Sunday, December 27, 2015

Is there Evil in the world?

“The modern skeptical world has been taught for some 200 years a conception of human nature in which the reality of evil, so well-known to the age of faith, has been discounted.  Almost all of us grew up in an environment of such easy optimism that we can scarcely know what is meant, though our ancestors knew it well, by the satanic will.  We shall have to recover this forgotten but essential truth ‑ along with so many others that we lost when, thinking we were enlightened and advanced, we were merely shallow and blind.” ~Jaroslav Pelikan



Science is doing its best to squash evil under the thumb of neurology. In recent years, there have been several fMRI studies suggesting neural anomalies are the cause of evil behavior. The absence of 'empathy' as a result of a failed neural sequence is the culprit, if the popular analysis is correct.  I.e., a broken brain.

The theory, in order to be valid, requires an absence of free will, and further, an inability of some to consider the feelings of others, plus other troublesome concepts. If the scientists are right, the brain is a machine that follows programming, and if the machine itself has flaws, flawed behavior may follow. From such a rationale, there remains no responsibility for personal actions. They're just the 
programmed outworkings of a machine, neither truly good or evil, however problematic.

None of us, as we observe our own choices, truly believe that to be the case.  We exercise the opportunity to choose almost continuously. We weigh and evaluate and choose regarding everything f
rom what we'll watch on TV to what we'll do with our lives.  We choose, and conscience plays a part. There is no experiential support for the absence of free will, yet the debate continues as it has for more than a thousand years.

A
dding complexity to our question, there are indeed neurological disorders (physical flaws in the brain);  they can be mild to extreme. Those who suffer from disorders report a degree of conflict ranging from mild to extreme difficulty in controlling them. That fits the science.

Moving beyond that physiological nuance, we next find that cause and effect can be misidentified in the course of observation and analysis. Some brain functions are formed by experience, PTSD being a familiar example.  A perfectly healthy brain can be damaged and become dysfunctional due to traumatic experience.  

We understand too that our chosen (or imposed) exposures shape the way we think; our brain function is changed. Chosen and repeated behavior becomes habitual, a formulated context for response.

So then, cause or effect? Does brain function cause the evil actions, or do our choices shape and trigger the brain function?   


There is evil in the world, and one measure is certainly in the individual, but then what of the many?  

Hitler, perhaps the first evil individual who comes to mind, would have been a solitary mental case had he been alone in his thinking, but he was one among many with similar ideological leanings. Beyond Göring, Himmler, and Hess, there were literally hundreds more in positions of authority and power in the Nazi hierarchy who willingly participated in the same behavior.  The Nazi impact on the world was extraordinarily destructive, and millions died, but there were so many who joined in the slaughter.  Thousands enthusiastically pledged themselves to Hitler, loyal unto death, and of their own ... free will?  Suggesting a common neurological defect appearing at the same time in so many is statistically improbable.

Is there some 'spirit' of evil?  Is there a sweeping change of atmosphere that can bend the minds of people en masse?  Of course.  Depending on your theological perspective, you'll have words to describe it this way or that, but we've seen it. So how does it work?

In Nazi Germany, deliberate vision casting (the story they told, propaganda) swept up the populace in agreement to conquer the world, to clean out the lesser races and defective folks, and occupy the lands of Europe. They drank the koolaid. Boundaries were crossed when euthanasia became the accepted solution for mental defects, when citizenship was rescinded for Jews, and deportation became the public solution.  Boundaries were crossed when Albert Speer brought prisoners to be slave laborers in the war industries; they were worked literally to death.  Boundaries were crossed when work camps became death camps for men, women, and children.  It was broadly approved evil.  The result was a sweeping change of national atmosphere that bent them all toward extraordinary slaughter. Everyone knew at least part of the horror story.  They did their best to hide from what they were doing. Front line soldiers in the extermination camps went insane after shooting thousands of men, women, and children; the process had to be industrialized.  As the war turned against them, they tried to destroy the evidence of what they'd done.

Discrimination, oppression, and genocide resurface regularly in history.  How do they spread?

In the middle ages, Europeans were faced with a new world.  The preferred explanation (propaganda again) which kings and clergy endorsed was that the indigenous peoples they encountered in Africa were less than fully human, uncivilized, immoral, unworthy creatures. The same judgement was passed against caribs and amerindians.  The death and suffering that followed defies description. Centuries later, residuals of that thinking still persist.

Mass discrimination against Jews - antisemitism is visible as far back as 300 B.C. It never had a basis.

The Discovery Doctrine - before Columbus, the Christian world decided that if they should 'discover' a country, they could claim and own it by right, even if it was already occupied. The legality was formalized by the Pope and courts.  That was the extraordinary (and unChristian) bending of reason that was their foundation for conquering the world.  The result was the consciousless exploitation of native populations and civilizations.  Conquest, slaughter, and slavery came first.  Class and inequality are the direct descendants.


That was the story they told us all through the subsequent centuries, that it was okay for white people to invade and conquer other nations if they weren't Christian.  At the turn of the last century, they were still telling that to high school students, that 'discovering the new world' and 'settling' the Americas, it was all noble and right and good.

As Americans, it offends us deeply for someone to say we were murderous and immoral in our 'Manifest Destiny' thinking.  Why is that?  The emergence of our new nation brought so much that was spectacularly good, but it included harm to so many as well.

So, to the question, is there evil in the world?  Of course, there was and still is.  Individual and communal evil continues among us.  One question for us, is there any of that in our own thinking, or more accurately, how much?







A father and his son are in a car accident.  The father is killed and the son is seriously injured. The son is taken to the hospital where the surgeon says, “I cannot operate, because this boy is my son.”

This popular brain teaser dates back many years, but it remains relevant today; 40 to 75 percent of people still can’t figure it out. Those who do solve it usually take a few minutes to fathom that the boy’s mother could be a surgeon. Even when we have the best of intentions, when we hear “surgeon” or “boss,” the image that pops into our minds is selective based on our personal bent. 

Similarly prejudicial thinking will apply across racial, ethnic, and political boundaries, across perceived class and economic boundaries, and among religions. The farther we are removed from the individuals involved, the less we care and the more willing we are to just let it pass.  

In the new year, we might perhaps consider the irrational justifications we hold for such thinking and rise up a bit. Most make the effort, but it's not a simple path, dealing with ... evil.  Just how big is it anyway?

Happy New Year.  

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Nothing is more insane ...

Smoke rises after the U.S. led coalition air strikes
 hit ISIS positions at Brekida village in Aleppo,
Syria, Dec. 3, 2015.  Time.com

... than war?

We all agree.  We all insist someone else started it, and that we have to defend ourselves.


Imagine a household; among the children are two brothers, and each insists the other is infringing on his territory.  "He took my phone," or "He's in my part of the room!"

Put them in the ring, and fight to the death.  That's a solution, however stupid.

Parental oversight, mediation by family, intervention by neighbors, and action by community law enforcement, all those are appropriate and reasonable options.  Two brothers fighting to the death is not.

WWII in Russia
A Bosnian soldier cries after arriving
at his home village. Three years before,
he had hidden in the  forest and watched as
his family and the rest of the village
were executed by Serb forces.

Few tasks are more difficult than growing up.  Lives overlap and conflict is the normal course of things.  Healthy resolution comes from understanding and cooperation.

International diplomacy is extraordinarily demanding and difficult.  It is reasonable, however.  War is not.  And the death of even one innocent is inexcusable; even one.

But that brings us back to the opening question.

Death by war in the 20th century is estimated at 200+ million. The death toll among children just since 1970 exceeds 300 million, and that is only those under 5 years old who died from preventable causes. Each one was a great loss to their family. Across populations and nations, death and suffering from poverty, economic inequality, and disenfranchisement (the result of today's economic warfare) are beyond measure. Or excuse.

This is a personal, family, community, and country obligation.  We must, at every level, do what is necessary and right to address the circumstance of these innocents.  Figured out what your part is yet?

Monday, December 14, 2015

Trump's Brain

Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), or at least that's the verdict passed  by psychologists commenting for the media.  He qualifies on all expected traits, we're told, and quite impressively.

“He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”


  • To reach the level of a personality disorder, the behavior must be deeply ingrained, intense, displayed in a variety of situations, and maladaptive, causing long-term difficulties in personal relationships or in functioning in society.   
Whether the disorder is or isn't, Trumps public behavior follows a pattern. Bullying, over-talking, self-focused, an overblown opinion of self and worth; Trump declares, "I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created." He mentions himself with regularity, pointing out his superiority over others. “On social media, I’m the one that’s beloved.”

A favorite illustration; when the Chicago Trump Tower and Hotel project borrowed $640 million from Deutsche Bank to get underway, Trump personally guaranteed $40 million of it.  When the financial crash hit in '07-8, the bank asked for their money, so Trump sued the bank for $3 Billion.  He sued them!  He sued the people he owed money to for 75 times the amount he had personally guaranteed.  He sued them!  He claimed the market turmoil was the equivalent of an act of God, and he shouldn't have to pay.  A reasonable business person would have made a good-faith payment and negotiated the terms for resolving the problem, but not Trump.  Apparently, he'd rather spend money on the battle than pay the debt he actually owed.  

There's a chance that this isn't a disorder, but a strategy.
Consider, Syrian refugees and the Paris violence - All the Republicans are endorsing tighter controls even going so far as to recommend a pause in refugee acceptance.  Trump goes to the extreme and says, "Ban all Muslims from entering the U.S."   In doing so, he became the centerpiece of media discussion for more than a week while other candidates are relegated to sideline commentary.  His recommendation was unreasonable and unworkable in any form.  When asked about it, Trump interrupted and sidestepped from the practical realities while maintaining center stage.

He's oddly persistent when caught in inaccurate statements. E.g., "... thousands of people were cheering as the building was coming down," that Trump claims to have seen in New Jersey on 9/11. When asked, he insists, "I'm not going to take it back."

Trump supporters may not actually agree with him, it turns out, as his claims and proposals often break down when examined.  Perhaps they just share his dissatisfaction with the current government.  With the media-enhanced explosion of fear in the nation recently, little of the discussion is clearly productive.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

One down, hundreds up


The town was pressured into taking down their community's nativity scene, so hundreds of residents put up their own.

In Minnesota, the Wadena City Council took down a nativity scene they've traditionally displayed in the city park every year at Christmas time. They were forced into the decision by the Freedom from Religion Foundation which argued that it’s unlawful for a city to display a religious scene, “thus singling out, showing preference for, and endorsing one religion.” They threatened to sue the town.

That's just angry folks being grumpy, I suppose, but such politically correct thinking plagues our nation in so many ways.  Those cannot be happy people.

Anyway, now there are more than a thousand nativity scenes across the town, all on private property.

The community's response caught the attention of local and national news media, so the story has made the rounds.  Local resident Dani Sworski may have started it all.  She says she “wanted to make sure that we stood together, we came together for our faith, as friends as family, and we all kind of grew from this.” Good for them.

It's worth noting, we needn't succumb to the watered down and lifeless norms offered by either the media or the politically correct.  Merry Christmas.

Friday, December 11, 2015

What I think you think

We can best understand the furies of politics by remembering that almost the whole of each party believes absolutely in its picture of the opposition; that it takes as fact, not what is, but what it supposes to be the fact.  ~ The New Republic, Walter Lippman (March, 1922)

As we face the problem of violent extremists, it would be easy to attribute their behavior to the simplistic explanation of religious mandate.  Doing so allows us to categorize and quantify the problem, and to form a response.  It's probably a mistake to do so.

The tendency in us all is to decide before we discern.  We are likely to interpret what we see and hear in terms of our expectations.  If I don't like Democrats (or Republicans), everything they say and do will seem (to me) to justify my disapproval. 

Attributing simplistic motive - it's what pre-reasoning children do when they're in conflict with parents.  "You won't let me go out because you just don't want me to have any fun!" Or, because you just want to be in control, or because you don't want me to have any friends, or because ....  The list is long, and in every case it's inaccurate.  If we attribute motive to another and make decisions on that specious information, we're always wrong.

Always.  There's no progress possible in such a context, only conflict.

Motivation is complex.  If you were to try to explain your own motives in the moment, your explanation would be partial at best.  Why you chose your partner, your career path, your faith, your lifestyle ... all would need a collection of books to cover the actual path to decision. Every action in the moment has a traceable history that is rich with influences.

Similarly, the motives of political opponents or, perhaps more importantly, of violent extremists which we easily ascribe to single-sentence descriptions are in actuality quite complex.  If we're to pursue progress rather than continued conflict, it takes more understanding.  Much more.

As a beginning point for understanding religious extremists in the middle-East, it's worth noting that the current struggle began more than a century ago and is rooted in oppression, persecution, and human rights abuse.  Simply returning fire validates the current uprising.

What kind of response might begin to defuse the situation and address the cause? 


       (The challenge is to have uncomfortable conversations.  Because there are really only two choices: conversation or violence.  If there's a third way, human beings haven't discovered it.  ~ Sam Harris)


Thursday, December 10, 2015

Merry Christmas, Ben Stein


My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a nativity scene, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'we reap what we sow.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what a bad shape the world is in.

My best regards, honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein
More from Ben Stein, Christmas '11