Not Just the Paradox of Choice but the Tyranny of Freedom Wrongly Understood

I little while ago I read Barry Schwartz's book "The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less".
Schwartz provides a nice summary of his work at one of the TED Conferences which can be watched here.

It is certainly worth your 20 minutes. Schwartz very well may rattle you a bit because he takes some  basic assumptions of our society out for re-examination. In fact, Schwartz doesn't rest at calling them assumptions he calls them dogmas and as he explains, the official dogma of all Western Industrial societies runs like this:

"If we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens, the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom. The reason for this is that freedom is both, in and of itself good, valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human AND because if people have freedom than each of us can act on our own to do the things that will maximize our welfare and no one has to decide on our behalf. The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice. The more choice people have, the more freedom they have; and the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have."

A main theme of Schwartz's work is in making observations that our overwhelming options for choice, (particularly in, but not limited to, the area of consumer goods), are making us less happy not more happy. Schwartz is a psychologist so he looks at this from a psychological point of view and discovers that people's brains just are equipped to deal with all of the options and endless possibilities. In other words, we are finite, and when marketeers offer us what is seemingly infinite or limitless, our brains simply cannot cope. In fact, this constant barrage of choice leads to what is often called analysis paralysis and when we do make choices we end up less satisfied with the choices we have made. A more troubling side effect of all of this choice however is the heightened anxiety that is always buzzing in our heads, internally. In summary, Schwartz prescribes low expectations and reduction, (but not elimination), of options for choice.

But that can't be all there is to it, can it?

I'm not religious...I just love the Lord.

This is a line that I've seen floating around Evangelical circles in some way, shape or form since I was a kid. I think it basically means: "We love Jesus but we acknowledge that sometimes religious people have done things that are an embarrassment to our um...their religion." Anyway, that line has been floating around at least since the 70's but the Emergent Evangelicals are having their own go at is if it's something they just discovered.

I always feel bad for the Emergents, (you know Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and that guy who wrote "Blue Like Jazz").  I mean I get what they're reacting to. Somewhere in the last couple of decades American Evangelicalism seems to have reached it's zenith. Of course, this is debatable but certainly there has been a surge of Evangelical influence in the near recent past and the Emergents were not impressed. Or, if they were impressed, they also experienced a let-down. Some of their criticisms are well placed. It's just that they're wrong about what they propose as far as how to fix things.

Another Emergent, Jim Palmer, prescribes 25 Reasons Why It Is Time For A Religion-Free Bible.
However, I really think Palmer's take really begs a few questions, (which I responded with in red).
1. The Bible is not a religious book.
Question: What sort of book is it then? History? Allegory? Philosophy? Literature? Poetry? Is the Bible only one of these without being simultaneously something else? Does the Bible always refrain from becoming "religious?" Leviticus for example, has a great deal of specific prescriptions for religious practice. Does Leviticus avoid the religious somehow?
2. The story of the Bible has value for all of humankind, regardless of your religious tradition or no religion at all.
Question: Does anyone within Christianity actually disagree with this?
3. The Bible is not owned by any particular sect of people, including institutional Christianity; the Bible is a spiritual resource for all people.
Question:  Wasn't the Old Testament first directed to, from and about the Hebrews or the Jewish sect?  I get what you're trying to say, (I think), but in opening up the Scriptures to anyone who can bear them, must you artificially divorce the Scriptures from their historical origin? If you read the Bible outside the context of it's Jewish origins you're going to be quite handicapped in your understanding of it. So why the cultural, (or even sectarian), divorce?
4. The voice of the Bible deserves to be heard, unshackled from the repressive spin often imposed upon it.
Question: Can you be specific about the repressive spin? Am I supposed to know what you're referring to here? Can you be less broad in your indictment here?
5. Contrary to what “they” say, there is more than one way to read, interpret, and understand the Bible.
Question: Is there any wrong way to read, interpret and understand the Bible? Do we need any guidance in how we read, interpret and understand the Bible? Should we be seeking that guidance from you? From someone else? You do realize that in making this statement your are claiming a position for dolling out instruction on how to interpret the Bible?
6. People need to know that the destructive and oppressive ideas they carry about God as a result of their involvement with religion are not truly “biblical.”
Question: So there is such a thing a truly "biblical" standard then?
7. In the hands of the people, the Bible can be an instrument of love, beauty, peace, acceptance and harmony in the world.
Question: Which people? Is it possible that the Bible ever becomes an instrument of chaos in the hands of the "people" as well?
8. Humankind needs permission to walk away from the lie we learned about ourselves that we are bad, not good enough, unacceptable to God, and something is wrong with us.
Question: If something is not wrong with me, why do I do bad things to others? Is it possible that you are lumping too many things in together in your statement here? I mean, is it possible that something is wrong with us, but that God still simultaneously loves us?
9. Women need to be restored to their place of sacred significance that religion stripped from them.
Question: Restored? Can you point to the time in which women were at their proper place of sacred significance? How and where has religion stripped women of their place of sacred significance? What is that place of sacred significance? Quite pointedly, is it possible that a place of sacred significance might look very similar to that which is occupied by the Blessed Mother in Catholicism's art, theology and spiritual direction as role model for both men and women? Or is it something else?
10. The Bible can be a profound inspiration for art in every form.
Question: How is this other than stating the obvious? Have you ever heard of the Sistine Chapel? (I've tipped my hand here, haven't I?) Also, what about crappy forms of art? You don't think that the Bible is really an inspiration for that do you? I mean plenty of Christians make crappy art and say it's inspired by the Bible...is it really?
11. The separation between people because of religious differences needs to be dissolved.
Question: How do you propose that we do that? Also, what about the differences between people that arise outside of religion? Should those differences also be dissolved? Is it possible that some of those difference are good and should remain? Is it possible that we can have cultural, ethnic and personal differences while we simultaneously share a common religious bond? You imply that religion has divided people but is it possible that it has also brought vastly diverse peoples together?
12. God should not be the motivation or rationale for hatred, violence, oppression and prejudice.
Question: When is God EVER truly the motivation or rational for hatred, violence, oppression and  prejudice?
13. There are a myriad of options between Fundamentalist and Atheist.
Question: Which option in that myriad is right? Are we right as long as we're not a Fundamentalist or an Atheist? Do you know any actual Fundamentalists or actual Atheists? For that matter, why not be a Fundamentalist...or an Atheist?
14. Every human being needs to know of their inherent divine worth.
Question: Who disagrees with that? Isn't that an age old tenant of religion?
15. It’s time to stop arguing about God, and start expressing the reality of the kingdom of God.
Question: Aren't you making an argument here? What if I disagree with your propisitions about God and the kingdom? Should I just be silent and go along with you just so that we do not disagree? Isn't it possible to have an argument that isn't a quarrel? Otherwise, what expression of the kingdom of God would you dictate to us? Is it perhaps time for people to stop quarreling so that they can actually start making decent arguments?
16. No human being regardless of their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or culture should be denied their status as a card-carrying beloved child of God.
Question: Again, who disagrees with that? Isn't that an age old tenant of religion?
17. Jesus could not and would not subscribe to what is often passed off as “biblical teaching.”
Question: Um...actually. No question here. I wholeheartedly agree.
18. You don’t need an MDiv or PhD in theology to embrace the simple but profound message of the Bible.
Question: Is there anything to be gained from dedicated, (and yes academic), study of theology and the scriptures? How do we understand the Bible? Especially the confusing parts like Daniel and Revelation, (and many of the words of Christ for that matter)?
19. There is no line between “sacred” and “secular.”
Question: Are sacred and secular the same thing then? That would be news to me. I wonder, (and here I am again leading the witness), do you really mean that the call of the people of God, (those who seek authentic religion), the call is to draw the secular to the sacred? To work towards a marriage of the two. Is that what you are trying to say?
20. Humankind is not separated from and condemned by God.
Question: Why do I still do bad things that I know God could not approve of? And really, let's be honest, what about rape? Do you mean that humankind that rapes and kills does not separate itself from God?
21. The world is not hopeless or too far gone to be transformed by love.
Question: What religion says that? Certainly not the Christian religion?
22. Our humanity is not the enemy or the obstacle to overcome.
Question: Again, does the Christian religion say otherwise? Doesn't the Christian religion make the unique claim that God became human?
23. Because everyday people are suffering unnecessarily because of ideas they’ve learned about God, themselves, life, and others.
Question: Is that suffering due to inauthentic religion, or just religion in general?
24. Our diversity as humankind is powerful and beautiful.
Question: Again, does the Christian religion say otherwise?
25. God has no religion.
No Question here, well a question in which I will just give the answer as well: What does God have then if he has no religion? God has Himself.  

So honestly, I've just got to say that I've always thought the whole Emergent Church things comes off as sophomoric and is palpably disingenuous.   

Ever notice how so much of the way evangelical churches, (and yes that goes for you too Emergents),  advertise themselves these days goes like this: 
TIRED OF CHURCH? TRY OUR CHURCH! IT'S GREAT

  "We're not like a regular church. We're a cool church."

Intellectual Hubris

From Purgatorio, Canto 3:

"Insane is he who hopeth that our reason
Can traverse the illimitable way,
Which the one Substance in three Persons follows!
Be ye content oh human race with the queer;
For if ye had been able to see the whole,
No need there were for Mary to give birth;
And ye have seen such sages desiring without fruit,
Whose desire had else been satisfied,
Is given them for eternal grief.
I speak of Aristotle and of Plato,
And many others;"
 
There's an impulse sometimes try to reason our way into salvation - to find the specific clue to our particular brokenness as it shows up in our time and place and present the key to everyone.
Salvation as a simple syllogism.

There's an arrogant frustration that comes in not being able to peer into the depths of infinity and turn the key, as if mere knowledge can save us.
If we just get our theology right, if we just squint our eyes and strain to see the clues it will all click.
This is probably a flavor of Gnosticism -  a mystical knowledge the originates from within.
Otherwise known as plain old worship of the intellect.

There is comfort in Solomon here:
"Vanity, vanities. All is vanity...
All things are wearisome;
Man is not able to tell it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor is the ear filled with hearing."
Ecclesiastes Chapter 1

Or St. Paul:
"Where there is knowledge, it will pass away.   
For we know in part and we prophesy in part;  but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."
1 Cor 13: 8

Fun With Statistics

So apparently 21% of Atheists believe in God...
And only 97% of Catholics

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

Big Data and the Stubborn Human Person

I've really been looking forward to getting to this topic, but it could almost be a book. I don't have time or the skills to do it justice. There is some really curious stuff amuck.

Sorry for the cliche. If you can think of a better image for this post please comment

A Poor Man with Money

"A rich man is nothing but a poor man with money"
- W. C. Fields

Where are we going?
Why are going there? 
How will we get there?
Will we be happy when we’re there?

There really is a sort of despair in accomplishing worldly success. That is, you can be aware of that despair if your senses haven’t been numbed by the process that it took to achieve that worldly success. That sounds sort of bleak but it’s not and here is why: we aren’t working towards the Kingdom of the World. We are working towards the Kingdom of God. This is a Kingdom built on Love. Any despair I’m experiencing is really only a temporary frustration, and at that, a gentle reminder that the prize is Christ, not the world. 

Pope Benedict XVI explains this beautifully in Spe Salvi:

“Day by day, man experiences many greater or lesser hopes, different in kind according to the different periods of his life.  Sometimes one of these hopes may appear to be totally satisfying without any need for other hopes. Young people can have the hope of a great and fully satisfying love; the hope of a certain position in their profession, or of some success that will prove decisive for the rest of their lives. When these hopes are fulfilled, however, it becomes clear that they were not, in reality, the whole. It becomes evident that man has need of a hope that goes further. It becomes clear that only the infinite will suffice for him, something that will always be more than he can ever attain. In this regard our contemporary age has developed the hope of creating a perfect world that, thanks to scientific knowledge and to scientifically based politics, seemed to be achievable. Thus Biblical hope in the Kingdom of God has been displaced by hope in the kingdom of man, the hope of a better world which would be the real “Kingdom of God.” 

So any frustration we experience in work is a reminder that my hope has been misplaced in the kingdom of man. We may have had a series of worthy hopes and goals that we see accomplished over the years but it ends up like Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, there is a sense that it is all meaningless. In pursuing goals we can become so fixated on them that we start to think that everything will be ok, that we will be able to come up for air and breathe a sigh of relief, if we could just… 
If I can just win this deal, just finish this project...
If I can just be the top employee on our team, district, division or sector...
If I can just get out of debt, just get the kids’ college paid for, just have a sufficient savings set aside, just pay for the dream house...
If I can just live more independently.
If I can just finish this race, just win this race...
If I can just finish this class, just finish this degree, just get this business to this level of profitability...
If I can just get the right idea across, present it the right way to the right person, at the right time....
If I can just get it all right… Well, then what? 

Well, then there’s always something else to take care of.   

If we realize my goals, (any of them), and we are still dissatisfied it can be a gentle reminder that our ultimate goal will not be reached on this earth. Even if the goal seems to be in direct alignment with serving Christ in our vocation, whether it is in ministry to one's family, the Church or the world. If I am foolish enough to think that everything will be ok once I get the job done then I am due for a good run of frustration until the Holy Spirit reminds me that the journey is love and anything outside of that won’t last. 

As Mother Teresa reminds us:

“God has not called me to be successful, he has called me to be faithful. “ 

Or as Pope Benedict explains:

“Success” is not one of the names of God…but “consuming fire” is."

 So sure, I can set out a course for serving our family’s temporal needs and a plan of getting there all in the service of fulfilling the responsibilities in my vocation as husband and father, but the goal is Christ. It is simple, if I neglect the spiritual needs of my family in pursuing the fulfillment of their temporal needs I have set up an idol in our home that will bring us nothing but problems. The goal is Christ.

Defending Bill Maher

I like Mark Shea. He is usually correct. However, he seems to go off half cocked a bit more often these days. My guess is that it comes from being spread pretty thin - he does quite a bit of writing and blogging is probably not priority number one for him. So that is my guess as to why his posts tend towards the Twitter/FB side of things and less towards the blog and contemplate side of things these days.

Today he throws out a silly chart on the assumed before and verified after of life with vaccinations.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/03/one-of-the-things-i-dont-get.html
Not his best work...Lazy thinking and sloppy connection to Maher to rile up the tribe.

I posted a response but it seems to have been deleted, (Patheos seems to do that often so I'm sure it was by accident as I don't think I said anything rude). 

Anyway, here are my thoughts...
Certainly, vaccinations have had a positive impact. I’m not contesting that, (and neither does Maher btw). However, I think it is fair to scrutinize any over application or mis-application. It’s like anything else, from antibiotics to alcohol. Everything in its right place.

Now, I certainly wouldn’t line up with Maher, point for point but I agree with him here in any his opening take: “Vaccination is a nuanced subject, and I’ve never said all vaccines in all situations are bad. The point I am representing is: Is getting frequent vaccinations for any and all viruses consequence-free?” 

"Blather, blather, blather. Blah, Blah...Actually I'm making sense if you can get over my rudeness."