For awhile there I was researching quantum physics and got very tangled up in the subject. Like every other time I find some new or exciting idea I try to fashion ideological lenses out of that idea and see everything around me through the implications of that idea. I would see some guys playing chess and I would say to my self “with a quantum computer, we could finally solve the traditionally intractable problem of the perfect game of chess!” While I still get excited talking about the subject (oh how smart it makes me seem!), I have put away those lenses and boiled its implications down to two categories. The first contains all of those potential technological advances, and the second contains all of the theological implications.

Theological implications of quantum physics? Yup. One discovery in the field of QP was that on the smallest sub-atomic level, the movement of electrons is entirely unpredictable. In fact, they made a principle out of this phenomenon called Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle. All of you D&D fans will be excited to hear that the movements of electrons are governed by the roll of the dice. And we all know that these electrons affect the atoms of which they comprise, and the atoms make up molecules, and the molecules make up, well, us. It is very much the case that the placement of all of the gazillion electrons in a given event (like a car wreck) can make the difference between life or death. Physicists, who do not have recourse to the metaphysical world, are left with a funny word: coincidence. Hence when we travel somewhere it is a culturally salient thing to say the phrase “good luck,” because as any seasoned Dungeon Master can tell you, the roll of the dice can upend any “should haves” or probabilities.

For the Christian, however, “good luck” becomes a much different phrase, “God bless.” What this seems to be saying is that ultimately, it is God who can decide where all of those electrons are going to be at a certain point in time, a kind of back door into reality where he can work all those miracles of his without leaving any physical evidence of his intervention. Just today I was sitting through a sermon that seemed to be speaking directly to me, as though I had just walked up to the preacher, told him my life story, and asked for a Biblical consultation. Two years ago, I was in a car wreck that should have taken my life. When I went to get the CD’s out of my car in the junk yard, the guy who owned the place asked me who the guy was who had been driving the car. When I told him it was me, his eyes lit up and he started shaking his head. I had been hit in the driver’s side door by a moving truck and the car’s frame had folded up like origami around me. Somehow not only did I survive, but I also was able to walk home from the hospital the same day! In my head, I started to thank the engineers at Nissan and my lucky stars, when I stopped myself and realized that there was only one being I owe thanks to for my continued life and the life of my son who is about to be born. To misquote Johnny English, “The word coincidence is not one that appears in my dictionary.”

i recently sent out an email to someone who doesn't know me from a hole in the wall. at the bottom of that email there was a signiture with a link which pointed them here. this realization prompted me to try reading my last few posts from the perspective of someone outside my group of friends. upon reading (especially my last post), i was struck by how haughty and arrogant my tone was. i know that while instrospection is healthy, "extrospection" (i guess i mean inspecting how other people perceive you) can be unhealthy. regardless, i'm going to try to affect that perception here by showing you all how extra humble i really am.

to begin with, in my last post i mentioned my postmodern literature professor. the post sounded like i had somehow bested him and an entire [french] country of philosophers. the reality is that studying this subject has shown me how little i know and how far i have to go before i can hold a candle academically speaking to their knowledge. what i was intending to say was that because any working definition of God must include the fact that he's bigger than us and bigger than anything we can perceive or conceptualize, any of our philosophies will fall woefully short of encapsulating Him.

my professor has inspired me into new levels of thought and ideas, and has actually helped motivate me to write Cain. see? i'm really pretty humble. probably more humble than you.

i had a conversation with a neorealist today (my postmodern literature professor) and he seemed to think utopia was a place where the most radical and polar ideas were given equal expression and that through this discussion the ongoing human project would progress. reminds me a bit of randy willingham's "courageous conversations". regardless, something about that idea of utopia was very disappointing to me i guess because it did not necessarily imply anything other than a discussion. the discussion for me is neutral. it's where the discussion leads that matters. i feel so cheap because i'm in here studying all these heavy-hitters in philosophy and it seems like all of them bring up questions which are rather easily answered by acknowledging the existence of God, and a very particular God who is behind the curtain of human limitation and is the headwater of beauty, causality, ontology, etc. it gives me chills to think of the newfound connotations this gives for me when i think of God as the I AM. it makes me laugh to picture all of these french philosophers who dig SO deep and surround themselves with all of these constructs of endless ideas. i hope it's humbling one day when (if ever) they reach the top of the mountain of all that is possible for humanity to know and are shocked to find out that all of the "country bumpkins" who have quietly acted out their faith in God their whole lives have made themselves quite at home up there for the last 2000 years.

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

I got kind of tired of avoiding the topic of Pacifism, so I did a bit of research, and stumbled upon some interesting stuff. I'll try to explain in a slipshod manner and be as confusing as possible. As far as I understand it, all of Christendom agrees that the ideal state for a given government is peace.

Pacifism takes this assumption a step further and asserts that under no circumstance is violence justified. Note that non-violence does not necessarily entail non-resistance; think Ghandi. Matt 5:39 "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Just War Theory, however, is developed based on the assumption that there are exceptions (other than God telling Isreal to go wipe out some folks) to the non-violence rule. The most accessible example of this is the scenario where you walk into your house and see your spouse being beaten/raped by somebody, and you are forced with the decision to either do nothing (considered a sin by these folks) or resort to violence to stop the attackers. As far as I can tell, there are two branches of Just Warriors in the Christian tradition, the Realists after Reinholt Neihbur who think that the Sermon on the Mount is basically undoable and so violence is just a reality of our sinful selves, and then those that believe under special circumstances violence is not considered a sin at all. Regardless, these guys seem to agree on a set of criteria for determining whether or not a war is justified:

1) Just Cause (self-defense or defense of another party)
2) Right Intention (matching the actual motives for going to war with the just cause)
3) Right Authority (War is declared by a publicly recognized authority who has both the power to mobilize armed forces and the ability to evaluate whether other jus ad bellum criteria are met)
4) Reasonable Hope of Success (avoiding wars that cannot be won and will only cost additional human lives)
5) Last Resort (trying every form of resolution short of direct violence first)
6) Announcement of Intention (stating reasons for going to war with the other side)
7) Proportionality (balancing probably losses and costs for all parties against probable benefits)

The reality, however, is that wars are extremely complex things and it's pretty much impossible to hold conflicts up to these criteria.

Just Peacemaking Theory, however, is a reframing of the question. Instead of asking whether or not war is ever justified, these guys say that because peace is the ideal, how do we go about reducing the probability of war? They met in 1998 as a group of scholars and put together ten (why is it always ten?) "proven" methods for reducing the probability of violent conflict:

1) Support nonviolent direct action.
2) Take independent initiatives to reduce threat.
3) Use cooperative conflict resolution.
4) Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness.
5) Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.
6) Foster just and sustainable economic development.
7) Work with emerging forces in the international system.
8) Strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
9) Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade.
10) Encourage grassroots peacemaking ad other associations.

Anyhoo, hope you find this mildly interesting.

Mid-terms are mostly eating my lunch this week, so nothing too new or exciting to post about. As a cheap shot, I thought I would bring up the Iraq war. Is the war justified?

I have come to the strange revelation that for me the answer is yes. My reasons, however, are different than the ones the Bush administration puts forward:

"There were WMDs in Iraq." The obvious retort to this is that none have been found, nor has there been evidence that they were ever in existence there. But giving WMDers the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there were in fact WMDs, two problems remain:
1) Umm.... Don't we have WMDs? Does this not justify "preemptive strikes" against us by our enemies?
2) If there were WMDs but they were somehow magically transported outside of the country, why didn't we foresee this? Somehow I have trouble believing our military is that inept.

"Iraq was harboring terrorists." I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Of all the Arabic countries in the world, there were a lot of better candidates for "terrorist harboring" than the secular "we hate Islamic extremists" Ba'athists.

"The world is better off without Hussein."
American Casualties: 8604 (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)
Iraqi Civilian Casualties: est. 30685 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/index.php)
Total: 39,289

While it is impossible to dismiss the deaths of 40,000 people, this number pales in comparison to the 300,000 reportedly murdered under Saddam Hussein's regime (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm).

So is the world better off without Hussein in power? Certainly. There are a few things I would like to point out, however, that complicate the issue. First off, let's not let the imposed US telos of the war erase from our minds the fact that, as is the case with so many recent boogey men, our own CIA saw to this man's rise in power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein). Also, at the time, a lasting genocide in Sudan was claiming 2 million people's lives (http://www.crimesofwar.org/sudan-mag/sudan-in-discuss.html)!

"The people of Iraq need Democracy." Sorry, but this is the most ridiculous argument of them all. Why have we not invaded China? Why have we not invaded North Korea for heaven's sake, a country without Democracy and with WMDs?

Actually, I don't advocate the invading of any country unless it meets one of the following criteria:
1) They have declared war on us and we are striking in order to end the war.
2) A multilateral force like NATO or the UN approve of intervention.

The Iraq war was a multilateral intervention. Yes, it consisted entirely of US allies who were no doubt bullied into supporting the war and with the exception of GB lent only token forces, but the fact of the matter is that foreign troops were on the ground with us. The world is better off without Hussein. But let's not play games with the American people about our motives. We are in Iraq because of oil. WMDs, terrorist harboring, the spreading of Democracy, and being overly concerned about genocide were all ways to sell the war. If I had control of the world's greatest military, taking out Hussein would be quite a bit lower on my list of priorities than intervention in Sudan. And even with those other priorities accomplished, I would garner lots more international support before stepping foot in Iraq.

I struggle a lot with the issue of pacifism. I don't think I could ever go to war as a soldier, and at times I have trouble justifying any war at all. But then I think of Hitler and realize that there really are monsters out there that need slaying. I think of someone raping my wife or molesting my kid and I'm pretty sure I would beat the ever loving crap out them. I'm confused. Anyways, let the debate commence oh faithful readers! Or more realistically, Greg, please post one comment to make me feel loved.

"I want to thank my friend, Sen. Bill Frist, for
joining us today. … He married a Texas girl, I want
you to know. (Laughter.) Karyn is with us. A West
Texas girl, just like me."—Nashville, Tenn., May 27,
2004

"It's in our country's interests to find those who
would do harm to us and get them out of harm's
way."—Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"I believe that, as quickly as possible, young cows
ought to be allowed to go across our border."—Ottawa,
Nov. 30, 2004

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business.
Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love
with women all across the country."—Sept. 6, 2004,
Poplar Bluff, Mo.

"In this job you've got a lot on your plate on a
regular basis; you don't have much time to sit around
and wander, lonely, in the Oval Office, kind of asking
different portraits, 'How do you think my standing
will be?' "—Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005

"There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the
widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their
loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops,
I've got an additional responsibility to hug and
that's me and I know what it's like."—Washington,
D.C., Dec. 11, 2002

"Now, there are some who would like to rewrite
history—revisionist historians is what I like to call
them."—Elizabeth, N.J., June 16, 2003

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi
citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam
Hussein."—Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of
the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam
Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize
himself."—Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"But Iraq has—have got people there that are willing
to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will
work with the Iraqis to secure their future."
—Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"We expect the states to show us whether or not we're
achieving simple objectives—like literacy, literacy in
math, the ability to read and write."—on federal
education requirements, Washington, D.C., April 28,
2005

"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security.
I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's
the Mother in me." —Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

"If they pre-decease or die early, there's an asset
base to be able to pass on to a loved one."—On Social
Security money stored in private accounts, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, March 30, 2005

"In terms of timetables, as quickly as
possible—whatever that means."—On the president's time
frame for shoring up Social Security, Washington D.C.,
March 16, 2005

"I want to appreciate those of you who wear our
nation's uniform for your sacrifice."—Jacksonville,
Fla., Jan. 14, 2005

"See, one of the interesting things in the Oval
Office—I love to bring people into the Oval
Office—right around the corner from here—and say, this
is where I office, but I want you to know the office
is always bigger than the person."—Washington, D.C.,
Jan. 29, 2004

"[T]he best way to find these terrorists who hide in
holes is to get people coming forth to describe the
location of the hole, is to give clues and data."

"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful
welcome."—Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005, on the
reception of American forces in Iraq

The complete Bushisms:

http://www.slate.com/id/76886/