A little late, but with all the conversation over my last post, I don’t think I needed to say much. Yesterday (I took today off from lectures) I heard two lectures – Benjamin Friedman and William Niskanen. I’ll be focusing on Niskanen (former director of the CATO institute).
Niskanen offered a number of ideas about capitalism, relationship, the role of government, greed and self-interest. Of the three types of human interaction (caring, exchange, and threat), caring can only happen with close relations. In other words, only those who are close and known can be cared for by others. This is because according to John Stuart Mill (via Niskanen) the principle soul end of the human is self-interest, making the individual sovereign. So all caring is local.
Capitalism occurs on the exchange level of interaction and is bi-lateral, consensual exchange. That tidbit is just for fun.
Here is the issue with caring. It can only occur on the local level. Niskanen even criticized Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical Caritas in veritate, claiming that a global level of charity (caring) would put the wealth of others at risk and thus be irresponsible. It is to demanding on the human spirit, Niskanen claims. I think he was quoting someone else when he said, “reality cannot compete with dreams, at least not fairly.”
The market, on the global level, should be kept clean of any human emotion so that the bi-lateral, consensual exchange can occur.
Where is the room for hope?
Wordsworth’s great poem, “The Ruined Cottage” paints a picture of a lovely young woman wasting away because she is grasping onto a dream that never becomes a reality. Hope is tragic and dangerous.
Yet Christianity is based on hope. Christianity is based on the idea that we can make some kind of a difference. I would like to think that grace brings us beyond the self-interest that Mill describes to a “other-interest.” The church needs to continue to push and advocate a hope that does go against the reality of the world. We need our
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Chautauqua 2 - Goods and Values
Now to business. Today we had the inaugural lecture on “The Ethics of Capitalism,” starring Michael Sandel. But first….
Worship. Wallis again took the pulpit (he is preaching all week) and focused on the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In his interpretation of the story, Wallis considered the lack of relationship between the rich man and Lazarus (the poor man) as a major sin in the story. He read a lengthy quote from Levinas which is always good. Overall, his point was good but kind of basic.
Sandel made a number of interesting points. Before anything, I suppose I should mention his teaching style. Sandel tends to lecture for a while and then engage people in the audience by offering an ethical situation and asking people to comment for or against. He had people with mikes walking around so everyone could hear. It was very well done.
Some basic points that Sandel made:
From the 1980s there was a basic feeling of Market Triumphalism leading to the idea that government was the problem to the issues of the world and the market was the solution. This held to the idea that the market was the primary instrument of the common good (whoops!)
Here is a scary thought: The biggest change in the past twenty or so years was the expansion of the market and the values of the market into areas that are normally governed by other values – i.e. schools, hospitals, prisons, security, etc…. The danger in this shift is that certain values and norms that are higher than market values are lost, i.e. helping a child to score higher in tests because it is the result of the child learning and comprehending information vs. helping a child to score higher in tests because it will result in a monetary bonus. Sandel suggested that perhaps the incentive of the market undermines the values of humanity (the intrinsic good). When goods are bought and sold then they become commodities.
Hold those thoughts…..
The other speaker I heard was E. J. Dionne who suggested that capitalism works only when the wealth is distributed in a fair and just way. Thus the government must regulate in order to keep the market honest and fair to all involved. He didn’t seem to offer much more than some flowery language.
So…… there are goods that are above the goods of economics, and capitalism can help to encourage those goods when regulated. And relationships are important. So what is the church to do? Perhaps start with encouraging relationships. Then the church (broadly construed) should articulate the “goods” that are a part of humanity, higher than the goods of the market and act as a watch-dog on the local level to protect those goods. From there, I’m still thinking…
Worship. Wallis again took the pulpit (he is preaching all week) and focused on the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In his interpretation of the story, Wallis considered the lack of relationship between the rich man and Lazarus (the poor man) as a major sin in the story. He read a lengthy quote from Levinas which is always good. Overall, his point was good but kind of basic.
Sandel made a number of interesting points. Before anything, I suppose I should mention his teaching style. Sandel tends to lecture for a while and then engage people in the audience by offering an ethical situation and asking people to comment for or against. He had people with mikes walking around so everyone could hear. It was very well done.
Some basic points that Sandel made:
From the 1980s there was a basic feeling of Market Triumphalism leading to the idea that government was the problem to the issues of the world and the market was the solution. This held to the idea that the market was the primary instrument of the common good (whoops!)
Here is a scary thought: The biggest change in the past twenty or so years was the expansion of the market and the values of the market into areas that are normally governed by other values – i.e. schools, hospitals, prisons, security, etc…. The danger in this shift is that certain values and norms that are higher than market values are lost, i.e. helping a child to score higher in tests because it is the result of the child learning and comprehending information vs. helping a child to score higher in tests because it will result in a monetary bonus. Sandel suggested that perhaps the incentive of the market undermines the values of humanity (the intrinsic good). When goods are bought and sold then they become commodities.
Hold those thoughts…..
The other speaker I heard was E. J. Dionne who suggested that capitalism works only when the wealth is distributed in a fair and just way. Thus the government must regulate in order to keep the market honest and fair to all involved. He didn’t seem to offer much more than some flowery language.
So…… there are goods that are above the goods of economics, and capitalism can help to encourage those goods when regulated. And relationships are important. So what is the church to do? Perhaps start with encouraging relationships. Then the church (broadly construed) should articulate the “goods” that are a part of humanity, higher than the goods of the market and act as a watch-dog on the local level to protect those goods. From there, I’m still thinking…
Chautauqua 1 - Worship
Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! It is Sunday which means lots and lots of worship. Hooray! The day started with worship at the Baptist house. I always enjoy worshipping with my Baptist peeps because they are earnest and honest and the hymns are pretty darn good. Once again the Baptist did not disappoint. The sermon was weak (a grade of C to C-) but the overall worship was good.
Almost immediately after the Baptist worship was the big everyone gets involved worship. Here Jim Wallis was the preacher, who did not do a bad job but was still missing a certain poetic depth to his sermon (B to B+). The service was a kind of watered down Episcopalian worship time with well written and wordy prayers and very high church hymns.
One of the things that Wallis mentioned was Gandhi’s Seven Social Sins (From Gandhi’s “Young India,” 1925). They are as follows:
Politics without principles
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Some good things to think about.
Almost immediately after the Baptist worship was the big everyone gets involved worship. Here Jim Wallis was the preacher, who did not do a bad job but was still missing a certain poetic depth to his sermon (B to B+). The service was a kind of watered down Episcopalian worship time with well written and wordy prayers and very high church hymns.
One of the things that Wallis mentioned was Gandhi’s Seven Social Sins (From Gandhi’s “Young India,” 1925). They are as follows:
Politics without principles
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Some good things to think about.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
In Search of God....
I recently received an e-mail from one of the college students I worked with in my previous position. Without giving out all of the details, she asked me about the "epistemology" of the existence of God, i.e. how do we know that God exists. Here is a portion of my reply:
In truth, it is just as difficult to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove the existence of God. This is a basic epistemological problem for everyone - believers and non. When I took my little walk on the AT I struggled with the existence of God, accepting the very real problem that I cannot prove God exists. I ended up at the point where I recognized that I need God to exist and have to settle with that. It is not a comfortable place, but it is where I stand at this point. On the other hand those who do not believe have to decide that God does not exist - it is a choice that must be made and at that point epistemology is moot.
There are some much smarter people who have contributed to this conversation - Kierkegaard is good - try the Philosophical Fragments and Either Or. Fear and Trembling is good, but focuses more on ethics. I would start with that. Ironically, I think Nietzsche is good, but I don't know enough to recommend a book. Bonhoeffer's Sanctorum Communio, especially the first chapter, makes a case for the difference between believing in God and not.
As I stated, the difficultly is that we cannot prove God exists and there will always be a gap which one must jump. Either we could engage in a "reductio ad absurdium" by asking again and again "and then what," or, "what was before that," or we can find a stopping point and name it God. There are proofs for the existence of God: Aquinas - Cosmological Proof, Anselm - Ontological Proof, but they actually demonstrate the existence of God, or the nature of God.
You are asking a good and important question and I encourage you to keep up with the struggle. I am sorry I cannot offer more hope but to encourage you to close your eyes and take the leap.
I'll ask around for more ideas.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
In truth, it is just as difficult to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove the existence of God. This is a basic epistemological problem for everyone - believers and non. When I took my little walk on the AT I struggled with the existence of God, accepting the very real problem that I cannot prove God exists. I ended up at the point where I recognized that I need God to exist and have to settle with that. It is not a comfortable place, but it is where I stand at this point. On the other hand those who do not believe have to decide that God does not exist - it is a choice that must be made and at that point epistemology is moot.
There are some much smarter people who have contributed to this conversation - Kierkegaard is good - try the Philosophical Fragments and Either Or. Fear and Trembling is good, but focuses more on ethics. I would start with that. Ironically, I think Nietzsche is good, but I don't know enough to recommend a book. Bonhoeffer's Sanctorum Communio, especially the first chapter, makes a case for the difference between believing in God and not.
As I stated, the difficultly is that we cannot prove God exists and there will always be a gap which one must jump. Either we could engage in a "reductio ad absurdium" by asking again and again "and then what," or, "what was before that," or we can find a stopping point and name it God. There are proofs for the existence of God: Aquinas - Cosmological Proof, Anselm - Ontological Proof, but they actually demonstrate the existence of God, or the nature of God.
You are asking a good and important question and I encourage you to keep up with the struggle. I am sorry I cannot offer more hope but to encourage you to close your eyes and take the leap.
I'll ask around for more ideas.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Monday, July 06, 2009
Rejection
Last Sunday's sermon, "Rejection" is now on my church website. We have Feurbach, Hauerwas, Willimon and Freud all taking part in the fun. Text is from Mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)