(Woman grabbing her chest in pain)
Heartburn is one of the leading causes of illnesses and death in America. That's why we invented Snefferin.
(Woman jumping and dancing in the middle of the field)
Snefferin is not for everyone. Consult your physician before taking it. Secondary effects can range from nose bleeding, blindness, dizzyness, cancer on the skin, osteoporosis, ....
(Woman smelling flowers and smiling looking at the sky)
..., a methastasis in the pancreas, heart failure, lung flema, sinus problems, migraines, chemical brain imbalance ....
(Woman playing with child in the field)
..., diarrhea, loss of muscular movement, blood clots, inability for blood to coagulate, permanent hair loss ...
(Woman kissing her husband)
..., infertility, impotence, long periods of erection (talk to a physician if it lasts more than 4 hours), vaginal bleeding, and irregular menstrual periods, ...
Don't smoke while you are taking them. It may increase the chance of lung cancer, and lung flema. It may also increase emphysema, asthma, among other lung related illnesses.
(Animation of a bee flying from the flower to the screen saying)
Snefferin is a wise choice!
Snefferin, no one else can treat your problem of heartburn like Snefferin does.
(Woman, husband and child saying:)
Thank you Snefferin!
Magnatune.com - We Are Not Evil
Friday, January 26, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Final Version of my Book-Cover
Here is my final version of the book cover. I looked again at Jessica's suggestion to use a different color. I still wanted to use warm colors, but I want it to look more interesting. Also, I received replies (outside the blog) that they didn't like the way the pictures of the philosophers were placed in the second version (to be honest, I didn't like it either). Please, tell me what you think about it. I think it looks a lot better, but I also need your opinions. The final version will look like this, but it will need minor corrections (such as correcting the distance between pictures). For now, everyone I have shown it has liked it, I would love your opinion too.
Me Favoring Gay Marriage
I usually don't like to talk about this subject, because of its controversial nature, and because it divides people to the point of violence. Also, because it took me a bit more than 20 years to decide about the issue, and I confess that I decided on the issue as early as last year. It displeases me very much every time I have to disagree with my Church on issues, because, in all honesty, nothing would make me happier than to agree 100% with the Catholic Church on all issues. But ... as the comedian Lewis Black says ... "I have thoughts". It was during my re-reading of ethical works and close examination of the Bible that I reached my conclusion.
I was not thinking of talking about it. The problem is that after posting that "Gay Marriage" bulletin with my support, I have received some angry mails expressing that they were "disappointed" by my decision. I didn't know that I had to struggle to meet some people's expectations and standards, but everyone who knows me knows that I don't meet many standards. I have a right to make my own decisions just as long as those decisions are well-based on reason, spirituality, and every-day reality in the world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'm no exception.
However, I want to express my reasons for taking this decision, and it is mostly philosophically based, not too much on Scripture (for reasons I hope I'll explain in my next blog-post).
This blog will divide in two parts: one ethical and philosophical, the other one essentially biblical.
Part I: Ethical and Meta-Ethical Considerations
In philosophy there are three fundamental ethical works, I'll place an asterisk on the two most important ones:
- Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle *
- Fundamental Principles of the of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant*
- Principia Ethica by G. E. Moore
The rest of the works, as A. N. Whitehead would say, is a footnote of these works. However, we can find other very important fundamental ethical works.
- Many works of Plato: The Phaedro, The Phaedo, The Republic
- The Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas (of course, I refer only to those parts of the Summa which deal with Morals.
- Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals by David Hume (a fabulous work)
- Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
However, of all of these works, concerning the controversial issue of marriage among homosexuals and lesbians (the so-called "Gay Marriage" issue), I think that the one that really made me change my mind was G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica. In this fabulous piece of work, Moore founded an area of the discipline of Ethics called "MetaEthics", which concerns about the epistemology of ethical principles, their essential properties, their basis, among others. This is distinguished from "Normative Ethics", the branch of Ethics that deals with ethical principles themselves and what determines what is virtue or vice, good or bad, etc. And it is also distinguished from "Applied Ethics" that deals with the principles of the ethical principles dealt in Normative Ethics, but in relation to ever-day life: Ecology, Business, Labor, Law, Politics, and so on.
In the case of G. E. Moore, he concentrates his efforts to clear up about the notion of "good" in itself as being the main topic of Ethics. Also he had in mind, since David Hume, that there are wrong inferences from facts to value, a non-sequitur, a fallacy. This fallacy basically states that "because something is in x way, then that necessarily means that we should all act in x way." This takes a Naturalist approach: "because nature created humans in such-and-such way, then that means that all humans should act in such-and-such manner." This is commonly known as the Naturalistic Fallacy. This fallacy takes many forms. Let me give you several examples:
(1) Because men are physically more powerful than women, and more susceptible to violence, then it necessarily means that all men should be violent, and women should take care of their homes.
(2) Because nature operates by the principle of the "survival of the fittest", then that means that you can play dirty in order to survive in the market at other people's expense.
(3) Because men have a natural tendency to be excited about women with great cleavage and short skirts, then it justifies raping them (usually under the argument that "she was asking for it").
Or we often find more elaborated forms of the fallacy such as:
(4) Scientists have discovered that cheating is intrinsically a survival tactic of our species to look for other "healthier" people to have sex with to be able to reproduce "healthier" children. Therefore cheating is good.
G. E. Moore noted something very interesting about the Naturalistic Fallacy: it, and other ethical fallacies like it, usually occur when we try to define the notion of "good" in relation to certain properties of the world of experience. Hedonism, for instance, defines "good" as that which brings pleasure, "Utilitarianism" also talks about the greater pleasure of the majority. Of course, we must understand both of these doctrines as not saying that we should understand this "pleasure" as "having endless sex" or "eating too much", etc... since these doctrines also include what they call a "calculus of pleasure". Epicurus particularly preached this doctrine, and in fact, he lived rather a modest life without any excesses. John Stuart Mill talks about the greater pleasure of the majority. However, there are ethical actions which are not pleasurable at all (such as going through a fire to save a child that is trapped in a building on fire, or the unpleasantness you have to endure to donate blood, etc.) Therefore what is good cannot be identified with pleasure.
Other people have proposed other definitions of "good" in this manner. However, Moore finds that it is undefinable, because once we try to define it, we fall into the Naturalistic Fallacy. Even in religion we fall into the Naturalistic Fallacy but adding God in the way:
"God created men and women in such-and-such a way. Therefore they should behave in such-and-such manner."
Of course, this is still a problem. Even God created "Adam" and "Eve", and not "Adam" and "Steve" (as they say), we still have huge problems. We were not created sexually perfect, many have sexual dysfunctions, many are even in very deplorable circumstances sexually speaking, none of us are in "paradise". What do I mean by this? The phenomenon of sexuality is highly complex. It does not have the simplicity that our first parents (Adam and Eve) had, and even after sinning, their sexual being became complicated. It is not a simple as to judge people according to their genitals and physical properties, and as many have found out in the last few centuries, the sexual orientation of people do not necessarily correspond to the physical gender. There are even cases of men who feel like they are women inside but using men's bodies, and there are women who feel men inside but have the "wrong" body. You have men, who feel like men, but are only attracted to men (usually this explains this phenomena of men who say: "I make love to my wife, but I have sex with other men" ... obviously a semantic problem). There are also women who feel like women, but are only attracted to other women.
The usual argument is that homosexuals are "made", they are not "born" that way. Well, this is only half-true. I know cases of people who were heterosexuals, but were made homosexuals in the process. I also know of cases of homosexuals who, when you ask how did they discover they liked their members of the same sex, they'll tell you: "The way I discovered I liked people of my same sex, can be best described as the way you discovered that you like people of the opposite sex." Andrew Sullivan would give you that kind of answer, and I have no reason to doubt it. Many homosexuals and lesbians have told me the same thing.
One of the big problems of trying to dismiss sexuality out of hand is because they come from a theorical base that is now obsolete: that if you are born male, necessarily you have to behave like all males; and that if you are born woman, necessarily you have to behave like all women. This way of thinking does not account for all kinds of sexual complexities. The problem is that if your sexual orientation does not respond the same way as most men do or as most women do. Culturally we are defined by sexual relations (sexual relations meaning the way people of both sexes interact with each other, I'm not necessarily talking about the sexual act). The way normal friends relate usually depends on their gender: men usually don't interact with other men the way they interact with women, and most women do not interact with other women the same way they interact with men. That's what I mean by "sexual relations".
A different sexual orientation than what society expects you to have usually changes the sexual relation between them and heterosexuals, and that is what is happening. A lesbian (who is not attracted to men) can only give herself (her entire being) sexually to another woman. She cannot do what society tells her to do: give herself to another man. The same with homosexual men. I've heard too many stories from them about being forced by society to have sexual relations of members of the opposite sex, about getting married with a person of the opposite sex because the parents want them to, while their hearts is with someone else of the same sex. Usually many of them are tormented with these feelings of not being able to give themselves the way they choose to someone they really love.
But then comes the argument:
"If everyone is allowed to marry same-sex, then it would be a danger to humanity. The survival of humanity depends on reproduction."
Of course, this is another argument that falls under the Naturalistic Fallacy. First, in light of our overpopulation on the ecological system, the biosphere, and in light on the incredible effect this has on our planet, our survival depends now on not reproducing so much.
Secondly, this statement supposes the ridiculous scenario that if today we legalize Gay Marriage, then each and every one of us would turn homosexual, and then humanity would be finished. Certainly I advocate for Gay Marriage, but I assure you, tomorrow I continue being as heterosexual as before.
Thirdly, this eliminates other similar sexual conditions which are not regarded as threat by the very same people who give this kind of argument. Let's take for instance celibacy. I'm not against perpetual virginity or a vote of celibacy in the case of nuns and priests. But I'm curious as to why they don't apply the very same arguments they apply to homosexuals to virgins and celibates:
"If everyone is allowed to be perpetual virgins or celibates, it would be a danger to humanity. The survival of humanity depends on reproduction."
For some reason I never hear that! The same principle can be applied to all of us who just decided to be single!
"But what about bisexuals?" We have with them a very interesting case, since they can be attracted to both sexes. It could be that it is more "desirable" that they should have only relations with members of the opposite sex. But what happens if they fall in love with someone of the same sex, while not falling in love with someone of the opposite sex? There is an element of the Naturalistic Fallacy involved here, but we should explore this further. Usually people who argue against Gay Marriage would state the following argument:
"Only heterosexual couples are able to love in the truest sense, it is the only kind of relation free of all vice (lust). In the case of homosexual and lesbian couples, they are moved in principle by lust, and therefore, cannot have a basis on true love."
Of course, this argument really begs the question, specially when I see a lot of heterosexuals being moved by lust, while I have looked at some homosexual and lesbian couples moved more by love than by anything else. The elements of true love are there: a sacrifice for the other, a genuine worry about what can happen to the other, efforts to make the relationship really work, a genuine respect for the other, they try to create harmony among families, and so on. There are some homosexual couples that I have seen that would be the envy of many heterosexual couples I know.
Therefore, in the case of bisexuals, as in the case of homosexuals, lesbians, and heterosexuals, love ... true love ... should be at most the criterion for a couple being together ... not their gender. To be with the one you love is, ethically speaking, far more desirable than being with someone whom you do not love, and yet, is of the opposite sex.
"If people begin to marry people of the same-sex, then next step will be marrying your own pet."
People who argue this way, go to the extent of the ridicule. What is marriage? It is a contract. This means that both persons who are married must understand what they are consenting to. Heterosexual and homosexual couples alike (with some exceptions) do understand what marriage means and what it is all about. Your dog does not! I rest my case.
Part II: A Proper Understanding of Sacred Scripture
I wish to begin with a joke made as a reaction to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's statements that Gay Marriage should not be allowed mostly due to the fact that the Bible says so. In philosophical circles we would call this the Fallacy of the Authority (we judge something to be so or not so just because someone says so). But it is a nice way to begin this important exposition using Scripture as the authority to ban homosexual relations and marriage:
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
We don't have to be geniuses or be versed in theology to notice immediately what happens if we use the Bible as sole authority on ethical matters such as issues of homosexuality, among other important controversial issues.
I wish to begin with a philosophical and theological reflection to refute what has always been claimed: that God determines what is good or bad (or evil).
God's Goodness and Ethical Principles
One of the things which have often been debated in philosophy and theology is the question of how do we determine that God is "good". One of the classic answers is that God is "goodness-Himself", but this is an empty argument, it does not tell us anything about either God nor what is good itself. What do we mean when we say that God is good?
(1) God is good because whatever He establishes as good is good.
(2) God is good because He follows ethical principles.
Statement 1 is related to the statement that God is omnipotent. If He is really omnipotent, then that means that He can establish what is good or evil. But then we have a big problem. For example, can God make genocide something good? If we follow the premise of (1) and the fact that God is omnipotent in the strict sense, the answer would inevitably be "yes". This is the thought that led many of the people in the Old Testament, and many people throughout the centuries who used the Bible as argument, to commit genocide in God's name or in Christ's name. However, philosophers and theologians agree that this cannot be, since there is nothing inherently good about committing genocide. The same can be said about assassinating, stealing, lying for no good reason, aggression, among other evil acts.
Those who wish to save argument (1) would say that God would never turn genocide into something good in itself. But wouldn't that imply that God is not omnipotent (at least in the strict sense)? It would make no sense at all to say that God can do anything, and yet will not do everything. And if He will not do some things then under what criterion can we establish with absolute certainty He will not do them (such as making genocide something good)? If we take seriously the statement that "whatever God determines is good itself", by logical necessity we cannot say that He will not do certain things. He could make genocide be good, He could make assassinations be something good, He could make damaging the environment being something really good, He could make hate, rape, fanaticism ... etc. be good. Then, of course, the next question would be: "What would be the difference, then, between God and the Devil?"
Many philosophers and theologians have chosen (2), as do I too. Of course, people say: "What about God's omnipotence?" The issue of omnipotence is solved if we exclude the possibility of change of formal truths (i.e. statements whose negation would imply a contradiction, or a contradictory state of affairs): God cannot make a round square, God cannot make "2 + 2" be "7", God cannot make a rock He cannot move. In terms of theology, God cannot sin, a very important statement. Sin is essentially a negation of God, so God cannot negate Himself, therefore, God cannot sin. St. Augustine said: Non potest mori, non potest peccare, non potest mentiri, non potest fally: tanta non potest, quae, si posset, non esset omnipotens. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with him. Something that is not logically contradictory is perfectly possible to God, and that's how the term: "... for God nothing is impossible" (Luke 1,37) should be interpreted.
[Note: In philosophy today we would say that it is impossible for God to violate analytic truths. He could violate all synthetic truths because their negation does not imply logical contradictions.]
Therefore, if God cannot sin, God cannot do something that is inherently evil or bad. If this is the case, we reach inevitably statement (2): God is good because He follows and acts according to ethical principles which are good in themselves.
Yahweh: The God of the Bible
If this is the case, that God cannot make genocide be good, or sexism be good, or make the killing of children be good, or make rape good, etc. ... how is it possible that the Bible, the Word of God, presents God as favoring exactly these tactics?
Don't believe me? There are multiple examples of genocide in the Bible, one of them from Moses himself. In a war against the Madianites, Moses was furious with his army, because they had compassion of Madianite women and left them alive, but Moses ordered for the women to be killed immediately (Num. 31,14-17), the whole process of killing and conquering lands in order to invade the Holy Land, plus the slaughter of those who were already living there (this is directed to those who tell me that the Israelites "were there first", and therefore, the State of Israel is perfectly justified in eliminating Palestinians and taking their lands) (you can read about this entire process from Exodus to the books of Samuel). There are extremely hateful passages in the Bible, like this one:
This is why I'm going to shake the heavens,
why the earth will reel on its foundations,
under the wrath of Yahweh Sabaoth,
the day when his anger ignites.
Then like a hunted gazelle,
like the sheep that nobody gathers in,
everyone will head back to his people,
everyone will flee to his native land.
All those who are found will be stabbed,
all those captured will fall by the sword,
their babies dashed to pieces before their eyes,
their houses plundered, their wives raped (Isaiah 13, 13-16).
Needless to say extremely sexist statements against women, completely disproportionate and unfair condemnations to several sins: putting to death people who violate the Sabbath (Exod. 35,2), or those who condemn their parents (Lev. 20,8), or those who commit bestialism (Lev. 20,15), or those who engage in same-sex acts (Lev. 20,13), or to banish from a country if a man slept with a woman during her period (Lev. 20,18).
The New Testament is no exception. Let's remember that much of what Jesus allegedly said are really reflections of the early Christian communities where they come from. I'm not saying anything new, most Bible scholars agree with this point of view. For example, the eminent scholar Raymond Brown in his book The Community of the Beloved Disciple shows how passages where Jesus apparently says that the Jews are the sons of the Devil (John 8,44) are actually a reflection of the conflict of the Johanine communities with Jews and Christians still practicing the laws of Judaism (which would be later called Ebionites). Even there are passages generally attributed to St. Paul which were not made by him, but later insertions of these passages within Pauline texts, among them we find the famous 1 Chorinthians 14,34-35, where supposedly St. Paul tells women to shut up during the assemblies. There are other passages attributed to St. Paul where we can find in other passages against women (1 Tim 2,12; Eph. 5,22), but as we know both of the letters of Timothy and the letter to the Ephesians were not written by St. Paul, but later (other Post-Pauline letters are Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Titus and Hebrews).
Most horrible of all, we find passages supporting the monstrosity of slavery! We find passages in Lev. 25,44, Col. 3,22 and Eph 6,5, and, in the Old Testament, God authorizes for a daughter to be sold as a slave (Exod. 21,7).
How can we explain this discrepancy between the all goodness of God that follows and favor ethical principles, to this kind of God which instead of God He seems more like the Devil (or like Bill Maher often says: "I didn't know God was a prick!")? Well, a key to understanding this can be found in the following statement made by Jesus:
"It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning" (Matt. 19,8).
In other words, from a true Christian standpoint, God does not reveal Himself just all at once in one instant. God was revealing Himself gradually throughout history. He did not impose His view and His spiritual reality on us humans for two reasons:
(a) Because God does respect our free-will, even when our decisions are definitely evil.
(b) Because if God revealed Himself as He really is, probably most people would not accept it, because it went against all their preconceptions on what God should be. Most probably you can preach an anti-slavery God, or a God in favor of women, or a God against war, etc. and probably people would end up with people not accepting such a notion of God!
Of course, this all requires a new paradigm, a new theology of Revelation that is unfortunately not addressed by the majority of theologians, including the Catholic Church. I am working on my own in this area, but it is sad to see that not much effort is being placed in this very important matter. One of the very few is John Shelby Spong, but unfortunately he is not very good in matters of scholarship (his endorsement of Barbara Thiering's "pesher technique" is outrageous), and his theology, in my judgment, is well-intentioned, but is extremely poor. Christianity must confront this problem in an era where people are uncomfortable with the passages I just mentioned, and are less inclined to accept our Christian religions for this reason.
[Note: I'm a devout Catholic. One of the reasons is that I conceive God as a Trinity, which is a conception of God as always loving, and in that love be always creating. Only a God as loving as this could make flesh and reveal Himself the way He did in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and just as loving would give Himself in the Eucharist the way He did, and give His life to give us life in His resurrection. But although everything that we need for salvation is in Scripture and Tradition, there are means to keep discovering more and more about God. My position is that of creating a dialog between Ethics and Theologians to see in which ways an ethical exploration of God can reveal us more about God is.]
Homosexuality and the Bible
Obviously we need to address the aspect of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. We find two passages in the Old Testament that explicitly condemn homosexual sexual acts (Lev. 18,22; 20,13). It interesting that in these condemnations there is no mention of lesbian sexual acts, only male-male sexual acts.
There is another passage in the Old Testament that is frequently used to justify condemning homosexuality, which is the famous passage of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the story, Yahweh wanted to destroy these cities because they were an abomination. Two angels (messengers) of God were sent to Sodom, and the people of the city wanted to engage in gang raping them. Lot offered her daughter instead (an ethical way of behaving?), but the mob outside still wanted to rape the messengers. We are to understand that the sin Yahweh was furious about was precisely what we today call "sodomy". However, a close inspection of Scripture shows that this is not the case. Let's look at a very similar story in the book of Judges:
While they were enjoying themselves, some townsmen, scoundrels, came crowding round the house; they battered on the door and said to the old man, master of the house, "Send out the man who went into your house, we should like to have intercourse with him!" The master of the house went out to them and said, "No, brothers, please, do not be so wicked. Since this man is now under my roof, do not commit such an infamy. Here is my daughter; she is a virgin; I shall bring her out to you. Ill-treat her, do what you please with her, but I do not commit such an infamy against this man." But the men would not listen to him. So the Levite took hold of his concubine and brought her out to them. They had intercourse with her and ill-treated her all night till morning; when dawn was breaking they let her go. (Judg. 20,22-25).
This is clear as day. Notice that Lot too offered his daughter to be "ill-treated" by the townsmen. If their sin was homosexuality, then why would Lot offer his daughter if he knew they were all homosexuals? The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is mistreating foreigners!!!! This is a mythological theme that is repeated again and again throughout history in many civilizations (the Bible being no exception). Unfortunately, because a male-male intercourse is implied, this was interpreted much later, even by early Christians, that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is male-male sexual act (Jude 7; based on Jude we find also 2 Peter 2,6-10).
Of course, all of these passages can be understood from the thought system of the time. If we take into consideration that Jewish tradition at the time placed importance to reproduction, we can see why it was so important to enforce and control sexual acts in such a way. Even more, the sacredness of the male gender (the sole candidates to be priests) along with the possibility of more infection in male-male acts, made them concentrate more on condemning these sexual acts. Let's not forget the continual concern for "being clean" or "unclean" in the Old Testament Torah. Finally, we must consider the fact that males, obviously, were considered superior to females, so "who cares what happens among lesbians anyway?", the relation among males was definitely of concern.
In the New Testament we find St. Paul's statements where he says that no affeminate nor homosexual can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Chor. 5,9-10). But as we all know, Paul was educated within the Jewish community, he had Gamaliel as teacher (Acts 22,3), and knew about the rejection of homosexuals and the passages which condemn them to death, and he also must have known several writings (among them the apocryphal 4 Maccabees) where it says that we are closer to God if we dominate flesh. Also, as many scholars have pointed out, St. Paul also was deeply influenced by Middle Platonism which places the Spirit above the flesh. Since homosexual acts were regarded only as acts of the flesh (because they are unnatural .... naturalistic fallacy once again!), then no one who practices them can inherit the Kingdom of God. Last, but not least, let's not forget the analogy that St. Paul makes between a husband and wife as reflection (or Platonic participation) of the relation of Christ and his Church, any homosexual act would not adopt to this conception.
Today, in the XXI century we know better than much of this, we know that sexuality does not behave in this way, that homosexuality cannot be seen with these eyes, and much less in the way the Old Testament looks at it. These are prejudices of these societies during history are based mostly on criteria that philosophy and science have demystified long ago. To endure them would be in itself anti-ethical.
Conclusion
There is absolutely no way from a philosophical standpoint to forbid Gay Marriage, but more than that, we cannot use Scripture itself with all the defects it has as a justification to ban Gay Marriage or to condemn homosexual acts if love is involved in it. One of the serious defects of Scripture is precisely the prejudices against homosexuality that appear there, and we have to see these passages in their own historical context. There is simply no ethical justification to forbid same-sex relations.
I was not thinking of talking about it. The problem is that after posting that "Gay Marriage" bulletin with my support, I have received some angry mails expressing that they were "disappointed" by my decision. I didn't know that I had to struggle to meet some people's expectations and standards, but everyone who knows me knows that I don't meet many standards. I have a right to make my own decisions just as long as those decisions are well-based on reason, spirituality, and every-day reality in the world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'm no exception.
However, I want to express my reasons for taking this decision, and it is mostly philosophically based, not too much on Scripture (for reasons I hope I'll explain in my next blog-post).
This blog will divide in two parts: one ethical and philosophical, the other one essentially biblical.
Part I: Ethical and Meta-Ethical Considerations
In philosophy there are three fundamental ethical works, I'll place an asterisk on the two most important ones:
- Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle *
- Fundamental Principles of the of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant*
- Principia Ethica by G. E. Moore
The rest of the works, as A. N. Whitehead would say, is a footnote of these works. However, we can find other very important fundamental ethical works.
- Many works of Plato: The Phaedro, The Phaedo, The Republic
- The Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas (of course, I refer only to those parts of the Summa which deal with Morals.
- Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals by David Hume (a fabulous work)
- Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
However, of all of these works, concerning the controversial issue of marriage among homosexuals and lesbians (the so-called "Gay Marriage" issue), I think that the one that really made me change my mind was G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica. In this fabulous piece of work, Moore founded an area of the discipline of Ethics called "MetaEthics", which concerns about the epistemology of ethical principles, their essential properties, their basis, among others. This is distinguished from "Normative Ethics", the branch of Ethics that deals with ethical principles themselves and what determines what is virtue or vice, good or bad, etc. And it is also distinguished from "Applied Ethics" that deals with the principles of the ethical principles dealt in Normative Ethics, but in relation to ever-day life: Ecology, Business, Labor, Law, Politics, and so on.
In the case of G. E. Moore, he concentrates his efforts to clear up about the notion of "good" in itself as being the main topic of Ethics. Also he had in mind, since David Hume, that there are wrong inferences from facts to value, a non-sequitur, a fallacy. This fallacy basically states that "because something is in x way, then that necessarily means that we should all act in x way." This takes a Naturalist approach: "because nature created humans in such-and-such way, then that means that all humans should act in such-and-such manner." This is commonly known as the Naturalistic Fallacy. This fallacy takes many forms. Let me give you several examples:
(1) Because men are physically more powerful than women, and more susceptible to violence, then it necessarily means that all men should be violent, and women should take care of their homes.
(2) Because nature operates by the principle of the "survival of the fittest", then that means that you can play dirty in order to survive in the market at other people's expense.
(3) Because men have a natural tendency to be excited about women with great cleavage and short skirts, then it justifies raping them (usually under the argument that "she was asking for it").
Or we often find more elaborated forms of the fallacy such as:
(4) Scientists have discovered that cheating is intrinsically a survival tactic of our species to look for other "healthier" people to have sex with to be able to reproduce "healthier" children. Therefore cheating is good.
G. E. Moore noted something very interesting about the Naturalistic Fallacy: it, and other ethical fallacies like it, usually occur when we try to define the notion of "good" in relation to certain properties of the world of experience. Hedonism, for instance, defines "good" as that which brings pleasure, "Utilitarianism" also talks about the greater pleasure of the majority. Of course, we must understand both of these doctrines as not saying that we should understand this "pleasure" as "having endless sex" or "eating too much", etc... since these doctrines also include what they call a "calculus of pleasure". Epicurus particularly preached this doctrine, and in fact, he lived rather a modest life without any excesses. John Stuart Mill talks about the greater pleasure of the majority. However, there are ethical actions which are not pleasurable at all (such as going through a fire to save a child that is trapped in a building on fire, or the unpleasantness you have to endure to donate blood, etc.) Therefore what is good cannot be identified with pleasure.
Other people have proposed other definitions of "good" in this manner. However, Moore finds that it is undefinable, because once we try to define it, we fall into the Naturalistic Fallacy. Even in religion we fall into the Naturalistic Fallacy but adding God in the way:
"God created men and women in such-and-such a way. Therefore they should behave in such-and-such manner."
Of course, this is still a problem. Even God created "Adam" and "Eve", and not "Adam" and "Steve" (as they say), we still have huge problems. We were not created sexually perfect, many have sexual dysfunctions, many are even in very deplorable circumstances sexually speaking, none of us are in "paradise". What do I mean by this? The phenomenon of sexuality is highly complex. It does not have the simplicity that our first parents (Adam and Eve) had, and even after sinning, their sexual being became complicated. It is not a simple as to judge people according to their genitals and physical properties, and as many have found out in the last few centuries, the sexual orientation of people do not necessarily correspond to the physical gender. There are even cases of men who feel like they are women inside but using men's bodies, and there are women who feel men inside but have the "wrong" body. You have men, who feel like men, but are only attracted to men (usually this explains this phenomena of men who say: "I make love to my wife, but I have sex with other men" ... obviously a semantic problem). There are also women who feel like women, but are only attracted to other women.
The usual argument is that homosexuals are "made", they are not "born" that way. Well, this is only half-true. I know cases of people who were heterosexuals, but were made homosexuals in the process. I also know of cases of homosexuals who, when you ask how did they discover they liked their members of the same sex, they'll tell you: "The way I discovered I liked people of my same sex, can be best described as the way you discovered that you like people of the opposite sex." Andrew Sullivan would give you that kind of answer, and I have no reason to doubt it. Many homosexuals and lesbians have told me the same thing.
One of the big problems of trying to dismiss sexuality out of hand is because they come from a theorical base that is now obsolete: that if you are born male, necessarily you have to behave like all males; and that if you are born woman, necessarily you have to behave like all women. This way of thinking does not account for all kinds of sexual complexities. The problem is that if your sexual orientation does not respond the same way as most men do or as most women do. Culturally we are defined by sexual relations (sexual relations meaning the way people of both sexes interact with each other, I'm not necessarily talking about the sexual act). The way normal friends relate usually depends on their gender: men usually don't interact with other men the way they interact with women, and most women do not interact with other women the same way they interact with men. That's what I mean by "sexual relations".
A different sexual orientation than what society expects you to have usually changes the sexual relation between them and heterosexuals, and that is what is happening. A lesbian (who is not attracted to men) can only give herself (her entire being) sexually to another woman. She cannot do what society tells her to do: give herself to another man. The same with homosexual men. I've heard too many stories from them about being forced by society to have sexual relations of members of the opposite sex, about getting married with a person of the opposite sex because the parents want them to, while their hearts is with someone else of the same sex. Usually many of them are tormented with these feelings of not being able to give themselves the way they choose to someone they really love.
But then comes the argument:
"If everyone is allowed to marry same-sex, then it would be a danger to humanity. The survival of humanity depends on reproduction."
Of course, this is another argument that falls under the Naturalistic Fallacy. First, in light of our overpopulation on the ecological system, the biosphere, and in light on the incredible effect this has on our planet, our survival depends now on not reproducing so much.
Secondly, this statement supposes the ridiculous scenario that if today we legalize Gay Marriage, then each and every one of us would turn homosexual, and then humanity would be finished. Certainly I advocate for Gay Marriage, but I assure you, tomorrow I continue being as heterosexual as before.
Thirdly, this eliminates other similar sexual conditions which are not regarded as threat by the very same people who give this kind of argument. Let's take for instance celibacy. I'm not against perpetual virginity or a vote of celibacy in the case of nuns and priests. But I'm curious as to why they don't apply the very same arguments they apply to homosexuals to virgins and celibates:
"If everyone is allowed to be perpetual virgins or celibates, it would be a danger to humanity. The survival of humanity depends on reproduction."
For some reason I never hear that! The same principle can be applied to all of us who just decided to be single!
"But what about bisexuals?" We have with them a very interesting case, since they can be attracted to both sexes. It could be that it is more "desirable" that they should have only relations with members of the opposite sex. But what happens if they fall in love with someone of the same sex, while not falling in love with someone of the opposite sex? There is an element of the Naturalistic Fallacy involved here, but we should explore this further. Usually people who argue against Gay Marriage would state the following argument:
"Only heterosexual couples are able to love in the truest sense, it is the only kind of relation free of all vice (lust). In the case of homosexual and lesbian couples, they are moved in principle by lust, and therefore, cannot have a basis on true love."
Of course, this argument really begs the question, specially when I see a lot of heterosexuals being moved by lust, while I have looked at some homosexual and lesbian couples moved more by love than by anything else. The elements of true love are there: a sacrifice for the other, a genuine worry about what can happen to the other, efforts to make the relationship really work, a genuine respect for the other, they try to create harmony among families, and so on. There are some homosexual couples that I have seen that would be the envy of many heterosexual couples I know.
Therefore, in the case of bisexuals, as in the case of homosexuals, lesbians, and heterosexuals, love ... true love ... should be at most the criterion for a couple being together ... not their gender. To be with the one you love is, ethically speaking, far more desirable than being with someone whom you do not love, and yet, is of the opposite sex.
"If people begin to marry people of the same-sex, then next step will be marrying your own pet."
People who argue this way, go to the extent of the ridicule. What is marriage? It is a contract. This means that both persons who are married must understand what they are consenting to. Heterosexual and homosexual couples alike (with some exceptions) do understand what marriage means and what it is all about. Your dog does not! I rest my case.
Part II: A Proper Understanding of Sacred Scripture
I wish to begin with a joke made as a reaction to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's statements that Gay Marriage should not be allowed mostly due to the fact that the Bible says so. In philosophical circles we would call this the Fallacy of the Authority (we judge something to be so or not so just because someone says so). But it is a nice way to begin this important exposition using Scripture as the authority to ban homosexual relations and marriage:
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
We don't have to be geniuses or be versed in theology to notice immediately what happens if we use the Bible as sole authority on ethical matters such as issues of homosexuality, among other important controversial issues.
I wish to begin with a philosophical and theological reflection to refute what has always been claimed: that God determines what is good or bad (or evil).
God's Goodness and Ethical Principles
One of the things which have often been debated in philosophy and theology is the question of how do we determine that God is "good". One of the classic answers is that God is "goodness-Himself", but this is an empty argument, it does not tell us anything about either God nor what is good itself. What do we mean when we say that God is good?
(1) God is good because whatever He establishes as good is good.
(2) God is good because He follows ethical principles.
Statement 1 is related to the statement that God is omnipotent. If He is really omnipotent, then that means that He can establish what is good or evil. But then we have a big problem. For example, can God make genocide something good? If we follow the premise of (1) and the fact that God is omnipotent in the strict sense, the answer would inevitably be "yes". This is the thought that led many of the people in the Old Testament, and many people throughout the centuries who used the Bible as argument, to commit genocide in God's name or in Christ's name. However, philosophers and theologians agree that this cannot be, since there is nothing inherently good about committing genocide. The same can be said about assassinating, stealing, lying for no good reason, aggression, among other evil acts.
Those who wish to save argument (1) would say that God would never turn genocide into something good in itself. But wouldn't that imply that God is not omnipotent (at least in the strict sense)? It would make no sense at all to say that God can do anything, and yet will not do everything. And if He will not do some things then under what criterion can we establish with absolute certainty He will not do them (such as making genocide something good)? If we take seriously the statement that "whatever God determines is good itself", by logical necessity we cannot say that He will not do certain things. He could make genocide be good, He could make assassinations be something good, He could make damaging the environment being something really good, He could make hate, rape, fanaticism ... etc. be good. Then, of course, the next question would be: "What would be the difference, then, between God and the Devil?"
Many philosophers and theologians have chosen (2), as do I too. Of course, people say: "What about God's omnipotence?" The issue of omnipotence is solved if we exclude the possibility of change of formal truths (i.e. statements whose negation would imply a contradiction, or a contradictory state of affairs): God cannot make a round square, God cannot make "2 + 2" be "7", God cannot make a rock He cannot move. In terms of theology, God cannot sin, a very important statement. Sin is essentially a negation of God, so God cannot negate Himself, therefore, God cannot sin. St. Augustine said: Non potest mori, non potest peccare, non potest mentiri, non potest fally: tanta non potest, quae, si posset, non esset omnipotens. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with him. Something that is not logically contradictory is perfectly possible to God, and that's how the term: "... for God nothing is impossible" (Luke 1,37) should be interpreted.
[Note: In philosophy today we would say that it is impossible for God to violate analytic truths. He could violate all synthetic truths because their negation does not imply logical contradictions.]
Therefore, if God cannot sin, God cannot do something that is inherently evil or bad. If this is the case, we reach inevitably statement (2): God is good because He follows and acts according to ethical principles which are good in themselves.
Yahweh: The God of the Bible
If this is the case, that God cannot make genocide be good, or sexism be good, or make the killing of children be good, or make rape good, etc. ... how is it possible that the Bible, the Word of God, presents God as favoring exactly these tactics?
Don't believe me? There are multiple examples of genocide in the Bible, one of them from Moses himself. In a war against the Madianites, Moses was furious with his army, because they had compassion of Madianite women and left them alive, but Moses ordered for the women to be killed immediately (Num. 31,14-17), the whole process of killing and conquering lands in order to invade the Holy Land, plus the slaughter of those who were already living there (this is directed to those who tell me that the Israelites "were there first", and therefore, the State of Israel is perfectly justified in eliminating Palestinians and taking their lands) (you can read about this entire process from Exodus to the books of Samuel). There are extremely hateful passages in the Bible, like this one:
This is why I'm going to shake the heavens,
why the earth will reel on its foundations,
under the wrath of Yahweh Sabaoth,
the day when his anger ignites.
Then like a hunted gazelle,
like the sheep that nobody gathers in,
everyone will head back to his people,
everyone will flee to his native land.
All those who are found will be stabbed,
all those captured will fall by the sword,
their babies dashed to pieces before their eyes,
their houses plundered, their wives raped (Isaiah 13, 13-16).
Needless to say extremely sexist statements against women, completely disproportionate and unfair condemnations to several sins: putting to death people who violate the Sabbath (Exod. 35,2), or those who condemn their parents (Lev. 20,8), or those who commit bestialism (Lev. 20,15), or those who engage in same-sex acts (Lev. 20,13), or to banish from a country if a man slept with a woman during her period (Lev. 20,18).
The New Testament is no exception. Let's remember that much of what Jesus allegedly said are really reflections of the early Christian communities where they come from. I'm not saying anything new, most Bible scholars agree with this point of view. For example, the eminent scholar Raymond Brown in his book The Community of the Beloved Disciple shows how passages where Jesus apparently says that the Jews are the sons of the Devil (John 8,44) are actually a reflection of the conflict of the Johanine communities with Jews and Christians still practicing the laws of Judaism (which would be later called Ebionites). Even there are passages generally attributed to St. Paul which were not made by him, but later insertions of these passages within Pauline texts, among them we find the famous 1 Chorinthians 14,34-35, where supposedly St. Paul tells women to shut up during the assemblies. There are other passages attributed to St. Paul where we can find in other passages against women (1 Tim 2,12; Eph. 5,22), but as we know both of the letters of Timothy and the letter to the Ephesians were not written by St. Paul, but later (other Post-Pauline letters are Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Titus and Hebrews).
Most horrible of all, we find passages supporting the monstrosity of slavery! We find passages in Lev. 25,44, Col. 3,22 and Eph 6,5, and, in the Old Testament, God authorizes for a daughter to be sold as a slave (Exod. 21,7).
How can we explain this discrepancy between the all goodness of God that follows and favor ethical principles, to this kind of God which instead of God He seems more like the Devil (or like Bill Maher often says: "I didn't know God was a prick!")? Well, a key to understanding this can be found in the following statement made by Jesus:
"It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning" (Matt. 19,8).
In other words, from a true Christian standpoint, God does not reveal Himself just all at once in one instant. God was revealing Himself gradually throughout history. He did not impose His view and His spiritual reality on us humans for two reasons:
(a) Because God does respect our free-will, even when our decisions are definitely evil.
(b) Because if God revealed Himself as He really is, probably most people would not accept it, because it went against all their preconceptions on what God should be. Most probably you can preach an anti-slavery God, or a God in favor of women, or a God against war, etc. and probably people would end up with people not accepting such a notion of God!
Of course, this all requires a new paradigm, a new theology of Revelation that is unfortunately not addressed by the majority of theologians, including the Catholic Church. I am working on my own in this area, but it is sad to see that not much effort is being placed in this very important matter. One of the very few is John Shelby Spong, but unfortunately he is not very good in matters of scholarship (his endorsement of Barbara Thiering's "pesher technique" is outrageous), and his theology, in my judgment, is well-intentioned, but is extremely poor. Christianity must confront this problem in an era where people are uncomfortable with the passages I just mentioned, and are less inclined to accept our Christian religions for this reason.
[Note: I'm a devout Catholic. One of the reasons is that I conceive God as a Trinity, which is a conception of God as always loving, and in that love be always creating. Only a God as loving as this could make flesh and reveal Himself the way He did in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and just as loving would give Himself in the Eucharist the way He did, and give His life to give us life in His resurrection. But although everything that we need for salvation is in Scripture and Tradition, there are means to keep discovering more and more about God. My position is that of creating a dialog between Ethics and Theologians to see in which ways an ethical exploration of God can reveal us more about God is.]
Homosexuality and the Bible
Obviously we need to address the aspect of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. We find two passages in the Old Testament that explicitly condemn homosexual sexual acts (Lev. 18,22; 20,13). It interesting that in these condemnations there is no mention of lesbian sexual acts, only male-male sexual acts.
There is another passage in the Old Testament that is frequently used to justify condemning homosexuality, which is the famous passage of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the story, Yahweh wanted to destroy these cities because they were an abomination. Two angels (messengers) of God were sent to Sodom, and the people of the city wanted to engage in gang raping them. Lot offered her daughter instead (an ethical way of behaving?), but the mob outside still wanted to rape the messengers. We are to understand that the sin Yahweh was furious about was precisely what we today call "sodomy". However, a close inspection of Scripture shows that this is not the case. Let's look at a very similar story in the book of Judges:
While they were enjoying themselves, some townsmen, scoundrels, came crowding round the house; they battered on the door and said to the old man, master of the house, "Send out the man who went into your house, we should like to have intercourse with him!" The master of the house went out to them and said, "No, brothers, please, do not be so wicked. Since this man is now under my roof, do not commit such an infamy. Here is my daughter; she is a virgin; I shall bring her out to you. Ill-treat her, do what you please with her, but I do not commit such an infamy against this man." But the men would not listen to him. So the Levite took hold of his concubine and brought her out to them. They had intercourse with her and ill-treated her all night till morning; when dawn was breaking they let her go. (Judg. 20,22-25).
This is clear as day. Notice that Lot too offered his daughter to be "ill-treated" by the townsmen. If their sin was homosexuality, then why would Lot offer his daughter if he knew they were all homosexuals? The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is mistreating foreigners!!!! This is a mythological theme that is repeated again and again throughout history in many civilizations (the Bible being no exception). Unfortunately, because a male-male intercourse is implied, this was interpreted much later, even by early Christians, that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is male-male sexual act (Jude 7; based on Jude we find also 2 Peter 2,6-10).
Of course, all of these passages can be understood from the thought system of the time. If we take into consideration that Jewish tradition at the time placed importance to reproduction, we can see why it was so important to enforce and control sexual acts in such a way. Even more, the sacredness of the male gender (the sole candidates to be priests) along with the possibility of more infection in male-male acts, made them concentrate more on condemning these sexual acts. Let's not forget the continual concern for "being clean" or "unclean" in the Old Testament Torah. Finally, we must consider the fact that males, obviously, were considered superior to females, so "who cares what happens among lesbians anyway?", the relation among males was definitely of concern.
In the New Testament we find St. Paul's statements where he says that no affeminate nor homosexual can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Chor. 5,9-10). But as we all know, Paul was educated within the Jewish community, he had Gamaliel as teacher (Acts 22,3), and knew about the rejection of homosexuals and the passages which condemn them to death, and he also must have known several writings (among them the apocryphal 4 Maccabees) where it says that we are closer to God if we dominate flesh. Also, as many scholars have pointed out, St. Paul also was deeply influenced by Middle Platonism which places the Spirit above the flesh. Since homosexual acts were regarded only as acts of the flesh (because they are unnatural .... naturalistic fallacy once again!), then no one who practices them can inherit the Kingdom of God. Last, but not least, let's not forget the analogy that St. Paul makes between a husband and wife as reflection (or Platonic participation) of the relation of Christ and his Church, any homosexual act would not adopt to this conception.
Today, in the XXI century we know better than much of this, we know that sexuality does not behave in this way, that homosexuality cannot be seen with these eyes, and much less in the way the Old Testament looks at it. These are prejudices of these societies during history are based mostly on criteria that philosophy and science have demystified long ago. To endure them would be in itself anti-ethical.
Conclusion
There is absolutely no way from a philosophical standpoint to forbid Gay Marriage, but more than that, we cannot use Scripture itself with all the defects it has as a justification to ban Gay Marriage or to condemn homosexual acts if love is involved in it. One of the serious defects of Scripture is precisely the prejudices against homosexuality that appear there, and we have to see these passages in their own historical context. There is simply no ethical justification to forbid same-sex relations.
Why Do I Let People Download My Books for Free?
Frequently some friends of mine ask me why if I want to sell my book Underdetermination of Science - Part I: The Relation Between Formal Science and Natural Science, then why do I create a website where people can download it for free. Don't I want to profit from the book? Won't people go in mass to download the book in my site, and not buy the book?
Well, let's put it this way: I'm not interested in the money. I can care less about the money. If I cared about the money, I would have written something else, not a book that is clearly intended for analytic philosophers, who are a very small market compared to the market that would read, for example, The Da Vinci Code. But even if my market was as BIG as that, I would still let people download it for free. It has worked for Cory Doctorow, who has surpassed all expectations of his Publisher, and he lets people download his e-books for free in his website. Apparently, contrary to what people suppose, downloading his e-books for free created an entire new market of people, who after reading some of it wanted to buy it (the same as when you go to a bookstore, sit down, read some of the book and then decide to buy it). It is not the same as in Amazon.com that they give you some preview: but you only see most of the time the part you are not interested in, only you want to see the part that you want to read in order to know if the book is worth buying. No, Cory Doctorow provides the complete version of his books in PDF format and DRM-Free. Here is the reason why he does this.
But what moves me to provide my e-book for free is a deep principle concerning freedom of information. What about Copyright? Well... what about it? Is it an end in itself? Or is it a means to an end? As I have argued before, Copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial legal mechanism directed to stimulate writing and artistic works by granting a temporal monopolies over certain forms of expressions. It is not intended to "protect" works, rather restrict the public from certain uses of a work. Knowledge of what is expressed in the work must be accessible to the people. That's part of a free society. Once you create big walls to prevent people have access to them, then we are not talking about a free society. Copyright was originally consisted in preventing people from profiting from the works of authors without paying them (the reason why the Statute of Anne was created). So Copyright was also a matter of equity, that makes sense in a capitalist system. However, for culture to flourish the way it should, this monopoly over an expression of a work should enter the public domain, so that the public can use it to create more works (this is the way it has been for centuries).
So, my concern is not whether people download and copy my book. Concerning my book I have only three worries:
1) Whether people appropriate themselves the book instead of giving me credit (but this goes beyond Copyright ... even when Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is in the public domain, no one can make a copy and attribute this to themselves. This would be plagiarism).
2) Whether people will make derivative works out of it: a book that is not a functional work (text book, encyclopedia, guide, and so on), but expresses my views, should not be made available for creating derivative works. To make a derivative work out of my book would be misrepresenting my views.
3) Whether people will use it for commercial purposes: I don't consider downloading or copying my book "stealing". It is stealing, if my book is used for commercial purposes without giving me my share of the works (Copyright's original purpose).
As time went by, more restrictions were made, and the period of Copyright extended to a ridiculously long period of time (lifetime of the author plus seventy years). Of course, current Copyright laws, in the digital era, created Digital Restriction Managements (DRMs), laws to punished breaking DRM, created formats that built walls, created new laws to supervise photocopying, created new laws to penalize students and teachers if they ever dare photocopy an expensive book that neither students nor the teachers are able to buy. Of course, you may ask, what's the big deal anyway?
I remember when I gave my first "Ethics" class. I wanted to provide the students with some readings. They were from Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant. At least, as I said before, Aristotle and Kant are the most important ones. I wanted to leave the copies in the library, but I was surprised about something very important: I couldn't leave the copies :P Well, the thing is that I could, just as long as I complied with certain rules. I had to provide certain information, just an extremely limited amount of copies, had to give them the original book (to be certain that I actually bought it, forgetting that I needed that book for the class!), so that students would pay about $0.10 a page photocopying the copy. If I didn't comply, then the library would deny me placing copies there!
This seems to be so contrary to what academia should be, that access to knowledge is denied. I actually spent some long time convincing the library supervisor to let me place the copies without doing the rest they required me. Alas! I convinced her, although she was not happy. But she warned me about what would happen if the Federal Government sued the university's library for that. I told her that obviously the university would win the case because the photocopying of copyrighted material, specially if its part of a book (chapters, or pages, but not the entire book) for educational purposes fell under "fair use". The threats did not come so much from the Federal Government, but from publishers who wanted to maximize their profits at all costs, even when they are presently profiting from their works despite photocopying.
Furthermore, I explained the pains of trying to ask for books that were not going to reach the bookstore in time, plus the fact that even if they did, I didn't have the heart to ask students to buy the first two volumes of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (which cost $80.00 each), just to discuss two very short sections of each volume.
It is not that I consider my books to be a contribution that will change history of mankind forever just like St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa did. However, I would certainly regret it if I place someone else in that very same position when photocopying my book or making a digital copy online. Since DRMs essentially don't work at all, and suing a person for breaking a DRMs, even for perfectly justified purposes, is a disastrous policy .... hey ... why not make the book available for free online anyway? If someone wants to buy the book, the printed version, let him or her buy it. If someone wants to print the first 10 pages of the book, let him or her do it. If someone wants to change it to another format ... hey... why not? Just as long as they attribute the work to me, they do not use it for commercial purposes, and they do not make derivative works out of it, they can do whatever they want! All of this is perfectly reasonable, and guarantees that whoever wants to use my work for academic purposes will have free access to this information.
But why not use means such as Project Muse or JSTOR? Well, those are additional barriers placed by publishers and the media to make universities spend huge amounts of money to make articles of journals be available for teachers and students. Nice try! But can the general public have the same access to information? I don't think so. If democracy and freedom are to rule, if we are to have an open society, we need information freely available. Project Muse and JSTOR cannot use these means that create barriers to knowledge for profit, even when these people say that they are non-profit organizations.
And there is no sense in investing in a market of e-books either. The only way this would make sense is if you have imposed DRM on them, which ultimately would imply disrespecting the public, assuming that everyone who buys it is potentially a thief, to then make them pass through the tortuous process of forbidding them printing certain pages, to then penalize them with the e-book not working if they fundamentally copy it for legitimate purposes, to then sue their ass if they dare brake the DRM also for legitimate purposes, and then leave them ruined. Result? A catastrophe for e-book sales. Don't believe me? Go to Barnes & Noble .... do you see them selling e-books? No! Go to Amazon.com ... do you see them selling e-books? Yes ... though with not as enthusiastic as before! I remember when The Da Vinci Code first hit bookstores, and when I looked in Amazon.com, there were sales of The Da Vinci Code E-Books all over the place. Today? Well ... search for The Da Vinci Code, in the best of the cases you'll see an audio download! So why bother about selling E-Books anyway?
So, what did I do in the end? I set up my site, provide the information, and make my books to be downloaded for free if people wish to do so. If they want to buy the book so they can carry it with them, read it in their bathtub, go with it to Canada, then to Europe, and back (a thing you cannot do with DRMed documents, music, and movies), to photocopy certain chapters, or to copy it entirely for educational purposes, etc. ..... then that's great!
I cannot, in my conscience, do otherwise.
Well, let's put it this way: I'm not interested in the money. I can care less about the money. If I cared about the money, I would have written something else, not a book that is clearly intended for analytic philosophers, who are a very small market compared to the market that would read, for example, The Da Vinci Code. But even if my market was as BIG as that, I would still let people download it for free. It has worked for Cory Doctorow, who has surpassed all expectations of his Publisher, and he lets people download his e-books for free in his website. Apparently, contrary to what people suppose, downloading his e-books for free created an entire new market of people, who after reading some of it wanted to buy it (the same as when you go to a bookstore, sit down, read some of the book and then decide to buy it). It is not the same as in Amazon.com that they give you some preview: but you only see most of the time the part you are not interested in, only you want to see the part that you want to read in order to know if the book is worth buying. No, Cory Doctorow provides the complete version of his books in PDF format and DRM-Free. Here is the reason why he does this.
But what moves me to provide my e-book for free is a deep principle concerning freedom of information. What about Copyright? Well... what about it? Is it an end in itself? Or is it a means to an end? As I have argued before, Copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial legal mechanism directed to stimulate writing and artistic works by granting a temporal monopolies over certain forms of expressions. It is not intended to "protect" works, rather restrict the public from certain uses of a work. Knowledge of what is expressed in the work must be accessible to the people. That's part of a free society. Once you create big walls to prevent people have access to them, then we are not talking about a free society. Copyright was originally consisted in preventing people from profiting from the works of authors without paying them (the reason why the Statute of Anne was created). So Copyright was also a matter of equity, that makes sense in a capitalist system. However, for culture to flourish the way it should, this monopoly over an expression of a work should enter the public domain, so that the public can use it to create more works (this is the way it has been for centuries).
So, my concern is not whether people download and copy my book. Concerning my book I have only three worries:
1) Whether people appropriate themselves the book instead of giving me credit (but this goes beyond Copyright ... even when Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is in the public domain, no one can make a copy and attribute this to themselves. This would be plagiarism).
2) Whether people will make derivative works out of it: a book that is not a functional work (text book, encyclopedia, guide, and so on), but expresses my views, should not be made available for creating derivative works. To make a derivative work out of my book would be misrepresenting my views.
3) Whether people will use it for commercial purposes: I don't consider downloading or copying my book "stealing". It is stealing, if my book is used for commercial purposes without giving me my share of the works (Copyright's original purpose).
As time went by, more restrictions were made, and the period of Copyright extended to a ridiculously long period of time (lifetime of the author plus seventy years). Of course, current Copyright laws, in the digital era, created Digital Restriction Managements (DRMs), laws to punished breaking DRM, created formats that built walls, created new laws to supervise photocopying, created new laws to penalize students and teachers if they ever dare photocopy an expensive book that neither students nor the teachers are able to buy. Of course, you may ask, what's the big deal anyway?
I remember when I gave my first "Ethics" class. I wanted to provide the students with some readings. They were from Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant. At least, as I said before, Aristotle and Kant are the most important ones. I wanted to leave the copies in the library, but I was surprised about something very important: I couldn't leave the copies :P Well, the thing is that I could, just as long as I complied with certain rules. I had to provide certain information, just an extremely limited amount of copies, had to give them the original book (to be certain that I actually bought it, forgetting that I needed that book for the class!), so that students would pay about $0.10 a page photocopying the copy. If I didn't comply, then the library would deny me placing copies there!
This seems to be so contrary to what academia should be, that access to knowledge is denied. I actually spent some long time convincing the library supervisor to let me place the copies without doing the rest they required me. Alas! I convinced her, although she was not happy. But she warned me about what would happen if the Federal Government sued the university's library for that. I told her that obviously the university would win the case because the photocopying of copyrighted material, specially if its part of a book (chapters, or pages, but not the entire book) for educational purposes fell under "fair use". The threats did not come so much from the Federal Government, but from publishers who wanted to maximize their profits at all costs, even when they are presently profiting from their works despite photocopying.
Furthermore, I explained the pains of trying to ask for books that were not going to reach the bookstore in time, plus the fact that even if they did, I didn't have the heart to ask students to buy the first two volumes of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica (which cost $80.00 each), just to discuss two very short sections of each volume.
It is not that I consider my books to be a contribution that will change history of mankind forever just like St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa did. However, I would certainly regret it if I place someone else in that very same position when photocopying my book or making a digital copy online. Since DRMs essentially don't work at all, and suing a person for breaking a DRMs, even for perfectly justified purposes, is a disastrous policy .... hey ... why not make the book available for free online anyway? If someone wants to buy the book, the printed version, let him or her buy it. If someone wants to print the first 10 pages of the book, let him or her do it. If someone wants to change it to another format ... hey... why not? Just as long as they attribute the work to me, they do not use it for commercial purposes, and they do not make derivative works out of it, they can do whatever they want! All of this is perfectly reasonable, and guarantees that whoever wants to use my work for academic purposes will have free access to this information.
But why not use means such as Project Muse or JSTOR? Well, those are additional barriers placed by publishers and the media to make universities spend huge amounts of money to make articles of journals be available for teachers and students. Nice try! But can the general public have the same access to information? I don't think so. If democracy and freedom are to rule, if we are to have an open society, we need information freely available. Project Muse and JSTOR cannot use these means that create barriers to knowledge for profit, even when these people say that they are non-profit organizations.
And there is no sense in investing in a market of e-books either. The only way this would make sense is if you have imposed DRM on them, which ultimately would imply disrespecting the public, assuming that everyone who buys it is potentially a thief, to then make them pass through the tortuous process of forbidding them printing certain pages, to then penalize them with the e-book not working if they fundamentally copy it for legitimate purposes, to then sue their ass if they dare brake the DRM also for legitimate purposes, and then leave them ruined. Result? A catastrophe for e-book sales. Don't believe me? Go to Barnes & Noble .... do you see them selling e-books? No! Go to Amazon.com ... do you see them selling e-books? Yes ... though with not as enthusiastic as before! I remember when The Da Vinci Code first hit bookstores, and when I looked in Amazon.com, there were sales of The Da Vinci Code E-Books all over the place. Today? Well ... search for The Da Vinci Code, in the best of the cases you'll see an audio download! So why bother about selling E-Books anyway?
So, what did I do in the end? I set up my site, provide the information, and make my books to be downloaded for free if people wish to do so. If they want to buy the book so they can carry it with them, read it in their bathtub, go with it to Canada, then to Europe, and back (a thing you cannot do with DRMed documents, music, and movies), to photocopy certain chapters, or to copy it entirely for educational purposes, etc. ..... then that's great!
I cannot, in my conscience, do otherwise.
Book Recommendation: Shudders
SHUDDERS
COLLECTION OF FANTASY SHORT STORIES Featuring Dracula, the wolfman, the devil... NEW EDITION. Journey from the timeless legend of Dracula and Mina, the wolfman and his curse, writer Bram Stoker's mysterious life, to the return of the messiah in a tormented future, the story of a Broadway actress selling her soul and her heart to the devil for her glory, an unchartered island people with zombies, and the story of a heartbreaking frienship between the elephant man and a prostitute of Whitechapel, in the new edition of this fantasy book written by Jordan Tate.
You can buy the book in this website.
For more information, go to Jordan Tate's Website or to Jordan Tate's Storefront.
Feel free to also buy her new calendar titled Head in the Clouds with beautiful pictures of the sky.
You can also download free of charge a short script written by Jordan Tate titled A Night with Kong, a writing in homage to King Kong movies.
You can buy the book in this website.
For more information, go to Jordan Tate's Website or to Jordan Tate's Storefront.
Feel free to also buy her new calendar titled Head in the Clouds with beautiful pictures of the sky.
You can also download free of charge a short script written by Jordan Tate titled A Night with Kong, a writing in homage to King Kong movies.
The Wedding at Cana
The reading:
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited. And they ran out of wine, since the wine provided for the feast had all been used, and the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' Jesus said, 'Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not come yet.' His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.' There were six stone water jars standing there, meant fo the ablutions that are customary among the Jews: each could hold twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water,' and they filled them to the brim. Then he said to them, 'Draw some out now and take it to the president of the feast.' They did this; the president tasted the water, and it had turned into wine. Having no idea where it came from --though the servants who had drawn the water knew-- the president of the feast called the bridegroom and said, 'Everyone serves good wine first and the worse wine when the guests are well wined; but you have kept the best wine till now.'
This was the first of Jesus' signs; it was at Cana in Galilee. He revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, but they stayed there only a few days. (John 2,1-12).
As Catholics know this is a very popular reading. We read this last Sunday in Mass, and the now deceased Pope John Paul II included it as a mystery of the Rosary in his Luminous Mysteries according to his encyclical Rosarium Virginis Mariae. Personally I consider that the Pope was right, not only in adding the Luminous Mysteries, but also including this wedding at Cana as a Mystery of the Rosary. And finally, he was finally right in relating Mary to the Eucharist using this passage in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia.
The Gospel of St. John (whose authorship we really don't know) was the latest one written. While the Syntoptic Gospels were probably written from AD 70-90, the Gospel of St. John was probably written in its final form from AD 100 to AD 110 approximately. We must remember that this Gospel was not written all at once, there are several clearly earlier writings, even some which are shared with the Synoptics (although not in the same order and the same meaning), several additions made by the author depending on the situations of his ecclesiastical community. The final text, which was added much later to the Gospel was the story of the adulteress (John 8,1-11).
Also, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, St. John's Gospel is full of symbols. As you may have noticed, he never uses the word "miracles", he uses the word "signs". There are six of them during the entire Gospel. "John" tells us that the miracle of the wedding at Cana is the very first sign that Jesus makes. The Johanine Jesus also has a funny vocabulary. He constantly talks about "the hour", a term that indicates a special moment or occasion. In this case, it means the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
The story is filled with symbolic content. First of all, everything occurs in a wedding. According to the scholar Senén Vidal, this event seems to be based on an early legend or story that provided a foundation for a Johanine community, which may indicate that in Cana there was a Johanine community. The story may have originated during the early years of Christianity founded by a disciple of Jesus, who would later be known in the Johanine community as "the beloved disciple". We know this because there are aramaic expressions in the story, as we shall see later.
But within the Gospel of St. John this story has a specific function. A wedding, in this case, ironically does not stand for a wedding. It is standing for a Covenant. Historically and throughout Bible literature, the Covenant between God and His people is represented by a wedding of Husband and Wife. In the case of the prophets, we see how, when the people of Israel did not fulfill the covenant, God compared them to a "prostitute", or as "unfaithful wife" (e.g. the book of Hosea). The Song of Songs represented to many the relation between Yahweh and His people.
Let's continue with the symbolism there is a change of water to wine. Water and wine are very important symbols, in St. John's Gospel. In the case of "water", in this Gospel it is a symbol of "life". Let us remember the scene with the Samaritan woman when Jesus says: "Whoever drinks this water will be thirsty again; but no one who drinks the water that I shall give will be thirsty again: the water that I shall give will become a spring of water within, welling up for eternal life" (John 4,13-14). We also have to remember the beautiful passage that says:
'Let anyone who is thirsty come to me!
Let anyone who believes in me
come and drink!'
As scripture says, "From his heart shall flow streams of living water" (John 7,37-38).
Also water represents Baptism, a sign of birth, which should be done along with baptism of the Spirit, a practice that was certainly done at the time, an act that can be clearly distinguished from Baptism (Acts 2,1-4; 8,14-17; 19,6-7), and that today Catholics identify with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Furthermore, "water" has also a very sacramental meaning. For example, in Chapter 6 of the Gospel of St. John has a special Eucharistic meaning. It begins, with the miracle of the multiplication of the bread and fishes (6,1-15), and ends with the speech he gave in a synagogue at Capernaum where he gives his famous speech as Him being the Bread of Life (6,22-70). Between those two stories there is one of him calling his disciples while walking on water (6,16-21). We should also see that this is the only Gospel where the wound of Jesus' side appears. According to the Gospel:
When [the soldiers] came to Jesus, they saw he was already dead, and so instead of breaking his legs one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance; and immediately there came out blood and water (19,33-34).
Later, in the letter written by the same author, it says:
Who can overcome the world
but the one who believes
that Jesus is the Son of God?
He it is who came by water and blood,
Jesus Christ,
not with water alone
but with water and blood,
and it is the Spirit that bears witness,
for the Spirit is Truth.
So there are three witnesses,
the Spirit, water and blood;
and the three of them coincide (1 John 5,6-8).
This is a very important text, because with these texts, John wants to confront the Docetists (a branch of Christianity which did not believe that Jesus was not really human). The account for the blood and water coming out of Jesus' heart at the moment of the resurrection coincides with the medical knowledge of the time.
Now, let's look again to the whole event of the wedding at Cana. We find water, the symbol of life, which Jesus turns into wine. Wine, in John's Gospel, has a specific meaning of being a symbol of the festivities of the meal in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is also used within this context as a symbol of Jesus Himself. Wine is the fruit of the vine (John 15,1-7). Wine, is obviously related also to the Eucharist, since it is also the symbol of Christ's blood.
Water and wine appear to be one substance where it changes from source of life to Jesus Himself. The presence of water and blood are there. This whole symbolism represents the Eucharist, Jesus' own gift to humanity, and without which we cannot be saved. The doctrine of the Eucharist is decisively upheld in John's Gospel, specially in Jesus' speech in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6,54-58).
Finally, I wish to point out something interesting. One of the things that really impresses people when they read this is the relation between Mary and Jesus in this passage. Mary is never mentioned by name in the entire Gospel. It is interesting also that Jesus calls her: "woman". This is no sign of disrespect, since in the rest of the passages Jesus calls other women "woman" with much affection. In particular he calls Mary again "woman" in another moving context: when he is dying on the cross. In this passage he makes the gives his own mother to his beloved disciple (John 19,23-27). The use of the word "woman" in this context has a significant meaning.
According to Raymond Brown, it is very significant to look to the book of Revelation, evidently not written by the same author of the Gospel of John, but it is somehow related to the Johanine school of thought. If we look at Revelations, chapter 12, we see a description:
Now a great sign appeared in the heaven: a woman, robed with the sun, standing on the moon, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (Rev. 12,1).
This is a symbol for the people of God, it picks up the general descriptions for the people of God which can be found in the Bible (Gen. 3,1-19; 37,9; Is. 66,5-17; among others). This woman gives birth to Jesus Christ (Rev. 12,5), and fights with the Dragon, which is described as the Ancient Serpent and Satan (Rev. 12,9). This obviously reminds us of Gen. 3,15:
I shall put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
it will bruise your head
and you will strike its heel.
Although the woman does represent the people of God, because of the fact that she gave birth to Jesus, she also can represent Mary. Besides, it describes the woman and her children, who are the ones "who obey God's commandments and have in themselves the witness of Jesus" (Rev. 12,17). The second time that Jesus uses the word "woman" to refer to Mary, was when Jesus made the beloved disciple (and hence the rest of the Johanine community) the child of Mary.
Jesus' response to Mary is a definite negative. Literally translated, the phrase Jesus gives her is an aramaic expression: "What you and I in this?" which most probably means: "This is not my problem." And added to this we see why Jesus did not want to act right away: "My hour has not come yet." The hour, as we said, is the beginning of Jesus' ministry. But then something very important happens: Mary makes His hour manifest before Jesus wants to. She gives a command to the servants: "Do whatever He tells you." Today this is regarded as most of us who are Marians, as Mary's commandment: To do whatever Jesus tells us to do..
Reflections on the Wedding at Cana
Here I want to share what I spiritually have learned from this, specially after reflecting many times after praying the Rosary with the Luminous Mysteries.
* This passage represents a Covenant.
* In this Covenant, the figure of the Eucharist appears.
These two facts are interrelated, not only in John's Gospel, but in all the Synoptic Gospels. It is the death of Jesus Christ (presented in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine) that seals this new eternal Covenant (Luke 22,20)
* Through Mary's intercession Jesus' ministry begins, and the first sign of God's presence is manifested. In Catholicism this is a very clear sign of Mary's Mediatrix between us and Her Son, as the one who constantly prays for us before Her Son, so that Jesus grants us certain graces.
* Mary's role is intimately associated to the New Covenant, and to the Eucharist.
* Mary gave us a commandment: "Do whatever Jesus tells you." And whoever follows her commandment, and follow Jesus' will, are the children of the Church, and children of Mary.
In this story in John's Gospel, full of symbolism, we find the basis for what today is Catholicism's two pillars: the Eucharist (Jesus Himself) and Mary.
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited. And they ran out of wine, since the wine provided for the feast had all been used, and the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' Jesus said, 'Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not come yet.' His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.' There were six stone water jars standing there, meant fo the ablutions that are customary among the Jews: each could hold twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water,' and they filled them to the brim. Then he said to them, 'Draw some out now and take it to the president of the feast.' They did this; the president tasted the water, and it had turned into wine. Having no idea where it came from --though the servants who had drawn the water knew-- the president of the feast called the bridegroom and said, 'Everyone serves good wine first and the worse wine when the guests are well wined; but you have kept the best wine till now.'
This was the first of Jesus' signs; it was at Cana in Galilee. He revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, but they stayed there only a few days. (John 2,1-12).
As Catholics know this is a very popular reading. We read this last Sunday in Mass, and the now deceased Pope John Paul II included it as a mystery of the Rosary in his Luminous Mysteries according to his encyclical Rosarium Virginis Mariae. Personally I consider that the Pope was right, not only in adding the Luminous Mysteries, but also including this wedding at Cana as a Mystery of the Rosary. And finally, he was finally right in relating Mary to the Eucharist using this passage in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia.
The Gospel of St. John (whose authorship we really don't know) was the latest one written. While the Syntoptic Gospels were probably written from AD 70-90, the Gospel of St. John was probably written in its final form from AD 100 to AD 110 approximately. We must remember that this Gospel was not written all at once, there are several clearly earlier writings, even some which are shared with the Synoptics (although not in the same order and the same meaning), several additions made by the author depending on the situations of his ecclesiastical community. The final text, which was added much later to the Gospel was the story of the adulteress (John 8,1-11).
Also, unlike the Synoptic Gospels, St. John's Gospel is full of symbols. As you may have noticed, he never uses the word "miracles", he uses the word "signs". There are six of them during the entire Gospel. "John" tells us that the miracle of the wedding at Cana is the very first sign that Jesus makes. The Johanine Jesus also has a funny vocabulary. He constantly talks about "the hour", a term that indicates a special moment or occasion. In this case, it means the beginning of Jesus' ministry.
The story is filled with symbolic content. First of all, everything occurs in a wedding. According to the scholar Senén Vidal, this event seems to be based on an early legend or story that provided a foundation for a Johanine community, which may indicate that in Cana there was a Johanine community. The story may have originated during the early years of Christianity founded by a disciple of Jesus, who would later be known in the Johanine community as "the beloved disciple". We know this because there are aramaic expressions in the story, as we shall see later.
But within the Gospel of St. John this story has a specific function. A wedding, in this case, ironically does not stand for a wedding. It is standing for a Covenant. Historically and throughout Bible literature, the Covenant between God and His people is represented by a wedding of Husband and Wife. In the case of the prophets, we see how, when the people of Israel did not fulfill the covenant, God compared them to a "prostitute", or as "unfaithful wife" (e.g. the book of Hosea). The Song of Songs represented to many the relation between Yahweh and His people.
Let's continue with the symbolism there is a change of water to wine. Water and wine are very important symbols, in St. John's Gospel. In the case of "water", in this Gospel it is a symbol of "life". Let us remember the scene with the Samaritan woman when Jesus says: "Whoever drinks this water will be thirsty again; but no one who drinks the water that I shall give will be thirsty again: the water that I shall give will become a spring of water within, welling up for eternal life" (John 4,13-14). We also have to remember the beautiful passage that says:
'Let anyone who is thirsty come to me!
Let anyone who believes in me
come and drink!'
As scripture says, "From his heart shall flow streams of living water" (John 7,37-38).
Also water represents Baptism, a sign of birth, which should be done along with baptism of the Spirit, a practice that was certainly done at the time, an act that can be clearly distinguished from Baptism (Acts 2,1-4; 8,14-17; 19,6-7), and that today Catholics identify with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
Furthermore, "water" has also a very sacramental meaning. For example, in Chapter 6 of the Gospel of St. John has a special Eucharistic meaning. It begins, with the miracle of the multiplication of the bread and fishes (6,1-15), and ends with the speech he gave in a synagogue at Capernaum where he gives his famous speech as Him being the Bread of Life (6,22-70). Between those two stories there is one of him calling his disciples while walking on water (6,16-21). We should also see that this is the only Gospel where the wound of Jesus' side appears. According to the Gospel:
When [the soldiers] came to Jesus, they saw he was already dead, and so instead of breaking his legs one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance; and immediately there came out blood and water (19,33-34).
Later, in the letter written by the same author, it says:
Who can overcome the world
but the one who believes
that Jesus is the Son of God?
He it is who came by water and blood,
Jesus Christ,
not with water alone
but with water and blood,
and it is the Spirit that bears witness,
for the Spirit is Truth.
So there are three witnesses,
the Spirit, water and blood;
and the three of them coincide (1 John 5,6-8).
This is a very important text, because with these texts, John wants to confront the Docetists (a branch of Christianity which did not believe that Jesus was not really human). The account for the blood and water coming out of Jesus' heart at the moment of the resurrection coincides with the medical knowledge of the time.
Now, let's look again to the whole event of the wedding at Cana. We find water, the symbol of life, which Jesus turns into wine. Wine, in John's Gospel, has a specific meaning of being a symbol of the festivities of the meal in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is also used within this context as a symbol of Jesus Himself. Wine is the fruit of the vine (John 15,1-7). Wine, is obviously related also to the Eucharist, since it is also the symbol of Christ's blood.
Water and wine appear to be one substance where it changes from source of life to Jesus Himself. The presence of water and blood are there. This whole symbolism represents the Eucharist, Jesus' own gift to humanity, and without which we cannot be saved. The doctrine of the Eucharist is decisively upheld in John's Gospel, specially in Jesus' speech in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6,54-58).
Finally, I wish to point out something interesting. One of the things that really impresses people when they read this is the relation between Mary and Jesus in this passage. Mary is never mentioned by name in the entire Gospel. It is interesting also that Jesus calls her: "woman". This is no sign of disrespect, since in the rest of the passages Jesus calls other women "woman" with much affection. In particular he calls Mary again "woman" in another moving context: when he is dying on the cross. In this passage he makes the gives his own mother to his beloved disciple (John 19,23-27). The use of the word "woman" in this context has a significant meaning.
According to Raymond Brown, it is very significant to look to the book of Revelation, evidently not written by the same author of the Gospel of John, but it is somehow related to the Johanine school of thought. If we look at Revelations, chapter 12, we see a description:
Now a great sign appeared in the heaven: a woman, robed with the sun, standing on the moon, and on her head a crown of twelve stars (Rev. 12,1).
This is a symbol for the people of God, it picks up the general descriptions for the people of God which can be found in the Bible (Gen. 3,1-19; 37,9; Is. 66,5-17; among others). This woman gives birth to Jesus Christ (Rev. 12,5), and fights with the Dragon, which is described as the Ancient Serpent and Satan (Rev. 12,9). This obviously reminds us of Gen. 3,15:
I shall put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
it will bruise your head
and you will strike its heel.
Although the woman does represent the people of God, because of the fact that she gave birth to Jesus, she also can represent Mary. Besides, it describes the woman and her children, who are the ones "who obey God's commandments and have in themselves the witness of Jesus" (Rev. 12,17). The second time that Jesus uses the word "woman" to refer to Mary, was when Jesus made the beloved disciple (and hence the rest of the Johanine community) the child of Mary.
Jesus' response to Mary is a definite negative. Literally translated, the phrase Jesus gives her is an aramaic expression: "What you and I in this?" which most probably means: "This is not my problem." And added to this we see why Jesus did not want to act right away: "My hour has not come yet." The hour, as we said, is the beginning of Jesus' ministry. But then something very important happens: Mary makes His hour manifest before Jesus wants to. She gives a command to the servants: "Do whatever He tells you." Today this is regarded as most of us who are Marians, as Mary's commandment: To do whatever Jesus tells us to do..
Reflections on the Wedding at Cana
Here I want to share what I spiritually have learned from this, specially after reflecting many times after praying the Rosary with the Luminous Mysteries.
* This passage represents a Covenant.
* In this Covenant, the figure of the Eucharist appears.
These two facts are interrelated, not only in John's Gospel, but in all the Synoptic Gospels. It is the death of Jesus Christ (presented in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine) that seals this new eternal Covenant (Luke 22,20)
* Through Mary's intercession Jesus' ministry begins, and the first sign of God's presence is manifested. In Catholicism this is a very clear sign of Mary's Mediatrix between us and Her Son, as the one who constantly prays for us before Her Son, so that Jesus grants us certain graces.
* Mary's role is intimately associated to the New Covenant, and to the Eucharist.
* Mary gave us a commandment: "Do whatever Jesus tells you." And whoever follows her commandment, and follow Jesus' will, are the children of the Church, and children of Mary.
In this story in John's Gospel, full of symbolism, we find the basis for what today is Catholicism's two pillars: the Eucharist (Jesus Himself) and Mary.
Understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Against Intelligent Design)
What the Heck is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
In 1954, three of the famous Comet planes crashed as a result of breaking up in midair. The reason? A phenomenon known as metal fatigue. Throughout the years, metals are subject to several factors of temperature and environmental aspects that makes it crack. There are other kinds of fatigue in all materials, we need to change the oil of our car from time to time, metal can corrode thanks to exposure to water and air, the tires of the car do not always remain the same. There are phenomena such as wood getting, or being damaged because of its contact with water.
All of these phenomena has to do with one thing, and one thing only, something that Physicists call entropy. Brian Greene explained it best in very simple terms in his book The Fabric of the Cosmos. Imagine that you have a box full of cards that are all upside down. You then hit the box, and you noticed that some of the cards have turned, but the majority is still upside down. You move it once again, and then some of the cards keep turning. We could continue to move the box and we would see that gradually, there will be more and more cards that were not originally upside down. Entropy is described as this tendency of an energy in a closed system to be gradually turning into a disordered state. Let's take the box with all the cards upside down: the cards would represent the particles within a system with low entropy. As we keep moving the box and cards keep turning, the system gradually moves from a low entropy state to a higher entropy state.
This phenomenon of entropy is related to what Physicists call irreversible processes. "Irreversible" means that these processes cannot be reversed by means of only small changes in the environment. For example, if you have a balloon filled with Helium, and you make a puncture on the balloon, the particles of helium will spread throughout the room, the individual atoms will probably never clump again into the shape of the balloon. That is an irreversible process: you can change the environment all you want, but the particles of helium will not coalesce again into the original shape of the balloon. The same we say of an egg that falls on the floor, you cannot reverse the process by minor environmental changes.
Here is where the Second Law of Thermodynamics enters into play. It states the following: If an irreversible process occurs in a closed system, the entropy of the system always increases; it never decreases. What does this mean? In our analogy of the box with the cards, the box would represent a closed system, the cards represents the particles within that closed system, the "entropic state" of the cards increases. The more we move the box, the less likely it is that the cards will return to their original state (all of them upside down). As you can see, this is a probabilistic law, it is not a universal law that happens at all times and all circumstances (such as Newton's laws of motion). The Second Law of Thermodynamics describes a tendency. It can happen, conceivably, that if given enough time of moving the box, at a certain point most cards will be upside down again (the entropic state would be lower), but generally we will see a tendency for a higher entropic state, not a lower one.
This explains why everything degrades. Metal fatigue, for instance, is the result of this law, the degradation of wood is a result of this law, etc. The particles of metal even in solid state, due to temperature and environmental conditions gradually are less and less in their original ordered state, leading up to the fatigue. The same with wood, the same with practically everything that surrounds us.
The Problem of Intelligent Design and The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Since the tendency of all systems is to have a higher entropy, or as many would say, a higher disordered state, then, say those who propose Intelligent Design (ID) that it would be impossible for life to have come to be "spontaneously out of a disordered state".
This argument is wrong in many levels, let's take them one by one:
1. First, many of those who favor ID apply this Second Law of Thermodynamics say that in light of this law, a highly ordered universe is impossible out of a big explosion of a singularity.
I am not personally in favor of the Big Bang Theory (I'm more inclined to Plasma Cosmology), but I want to argue in favor of the Big Bang in this clearly unfair judgment. According to the Big Bang Theory, when the singularity gave origin to the universe, there was no "pure chaos", but a big explosion that gave origin to a very highly organized energy (an energy with a low entropic state), which made possible the organization of prime plasma into subatomic particles, atoms, and later stars and galaxies.
Notice that in this case people who favor ID also seem to assume that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supposes that matter goes from "pure order" to "pure disorder" ignoring all kinds of level of entropy which let matter organize in those different levels. Yes, we do admit that the system as a whole (in this case, the universe) goes from a low entropic state to a high entropic state, but that does not mean that the entire universe goes from order to "chaos". It means that there can be very different levels in which subsystems can indeed use the energy around it in order for matter to organize in certain ways. Let's not forget that there are also forces into play here, mainly we are talking about the basic four forces existing in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. All of these four forces also help in creating an organization in the universe. Let's not forget either that according to contemporary Big Bang theory, there were also certain structures (a certain ripple effect, or "wrinkles" in space-time fabric) that made possible the organization of plasma into stars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters. As the universe as a whole (and the universe is a BIG place) keeps moving from a low entropic state to a higher one, the different levels of this long transition (during billions of years), would make possible these structures, these subsystems.
2. The presence of certain elements cannot be explained in light of the Second Theory of Thermodynamics, therefore it is impossible to form heavier elements if the first elements that existed were deuterium (hydrogen isotope), helium and lithium. How can we explain the presence of carbon, iron, among other elements?
Again, ignores the fact pointed above that there can be subsystems that can spontaneously originate order within the different levels of cosmic transition from a low entropic state to a higher one. Any scientist knows that the heavier elements originate from stars. According to the Big Bang Theory, the original stars formed out of hydrogen, and through a process of fusion (a thing we observe in stars, including our own sun) the star gradually passes from hydrogen to helium, and from helium to heavier elements. Once the star passes to a state where it is composed significantly of much heavier elements, it either explodes, becomes a black hole, or another cosmic phenomenon. Our own Solar System began this way, the original plasma where it came from was the plasma of a star which originally exploded leaving huge amounts of heavy elements. Later, thanks to gravity and electromagnetism, the planets formed, the comets, the meteors, the sun, the satellites were all formed. The presence of all kinds of these light and heavy elements in our own primitive Earth, along with energy from the sun, and electromagnetic energy, is what made life possible.
Again, stellar fusion is an observable phenomenon that we see in all stars, and this happens without the intervention of an external entity or an external intelligence. It happens naturally to all stars.
3. It is impossible for life to originate spontaneously on Earth, because there was "pure chaos" and the Second Theory of Electrodynamics says that nothing can go from disorder to order.
First, we have to consider the fact that the portrayal of the Second Theory of Electrodynamics as made by those who favor ID is inaccurate in this sense. Remember that the law says that in a closed system, the energy goes from a low entropical state to a higher one. Alas! The Earth is not a closed system, and specially when we are talking about the primitive Earth. The Earth received at the beginning of time huge amounts of radiation and energy from the Sun, much of it in plasma form and electromagnetic form. There were huge amounts of electricity and radiation let molecules break down and build themselves into more complex compounds. These compounds became more and more complex until the first forms of life originated, and the rest is history.
Alexander Oparin was the first scientist to propose that for life to originate in such a form, we needed water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen. This would be the prime soup from which all life originated, and which was predominant in primitive Earth. Stanley Miller was the one who showed that this could be so. He built a machine through which he inserted in gas form hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water, and added another thing Oparin never considered: electrical charges. The result? What ID people would never expect: more complex compounds (in this case, aminoacids ... the building blocks of all living things).
Eventually the electromagnetic storms of the early stages of the Solar System made possible the Earth's electromagnetic field (which today protects us from solar winds), the ozone layer, the ionosphere, among other factors which contribute to life itself.
If the Earth would have been a closed system, such a phenomenon would not have happened. Even today, the Earth is considered a closed system in some ways, but it is essentially an open system, that still continues to make life possible. We all live thanks to this simple fact. The basic source of life for us are bacteria, microorganisms, and plants. In the case of some members of the Morera Kingdom and the Plant Kingdom, the energy that make them develop and grow essentially comes from the Sun. Through the process of photosynthesis they obtain huge amounts of energy, many of them, during this process, absorb Carbon Dioxide and free Oxygen to the air. The energy they accumulate from the sun forms the basis of the entire food chain: animals eat plants, other animals eat herbivores, and we humans eat both plants and animals. If tomorrow the Sun was gone, not only we would all die, but the Earth itself would become a closed system in which its energy would enter into higher entropic states. While the Sun is still there, we need not see the Earth itself degenerate into thermal disorder.
Conclusions and Reflections
As a person of faith, I believe that God did intervene in creation in some way, directing perhaps evolution to go through several paths. However, this is a statement I make out of faith not science. My problem is not whether people believe in ID or not, my problem is when people try teaching ID as science, when it is really religion. I don't mean religion necessarily in a demeaning manner. I value religions and their role in society.
However, the arguments presented in general by people who favor ID is wholly wrong. Even when it presents itself disguised as science, as we have seen above, generally they misunderstand basic scientific principles. If they would have known the Second Law of Thermodynamics better, they would not have presented the arguments the way they have. This is one of the reasons ID cannot be considered science. At least in the field of science, scientists do understand their concepts very well, and apply them according to their own fields. It is very bad when religion intrudes in science, even to the point of perverting the most basic scientific concepts.
In 1954, three of the famous Comet planes crashed as a result of breaking up in midair. The reason? A phenomenon known as metal fatigue. Throughout the years, metals are subject to several factors of temperature and environmental aspects that makes it crack. There are other kinds of fatigue in all materials, we need to change the oil of our car from time to time, metal can corrode thanks to exposure to water and air, the tires of the car do not always remain the same. There are phenomena such as wood getting, or being damaged because of its contact with water.
All of these phenomena has to do with one thing, and one thing only, something that Physicists call entropy. Brian Greene explained it best in very simple terms in his book The Fabric of the Cosmos. Imagine that you have a box full of cards that are all upside down. You then hit the box, and you noticed that some of the cards have turned, but the majority is still upside down. You move it once again, and then some of the cards keep turning. We could continue to move the box and we would see that gradually, there will be more and more cards that were not originally upside down. Entropy is described as this tendency of an energy in a closed system to be gradually turning into a disordered state. Let's take the box with all the cards upside down: the cards would represent the particles within a system with low entropy. As we keep moving the box and cards keep turning, the system gradually moves from a low entropy state to a higher entropy state.
This phenomenon of entropy is related to what Physicists call irreversible processes. "Irreversible" means that these processes cannot be reversed by means of only small changes in the environment. For example, if you have a balloon filled with Helium, and you make a puncture on the balloon, the particles of helium will spread throughout the room, the individual atoms will probably never clump again into the shape of the balloon. That is an irreversible process: you can change the environment all you want, but the particles of helium will not coalesce again into the original shape of the balloon. The same we say of an egg that falls on the floor, you cannot reverse the process by minor environmental changes.
Here is where the Second Law of Thermodynamics enters into play. It states the following: If an irreversible process occurs in a closed system, the entropy of the system always increases; it never decreases. What does this mean? In our analogy of the box with the cards, the box would represent a closed system, the cards represents the particles within that closed system, the "entropic state" of the cards increases. The more we move the box, the less likely it is that the cards will return to their original state (all of them upside down). As you can see, this is a probabilistic law, it is not a universal law that happens at all times and all circumstances (such as Newton's laws of motion). The Second Law of Thermodynamics describes a tendency. It can happen, conceivably, that if given enough time of moving the box, at a certain point most cards will be upside down again (the entropic state would be lower), but generally we will see a tendency for a higher entropic state, not a lower one.
This explains why everything degrades. Metal fatigue, for instance, is the result of this law, the degradation of wood is a result of this law, etc. The particles of metal even in solid state, due to temperature and environmental conditions gradually are less and less in their original ordered state, leading up to the fatigue. The same with wood, the same with practically everything that surrounds us.
The Problem of Intelligent Design and The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Since the tendency of all systems is to have a higher entropy, or as many would say, a higher disordered state, then, say those who propose Intelligent Design (ID) that it would be impossible for life to have come to be "spontaneously out of a disordered state".
This argument is wrong in many levels, let's take them one by one:
1. First, many of those who favor ID apply this Second Law of Thermodynamics say that in light of this law, a highly ordered universe is impossible out of a big explosion of a singularity.
I am not personally in favor of the Big Bang Theory (I'm more inclined to Plasma Cosmology), but I want to argue in favor of the Big Bang in this clearly unfair judgment. According to the Big Bang Theory, when the singularity gave origin to the universe, there was no "pure chaos", but a big explosion that gave origin to a very highly organized energy (an energy with a low entropic state), which made possible the organization of prime plasma into subatomic particles, atoms, and later stars and galaxies.
Notice that in this case people who favor ID also seem to assume that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supposes that matter goes from "pure order" to "pure disorder" ignoring all kinds of level of entropy which let matter organize in those different levels. Yes, we do admit that the system as a whole (in this case, the universe) goes from a low entropic state to a high entropic state, but that does not mean that the entire universe goes from order to "chaos". It means that there can be very different levels in which subsystems can indeed use the energy around it in order for matter to organize in certain ways. Let's not forget that there are also forces into play here, mainly we are talking about the basic four forces existing in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. All of these four forces also help in creating an organization in the universe. Let's not forget either that according to contemporary Big Bang theory, there were also certain structures (a certain ripple effect, or "wrinkles" in space-time fabric) that made possible the organization of plasma into stars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters. As the universe as a whole (and the universe is a BIG place) keeps moving from a low entropic state to a higher one, the different levels of this long transition (during billions of years), would make possible these structures, these subsystems.
2. The presence of certain elements cannot be explained in light of the Second Theory of Thermodynamics, therefore it is impossible to form heavier elements if the first elements that existed were deuterium (hydrogen isotope), helium and lithium. How can we explain the presence of carbon, iron, among other elements?
Again, ignores the fact pointed above that there can be subsystems that can spontaneously originate order within the different levels of cosmic transition from a low entropic state to a higher one. Any scientist knows that the heavier elements originate from stars. According to the Big Bang Theory, the original stars formed out of hydrogen, and through a process of fusion (a thing we observe in stars, including our own sun) the star gradually passes from hydrogen to helium, and from helium to heavier elements. Once the star passes to a state where it is composed significantly of much heavier elements, it either explodes, becomes a black hole, or another cosmic phenomenon. Our own Solar System began this way, the original plasma where it came from was the plasma of a star which originally exploded leaving huge amounts of heavy elements. Later, thanks to gravity and electromagnetism, the planets formed, the comets, the meteors, the sun, the satellites were all formed. The presence of all kinds of these light and heavy elements in our own primitive Earth, along with energy from the sun, and electromagnetic energy, is what made life possible.
Again, stellar fusion is an observable phenomenon that we see in all stars, and this happens without the intervention of an external entity or an external intelligence. It happens naturally to all stars.
3. It is impossible for life to originate spontaneously on Earth, because there was "pure chaos" and the Second Theory of Electrodynamics says that nothing can go from disorder to order.
First, we have to consider the fact that the portrayal of the Second Theory of Electrodynamics as made by those who favor ID is inaccurate in this sense. Remember that the law says that in a closed system, the energy goes from a low entropical state to a higher one. Alas! The Earth is not a closed system, and specially when we are talking about the primitive Earth. The Earth received at the beginning of time huge amounts of radiation and energy from the Sun, much of it in plasma form and electromagnetic form. There were huge amounts of electricity and radiation let molecules break down and build themselves into more complex compounds. These compounds became more and more complex until the first forms of life originated, and the rest is history.
Alexander Oparin was the first scientist to propose that for life to originate in such a form, we needed water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen. This would be the prime soup from which all life originated, and which was predominant in primitive Earth. Stanley Miller was the one who showed that this could be so. He built a machine through which he inserted in gas form hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water, and added another thing Oparin never considered: electrical charges. The result? What ID people would never expect: more complex compounds (in this case, aminoacids ... the building blocks of all living things).
Eventually the electromagnetic storms of the early stages of the Solar System made possible the Earth's electromagnetic field (which today protects us from solar winds), the ozone layer, the ionosphere, among other factors which contribute to life itself.
If the Earth would have been a closed system, such a phenomenon would not have happened. Even today, the Earth is considered a closed system in some ways, but it is essentially an open system, that still continues to make life possible. We all live thanks to this simple fact. The basic source of life for us are bacteria, microorganisms, and plants. In the case of some members of the Morera Kingdom and the Plant Kingdom, the energy that make them develop and grow essentially comes from the Sun. Through the process of photosynthesis they obtain huge amounts of energy, many of them, during this process, absorb Carbon Dioxide and free Oxygen to the air. The energy they accumulate from the sun forms the basis of the entire food chain: animals eat plants, other animals eat herbivores, and we humans eat both plants and animals. If tomorrow the Sun was gone, not only we would all die, but the Earth itself would become a closed system in which its energy would enter into higher entropic states. While the Sun is still there, we need not see the Earth itself degenerate into thermal disorder.
Conclusions and Reflections
As a person of faith, I believe that God did intervene in creation in some way, directing perhaps evolution to go through several paths. However, this is a statement I make out of faith not science. My problem is not whether people believe in ID or not, my problem is when people try teaching ID as science, when it is really religion. I don't mean religion necessarily in a demeaning manner. I value religions and their role in society.
However, the arguments presented in general by people who favor ID is wholly wrong. Even when it presents itself disguised as science, as we have seen above, generally they misunderstand basic scientific principles. If they would have known the Second Law of Thermodynamics better, they would not have presented the arguments the way they have. This is one of the reasons ID cannot be considered science. At least in the field of science, scientists do understand their concepts very well, and apply them according to their own fields. It is very bad when religion intrudes in science, even to the point of perverting the most basic scientific concepts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
