World Population

Re: “Will World Population Drop Far Enough, Fast Enough?,” FI, August/September 2021. Tom Flynn’s essay arguing that the earth is already overpopulated with us was spot on. In the mid-1960s, I had occasion to ask M. King Hubbert, he of Hubbert’s Peak fame and then the greatest living geologist, if he thought we had enough time to avoid the calamitous results of overpopulation. He had just given a hall packed with geologists, including me, a talk on the plight of humanity in light of our rapid exhaustion of geologic resources. His reply was curt—No—and was accompanied by a metaphor: a large cruise ship must slow down well at sea; it can’t wait until it sees the dock. What we are witnessing today—pandemics; migration of desperate hordes; global warming; destruction of natural environments; depletion of mineral, water, soil, and countless other resources—is the good ship Humanity crashing into the dock. The dock of a little blue planet with finite resources. Hubbert, over half a century ago, thought it was too late to avoid the catastrophic effects of overpopulation. I agree completely and, as Tom Flynn said in closing, “Wish us luck.”

R. C. Gibson

Via email

 

Ghastly Future

Re: “Avoiding a ‘Ghastly Future’: Hard Truths on the State of the Planet,” FI, August/September 2021. I commend Carl Safina for highlighting the critically important paper “Understanding the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future” (Bradshaw et al., 2020) and bringing it to the attention of Free Inquiry readers. In my view, it is one of the most groundbreaking sustainability papers ever because it advocates for “realism” about the scale, extent, and complexity of the environmental and socio-economic issues humanity is facing. Unfortunately, the paper has not received the widespread media attention it deserves—probably because we humans tend to look away from bad news stories. In fact, there are many evolutionary reasons we are probably genetically endowed toward escapism, distraction, and denial (Grogan 2013). However, full awareness of the reality of our predicament is the first step toward beginning to effectively address it, and so this paper warrants highlighting. 

Safina’s article strongly supports almost all aspects of the paper but takes issue with the final clause of the authors’ statement that the necessary choices to prevent the “ghastly future” will entail “difficult conversations about population growth” and “the necessity of dwindling but more equitable standards of living.” According to Safina, “more equitable standards of living mean not dwindling standards for all, but rather for many people, bigger and better lives than current inequities force billions to endure.” I totally agree with his proposition that empowering women is a silver bullet in terms of quelling future population size. However, humanity’s impacts on the environment are a function not just of the number of people but also of the intensity by which each one of those people uses the earth’s resources (soil, air, water, wood, lithium, etc.). If everyone alive on the planet had a similar lifestyle to the average Bangladeshi, our climate, biodiversity, oceans, etc., would be in much better shape. Over the twentieth century—the period when significant anthropogenic environmental degradation first became apparent—global population grew by a factor of four, while gross domestic product (which is broadly correlated with per capita resource use intensity) grew by a factor of forty (Steffen et al. 2015). Global CO₂ emissions per capita have increased 15 percent over the first decade of the twenty-first century before stabilizing up until the COVID-19 pandemic and are now recovering quickly (Ripple et al. 2021). In summary, as Paul Ehrlich outlined a long time ago, it is the interaction between population size and per capita resource use intensity that determines humanity’s overall global environmental impact. 

And so curbing population size will help (as Safina strongly proposes), but in addition we will need to curb our per capita resource use. Yes, Safina is correct that for the poor (“the one to two billion who don’t get enough food to fully function as human beings”), more equitable standards of living would be a marvelous improvement toward dignified living. But for the rest of us (that’s not just the super rich but also the huge and growing middle-income group), our per capita resource use is excessive. Given that humanity’s total resource use on Evarth simply cannot continue at its current rate, and in fact must be reduced, all of us who are above the poverty line will need to significantly reduce our resource use and consequently be willing to accept significant “dwindling” in our standards of living.

Bradshaw, Coery A. J., et al. 2020. “Avoiding the Challenges of a Ghastly Future.” Frontiers in Conservation Science 1:615419.

Grogan, Paul. 2013. ”Our Anthropocene Future: What Can Biology Tell Us about Our Future?” Free Inquiry 33(2).

Steffen, Will, et al. 2015. ”The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration.” The Anthropocene Review 2: 81–98.

Ripple, William J., et al. 2021. “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021.” BioScience, biab079, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab079.

Paul Grogan

Plant and Ecosystem Ecologist

Dept. of Biology

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

 

Does Prayer Work?

Re: “Does Prayer Work?,” Dariusz Jemielniak, FI, August/September 2021. Pray for stuff often enough, and simple probability will yield an occasional “hit.” The trouble with positively answered prayers is that there is no way to tell if the desired event would have happened anyway without the prayer.

The Gospels quote Jesus nine times (Matthew 7:7–8, 18:19–20, 21:21–22; Mark 11:24–25; Luke 11:9–13; John 14:13–14, 15:7, 15:16, 16:23–24) promising that you can get anything you want by praying for it. Not one puts any restriction on the objective of the prayer. Now, I am not saying that Jesus lied. But why would the authors of the Gospels report him as having lied?

It occurred to me that the existence of casinos is prima facie evidence against prayer (and ESP, prophecy, etc.). Wouldn’t have to be very good at it either. A long-term average of two or three one-number positive results out of every thirty or so spins of a roulette wheel would bankrupt the casino.

Is there a “Faraday shield” for prayers? Should casinos embed aluminum foil in their ceilings just to be safe?

Norma Posy

San Diego, California

 

Dariusz Jemielniak points out that the prayers studied were “rote intercessory prayers, repeated mechanically … without any major emotional involvement … or spatial proximity.”

A study addressing precisely those factors has been carried out. Over a period of several centuries, tens of thousands—perhaps many tens of thousands—of persons, mostly women, were accused of witchcraft, tortured until they confessed, and then burned alive when they did. Given the religiosity of the times, is it likely that even one of those thousands didn’t pray earnestly, fervently, and emotionally, not for health or wealth, but just that her tormentors be told that she did not shape-shift into a cat, or fly around on a broomstick, or curse her neighbor’s cattle, and she had absolutely no interest, sexual or otherwise, in the devil? What answer did they receive? Not even the courtesy of “Buck up, woman! This is all part of my perfect plan. Trust me.”

If earnest, fervent, and emotional prayers carried any weight at all, the outcome of the Great Witch Hunt would have been different—perhaps a Papal Bull when the first woman was accused, saying that there was no such thing as a witch, never had been, and never would be, so everybody go home and reflect on what a hideous mistake you almost made.

Jeff Matthews

Conowingo, Maryland

 

Because of my continuing interest in claims of intercessory prayer efficacy, I reviewed the longer version of Dariusz Jemielniak’s  article. He and coauthors found that recipients of the largest volume of rote intercessory prayers, Roman Catholic bishops (83.5 mean age at death) lived longest, but male academics (82.6), who did not receive systematic prayers, actually lived longer than priests (81.4), who were also recipients of regular rote intercessory prayers.

Only the comparison between bishops and priests was statistically significant, and this modest difference could easily have been accounted for by several uncontrolled factors, all of which were thoroughly discussed by the authors. The results for the academics, who were not routinely prayed for, puts the single significant finding in perspective.

This large sample analysis of potential beneficiaries of rote intercessory prayers over a span of thirty years shows the authors’ creative use of archival data generated by a naturalistic quasi-experiment. The authors are to be commended for their skillful examination of these public data.

It should be noted that Francis Galton was the first scientist to investigate the comparative longevity of clergy as a test of possible prayer benefits 150 years ago. His amusing article is reprinted in Paul Blanchard’s Classics of Free Thought (1977).

Of course, the faithful will never accept the conclusion that God does not answer (or even hear) their prayers. Still, it should be acknowledged that some devout religionists do derive help from their belief in prayer efficacy—but we know that God has nothing to do with it!

Brian Bolton

Georgetown, Texas

 

 

Fact-Theory Issue

I was extremely impressed with Wayne Johnson’s “On the Fact-Theory Issue” (Free Inquiry, August/September 2021). I have gone along with Gould’s definition in my writings, but I now understand that using fact for theories may denigrate the word theory, and the antiscience crowd could jump on this. 

My work has been with the hypothesis-theory issue, as I often see authors using the word theory incorrectly, as in this gem from a recent issue of Scientific American: “So we hypothesized that there was some element from the blood that was reaching these neurons to trigger the brain reaction. We tested this theory in a young, healthy rat.” The editors should have caught this error, but the authors should have known better. Authors just cannot use the common usage of theory, or equate the two, in scientific publications!

But I must point out another word issue seen often in publications. Johnson states that Newton’s theory of gravity shows why an apple fell down, not up. I disagree: Newton’s theory shows how the apple falls; why shows purpose (to make a dent in the earth?)! As a young Bill Cosby answered his philosophy-major girlfriend when asked why there is air, “to blow up volleyballs!” His answer was as good as anybody’s. 

Brian Myres

Littleton, Colorado

 

Wayne Johnson’s thoughtful exploration of ways to define fact and theory is enlightening. Facts, as observations explained by theories, seem reasonable, but there is no sharp division. A spherical Earth was, accordingly, once a theory, conclusion, or model that explained various facts. Today, that theory has become a fact due to direct observation. A theory has evolved into a fact! 

A geologist may explain perceived shapes and color patterns on a slope as a pile of broken shale. That explanation (theory) could later become an observation (fact) explained by the theory that the area was once under water. That the area was once under water might later, based on reasonable observation, be explained by the theory of plate tectonics. One man’s theory can be another man’s fact!

Stephen Jay Gould’s approach, calling it a “fact” if it would be perverse to conclude otherwise, avoids drawing a sharp line in shifting sand. We begin on solid ground consisting of former theories that are now manifestly observable. They are now facts that new theories must explain. (The only pure observations are subjective perceptions of colors and patterns—or other raw sensations—by individuals, which cannot be the basis of science.) 

A fact is not a higher grade of theory. It is a former theory made manifestly visible. Gould’s approach brings facts in line with common usage without doing violence to scientific usage.

Biological evolution, descent with modification, is the factual framework that evolutionary theories must explain in whole or part. Although overwhelmingly accepted, natural selection goes far beyond effortless observation and may be taken as theory. Thus, the fact of evolution and the theories of evolution! Observation establishes the fact of gravity, but the theory of gravity goes far beyond simple observation in its explanatory power. Thus, the “fact” and the “theory” of gravity. 

Dave E. Matson

Pasadena, California

 

Wayne Gustave Johnson  does not even mention one important point: evolution is a fact in all those cases in which it has been studied. Given that billions of species have lived over the history of Earth, no one will ever be able to verify the process of evolution in all (extinct) species, so, yes, in that respect it is an unproven theory for most species. But as soon as someone studies any particular species (or actually a few of its generations), evolution becomes a fact in this particular case. This idiosyncrasy of biology makes it both a fact and a theory. As a biologist I am certainly biased, but I am confident to infer the fact of evolution (!) from the observations that (1) all living organisms have DNA that (2) inevitably mutates and thus (3) produces genetic variation. A logical consequence of genetic variation is phenotypic diversity, and thus selection and thus evolution.

Peter Uetz, PhD
Center for Biological Data Science
(formerly Center for the Study of Biological Complexity)
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, Virginia

All too often I hear the response that “it is just a theory” from science deniers. What the scientific world refuses to accept is that to the general population, the word theory has no more significance than the word opinion. Because the scientific world refuses to use the word fact, I would like to suggest the use of the words scientific theory. This would allow the response to “it is just a theory” to be, “no, it is a scientific theory that requires demonstrable proof that can be examined and is repeatable.”

Charles George

Rochester, New York

 

I would argue for a new official scientific nomenclature. I believe the issue is not fact vs. theory; it’s whether science holds both “working theories” and “proven theories” (which taken together serve as the basis for “scientific method.”

I believe evolution is a proven theory, based on accumulated evidence, analyzed using a long list of historic immutable, non-changing facts.

Facts are facts because they are self-evident by observation. Either a stop sign is at the end of the block, or it isn’t—so “facts” are not “theory” issues.

As for “stipulations,” society has stipulated that stop signs are always painted red, based on a universally agreed stipulation as to what constitutes the color red. Whether a stop sign exists at a particular location is observable fact.

Just because there are many strongly supported theories still open to future revision (when and if new facts come to light) doesn’t mean that there are no proven theories for which the set of all possible facts bearing on its proof are so fixed and finite as to rule out any potential future revisions.

Theories never become facts; they can, however, become proven to be correct to such an infinite degree of certainty that they are no longer a working hypothesis, open to revision at a later date. 

Evolution is a proven theory, not a working theory!

John Williamson 

The Colony, Texas

 

Wayne Gustave Johnson responds:

I had two aims in mind when I wrote the essay. First, I wanted to stir up some discussion about the fact/theory issue. Second, I wanted to support the National Center for Science Education’s view that theories in science never become facts. My first aim seems to have been successful. The second aim was less successful. I hope that my essay could be a useful reading for an early course in science in universities and colleges.

Dave E. Matson of Pasadena, California, maintains that there is no sharp division between “facts” and “theories.” He notes that a spherical earth was once a theory that explained various facts. But now that theory has become a fact because of direct observation. So “A theory has evolved into a fact!” I would argue that it is not so much that a theory evolved into a fact. Rather, space travel now has given us direct observation, and this direct observation has enabled us to make a factual claim. The theory did not evolve. Instead, direct observation has given us the basis for a factual claim. The sharp division between fact and theory is maintained. Matson also supports Stephen Jay Gould’s definition of “fact.” I grant that if one uses Gould’s stipulative definition of “fact,” his argument follows. However, other scientists use a differing stipulation of “fact,” which maintains a sharp distinction between “fact” and “theory.” I do not claim that one such definition is more accurate than the other. But I do believe that defining “fact” as an observable maintains a clearer approach to scientific method.

Peter Uetz of Virginia Commonwealth University maintains that I did not mention that “evolution is a fact.” He poses an interesting argument, which finishes with this line: “A logical consequence of genetic variation is phenotypic diversity, and thus selection and thus evolution.” It seems that he has included his conclusion in one of his premises. Genetic variation seems to be solidly factual. But “and thus selection” is a premise that reaches beyond observation and adds a theory. “Selection” seems not to be an observable or even a logical consequence of genetic variation. “Selection” breathes the air of Darwin’s “theory,” not an observable fact.

Charles George of Rochester, New York, urges scientists to use the phrase “scientific theory” instead of just “theory” to escape the claim that evolution is “just a theory.” That is an interesting suggestion, because there are a multitude of theories beside scientific theories (theological theories, moral theories, etc.). George’s suggestion might help clear the air.

John Williams of The Colony, Texas, suggests that “Theories never become facts.” He suggests that scientists should talk in terms of “working theories,” and “proven theories.” Hence a proven theory would not be spoken of as a “fact.” Rather, it would be a theory so “well supported by all possible facts bearing on its proof” that we expect the theory to hold against all challenges. Evolution would be a proven theory. Working theories would be open to revision at a later date. Williams’s suggestion would avoid some issues, but it would probably be difficult to get his suggestion into official scientific nomenclature.

Finally, Brian Myres of Littleton, Colorado, correctly advised me about the meanings of “why” and “how” regarding Newton’s theory.

I appreciate the thoughtful responses from the several readers.

 

 

Jefferson, Jesus, and Slavery

In his interesting essay on Jefferson and slavery (“Jefferson, Jesus, and Slavery,” FI, August/September 2021), Brian Bolton rightly points out that the biblical Jesus gave Jefferson no moral guidanceon  that damned slavery. Bolton could have added that the same could apply to George Washington.

Not only did Washington own slaves (freeing at his death only the ones he owned; many others at Mount Vernon remained enslaved even then), but he actively tried during his life to recover those who had dared try to free themselves. According to historian John Ferling (Winning Independence, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021, pp. 528–530), Washington busied himself immediately after his glorious win at Yorktown in 1781 recapturing some of “his” slaves—and some of Jefferson’s as well—and returning them to slavery. This is the same Father of Our Country who also sought reparations over slavery when he was president—for himself as former owner from the British government (Adam Hochschild, Bury the Chains, 2006, p. 103). And Washington called the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, an “arch traitor to the rights of humanity”—for promising to free slaves and indentured servants! (Simon Schama, “Dirty Little Secret,” Smithsonian Magazine, May 2006).

It seems Jesus has a lot to answer for.

Ed Buckner

Atlanta Georgia

 

 

Third-Party Voting

Re: “The Morality of Third-Party Voting,” Charles Wukasch, FI, August/September 2021. Yes, “vote your conscience” is a good reason to vote for third parties. But there are other—perhaps better—reasons.

First, “lack of real choices” and “nothing ever changes” are oft-cited reasons Americans give for not voting at all. These explanations reflect the reality that neither major party will challenge corporate America’s established agenda, and each has become—in Charles Wukasch’s words—“barely indistinguishable from one another.” By contrast, in a 2005 study of multiparty systems and voter turnout, Martin and Plumper concluded that “turnout rates in multiparty systems are higher because a larger number of voters find their preferences represented by some party.” And as Lee Drutman wrote in Foreign Policy (“Let a Thousand Parties Bloom,” October 2019), today in the United States, third parties would offer alternatives to voters who don’t identify with either the “red” or “blue” ideologies of our polarized nation.

Then there is performance. With Congress’s continual squabbling and inability to pass needed legislation, its approval rating is 26 percent. By contrast, even among strife-ridden Israel or Brexit-torn England, their multi-party parliaments have higher approval ratings (45 percent and 37 percent respectively) than our pathetic Congress has. As Drutman explains, “multiparty democracies (with three to seven parties) perform better than two-party democracies. Such a party system regularizes cross-partisan compromise and coalition building.”

Finally, if—as Wukasch hopes—they are to “keep the two parties on their toes” and push them to take progressive positions, third parties must first get elected. But for that to happen, campaign donors and the media must take third parties seriously. Is that scenario possible? Yes, if—and only if—Americans themselves begin seriously considering, and casting their votes for, third parties, as I invariably do.

Mark Kolsen

Chicago, Illinois

 

Professor Wukasch’s overview of third parties (August/September 2021) is unnecessarily pessimistic. One new party has, in fact, replaced an existing party: After the Republican Party (organized in 1856) elected Lincoln in 1860, the Whig Party disintegrated.

And not all third parties “sting then die.” The Prohibition Party has been active since 1869. The Socialist Party, in its many incarnations, has been active for over 125 years.

The Prohibition Party threw two national elections to the Democrats and, indirectly, caused the adoption of the Eighteenth (“Prohibition”) Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1884, it deprived Blaine of New York, thus throwing the election to Cleveland; in 1916, it took enough votes from Hughes to throw the election to Wilson.

After their losses in 1884 and 1916, the Republican Party, although never very enthusiastic about national prohibition, made a tactical decision to support the Eighteenth Amendment as a way to disrupt and eliminate the Prohibition Party threat, whereupon the Amendment was promptly adopted.

James Hedges

Editor, www.prohibitionists.org

via email

 

I will gladly accept Charles Wukash’s challenge in his deliberately impossible voting situation in “The Morality of Third-Party Voting.” To me it depends on whether Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is available so that we can vote for my first and second choices (and even more, sometimes).

With that as my departure point, allow me to argue for RCV in U.S. presidential elections. This could—and should—be established as a replacement for the Electoral College (EC) in a Repeal & Replace movement I would be happy to spearhead.

It’s no good to just get rid of the EC because of the one good thing it does (only it does it in a bad way). The EC requires a majority vote (50 percent + 1 = 270 votes) to elect a president. Only it’s counting the wrong kind of votes.

That is why third-party candidates generally do not have a chance to win: they can only be spoilers. But they can do serious damage, as has occurred in my lifetime and yours.

People have a casual way of saying: “This is a democracy; whoever gets the most votes wins.” But in any race with more than two candidates, the winner need not get the “most” (a majority) of all votes cast. Victory in a three-candidate race could occur at 34 percent of the vote. That is not what most people mean by most. Things get worse as we add candidates.

RCV generates winners in multi-candidate races by going deeper into voters’ “hearts and minds.” Where else should we look for the answer?

RCV moves relentlessly toward a true majority winner. It’s like a run-off on the spot that welcomes third parties without the harmful effects we’ve all had to endure more than once in recent years. 

Bart Zehren

Evanston, Illinois

 

Charles Wukasch considers “The Morality of Third-Party Voting.” He overlooks what I consider the most progressive thing he could work toward to make his third-party vote meaningful, and that is ordered voting, where the voter can mark first, second, third, and so on choice. The winner is determined by discounting the lowest and recounting until the remaining top choice exceeds 50 percent. That allows one to vote one’s true first choice without the problem of “throwing away a vote” knowing that choice has little or no chance of winning. In response to Wukasch’s closing request for advice, I recommend don’t throw away your vote on choices you know will lose; pick the one that is least objectionable among those that might win. But in the meantime, do as much as you can to repair our election system to move toward ordered choices.

Alan Harris

La Canada, California

 

Charles Wukasch reports that in 2016 he voted for Jill Stein—one of “many votes who could not stomach either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton”—and accordingly has “a clean conscience.” I am not a fan of Mrs. Clinton and would have preferred a different Democratic candidate, but I am not happy with those who, like Mr. Wukasch, effectively sidelined themselves.

Wukasch seeks to clinch his argument in favor of third-party voting by suggesting that in a hypothetical close race between Hitler and Mussolini, it would be better to cast a protest vote for a seriously trailing third-party candidate such as Gandhi or MLK Jr. But I think he has inadvertently made the opposite argument. Hitler was incomparably evil, while Mussolini was not “slightly less odious than Hitler”—he was a second-rate dictator and bully who, on his own, could have caused only a fraction of the human misery that Hitler left in his wake. Would Wukasch, having voted for Gandhi at the price of a Hitler victory, still have his “clean conscience”?

There is always a choice to be made between two leading candidates, and an idealist who wants to make a statement in the hope that it will change things in the long run is effectively contributing to the victory of the bad guy in the short run, as Wukasch did in 2016. In the long run we are all dead, but in the short run, when the Trumps of this world are elected, some of us are dead a lot sooner than otherwise necessary.

Peter Rogatz, MD

Port Washington, New York

 

Charles Wukach discusses “The Morality of Third-Party Voting” without ever mentioning the most obvious and practical solution to the problems it creates: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also called Ranked Choice Voting. It eliminates the spoiler problem he describes. It allows voters to express their genuine support for lesser-known candidates, but ultimately weeds out those without enough support to be elected—those who would fracture the field in a traditional vote. IRV has been successfully used in the New York City mayoral primary, all elections in the state of Maine, and elections in many municipalities across the country. Other countries in the world have used it in their national elections. IRV encourages candidates to attract broad support across party lines.

Democrats and republicans don’t agree on much, but they cooperate on being relentlessly hostile to third parties, and indeed to any challenger who might credibly threaten their joint control over the flow of money and power. IRV would allow us to vote for the Green Party without damaging the Democrat candidate and thus handing the election to a Republican candidate who has much less than a plurality of votes. IRV might have encouraged voters in 1912 to vote for Teddy Roosevelt on the Bull Moose party line without damaging the Republican candidate, William Howard Taft. Woodrow Wilson might have lost. In 2000, Gore might have defeated Bush. In 2016, Clinton might have defeated Trump.

In Wukach’s admittedly far-fetched hypothetical scenario, if Hitler and Mussolini are each polling at 49.5 percent and MLK or Gandhi only polled at 1 percent, the hypothetical electorate would get what it deserves with either IRV or a conventional first-past-the-post election.

Reginald Neale

Farmington, New York

 

Charles Wukasch responds: 

Mark Kolsen hit the nail on the head when he wrote “third parties must first get elected. But for that to happen, campaign donors and the media must take third parties seriously.” However, third parties in the United States are caught in a classic “Catch-22” dilemma. Without donations from the wealthy, they can’t buy TV and radio time. Further, with rare exceptions, they’re not allowed to take part in nationally televised debates. Thus, they can’t get their message across to potential donors.

James Hedges points out that not all third parties “sting then die.” However, his statement that the only major party that “disintegrated” because of a new party (the Whigs vis-à-vis the Republicans) is merely an example of the exception proving the rule.

Bart Zehren and Alan Harris make a good case for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Reginald Neale makes a similar case for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). However, we also need to let third parties get their message across. I propose that there be at least one nationally televised debate that involves not only the two wings of the “Republicrat Party” (as we progressives say), but also third-party candidates. Let’s see what the Green, Libertarian, Prohibition, Socialist, etc., parties have to offer.

Peter Rogatz seems to have misunderstood me in my (admittedly far-fetched) hypothetical election scenario with three candidates, two of them odious, and one morally positive. I didn’t mean to imply that one should vote for the squeaky-clean candidate. I was merely stating an ethical problem akin to what philosophers call “lifeboat” problems.

 

Raca at Sacred Heart Church

Re: “Raca at Sacred Heart Church” (FI, August/September 2021). Like Timothy Olson, I too, at the age of twelve, yearned for salvation, so I attended Mass regularly. Then one Sunday the priest recited Matthew 5:28, where Jesus says: “But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Upon hearing that, I felt doomed, because in the whole universe there is no more lascivious, lusting mind than that of a twelve-year-old boy.

Besides imagining sex with Sophia Loren, I came to believe that all bad thoughts become bad actions. Thus, when I was older and got tired, hungry, and thirsty and imagined myself loafing for three hours, eating a large pizza, and drinking three beers, I had in fact loafed, eaten, and drunk excessively.

So, here’s the terrible question: How could I, a lustful, slothful glutton and besotted dipsomaniac, afflicted with the worst case of satyriasis, even contemplate any hope of salvation?

On the other hand, I wonder why Christ didn’t give us credit for thinking about good deeds. Why didn’t he say, for example, “If you imagine giving money to the poor, it’s the same as if you actually gave money to the poor?” 

I really wish he had said that, because then I’d be saving myself about two bucks a year.

David Quintero

Monrovia, California

 

 

Go to Hell

I started to read Gary Shugar’s article “Go to Hell” (FI, September/October 2021) but was surprised that no mention was made of someone who did visit hell: Dante.

Carl Saviano, MD

Northampton, Massachusetts

 

Renewed Reader

I am sending you my check in the amount of $35 (in one of your envelopes) to renew my subscription to Free Inquiry for one year. This might be all you want from me, but I feel the need to explain this act. I am also sending the added remarks by email.

Like most educated people, I subscribe to many publications, usually those that support my opinions. I finally decided that I have more than I have time to read and decided to stop several, including Free Inquiry. The August/September 2021 issue has caused me to change my mind. In the past, I have found too many of the articles in Free Inquiry to be by nonbelievers about why they are right and believers are wrong. I really don’t need any more of that, and I read magazines and books to increase my insights into world problems. The recent issue of Free Inquiry did exactly that in a series of wonderfully written articles. The letters to the editor continue to reflect the level of intelligence on the part of your readers.

Finally, my compliments to the authors of all the articles and to the editors who selected them for the August/September 2021 issue of Free Inquiry and to the demonstrated intelligence of the readers in their letters to the editor. I am looking forward to more of the same in the future.

James M. (Jim) Murray, PhD (Economics)
Professor Emeritus UWGB
Green Valley, Arizona