Musings

We Are All Stuck With This Poem

 

This poem is holding all of us hostage.

Over 400 parts per million of it

Are infused into the air you are breathing.

The only way to rid ourselves of this poem

Is to do what it demands.

So we might as well take a deep draft of it

And go with its flow.

 

This poem roars out of the tailpipe

Of your gasoline-powered automobile.

It billows out of the stacks

Looming above the gas-fired power plant

That generates the electricity

Illuminating my computer screen.

This poem farts out of the cows

Languishing in the feedlot

From which they are sent to be rendered

Into your dinner. 

This poem is being composed

By unclean coal

Burning ore into steel

That holds up my kitchen table.

 

This poem will melt Alaska

Till Texas freezes over,

And blast derechos across Iowa

Till palm trees grow in Oregon.

It will flood Nebraska

Till San Diego’s golf courses turn brown.

 

This poem isn’t going to go away by itself.

Upon reading, it insinuates into the brain

A prion of carbon driving us to madness

Or change.

 

But if we go where it leads,

This poem will install solar panels,

Windmills, wave-power generators.

This poem will demand payment for carbon emissions

Until they are ended.

It will divest from the fossil fuel industry.

It will press for a plant-based diet.

It will restore the health of the soil;

It will plant billions of trees.

This poem will put capitalism in its place,

Subsidiary to protection of the ecosystem

And provision for the common good.

 

This poem is insidious.

This poem is not debatable.

This poem out-foxes Fox.

It fries the liars

And drowns out its deniers.

We are all stuck with this poem

Until we finish it:

Not with more words,

But with decisive actions.

The Spiritual Discipline of Skepticism

 

"Trust the science."

It's a phrase on many lips these days, as the United States recovers from a presidency notorious for basing public policy and pandemic strategy on lies and hearsay.  It is a huge relief to have national leadership that takes science seriously again.  The health of Americans, of humanity as a whole, and of the planet depends on it.

The problem with the phrase is that science is not about trusting science.  On the contrary.

Science is the disciplined distrust of science. 

Theories arise to explain phenomena, based on evidence.  Scientists question the theories and the evidence, perhaps posing alternative theories.  Over time, in this process of organized skepticism, a scientific consensus often emerges - a theory that works, at least for the time being - providing a scaffold for further scientific inquiry and progress.  That progress may result in new evidence and insights that could undermine the consensus and lead to a new theory that accounts for a broader base of evidence, around which a new consensus can form. 

In contrast to this process, disorganized skepticism of science is a mounting threat.  Anti-vaxxers cling to disconnected shreds of evidence and discredited theories that confirm their convictions.  The same applies to climate-change deniers.  And to 6-day-creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. 

These are literally unhealthy forms of skepticism.  The healthy version is called science. 

There are many questions that mainstream science can't answer, at least at the moment.  Ethical and moral questions, such as: who should get the Covid vaccine first?  And how can such a prioritization be made understandable and acceptable to the public?  Science provides data upon which such judgments can be made, but ultimately we can't trust science itself to sort them out.  The scientific consensus is overwhelming that humans are causing catastrophic climate change with CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.  But scientists can't tell us exactly what to do about this reality.  Ethical and political calculations must be made that will rely on information from scientists, but are beyond their purview to decide. 

In this fuzzier realm of ethics and values and public decision-making, skepticism has its place as well.  In politics, questioning authority should not just be allowed, but required.  Democracy at its best is disciplined, organized skepticism.  Does this policy really distribute resources effectively and ethically?  Or is another one better?  Transparency is essential in government, in order to facilitate this kind of questioning. 

And disciplined skepticism is necessary in religion, too.  Not only to keep churches and their leaders honest, but to refine and deepen faith itself, examining doctrines and re-interpreting or releasing them if they no longer rise to the standard of Jesus' simple law of love.  Progressive Christianity is a form of the faith that never stops asking questions about the Christian tradition, because questioning is integral to our faith.

God is "agape" - unconditional love.  And unconditional love is open, opinion-free attention.  And open, opinion-free attention leads to questions.  Kind but unabashed and unfettered questions.  When we love others with such questions, we move deeper and deeper into the truth of each other's hearts.  This kind of love leads to transparency:  "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we shall see face to face..." (Paul, 1 Cor 13:12)  All is revealed: our crowning glories, our failings, our frustrations, our hopes, our emotions -- our highest yearnings, our greatest regrets.  Like science, love is an endless process that leaves no stone unturned, no assumption unquestioned.  Love is a disciplined, compassionate, gentle form of skepticism that always wants to see and know more.  Love may reveal painful things, but it also assuages that pain.  Thus love leads to spiritual and personal progress. 

So may this kind of healthy skepticism flourish -- in the realms of science and spirituality alike. 

JIM BURKLO

Blog: MUSINGS

Senior Associate Dean of Religious and Spiritual Life, University of Southern California

 

 

"Trust the science."

It's a phrase on many lips these days, as the United States recovers from a presidency notorious for basing public policy and pandemic strategy on lies and hearsay.  It is a huge relief to have national leadership that takes science seriously again.  The health of Americans, of humanity as a whole, and of the planet depends on it.

The problem with the phrase is that science is not about trusting science.  On the contrary.

Science is the disciplined distrust of science. 

Theories arise to explain phenomena, based on evidence.  Scientists question the theories and the evidence, perhaps posing alternative theories.  Over time, in this process of organized skepticism, a scientific consensus often emerges - a theory that works, at least for the time being - providing a scaffold for further scientific inquiry and progress.  That progress may result in new evidence and insights that could undermine the consensus and lead to a new theory that accounts for a broader base of evidence, around which a new consensus can form. 

In contrast to this process, disorganized skepticism of science is a mounting threat.  Anti-vaxxers cling to disconnected shreds of evidence and discredited theories that confirm their convictions.  The same applies to climate-change deniers.  And to 6-day-creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. 

These are literally unhealthy forms of skepticism.  The healthy version is called science. 

There are many questions that mainstream science can't answer, at least at the moment.  Ethical and moral questions, such as: who should get the Covid vaccine first?  And how can such a prioritization be made understandable and acceptable to the public?  Science provides data upon which such judgments can be made, but ultimately we can't trust science itself to sort them out.  The scientific consensus is overwhelming that humans are causing catastrophic climate change with CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.  But scientists can't tell us exactly what to do about this reality.  Ethical and political calculations must be made that will rely on information from scientists, but are beyond their purview to decide. 

In this fuzzier realm of ethics and values and public decision-making, skepticism has its place as well.  In politics, questioning authority should not just be allowed, but required.  Democracy at its best is disciplined, organized skepticism.  Does this policy really distribute resources effectively and ethically?  Or is another one better?  Transparency is essential in government, in order to facilitate this kind of questioning. 

And disciplined skepticism is necessary in religion, too.  Not only to keep churches and their leaders honest, but to refine and deepen faith itself, examining doctrines and re-interpreting or releasing them if they no longer rise to the standard of Jesus' simple law of love.  Progressive Christianity is a form of the faith that never stops asking questions about the Christian tradition, because questioning is integral to our faith.

God is "agape" - unconditional love.  And unconditional love is open, opinion-free attention.  And open, opinion-free attention leads to questions.  Kind but unabashed and unfettered questions.  When we love others with such questions, we move deeper and deeper into the truth of each other's hearts.  This kind of love leads to transparency:  "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we shall see face to face..." (Paul, 1 Cor 13:12)  All is revealed: our crowning glories, our failings, our frustrations, our hopes, our emotions -- our highest yearnings, our greatest regrets.  Like science, love is an endless process that leaves no stone unturned, no assumption unquestioned.  Love is a disciplined, compassionate, gentle form of skepticism that always wants to see and know more.  Love may reveal painful things, but it also assuages that pain.  Thus love leads to spiritual and personal progress. 

So may this kind of healthy skepticism flourish -- in the realms of science and spirituality alike. 

Blog: MUSINGS

Senior Associate Dean of Religious and Spiritual Life, University of Southern California