Atrocities and the Media

by Aron Wall Posted on April 18, 2013

If you're wondering about the lack of posts recently: for the last 2½ weeks I've been travelling on a research trip to Boston and Canada (to Waterloo, Montreal, and Vancouver).  The sashimi in Vancouver is out of this world, by the way.

Mostly I've been cramming my head with physics, but I did spare some time to read reports about the horrible news regarding the Boston marathon bombing, which killed 3 spectators and injured many more.  This was after I had already left, so don't press me for eyewitness accounts of traumatized civilians.

I also read the news regarding the lack of news covering Kermit Gosnell's "abortion" "clinic", in which poorly trained and unlicensed "doctors" murdered hundreds of babies (i.e. viable infants outside of their mothers) and allowed women to die due to malpractice and unsanitary conditions, which the Pennsylvania government received complaints about for decades but failed to stop. This, apparently, is not news so far as the mainstream national media is concerned, but due to the untiring efforts of St. Mollie at GetReligion, at least the media's failure to cover it is now news.

Apparently the journalists are worried that anti-abortion* activists will make hay out of this story, and so therefore advocacy of "women's rights" must, paradoxically, include suppressing stories in which—even from the pro-abortion* viewpoint—the rights of women to safe health care were most certainly violated.

One has to tread cautiously when making accusations of media bias, since it's so easy to be biased oneself in making those accusations.  As a moderate Republican who lives and works among academics in California, I would normally feel rather embarrassed to complain about this, since people would look at me as though I were one of those conservatives, who thinks that Fox News is a straight news source but everyone else is commie pinkos.

(Even though my political opinions are not the same as those around me, I worry sometimes about whether they have been influenced by the desire to look reasonable to other people when I explain them.  Compared to the historical range of opinion, any given time in America there is only a narrow range of acceptable opinions, and this range is even narrower in academia.  There's much less incredulity when my position is some sort of libertarianish compromise...)

Nevertheless, the fact that Fox News is tilted to the right doesn't change the fact that the mainstream newsmedia is clearly left-leaning on certain particular cultural issues, as I think GetReligion has abundantly demonstrated.  I think the media tries to be fair when covering presidential election politics, but it wears its opinions on its sleeve when covering hotbutton social issues.

One also has to be careful in defining what one means by bias.  There is nothing inherently wrong with: 1) media reporting issues which are more likely to be of interest to their constituents (e.g. spending more time on one party's primary election), or 2) straight-up advocacy or editorializing for ones preferred position.

These should be distinguished from 1') concealing relevant facts which ought to be of interest in order to give a partisan slant on reality, and 2') advocacy pieces which pretend to be straight news coverage, but are not.

In this case the news media has been caught out in a clear example of (1').  The sooner they correct their mistake, the quicker they can get to a world where conservative complaints of media bias really are crankish.

In the meantime, let us pray for those who died in these atrocities, for their families and friends, and for the twisted souls of the those who murdered them—that they would receive their rightful justice, and that God would grant them repentance, "so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6).

(*) Footnote: I refuse to use the terms pro-life and pro-choice on this blog, since I regard both of them as mealy-mouthed euphemisms.  There was once a time when real men and women were willing to state their opinions plainly, even if it meant they had to be "anti-" something, or actually mention the name of the thing they are supporting/opposing.  (I can respect the term "pro-life" when it is used as a catch-all term for "anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and anti-death-penalty", since in this case an abstraction is useful.  Although I do support the death penalty myself.)

The term "pro-choice" is even more Orwellian, since it completely sweeps under the rug the nature of the choice being made, using a term so vague that it could just as well apply to e.g. school vouchers.  Every decision to do anything can be characterized as a choice;  the term avoids grappling with the fact that this choice involves killing one's own flesh and blood.  The usual argument against the term "pro-abortion" is that the proponents do not advocate that all women terminate their pregnancies.  But that's silly, because almost nobody wants that.  Imagine if people who supported the death penalty refused the label because "we don't believe that everyone should be executed, so we prefer the term "pro-justice".  Clarity is sacrificed in order to gain cheap points.

Posted in Politics | 4 Comments

Random Stuff

by Aron Wall Posted on March 16, 2013

Random links I've run across in the past couple months:

  • Math and physics notes by Bob Geroch, about Gödel's theorem, topology, quantum field theory and other things.
  •  An homage to Catalan independence.  When I was in Barcelona I saw the Sagrada Familia cathedral designed by St. Gaudí, which they've been constructing since 1882.  They plan to finish around 2028.   I also saw some of his weird apartment buildings.
  • Theodore Dalrymple, a writer for the New English Review, who reminds me of St. Chesterton, albeit with only about a tenth the wit and widsom.  I mean this as an outrageous compliment, you should seriously read his essays.
Posted in Links | 7 Comments

Chastity: not just for religious folk

by Aron Wall Posted on March 5, 2013

Drama

https://xkcd.com/592/ [comic added later]

In this time and place, the secular world does not place a high value on chastity, which seems to be regarded as some sort of eccentric religious virtue.  So long as one avoids disease, and harassment in the workplace, and uses contraception to avoid "unwanted pregnancy", the only touchstone is consent.  (Since paedophilia is still taboo, "consent" is interpreted using a legal fiction that says that those below e.g. 18 cannot consent.)  Married types are often faithful to their spouses, but the unmarried do what they like.

It is true that there are some distinctively religious (as well as some distinctively Christian) reasons to be chaste.  But it is silly to think these are the only reasons.  Traditional sexual morality is not founded exclusively on mystical doctrines about God.  It is also based on practical experience, concerning some basic biological and psychological facts about human beings.  Facts which are going to operate regardless of your opinion about any transcendental realities.  That is why most traditional cultures have discouraged fornication, even those which have quite different doctrines about the gods and the meaning of earthly pleasures.  It is not because they listened to their priests, but because they listened to their grandmothers.

I will however have to assume one mystical dogma in this post, namely that there is such a thing as ethics, which commands do not harm your fellow human being, and that this rule is obligatory.  Furthermore, that one's fellow human beings includes ONESELF, so that the ethical person is first and foremost committed to human flourishing in the one example of humanity which they actually have control over.  Therefore, you cannot excuse a self-destructive behavior by saying "it doesn't hurt anyone else", because if you really love what is good, you will want to see it produced in yourself as well as others.  Besides, by destroying yourself you lose your ability to help other people, and cause anyone who loves you to suffer.

By the same token, it is insufficient if the other person consents, because people sometimes consent to things which are harmful to them.  You have to actually decide whether the act of sex would be beneficial or destructive to the other person.

Next comes the biology and psychology.  The first fact is that sexual passions cause an intense pleasure, comparable in intensity to addictive drugs.  There is nothing inherently wrong in this, but it does mean that we are unlikely to be very sober-minded when making choices about it.  Therefore, whatever principles ethics may suggest, they ought to be enforced by clear and explicit social rules in order to avoid ambiguous situations.

The second fact is that we are a species which pair-bonds through sex, conditioned by chemicals such as oxytocin.  Therefore, the usual consequence of sex is to create a strong emotional attachment between the two participants.  It may be possible to avoid this by deliberately shielding oneself with emotional barriers, but this is unreliable.  And what will happen if one person pair-bonds while the other person keeps their reserve?

Worse still, emotional distancing seems likely to lead to a sexuality based not on love but on a sort of contempt for one's own body, or for other people.  It's worth noticing in this connection, that lust is not always "love", even if by "love" we only mean romantic affection.  Like our sense of humor, lust can even relish cruelty, to oneself or others.  There is a reason why certain words for this act have become curse words.

For these reasons, the ethical person will refrain from casual sex, and will only make love in the context of a genuine relationship based on mutual affection and friendship.

Furthermore, these relationships had better be exclusive if they are to be stable.  Jealousy is another of those awkward facts about human nature which must be taken into account.  It's easy for people (especially immature people who are unaware of their own limitations) to decide that they are sophisticated and mature enough to handle an "open relationship", but the notorious instability of such relationships proves otherwise.  Besides, although jealousy is a vice in most contexts, I do not think it is wrong is this context.  At least, "free love"—the vision of an idealized (almost communist) human nature in which all can be shared equally among close friends, but no one is entitled to private relationships unsuitable for sharing with others—does not at all appeal to me.

Finally, if these relationships are to result in long-term happiness then there needs to be an explicit understanding that the relationship is intended to be permanent.  The alternative is to pair-bond with someone (or more likely, a series of someones), under conditions in which you can reasonably expect that you will eventually be strangers, or even enemies, to that person.

I did not date in college, but I was friends with several couples who dated and eventually broke up.  When people are emotionally involved, but not emotionally committed, it is a trainwreck waiting to happen.  From an objective outside viewpoint, it seems like the heartbreak outweighs the joy.  Modern dating practices are bad enough in this respect, but adding sexual bonding to the mix makes it much worse.

The other awkward little fact about sex is that it makes babies.  As commonly practiced, contraception is not 100% successful.  Even secular-liberal sexual morality recognizes the problematic nature of an "unwanted pregnancy".  Any time a man has sex with a fertile woman whom he is unwilling to marry, he risks making her choose between (a) having an abortion, or (b) having a child grow up with an absent father (and possibly a reluctant mother too).

I believe that (a) is immoral.  But rather than get sidetracked about whether there are "secular" reasons for this, I will simply point out that in any case it is a difficult and likely traumatic decision for the woman to make.  Another one of those awkward facts about human biology is that a pregnant woman's body is full of hormones trying to get her to feel a strong emotional bond to the unborn homo sapiens growing inside of her.

And as for (b), an ethical person should realize that the interests of children in having loving parents is a thousand times more important than their own interest in sexual or romantic thrills.  On the other hand, if in romance you are seeking the deepest interests of the other person, then this interest, like the interest of the child, is best supported by marriage.  A gentleman does not use a lady and then discard her when she becomes inconvenient.  Nor does he abandon his own flesh and blood.

This post is not intended to say anything against love.  Chastity is love: it wills the good of its beloved, by controlling sensual desires, for the sake of the beloved's completeness and integrity.

Posted in Ethics | 23 Comments

Unacceptable

by Aron Wall Posted on February 24, 2013

Many wonderful things happened at my church today, but as we all know the First Rule of Blogging is that one should always focus on the negatives.

Admittedly this Rule is in direct conflict with the Christian rule, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." (Ephesians 4:29)  Perhaps some Christian bloggers think that the Rule for what goes into their keyboard, is different from the Rule for what comes out of their mouths.  Still, there is a time and a place for criticism in "building others up"; I pray that the Lord would give me the right spirit and tone.

What bothered me didn't have anything to do with the church service itself; it was a flyer for another event.  It was a Methodist organized "Good Friday breakfast", with some speaker talking, and the fateful line was something like the following:

Individual tickets—$35.  Sponsor a table of eight: Bronze Circle: $250, Silver Circle, $500, Gold Circle, $1000.

There would be nothing particularly remarkable about seeing this sentence in an advertisement for a political rally, a theatre meet-and-greet, or a fundraiser for some other type of secular non-profit corporation.  Yet I couldn't help but feel like there was a contrast between the point of the event—which one presumes has something to do with Christ's Crucifixion—and the means chosen to finance the event and make it available to the public.  Perhaps, before mediating on Jesus' Passion, the organizers of this event should meditate on the following Bible passages:

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.  In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.  No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.  When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else.  One remains hungry, another gets drunk.  Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?  Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?  What shall I say to you?  Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!  (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

While this breakfast probably does not include a specific Communion ceremony celebrating the Lord's Supper, its purpose is still centered around remembering the same event.  We do not come to the Cross as "Bronze" or "Gold" circle members, we come as sinners saved by grace.  Nor is anyone excluded from the Cross because they cannot afford to pay $35 for a meal.  As it is written:

Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.  For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.  (1 Peter 1:17-19)

God will judge us all impartially, so we ought to be afraid to draw wicked distinctions between those who have the silver and gold, and those who do not.  The "reverent fear" has to do with the fact that God is zealous for his holy Name and will not leave people unpunished who discriminate in this way.

If the organizers of this event suddenly decide to fear God and respect the poor, there is an easy solution.  Try the phrase "suggested donation", and make explicit the fact that those who cannot pay are still allowed to attend.  Remove the silliness about different levels of prestige associated with different contribution levels.  And then maybe you will understand what happened at the Cross better.

It turns out that there is an explicit rule about this in the New Testament:

My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism.   Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in.   If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,”have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?  (James 2:1-4)

This passage of Scripture was instrumental in the formation of the Free Methodist denomination.  The other Methodists were literally charging people money in order to sit in reserved pews.  I saw some of these myself when I visited an old Anglican church in Williamsburg, Virginia (a sort of colonial "living history" tourist attraction), which has been in continuous operation since 1711.  It's rather charming to sit in the Pews reserved for "George Washington" and "Thomas Jefferson", but less charming to think of poor people being unable to sit down in the church because of their lack of funds.

That's what makes Free Methodists "free"—you're free to sit wherever you want, although it was also associated with their political activism to end slavery, unfortunately still necessary.  "Freely you have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8).  Who will put the Free back into these Methodists?

(If you're curious, the "method" part of Methodism was basically small group Bible studies, with literacy training for poor workers who needed it.  This was also politically subversive back in the day, since workers who could read demanded better treatment from their employers...)

Now the Church is the manifestation of the Kingdom of God here on earth.  Its King is Jesus Christ, and we do the things that we do in order to please him, not the world.  A lot of the things that Christians bicker about, Jesus might not care one way or another.  "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:14).  But if there's one thing that made Jesus flip out, it was contaminating God's holy place with commercialism:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.   So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.  To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here!  How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”   His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” (John 2:13-17)

When I see things like the flyer I mentioned, or church bazaars, I wonder what Jesus would do today.  Possibly something that would get him arrested.  (According to the synoptic Gospels, he was indeed arrested just a few days after making a similar scene.)  Presumably if I were holier—if I had more zeal for God's house—I would also fly into a rage and turn over tables, instead of simply noticing the inconsistency and calmly writing a blog post about it.

The bottom line is this.  The Church belongs to Jesus, and we are not at liberty to run it like a business.  Not even like a non-profit business.  True, a shrewd Christian leader with business experience might well be able to extract valuable life lessons from how the business world works.  But this cannot include the lesson that status and privilege is distributed on the basis of money.  The Church is an anticipation of the New Jerusalem, the home of righteousness, in which the only kind of riches that counts is being rich towards God.

Update: upon returning to church the next week, I found that I was mistaken about the Good Friday breakfast being sponsored by a Methodist organization.  It was actually being sponsored by the YMCA, the speaker being the CEO of some Christian organization.  The event was clearly explicitly Christian, so my criticisms still apply, except for the remark about putting the "free" back into the Free Methodists.

Posted in Theology | 2 Comments

The Curvature Tensor

by Aron Wall Posted on February 18, 2013

One of the things I've been trying to do on this blog is to explain Einstein's theories of relativity.  Here are my previous posts on this subject:

Time as the Fourth Dimension?
The Ten Symmetries of Spacetime
Fields
Geometry is a Field
Coordinates don't matter
All points look the same

The first two have to do with Einstein's first theory of Special Relativity, in which spacetime is taken to be fixed.  The third post describes what fields are.  The last four describe his second theory, General Relativity, in which the geometry of spacetime is itself a field: the gravitational field.

The gravitational field is also called the metric g_{ab}, where a and b are indices selected from the four spacetime dimensions (0, 1, 2, 3).  However, the exact form of the metric depends on your choice of coordinates, and it is always possible to pick coordinates so that the metric at any point looks just like the metric of Special Relativity.  For this reason, in order to discuss curved spacetimes (those that differ from the flat spacetime of Special Relativity, e.g. the gravitational field of the Sun or the Earth) we need to compare the metric at different points.

The basic idea is this: Suppose we are sitting at one particular point X of spacetime, and we imagine we have an infinitesimal arrow whose base sits at the point X and which points (ever so infinitesimally) away from X in some direction.  We call such a thing a vector and write it as v^a, where a = (0, 1, 2, 3).  This is actually a set of four numbers: v^0 would be a number saying how far v points in the 0-direction, v^1 would be a number saying how far v points in the 1-direction, and so on.

Now, suppose we take this vector on a vecation tour through spacetime.  Perhaps it would be simpler just to think about space for a minute.  Imagine vectors lying on a 2-dimensional sphere.  (Warning: when an ordinary person uses the word sphere, they usually mean to include the interior, but when a math or physics person says sphere, they only mean the surface!)  Imagine for example, that the vector v^a lies on the surface of a Earth, and pretend that the vertical up-down direction doesn't exist.  So on a random point on the Earth's surface, v^a can point north, south, east, west, or in-between, but it can't tilt up or down.

Imagine that v^a starts on the North Pole, pointing towards Hawaii.  Suppose we slide the vector down in the direction it is pointing, until it hits the Equator.  The vector now points South.  Now let's drag the vector 1/4 of the way around the Equator, without rotating it.  The vector still points South.  Finally we drag it back to the North Pole.  It has now been rotated 90 degrees from its original position!  This is true even though on each step of the journey, we were careful not to rotate it as it travelled.  (Dragging vectors without rotating them is called parallel transport, by the way.)

This happens because the geometry of the surface of the Earth is intrinsically curved, i.e. the geometry of the sphere is not flat.  This must be distinguished from extrinsic curvature, which refers to something of lower dimension being bent within a higher-dimensional space.  The surface of the Earth is extrinsically curved in our ordinary 3-dimensional space, but that's not what were talking about.  We're talking here about the geometry of the sphere, quite apart from whether it is or is not embedded in some higher dimensional space.

The distinction is quite important in the case of our 4-dimensional spacetime, because (as far as we know) it is not embedded in any kind of higher-dimensional space.  When we say that spacetime is curved, we do not mean that spacetime is sitting in some kind of  "hyperspace" in which it is bent into a funny shape.  We mean that if you move vectors around in spacetime in a loop (i.e. a path that starts and ends at the same spacetime point X), it may come back rotated compared to its original position.  That is what curvature means.

I should note that it's okay to drag these vectors either forwards or backwards in time, or along spacelike directions.  That's because these are imaginary vectors serving as a visualization aid to probe the geometry of the spacetime.  They aren't tangible physical objects which have to travel slower than light, and towards the future.

Now, ever since Archimedes, math people have liked to study things by breaking them up into tiny infinitesimal pieces.  So we want to think about what happens if you drag a vector around an infinitesimal loop.  To define this, we imagine we have a vector v^a, which we drag around in a tiny parallelogram whose sides are given by vectors x^a and y^a pointing away from X.  When we drag v^a along this parallelogram, if there is curvature it can come back rotated as an ever-so-slightly different vector w^a.  To keep track of this we write:

w^a = v^a + \epsilon^2 R^a_{bcd}\,v^b x^c y^d,

where R^a_{bcd} is a gadget with four indices known as the ``Riemann curvature tensor'', which keeps track of the amount of curvature at any given point X.  \epsilon is an infinitesimally tiny parameter which keeps track of how big the sides of the unit parallelogram are, for vectors of some unit length.

What's a tensor?  The metric g_{ab}, vectors such as v^a, and R^a_{bcd} are all examples of tensors.  Tensors are similar to vectors, except that they are allowed to point in any number of directions.  A tensor is a kind of field which is allowed to depend on two things: 1) which point you are at in space and time, and 2) zero or more spacetime indices written as subscripts or superscripts a, b, c ....  These indicate the total number of vectors it takes as inputs or outputs.  Note that the Riemann curvature has 3 of its indices downstairs and 1 upstairs.  That notation tells us that it eats 3 vectors as inputs and spits out 1 vector as an output.

In any equation involving tensors, each index letter is repeated, either 1) once in each term of the equation, always upstairs or always downstairs, or 2) twice in the same term of the equation, once upstairs and once downstairs.  In case (1) we interpret the tensor equation as being true for any possible choice of index, as long as it is the same for all terms, on both sides of the equals sign.  In case (2), we consider all 4 possible choices for the index and add them together (the Einstein summation convention).  These rules prevent us from doing nonsensical things like e.g. trying to add scalars and vectors together.

Tensors are not themselves coordinate-invariant, but when you change your system of coordinates, the value of the tensors changes in a particularly simple way.  This makes them useful when trying to describe physics in a coordinate-invariant way.  So long as you follow the rules in the previous paragraph, a tensor equation is a coordinate-invariant idea, i.e. if it is true in one coordinate system it is true in all of them.  That's because if you change your coordinates, both the left-hand-side and the right-hand-side of the equation change in the same way, so it doesn't matter.

The last thing I need to say here is that the Riemann curvature tensor R^a_{bcd} is not a new field additional to the metric tensor g_{ab}.  If you know what the metric is, you can work out the Riemann tensor.  At any given point, R^a_{bcd} depends on the metric g_{ab}, its first derivative (\partial / \partial x^c) g_{ab} and its second derivative (\partial / \partial x^d) (\partial / \partial x^c) g_{ab}.  But the formula looks complicated, so I'll spare you for the time being, until I can think of a simple way to justify it.

Posted in Physics | 2 Comments