The Evolution of Christmas

The meaning of Christmas has changed over the years. Instead of a dry three-page essay on the (d)evolution of Christmas, here's a simple three-point illustration.

Big Bang (1AD-ca.1700AD)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have life everlasting." (John 3:16)

Reptilian Age (1700AD-2000AD)
"Give some, take some. Be nice, take more."

Homo Modernicus (2000AD--?)

Not "Hot" In Swahili

It's +33 degrees Celcius in Dar es Salaam, but it's not hot. Well, not in Finnish anyway. Hot in Finnish is kuuma. Unfortunately, kuuma is also a Swahili word meaning something quite different -- it's a part of human anatomy, woman's anatomy to be more precise.

So all the Finns here say it's lämmin (warm).

To spice things up further, the Finnish No onpa kuuma! means "Wow it's hot!" But no onpa, when one says it quickly, sounds a lot the Swahili word namba which means "may I have?". Summa summarum: shouting No onpa kuuma! in public (like in a restaurant during peak hours) will raise a few eyebrows and cause a chainreaction of chuckles.

Bernhard Lohse's History of Doctrine (3 of 3)

“Who do you say that I am?”

A Short History of Christian Doctrine opened with Jesus’ famous question: “Who do you say I am?” (Mt. 16:15). In the final paragraph we return to this question:

“Thus today’s generation in the church, no less than the former generation, is faced with the task of giving through its witness in word and deed an answer to the question which the Lord once directed to the disciples, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ The answer to this question must be given in a new way. But if it proceeds from faith it will be given in unity with the faith and the confession of the fathers.” (p. 246-7.)

The Revised Edition, however, does not end here; as said, the author adds a short account of the Second Vatican Council. This accounts ends with a similar paragraph to the one quoted above. It is, in fact, nearly identical, making the slight alterations ever more visible. The reading experience ends in an approving smile.

“So the task placed before the contemporary generation of the church is not less than that of its predecessors. In word and deed it must give an answer to the question that the Lord at one time put to the disciples: ‘Who then do you say I am?’ The answer to this question must be given in new ways. But when it issues from faith, it must issue from the unity of faith and the confession of the Father.” (p. 249.)

The smile is, however, soon superseded by a thoughtful expression. One question, above all, was left unanswered.

Dogma vs. divine mystery?

It was not, indeed, the responsibility of the book to give an answer to it, although the question itself virtually leaped from the pages. At various points the relationship of dogma and divine mystery was mentioned, but not clarified.

For instance: “[T]he basic decisions of the Trinitarian controversy and the christological definitions of Chalcedon are alike in this, that in neither case was any attempt made to unravel the mystery of God. What was attempted was the reformulation and confession of the inherited faith of Christianity vis à vis the questions which had been raised.” (p. 99, italics added.) And: “[T]he ancient church with its dogmas did not want to plumb the mystery of the divine person”, but “that it meant to confess its faith with reference to certain newly raised problems” (p. 230, italics added).

It may be asked: What is the difference? Where and how does one draw the line between “confessing the faith dogmatically” and “unraveling or plumbing the mystery”? This overarching question can be broken into smaller questions: What is mystery? What does “plumbing” or “unraveling” mystery mean?

The relationship between dogma and mystery is one of the numerous questions that profoundly intrigue me and to which, pray, some light may be added during the new round of theological studies I have enter.

Bernhard Lohse's History of Doctrine (2 of 3)

Lohse's Lutheran lenses

“Augustine emphasized the element of certainty of salvation. Of course, he could not teach this in the way in which Luther did… However, in comparison with the tremendous step forward… such defects a minor” (p. 117, italics added). We are still a thousand years away from the Reformation, but already these early notes hint at what is to come.

Later, the author discusses the theological differences between Luther and Melanchthon. Luther was aware of them, yet, the author explains, “because of his magnanimous disposition, he did not take them seriously except in a few instances” (p. 183, italics added). In vain does one search for signs of premeditated irony in this judgment!

Alas, it seems that the true hero of the symphony of the history of dogma is impervious to criticism: “The advantage in choosing Luther, of course, is that one then has a theology with, in depth and integrity, is perhaps without equal in the history of the church and in the history of dogma” (p. 184, italics added). Even giants such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas fall short “in depth and integrity”.

Lohse's anti-Catholicism

Every now and then one of the dissatisfied cords are introduced. Perhaps the most straightforward is: “All the appeals to tradition cannot alter the fact that nowhere does tradition count for less than it does in the Roman church” (p. 211). The reference is, of course, to the three new dogmas formulated by the Roman church: the immaculate conception of Mary (1854), papal infallibility (1870), and the bodily assumption of Mary (1950).

It would be very unfair to say that this is characteristic of the author, but at least as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned he occasionally fails to heed a “magnanimous disposition”. As in the following manner: “Not until the beginning of the sixth century did theologians begin to accept the idea of a bodily assumption of Mary. The leading motive in this connection was the notion that such an assumption would be ‘fitting.’” Then the pun: “On this basis, of course, a multitude of things can be proved” (p. 213).

It would have been only fair to clarify why they thought it was “fitting,” for the main reason, even if false, was (and is) not an arbitrary one. If, as the Roman Catholics believe, Mary was indeed vouchsafed from original sin and its effects on the basis of her son’s merits, Mary ought not to have suffered a bodily death, which, according to traditional theology, was (and is) the result of original sin. In this way, the second Marian dogma follows from the first Marian dogma “fittingly”.

It was, however, the finale of the purported-melody-turned-noise that proved too much to bear. Let what is to follow serve as the finale of my criticism as well.

“It must be pointed out,” says the author, “that Luther, as well as the other Reformers, did not intend to form a new church.” So far, so good. But then:

“Their intention was, rather, to reform the whole church, to cleanse it from ‘papistical’ additions, and to reshape it accordingly to the Word of God. During the sixteenth century this attempt was made at various points. As a whole it was unsuccessful, insofar as the Roman church rejected the Reformation. This is the reason Protestant churches came to be established.” (p. 185-6, italics added.)

Two points must be raised here. Firstly, as the Reformation means, in the last analysis, precisely the “attempt at cleansing of the church from ‘papistical’ additions, and reshaping it according to the Word of God”, the author ends up presenting a meaningless tautology: “As a whole [the Reformation] was unsuccessful, insofar as the Roman church rejected the Reformation.”*

Secondly, how is “This is the reason” to be understood? It clearly connotes certain guilt, and as such is historically a rather one-sided, naive claim. We can easily see how even the pettiest sect can wield such an argument in their favour. If, on the other hand, the pejorative connotation was merely accidental, “reason” remains an ambiguous concept and renders the argument logically problematic.

Part 3 of 3 here.

*I guess if the emphasis in on the Roman church rather than on rejected, the statement is not tautologous.

Bernhard Lohse's History of Doctrine (1 of 3)

This three-part post consists of a few selected reflections on A Short History of Christian Doctrine: from the First Century to the Present by Bernhard Lohse, who, at the time of this Revised American Edition (1985, trans. by F. Ernest Stoeffler) was Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Hamburg University in Germany.

The “ebb and flow” of theology, i.e. the law of undulation between opposite extremes, especially in the chapters on the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christology, produces a certain dizziness in the reader, as I knew by experience it would. A roller-coaster affects the head and stomach, be it theological or secular in nature.

In avoidance of further disorientation and of merely reproducing the minute details of the development of this or that dogma, in this paper I shall instead make a few more general observations – observations, which are not totally free of criticism. “Lohse’s Lutheran lenses”, so to speak, distorted my view.

What is dogma/doctrine?

The author opens the book with two splendid quotes, one from Jesus in Matthew’s gospel and another from Maximus the Confessor. Respectively, “Who do you say that I am?” and, “Keeping silent about dogma means denying dogma.” Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was. Their answer to this is the seed of all further Christian confession, for they must confess over and over again, and this can be called the history of Christian dogma.

Partly in order to capture a broader conception of ‘dogma’, Lohse leaves out infallibility as an unnecessary (Roman Catholic) attribute. His guiding principle, which is restated throughout the book, is commendable: “If it is not a characteristic of dogma that each age is concerned not merely with adding yet another insight to those of the past but with apprehending anew the totality of the Christian faith, this is true also of the present age” (p. 238-9). “New dogma” is not simply “added”, but it influences the whole faith and requires anew a total commitment.

Unfortunately Lohse feels he needs to juxtapose this insight with the Roman Catholic position, or what he takes to be it: “If it is apparent anywhere it is apparent in the history of the Reformation that the affirmations of the Christian faith are not a depositum fidei [treasury of faith] entrusted to the church, but that in each new instance they demand a total commitment” (p. 158-9). And: “[T]he idea that something new is merely added to earlier confessions simply does not accord with the facts of history” (p. 16).

As a non-Catholic what concerns me here is that the Roman Catholic view seems misrepresented. In fact, what the author offers as the “better” understanding could easily serve as a precise description of a modern-day Roman Catholic theologian’s understanding of depositum fidei and the task of the Magisterium and the Holy Office:

“It is not enough, therefore, to insist upon the continuity of the history of dogma: it must also be emphasized that in every epoch the totality of the Christian confession again hangs in the balance. Progress in the history of dogma does not mean simply that the treasury of Christian insight grows; it means, rather, that in every new day and every new situation everything that was inherited must be won anew.” (p. 17.)

Interestingly, the author states in the very beginning of his preface to the Revised American Edition that “many changes have taken place … as regards my won attitude to certain aspects, particularly insofar as modern Roman Catholicism is concerned” (p. ix).

What, exactly, there aspects are and how, exactly, has his attitude changed is not elaborated on. Content-wise the new edition leaves the original unaltered; the anti-Catholic undercurrent (to which we return later) prevails. That the new edition includes “an account of the significance of the Second Vatican Council” (p. x) is a mild overstatement, as this “account” consists of a mere page and a half. The only unambiguous appraisal offered within it concerns the Council’s “remarkable opening toward the other churches” (p. 248).

Dogma vs. speculative theology?

The new preface does, however, include a most salutary principle that, I felt, Lohse held to faithfully throughout his study: “If it is true that the history of dogma is not to be equated with the history of theology, the time is not yet come to incorporate the latest theological developments into a history of dogma” (p. x).

Barth, Bultmann, Tillich, and many others are not credited with special attention, and no account whatsoever is given to movements such as the theology of the death of God, the theology of revolution, the theology of liberation, black theology, process theology, or feminist theology. From the point of view of a history of dogma the time is not ripe for an assessment of their significance, although church history or the history of theology may consider them integral.

The dividing criteria is founded upon the concept of dogma: “Dogma is more that this or that opinion of one or the other theologian; rather, dogma is what the church believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and in dealing with specific contemporary problems” (p. ix). The author keeps well within these limits. I can attest in sync with Review and Expositor that his treatment is “distinguished for its clarity and selectivity” (back cover).

Interpretation vs. criticism of dogma?

The history of dogma is not to be equated with the history of theology. We may add, and the author does add, that “the history of dogma and the criticism of dogma should at least be methodologically separated; they must not fuse into one” (p. 18). “Not criticism, but interpretation of dogmas, is the task of the historian of dogma” (p. 19).

Up to the Reformation era the author succeeds remarkably well in light of this self-erected principle. Especially uplifting was his account of figures posthumously credited with the dubious title of “heretic”. They are not demonized: even the wisest can believe error, even dangerous error, and yet be driven by authentic pastoral concern, for instance, in the case of Origen (p. 45-8) or Pelagius (p. 106-110). But as we approach the beginnings of Lutheranism, “the cleansing of the gospel”, a change in tone can be detected.

The new tone, upon careful listening, betrays two opposite cords: a satisfied one and a dissatisfied one. The former is attached to the person of Luther and the latter to Roman Catholicism in general and the Council of Trent and recent mariological developments in particular. Unsurprisingly these two opposite cords do not produce, in the ears of the listener, a satisfactory melody, but a rather dissatisfactory noise. I had to struggle to remain sympathetic toward the composer.

Part 2 of 3 here.

All is Well in Africa...

...Well, at least as far as I am concerned, that is. One major reason behind my wellbeing is the fact that my nephew, Benjamin, and my niece, Daniella, are so adorable. Daniella, the little princess, can walk! She is barely 11 months old. Benjy's vocabulary is extensive and he is a very brave boy. I guess our honeymoon is over, for the other day Benjy asked his dad: "When is Uncle Jason going back home?"

Posting will be more sporadic in December. I'm trying to cut down on time spent on the Internet -- which is not that difficult considering that I arrived without a personal computer to a land that has a somewhat unreliable network. (Isi: Ruokomäet tulee 17. päivä. Toisin sanoen on vielä reilu viikko aikaa löytää mulle läppäri, jossa toimii ainakin Word...)

Tomorrow To Tanzania

This is my last day in Finland. I fly tomorrow morning. Ethiopian Airlines... will take me from Frankfurt to Addis Ababa and from Addis Ababa to Dar es Salaam. Better that than Somalian Airlines, I guess, but the adventure might begin sooner than planned. (Experience with Ethiopian Airlines, anybody?)

I've been so busy with all the preparations, the move, the dissertation plan, the ECLD seminar, etc. that I haven't had much time to think about it that much. Little by little it's sinking in. The darker the weather outside becomes (I'm looking out at grey sky and grey lousy-excuse-for-snow) the wider my smile. I'm super excited. In two days I will see these two little children, Daniella and Benjy. Benjy: Jasu-setä tuo sulle sulkaajoulukalenterin! [Trans. Uncle Jason is bringing you a chocolate Christmas calendar!]

100 Things My Parents Taught Me

I've compiled a list of one hundred good things my parents taught me over the years, either consciously or unconsciously, by word or by setting an example.

25 things my Mother taught me...

1. how to cross-stitch
2. to think about the meaning of words
3. about generosity
4. to ask questions
5. how to give someone a massage
6. how to get the thread through the needle
7. to listen to music
8. how to iron clothes
9. how to drive to Siuntio [a town near Helsinki]
10. how to clean the bathroom
11. how to wash dishes
12. to appreciate Bev Doolittle's art
13. how to use a baseball glove
14. to remember to take my key
15. how to make a snow man
16. to drink coffee with chocolate cake
17. how to tell the (digital) time [TV guide]
18. how to eat with chop-sticks
19. how to make my bed
20. how to decorate a Christmas tree
21. how to floss
22. to bring my friends over
23. to ask for big things [virtues] in prayer
24. nine ways to pronounce "Caipiroska"
25. how to fill up the gas tank

25 things my Father taught me...

1. how to hunt for wild game
2. how to fish
3. about the effect of a sincere apology
4. how to gut a rabbit
5. to enjoy a sauna
6. that there's no need to cuss
7. how to paddle [canoe, not rowing boat]
8. about simplicity [economy wise]
9. to not talk to my children about their mother disrespectfully
10. how to tie my ice-skates
11. how to drive a tractor
12. to eat porridge
13. to drink coffee with sandwiches
14. how to light a fire
15. how to weild a knife
16. to tell jokes [alas!]
17. how to say "shithead" in sign language
18. to pray behind closed doors
19. how to use a chainsaw
20. that Alabama is a state
21. that water expands as it freezes
22. not to stress about money
23. that relatives are always welcome
24. how to use the laminating machine
25. how to tie a tie

25 things they both taught me...

1. to foster an interest in and a respect for nature and animals
2. about the importance of a personal relationship with God
3. to talk about things
4. to taste everything
5. how to play the piano [I wish!]
6. about the magnificent sport called ice-hockey
7. to apply for jobs
8. how to read
9. to enjoy reading books
10. not to measure things in money
11. to enjoy watching "funniest home videos"
12. to drink with moderation
13. to enjoy traveling [wasn't very difficult]
14. that God can do miracles
15. how to properly pack a suit-case
16. creativity
17. an appreciation of the American Indian culture
18. to prefer public transportation if possible
19. to take care of personal hygiene
[20-25]: Looking forward to see what these will be!

25 advices I should've listened to...

1. "Don't slouch." [tall man's problem]
2. "If you have nothing good to say, don't say anything."
3. "Go to sleep."
4. "Get up early."
5. "Stay away from porn."
6. "Don't take more than you can eat."
7. "Get off the computer."
[8-25]: I can't remember, I wasn't paying attention.

(Next post: 100 vices my parents taught me ... just kidding!)

Top Gear: Mika Häkkinen as Driving Instructor

This was brilliant. Mika Häkkinen, the two time F1 world champion, taught James, the co-host of Top Gear, how to race. Watch clip (11 mins): link here.


I laughed so many times. Mika and James' dialogue is hilarious at times. Here's an example.

James [in the passenger seat]: "Are you thinking through these corners or do you just feel it and you know?"

Mika [behind the wheel]: "No. Honestly what's going on is that we are going really, really slowly."

James [in disbelief]: "Are we?"

Mika [as serious as a Finn can be]: "Yeah."

There's only one disclaimer: in Finland we don't drink "hot raindeer blood". Otherwise the analysis was quite accurate. Enjoy the clip!

Virtuous Leadership

Updates on two Virtuous Leadership related projects:

(1) Virtuous Leadership blog

The blog Hyvejohtajuus (Virtuous Leadership in Finnish) a couple of good friends and I launched a little over a half a year ago is doing great. We can see from the visit statistics that readership is steadily growing. At start it was mostly our friends and acquaintances. Now, more and more people are finding it, and, what is important and encouraging, they are returning to it every week (the articles are published weekly).

We have four regular contributors - an economist/lawyer, an engineer, a political scientist/business major, and a theologian - and a monthly Guestbook-article is written by specialists of various fields. The articles, both the regular articles and the Guestbook-articles, deal with leadership and ethics in various fields like economics, family, education, politics, religion, and - perhaps most importantly - the ordinary life.

The articles are in Finnish because we want to promote discussion in Finland and in Finnish (virtue ethics, though ancient wisdom, is not familiar to the Finnish society at least as far as terminology goes).

Here's a few published topics: "Marketing - Virtue or Vice?", "On Forgiveness", "Disturbing Fatherhood", "The Secret and Gift of Joy", "The Profile of the Healed", "How To Strengthen Virtues?" etc.

We have some extremely interesting Guestbook-articles coming up. I personally can't wait.

(2) Virtuous Leadership translation project

Alexandre Havard's Virtuous Leadership is being translated into a dozen or so languages, Finnish included. I've been lucky to be a part of the Finnish translation team.

The translation has been ready for some time, but we want to make it perfect so we've been proof-reading it over and over again.

Let's see how things take off. I'm very optimistic. Virtuous Leadership is a jewel, but we want to pass the blessing around so that everyone can benefit from it.

December Departure: Dar es Salaam

(Sirkku and Danny, Helsinki 2008)

It's official now. I'm leaving to Tanzania on the 3rd of December. I already bought the tickets. I'll be back in June. The idea is to study hard (in December I'll know if my dissertation research plan is ratified) and spend time with Danny and Sirkku and their kids.

I'm very excited! But organizing everything before I leave is going to be challenging. I'd happily meet with anyone who wants to have coffee before I leave. Just call or drop me a line.

Big Brother Joshua

This must be one of the cutest photos of my nephew, Joshua. The little baby seems very content, wrapped around both a warm blanket and Joshua's caring arm. Joshua even dressed him/her in his old baby outfit, a camouflage body that has "You Can't See Me" in yellow. One can tell that Joshua is himself surrounded by loving parents and family. How else could a two-year-old read this adorably?

Curiositas vs. Studiositas

Escapism: a topic I've been thinking a lot of lately. The temptation to escape reality is almost inescapable. It takes a thousand and one forms. Most people can detect and name their most common way of escaping reality. But for some, it is almost unconscious. Perhaps a lot of our TV and Internet activity (emails, Facebook) - and even reading, whether book reading or magazine browsing - comes down to this.

Below is a very long quote from Josef Pieper, a German Christian philosopher, who passed away a few years ago. He wrote a lot about virtues. This passage includes a lot of longish and difficult sentences, but it really merits careful reading. In fact, I've printed it out and laminated two copies as bookmarks, one of which I gave away. That way I can meditate on it more thoroughly. I strongly recommend thinking about it.

There is a lot of hidden wisdom here. And surprising insights. What parts speak to you specifically? I at least found a few sentences that were incredibly meaningful.

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

[The original meaning of sight and its distortion]

There is a lust for seeing that perverts the original meaning of sight and casts a person into disorder. The meaning of sight is the perception of reality. However, the “lust of the eye” does not seek to perceive reality but rather just to see. Augustine notes that the “lust of the palate” does not attain satisfaction but only results in eating and drinking: the same holds true for curiositas (curiosity) and the “lust of the eyes”. In his book Sein und Zeit (Being and time), Martin Heidegger says, “The concern of this kind of sight is not about grasping the truth and knowingly living within it but is about chances for abandoning oneself to the world.”

[The root of the distortion]

The degradation into curiositas of the natural desire to see can thus be substantially more than a harmless confusion on the surface. It can be the sign of one's fatal uprooting. It can signify that a person has lost the capacity to dwell in his own self; that he, fleeing from himself, disgusted and bored with the waste of an interior that is burnt out by despair, seeks in a thousand futile ways with selfish anxiety that which is accessible only to the high-minded calm of a heart disposed to self-sacrifice and thus in mastery over itself: the fullness of being. Since such a person does not truly live out of the wellspring of his being, he accordingly seeks, as again Heidegger says, in the “curiosity to which nothing is closed off”, “the security of a would-be genuine ‘living life’”.

[The effects of the distortion]

The “lust of the eyes” reaches its utmost destructive and extirpative power at the point where it was constructed for itself a world in its own image and likeness, where it has surrounded itself with the restlessness of a ceaseless film of meaningless objects for show and with a literally deafening noise of nothing more than impressions and sensations that roar in an uninterrupted chase around every window of the senses. Behind this papery facade of ostentation lies absolute nothingness, a “world” of at most one-day constructs that often become insipid after just one-quarter of an hour and are thrown out like a newspaper that has been read or a magazine that has been paged through; a world which, before the revealing gaze of a sound spirit uninfected by its contagion, shows itself to be like a metropolitan entertainment district in the harsh clarity of a winter morning: barren, bleak, and ghostly to the point of pushing one to despair.

[The heart of the problem; a "summary", if you will]

Still, the destructive element of this disorder, born out of and shaped by illness, is found in the fact that this disorder obstructs the original power of man to perceive reality, that it renders a person unable not only to attain his own self but also to attain reality and truth.

[The cure]

If, therefore, a fraudulent world of this kind threatens to overrun and conceal the world of reality, then the cultivation of the natural desire to see assumes the character of a measure of self-preservation and self-defense. And then studiositas (diligence) means especially this: that a person resists the nearly inescapable tempation to indiscipline with all the power of selfless self-protection, that he radically closes off the inner space of his life against the pressingly unruly pseudo-reality of empty sounds and sights---in order that, through and only through this ascetism of perception, he might safeguard or recoup that which truly constitutes man's living existence: to perceive the reality of God and of creation and to shape himself and the world by the truth that discloses itself only in silence.

--Josef Pieper, A Brief Reader on the Virtues of the Human Heart, pp. 39-40

Interpreting New Experiences

The other day my mom was taking care of little Joshua. At one point she took Joshua with her to the car wash. Upon returning Joshua home, the following exchange of greetings took place:

Cathy: "Hi Joshua! What did you guys do today?"

Joshua: "I was in a dish washer!"

Kalevi Lepojärvi: The Funeral

My Grandpa's funeral was in Kemi, Lapland, last Saturday. On our way there Danny, my brother, explained to Benjy, his three-year-old son, what was going to happen, what a funeral was. Benjy listened carefully, and concluded:

"So we are going to have a party because Vaari's dad [Grandpa's dad] went to heaven?"

"Sounds about right," Danny replied.


Above are my grandparents' eight children, my aunts and uncles and my father, standing beside their father's grave. From left to right: Tommi (42 yrs), Tarja (47), Mervi (45), Martti (60), Sakari (54), Antero (56), Seppo (59), and my dad, Markku (50).

Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

Two first-rank Oxford scientists, Dr. Richard Dawkins (atheist) and Dr. John Lennox (theist, Christian), debated Darwinism in Oxford two weeks ago. Dr. Lennox, a kind grand-father type figure, challenged Dawkins on his own scientific grounds. Astonishingly, Dawkins - for the very first time - said:

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God."

Melanie Phillips, a Spectator columnist, listened to the debate and interviewed Dawkins after it. "Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?" is the topic of her article. She speculates whether Dawkins' "theory is now in the process of further evolution -- and whether it might even jump the species barrier into what is vulgarly known by lesser mortals as faith."

It wouldn't be the first time a prominent atheist scientist turns to faith. Phillips writes: "Anthony Flew, the celebrated philosopher and former high priest of atheism, spectacularly changed his mind and concluded -- as set out in his book There Is A God -- that life had indeed been created by a governing and purposeful intelligence, a change of mind that occurred because he followed where the scientific evidence led him."

This was the second intellectual dual between the two men. The first debate, in which they debated Dawkins' most recent book, The God Delusion, can be seen here. The quality of the sound and the video is super.

Lapland Calls

I'm leaving to Lapland tomorrow morning. My Grandpa's funeral is on Saturday. I'm sure there will be plenty of tears, but it is a happy occasion: he died a hero. Next post, Monday.

December Tan

Pretty gross, eh? My scalp and chin never caught up with the rest of my body. (My brother's wife, Sirkku, is on the right. This was taken in Oulu in 2005.)

This was the first tan of my life, imported from Malaysia. It took "only" 45 days. I'm moving to Tanzania soon, December 1st or 2nd, hopefully, for 6 months or so. I'll return to Finland when the Celcius degrees are more tolerable and, above all, when the sun returns from hibernation.

Kalevi Lepojärvi (1920-2008)

(Kalevi Lepojärvi, 1920-2008)

In memory of my Vaari who passed away a few days ago, I'm re-posting an old post from March 21 earlier this year. I think it said it all:

My paternal Grandpa, Kalevi, is a very old man. He is a father of eight. As a young man, he uses to work at a saw-mill. It was important to keep your back straight when handling heavy pieces of wood. Many years of that left my Grandpa with an impeccable posture. In this photo he is, what, some 80 years old? and still standing proud and handsome. He and my Grandma, Kaija, became farmers and dairy producers. I still remember the smell of the barn. Years went by; they retired; shut down the farm. Later Grandma died, and Grandpa's health deteriorated. Loss of memory, yes. But he still stands straight, I believe. Good man.

As Uncle Jason's...

...solemn philosophical analysis took all the excitement out of the picture book, Simon's farts provided occasional entertainment.

(I'm still in Varkaus. I pre-set the publication of this post. Simon, I promise to start picking on someone else soon. But I made fun of myself here too, right? Besides, you know I love you, as you're my favourite brother-in-law.)

Gone Hunting

I'm off to Varkaus, central Finland, for the second time in two months. Today's drive will take about 4 hours. We'll warm up the cabin later tonight, eat a late snack, hopefully sleep well, and head out early the next morning at 6 am, or just before sunrise. Looking forward to three days' hunting. Last month the weather was perfect, but I fear that this time we'll have some rain. On the plus side, we have the autumn colours lifting our spirits. All those shades of red, orange and yellow. Sometimes the terrain becomes impassible as can be seen from the photo below, taken from our hunting trip last month. Click on it to take a better look! And because of the rain, the swamps, too, may prove more difficult this time around.


Next post, Tuesday.

Media Hypocricy?

Does the media reflect popular sentiment or produce it?

The question of the media's relationship with reality, whether it is reality's faithful mirror or one of its chief architects, resurfaces every now and then, especially after tragedies that are human in nature. The question is posed as a simple either/or question, but the truth, one suspects, is much more subtle and complicated. The answer to the question is certainly: both. But the more precise in and outs of the relationship remains unexpressible, at least for me.

However, one curious phenomenom can be detected.

When the question is asked in a frustrated or angry manner, as in -- "Do you not realize that your yellow journalism, your conflict-seeking headlines etc., cause strife in society and undermine public wellbeing, especially that of the young?" -- the media responds by denying responsibility and seeking refuge in the "the media reflects reality" answer.

This is a half-truth, which is to say it is a lie. The media does, indeed, reflect reality, but it also creates it.

On the other hand, when the question is asked in a sympathetic and praising manner, as in -- "What role did you have in exposing the misuse of public funding?" or "The media has helped to advocate tolerance, hasn't it?" -- the media responds by "humbly" accepting responsibility and concurs with the "the media effects reality" assertion.

So by alternating between two part-truths, two sides of a greater truth, the media can avoid blame -- yet attain praise.

But you cannot have one and not the other, because blame and praise are interdependent, and they both imply freedom, freedom to act in a proper or improper way. If you are nothing but a faithful mirror, you can earn neither praise nor blame. But if you are something more than a simple mirror, if you wield responsibility, it is possible to praise you. But if you can be praised, you can be blamed too.

Happy Birthday, Gramma!

(Lori and Lynn, sisters)

My mom turned 48 yesterday. She has three grandchildren. My brother and his family sent her this Bible passage (1 Cor. 13:4-10), slightly modified, as a birthday poem:

Gramma on kärsivällinen,
Gramma on lempeä.
Gramma ei kadehdi,
ei kersku,
ei pöyhkeile,
ei käyttäydy sopimattomasti,
ei etsi omaa etuaan,
ei katkeroidu,
ei muistele kärsimäänsä pahaa,
ei iloitse vääryydestä vaan
iloitsee totuuden voittaessa.
Kaiken Gramma kestää,
kaikessa uskoo,
kaikessa toivoo,
kaiken se kärsii.
Gramma ei koskaan katoa.
Mutta Vaari vaikenee,
Cathyn puhuminen lakkaa,
Jasun tieto käy turhaksi.
Danny tietäminen on näet vajavaista
ja osaaminen on vajavaista,
mutta kun Gramma tulee,
vajavaisuutemme katoaa.

Same in English:

Gramma is patient,
Gramma is kind.
Gramma does not envy,
does not boast,
is not proud,
is not rude,
is not self-seeking,
is not easily angered.
Gramma does not delight in evil but
rejoices with the truth.
Gramma always protects,
always trusts,
always hopes,
always perseveres.
Gramma never fails.
But Grandpa's ramblings will cease;
Cathy's tongue will be stilled;
Jason's knowledge will pass away;
and Danny's understanding is limited.
But when Gramma comes,
our imperfections disappear.

John Paul II Truck

The Tanzanians carry the flags of their heroes wherever they go. In Dar, for example, it is not inordinary to see a truck or a "dalla dalla" (mini-busses, the Dar residents' main means of transportation) named "Jesus Christ" or something like that. Knowing that I'm a fan of John Paul II, Danny sent me this photo today.

Economics of Two Cows

Most of you have probably seen this, but here is the updated 2008 versions of 21 economic models explained with cows:

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called
'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but
you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five
cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of
them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high
bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the **** out of you
and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part
of a Democracy..

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.

David Berlinski and His Critics

I met some very interesting people at the TriaLogos festival in Tallinn last week. One of them was Dr. David Berlinski. I had not heard of him before, even though I kind of follow the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design dialogue, but after the festival I did a more in depth study of the guy and found out that he is one of the leading and most outspoken Darwinism critics there are.

David Berlinski is a Senior Fellow for the Discovery Institute think tank. You can find his impressive CV along with a short bio here. His latest book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions, sounds counter-cultural to say the least.

What makes Berlinski stand out is that he is a self-proclaimed "secular Jew" and agnostic, not a Christian. Some say he is a "zealous sceptic, more concerned with false gods than with real ones".

Having a tendency to lose academic positions with what he himself describes as an embarrassing urgency, Berlinski now devotes himself entirely to writing. In Tallinn he said he has been fired from every professorship he's ever had. The reason? His anti-Darwinism.

Ben Stein's new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed includes numerous Darwinism critics - professors and scientists - who have been ousted from the "scientific community" for daring to question the status quo. A trailer of the documentary - which probably will never air in Finland (purported "low sales" as censorship justification) - can be seen here.* In the trailer, Berlinski is the man with the umbrella Stein shakes hands with and he is seen a few seconds later leaning back in an armchair in thought.

I must add that though Berlinski says that "everyone knows the evolution theory is a gas-bag" and calls evolutionary psychology "an enormous wasteland", he is not wholly impressed with the ID movement's attempts at explaining the questions that Darwinism quite obviously fails to explain. In Darwinism Versus Intelligent Design he states his independence from both. I recommend reading both the Darwinists' and the ID scientists' response to his critique. Halfway through the piece the podium is given to Berlinski who gracefully replies to each one.

I intend to attend a lecture given by the Dean of the Polytechnic University, Dr. Matti Leisola, titled Has Science Buried Religion? in Lahti this upcoming Wednesday at seven o'clock. The talk is part of a apologetic series offered by Studia Generalia.

* I checked the Amazon reader ratings for the documentary. It got 3 out of 5 stars. How so? If you look more carefully, it got only either ones or full fives, nothing in between. The pro-Darwinists gave it ones and the others a five.

Texting to Tanzania

A Sunday morning text-message correspondence I had with the Tanzanian branch:

Danny: ”Skipattiin Benjy kanssa Amana [kirkko] ja käytiin pyöräilyretkellä ja sen päätteeksi SeaCliffin rantakahvilaan virvokkeille. Mitä sinne?”
Jason: ”Aiaiai mahtavalta kuulostaa! Moi Benjy! Jasu-setä tulee jouluksi sinne. Mitä tuon teille tuliaiseksi?”
Benjy: ”Karkkia ja hedelmäkarkkia ja sitten lelun. Danskulle ei mitään.”
Danny: ”Heh... Voi sillekin jotain tuoda.”

Same in English:

Danny: “Benjy and I skipped Amana [church] and after a bike-ride are enjoying sodas at the SeaCliff beach cafeteria. What's up?”
Jason: “Wow ... sounds great! Hi Benjy! Uncle Jason is coming over for Christmas. What should I bring you guys?”
Benjy: “Candy and fruity candy and then a toy. Nothing for Daniella.”
Danny: “Heh... You can bring her something too.”

"Screw this," thought Joshua ...

"I asked for Gucci sunglasses and a Kalevala bracelet. Who do they think I am, a one-yeard-old dummy?"

TriaLogos in the Old Town of Tallinn

Taking the ferry across the Gulf of Finland today to attend the TriaLogos festival in the Old Town of Tallinn. The festival's program is very interesting again this year (last year I didn't make it).

I'm looking forward to many presentations, especially: Jeffrey Langan's "St. Augustine's City of God: Empire vs. Civilization", Robert Sungenis' "The Effect of Secular Philosophy on Art, Architecture, Culture, Music, Movies, Television and Literature, from Kant to the Modern Age" and "The Religion of Scientism", and James Larson's "What is Truth?".

TriaLogos is more than a seminar, it is a festival, and as such it includes plays, concerts, etcetera. I'll be back late Friday night.

Dissertation: Theology of Love

I have decided to continue my studies and reapply (back) to the University of Helsinki. In my thesis I studied John Paul II's theology of the body. In my dissertation I hope to enter one of the many doors opened by my thesis and focus on theology of love. The exact topic needs to be ratified by my professors, but I'm hoping that I'll be able to conduct a comparative study between the conceptions of love (theologies of love) of two great minds: John Paul II (Catholic) and C. S. Lewis (Anglican/Protestant).

The topic, on one hand, is superbly interesting, but on the other, superbly terrifying. I am not just referring to the academic dimension in conducting a study of this scale. What terrifies me is the topic itself: love. Let me explain.

It is an age old question whether knowledge or virtue constitutes the essence of a good life. What is the relationship between knowledge and virtue? When we say we "understand a thing", is it by virtue of knowledge or by virtue of virtue that we do understand? After analyzing the question deeper, many would conclude that the answer is both. And that knowledge and virtue, at the end of the day, are organically connected to one another. But what does this have to do with a systematic study on love?

Nowhere is this interconnectedness between knowledge and virtue more apparent than in love.

This poses a serious limitation for any study of love, a two-part limitation. Firstly, a true understanding of love requires not only knowledge of love, but also love itself, love as a virtue. The true studier of love must be a true lover. Otherwise we are dealing with superficialities. The innermost secrets of love reveal themselves to the scholar-lover more than to the scholar. Thinking about love is not a substitution for loving.

I believe both John Paul II and C. S. Lewis to be scholar-lovers par excellence, so the content their lover-minds produced is most likely of superior quality. So they are excellent sources. However, if the studier of their thought is himself not well versed in the school of love, this superior quality will not be penetrated.

The second part of the two-part limitation follows the same logic. Somehow the findings of a study of love -- a study which for argument's sake we take as successful -- must be communicated to the public, to the readership. By virtue of all what's been said of knowledge and virtue (in understanding), the deeper findings of the study will be comprehensible only to the lovers.

So I'm anxious firstly because the chances of conducting a successful study are slim and the topic, love, obligates the serious researcher to attempt something of a conversion of heart; and secondly because, presuming the study is successful, the topic, love, obligates the serious reader to attempt something of a conversion of heart.

A difficult situation. Yes, but what could be more important than love? I think I am the luckiest person alive if my study plans are ratified.

"We must remember that love reveals itself, not by words or phrases, but by action and experience. It is Love which speaks here, and if anyone wishes to understand it, let him first love." -- Bernard of Clairvaux

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part III

(The Atheist-bashing ends.)

1. ARGUMENT FROM PRESIDENTIAL IGNORANCE
(1) If I ask God to blesserize Texas, nobody'll mess with it.
(2) Nobody messes with Texas.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. ARGUMENT FROM C.S. LEWIS
(1) C.S. Lewis had a lot of good arguments in favour of Christianity ... at least that's what all my Christian friends tell me...
(2) C.S. Lewis wrote some popular books too!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE IGNORED
(1) Dembski, Behe, Kreeft, Graig and Plantinga are ignored by mainstream intellectuals.
(2) Only a fear of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE NOT IGNORED
(1) Mainstream intellectuals are paying some attention to Dembski, Bene, Kreeft, Graig and Plantinga.
(2) Only a growing recognition of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (II)
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM UNTRANSLATED OLD FRENCH
(1) "Mais pourceque j'avois déjà connu en moi très clairement que la nature intelligente est distincte de la corporelle; connsidérant que toute composition témoigne de la dépendance, et que la dépendance est manifestement un défaut, je jugeois de là que ce ne pouvoit être une perfection en Dieu d'être composé de ces deux natures, et que par conséquent il ne l'étoit pas; mais que s'il y avoit quelques corpos dans le monde, ou bien quelques intelligences ou autres natures qui ne fussent point totutes parfaites, leur être devoit dépendre de sa puissance, en telle sorte quelles ne pouvoient subsister sans lui un seul moment." -- René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode
(2) How could you possibly refute that?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM YOUTH GROUP MINISTER
(1) God is awesome!
(2) Like, totally, dude!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

8. ...

Actually, I found 300 so-called "Proof's of God's Existence" from the Atheists of Silicon Valley Humor Page, but the rest weren't very funny. In fact, many of them are solid -- really, no joking -- solid arguments for God's existence, that were just modified a little to sound absurd. And, oddly enough, sometimes after the modification they still sounded solid and not absurd!

I think I will post ten of each of these two types: ten the ones that are solid but twisted, and ten of the ones that are solid, unsuccessfully twisted and not funny.

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part II

(The Atheist-bashing continues.)

1. ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
(1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded man in that tortilla.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

2. ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) That is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
(1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
(2) That is how infinite wisdom reveals itself.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. CALVINIST ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY
(1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God.
(2) (insert entire text of a William Lane Graig article)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM TEEN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
(1) God is so totally awesome, dude, and if you would pretend that Creed and POD were good bands, you would realize that.
(2) Also, our Youth Group leader Skip once, like, cured a broken leg using only the power of the almighty Lord.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER
(1) God exists.
(Atheist makes counterarguments)
(2) You have my prayers.

8. ARGUMENT FROM SPAGHETTI
(1) A few people saw something weird in a bowl of spaghetti.
(2) Some Catholics believe it is the Virgin Mary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

9. ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS
(1) The Declaration of Independence includes the words "God" and "Creator".
(2) Only a Christian would include the words "God" and "Creator".
(3) Therefore the US is a Christian Nation.
(4) A Christian Nation couldn't last over 200 years without God's help.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

10. ARGUMENT FROM INVISIBLITY
(1) God is invisible.
(2) I can't see God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Proofs of God's Existence -- Part I

I've gathered a few knock-em-down arguments for the existence of God. They're quite intellectual, and some are more convincing than others. Now go and impress your friends.

1. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

2. MORAL ARGUMENT
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed when I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

3. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) (arbitrary passage from OT)
(2) (arbitrary passage from NT)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in my trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

5. ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

6. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

7. ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

8. ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

9. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

10. ARGUMENT FROM LOVE
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

The Power of Commas

I prefer English grammar to Finnish grammar. Finnish, as a language, is more rigid and its vocabulary is narrower. I'm sure a Finnish philologist -- someone who remembers the one million grammar rules -- might disagree. I like English's versatility. Commas, for instance, may be placed almost wherever one wants. In places where one takes a natural break. In Finnish, on the other hands, there are fixed rules. Certain words must, by default, always be followed by a comma, no matter whether there's a natural pause or not.

You might remember this example that well illustrates the power of commas in English. The two sentences are exactly the same, except for the location of the commas. And yet somehow their meanings are perhaps slightly different.

1. Woman, without her, man is nothing.

2. Woman without her man, is nothing.

Animal Update

Teemu riding in Siuntio near my parents' summer house. Their neighbors have a horse-farm and I was supposed to tell everyone what their names (both neighbors' and horses) are but I've forgotten. The children love them both. I especially like Teemu's unorthodox riding helmet.

There some sad news too. A few days ago some animal broke into the duck and chicken house in the home backyard in Helsinki and... killed them all.

We think it was a fox, but foxes don't usually kill everyone -- rather they grab one and quickly take off. So it might be a mink. Although I'm not sure if any live in the vicinity. A narrow creek runs by the house, so there you have the (required) water, but still, I'd be surprised if it was a mink. I was authentically saddened by the news. All the ducks and chickens had names, they were part of the family, and many visitors came over just to see them. The bunnies are alive, thanks to a fenced cage-floor.

I'm hoping my parents decide to get raise more ducklins and chicks, but we'll see.

Hunting in Eastern Finland

What a great trip. I just returned from a four-day hunting trip from eastern Finland. Up at 5 am each morning, coffee break at 11 am, dinner at 4 pm, and bed at 10 pm. We ate well, had good conversation, and walked for miles. We saw a lot of wild game, birds mostly, and I was able to bring one home. Jarmo and Jukka were, by far, the more experienced hunters and trekkers, and excellent company. The trip was a success -- in fact, we decided to re-do it before the season ends: we'll be heading back to eastern Finland October 17th.

Political Theory - Q#3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

The third and final theoretical question concerning politics I have labeled as the "Christian Politician's Dilemma". In truth, it is a universal dilemma pertaining to everybody, Christian or not, but Christians, I suspect, may be more aware of it.

As noted earlier, democracy does not guarantee just legislation, just as legislation does not weild the authority to say what is wrong or right objectively. It is the job of democracy and legislation to attempt to protect objective truth. But objective truth remains objective truth whether or not democracy has succeeded in enshrining it in legislation or not.

Now, there are two levels to morality in relation to legislation. The first level constitutes both what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong. Here morality and legislation meet. Examples of such are, for instance, theft, murder, and the like. Theft and murder are objectively wrong, and all countries acknowledge them as legally wrong too. The second level of morality, however, constitutes what is wrong morally, but not legally. Here morality and legislation may not meet. Examples of these are, for example, adultery (in Western societies) and hurting another person's feelings. Cheating and malevolent insults are both morally wrong, but you don't go to jail for them.

My question is: How is one to decide what things should belong to the first (both morality and legislation) and what to the second (only morality) levels? On what basis is something made illegal and another not, though both are wrong?

This distinction is a "Western" one, I think. As far as I understand Muslim theology, it makes little or no distinction between religion and society. Sharia law is the perfect integration of Islamic Quranic precepts into the legislation of the society. Thus, our example of adultery, among many other things, would be punishable by law too. This was quite common in ancient Judaism, and in Christianity not long ago.

Politics, as we know, is all about morality. Taking care of the common good. Rarely does one hear the naive call to "Keep morality out of politics!" anymore. However, "Keep religion out of politics!" and "Keep the Bible out of politics!" are still trendy accusations. These two can be stated in a more satisfactory way. What is meant by them is: Keep those parts of your religion or your holy book out of politics which we disagree with. For, of course, no one would say we need to legalize theft because it is forbidden in the Bible.

The reason I mused about the Christians being, perhaps, more aware of this question (two levels of morality) in society is that Christians follow the Bible. The two levels become more apparent to them because of this. The Christian Politician, as s/he pursues to uphold justice in the society, has to decide the criteria for judging whether a certain niche of morality ought to be "elevated" to the level of legislation too.

I once put this question to the ex-Chairman of the Christian Democratic Party in Finland. He acknowledged the two levels after he understood that making, say, adultery illegal would be problematic. But he admitted to me that he had never thought about this question before. "Well think about it, and I might vote for you," I said with a smile. A friend of mine told me St. Thomas of Aquinas has given this question some thought, but I haven't been able to locate where.

Summer Days Have Gone

Time to face it. Summer, though I didn't notice it begin, has come to a close. Although I do enjoy the fall colours, I'm not a big fan of the rain, the gray sky, and the darkness.

This winter will be different, however. Firstly, in about 10 days I get to take a 3-day hunting trip to eastern Finland. Secondly, I intend to escape the dark, Finnish winter and spend it in Africa. With my brother and his family in Tanzania, to be more precise. Before I can take off, I need to arrange some things at the university in Helsinki. It is my hope that I could begin my post-graduate studies here, but physically study - at the beginning mostly read - from Dar es Salaam.

By the way, nice picture eh? It was taken earlier this "summer". Jan, my foster-brother, decided to cool down in the lake.

World Record: 1,281 Markkus

Markku-named Finnish men, my dad among them, made history today. 1,281 of them gathered at the Senate Square downtown in Helsinki. Doing so, they broke the Mohammeds' record (1,091) in Dubai. All Markkus had to show their identification card (passport, driver's license etc.) to be admitted on to the Square. The event was a blast and the celebrations noisy, the Helsingin Sanomat reported.

Political Theory - Q#2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?

Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma

It is no secret that democracies don't always work by majority vote and are no secure defense against error or wickedness. As regards the first, influential lobbyists and the "court of public opinion" can so affect government that its laws and decisions do not, as they ought to, faithfully reflect the thoughts and beliefs of the people. As regards the latter, even when the first danger has been avoided, in other words even when the outcome of a vote is a true depiction of the people's will, it may still be blatantly erroneous or downright evil. Slavery was legal in the U.S. over the period of several consecutive presidencies, Hitler rose to power by majority vote, and so on. Examples of both vacuous prohibitions and wicked liberties are easy to come by even in today's societies.

This does not mean that democracy is not a good form of government. It does mean that it has its own hangups and defects. One (neutral) difference is that the responsibility of serious blunders is more evenly distributed than in, say, dictatorial monarchies. This is because more people exercise freedom and take part in the decision making.

One could argue, based on what has been said, that to improve a democracy is to minimize the risk of these two problems: (1) the misrepresentation of collective beliefs, and (2) the sanctioning of misguided (evil) collective beliefs.

The second of the three political dilemmas that bother me relates to (2) above. How does one contribute to the defense of truth in a democratic society? What role does law, private/public conscience, and their interplay have in this?

These are huge questions, and an exhaustive answer is beyond my powers. I take it for granted that, as the building blocks of society are individual human persons, change must begin there - here, within ourselves. It has become a platitude (at least among Christians) to say that the quickest and surest way to better the world is to better oneself. But surely this is the case. To live by virtue (whether this takes a conscious religious dimension or not), to raise one's children to recognize truth, beauty, and goodness, and to live a life that requires an answer -- i.e. inspires onlookers to think, "I want what s/he has." Over time, many would catch this "good infection" and goodness would permeate human life collectively as well.

Now, when private beliefs change, public belief changes - and when public belief/opinion changes, a pressure builds to bring legislation on par with the new situation. Initiatives are made, individuals rally and speak in unison, and once all the appropriate procedures (bureaucracy or revolution) is dealt with new laws are passed and reinforced. They must be reinforced because, as we remember, a minority - perhaps a considerable number - voted against it.

But then something happens. Often, over time, the critical voices disappear one by one. Public opinion changed and changed the law, but now a changed law changes public opinion. For unreflective people, the mere fact that something is officially illegal is enough to convince them that that's how it should be. Many Finns, for instance, think a 3-month-old fetus is not a human person because the law says it is not. Or consider the law prohibiting the physical discipline of your children. This has been illegal only a few years, yet the number of people who think this is an excellent law has grown considerably since it was passed. When a moral obligation or what is considered a fact is expressed, defended, and reinforced publicly, public opinion tends to conform.

In a nutshell, both - public opinion and legislation - affect the other.

What more can be said of this interplay? How far can we elaborate? What can be learned from it? How ought it affect the thought and work of a politician, Christian or not? For example, if there is danger of a bad law being passed, should the "wiser" politician use all means necessary, even overriding public opinion (see (1) obove), to defend reason and goodness, while trusting that eventually public opinion will catch up, as it were? Etc.