The Evidence of Things Not Seen

You will have noticed by now that I tend to quote from Harper's Magazine a fair amount - well, at least when I am blogging - which has been some time now.  However, Harper's is known as a fairly left-leaning journal.  As such it is often extremely critical of stereo-typical religion and its perceived closed-minded attitude.  It would appear that the editors and contributors to the magazine would suggest that to belong to any particular religion, particularly evangelical Christianity requires the individual to commit intellectual suicide.  However, a recent edition of Harper's included an editorial criticizing the narrow minded view of science - in particular the branch(es) of science and 'scientists' (Dawkins for one) that would argue logic proves the non-existence of God or mystery which transcends humanity.  The article also offered visions of the possibility of the openness offered by genuine spirituality (not religion).  Some quotes are below:

"The (scientific) theories that we possess are magnificent...difficult, sometimes phenomenally accurate.  But, they also make up a tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things.  This has made the world more mysterious than it ever was.  We now know better than we did what we do not know and have not grasped.  Beyond the trivial we have not other doctrines.  We (Science) can say nothing of interest of the human soul.  We do not know what impels us to right conduct of where the form of the good is found.  On these and many other points as well, the great scientific theories have lapsed.  The more sophisticated the theories, the more inadequate they are.  This is a reason to cherish them.  They have enlarged and not diminished our sense of the sublime."

"If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusion of the great scientific theories.  The do not mention a word about God.  They do not treat of any faith beyond the one that they themselves demand.  They compel no ritual beyond the usual rituals of academic life, and these involve nothing more than the worship of what is widely worshipped.  Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God's existence."

And, my favourite:

"While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning, the religious traditions of mankind have a good deal to say, and what they do say forms a coherent body of thought.  The yearnings of the human soul are not in vain.  There is a system of belief adequate to the complexity of experience.  There is recompense for suffering.  A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos.  All will be well.  I do not know whether any of this is true.  I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false."

Twelve Step Spirituality

At the January session of the Spiritual Director's Formation Program, of which I am a part, we heard from Archbiship Sylvain Lavoie about his work with Twelve Step programs to assist struggling addicts. And, it was more than simply talking about the value of the program for those dealing with drug and alcohol issues. Fr. Sylvain spoke clearly about the value of a twelve step approach for all who are spiritually seeking. One of his many points (and I'm sure I am doing a grave injustice to his fantastic presentation) was that each of us deals with an addiction of some kind or another. Basically, his definition of addiction was a pattern of behaviour which attempts to address a physiological or emotional need in ways which are unhealthy.

Of the twelve steps, many who begin find the first three (relatively) easy - at least compared to the following 9. The first three steps, in very simplified presentation are basically: 1) I can do nothing about my problem, 2) God can, 3) I will let him. The next 8 steps, which become quite difficult for many, all revolve, in some way, around the issue of forgiveness (says Lavoie). The steps involve recognizing deficiencies in self, understanding them, accepting them. They involve recognizing hurts from others, speaking these hurts out loud and letting them go. They involve recognizing actions with have hurt others and deliberately seeking forgiveness for them. As such, Lavoie sees this approach as being inherently Christian and spiritual in its most basic form. His suggestion is that spirtual life lived in this stance is a very rich and fulfilling life - regardless if one is an alcoholic or not.

However, he spoke quite clearly about the addictive tendencies of all humans - that we all find some way to cover up that which is deficient in our own lives in ways that exacerbate the problem and don't heal it. At this point, he made a quite provocative statement. He claimed that in the modern world, one of the most significant expressions of addiction is that of "being right". Hopefully without putting words in his mouth, I believe he was suggesting that many of us approach situations in life from a perspective that, if we can prove we are right at all times, we will be sufficient, not lacking, whole persons. To be wrong calls up pain that we can not face - so we spend significant amounts of energy in proving our "rightness" whenever we can.

I'm intrigued by his statement and wonder a couple of things. First, might this relate to Jesus' clear statements that righteousness (rightness) is to be found only in a faithful relationship to the only one who can be entirely right in the first place (i.e. God)? Second, might this be one of the reasons behind why we are such poor listeners? It seems that, while listening we tend to occupy our minds by thoughts of "How will I respond to what I am hearing?" - as opposed to simply listening for the sake of understanding. How much of our world conflict could be solved by addressing this need in a new way? How much of our church conflict? How much of our own inner turmoil? It seems to me that Fr. Lavoie offers an approach allowing for peaceful existence with those around us - as well as with our own selves.

Calling All Teachers (and Learners)

A thought provoking video by an anthropology class in Kansas. I have nothing to add - but will let these students speak for themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

Environmentalism, Science and Spirituality

In a recent issue of Harper's Journal, there was a fascinating editorial called "The Idols of Environmentalism". The author's (Curtis White) main point is that the reliance of those who care for this world on science to solve our problems is misguided at best and stupid at worst. We have foolishly believed that the way out of our current environmental crisis is through scientific methods. He rests his argument that science (which in the West is inherently tied to Capitalism) has a completely different value set than is positive for any forward direction in care of the earth. He calls us forward to a worldview centered on spiritual values (not religious values mind you). Some quotes:

"In accepting science as our primary weapon against environmental destruction, we have also had to accept science's contempt for religion and the spiritual. This is the unfortunate legacy of science...but this attitude is myopic; it is science at its most stupid."

"Environmentalism should stop depending on its alliance with science for its sense of itself. It should look to create a common language of care (a reverence for and a commitment to the astonshing fact of Being) through which it could begin to create alternative principles by which we might live."

"The establishment of those principles by which we might live would begin with three questions. First, what does it mean to be a human being? Second, what is my relation to other human beings? And third, what is my relation to Being as such, the ongoing miracle that there is something rather than nothing? If the answer to these questions is that the purpose of being human is "the pursuit of happiness" (understood as success, which is understood as the accumulation of money), and if our relation to others is a relation to mere things (with nothing to offer but their labor), and if our relation to the world is only to "resources" (which we should exploit for profit), then we should be very comfortable with the world we have. It if goes to perdition, at least we can say that we acted in good faith. But if, on the other hand, we answer that there should be a greater sense of self-worth in being a human, more justice in our relation to others, and more reverence for Being, then we must either live in bad faith with capitalism or begin describing a future whose fundamental values and whose daily activities are radically different from what we currently endure. The risk I propse is simply a return to our nobility."

"We should refuse to be mere functions of a system that we cannot in good conscience defend. And we should insist on a recognition of the mystery, the miracle, and the dignity of things, from frogs to forests, simply because they are."

"There is a problem more fundamental than a perverse power standing opposed to us. That deeper problem is our own integration into an order of work that makes us inhuman and thus tolerant of what is nothing less than demonic, the destruction of our world. A return to the valuable human things of the beautiful and the useful will only be accomplished, if it is ever to be accomplished, by the humans among us."

Some very deep, refreshing, and sometimes disturbing points that come awfully close to home. I am certainly challenged to think of my own responsibility in building humanity rather than power. It also strikes me that these questions posed may be valuable not only for the work world, the democratic world, the capitalist world, but also for the church to wrestle with. Are we a people who first and foremost treat the world with the reverence of Being? In what programs, methods and structures do we use the world and those around us for pursuit of power or personal "gain".

Worst Beat I Have Seen to Date

One night after the previous post I was at the table while I watched one of the worst beats I have ever seen. Fortunately, I was NOT in the hand. It went something like this:

($1/$2 no-limit table. Three big stacks ($500 or more) at the table and I'm fortunate to be one of them)

Pre-Flop: Kyle (who is under the gun), raises to $6. Everyone folds to the SB who calls for $5 more. BB folds. Heads up to the flop (which was VERY rare at this table - it was loose all night). The two guys are nearly even in chips - only about $10 difference. With the rake the pot is $11.

Flop: QdJs9h. A flop which hit both players and scared them both at the same time (as we will find out later) SB bets out for $10. Kyle raises to $40. SB calls. Pot is now $87.

Turn: Qh. Now, this is a scare card for both players - and, at the same time - hit both players (again, as we will find out later). SB bets $20. Kyle raises to $60. SB tanks for about 2 minutes. He then pushes all in for about a total of $575. Kyle now tanks. And, while thinking starts talking to me (we had been chatting all night). He says, "He can't have K 10. He wouldn't have bet the flop that way. He can't have a boat, he wouldn't have bet the turn that way - nor re-raised me all in." So, I'm thinking Kyle must have a Q. Perhaps a big Queen. Maybe AQ. But, with AQ, it's really, really hard to call that all-in bet. SB could have K 10 or even worse he could have something like Q9 (which would be the case Q so unlikely), or JJ, or 99. So, the all-in move was a really, really good raise. What happened next was even better. Kyle figured that raise wouldn't happen with the straight nor the boat, so, he called! Sure enough, Kyle flips over AsQs. And, SB turns over Q6c. What a phenomenal call. The pot is now about $1200. The all in may have been a great raise, but that call was amazing.

River: Yes, since you know the title of this post, you can probably guess what card hit the river. After Kyle's great call, the river came 6s - and SB filled up, sucked out, and took down the pot for $1200. Kyle, needless to say, took a short break away from the table to cool off before coming back to buy in again.

Best Night Yet

Two hours at the Regina Casino tonight ($1/$2 no-limit), saw maybe a total of 10 flops in those two hours - walked away with huge profits - thanks to some good cards and some very fishy calls by opponents. Three hands:

1. Mid position; pocket 9's. Three callers before me, I raise it to $8. One caller after me and BB (who had just sat down with a $200 stack, so this was his first hand) raises to $18. Two of the previous limpers call. I watched the BB when he raised and had a very funny feeling he was on KK or AA. But, with me being already at half price and three people already in (and one more to act behind me), I thought I needed to call at that point and hope to hit my set. Guy behind me calls - 5 in for $18 Sure enough, flop comes 942 - two clubs. I'm a bit worried about the clubs and want to push the flush draws away. First two players check, and I bet $75 - almost the size of the pot. Guy behind me folds. BB tanks (he's trying to think if I've got AA; I'm sure he doesn't see my set)...and was ready to fold his hand but then came over the top for the remainder of his stack - all-in. The other two callers fold - and I instantly call (duh!). Sure enough, he flips over KK and as he did he said, "Nice rockets" - when I flipped over my set. Pot of around $460.

2. Same guy in the BB from the hand before bought in for another $200. He's talking it up big now, saying how it was a bad beat on the previous hand where I got him. This is now about 20 hands later - and he's chirping. I'm in the SB now, he's mid position. I hold KQ offsuit He raises to $6, three other callers before me, BB calls after. Flop of K7K rainbow. I check, guy behind me bets $21, chirping guy calls, three others fold, and I raise to $50. BB folds quickly and chirping dude tanks again. I figured him to be on tilt so thought the check-raise would tick him off enough that he'd come over the top. Sure enough, he blurts out, "Quit bullying me! My 7 is good! I'm all-in!" So, again, instant call - and take down another $450 pot.

3. I'm in the SB, Q6 diamonds. The entire table calls so of course I call for $1. Flop - Kd, 8d, 9c. I check. Chirpy dude bets out $5. Now, remember, the pot is already at $18. His bet makes it $23 and there are 4 more callers. I am so priced into this flush draw that I can't fold even if I wanted to. Turn is 4 spades. I check. Chirpy bet's $7 and I'm thrilled. I'm am totally priced in - especially when all 4 other guys call too. River - you guessed it - 2d. Board is Kd 8d 9c 4s 2d I flushed. So, I check. Chirpy bets $75, two guys call and I decide that since I'm not holding the absolute nuts to just flat call. Chirpy turns over A8 - with no diamond. The other callers didn't flush either. Another $375 pot my way.

I decided that enough was enough, stacked my chips and walked away. One always should play the other players and not one's cards, but boy, does it ever help to get the cards too.

I had the privilege yesterday of attending some afternoon meetings where a preeminent educator from Bath, England (who shall remain nameless) was presenting. I had the even better fortune of sitting down for a pint of Guinness with him after the events and we talked about life, education, and spiritual matters. A fascinating discussion.

At one point in the discussion, he mentioned that he went to school with one, now famous, Richard Dawkins. So, I asked, "And what is your perspective on his work?" And, without skipping a beat, he quickly snapped back, "Ah, yes, the 'Dawkins Delusion'." The discussion turned at that point, but not before he mentioned that Dawkins has always been quite proficient at running himself into deep traps from which there is no escape - and quickly called him one of the most fundamentalist thinkers he's met in quite some time (while judging everyone else's fundamentalism).

Thot you'd appreciate that insight, Gil - not that it is surprising or different from anything you've posted or commented on before.