One Nation, Under Science

Sorry for the extreme lateness of this response to the book club. I'd planned on writing something about three weeks ago, but life intervened. And I know that Alvin used the "One nation" schtick in his title too, but I really am just that unoriginal.

I enjoyed most of The Nation, right up until Daphne/Ermintrude's father arrived at the island. But I found the final few chapters thoroughly off-putting, to the point where I now tell people that I didn't much like the book. My particular gripes are about the need that Pratchett (an avowed humanist) had to intervene in the story and make it a moralistic play about the ability of science and exploration to give semi-mystical meaning to our otherwise purposeless civilization. Maybe that's putting it a bit strong, but I felt like the author spent four-fifths of a book exploring the interesting interstices of faith, doubt, miracle, perserverance, love and devotion, and then resolved it with some pablum about how "science doesn't belong to anybody" and can somehow both preserve our cultural traditions and at the same time unite us across all cultural boundaries. Which I think is absolute tripe. Science is (IMO) too revered in our Western culture (even our anti-authoritarian American culture); it's a useful tool, but it's not the answer to life, the universe and everything. Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett and Carl Sagan notwithstanding.

Whew, rant out of the way. What's hidden in there is I really did think it was a rippingly good book for about 200 pages. I think all of the questions Alvin and Paul raise are interesting and deserve a more full treatment than I can give at the moment, but I'll write my thoughts on a few.

The Culture and the Necessary I don't know to what degree I try to separate those aspects of my belief system that are culturally bred from those that are fundamental and invariant under multi-verses. I often ask myself questions like, "How absolutely wrong is it to drink alcohol?" (appropriate, given the context of the question within the poison beer). Obviously in ancient times and within the modern church prophets have drunk alcohol, presumably without everlasting consequences. So if alcohol isn't absolutely wrong, why is it wrong now in this time? Is it a cultural reason?

Perhaps more along the lines of what Alvin was thinking, I remember my shock during my first few weeks in Belgium when the Priests didn't cover the sacrament bread with a white cloth! I had seen in so many US wards the ritual of the sacrament that it seemed naked somehow without the solemn folding back of the cover to expose the bread, and then recovering and folding back the side to reveal the water. And I was doubly shocked when I realized that the sacrament ritual I was so used to was nowhere prescribed in the Scriptures. It was a bit of culture that had crept into the observance.

Are such things bad? I think they are, but not as bad as what can happen when you choose to confront them overly often. Specifically, performing spurious rituals and accepting as true and right things that are really just cultural appendages is (generally) preferable to attacking misfounded belief and risking 1) hurting another's faith and 2) accidentally hewing too deep and attacking well-founded belief. Excessive piety has seldom (it seems to me) led to excommunication, but if you slaughter too many sacred cows you may eventually find yourself killing something truly sacred (no offense to the Hindoos).

North vs. South In actual terms of North and South, it's interesting to note that most of the people live north of the equator (which makes sense since about 70% of the habitable land mass is north of the equator). So on one level it's almost inevitable that history would have a Northern slant to it.

To the more salient question of cultural superiority and subjugation, I feel pretty sensitive to it. I see within the US itself an increasingly homogenized culture, as regional dialects and accents disappear and we all shop for the same cheap crap at identical Walmarts and eat the same cheap food in identical plastic booths at fast food chain restaurants. I recognize that it's a completely rational decision; there are real to cost and efficiency benefits of the homogeneous culture. But I find it distressing that all local flavor seems to be disappearing from America. And I worry that the same thing is happening as a result of modernizing forces throughout the world.

While I feel that loss of cultural identity is a real problem, both within the US and internationally, I don't know that I would support any organized efforts to combat it. I think cultural preservation, and the desire and energy for cultural preservation must come from within the culture rather than without. Tying into the book, I thought the eventual protective role played by the British Empire while the island Nation made itself into a scientific Shangri-la derives from the same nation-building hubris that makes us believe we can export ideology. While I think it's important to engage on such matters (I'm a big supporter of muscular US diplomacy), I think the idea that a system in which local culture needs a global protector is doomed to failure.

Is there a time to lie In the tenth grade we were assigned to write an in-class essay on this very question. More specifically, on the portion of Adventures of Huck Finn when Huck lies to protect Tom Jim and whether that was a moral decision or not. I rebelliously refused (in the most passively aggressive way possible) to write the essay until the final two minutes of class. Then I wrote a short note called "Lying: an existential viewpoint" in which I argued that lying was just a social construct and hence the question itself was meaningless. My teacher ate it up.

I think there is definitely a time to lie. I wouldn't be able to construct scenarios in which it is unambiguously the right decision, but I feel confident in a Nephi and Laban way that all actions, no matter how abhorrent in normal everyday life, may be right in certain circumstances. That said, I'm pretty careful about giving honest answers to my kids about things like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I don't seek out opportunities to puncture their innocense, but if they come to me with questions I pretty unapologetically give honest answers. Because I think a lot of harm can be done when you put your child's trust in you at risk, and I think there are few reasons to do such a thing.

Still, though, I would not say never; I can easily conceive of scenarios in which I would purposefully mislead and even straight out lie to my children in order to protect them from truths which would, in my belief, harm them. And if slave-traders were really after my friend Jim, I would tell them he ran the other way and try to sneak off while they weren't looking.

Nation: I would like to eat your brains someday

I liked the book. The questions were also good.

Grandfathers speak

I listened to a story about an atheist who had been asked to pray to know if God was real—when he did, he decided that anything that he would receive as an answer would just be himself telling himself what he wanted to hear. I tend to disbelieve the religious experiences of a lot of people, which is probably the skeptic in me.

It seems to me that Mau was trying to resolve his tradition with his loss of faith in the Gods. His out-of-body Locaha experience was, I think, where he came to terms with the Gods. I liked the paradox and I think that is typical of finding out for oneself what one believes. Often, I think that the testimony someone shares is, if not a lie, a stretch of the truth they've accepted, and only then can the “voices of the Grandfathers” confirm the truth.

Spit Makes Good Beer

I am more curious what is in saliva that makes the beer turn out. There are a lot of cultural things that are nice to hang onto, but it's important to know the reason—like Daphne understanding there's something in the length of the song that makes the spit work its magic.

When we bless the refreshments, do we really thing the soda and sugar cookies will nourish and strengthen our bodies? Why do we have to bless the food before we eat? In our house, anytime before the dishes are put away counts.

What if _____ had never happened?

I don't think I really believe in “if” or a multiverse, but I like thinking about it, Schrodinger's cat and all that. Its amusing to think of what life would have been like had I done X, Y or Z instead of the what I actually chose. Considering that life is everlasting, does that make the multiverses infinite for each individual, or are they limited to a finite spectrum based on a finite character set which would never change? I suppose we've all got another multiverse involving drunken psychology.

Quotes and Comments

"When much is taken, something is returned"
This must be just another quantum version of the scripture. I like the version we have, as this seems like a little more vague platitude.

"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
Spinoza was frustrating to me for that reason. I don't know if there were answers in the philosophy, it just was at odds with the way I perceive the world, and I couldn't find a way to brush him away.

"I don't think he believes in his gods, but he believes in belief."
I like to think that I would be a Mormon even if something shook my faith—living the gospel makes me so happy. I believe in the ability of living my religion to make me happy.

On Good vs. Discussable Books

I remember a few years ago enough people told me to read the Da Vinci Code that I finally skimmed it and afterward I swore I would never waste that much time on filth. But I've done it since then. Popularity is occasionally valuable, but I value opinions of some more than others. In my mind a book club book should thought provoking first, enjoyable second. Though I've not enjoyed all the books I've read, I don't feel like I've wasted time (one of the benefits to reading rather than listening is that I control the pace).

One Nation. Under God Anchors.

I hope a lot of you have read or are reading this book because I have a lot of questions, more than I expect any one person to answer.

"Angels [and Grandfathers?] speak by the power of the Holy Ghost"

Mau has his whole world shattered around him when the wave comes. He suddenly does not believe in the Gods his people had always believed in. Yet, at the same time he hears the voices of his ancestors talking to him; he has conversations with Locaha, the God of Death; and he has an out of body experience. I thought this was an interesting and not altogether uncommon paradox.

I think sometimes we grow up with certain beliefs about religion, and then we have a catastrophe (like the wave) or a 'coming of age' (and Mau was right between boyhood and manhood) where we realize that our religion is not what we thought it was. It is then our tendency to throw it all out and not believe in anything, but simultaneously, we may be having experiences that should be affirming our faith that there is much more than science and reason can explain.

I used to see things in black and white, and I had a hard time when I came upon things that weren't so clearly defined. It was tempting to say that because some things weren't clear maybe nothing was clear, but I think the 'voices of the Grandfathers' are not just in my head. And I'm strengthened when others say they've heard the 'voices of the Grandmothers'. Am I making sense? Have you had your perception of religion shift drastically? Were the voices of the Grandfathers real or just in Mau's head? Why could the ghost girl hear the Grandmothers but not hear anything after the death of her mother?

The Parable of the Poison Beer

I think the spitting and singing to make the beer safe is a lot like many of our spiritual traditions. Some of it is necessary to keep us safe (i.e. the spitting and waiting) and some of it is just culture (i.e. the song about the 4 brothers vs. baa baa black sheep). If we are smart, we may be able to seperate the culture from the necessary, but it doesn't make the culture bad. It is much better to follow the entire spiritual tradition (culture and all) then to get lifted up in pride (as Foxlip did) and get killed. Do you agree? Do you try to separate culture from the necessary? Do you like to sing Baa, Baa Black Sheep? Does it affect the quality of your beer?

False Priests

I enjoyed the character of the priest that was silently struggling with his own faith in the Gods while simultaneously trying to restore everyone else's faith. He said some wise things in between acting rather stupidly. When he tried to keep Mau from bringing up the God Anchor that hadn't been there before, he showed that he believed in a dead religion. There are so many historical examples of religious leaders that fought against change because they thought it proved their religion to be false or it weakened their position. I'm grateful to be in a living church where we are encouraged to believe all things that are true. What is the appropriate way to react when things we thought were true turn out to be incomplete or false?

If North were South

While it's probably not unique to this book, I'd never really thought about the idea that the orientation of our globes (with North being on top) is arbitrary. I've never seen a map turned the other way around, and the idea of it would be difficult to adjust to. I liked how Pratchett said the cannibal looked like the Prime Minister; how he pointed out who the true savages were; and how the original thinkers were from the Nation. Do you think that museums and the idea that artifacts should be 'where the world can see them' are racist or cultural supremist or whatever the right word for that is? Do people in the Southern Hemisphere have inferiority complexes?

What if _____ had never happened?

At the end, Mau and Daphne wonder if they would have been better off if the wave had never happened. Daphne decides that she's glad the wave happened, and Mau decides not to decide and thinks there would be good and bad parts to each scenario in the multiverse. This illustrates the growth that can come through tragedy and trials and why they are an important part of this life.

However, just because we've grown from a trial does not mean that the trial was good. I've never met someone that has had a child out of wedlock that has regretted having that child. After all, how can you regret the creation of a wonderful child? But does that mean that the decision that led to having the child was good? Or that it was meant to happen?

We change through our life experiences and trials have an ability to change us faster than comfortable living, but the retrospective look back on our lives may not be the best way to decide if an event was good or from God. How does one determine if one's path was guided by God vs. allowed to happen by God? Or are all paths always guided by God at all times?

I don't know if I believe in a multiverse, but I like the idea of it from the ability of God to judge our actions. For example, He could say that if event A had happened, then we would have behaved like so, but if event A never happened, then we would have turned out like such and such. What are the multiverse versions of you doing right now? One of mine is in Texas with a PhD. Another might be a drunk psychologist.

Quotes and Comments

"When much is taken, something is returned"

It's like the inverse of the scripture (D&C scripture mastery!): when "much is given, much is required". Is the inverse of any scripture true? Is he that is compelled to do nothing a wise and not a slothful servant?

"Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."

How limited are we in our learning because we fix a perception of the world and make everything fit into it? I like to think that I think more than the average person, but I find it quite difficult to have lots of unresolved questions.

"You shout and stamp and yell that there are no gods, and then you shake your fist at the sky and revile them for not existing! You need them to exist so that the flames of your denial will warm you in your self-righteousness! That's not thinking, that's just a hurt child screaming in pain!"

Even atheism is a belief system.

"She just wanted an explanation that was better than "It's the will of God," which was grown-up speak for "because."'

We have inherent needs for explanations. If they don't exist or if we don't know them, we'll make them up. In sports, for example, we're quite good at coming up with explanations for random events.

"I don't think he believes in his gods, but he believes in belief."

There is lots of evidence for the power of our beliefs to have real effects on our health and other tangible events. Unfortunately, perhaps, I don't think you can just 'believe in belief.' You have to believe in something, and you have to really believe it for it to have any positive benefit.

"And that was a sin. Even if you have no god at all, that was a sin. Some things are a sin all by themselves. And I'm going to murder you, and that is a mortal sin, too."

Certainly ethics can exist outside of religion. In theory, things can be wrong (though perhaps not a sin) without a moral authority to say it is wrong. However, Cox reached a point where murder wasn't wrong, as did the cannibals.

"If a lie will make us strong, a lie will be my weapon. People want lies to live by. They cry out for them."

I do think that people want lies (including children), but lies are a dangerous weapon. When lies are uncovered, then any gain from the lie becomes nullified by the increased pain of discovering the lie and the consequent lack of faith. Of course, in this case, if the truth was discovered, then they would all be dead anyway. Is there a 'time to lie'?

On Good vs. Popular Books

I agree with Peter’s comment on my last post that the popularity of the book doesn’t make it a good book. And just because it’s a good book doesn’t mean it’s the best book for the book club. I wasn’t trying to demean any of the previous choices (except Peter’s) because I think all of the books have led to interesting discussions, and the only reason I tried to pick on Peter was because he hasn’t liked any of my book choices and I was trying to validate myself. (I really liked 2 of his 3 choices.)

I chose this book over the other options I presented because I remembered wanting to discuss it with the book club when I finished, even though the other options were probably both better and more popular. I value all of your opinions and thoughts, and I hope you’ll comment even if you haven’t read the book.

PS In case you haven’t read the book and in case it wasn’t clear from all of this rambling, the author ends the book on a note that indicates he does believe in God.