hearts ache for the weak, the sick and the downtrodden; for the mentally ill and the dispirited.  We continue to find powerful inspiration in acts of mercy, love and charity.  What imbues us with these emotions and feelings?

I find the argument that our consciences and moral pre-disposition are totally a result of evolution and its psycho/biological mechanics a weak one.  The logical path would be for human evolution to develop a very pragmatic moral code – to optimize the gene pool and focus attention and energy on the strong and successful.  But our hearts (souls?) will not accept that pragmatism, even when we do not embrace a spiritual belief system.

What is going on here?  Can it be that we all really do have a God-given conscience from some higher authority that is somehow innate and a part of some sort of soul or spirit?  Can our consciences and morality be interpreted or explained without including an external influence?

So in the end it is somewhat ironic that many of our most vociferous protectors of the weak and the downtrodden also claim to be atheists. Why do so many ardent advocates of social justice and moral behavior choose to totally deny any possibility of the divine?  For many it is a sincere belief that there is no valid evidence for any kind of spiritual phenomena.  For others it is a profound distaste for the human expressions of religious dogma.

The argument can be made that the fashionable intellectual rejection of God and religion is a combination of intellectual hubris and a very understandable reaction to the ills of institutional religion.  Intellectual hubris is the notion that anyone can truly categorically state that God exists or does not exist – an all-too-human example of pride.  To doubt is eminently reasonable, but to be certain is arrogance. 

Defiant atheism is surely a type of intellectual bravado, an affectation that feels good in the moment (or for many years) but probably does not have quite the same zest when contemplated on one’s deathbed.  Who in their final moment would not agree to continue to exist (or be resurrected) in some blissful form or another?  Only a stubborn fool would reject such an offer!

The other side of the atheistic trend is perfectly understandable as a reaction against the innumerable crimes perpetrated in the name of God by the world’s religions.  Is it any wonder that so many flock to the banner of non-belief when one considers the persecutions, wars, hatred, intolerance and enslavement in which religion has played a role?

So this is my modest attempt to demonstrate that the stubborn resilience of compassion could be an indication that we are indeed linked to something more than just the material world; that the divine, or God, fills our hearts with this compassion in the face of all logical and philosophical arguments against it.  For me, it is a comforting thought.