Something Rather Than Nothing

Perhaps one of the biggest philosophical questions ever asked is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” When we look at the earth, the moon, the stars, our galaxy, the universe, gravity, light, and energy, we are struck with the immensity and complexity of this place in which we find ourselves. It is natural to ask questions about this universe and to ask how it is that this place actually functions and stays in motion. Science has done a good job of exploring and explaining much about our world. But we might also ask how it is that the universe exists at all. Philosophers have worked on a satisfying answer to this question for decades and still the question persists. We know that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz spent much time thinking about this question and had what I would still consider the most satisfying answer to the question.

Leibniz who lived from 1646–1716 was one of the great thinkers and philosophers of his time but for many years was sadly overlooked. He was a contemporary of Isaac Newton and both of them discovered calculus independently of each other. Many of the notations and symbols used by Leibniz as he developed calculus are still used today. He was an inventor of mechanical calculators, refined the binary number system which is used in computers, and was a philosopher who specialized in rationalism and logic. He was devoted to his work yet known for his imagination, friendship, and good manners. I will save his answer to the big question until the end of this article but let us first look at a few of the other answers people have come up with.

Lawrence Krauss, a current author and physicist posits that gravity and the quantum vacuum worked together to generate the initial particles which resulted in a universe. He believes that it was inevitable that the universe would arise given gravity and the quantum vacuum. Stephen Hawking suggested a very similar argument in his 2010 book, The Grand Design. Although this answer may seem logical and satisfying to these two physicists, at a philosophical level, we would then want to ask, “Why must we assume gravity or a quantum vacuum or particles?” Why is there anything at all? Ultimately, this kind of answer remains highly unsatisfying to many.

Others answer Leibniz's question by saying that the universe has always existed. This was a common assumption until the early 20^th Century when Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre noted that the universe was expanding and Lemaitre suggested that the expansion could be traced back to a “single primeval atom” or “cosmic egg.” This was the beginning of the concept of The Big Bang. Lemaitre, a faith-filled Catholic priest, was very much involved in convincing Albert Einstein and others that the universe had a beginning. Of course, the Big Bang model has gone on to be the prevailing model of the community of physicists seeking to describe our known universe. It elegantly describes the beginning of all things including matter, time, gravity, and the universal constants that have been detected.

Still others would suggest that our universe is a mystery and its origins are lost to us. In other words: we simply do not know why there is something rather than nothing. Bertrand Russel famously took this stance in a 1948 radio debate with Frederick Copleston. Such an answer has the effect of sounding clever and somehow satisfying but most would find that the satisfaction quickly fades. Some will be satisfied with answering a big question with a big shrug of the shoulders; most of us will not.

Leibniz also found such non-answers unsatisfying and searched his whole life for a better answer. He toyed with Russell’s response and worked to make more sense of it. In the end he found that such an answer would not satisfy his own intellect. He eventually came to an answer that was substantial and pleasing but was one that would ultimately contribute to his falling out of favour in the philosophical and scientific communities. His answer was one that took courage to voice. It was an answer that was both elegant and simple as science demanded, yet one which resulted in a major paradigm shift which many other thinkers are unwilling to make. His answer shifts one’s entire thinking process and causes one to consider the entirety of life. Leibniz’s simple answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing was, “God wanted there to be a universe.” It is a simple answer yet results in a lifetime of introspection and development, for if there is a great creator God behind the beginning of the universe, we will want to know more about God and how he communicates with his world. We will spend the rest of our lives seeking to know him.

References and Further Reading:

Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. 2010. The Grand Design. Bantam Books.

Look, Brandon C. 2017. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/leibniz/.

Strickland, Lloyd. 2019. Answering the biggest question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? 08 08. https://theconversation.com/answering-the-biggest-question-of-all-why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-65865.

Wikipedia. 2019. "Copleston-Russell Debate." Wikipedia. 08 11. Accessed 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copleston%E2%80%93Russell_debate.

—. 2019. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. 08 08. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz.

—. 2019. Lawrence M. Krauss. 08 08. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, a movie written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (2018), may certainly be viewed at a number of levels. (Spoiler alert: Watch the movie before reading this blog.) On the one hand, it is a collection of entertaining stories woven together into one movie. At another level, it is entertainment that causes one to say after each segment, “And the moral of the story is …”. Perhaps we could leave it there and allow the viewer to approach it in one of those two ways. Yet, having seen many other Coen brothers’ movies, I have a sense that there is still more to the story. This movie is much like previous movies of the Coen brothers: it generates certain philosophical questions. Perhaps the theme of this movie is most like their 2009 movie, A Serious Man. In a previous blog, I suggested that the theme of that movie was the “absence of meaning in the universe and that the only answers lie in having a good hedonistic time with sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll.” The opening Jewish myth portrayed in A Serious Man would seem to emphasise the fact that random decisions are the difference between seeing something as chance or as supernatural. The most prominent theme in The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is that our only defence against the randomness of life is to dress up in top-hat and tails, put on a brave face and march forward to whatever awaits. But here, allow me to substantiate my case.

I would suggest that if we wish to understand this movie and the mindset of the writers, we will need to watch it multiple times with attention to various details with each viewing. I found that I needed three viewings, the latter two while taking notes, to begin to get a picture of what the Coen brothers are doing. 

Vignette 1: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

The opening scene shows Buster Scruggs riding through the desert singing a classic song, Cool, Clear Water, made famous by the “Sons of the Pioneers” in 1941 (Bob Nolan, writer). The song speaks of the souls that long for more. The larger than life cartoon character of Buster Scruggs is considered a misanthrope (one who dislikes all other people) and speaks of the sad and immoral state of the human condition. He claims to have violated the statutes of man and God and is shown to be selfish and devious. He is presented as a protagonist and we find ourselves hoping he will survive his several encounters with people who want to kill him and are as depraved as he is. We buy into the classic white hat mentality in which there are good guys and bad guys. This movie continues a theme established in the 1992 film, Unforgiven (directed by Clint Eastwood), in which the cowboys are no longer divided into “good guys” and “bad guy,” all are broken and evil. There is a randomness expressed in the fact that there will always be a faster gun. Buster Scruggs even admires his killer as the two of them harmonize as he departs to his eternal reward.

Buster Scruggs does have the redeeming quality of being a great singer and entertainer and in one scene, he has the entire town joining in with his songs and antics. The cartoon-like violence is heightened in a scene where Buster first shoots the fingers off of a man before gunning him down in the street. I say cartoon-like violence because it is reminiscent of what happened in Yosemite Sam, Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, and Foghorn Leghorn cartoons of another era. Characters exploded, got smashed, got shot, and fell from heights only to survive another day. Perhaps the Coen brothers are making a statement about the entertainment violence with which they grew up and which continues to this day in many entertainment fields (cartoons and Quentin Tarantino movies come to mind). They seem to be asking questions about what this kind of violence says about our culture and the connections between entertainment and behaviours in western society.

Also similar to the cartoons of the past, when Buster Scruggs finally does die, his soul is shown rising out of his body and winging its way to heaven as he and his murderer sing a song about the hope they have of a better life in the hereafter. There is no reference to justice, only hope, and joy in a life beyond this broken world. Of course, the Coen brothers were raised in a Jewish tradition and would have heard many stories of ultimate destinations, justice, and forgiveness. In this and other movies, they often ask questions about the validity of such world-views as Judaism and Christianity.

Vignette 2: Near Algodones

Another selfish man attempts to rob a bank for his own gain. The bank appears to be easy to rob and is in the middle of nowhere with only one employee. But, in the randomness of life, the old man behind the counter turns out to be more than a match for the robber. The banker covers himself with protective pots and pans as a form of dangling armour and takes on the would-be robber.  The would-be robber is arrested, tried, and sentenced to hang. However, just before he is hung, a classic cowboy and Indian battle breaks out and, whether by luck or the grace of God, he manages to escape. But justice appears to catch up with him when he is mistakenly accused of cattle rustling and is hung for that crime. Random events of life and how they conspire for good-luck or bad-luck is a prominent theme in this vignette, particularly as we consider the chance of being saved by a “pan-shot.”

Vignette 3: Meal Ticket

Two men make their living as travelling entertainers. One, the caregiver and leader, the other, an invalid with neither arms nor legs. As they set up to entertain a small crowd it soon becomes apparent that the invalid is a gifted entertainer who has memorized a number of spell-binding monologues with which he charms his audience. The two men do not seem to have a deep friendship; theirs is a business arrangement. As the story goes on, their form of entertainment becomes less and less interesting to the audiences they meet. Other forms of entertainment come and go and take away from the two men’s livelihood. Sadly, it becomes apparent that the two will soon starve if they do not find a better way to entertain the people. 

By chance, the leader happens to see a man entertaining a crowd with a chicken who seems to be able to do math by pecking at numbers on a wall. The leader immediately buys the chicken from the entertainer, and invalid and leader set out down the road with the chicken in their wagon as well. But, before the men arrive at the next town, the leader suddenly pulls the invalid out of the wagon and throws him off a high bridge. We see the leader and the chicken heading off to the next town. 

Many questions remain. Has the caregiver been fooled into buying a useless chicken? After all, he has not yet tested the system. What was the nature of the relationship between invalid and caregiver? Why was the caregiver suddenly so cruel? The Coen brothers are once again showing the nature of the cruel and apparently random world in which we live.

Vignette 4: All Gold Canyon

Next, the Coen brothers tell the tale of a hard-working old prospector who has been working all of his life for that legendary large strike of gold. The film-makers spend much time giving us the impression of how hard he works and that he is a good, salt-of-the-earth kind of man. As he works, he sings an old Irish song:

Oh I love the dear silver that shines in your hair
and the brow that's all furrowed and wrinkled with care
I kiss the dear fingers so toil worn for me
Oh God bless you and keep you Mother Machree

Finally, he strikes it rich and harvests a large amount of gold. But as he works in his hole in the ground with back-breaking labour, an evil man creeps up behind him and shoots him in the back for his gold. We are convinced that the miner is dead, and the story has come to a sad ending. But, miraculously, the old man survives and kills his would-be assassin and is last seen taking his gold away to be sold. We can expect that the old man will live out the rest of his days wealthy beyond what he could have imagined. Again, the story raises questions of the cruelty of man, God’s justice, and the seemingly random nature of this world.

Vignette 5: The Gal Who Got Rattled

A poor man, who has not done well in business, and his sister set out on a wagon-train to Oregon. The brother has suggested that his business partner would be predisposed to marry the sister. So, they set off, but the brother dies from lung disease and the woman is left alone with no prospect of a suitor in Oregon and no money to pay her hired-hand. One of the leaders of the wagon-train takes to the woman and eventually asks her to marry him. He is ready to settle down rather than continue to lead wagon-trains. But, by a strange turn of events (chasing after a lost dog), the woman finds herself separated from the rest of the people and from the wagon-train. The other wagon-train leader (the one to whom she is not engaged), comes to her rescue, but they are set upon by an Indian war party. The wagon-train leader leaves her with a gun to kill herself if he should happen to be killed in the fight.

At a certain point in the battle, the leader plays dead before killing the last of the war tribe. The woman thinks he is dead and so she puts a bullet into her forehead. The wagon-train leader must go back to the man to whom she was engaged to tell him what has happened. It is one more tragic story in the list of Coen brother sagas. Over and over again they are telling the audience that the world is tragic, random, and senseless.

Vignette 6: The Mortal Remains

The final story has to do with five people riding in a stage-coach. Two of the men have made the trip many times before as they use the coach to ferry people dead or alive from one place to the next. We soon discover that there is something odd about the trip and realize that it is a metaphysical journey from the land of the living to the land of the dead. However, the three passengers have not yet clued-in to the fact that they themselves are dead. The two men are “harvesters of souls.” They “help people who have been adjudged to be ripe.” The passengers slowly begin to realize that they are already dead to the world and they themselves are being ferried to the next world.

There are five people in the cab of the coach and each one has one or more opinions on the “two types of people in the world.” They range from the simple to the sublime: “dead and alive,” “all alike,” “lucky and unlucky,” “hale and frail,” and “upright and sinning.” 

Other moral and spiritual controversies are apparent among the travellers; especially the concepts of “spiritual betterment,” “spiritual and moral hygiene,” and the authority of the Bible. One man asserts that “we must each play our own hand,” and “we cannot know each other completely.” We may call another "friend," but “we cannot know their soul.” Although it is not explored, we can tell that each person has a certainty in their heart as to what love is and yet, none of them would agree as to what that certainty is. One passenger asserts that “one can only coax love through subservience,” while another believes that love is domestic and eternal. We are left contemplating the appropriate spiritual destiny of each one on the coach and all three of the unaware passengers have the same look of doom as they approach the door of their next resting place.

The final scene shows one of the travellers walking with abandon into whatever fate awaits him. There is a mood of judgement but no clear sense of justice or mercy. The man simply does not know what awaits him and we get the sense that this rather simple man, who has been a product of his culture, is woefully unaware of right and wrong, love and peace, and ultimate destinies. He simply trudges on, taking what is sent his way and adapting to it as he goes. Perhaps, in the world of the Coen brothers, he represents us all.

Existential Cowboy Music

This week is Stampede week in Calgary. It is a time when everyone and every band gets cowboyed-up. Doc Walker is a band that gets played almost exclusively on Country Radio but they do have songs that deal with real philosophical concepts. "Raining on the Moon" is a case in point. The perspective of this song is quite existential: "where we are, is everything we know, all we've got is the love that we show." In a blog a few days ago, I quoted some of the lyrics. Here are the rest. They speak of fake news, unbelievable occurrences, technological advances, and how our minds cope with it all. Take a look at these lyrics composed by Jude Cole. (Listen to the song here.)

Have you heard the news?
It's raining on the moon
The man in the tv said
It's raining on the moon
Even the scientists
Can't believe it's true
They're showing diagrams
And little moon cartoons

Where we are is everything we know
All we've got is the love that we show

There was a man who knew
That none of this was true
He swore by God above
The end was coming soon
Now there's a rocket bus
Leaves every afternoon
And funny little cars
Racing on the dunes

Where we are is everything we know
All we've got is the love that we show

Everyone aboard
It's raining on the moon
What would you stay here for?
It's raining on the moon!
Everyone aboard
It's raining on the moon
No worries anymore
It's raining on the moon!

Songwriters: Jude Cole / Jude Anthony Cole

Raining On The Moon lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc

If I Were You

If I Were You 

(Lyrics and Music by Wayne Watson, 1999, “Field of Souls”)  

If I were You, if I ran this place
There wouldn't be no mercy, no
There wouldn't be no grace
And people that wander off and go astray
I'd make real sure that they would pay
Yeah, that's what I'd do if I were You

And if I were You, if I ran this town
The righteous would be sitting pretty
And the rotten would come tumbling down
Oh, they'd beg and they'd wrangle for a second chance
I'd say, "sorry, boys, but I just can't"
Yeah, that's what I'd do if I were You

But You know me, I'm just a man
Of unclean lips and unclean hands
Some of the thoughts I have
Make me want to run and hide, yeah
Well, I don't know much, but I observe
You've never treated me like I deserve
Your loving arms are always open wide, yeah, yeah

Oh, well, You know me, I'm just a man
Of unclean lips and unclean hands
Some of the thoughts I have
Make me want to run and hide, run and hide
Well, I don't know much, but I've observed
You've never treated me like I've deserved
Your loving arms are always open wide, open wide

If I were You, oh, catastrophe, ooh...
I wonder what in the world
Kind of world would this world be
I guess I'll take my place
Wrapped in amazing grace
Let You be You
Uh-huh, that's what I'll do
Yeah, that's what I'll do
Yeah, that's what I'll do, ooh...

A few days ago, I ate lunch with some new friends and our conversation ranged in many directions and then settled in on philosophies about God and man. We come from very different perspectives on such subjects, but all agreed that the troubles of this world ultimately come down to humans being cruel to other humans. My friends complemented me on being a kind, forward-thinking, religious, person. If I had thought quicker on my feet, I would have quoted Solzhenitsyn’s words to them:

“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil.

Since then I have come to understand the truth of all the religions of the world: They struggle with the evil inside a human being (inside every human being). It is impossible to expel evil from the world in its entirety, but it is possible to constrict it within each person.”

The song lyrics quoted above and Solzhenitsyn’s words tell us what we already know. We are usually people who strive to be good and do right. We think of ourselves and our friends as the better part of humanity. Yet, inside all of us lurks evil that has never been uprooted, a small weed in the corner of our hearts. If God allowed any of us to “run the world” it would be a catastrophe. That is why God asks and we do well to acquiesce to letting God be God while we humans take our place "wrapped in amazing grace." “Uh-huh, that's what I'll do.”

The Pace of Scientific Advancement

The pace with which scientific and technological advances are happening is astounding. In 2014/2015, researchers had just begun to grasp the potential of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to edit genomes (see my previous blog here). The technology allows scientists to cut out pieces of DNA and replace the displaced DNA with a novel strand. This can be used to stop a gene from working or to correct its function. Now, researchers report that they have modified the CRISPR/Cas 9 and Cas 13 systems such that DNA is not cut but changed one base-pair at a time.

The principle in this case is that CRISPR systems can be used to guide other molecular enzymes to a location within the genome. Researchers can remove the cutting mechanism of CRISPR systems and add an enzyme that can convert the base-pair mutations one at a time. The technology is still not perfect, as the journals report that the efficiency of such systems may be only as much as 50% in the targeted areas. However, the procedure is seen as potentially safer than DNA cutting technologies that occasionally cut in the wrong place, potentially disrupting other genes.

CRISPR technology is our best hope yet for successful gene therapy. Although specificity and efficiency issues need to be resolved, this technology has the potential to repair cancer-causing mutations, correct single-base mutations that cause genetic diseases, seek out and disable HIV viruses lying dormant in human cells, repair mitochondria that have lost function due to a deletion or mutation, and many more beneficial effects. CRISPR could also be used to change such fundamental characteristics as eye-colour, skin-tone, propensity for a certain height or weight, and even some hard-wired behavioural traits. On the one hand, if possible, why would we not want to correct a propensity toward Autism, Alzheimers, or Huntingtons Chorea? On the other hand, how will we feel about genetic tinkering that allows one to choose whether or not a child will be born with an epicanthic fold, blond hair, or a small nose? How might we respond to research that created oversized or undersized humans or animals?  (Just imagine how many mini-humans you could fit on a West Jet economy flight; or the economic value of low-fat pigs for CRISPR bacon.) (Insert smile and groan here.) Such research is being conducted in animal models, once again proving that our scientific capabilities are exceeding our philosophical and ethical conversations on these subjects.

CRISPR technology is a contemporary “genie in a bottle” much like the atomic research of the previous century. It has been released from the bottle in which it was contained for many millennia. We cannot put it back; nor do we wish to put it back into the bottle. We must consider how we will use this precious gift of God’s science as we seek to live out God’s image in humanity on this fragile lifeboat planet.

The Idea of the Necessity of God

 
“And what's strange, what would be marvelous, is not that God should really exist; the marvel is that such an idea, the idea of the necessity of God, could enter the head of such a savage, vicious beast as man.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

AI and NT: What makes us human?

Two recent developments in science could leave us asking the question, “What does it mean to be human?” First, the October 19 edition of the journal Nature reports on a remarkable computer program that taught itself how to play the ancient game called Go. Programmers set up the algorithms which included the structure and rules of the game and then turned the Artificial Intelligence (AI) program loose on playing the game against itself. In a matter of days, the computer had become skilled enough to beat human champions and other computers. This is unique because all previous AI programs have learned the game by studying the moves of expert human players. AlphaGo Zero, as this latest program is called, achieved mastery of the game without human training. The implications of this program go far beyond the world of gaming. Might we one day be able to give an algorithm a list of circumstances and resources and set it off to find the best solutions to complex mathematical, engineering, and biological health questions? Might artificial intelligences one day solve such problems as how to build a better airplane, how to solve famine in places of high need, how to understand gravity and its complex relationship with time and space, or might AIs one day give us world-wide peace?

We will come back to the significance of the AlphaGo Zero accomplishment in a minute; now let’s turn to another remarkable report from the October 5 edition of the journal Science. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute have discovered that “about 1.8 to 2.6 percent of DNA in non-Africans is from … ancient human-Neandertal interbreeding.” That is approximately “10 to 20 percent more Neandertal ancestry” than previously estimated. The researchers went on to discuss human behavior and health risks which may be mediated by this significant amount of Neanderthal (NT) DNA.

Both papers bear closer reading and are significant in a number of ways; however, today, I would like to focus on the one question disclosed in the title of this article: “What makes humans human?” If artificial intelligence programs can, “on their own,” learn to play human games and master them better than the best human players, and if we humans of European descent are an interesting admixture of human and non-human (Neanderthal) DNA, what is it that truly sets us apart as human?

This will become a more and more critical question as we consider ethical questions of the future. Are AI programs conscious? What happens when we turn off or destroy AI hardware? If humans add to or subtract from DNA in the human genome using CRISPR technology, are the resulting humans still human? What if we were to add animal DNA or plant DNA to the human genome? How far would we have to go before people began to question the humanity of the resulting persons?

For years, philosophers, scientists, and theologians have discussed, argued about, and looked for answers to questions about the nature of the Imago Dei, the image of God in humans. Science starts with pieces of scientific data and assumptions about the limits of human understanding relying only on empirical data. Philosophers allow for the influence of ideas beyond scientific datum that flow out of the consciousness of humans. Theologians welcome scientific, philosophic, and revelatory information and believe that God speaks through the book of Nature and the book of the Bible.

As AI programs become more and more sophisticated, and we learn more and more about the nature of our humanity, it will be important to remember the ancient words of God found in the Bible. Christians and theologians will certainly wish to make this a starting point for any discussions on the nature of humanity:

So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:27 (NLT)

In the midst of great change, in a time when the foundations of humanity seem unstable, these words provide an anchor point for the discussions to come.

None of This Is Easy

Why are the nations so angry?
    Why do they waste their time with futile plans?
The kings of the earth prepare for battle;
    the rulers plot together
against the Lord
    and against his anointed one.

Psalm 2:1, 2

“It has been clear for a while that the world is at an inflection point.” - Former American President, Barack Obama, June 6, 2017 at the Montreal Board of Trade.

It is easy to suggest that our world has seen a rise of angry nations and angry people. Three recent attacks in the United Kingdom (Westminster, Manchester, and London Bridge) have many politicians, community leaders, and religious leaders, around the world asking questions about how we stop such appalling assaults. Many are speaking out in political forums, press releases, and social media, seeking to bring calm and suggest ways to end the blood-shed.

Into this atmosphere came the strong voice of Former American President, Barack Obama as he spoke to the Montreal Board of Trade on June 6 of this year. (I will refer to Mr. Obama as President Obama to show respect for his previous significant role.) Much of what he said had also been said in an address to an audience in Chicago at the end of his presidency on January 11, 2017. Both speeches were reminders of the fact that President Obama is an inspiring orator.

In his speech in Montreal, President Obama repeated his belief that the world is at a significant “inflection point.” He referred to the rapid rate of globalisation, the speed of technological change, and the nature of world politics as evidence that “for some time” it has been clear that this is true. He joined other world leaders in expressing condolences to the people of London and the United Kingdom as they mourned with those affected by the latest terrorist attack on, and near, London Bridge.

The former president then moved to the heart of his message. He stated that these actions on the world stage can cause nations to retreat into isolation and nationalism as they seek certainty and control. In a world that is highly connected through social media, it is possible to surround ourselves with people who look like us, people who share our political outlook, and people who will never challenge our assumptions. We retreat into bubbles within neighbourhoods, university and college campuses, places of worship, and social media feeds, seeking certainty, agreement, and control of our corner of the world. President Obama believes that such isolation is unhealthy for the proper development of democracy. In Montreal, he stated that, “If democracies begin to doubt themselves and we violate our principles because of fear and uncertainty then we can’t expect the progress that is just now starting to take control around the world.” He believes that we have been at such inflection points before and that we must continue to uphold the principles of democracy and justice in a tainted world. He encouraged his audience to “do more to bridge the gap between rich and poor nations.”

He then said one of the most significant things any politician could say at this time of global unrest.  President Obama stated, “We’re in an environment where we are only accepting information that fits our opinions rather than basing our opinions off the facts we receive, and evidence and reason and logic…” That hits all of us hard. I know I have that tendency, and I suspect that you are not immune to the tendency as well. How many times do I find myself scouring the internet for information, opinion, and interpretation that supports my views? How much time do I spend listening to the opinions of others compared with the time I spend shoring up my position? How much do I smile when a view different from my own gets reduced by public opinion or sustainable facts? How much do I seek to avoid ideas that go against my “well-founded” views of the world? As President Obama said in his Chicago address, “None of this is easy.”

I wonder if we can’t all become better scientists, theologians, and philosophers. These three branches of knowledge seek to find truth. They observe the world, make hypotheses, create ways of testing the hypotheses, analyze the data, draw conclusions, make statements, listen to critiques of the work, and repeat the process. What if every one of us made fearless inquiry of the world around us? Mark Noll and others have pointed to the “anti-intellectualism of the evangelical mind.” The words of President Obama seem to point toward an “anti-intellectualism of the social media mind.” I believe we can turn the tide of anti-intellectualism by genuinely seeking truth in all its forms through systematic inquiry.

“None of this is easy.” Even as I quote this powerful speech given to the Montreal Board of Trade, I am aware of whole sections of the speech with which I have not interacted. In the convincing philosophies of men like President Obama, I will still struggle with portions of the message. Perhaps it is those sections I most need to hear.

Last night, a small group of church members and myself were led through the practice of Lectio Divina as we read Psalm 2. It is an appropriate Psalm for these times. One person drew my attention to the last line of the Psalm, “But what joy for all who take refuge in him!” The “him” in this sentence refers to “God’s royal son,” and is an alternative to placing our trust in “the nations.” These words remind us that there is a person in whom we can place our trust. Will we trust in the nations, political leaders, news media outlets, or social media stars? Or will we seek to use our minds to fearlessly inquire into the nature of this royal son of God? Will we make intentional inquiry into the creator of the universe? Using my intellect means using all my intellect for all the inquiries of life. What joy awaits those who take refuge in truth. May the royal son of God give us refuge as we seek the truth.