Thursday, August 28, 2014

God’s Not Dead: Interview with John Lennox Part 2

The Absurdity of Atheism: “nothing isn’t really nothing”
 – John Lennox Interview – Part 2
  • The Absurdity of Atheism: “nothing isn’t really nothing” – John Lennox Interview – Part 2
  • August 25, 2014

    (“Defenders Of The Faith” with Dr. Rice Broocks) Thank you for joining us this week as we go behind the scenes for Part 2 of this fascinating interview with Professor John Lennox, (the Oxford Mathematician and Philosopher quoted the film “God’s Not Dead”, produced by Pure Flix Entertainment).

    In this week’s segment, we drill down on how famous atheists such as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss try and explain how the Universe could have come into existence”out of nothing” Their simple answer? “Nothing isn’t really nothing” boasts physicist Lawrence Krauss. “It’s a bubbling, boiling sea of particles in a quantum vacuum”. He goes on to make absurd statements like “There are at least 3 different kinds of nothing”.

    Watch this interview where Professor Lennox reveals the absurdity of atheism:

    John Lennox Interview #2 from Rice Broocks on Vimeo.

    So nothing is actually something! It has to be in order for atheists to have a natural explanation for how the universe got started. If you missed Part 1 of the interview, Click Here Now To View.

    Hawking wrote in his book “The Grand Design” that the law of gravity could bring the universe into existence. The problem is that he didn’t explain (nor can he) how the law of gravity came into existence. So you either believe in an eternal law (such as gravity) or an eternal law-giver (God). In this interview with John Lennox, he exposes the folly of the assertion by Hawking that gravity can account for the creation of anything, much less our universe.

    Remember, in becoming a defender of the faith (as 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to be) you stand on solid intellectual ground when you say that the Universe can not be its own cause. Therefore, believing that God is the cause of the universe is the most reasonable explanation.

    JLennoxBk1Dr. Lennox is the author of several books including “Seven Days that Divide that World”, “God’s Undertaker- Has Science Buried God?”, and “Gunning for God- Why the New Atheists are missing the target” He possesses a keen sense of taking complex scientific issues and communicating them in such a way that people of all ages and backgrounds can grasp their meaning.
    Check Out & Purchase books by Professor John Lennox - click here. Look for more interviews with Dr Lennox, coming soon on this “Defenders of the Faith” blog. You can view his profile and find out more about his work at JohnLennox.org
    Dr. Rice Broocks is the co-founder of the Every Nation family of churches, with more than one thousand churches in more than sixty nations. The senior minister of Bethel World Outreach Church, Nashville, Tennessee, Rice is also the author of several books, including God’s Not Dead, The Purple Book and Every Nation in Our Generation. A graduate of Mississippi State University, Rice has a master’s degree from Reformed Theological Seminary and a doctorate from Fuller Theological Seminary. For More Resources To Help You Become A Defender Of The Faith – Click Here.

        




    Tuesday, August 12, 2014

    CIVILIZATION IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

    In the Book of Proverbs6:16-19, King Solomon states that there are "six things the Lord hateth, and seven that are an abomination unto Him":


    1. A proud look

    2. A lying tongue

    3. Hands that shed innocent blood

    4. A heart that devises wicked plots

    5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief

    6. A deceitful witness that uttereth lies

    7. Him that soweth discord among brethren


    Proverbs 6 and its contents describes what civilization (and ultimately government) is all about: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. One chapter in Proverbs sums up my idea of personal responsibility and the wisest man who ever lived (Solomon) agrees. Read it and see if you agree, then meditate on these principles. 


    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Why Hymns Are Better

    Why Hymns Are Better

    As a result of a Facebook status that got a lot of attention, I’ve decided to write this post. It’s often the case that a status or Tweet is not worthy of the attention and thoughtfulness that certain subjects require. It became evident to me that this particular subject deserved more than 140 characters, as many people “liked” it and some others disagreed, respectfully. After talking it over with some friends and thinking about it more, I discovered there’s more I want to say.

    I want to give three reasons that I think hymns are better than contemporary praise songs. I think they are better:

    1. Musically
    2. Lyrically
    3. Theologically

    The third one is the one that really matters, and why I chose to write this post. You can chalk the first two up to aesthetics and preferences, but the third one is something I think deeply matters for the church, and perhaps the other two do as well.

    A few side notes.

    I want to say that I’m only speaking of the songs I know. That means the hymns that have survived this long, not ALL hymns, and it also means only the contemporary songs I’ve heard. That being said, I’ve worshipped in many, many congregations, and have found myself in a “worship leader” position in several churches, youth groups, retreats, camps, etc. So I am quite familiar with the common songs of today.

    I’m not talking about YOUR church, and I’m not talking about YOUR songs. I’m speaking of the church generally, and what I recognize to be the popular and oft-heard songs across the evangelical world. I truly believe there are churches doing more than this.

    Secondly, I want to emphasize that I don’t fault any churches, worshippers, or worship leaders, and I especially don’t want to take away from anyone’s religious experience in musical worship. If you’ve found God in modern worship songs, then Praise God for that. I wouldn’t dare limit God’s ability to function and bless even if we gathered every week and sang the ABC’s. That being said, I do think there is more to consider.

    Let’s jump in, shall we?

    (1) Hymns are better musically

    If you play any instrument in a praise and worship band, it won’t take you long to realize that 90% of the popular songs are in the key of G (or can be easily converted to that with a capo), are in 4/4 timing, and follow a verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus format. One of my favorite things to goof around with as an acoustic guitar player was to play a G-C-D-C pattern and see how many songs I could sing along with it. To name a few: Holiness (Take My Heart), Holy is the Lord, Enough, Every Move I Make, Lord I Lift Your Name on High… every single one of these songs could be sung simultaneously without the band changing a single thing.

    That seems like a problem. At best it’s a lack of originality or creativity; at worst it’s an invective against the church, that we’ll accept just about any string of words that sounds worship-y.

    Hymns, on the other hand, are musically rich and complex. I remember hating hymns as a guitar player, because I had to learn new time signatures, and there were these surprise chords that came out of nowhere that I had to Google. You can tell that the music took time to compose, and that the music is linked to the lyrics in a way you don’t see in choruses. Sure, you might see an “E minor” or even an “A minor” in the bridge, but in hymns you see complexity and craftsmanship to match the angst of the lyrics. And even though it frustrated me as an under-skilled musician, as a worshipper I value the originality and creativity of the music that we offer to God in worship.

    (2) Hymns are better lyrically

    This point takes two different forms. First, I want to talk the way they use literary “person”, and then I want to talk about the use of words for meaning.

    The examples I will choose to use for “contemporary praise choruses” are the top 4 songs on CCLI’s Top 100. This is the primary resource for worship leaders to legally get lyrics, sheet music, etcetera for church worship, so  we can reasonably say that these are the four most-used songs in evangelical churches. The songs are:

    1. How Great is Our God
    2. Mighty to Save
    3. Our God
    4. Blessed Be Your Name

    So for the first point, let’s use the two Chris Tomlin songs on here, “How Great Is Our God” and “Our God”. (By the way, what’s up with Chris Tomlin and demonstrative pronouns with God? Anyone else sense an anti-other-religions agenda? My theological problems with “Our God” will have to be saved for another time.) Let’s compare that to the most similar hymn, “How Great Thou Art”, and another example, “Be Thou My Vision”.

    Praise chorus lyrics:

    How great is our God. Sing with me, how great is our God, and all will see how great, how great is our God.

    Our God is greater, our God is stronger, God you are higher than any other. Our God is healer, awesome in power, our God, our God.

    Now compare that to the hymns:

    Then sings my soul, my savior, God to thee. How great thou art, how great thou art!

    Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart; Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art. Thou my best Thought, by day or by night, Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.

    The first thing most people notice is the difference in language, but there’s something fundamentally different in terms of literary “person”. Note that both of the praise songs sing “about” God in the third person (save one phrase in the middle of “Our God”), whereas the hymns are “to” God in the second person. We’ll discuss the theology of that in a minute, but it brings up a fundamental question: Who exactly are we singing to?

    If the choruses of “Our God” and especially “Blessed Be Your Name” are any indication, this is not something that song writers are even trying to think about. Both songs break continuity of person within the same verse! It goes from “Blessed be the name of the Lord” (third person) to “Blessed be your name” (second person). We wouldn’t allow this in a third grader’s english paper, why do we let it slide in our corporate worship? It seems to me there has been a completely unconscious but important shift in the object of our singing.

    Now let’s simply compare the word choice in describing God, and Christian experience, using the other two songs:

    Blessed be the name of the Lord, blessed be your name. Blessed be the name of the Lord, blessed be your glorious name.

    Savior, he can move the mountains. My God is mighty to save, he is mighty to save. Forever, author of salvation. He rose and conquered the grave, Jesus conquered the grave.

    And now a couple hymns:

    When peace like a river attendeth my way, when sorrows like sea billows roll. Whatever my lot, though hast taught me to say, it is well, it is well with my soul

    Come thou fount of every blessing, tune my heart to sing thy grace. Streams of mercy, never ceasing, call for songs of loudest praise. Teach me some melodious sonnet, sung by flaming tongues above. Praise the mount, I’m fixed upon it, mount of thy redeeming love.

    Once again, we see the conflict of “person”, but more importantly, we see a fundamental difference in the way the songs talk about God. The first two are naming attributes of God. The second two are describing the attributes of God with metaphor. The difference is this: modern praise songs simply “name” attributes of God, but great hymns “describe” attributes of God.

    I’m becoming convinced that contemporary artists just put the same twenty words like “holy”, “God”, “savior”, “blessed”, “awesome”, “great”, etc. into a jar and shake it and see what comes out; throw a few prepositions in between so it flows, and put it in the key of G. Boom, top of the charts. We’ve become satisfied with singing the same songs in the same ways every Sunday and just get excited at the ones we get to sing a little louder or in a slightly higher key.

    Hymns, on the other hand, aren’t satisfied with saying “God is holy”. They want to talk about how God is holy, or what it means for God to be holy. They look around for things to relate God’s holiness to. You could sing an entire contemporary worship song about God being holy, great, or even Savior, and leave the song still wondering, “How is God great?” , or “What does God’s greatness look like?”

    (3) Hymns are better Theologically

    When it comes down to it, who are we singing to, and what are they worthy of?

    Number 2 brought up the theological issues. What’s the difference between “How Great is Our God” and “How Great Thou Art”? The title tells us everything. One is about God, and one is to God. When we consider the type of songs we ought to be singing as worship, the “direction” of the songs should matter.

    I’m not saying third person songs aren’t worship, or that God isn’t glorified by them. But what, over time, are we training ourselves to believe about God and about us if our songs are songs to each other about God rather than with each other to God. Because we end up believing in the way we practice, and I wonder if our theology hasn’t suffered for it.

    And I really truly believe our theology suffers when we would offer up songs that sound like doctrinal statements rather than poetry that explores and marvels at the complexity of God and God’s work among us.

    Yes, God is great! God is mighty! God’s name is blessed! But what does that mean for us?

    For me, the song “It Is Well” is a rehearsal in really exploring what it means to call God great. For those of you that don’t know the story, this hymn was written by a man who lost his wife and children and all he had worked for at sea. When this man wrote, “When sorrows like sea billows roll”, he meant  it with every fiber of his being. He knew exactly what sorrow felt like, and used that imagery to really explore what it means for God to be great even in that circumstance. That is what our songs should say! Our songs should come from a place of reality, of experience, of angst, and should be written by poets, who have a gift for attributing words and imagery to that angst.

    Forgive me for being sounding antagonistic to this song in particular, but I’m growing tired of hearing congregations of Christians tell each other how great our God is. If you’re going to tell anyone, tell God! And then, explore what that might actually mean, rather than just putting four chords behind it and calling it worship.

    Worship should be provocative, not shallow. We should have to reflect upon the words we sing, not just be able to glance over them and affirm them. Essays upon essays could be written exploring “Be Thou My Vision” or “Come Thou Fount”, where the imagery could be poked at, questioned, affirmed and enlivened. Today’s songs are disembodied statements about God. And while they may be true, they don’t mean anything on their own.

    If I could pick one natural gift/talent to add to myself, it would be songwriting. Because I don’t think “hymns” are the answer to the problem, they’re just among the best we have. The answer is new, great songs, that take the musicality, lyricism, and theological depth of the hymns seriously and bring that creativity and theological formation to a pen and paper. But alas, that is not me. But I can at least hope and encourage.

    Our songs should reflect the depth and complexity of God. 

    And they should really be sung to God. Really.

    Please comment. If the status was any indication, this is something worth talking about, and while I do have strong opinions, I really try to remain open and hear rebuttals. It helps me learn, and it makes us all better people if we talk about stuff. The only comment I don’t want to see is, “Well, this song is like this, which makes your point invalid.” Because it doesn’t. There are always exceptions. There are some wonderful songs being written and sung in churches today, and there are god-awful hymns that survived containing miserable theology. But I really don’t think you can argue against the generalizations I’ve made, even if they are only generalizations. Thanks for reading, as always.


    Wednesday, July 30, 2014

    MARK TWAIN

    Ken Burns’ Mark Twain: a not quite unflinching portrait

     

    By James Brewer 
    9 February 2002

    I looked a moment at the face I knew so well; and it was patient with the patience I had so often seen in it: something of puzzle, a great silent dignity, an assent to what must be from the depths of a nature whose tragical seriousness broke in the laughter which the unwise took for the whole of him. Emerson, Longfellow, Lowell, Holmes—I knew them all and all the rest of our sages, poets, seers, critics, humorists; they were like one another and like other literary men; but Clemens was sole, incomparable, the Lincoln of our literature.—William Dean Howells on Samuel Clemens’ funeral

    Anyone who knows much about American author Mark Twain knows that he was born Samuel Langhorne Clemens, and that he grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, alongside the Mississippi River. Ken Burns’ two-part series for the Public Broadcasting System in the US takes it from there. The documentary, which first aired January 14 and 15, is an engaging and informative presentation of his life. It is to Burns’ and his production teams’ credit that they chose to do a film on one of the world’s greatest literary iconoclasts. In the process they give us a glimpse of the powerful educational potential of the medium.

    The production is peppered with quotes from Mark Twain, employing the talents of character actor Kevin Conway to perform the readings. The viewer gets the sense that he or she is actually listening to Twain himself. Skillful editing gives the presentation an internal cohesion which is Ken Burns’ hallmark.

    The task of distilling the essence of a man like Samuel Clemens down to a few short hours is not an easy one, if it is indeed possible at all. Burns interviews a small army of Twain scholars, authors, including Arthur Miller, Russell Banks and William Styron, as well as well-known personalities like Hal Holbrook and Dick Gregory, all of whom add their own, sometimes contradictory, views on the subject.

    The series proceeds chronologically for the most part, employing narration, interviews and footage, mostly of the Mississippi River, shot by Burns’ film crew, as well as hundreds of historical photographs. The photographs are not only of Clemens and his family and friends, which exist in surprising abundance, but of conditions which he observed, experienced and fought against. Burns’ familiar technique of panning across, and zooming out of and into the images adds a dimension of movement which helps bring the subject matter to life.

    A vast breadth of experience

    Mark Twain, born Samuel Clemens, the fourth child of a slave owning merchant who died before Sam was 12, was thrust into the world of work at an early age. He started out at 14, working at a newspaper managed by his older brother. At 17 he traveled extensively up and down the Mississippi working as a journalist, then served as an apprentice riverboat pilot until he became a certified steamboat pilot in his own right. When the Civil War broke out he joined a ragtag Southern militia band that never saw real action, and then, rather than join the Confederate Army, went west to seek his fortune mining gold, at which he was a dismal failure, like so many others. He fell back on his skills as a journalist, first in Virginia City, then in San Francisco. From there he traveled to Hawaii, then known as the Sandwich Islands, to write his observations for a California newspaper.

    These experiences form the basis for much of the first part of Burns’ documentary, providing viewers with a broad sense of Mark Twain’s beginnings. His first book, published in 1867 when he was just 22, was a series of sketches entitled The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County and Other Sketches. Then in 1869 came Innocents Abroad, the account of a globe-trotting pleasure cruise with a boatload of American travelers. This book was published as a subscription book sold door-to-door, and made Mark Twain the best-selling author in America.

    His popularity continued to rise with the publication in 1872 of Roughing It, an account of his own sojourn out west 10 years earlier. He later collaborated with Charles Dudley Warner on his first novel, The Gilded Age, a stinging portrait of an era of rampant corruption in politics and commerce. Before its publication, Twain began a series of sketches which would eventually be used in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, finally published in 1876. The work was inspired by characters from his boyhood home of Hannibal. That same year he started writing Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

    The writing of Huckleberry Finn

    He was initially unsatisfied with the work and set it aside for what would be years. He wrote his friend William Dean Howells in August of that year:

    I have written 400 pages on it—therefore it is very nearly half done. It is Huck Finn’s Autobiography. I like it only tolerably well, as far as I have got, and may possibly pigeonhole or burn the MS when it is done.

    Years later, in 1883, Twain resumed work on Huckleberry Finn. Significantly, this was after taking his first trip on the Mississippi in 20 years and revisiting his boyhood hometown of Hannibal. Hal Holbrook made the point: “What do you think he was looking at? He was looking at the horrible failure of the freeing of the slave!”

    Twenty years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the conditions facing blacks had not changed much since the days of slavery. It is this brutal reality that Twain courageously exposed in Huckleberry Finn. Jocelyn Chadwick, a Twain scholar, cites Langston Hughes’ declaration that “nigger Jim” represented the first time that the black man was given a voice in literature. The narrator notes that Hemingway claimed that Huckleberry Finn represented the beginning of American literature.

    The novel emerged out of the great conflict between North and South, bourgeois democracy and slavery, out of the ashes of the bloody and bitterly fought war fought on the North American continent. It drew the lines of future struggle and, in so doing, defined a new role for American literature.

    A weakness of many of Ken Burns’ productions is the director’s apparent attraction to certain bold assertions by well-known commentators and a tendency to present them without explanation or context. Russell Banks, the author of Cloudsplitter, a novel about the fanatical abolitionist John Brown, declares, “We [Americans] are, as a people, radically different, despite our common history with Europeans. The elements that make us different are essentially two: race and space.” The statement reflects a dangerous approach. Huckleberry Finn is not simply about race. It is an argument against slavery and the outlook that justified it: racism.

    While the Civil War was necessary to abolish the institution, racist ideology has not disappeared. Huckleberry Finn was not simply an attack on the institution, which was by the time of its publication two decades gone, but more fundamentally on the ideology, which was still widespread.

    One has to agree with the statement made by William Styron, author of The Confessions of Nat Turner, about Twain’s masterpiece: “All a man ever had to do to achieve immortality was to write a book like Huckleberry Finn, which in the end is sort of a hymn without sentimentality to the solidarity of the human race and it has its significance in that, period.”

    Ron Powers, a writer who was raised in Clemens’ hometown of Hannibal, Missouri, is Burns’ most often quoted source. He is the author of Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore: Childhood and Murder in the Heart of America, as well as a biography of Twain. He makes reference to the enigma of Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain. He makes an interesting comment on the origin of the name, “Mark Twain.” Mississippi Riverboat pilots required constant soundings of the depth of the water in order to navigate. One fathom, or six feet, was “half twain,” and a depth of two fathoms was regarded as safe water, known as “mark twain.” Powers notes that “mark twain” is the point at which the safe and the dangerous meet. According to Powers, this is where Mark Twain’s writing is situated: on the “edge of safety and danger.”

    Powers later argues for a split between the personalities of Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain. He calls Twain an “untamable rogue, a barely restrainable id that Sam could let out of the bottle ... but sometimes he came out when Sam least expected it.” At best this is a bit overstated. At worst it becomes one in a series of psychologically-oriented schemas which serve to cast doubt on the validity of Twain’s later, more critical writings. This emerges in the second installment of the series.

    Of course there is an enormous contradiction in Mark Twain’s life and career. The literary and financial success Twain enjoyed allowed him to live the life of the socially elite. He married into wealth and even though his wife was in many ways enlightened, she was conventional in other ways and religious. At the same time it can’t be denied that Olivia— “Livy”—did everything she could to create the conditions in which Twain could write his masterpiece, Huckleberry Finn.

    When Huckleberry Finn was released it was a huge success. Twain’s popularity grew even more. Of his situation, he later said, “I am out of the woods. It seems like everything I touch turns to gold. I’m frightened at the proportions of my prosperity.” This leads into the portentous introduction to the second part of the series, as the narrator ominously declaims that Clemens could not have imagined “in his wildest nightmares” the extent of the personal tragedies he would face.

    Maudlin view of Clemens’ personal life

    Huckleberry Finn is at the center of Mark Twain’s creative life. Its place in the American literary pantheon was, and still is, beyond dispute. Its publication was the high point both of Clemens’ literary career and his personal life. His family’s wealth and health seemed assured. He was never happier. Burns’ documentary makes the point that this period marked a watershed for Mark Twain. First, he seemed to become infected with the same “get-rich-quick fever” that he lampooned in The Gilded Age. He invested recklessly and injudiciously in schemes that became an ever-increasing drain on his family’s savings. He had to seek bankruptcy protection in 1894.

    In this same period, his and his wife’s health began to deteriorate. They spent substantial time in Europe to recuperate. Also during this period a number of his now less well-regarded works were written; they didn’t achieve nearly the popularity of his earlier writings and the revenues they generated could not offset his huge debts.

    In 1895, when he was almost 60, Clemens made a decision to embark on his most ambitious lecture tour yet, to earn enough money to pay off all his creditors, even though the terms of his bankruptcy did not require that he do so. He would travel across the Unites States and then around the world, with 150 engagements on five continents. The lecturing seemed beneficial to both his and his wife’s constitutions. At the same time his experiences along the way seemed to reignite his social passions. Of his visit through Africa, Twain commented:

    In many countries, we have chained the savage and starved him to death. In more than one country, we have hunted the savage and his little children and their mother with dogs and guns, through the woods and swamps for an afternoon’s sport. In many countries we have taken the savage’s land from him and made him our slave and lashed him every day and broken his pride and made death his only friend and worked him till he’d drop in his tracks. There are many humorous things in the world, among them is the white man’s notion that he is less savage than the other savages.

    In 1896, Clemens, his wife and daughter Clara arrived in England to be greeted by the news that his daughter Suzy was very ill. Olivia and Clara left immediately for the US to be with her, while Samuel stayed in England. During his wife’s voyage, he received word that Suzy had died of spinal meningitis. He was devastated.

    Ken Burns seems to regard Clemens/Twain as a man who, despite great literary success, endured a personal life full of such tragedy that it exacted an enormous toll on him, and eventually turned him into a bitter cynic. He makes much of the conflict between his life as a writer and his family life, particularly after the deaths of his daughter Suzy, then his wife and finally Jean, his youngest daughter. The implication was that he didn’t really believe the criticisms he leveled at the establishment, particularly in his later writings.

    Hal Holbrook takes a less maudlin approach than other commentators. “He refused to lie down.... He was a life force, a forward moving life force, a powerful life force.... He wasn’t a quitter.”

    As Mark Twain’s later writings became increasingly irreverent and critical, to the extent that Burns deals with them, he does so almost apologetically. The on-screen declaration of Ron Powers illustrates this: “I think he was very disappointed in the Christian god. I think his anger at the Christian god was the anger of a man who really wanted to believe.” This assertion has perhaps more to do with Powers’ own religious inclinations than with anything that Twain ever wrote or believed.

    Some of Twain’s more critical writings are obviously upsetting to Burns. He quotes Twain on the Bible, apparently as an example of his excesses: “It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere.”

    It is also significant that the series makes only fleeting reference to the social changes that occurred between the time of the publication of Huckleberry Finn and Clemens’ death in 1910, even though they were the subject of much of his writing. It was the age of the consolidation of the “Robber Barons” in the US and the growth of great industrial cartels in all the advanced capitalist countries. The stage was being set for the emergence of imperialism (and later world war), which Clemens strenuously opposed. He served as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League from 1901 until his death; a fact that also goes unmentioned.

    The period following post-Civil War Reconstruction in the US witnessed a rise in anti-black brutality and lynching, deliberately encouraged by the powers that be in particular as a means of dividing white and black poor. Clemens was incensed by this and passionately condemned any and all concessions to the racist organizations that carried out these attacks. It is in this context that Twain’s biting works on religion, such as The Diary of Eve and Letters From the Earth were written. The hypocrisy of Christian doctrine and practice was particularly odious and he attacked it mercilessly.

    Twain’s essays of that period included The United States of Lyncherdom, an impassioned response to the news of another Southern lynching, and A Defence of General Funston, his biting exposé of the tactics and morals of the US military in the Philippines. Also, The Czar’s SoliloquyTo the Person Sitting in DarknessTo My Missionary Critics and the passionate attack on both imperialist war and the religious establishment which attempted to provide it justification, The War Prayer. The omission of any reference to any of these later essays only serves to water down the incisive and insightful intellect of Clemens/Twain.

    The censorship of Mark Twain’s writings

    Any examination of the life of Mark Twain would be incomplete without particular reference to the censorship of his writings, a phenomenon which Twain’s works still endure today. The series mentions the censorship of Huckleberry Finn when it was first published. After its banning by several institutions, including the Concord, Connecticut Public Library, Twain responded, “That will sell us twenty-five thousand books for sure.”

    The suppression of his work was and still remains a much broader phenomenon, however, than Burns acknowledges. As a matter of fact, just over a year ago there was a nationally publicized debate over the banning of Huck Finn in an Oklahoma school district. During Clemens’ lifetime, other works were banned outright, such as The Diary of Eve, while still others were subjected to editorial expurgation and outright bowdlerization by publishers.

    His writings were deemed offensive on various grounds, including personal, religious and political. Publishers made editorial decisions that were essentially marketing and ideological decisions, some with Twain’s consent, some without, but which denied the public access to critical portions of his work. For example, in Life on the Mississippi, the chapter originally designated as Chapter 48 was completely removed. [http://www.boondocksnet.com/twaintexts/twain_lom48s.html] Its first paragraph:

    I missed one thing in the South—African slavery. That horror is gone, and permanently. Therefore, half the South is at last emancipated, half the South is free. But the white half is apparently as far from emancipation as ever.

    America and the World

    Mark Twain’s impact was not simply an American phenomenon. In this context, it is necessary to draw attention to a misquote which is featured prominently and used in the advertisement for Burns’ documentary. Twain is cited as saying “I am not an American. I am the American.” He did write those words, but he was actually referring to someone else and satirizing the very tendency for Americans to act brashly and ignorantly in their relations with others.

    The series documents that Mark Twain was quite aware of how Americans were seen by the world community. Twain is quoted from Innocents Abroad, one of his earliest books, published in 1869:

    The gentle reader will never, never know what a consummate ass he can become, until he goes abroad. I speak now, of course, in the supposition that the gentle reader has not been abroad, and therefore is not already a consummate ass.

    The point is that Mark Twain was in no way an American provincial. He was very critical of United States foreign policy and the growing arrogance of many Americans toward the rest of the world. He was a well-traveled and informed commentator whose writing deserves to be taken at its face without apology. He left behind as complete a record of his life and views as any man in history ever did, but Burns overlooks some significant later works, particularly those published posthumously.

    Burns’ documentary is a valuable contribution to an appreciation one of America’s greatest authors, despite its shortcomings. At the same time it invites the enlightened viewer to make his or her independent study of Twain.

    Burns seems to be in awe of Twain’s power as a writer and speaker, but he appears to hold an ambiguous attitude toward a number of Twain’s themes and deeply held convictions. While showcasing some of Twain’s more powerful writings, he presents the life of Samuel Clemens in a very personal and sentimental way, sometimes losing sight of the author’s internal consistency. That is, his consistent and unflinching exposure of hypocrisy. A critical viewer has to ask him or herself the obvious question: “If Mark Twain were alive today, where would he stand on the unfolding political situation?” The surest way to answer that accurately is to let him speak for himself.

    Citizenship? We have none! In place of it we teach patriotism which Samuel Johnson said a hundred and forty or a hundred and fifty years ago was the last refuge of the scoundrel—and I believe that he was right. I remember when I was a boy and I heard repeated time and time again the phrase, ‘My country, right or wrong, my country!’ How absolutely absurd is such an idea. How absolutely absurd to teach this idea to the youth of the country.—Mark Twain, 1907


    People prefer electric shocks to time alone with thoughts

    People prefer electric shocks to time alone with thoughts

    In the rush of everyday life, many people say they crave a moment of solitude, but a startling new study finds that people don’t really enjoy spending even 10 minutes alone with their thoughts.

    In fact, we find our own musings so unsatisfying that, in research done at the University of Virginia, many people chose to administer painful electric shocks to themselves rather than sit in quiet contemplation, researchers from that university and Harvard reported Thursday.

    Continue reading below

    “I was surprised that people find themselves such bad company,” said Jonathan Schooler, a psychology professor from the University of California, Santa Barbara, who was not involved in the research. “It seems that the average person doesn’t seem to be capable of generating a sufficiently interesting train of thought to prevent them from being miserable with themselves.”

    DISCUSS: Would you prefer an electric shock to quiet contemplation?

    The study, published in the journal Science, adds a perplexing result to the field of mind-wandering. Eleven separate experiments showed that we find our own thoughts painfully dull.

    The researchers first tried giving participants in a psychology laboratory anywhere from 6 to 15 minutes alone to think. They weren’t allowed to fall asleep, and they weren’t allowed to check their cellphones. Overall, people rated this idle time as not very enjoyable — a 5 on a scale of 0 to 9.

    The researchers wondered whether the artificial laboratory environment was the problem and instead gave people the same task in the comfort of their own homes. Their enjoyment was even lower at home than in the laboratory. Nearly a third of people admitted they cheated by checking their phones or listening to music.

    Then, the researchers either allowed people to sit alone and think, or do an activity such as reading a book or using the Internet — although they weren’t allowed to communicate with others. The people doing activities that distracted them from their own thoughts were much happier.

    Continue reading below

    Timothy Wilson, a University of Virginia psychology professor who led the work, was discussing the weird results in the living room of his Harvard collaborator, psychology professor Daniel Gilbert, and they began brainstorming another experiment. If people found it so unpleasant to be alone with their thoughts, what lengths might they go to in order to escape themselves?

    To answer this question, they started by exposing volunteers to positive and negative stimuli, including beautiful photographs and mildly painful electric shocks. They asked the people how much they would pay to avoid the shock experience if they had $5 to spend. Then, the researchers told the 55 participants to sit in a room and think for 15 minutes. If they wanted, they also had the option to shock themselves by pressing a button, feeling a jolt resembling a severe static shock on their ankle.

    “I have to tell you, with my other co-authors, there was a lot of debate: ‘Why are we going to do this? No one is going to shock themselves,’ ” Wilson said.

    To their surprise, of the 42 people who said they would pay to avoid the shock, two-thirds of men chose to shock themselves, and a quarter of women did. One person pressed the button 190 times.

    RELATED: The stress of not meditating

    The researchers were stunned. People were choosing an unpleasant sensation instead of freely cogitating on whatever they wanted.

    Despite a fair amount of searching, researchers did not find a single subset of people for whom ruminating on their own was clearly enjoyable.

    One of the experiments recruited people ranging from 18 to 77 years old from a church and a farmer’s market. Regardless of age, education, income, gender, or smartphone or social media use, people basically found being alone with themselves not very fun and kind of boring.

    That sheds new light on previous mind-wandering studies, such as one by Harvard researchers in 2010 that showed people were not happy when their attention wandered. It seemed reasonable to think that they were less happy because the distraction was inconvenient.

    “We’re trying to get our tax returns done, but our minds keep drifting away to an upcoming vacation, and as a result, we spend the whole weekend reading and re-reading the stupid 1040 form,” Harvard’s Gilbert, a co-author of the new paper, wrote in an e-mail. “Well, if that’s true, then mind-wandering should be an annoyance when we’re trying to get something else done, but it should be a delight when we have nothing else to do.”

    Quite the opposite, the new study suggests.

    So, are we just kidding ourselves when we say we love spending time alone with our own thoughts?

    Wilson wants to study the phenomenon further; he wonders whether people who regularly meditate will rate the experience differently. Schooler said the study suggests that steps could be taken to help people enjoy spending time alone.

    But maybe there’s a larger message, too, about the handwringing that routinely happens about the attention-consuming devices that have become almost like an extra digital limb. Maybe the problem isn’t our smartphones; the problem is human nature. We are in a mutually enabling relationship with technology.

    “I think this could be why, for many of us, external activities are so appealing, even at the level of the ubiquitous cellphone that so many of us keep consulting,” Wilson said. “The mind is so prone to want to engage with the world, it will take any opportunity to do so.”

    Related:

    • Meditation can improve health

    • Can meditation top medication?

    • The stress of not meditating

    • Meditation can bring health benefits

    • More coverage of health and wellness issues


    Carolyn Y. Johnson can be reached at cjohnson@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @carolynyjohnson.



    Sunday, July 27, 2014

    Feast On Your Life.

    LOVE AFTER LOVE

    The time will come 
    when, with elation 
    you will greet yourself arriving 
    at your own door, in your own mirror 
    and each will smile at the other's welcome, 

    and say, sit here. Eat. 
    You will love again the stranger who was your self. 
    Give wine. Give bread. Give back your heart 
    to itself, to the stranger who has loved you 

    all your life, whom you ignored 
    for another, who knows you by heart. 
    Take down the love letters from the bookshelf, 

    the photographs, the desperate notes, 
    peel your own image from the mirror. 
    Sit. Feast on your life.

    Derek Walcott

    Friday, July 18, 2014

    Physics classes may be just the place for rebellious teens

    Gefter: Physics classes may be just the place for rebellious teens

    There’s a great anecdote one often hears from professional dancers: As a kid, I could never sit still, they’ll say. My teacher wanted to put me on Ritalin, but my parents put me in dance class.

    I think we ought to tell a similar story for a different kind of troubled adolescent, the kind more burdened by angst than by ADD. You know the type: sullen, apathetic, bored. Perhaps she’s dressed all in black. Perhaps he’s failing geometry. This child’s teacher wants to put the rebel in detention. I say, put the kid in physics class.

    Despite the stereotype of the lovable nerd being embraced by popular culture in TV shows like “The Big Bang Theory” and on T-shirts like “Talk nerdy to me,” the truth is that physics is the rebel’s subject. It’s for those who reject all authority, even that of our most basic assumptions, those who know in their bones that the world is not what it seems and who refuse to take the common, easy route of living unquestioningly on the surface.

    Just look at Albert Einstein. He was exactly the kind of smug, aloof, unruly teenager a teacher would be happy to throw out of class. In fact, he so infuriated his teachers at the Swiss Polytechnic Institute that they would lock him out of the library.

    When he eventually — barely — graduated, Einstein spent two years fielding rejections from every university job to which he applied. The universities shunned Einstein because of his bad attitude — but it was exactly that attitude that allowed him to take the greatest risks ever taken in science. To question everything.

    The fact is, it’s never going to be the happy-go-lucky, well-behaved kid who overthrows 300 years of physics with the brush of his hand.

    Unfortunately, we as a society forget that. We transform Einstein into the mascot of the scientific establishment. “To punish me for my contempt for authority,” he said, “fate made me an authority myself.”

    The greatest physicists, from Galileo and Isaac Newton to John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, have been rebels above all else. You want to stick it to the man? Sure, you can dye your hair purple or wear a ring through your nose, but overhaul everything people thought they knew about the nature of space or time, and now you’re really getting somewhere. Yet we continue to shuffle the earnest and dutiful students into Advanced Placement physics class while the defiant misfits go smoke cigarettes in the parking lot. I remember, because I was one of them.

    I never took a physics class; no teacher ever suggested it. I showed no aptitude for science, I was failing math and I proved good at little else besides causing trouble. My teachers sent me to the principal’s office. But my father asked me how the universe began.

    I was 15 when my father took me to dinner at our favorite Chinese restaurant and asked me to help him figure out how something came from nothing, how a universe sprang into existence some 14 billion years ago. He saw in me a restless mind searching for an idea to land on. He read my dissension as the philosopher’s itch, or the makings of the scientific method.

    “I think we should figure it out,” he said, and my claustrophobic world began to shatter. I could hear the surface cracking. Beneath it I glimpsed what my angst had always urged me was there: a hidden reality unlike anything I’d ever known.

    Over the next 18 years I turned my passion for physics into a career in physics writing, and I found myself hanging out with the most brilliant minds on the planet — chatting with cosmologists, lunching with Nobel laureates. The point is, if you had seen me skulking around the hallways of my high school, you might not have guessed that I was destined for a life in theoretical physics. I certainly didn’t.

    So the next time you’re dealing with an angsty teen, quietly disobedient, clearly wishing for something more, give that kid a physics book — Einstein’s essays maybe, or Feynman’s lectures. Tell her that no one knows what 96 percent of the universe is made of. Tell him that no one understands quantum mechanics, and see if he takes that lying down.

    Stick the rebel in physics class. If he or she causes trouble there, so much the better.

    Amanda Gefter is a physics writer and author of the book “Trespassing on Einstein’s Lawn.” She wrote this for the Philadelphia Inquirer.