sigh . . .

Good thing those Swiss have their priorities straight.

liberation

A certain man teaches a child to write the alphabet. He gives him a piece of paper and a pencil and patiently teaches the boy each letter one by one, capital and lower case.

Then one day, the boy has learned not only to write the whole alphabet, but also words and sentences. He remarks to the teacher how stifling it is to be restricted to the piece of paper. Why can't he write anywhere else? The desk? The dictionary which sits on the desk?

After thought, the man takes the pencil and piece of paper away from the boy and says, Now you are no longer restricted to writing only on the piece of paper.

the eternal demolition?

Picture this: You're taking a little time between two loads of laundry to read "Lines Composed a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey." It's a Saturday off, the kids are down for a nap, and you're enjoying some quiet time with Wordsworth. Then comes a knock. Through the obscure glass oval window in the door, you see a man in a suit waiting patiently. Thinking it's a Witness ready to hand you a copy of Awake! or The Watchtower, you open and the visitor holds out a book of philosophy and says in a French accent, "Here is a very complicated theory of language and meaning that has no consequences or practical application. Want to learn it?"

In his April 6th blog post "French Theory in America," Stanley Fish writes about deconstruction theory and its influence and effects in the American academy. One of his main points is that, despite the fact that deconstruction has been used for and against political, religious and social agendas, deconstruction theory as articulated by its originators (Derrida, et al) does not have any necessary practical consequences. Fish writes

"It doesn't take anything away from us. We can still do all the things we have always done; we can still say that some things are true and others false, and believe it; we can still use words like better and worse and offer justifications for doing so. All we lose (if we have been persuaded by the deconstructive critique, that is) is a certain rationalist faith that there will someday be a final word, a last description that takes the accurate measure of everything. All that will have happened is that one account of what we know and how we know it - one epistemology - has been replaced by another, which means only that in the unlikely event you are asked "What's your epistemology?" you'll give a different answer than you would have given before. The world, and you, will go on pretty much in the same old way."

There are three problems with Fish's argument:

 - To say that there exists an unbridgeable separation between sign and signified, between language and the things that language describes, does have great consequences if it is really "true" (notice that Fish talks about whether or not deconstruction theory is valid while desperately avoiding the use of the words "true" or "false" to refer to it). As one friend of mine observed after reading Fish's article, reading the Constitution in light of deconstruction theory would have catastrophic practical consequences.

- If Fish is right, if deconstructionism in itself has no practical consequences and life will simply go on as long as people don't pervert deconstructionism for use in furthering their particular agendas, then why should anyone care about the theory?

- If deconstruction is indeed "true" or "right," then by its very nature it has an internal contradiction. Stated crudely, deconstruction theory says that there is no ultimate meaning in language, that there is an inevitable separation between words and the things words signify, that there is no such thing as truth or falsity outside of language; but we must use language itself to articulate the theory. As many critics of deconstruction have said before, isn't deconstruction theory invalidated by its own principles?

In philosophy there is a concept called the liar paradox. It involves statements like "This sentence is false," which swings like a pendulum between truth and falsity. If the sentence is true, then it is false; if it is false, then it is true. Deconstructionism seems to suffer from the same problem. And what can be made of a theory that tumbles in upon itself to infinity?

expelled, the nazis and the jews

One of the most controversial things about Expelled is its claim of a connection between the Nazis and Darwinism. The film asserts that, while Darwin himself wouldn't have supported the Nazis, much of the Nazi philosophy and policy towards the Jews and other "inferior" races came straight out of Darwinism. Darwinism, the film says, wasn't "sufficient" for the beliefs of the Nazis, but it was "necessary." (For more about the connection between National Socialism and Darwinism, see this article by David Klinghoffer).

It occurred to me while I was watching the film that this might be a dangerous tactic, amounting to almost an ad hominem attack. After all, don't many of religion's foes say things along the lines of, "All the major wars have been fought because of religion" and "All terrorists are religious," etc.? They righteously cite the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials in their attacks, assuring us that we'll all be nicer to each other if we rid ourselves of religion.

But then I realized that what Expelled does is actually a brilliant tactic. Before the section of the film about the Nazis, we see scenes of protesters with picket signs protesting "religion" (i.e., intelligent design) being taught in schools, many using words like "terrorist," and then we see Bill Mahr saying that it is not drugs or alcohol that should be regulated, but religion, since religion is the source of most wars and terrorism. Soon after, Ben Stein visits Aushwitz.

The point? We often do horrible things in God's name, but we don't need religion to be able to treat people like animals. The Nazis only needed the philosophy of Nietzsche and Darwinism. Stalin and Pol Pot only needed Communism (an anti-religion philosophy) and a certain obsession with power. History has a list of horrors committed in the name of religion, but it has an equally long list that has nothing to do with religion.

Evil parading under the guise of religion doesn't say something about religion; it says something about humanity. We'll use whatever is available to justify our wrongs, large or small.

and these are christians?

Yep, this makes a lot of sense.

went and saw expelled this evening . . .

. . .  and it was well worth the sixteen bucks. I won't detail the whole film, but there are a few things I'd like to say about it.

- I read some reviews of Expelled ahead of time that complained of the film's lack of a specific definition of "evolution" and "intelligent design." While I did miss a detailed explanation of intelligent design, one of the interviewed scientists (his name escapes me now) did give a rough definition - namely, that ID posits that there is design in nature, and where we see design, one infers a designer. ID does not specify whether the designer is the Judeo-Christian God, Allah, Isis, or any other deity. A deist, a Muslim, a Jew, and a Christian can all equally accept the tenets of ID.

- Another of the interviewed scientists provided a helpful and often overlooked distinction. He said that when discussing "evolution" one must specify what is being talked about. "Evolution" might refer to simply change within given species over time, or it can refer to Darwinism itself, which posits that all the plethora of species came from one single-celled organism billions of years ago. Failure to make this distinction renders much discussion about evolution meaningless.

- The film is worth seeing, if for no other reason than being able to see Richard Dawkins make a fool of himself - as indeed he does towards the end of the documentary. It staggers the mind to think that such dumb words can escape the mouth of even a mildly educated person. I won't ruin it for anybody who hasn't seen the film. I will only say that I always thought he was a moron (I mean, I am a Christian theist, and he did write a book called The God Delusion), but now I know that he is. As Richard John Neuhaus says in the current issue of First Things, there used to be atheists one could respect intellectually (Marx, Neitzche, etc.). Now we have Dawkins. What a shame. If he keeps up, he'll probably drive some fence riders into being theists. Maybe even Christians.

BTW - for a good primer on intelligent design theory, see this article at Salvo Magazine.

i hope obama heard these words . . .

. . . from Pope Benedict in his arrival ceremony:

"As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more human and free society."

irony

In a speech given with the Pope at his arrival ceremony, President Bush had this to say:

"Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across america answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each day across the world to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair."

And yet America does not live up to its own standards, since the help and protection we offer to those who are strong enough to stand up for their own rights are not extended to those who cannot defend themselves, the weakest of the weak.

In defense of the President, though, his administration has done more to help the pro-life cause than any President in a long time. 

Also, it may be that the President was cleverly reminding his fellow Americans that, in fact, we treat our "weakest and most vulnerable" citizens in the same way Hitler treated Jews (an unpopular comparison, I know, but perhaps unpopular because it's true?).

the church of global warming

Let me begin this post with a cowardly disclaimer/confession: I consider myself a closet tree-hugger. Or perhaps a wannabe closet tree hugger. I grew up in a gorgeous area in central Alabama with lots of hills and beautiful forests. Now, when I go home to visit family I am grieved to see that more trees have been cut down. In place of a luscious mixture of pines and hardwoods have been planted perfectly uniform rows of young pines. The replanting makes me almost as mad as the clear cutting. The logging companies don't replace the hardwoods, just the pines, and they make the forest look like gated communities with clone houses and yards better manicured than my mother's fingernails. (BTW, on an unrelated subject, go here to see some hilarious ridicule of gated communities - just for giggles).

Just so you know.

On the First Things web site, R. R. Reno writes:

"The 1930s was a decade when many intellectuals were convinced that revolution, either fascist or communist, was the only answer to the social crisis of the times. It was during this era of political fervor that Simone Weil penned a rebuttal: 'It is not religion but revolution which is the opium of the masses.' Like so much of what Weil wrote, it's an arresting thought. And it's also one that is true on many levels" (full article here).

It seems that the new revolutionary battle cry is coming from the environmentalists. The current political landscape can almost be divided along the lines of how people feel about global warming. If you stand by Al Gore et al, you are automatically associated with a particular set of values, which more often than not includes a secular view of things. If you question global warming, you are usually associated with a different set of values, and usually with religion. Up until recently, Christians have been relatively uninterested in the current fashionable environmentalism. This seems strange to me because the God of Christianity has redeemed the whole creation and has placed man as lord of the earth.

What also strikes me is the fervor with which many environmentalists espouse their thought and practice. They speak of nature with the eloquence of mystics and rage with the fury of Christ turning over the moneychangers' tables at anyone who actively opposes their conclusions about the global weather trends. Indeed, some people's enthusiasm and devotion to the cause of saving the environment can only be described as religious. At the end of a class recently, I threw away some papers that I wouldn't need anymore and one of my classmates solemnly crouched by the garbage can and removed them. The scene was very strange - surreal even - and I am using no hyperbole when saying he did it "solemnly." I found out later that he was taking the papers out to put them in a recycling bin.

I think this is significant because of the lines along which the debate over global warming are drawn. The less religious people are, the more likely they are to believe in global warming. I have no hard statistics to defend that statement, but I think that most anyone who has looked very long at the cultural landscape would agree with me. The point that this proves is that people need some kind of religion. The 19th and 20th centuries saw a great rise in secularism, but accompanying these were new orthodoxies. It has been eugenics, feminism, Scientology has vied for the position, but I believe that environmentalism has nearly usurped the others as the religion of the secular. As Nigel Lawson says, "The new religion of global warming . . . resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism" (quote lifted from a piece in First Things, originally from Lawson's book An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming).

---------------------

UPDATE: Apparently, the extreme fervor of some environmentalists is having negative psychological effects. See the diagnosis.

you go, ben!

Ben Stein goes to school. BTW - here is a primer on ID over at Salvo.

it's about time somebody did this

This ought to rehabilitate 'em. Now if somebody will decide to replace capital punishment with caning, the crime rate will come down.

david koresh? wasn't he a shriner?

I felt very old today.

My family and I might be moving to the Waco area sometime this year, and my nephew's girlfriend asked me about it today at church. I joked with her that we were planning to join the Branch Davidians (an easy joke, and one I use too much, I admit). With an earnest interest she said, "That'll be nice."

the great orator "didn't say it as well" as he "could have"

It has been plastered all over the news that Senator Obama has offended a great deal of Americans with words he delivered at a rally in California. Referring to people from small towns, he said, "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

In an interview with the Winston-Salem Journal, Obama attempted damage control, offering up this non-apology: "Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so. And I hear it all the time when I visit these communities."

I find the clarification almost as insulting as the original remarks, which betray a deep resentment of a very large portion of America. This is quite clear in such language as "antipathy to people who aren't like them." Obama accused small town Americans of being gun-toting, racist religious fundamentalists. What is there about this to clarify? In fact, the clarification doesn't clarify. It says something completely different. He speaks of small town people "rightly" being "frustrated," yet his original remarks showed no empathy for these people. Who sympathizes with people who cling to "antipathy toward people who aren't like them"?
------------------
Also, notice that Obama does not apologize (after all, it's a clarification, not an apology) for his remarks. He only "regrets" that his words "made some people offended." I'm sure I'm only imagining the veiled contempt hidden in those words "some people."

some thoughts on wilders' anti-islam film

I watched Geert Wilders' controversial film this morning and, needless to say, it sparked a few thoughts.

I won't link to the film itself, but you can easily find it on You Tube. The film, aptly entitled Fitna (the Arabic word for "division among people"), intersperses quotes from the Qur'an (Koran), graphic footage of terrorist attacks, and speeches delivered by muslims calling for violence against non-muslims. If it is possible, the film is made all the more disturbing by the soundtrack, which features portions of The Nutcracker Suite.

Tolerance

I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that this film and the West's struggle with radical Islam has challenged my assumptions about tolerance, about which I have already posted (here, here and here). To summarize my opinion about tolerance (that is, tolerance about beliefs and ideas, specifically those related to religion), I think that the best scenario is one in which the multiple world-views and religions coexist and lay open their cases for the rest to see. I believe that the evidence will single out the true religion, if indeed there is one. I welcome Jews praying for my conversion and even dialoguing with me about the validity of their claims as long as they extend the same courtesy to me.

But this perfect world of my imaginings begins to break down in the face of honest Islam. I say honest Islam because it seems to me that (given that what I know of Islam I understand correctly), people who talk about Islam as a "peaceful" or "tolerant" religion are either mistaken or being dishonest. In a speech given after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush said, "Islam is peace." There is no lack of people who would like to make the President more well-informed about a number of issues, but I would point out to him that Islam is "submission," not "peace." Specifically, Islam is submission to the will of Allah, who may, among other things, require muslims to make those who "disbelieve . . . to enter fire" (Sura 4.56).

As I said in " . . . all Israel will be saved," I hope that believing Jews pray for my conversion, because they believe that they have the true revelation of God. I expect Jews to be good Jews, Christians to be good Christians, Buddhists to be good Buddhists, etc. I hold to that principle when it comes to muslims, but I say so with trepidation. If Wilder's (or Osama Bin Laden's) interpretation of what the Qur'an says in the verse I quoted above is right, then a good muslim should kill me for being a disbeliever.

Does the film quote the Qur'an out of context?

I have only taken the time to read two of the quotes used in the film in their context. One of them is Sura 8.60. Here it is in its wider context (I have bolded the part that Wilder quotes in his film):

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. Those with whom you make an agreement, then they break their agreement every time and they do not guard (against punishment). Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful. And if you fear treachery on the part of a people, then throw back to them on terms of equality; surely Allah does not love the treacherous. And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape. And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others beside them, whom you did not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly. And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely he is the Hearing, the Knowing."

- Sura 8.56-61

(I'm not sure if the awkwardness of the language in the above passage is due to difficulty in translation from Arabic to English or if this kind of syntax is present in the original).

Notice that, taken alone, the quote used in Fitna sounds quite frightening, but taken in its context, it loses much of the force that it has when quoted in isolation. I wonder if Wilder read the following two lines when preparing the quotes for his film.

Fitna also quotes Sura 4.56, which I quoted above. Here is the full passage (again, with the part used in the film in bold type):

"(As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Might, Wise. And (as for) those who believe and do good deeds, We will make them enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; they shall have therein pure mates, and We shall make them enter dense shade."

- Sura 4.56-57

At first this seems fairly plain - burn the unbelievers, reward the believers. Not being well-versed in the Qur'an, I am hesitant to make any speculations, but I will venture to say that here it is Allah speaking about what he will do, not what he wants his followers to do (this latter is the way Fitna leads viewers to read it). It is difficult to say for sure, since the entire text seems to jump back and forth in POV from Allah's and Muhammad's, but since the personal pronouns are all capitalized ("We," "Our"), it seems to me reasonable to assume Allah is speaking. If this is the correct reading, then perhaps we Christians should remember Our Lord's words: "Cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" (Matthew 25:30).

Does it matter?

Wilder misinterpreting the Qur'an is one thing, but muslims misinterpreting it is a different problem. And if the Qur'an does not call for the killing of non-muslims, then there are, apparently, a lot of muslims who misinterpret it. One video in Fitna shows Sheikh Bakr Al-Samarai telling a cheering crowd, "If Allah permits us, oh nation of Muhammed, even the stone will say 'Oh, Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me, come and cut off his head.' And we shall cut off his head! By Allah, we shall cut it off!" Not an ounce of nuance there; Al-Samarai means exactly what he is saying. And the video footage of beheadings and murder speak for themselves.

Being a good muslim

So I am left with my original policy. For now, I (perhaps naively) continue to believe in my perfect world of coexistence and debate between the world's religions and world-views. I'm not convinced either way on whether Islam is a violent and intolerant religion or not (here I am speaking of Islam in itself, rather than Islam as it is actually practiced). If the Qur'an does not, in fact, call for the torture and killing of the "unbelievers," then I say to all muslims: If you believe that the Qur'an is the true revelation of God, then follow it more faithfully. If it does, then I (fearfully) stand by my convictions: I think that a muslim should be a good muslim. I say to him: God will vindicate those who follow His Truth, and that the rest of us will not lie down and let you sift us like wheat. In the meantime, I will pray that God will enlighten all muslims and lead them into the truth of Christ, and that all peaceful peoples will triumph over violence.

On philosophizing about violence and Islam from my armchair

I realize how easy it is for me, a citizen of the United States protected by America's geographical location, democratic government and military might, to say that I think muslims should be good muslims. Having a good imagination, I can picture various scenarios (assisted by the disturbing images shown in Fitna) in which that conviction would be challenged. I also think of the victims of terrorism in other countries (and in my own) and how they would feel about what I have just said. All I can say is that I am not unaware of the difficulties with my position. I am still wrestling with the implications of Islam's presence in the world arena, as is everyone else.

More on this subject in a future post.

calling priests "father"

JimmyAkin.org has a good post on the practice of calling Catholic priests "Father."

remembring mlk

Richard John Neuhaus, who worked with Dr. King during his lifetime, has a good article on FirstThings.com about the late civil rights leader.

david mills on the prayer for the jews

I wrote in two earlier posts (here and here) about the response of some Jewish leaders (particularly Rabbi Walter Homolka's) to the prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. I argued that what Homolka is asking of Catholics ends up being a negation of both Catholicism (and Christianity in general) and Judaism. As long as Christians believe that Jesus is the "way, truth, and the life," the "living one" who was dead but is now alive and has "the keys of death and Hades" they are obliged to pray that all the world find faith in him. For believing Jews to ask that Christians (who worship Jesus as God) continue to practice their own faith (instead of converting to Judaism) but not pray for the conversion of Jews is to render hollow perhaps the fundamental teaching of Judaism, which is that "you shall no other gods before Me," since Judaism does not teach that Jesus was God or the Messiah.

The new issue of Touchstone Magazine has an article on this subject by David Mills. Mills makes an incisive argument for the point I have been making:

"We would want gently to note that in demanding that Christians do not pray for the conversion of the Jews, the Jewish leaders are demanding the conversion of Christians - not to Judaism, of course, but to a different version of Christianity, one defined not by our Scriptures and tradition but by the desires of another faith. This is no less offensive to Christians than the prayer is to Jews. It is an assault on the integrity of the Christian religion.

Whatever his view of other faiths, the Christian by definition believes that it is better to know, love, and follow Jesus in this world than not to, and that is true for every single person on earth. This is, indeed, the basis not only for evangelization but for all preaching, all pastoral work, all spiritual direction, because while St. Paul tells us that the veil has been removed from those who are in Christ, he also reminds us that we see through a glass darkly. We only ask for our Jewish friends what we ask, in a different sense, for ourselves."

I would say that Mills does not quite go far enough. Homolka's demand of Christians does not require them to convert to a new version of Christianity, but to another religion altogether. Christianity is that religion which teaches that Jesus of Nazareth is the only way to salvation. We can quibble about the particulars, such as how God will deal with those who are ignorant of the Gospel or who through extraordinary life circumstances beyond their control do not believe in it; but even if such people can be saved, it will only be by the grace that Christ bought with his own life. And even if it is possible, it is by no means certain, and as Mills says, "it is better to know, love, and follow" him. Therefore it is our responsibility to pray for and reach out in love to others. To teach and believe otherwise is to teach and believe something other than Christianity.

the definitions of tolerance

My post ". . . all Israel will be saved" skirts an idea that often comes up in conversation, blogs, television, the news, church and everywhere else one might think of - that of tolerance. It is a word that gets used a lot, but I think that most people who use it don't think about what it actually means. Or, more to the point, I think that they mean something other than "tolerance" when they talk about it. A quick reference to the handy dictionary on the dashboard of my Mac (don't tell me that you walk across the room to get your copy of Webster's when you've got resources at your fingertips) tells me that there are, roughly speaking, three definitions of the word.

1. The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. I think that when most people speak of "tolerance," they want others (and themselves) to believe that this is what they mean by it. People talk about religious tolerance, by which they mean, "The Christians ought to be tolerant of the beliefs of Wiccans" or "Muslims ought to be tolerant of the beliefs of Jews," etc. The thing that often gets missed is that this definition presupposes that there is some disagreement about something. A person can have a moral objection to homosexual acts and remain tolerant of homosexual people themselves. He may have no problems working with homosexuals, going to school with them, serving them at a restaurant, or being served by them. If his moral objection becomes public knowledge, however, he is usually accused of intolerance.

2. The allowable amount of variation in a specified quantity, especially in the dimensions of a machine or part. Engine builders sometimes make the choice between building a motor with loose tolerances or with close tolerances. Loose tolerance allows the engine rev faster and thus make more power. In this sense, the analogy between engineering tolerance and social tolerance works. When people who disagree don't live in very close proximity, there is usually minimal friction. On the other hand, an engine that has very loose tolerance is not going to be as reliable or long-lived as an engine with tighter tolerances. The application of this definition for our purposes is thus limited.

3. Resistance to the effects of a substance, especially a drug, after repeated exposure. This definition is the one in which I am most interested. A person who repeatedly uses a certain drug, such as cocaine, will often begin to show a diminished reaction to it. I think that this definition is the one that best explains the way modern people use the word "tolerance."

Notice that when someone decries intolerance, often what they are decrying not the intolerance of a different opinion, but the difference itself. In the case of Rabbi Walter Homolka's response to the prayer for the Jews during the Good Friday liturgy, what he's asking for is not for Catholics to tolerate the Jews, who disagree with Catholics about the person of Jesus Christ. What the Rabbi is demanding is that Catholics no longer have a certain reaction to Judaism - namely, disagreement. Notice that he does not stop at requiring that Catholics and other Christians not persecute Jews or blame them for the murder of Christ (I think it's understandable that he worries about that), but he goes on to require them to not voice their disagreement with Jews at all. Basically, he's telling the Pope, "Do what you do, but don't disagree with us about Jesus. Tell us that Judaism is right for us and Catholicism is right for you" (which is what the current English form of the Good Friday prayer does) The result is a complete negation of both Judaism and Catholicism.

"ethical difficulties involved in collecting human eggs for research"

Well, it's a good thing those Brits are making sure they follow all the appropriate ethical guidelines in creating human-animal hybrids.

chesterton on human goodness

(an addendum to "on dogs")

No matter what the subject, Chesterton always says it best:

"Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness - or so good as drink."

"his religious expression infringed on other students' rights"

Tomah High School stands up for your freedom of expression . . . unless you're Christian.

john donne on human goodness

A few posts ago I wrote about the differences in the goodness/evil of which humans are capable and the goodness/evil of which animals (dogs, specifically) are capable. I argued that the difference is not only a matter of degree, but of kind. I think that this question provides a convenient introduction to part of the answer to the problem of evil. Why are the humans God has created to do good capable of such horrors? In Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, John Donne offers an answer:

"Enlarge this Meditation upon this great world, Man, so far as to consider the immensity of the creatures this world produces; our creatures are our thoughts, creatures that are born Giants; that reach from East to West, from Earth to Heaven, that do not only bestride all the Sea, and land, but span the Sun and Firmament at once; My thoughts reach all, comprehend all. Inexplicable mystery; I their Creator am in a close prison, in a sick bed, anywhere, and any one of my Creatures, my thoughts, is with the Sun, and beyond the Sun, overtakes the Sun, and overgoes the Sun in one pace, one step, everywhere. And then as the other world produces Serpents, and Vipers, malignant, and venomous creatures, and Worms, and Caterpillars, that endeavor to devour that world which produces them, and Monsters compiled and complicated of divers parents, and kinds, so this world, ourselves produces all these in us, in producing diseases, and sickness, of all those sorts; venomous, and infectious diseases, feeding and consuming diseases, and manifold and entangled diseases, made up of many several ones. And can the other world name so many venomous, so many consuming, so many monstrous creatures, as we can diseases, of all these kinds? O miserable abundance, O beggarly riches!"

You can find the entire Devotions here.