The Only Thing

Have you ever gotten into a fight with your spouse, your lover, or your partner. Of course you have. And however much you love him (or her) you want to win. You give no thought to how the other party may feel – you're only focused on the idea that he will acknowledge that you're right.

We want to win. No matter what. After all, we're better and smarter than anyone else. We want to be right no matter what the cost. Even if there's “collateral damage.”

(Have you ever secretly wished that you'd lose? Probably.ⁱ But primarily so you could provoke feelings of guilt in someone elseⁱⁱ or earn the sympathy due an underdog. Winners never get any sympathy. Admiration, respect, or fear perhaps. But not sympathy. A real poster child for your causeⁱⁱⁱ is a dead one – even if you killed him yourself, or he isn't really dead. That'll get you sympathy and prove your virtue and the evil of your enemy [competitor]. So it's a valuable tool – especially when you're wrong. And if by some fluke you turn out to be right, you can always say “I told you so.” That's pretty satisfying.)

The bottom line is that we are all participants in the daily activity of competition.^iv Not just people – though they are my main concern today – but all forms of life. Self-preservation. Survival. And evolution is the reason we have gotten to this point. Whatever you consider the source of evolution, it has produced the RNA and DNA patterns that make plants and animals what they are. And whether or not we believe that our DNA made us do it – whatever “it” is – there is no question that our genetic background is largely – if not entirely – responsible for our attitudes and our actions.

And, for better or worse, the human race is composed of competitors. There are many who contend that males are more competitive than females, but that probably isn't true. The fields may be different, but the game is the same. Whether we compete based on brains (a battle of wits), beauty, words, skill, or strength, we fantasize that we're superior to everyone around us, and it is our constant challenge to prove it.

Nowhere is this more evident than in sports. People are willing to maim themselves, and damage themselves for life in order to win glory, even though they'll be forgotten as soon as the season, or their career, ends. For whatever reason, success on the fields of dreams and other sports became an end in itself. "Football is not just a matter of life and death; it’s much more important than that” was the way Henry Sanders, coach of UCLA put it, and he meant it. He's also credited with saying “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing,” though the words are often attributed to Vince Lombardi.

The competition is also an economic one,^v whether personal or commercial. On a purely personal level we don't want to keep up with the Joneses, we want them to try^vi to keep up with us. But of greater national concern is the competition for consumer dollars. Cereal, gasoline, new cars – the argument is always the same. Our product is superior to our competitor's.

All of this is superimposed on political campaigns.^vii By pitting candidates against each other they provide a competition for our interest and our votes. It's often a negative competition. We vote against candidates rather than for their opposition, though that may be what's necessary. And the same is true of the various propositions on the ballot. Interest groups on both sides have promoted their arguments widely, in the hope of convincing me of the virtue of their cause.

(The wish to lose exists here [in politics] as well, in order to claim virtue later. That is especially true when your candidate has no better answers than the opposition and you'd rather that the opposition failed than see your choice do so. Later you can point to his failure as evidence that the voters should have sided with you. All the possible “solutions” are losers and you'd rather the other side lost than yours. And behind all the rhetoric is the knowledge that you're right – irrespective of the facts and the arguments on both sides.)

The ultimate competition is war. Animals mark their territory and compete for food and sex. But, by and large, their desires don't go beyond that. They're focused on their own survival and that of their species. The dreams of humans are less limited. We seek prestige, power, and property for ourselves, as well as better conditions for our people. But their benefits are less important than the advantages we gain for ourselves.^viii The individuals – specifically we – are more important than the species. It doesn't matter who gets killed as long as we win.

Competition, however, is simply the response to challenge. Whatever the challenge, it is usually outside of ourselves. That can be good or bad, but usually it's the latter. There are times when outside challenges are appropriate: times like seeking employment or or earning a living; times when competition is necessary. But most often the challenges, and the competition they produce, are aimed at self-glorification or worse – when the goal is to defeat someone else, or put something over on him. Right and wrong are not the issues then – only winning. The aim may not be to lose a friend, or to make a fool of yourself, however that may be the result, even if you don't mean it.

Forget the others. Challenge yourself. “Be all you can be,” as the Army puts it.^ix

That requires some thought, however. And that's your challenge. It's certainly more important than what appears on some phony “reality” show. It will probably sound sappy, but you are more important than television. There's more to life than “getting away with murder” simply because you can while others can't. The idea of doing what's “right” is the right is the thing;^x figuring out what you're best at can be a real challenge, and doing it is even more so.

And make a point of admitting you're wrong. Even if you aren't. Especially when it's obvious you aren't. When the person with whom you're arguing realizes that the admission is insincere, you'll have won.

Next episode: “Original Intent” – That's not what I meant.

 

 

i        It's an especially important technique when your argument is weak or you know you're wrong. You certainly don't want to admit that. You don't really want to lose, but you expect to. So you plan to spin the defeat into a moral victory.

ii       He'd really feel terrible if something happened to you – even if it was self-inflicted. He'd probably blame himself, and that would be fitting. After all, he's responsible for the problem. Whatever the outcome, he caused it. Don't let him off the hook.

iii      One that will win people over to your side even if you,re wrong.

iv       Battle.

v        Especially in sports.

vi       And fail.

vii      It always seems to be campaign season.

viii     Food and sex in addition to power, prestige, and property.

ix       I'm not suggesting you enlist, although that might be the right choice for you.

x        Spike Lee, 1989.

The Murder Of Leon Klinghoffer

“To be good, and to do good, is all we have to do.” Those were the words of John Adams.

President John Adams.

The modern composer who bears his name seems to have a different perspective. Or, at the very least, a perverse view of what is “good.”

Much has been written about his opera, “The Death of Klinghoffer,” and I am reluctant to rehearse all of it here, but there are a few aspects on which I want to comment. The first relates to the concept of the opera – which, we are told, is to present both sides of the controversy regarding the incident. Since I missed Adams's opera based on the virtues of Charles Manson, I cannot comment on any pattern, but from what I have learned about his latest work I know that much of it is devoted to the expression, by Palestinians, about the injustices done to their people and the justification of the murder they committed. The producers make clear that there is no anti-semitism involved. It is interesting, but only coincidental, that the librettist converted from Judaism while working on the opera.

The Metropolitan Opera's General Manager states, in yesterday's New York Post, “The libretto attempts to explore the motives of the criminals who perpetrated the Klinghoffer crime, something we should all strive to understand.” It is his view that the opera is a work of art and that people should see it and decide for themselves (though it is not clear what they should decide and what they should be judging).

It appears that his goal – having no choice but to defend himself and the Met – is to tell the audience that their responsibility is to judge the artistic nature of the work. Perhaps they should also evaluate the arguments on both sides and decide on those for themselves as well, but first and foremost they should attend. Both the Met's economic interests and the General Manager's reputation depend on good attendance; cancelation of the opera would result in both a loss of face and of money. And possibly the General Manager's job.

The idea that the audience should decide for themselves, however, totally (perhaps intentionally) misses the point. The opera should not be on stage for people to make such a decision. Any attempt to defend the act it depicts represents support of evil and does not merit a hearing. The Met should not be an accessory after the fact.

Much is made about the First Amendment and the idea that not presenting the opera would be a violation of the composer's rights. But we must not overlook the fact that before there were amendments to the Constitution, there was a Constitution. And in that document it states clearly “No person shall…be deprived of life ... without due process of law.” Defending a violation of the Constitution as “art” cannot be justified. Calling such an act a “right” is an insult to all of us.

In addition, the First Amendment may give the composer the right to spew whatever comes to mind, but it places no obligation of anyone to publish or produce it. In this case that was a decision of the Met, and they are accountable for it.

Although there is much more to be said on the subject, let me conclude with the following. As a sop to the Jewish community, and after negotiations with the Anti-Defamation League, the Met agreed not to air the opera world wide, even though they would not cancel the New York production. The ADL may have considered it a major victory, but it is an example of the truth that the lesser of two evils is evil. President Adams was speaking of politics in his letter to Horatio Gates, but the same is true of the current situation, “... the middle way is none at all.”

The presentation of “The Death [the composer's sanitized version of 'murder'] of Klinghoffer [first name omitted in order to dehumanize the victim]” is indefensible. I don't have to see it to decide for myself.

Thanks For The Memory (footnote i)

As I recall, I've spoken on the subject of memory in the past, although I can't remember very much about what I said.ⁱⁱ As far as I remember, however, I mentioned the idea mostly in passing, and this time I'd like to focus on some aspects that I find interesting and intriguing.

We live in an age when the need for memory is becoming less and less important. (More critical very often is the inability to forget – or the inability to have others forget.ⁱⁱⁱ) With internet searches, we can find out much more than we were ever able to remember when it was necessary to either know it ourselves or to go to the library to learn it, and we can access the information far more quickly than before. And it's no longer necessary to remember the multiplication tables or more complex mathematical formulas. As long as your computer is working, you can find out almost anything you need to know. You can even see pictures of it.^iv

And notwithstanding Santayana and the others who have voiced similar concerns, there isn't even any need to know history. It's all on line. You don't have to remember the Maine, the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11. A few clicks of your mouse and you'll have more information about those events than you could possibly remember. That kind of ability is no longer of importance. Don't waste your neurons and synapses on them. Memory and history are things of the past.

Yet we are fixated on memory. We used to be happy when we could teach some mice to run through a maze, and we offered them rewards for doing so. But we've gone well beyond that now, and beyond Pavlovian responses as well. We can now pick memory apart – we can identify its pieces. Long-term and short-term memory used to be the main categories that we considered, but now we deal with working memory, episodic memory, semantic memory, instrumental learning, motor memory, and other types.^v

Memory has become an industry. Not just the chips in your computer. Study of memory is an important academic pursuit – whether animals or plants^vi are the subject. How memory works is a significant issue for education and, recognizing that numerous nations are outpacing us in this area, we have to be concerned with all the issues that relate to learning in any way. It would be wonderful if our kids could remember history or science as well as they remember hip-hop lyrics.^vii Mnemonics and test results rely on memory, but more important is the knowledge which we can acquire, and the ability to relate that knowledge to facts previously learned. If we are going to create something new, we need to know (and remember) what's old. We have to stand on the shoulders of those who came before.

But there are other needs which memory fulfills. For example, it's critical to our commerce. Our advertising depends on it. It's important that consumers remember our brand names and all that we've taught them about the quality of our products. It doesn't matter if the claims are true, as long as we get enough people to remember them and to buy the things we make or market.

And we need memory in order to play games. How else can we expect to get to the 36^th level of whatever it is that has our attention. And the chess masters, as well as those who play games like Concentration, won't do very well if their focus on the game at hand is not supplemented by additional information that they learned and remember.

More important though, we're concerned about Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. And not only because we might forget how to utilize our computers. We hear almost daily of people who have wandered off and who lack any concept of where they are going or of how to return home – if they remember that they have homes. As the population ages, memory loss is becoming a more and more serious problem. It's a problem for the patients, their caregivers, and the American economy in general. For example, according to the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, the medical cost of the disease is one hundred billion dollars annually.^viii And that doesn't include other dementias, nor the fact that the cost is certain to go up. (Of course all that money has to go somewhere, and that's to nursing homes, home healthcare workers, scam artists, and anyone else with an idea about how to benefit from the situation. It's all “zero sum.” The money doesn't disappear. Someone gets it.)

But, from my perspective, the greatest merit of memory is that it allows me to have memories. They're not the kinds of things that Google can fetch for me. They're personal. No one remembers my childhood, or that of my children, as I do; no one can call back my college days or my courtship^ix of my wife as I experienced it. And no one wants to. Everyone has memories of his own. Nostalgia. Déjà vu. Sometimes the memories are real and sometimes they're idealized. And sometimes they're created from the “whole cloth.” In any event, they'll be forgotten when we forget them. But that's OK. Those memories will disappear as we will – as those who came before us did.^x We all want to be remembered, but we know that our stories will soon be forgotten. How long does a legacy last? In fact, how long does your own memory last?

So if you're thinking about remembering something for a long time, or being remembered for a long time, fuggedaboudit.

Next episode: “The Only Thing” – Henry Russell Sanders's philosophy and ours.

I        It was Bob Hope's theme song, from “The Big Broadcast of 1938,” in which he starred. He sang the song with Shirley Ross.

ii       The older I get, the more I forget. I try to deal with that problem by making lists. Whenever I think of something interesting, I write it down. Unfortunately, however, there are times when I can't make notes. Like when I'm in the shower. I think of things that I want to remember and try very hard to keep them “on line,” but I know I'm going to forget a lot of my ideas. And that's one of my most accurate insights, since I frequently forget the unwritten thoughts.

iii     Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

iv      You can even see pictures of memory. Here's Salvatore Dali's “Persistence of Memory.”

         I don't understand it either.  (If the picture does not appear on your computer, you can see it by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory)

v        I can't remember them all and doing so is too complicated anyway.

vi      http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201401156399/research/move-over-elephants-mimosas-have-memories-too. (Don't say things you don't want them to know. They may remember. And they may tell them to someone else.)

vii      In my day it was batting averages and car models – at least among the boys. I don't know what the girls' obsessions were.

viii     http://www.alzfdn.org/AboutAlzheimers/cost.html

ix       Does the whole idea of courtship exist as it did more than half a century ago?

x        Do you remember your great grandparents? Or those who came before them? Or even after them. Each generation makes way for the next, and too many memories would occupy too much space and keep us from making our own. And it's our own that will sustain us as we get older.

Words To The Wise

I'm in the midst of reading two books right now (I can't pay attention to any single one for a long time – actually I'm reading five or six books, but only two are relevant to what I want to say), “Language Loyalties,” edited by James Crawford, and “Verbal Hygiene” by Deborah Cameron. The first “was conceived at the Conference on Language Rights and Public Policy … [of the] Stanford University Department of Linguistics and Californians United against Proposition 63.ⁱ As its title and sponsorship suggest, the conference brought together “[individuals who] … oppose Official English and seek alternatives.”

According to its editor, “My own bias, and the bias of those who have supported the project, should be stated clearly: Adopting English as the official language [of the United States] would be a backward step for this country. The English Only campaign offers at best a simplistic answer to our language problems, at worst a vehicle for xenophobia.”

The second book, “Verbal Hygiene,” “takes a serious look at popular attitudes towards language and examines the practices by which people attempt to regulate its use.” Professor Cameron, who taught at that time at The Programme [sic] in Literary Linguistics at Strathclyde University [Glasgow], is, according to Wikipedia, “a Scottish feminist linguist, who currently holds the Rupert Murdoch Professorship in Language and Communication at Oxford, ... [and much of her] academic research is focused on the relationship of language to gender and sexuality.” She criticizes “the Right” and “Conservatives” for an attempt to standardize English which, she maintains, “would not be ... condoned … by common-sense wisdom about the goals of standardization.”

I'm especially interested in the subject right now (I'm always interested in the English language, a language I love, but it's especially relevant at this time) because of the current brouhaha over immigration. An important premise of “Language Loyalties” is that one of the main driving forces for Official English or an English Only policy is the goal of limiting or ending citizenship for new immigrants, especially Hispanics. And according to the conference's participants, by requiring education in English and English literacy for citizenship, its supporters hope to discourage immigration.

Various contributors to the volume point out that America has always been a country of immigrants and their languages enrich English. Similarly Professor Cameron point out the benefits of the naturally changing nature of language and the contributions of various “foreign” influences. She points out that change is a normal and important feature of language, and those who try to standardize it, for whatever purpose, are making a mistake.

I wonder, though, if they miss the point. Immigrants of the past came with the understanding that they were joining what they viewed as a society preferable to the one they left, and they joined it fully, often leaving behind the vestiges of their previous lives, including their languages. They wanted to be part of that new society. That was certainly the goal of their children. Acceptance, integration, assimilation. It was what they sought. And what they knew of the language of their parents they did not transmit to their children. They were Americans, and their children would be moreso. Involvement in American culture was their aim, not simply the transfer of their previous lives, unchanged, into a new environment.

And that is the concern of many of those who support Official English.ⁱⁱ They fear that if new immigrants maintain their own languages and have no reason to learn what they view as the nation's language, all they will do is transfer all their past practices to a place where they can earn more and live more freely. There's no reason why they shouldn't keep their language, earn more, and live freely, but learning this nation's language and integrating, at least minimally, into American society, should be encouraged.

James Crawford writes: “The English Only campaign offers at best a simplistic answer to our language problems, at worst a vehicle for xenophobia.” According to the Oxford Dictionary (American English), xenophobia is an “[i]ntense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.” Demonization of those whom you oppose, an ad hominem argument, may be effective as a rhetorical tool, but it does not provide much in terms of enlightenment about the subject at issue. Similarly, the use of pejorative languageⁱⁱⁱ is intended to bias the reader or listener and distract from the merits of the argument. In this instance, the formal acceptance of English as our nation's language, by those already here and by those who choose to come, is as unifying and identifying a feature of who we are as our flag.^iv

Acceptance of English as our national language does not, in any way, mean standardization – that there is any wish to maintain it in its current form without ever altering it – without incorporating any changes from the language of our new citizens, or from anyone or anywhere else.^v Change cannot and should not be stopped. In fact, such change enriches language, and reflects what is happening in our society.

In addition, the transmission of a people's heritage should not be discouraged, and the teaching of children about their people's past should be welcomed.^vi But it should not cut them off from their future. America is a large country and we have chosen to be a single nation rather than a collection of states. Unless we abandon this philosophy, it makes sense to find ways to unify all our citizens. Language can be the unifying factor – because of what it already is, and because of what its diverse population can make of it. If we fear that the idea of a national language will be abused, or that it is a violation of freedom of speech, we should be on guard against such results and take appropriate legal steps to prevent that from happening. The potential for misuse should not prevent the acceptance of what is otherwise desired. It should promote our “eternal vigilance.” But we must not let that fear dissuade us from doing what we think right. Nearly three quarters of California's voters favored Proposition 63. While it is part of our national character that we protect the rights of minorities, we must also consider the wishes of the majority. After all, that's what democracy is all about. And the two are not mutually exclusive. The books I am reading are very informative in English, and they would be similarly so in any other language.

[I thought I'd add the following snippet from Thomas Hardy.  I'm not sure precisely how it fits in, but from my perspective it's on point.

         

          The Stranger within my gate,

                    He may be true or kind,

          But he does not talk my talk –

                    I cannot feel his mind.

          I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,

                    But not the soul behind.]

Next episode: “Thanks For The Memory” -- You remember. Bob Hope and Shirley Ross.

I        An amendment to the California Constitution which made English the official language of the state. It passed overwhelmingly.

ii       And I am among them.

iii      “simplistic” appears to be intended as a put-down. I don't deny that one of the proposed solutions is simple, but that doesn't make it “simplistic.” Sometimes a simple answer is the best answer.

iv      Some will object that a flag is itself an overly patriotic symbol whose use is outdated and counterproductive in a “diverse” and “multicultural” society like ours. I find it difficult to deal with such a mindset except to note that all nations, however diverse and multicultural they are, have flags and treat them with respect.

v       Such an idea does not sanction “language police,” nor does it in any way permit public or private institutions to fail to provide necessary aids to those for whom English is not their primary language.

vi      Just as there are parochial schools which, in addition to secular studies, teach about particular religious texts and practices, there can be schools that teach about national heritages and languages. This would give immigrant groups, and everyone else, the opportunity to instill the concepts of a culture and its history and language in their children. Support for such schools should be handled in the same way as currently existing parochial schools (although it may be wise to rethink this issue for all of them). And there should be no attempt to delegitimize languages which are not designated as our national tongue.

In His Image

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Humanity abhors ignorance and uncertainty. But different cultures deal with the problem in different ways. In ancient times – and some believe the same situation pertains today – the difficult questions were answered through confabulation; by the creation of intricate mythology. They consider the deities of the world's active religions to be on the same level with those of the past. From their perspective, Jesus has no more reality in today's world than Jove; that Allah is no more relevant than Aether. And the same principle applies whether the discussion centers on Australian aboriginal religion, Hinduism, Bahá'í, Gnosticism, Jainism, or whatever. I'll approach the problem by focusing on what I know best – the Jewish religion, and the implications of its teachings.ⁱ

According to the Torah – specifically to Exodus, chapters 33 and 34, Moses requested, and received, a personal viewing of G-d. He did it from a crevice in a rock and he only saw G-d from the back, but he saw Him. I'm less clear on why Moses sought the viewing. Certainly he knew what G-d looked like. He simply had to look at himself. After all, in Genesis, chapter 1, we're told that “G-d created man with His image. In the image of G-d He created him.”ⁱⁱ Man and G-d look the same.

Perhaps.

But what is the origin of the image? Did G-d create us in His image, or do we envision Him in ours? As far as doctrine, all we have are the words of men. We attribute the words to G-d and believe that their transcription by men is accurate. And we assume that the words of commentators are similarly correct. Millennia of such commentaries are designed to demonstrate that they are correct – even when the commentators disagree, when they are forced to alter what was written, or when they must interpret those words so we will understand them.

And we understand them best when they are expressed in human terms. That, however, leads to a system filled with anthropomorphisms. Physical appearance and actions are what we recognize, so descriptions tend to employ human organs and structures.ⁱⁱⁱ We're told that G-d used this terminology so that we'd understand Him, but if the language is only metaphorical, then we're forced to question the idea that we're created in His image. If, however, we, ourselves, are using language that we understand, if G-d is depicted in our image, the terminology is clearer to us. I don't mean to suggest that we invented G-d, but only to recognize that it was we who wrote about Him and described Him. And there is no guarantee of the correctness of our words.

All we have are words of men. Are they accurate records of G-d's words? Do we follow the words of men as if they were His? According to Jewish tradition, the words of our ancestors are all but sacrosanct. At least the words of recognized authorities. And the closer (in time) to Sinai, the more accurate the words. The wise man of one generation cannot deny the words of a prior commentator; he can only explain them. By seeing infallibility in the words of a sage, however, as Catholics do in the words of a Pope, we come extremely close to ascribing divine wisdom and power to him.

But there's a loophole. The more recent expert can “interpret” the words of his predecessor. (And he can disagree with other experts of his time.^iv) He can “understand” it to mean the opposite of what it might appear to mean. He can attribute it to an unlikely author if it seems reasonable to him, or add “missing” text when that seems appropriate. It's the only way to deal with material with which you disagree but you know you can't contradict the author. For the author's words are the Law. They are the words of G-d.

Yet it's hard not to see them as the words of men. That's not the case however. For what choice did those sages have? The words of their ancient predecessors are correct, and the closer temporally they are to Sinai and to G-d's pronouncements to the Jewish People,^v the more likely they are to reflect His wishes of us than what came later.^vi So more recent Rabbis have to understand them in the context of what they see around them now, recognizing that many things have changed, and Original Intent^vii may require some modification – some clarification – from what appears to be the teaching. We don't think that they are literally G-d, but they are certainly inspired by Him. Our concepts are His. By following the traditions of our people, we are following G-d's wishes.

But applying our ideas – “fairness,” for example – doesn't make sense since we cannot know His thoughts or what the term itself means in His “mind.” We neither know what He considers fair, or if the idea of fairness is at all relevant. And the same is true when we consider any other facet of His creation. Our concept of rationality must not be assumed to be His. We may view Him in our image but man is not the measure of all things. As the well-known biologist and agnostic Stephen Jay Gould^viii wrote: “The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.”

That, too, though, doesn't make sense. It's not rational. However what's the alternative? “Non-believers”^ix put their money on science, and on proof of whatever facts they can muster. G-d is not needed in their formulation.^x If it can't be proved, it's not true. That, of course, is an oversimplification. There is much we know now that we didn't understand in the past, but it was just as true then. And there is acknowledgment of the idea that there is still a lot we don't understand now. Not all the facts are known but that doesn't take away from the idea that they're true. It's the view of the “rationalists” that if the speck which the Big Bang turned into the universe appeared from nothing, there's an explanation for it.^xi If that speck was acted upon by universal laws of physics, their origin will also be explained some day. In the meantime, though, how do you get a good grasp on the incomprehensible? There's still a lot we don't know.

But that's the point.

Next episode: “Words To The Wise” -- Language, knowledge, and culture.

I        I suspect that the same issues exist in other religions as well.

ii       The Living Torah, Maznaim Publishing Corporation, New York, 1981.

iii      The human form of Jesus is about as anthropomorphic as you can get.

iv     Contradictions are well tolerated. In discussing a dispute between Hillel and Shamai, a heavenly voice announced eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim (“both of these are the words of the living G-d”  Eruvin 13b). While a legal opinion was required and given, it was clear that contradictory views both had merit and should be accepted as the words of G-d.

v        And those who accompanied them when they escaped from Egypt.

vi       This is not to suggest that G-d no longer speaks to us, only that in the absence of a unified Jewish People who can all listen at the same time, we learn Torah from more recent sources.

vii      In addition to it being a Constitutional concept it also applies to religious thought.

viii     The following excerpt from Gould's article in Skeptic Magazine is interesting:

If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I'd bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that's right. I'd be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.

I remember a story about Clarence Darrow, who was quite atheistic. Somebody asked him: "Suppose you die and your soul goes up there and it turns out the conventional story is true after all?" Darrow's answer was beautiful, and I love the way he pictured it with the 12 apostles in the jury box and with his reputation for giving long speeches (he spoke two straight days to save Leopold and Loeb). He said that for once in his life he wasn't going to make a long speech. He was just going to walk up to them, bow low to the judge's bench, and say, "Gentlemen, I was wrong."

ix       They're not really “non-believers.” They're simply believers in “science.”

x        On the other hand, as G. K. Chesterton put it, “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” But he, like they, possessed a belief system. It just happened to be different from theirs. Chesterton's aphorism is a paraphrase of Voltaire's, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” Clearly he and Chesterton are in agreement.

xi       Although it's difficult to see the difference between “the Big Bang” and creatio ex nihilo or even creatio ex deo. Where did the initial “speck” come from?