Peter Occhiogrosso: May 2009 Archives

I've been following the raging debate about God vs. Science that has been taking place in the books of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the pages of the New York Times (Stanley Fish, God Talk, Part 2 ) with amusement but also with a betting interest. The more people reject the concept of a Supreme Being--and that may or may not include less anthropomorphic Eastern concepts, such as Buddha Nature or the Tao--the easier it is to lump them all with the Hitchenses of the world. For these folks, it's all a matter of such simplicity. There is no scientific evidnce that God exists or plays a role in human history, ergo, secular humanism is the only way to go. My problem is that it's never been that simple. The best way for me to sum up my dilemma is to put it this way: The only thing more absurd on the face of it than the idea that "God" created the known universe (and, presumably, any number of others unknown to us) out of an act of will is the idea embraced by scientists and atheists that the universe "just happened."

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek."
           Wm. Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice i. iii. 93)         


As we now know, courtesy of GQ's Robert Draper, Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Dept. tricked up glossy (and glossed over) reports on the early stages of the invasion of Iraq. His top-secret briefings for President George W. Bush included a document known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, according to Draper, "a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House." On April 7, 2003, for instance, the cover sheet showed Saddam Hussein striking a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."  This immediately made me think of the Crusades, that Christian effort to displace Muslims from the Holy Land, among other things.

Under the headline "Papal Monopoly," a leading Catholic magazine in England revealed details of a new board game for Catholics. Depeneding on how the dice tumble, a cardinal's chances of becoming Pope can be boosted or destroyed. "That's the scenario in the impeccably researched board game Vatican, in which players take the role of cardinals vying for the throne of St Peter," says The Tablet of London. "During the course of their 'careers,' players 'Take a Stand' on weighty theological and moral issues, including contraception, clerical celibacy or the campaign to have the Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer. The race begins as soon as the previous papacy ends, sometimes in bizarre circumstances. "The Pope dies when the popemobile rolls over after hitting a truck carrying bananas. Your earlier warnings that the popemobile was unstable are now seen as evidence of your sound judgment and you gain additional support," reads one card.