"The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright

"The Evolution of God" is not a relaxing book to read. It is filled with archeology, biblical literature, history, and various types of scholarship. The intent of the author is to provide an understanding that the concept "God" has a history. It has evolved from animism through polytheism to monolatry and then, monotheism is a somewhat logical, albeit convoluted, history.

The transition from one level of understanding to another involves cross-fertilization, i.e., believing in more than one God until Gods merge into one, incorporating features of both. And, then, there is a back and forth movement, i.e., beliefs discarded on one hand are kept alive on another. This form of evolution is referred to as cultural evolution. It is not as neat as biological evolution, but the history indicates that constructs, e.g., God, do evolve through cultural changes.

The fact that the understanding of "God" evolves by virtue of social forces "on the ground" does not necessarily disprove that there is a transcendent being. Politics, international relations, and economics helped to determine which God to align with or, at least, accept in a spirit of tolerance. As long as there was "gain" by tolerating/accepting the foreign God, why not have some sort of acceptance?

It appears that the notion of God is more expansive when there is a non-zero sum situation at hand. If we feel that our lot is better through tolerance, then our God will be seen as universal. If not, we tend to see God as vengeful, resulting in the horrible events detailed throughout history. While we can hope that nations will see that there is a non-zero sum situation involved for us all, i.e., we survive and thrive when we allow others to do so also, when segments see it differently, they can use all sorts of "sacred books" to justify violence and destruction.

There is little of "Christianity" in the life of Jesus. The Jesus we know through the Gospels is a construct built by believers (40-80 years after Jesus). What seems to be true is that Christianity with many of the features popular to the world is a creation of Paul. And, like in previous eras, it was in his interest to further interethnic relationships in order to promote his franchises of Jesus-followers. The more magnanimous features of Christianity,e.g., loving your enemy, was a development designed to promote tolerance to the powerful in order to lessen their antagonism to this new religion. Expansion into the Roman Empire required more acceptance of other ethnic groups if the early Christians were to survive.

The development of Koran follows similar trends. When Muhammad was in Mecca where he initially was "inspired", his message to a polytheistic society was not received well. He was in no position to promote revenge directly. The Koran written under these circumstances encouraged more tolerance of those who were the oppressors. But, when he went to Medina and is message was supported by the majority, then the message was far more revengeful. The political and economic realities of the moment help determine the messages of Jesus and Muhammad.

Since the Books of the various religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) were written by people over time in circumstances that were perceived as either zero sum (producing intolerant, belligerent verbiage) or non-zero sum (producing more tolerant, compassionate texts), anyone can find something to support their views. The problem today is that the need to become tolerant in a clearly interdependent, non-zero sum world is sometimes jeopardized by the few who exercise extreme violence based on their perception of a zero sum situation.

The problem often times is that the hatred and violence of some result in a reaction that gives support to the belief systems of our enemies. Terrorists today are recruited because of the alignment of terrorists beliefs with their perceived reality, e.g., if Muslims claim justification for the behavior because the West hates them, won't our bombing and violence against our enemies who are Muslim, reinforced the basic premises of their behavior?

In order for the planet to survive, there is a need for people to use their moral imagination to reach beyond their more narrow perceptions in order to see how others are, in fact, interdependent with us. We have to work to make their "world" more aligned with ours in the sense that they see their "salvation" dependent on our behavior and vice versa.

Based on the title of the book, "The Evolution of God", one has to hope that "God" will clearly evolve to promote a higher degree of morality to enable humanity, now an interdependent global reality, to survive!

While the above captures the general thrust of the author's book, I clearly view the notions that God has "revealed" himself through written sources traditionally believed by the major religions as false. I can understand how someone could conclude that there may be a "higher power", but I cannot understand how humans could possibly have any comprehension of what this means. If there is a God, God remains clearly beyond our capacity to understand.

Public Option for Everyone!

In the past, I have communicated that I prefer a universal health care reform with one payor, viz., the government. It is the only way to achieve care for all with some way to control costs, even if viewed exclusively as rationing (which it is).

The bills offered by the Senate and the House do extend coverage, but at a severe cost. There is no health care reform. It is more or less the same system with more people. It surely will be a mess while driving up costs without any mechanism to establish control (I know that there is a provision for a group of specialized individuals to establish controls that will achieve higher quality, but I am not convinced that it will be capable of achieving its goals).

The only way to achieve universal access while controlling costs is to provide for the public option that is open to all (cf. Robert Reich). It surely will attract tons of people who will find that the private insurance more costly without higher access to care. And then, we will be able to proceed to the goal of reforming our health care system.

Robert Reich,

Crazy Fed Bank Policies!

When you read what the Federal Reserve is doing to contribute to restoring our economy, you note that they are giving banks money at virtually no interest rate. It is intended to support banks so that they will provide more credit to our citizens, permitting our economy to grow. However, this money is being used by the banks and investment firms to "make money" that provides no social value. There is no increase in our productivity. There is only more money being made by these firms. We continue the same procedures that got us into the mess in the first place.

Pearlstein's column poignantly focuses on the problem to the point that it is ludicrous.

Pitfalls of Electronic Warfare!

For some time, I have been uneasy with the use of drone warfare. While there is something exotic about being able to be involved in the killing of enemies without the use of our manpower, it is a slippery slope to the time when other nations will develop the technology. And then, what? What will be the next advancement to maintain our superiority? They already are starting to discuss space weapons that will be coming from military satellites.

Roger Cohen is drawing attention to the need for a national debate on the use of drones. His concerns are not like mine, but they too are valid. Shouldn't we consider the implications of our military sitting in Nevada and sending weapons to destroy our enemies and, often, innocent civilians.

We tend to think that no one can be as innovative in developing weapons as the United States. We will maintain our superiority because we are so "creative". But, at what cost?

"It Could Happen Here" by Bruce Judson

I have talked with my family over the past several years about my fear of major social unrest resulting from great economic disparities. Often times, I have referenced such disparities between the developed and undeveloped nations. More recently, I have been concerned about the economic disparities within our nation. As Kevin Phillips discussed in his books, nations that lose their middle classes tend to eventually lose their power.

Bruce Judson, a Yale Professor, brings data and imagination to address the great economic disparity within our nation. We are becoming, if not already present, a nation between the top and the rest! “It Could Happen Here” details the implications of a nation without a strong middle class. It is not simply a matter of social justice. As he says, “In fact, economic inequality if not solely a matter of fairness. It is a transcendent danger that threatens our national security and the survival of our form of government”.

It is clear that history indicates that nations with wealth allocated disproportionately to the few end up in some sort of major change. This situation is more problematic when a nation’s economy is in crisis. Can one imagine what would happen if nations investing in our relatively worthless bonds decided that they could do better elsewhere? Granted, it is hard to believe that they would do such because the consequences would be catastrophic for so many! However, should such occur, it surely would overwhelm our nation! Even as I write, I find out that our dollar’s value continues to decline! This may contribute to some “growth” because our exports will be cheaper, but surely it cannot be a great way to grow our economy.

Economic inequality is not just an absolute difference between groups of people. There is a relative aspect to what people perceive to be fair. People have expectations and, if there is no way to satisfy them, they become angry. Government can address problems associated with this disparity, but government’s failure to successfully remedy problems may inflame those who appear to be short-changed. And government may be overwhelmed to the point of being inherently ineffective.

The causes of a collapse of a society are unpredictable when focusing on specifics However, even from the time of Aristotle, economic inequities generally associated with major events, e.g., fiscal meltdown, result in some sort of revolution. But, the actual trigger could be less momentous. In short, when enough people feel like there is no hope in satisfying their aspirations and government is ineffective in addressing the issues, a society becomes quite vulnerable.

It would be hard to find anyone who would dispute the statistics indicating that the top 10% and above have more income and wealth than the remainder of our nation. In addition, high income is not no longer associated with an increase in social value. Making money with high leverage does not make a nation more productive. It mostly serves to increase the wealth of the few.

Technology and the global market were major factors in how economy has changed since the 70’s. So many people lost jobs due to technology, especially computers. Middle management tasks were outsourced as well as tasks generally done by unskilled labor. The end result is that corporations made increased profits with less employees. Moreover, regulations ceased to limit the markets, resulting in high leverage, increased debt, and less security for the ordinary middle class citizen. There was a time when adding women to the workforce contributed to maintaining the standard of living. Now, two earners in a household became insufficient, contributing to the need to add revenue by assuming debt in the form of credit and equity. We had produced a non-sustaining economy.

Obama’s administration recognizes the seriousness of the problems affecting our nation. At the same time, it is unclear whether they (and members of Congress) can adequately address the inherent problem of economic inequality. Those with wealth fight to maintain their gains. Redistribution of wealth is not achieved easily!

To rectify the situation, our nation has to focus on the common good. We are interdependent. Rather than an issue of just social justice, it is in our self-interest that our wealth is distributed more equitably.

We need to introduce policies that will tend to make society more fair. Health care, education, and retirement are issues that everyone wants. We have the means to have health care that is affordable to all that delivers high quality medicine. We need to address the problems associated with our school system that squanders so many youths with effects that last for life. We have to promote higher education, knowing that it is important that such education will promote opportunities for a full life. We need fiscal regulations to ensure that our markets can be trusted to serve the common good.

Health Bill is By No Means a Done Deal!

I would not place a bet that ANY health care bill will pass. There are too many problems with too many different groups of people. I, at the moment, will not be unhappy since there is nothing about the bills in Congress that satisfy my wish to see health care reform. To think that the House bill only passed by five votes! There were a number of Democrats that could not vote for the bill even after the abortion restrictions.

I am a fan of Marcia Angell who has been critical of our healthcare system. Her latest comments on the House bill reflect my feelings entirely. Her strategy of how we could achieve a single payor system strikes me as both realistic and hopeful. Her focus on strengthening primary care while placing more cost cutting restrictions on specialists is important. Placing on the emphasis on the need to insure everyone without other considerations of reforming health care itself will only provide more profits for insurance companies.

Implications of National Debt

Robert Samuelson may be considered a more conservative economist, but I do read his columns with interest and usually find them quite convincing. In his latest column, he discusses the implications of the debt of many major nations, e.g., Spain, Great Britain, Japan, and also, the United States. His observations are generally based on a IMF report that includes reasonably convincing data on what could be overwhelming national debt by 2014 (cf. below).

His scenario about the implications of such debt is scary and would make anyone pause to consider what should be done.

From my point of view, I would suggest:

1. The President and his administration (including Congress) should start voicing the need for a national response that would involve EVERYONE for a long time. Increased taxation and reduction of benefits are inevitable and only a sense of the common good will enable the politicians to do what will be required.

2. How can costs be reduced?

a. Health care: we have to get a universal card system as fast as possible and, with this national system, we will have to ration care comparable to what other nations do. In short, we cannot afford everything to all on demand. Whatever care will be provided within the provisions of a national system, I see no way to stop those who can afford more insurance to access more health care options. There are all sort of implications to this type of rationing, e.g., some medical research designed to bring advanced types of biotech treatment will have to be deferred/short-changed

b. Department of Defense: our nation has been expanding its military capacity to the point of the absurd. We have made our "allies" dependent on our use of OUR resources to address their needs. It is not fair. In addition, our empire building days have to end. We cannot save the world. We should be on the path to get the United Nations to expand its charter to include a military that would address issues of concern, e.g., genocide.

c. Benefits: Social Security should be adjusted regularly to the constant advancement of longevity. To extend benefits longer and longer without any adjustment may not be possible. Moreover, there has to be a change in the ceiling of pay roll tax for Social Security. The tax should be on total income AND the payouts should be adjusted to income, i.e., those at the bottom will get proportionally more in their benefits than those who have higher income and for those beyond a certain amount, e.g., $500 K, would receive NOTHING!

d. Tax Laws: Current incentives that reward those with more income should be modified, if not eliminated. One such tax law is the mortgage interest deductions. I would recommend the elimination of this deduction. It would add needed tax revenue and support initiatives designed to promote houses that are more reasonable in terms of their carbon print.

I believe that these changes would address our national debt.

General Government Debt to GDP

• COUNTRY
• BRAZIL
• CANADA
• CHINA
• FRANCE
• GERMANY
• INDIA
• ITALY
• JAPAN
• SOUTH KOREA
• MEXICO
• UNITED KINGDOM
• UNITED STATES

• 2007
• 67%
• 64%
• 20%
• 64%
• 63%
• 81%
• 104%
• 188%
• 30%
• 38%
• 44%
• 62%

• 2014
• 59%
• 69%
• 20%
• 96%
• 89%
• 79%
• 129%
• 246%
• 35%
• 44%
• 98%
• 108%

Letter to Speaker Pelosi & Majority Leader Reid

I write to you, as the Speaker of the House (Majority Leader of the Senate), because I am very concerned that the vision first articulated by President Obama is being lost because Congress cannot address the major issues of reform of financial institutions, health care reform, economic stimulus, and a global warming treaty in a way that makes sense to the American public. I realize that your job is most difficult. I admit that you are working to achieve some sort of consensus at least within the Democratic caucus. However, the way things are working out, it looks like politics is essentially ruining a vision of change.

I realize that no bill has actually passed either chamber at this point. However, it does look that the political interests of those in Congress to ensure their political survival seems to be the driving force that is shaping the legislation. I fear that the 2010 elections will result in the loss of many Democrats only because they failed to deliver on expectations. Maybe Congress has become unmanageable. Maybe the financing of congressional elections is so dependent on lobbyists that it is impossible to legislate to further the interests of the American public. Maybe we are in a downward spiral dating from the 1980's where congress is becoming virtually a series of vested interests with no common goals and vision. Whatever it is, the end result is negative.

I hope that this general vision of Sheila Blair and Elizabeth Warren are incorporated into a set of financial regulations.

I hope that health care reform will, in fact, reform health care!

I hope that there will be evidence that the economic stimulation package does actually produce jobs even if another stimulus bill is required. Surely, there are enough problems in our nation, e.g., our crumbling infrastructure, to warrant the investment.

I hope that a global warming treaty will indicate our nation's seriousness to reform our abuse of carbon.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my views.

Edward Toomey

"The Jesuit and the Skull" by Amir Aczel

My daughter and family gave me this book for Father's Day because they knew that I held Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in such high regard. I discovered him when I was in the seminary and became enthralled with his knowledge and vision. He clearly articulated a knowledge of evolution that was very convincing. And he was able to incorporate the scientific insights into a spiritual vision that was "breathtaking". I recall reading parts of his "Divine Milieux" to patients in the hospital because his vision was so beautiful.

Reading "The Jesuit and the Skull" added another dimension to my knowledge of this Jesuit priest. While I knew that he was exiled by the Jesuit community and Vatican officials, he did not realize the extent of his exile. It was incredible. I knew about the denials of the community and Rome to publish much of his writings (publications occurred after his death, thanks to an agreement between Teilhard and a friend).

The book captures the wonderful personality of this priest who seemed to be a friend virtually of everyone (except one). Some of his friends were women with whom he shared a deep friendship. In one case, the relationship was particularly strong, but eventually dissipated because he did not want to break his vow of celibacy.

I admit that my current vantage point, his life-long obedience to Rome and Jesuit order and his adherence to his vows are dumbfounding given that the institutional Church was so harsh with him personally and so antithetical to his beliefs. I know that the discrepancy between my beliefs and those of the institutional church were impossible for me to bridge with a sense of loyalty! He surely evidenced character traits that exceeded my capacity.

Another Letter to President Obama

President Obama, I continue to support you. I treasure you as a gifted leader. However, I do think that mistakes are being made in your administration. 1. Health Care It's a mess! There is no coherence in any of the bills under discussion. Moreover, none actually reform health care. It is essentially the same system extended to more people. The bills satisfy virtually no one. 2. War Afghanistan is a major test. I can only hope that your reflection will result in a decided reversal of prior statements. Going further down the road in any way will only extend misery. If anything, the promise to help the people can be guaranteed through foreign investments in schools, clinics, and other humane goals. 3. Economy I wrote to you earlier about the decisions made to address the economy. It remains evident to me that your economic leaders are not breaking away from the past with sufficient focus to make a difference to the financial sector. More importantly, the need to address the unemployment issue seems to assigned a lesser priority than other goals, e.g., health care. Somehow, the available stimulus money needs to make a difference quicker or we need more stimulus money. There surely is a national need to address our infrastructure problems, if nothing else. Such action would make a difference to our nation while creating jobs. 4. Transparency I hoped that your administration would be "different" because there would be total transparency, guided by ethics that transcended politics. I am afraid that your administration comes across as more of the same, albeit, in a less obvious fashion. In closing, I want you to succeed. It would be terrible if you did not! Edward Toomey

Afghanistan

The President is considering what to do with Afghanistan. There are reports that he will increase the military strength but less than what Gen. McCrystal wanted. Even that will be too much!

I see no end to McCrystal's strategy or for any other strategy that requires changes in governance or society.

I agree with all the people who emphasize that this will be the proverbial quagmire that Vietnam was for Johnson. No one better states the view than Robert Scheer.

Elections - November 2009

I do not think that the elections relate in any way to Obama. New Jersey has been a mess for years and everyone is hoping that someone different in the office of Governor will make a difference. I actually believe such a person may be coming in the person of Corey Booker. But that will be at least another four years and he still has much to do in Newark.

Virginia is traditionally a Republican state. That it returned to its traditional pattern is no surprise since the Democratic nominee was not that strong.

However, I do think that the Democrats will be in trouble in 2010 and beyond if they do not straighten out their priorities. This outcome is independent of what people think of Obama.

I do not agree with Obama's relative need to try to be inclusive when there is no indication that Republicans want to become part of Obama's vision. Obama was elected President and, as such, he has a right to implement his vision. They should negotiate change within his vision. What I feel bad about is that Obama is not strong enough in pushing for his programs.